|
Kai Tave posted:On the one hand having a skill called "Murder" was kind of cute, but on the other hand I was never fully satisfied trying to differentiate between three different skills for hurting other people and where one skill left off and another began, so I can't say I'm too sorry to see the skill list consolidated. Agreedo
|
# ? Aug 6, 2015 17:21 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 04:11 |
|
QuantumNinja posted:Every time I see this game, I get a little more convinced that John Harper doesn't know what game he wants to make. The system doesn't seem to be strictly improving, just getting increasingly dissimilar from where he started. (I typed out a long list of what I meant, but posting them here where John can't see them probably isn't very effective other than just complaining. So I posted several of them on the G+ group instead.) I kind of agree with you. Would you mind posting a link to the G+ thread? I'm interested in seeing where it goes.
|
# ? Aug 6, 2015 17:38 |
|
SilverMike posted:Check the descriptions for those; Attune seems spirit-oriented, Invoke is more general purpose occult-oriented. Given that spirits are prevalent in the setting, I'm alright with the split. But I wouldn't cry over them being consolidated if room's needed for another skill. That doesn't seem like a good validation, because the other attributes don't seem to be laid out in the same way. Being a criminal empire is prevalent in the setting, but locks, alarms, misdirection, and sleight of hand all got lumped into Finesse. Getting into fights and doing murders are prevalent in the setting, but murder, brawling, and generally wrecking poo poo are all lumped into Battle. Being sneaky and stealthy got lumped with following someone in Prowl, but for some reason Observe got its own attribute as well. I'm not saying I want more attributes back! Like everyone else here, I'm happy to see them go. But now the attribute list is pretty wonky. There's one attribute that managed how well you fight (Battle), two that handle your thieving (Prowl and Finesse), two for spellcasting (Attune and Invoke), and two for social interactions (Sway and Command). That's 7 'core' attributes, and then the other five attributes read like skills you'd take: Cipher for codes, Tinker for mechanisms and chemistry (and for some reason safecracking, instead of Finesse), Stitch for first aid, Observe for observation, and Handle for driving. The first seven attributes are way more important for making a character good at a thing. Oh, and for some reason, if you want to be a good brawler, you need Battle and some mix of Attune/Command/Invoke/Stitch in order to have good Resolve. It seems like Harper is angling for a few core attributes and a small skill system, but avoid the actual separation to avoid introducing perceived complexity. It would be really easy to replace the core attributes with 4-5 core stats and then add in a few skills that give you +Xd when you roll the relevant thing, and it would get rid of this general goofiness. As it stands, it mechanically makes no sense to, say, fill out Stitch instead of one of the core attributes unless I'm really trying to play up my character's being a doctor. The other issue here is that he's using this number of attributes to compute your resistance dice, and paring it down to a smaller set will mean changing the source of that derivation. But he's already changed how effect dice are computed once, so I don't see why he wouldn't a second time. Cyphoderus posted:I kind of agree with you. Would you mind posting a link to the G+ thread? I'm interested in seeing where it goes. https://plus.google.com/communities/112767357581554417629
|
# ? Aug 6, 2015 21:21 |
|
They're doing a stream of Blades on Adam's Twitch channel. He'll probably put it up on John's Youtube after or maybe his own.
|
# ? Aug 13, 2015 03:35 |
|
My crew of thieves finally got to do some genuine thievery this session (first session in 3 weeks, drat busy schedules). The highlight was us laterally stealing a gilded baby crib out from under a sleeping baby thanks to a three 6 crit. We also stole a briefcase and locked tome from a VIP visiting the noble home we were burglarizing. No idea what is in them yet, but they were important enough for the VIP to leave his bodyguard watching them instead of himself as he discussed uncertain plots in the study with the man if the house (our attempts to eavesdrop weren't very successful). Thankfully(?) A rogue spirit caused a ruckus to draw the bodyguard away from his post (the ruckus also covered our own botch). Based on the arcane paraphernalia with the book/briefcase, I'm guessing the VIP was a warden or other whisper. Especially since the rogue spirit's rampage went quiet awfully fast... Very fun session.
|
# ? Aug 22, 2015 00:02 |
|
Version 3F of the Quickstart is up if you're a backer. Haven't had time to really look it over.
|
# ? Aug 29, 2015 00:37 |
|
Actions got changed and reorganized again.
|
# ? Aug 29, 2015 07:51 |
|
This set of actions and organization is quite good IMO.
|
# ? Aug 29, 2015 20:26 |
|
Is anyone aware of the official stance on PbPing the quickstart rules? I'd love to run the v3 draft and see how it plays. I'd imagine it'd be okay because the official AP out there is very open about the rules.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 23:52 |
|
A question now that I've poured over v3 (which is shaping up awesome). If I'm reading it right when defending/resisting, the base is always 6 harm, and the roll reduces that. That seems like a lot to me when maybe tackling less than outright deadly dangers, since you could roll a decent 5 on a daring roll but still end up taking a massive 5 harm consequence that takes multiple downtimes to recover from (or a shitload of stress). Excited for this game to come to fruition though, and much more excited for the cyberpunk hack for it. Only thing I'd really want changed is maybe slightly more evocative advanced moves for the playbooks, but the format is designed so well I don't know where there would be room.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2015 04:35 |
|
New version of the Quickstart, v4. Also, the game is definitely "behind schedule" and not going to make the original November 2015 estimate. No big deal, IMO, its progressing very well. Changelog: quote:1. Vice. The mechanic for vice and stress recovery has changed. Vice is more of an issue now and can be fraught with trouble. Players now have a reason to let stress build up a bit higher (so they don't overindulge) but also, ignoring your vice has a bad consequence. It's a tough line to walk, better reflecting the problematic nature of vices. See page 19.
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 22:15 |
|
Interesting that the placeholder headers for alchemy have been removed entirely, but it's still there on the Leech's sheet. I was hoping that section would be more filled out in this version. How the heck are alchemy and tinkering supposed to work?
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 22:31 |
|
Long term projects perhaps?
|
# ? Oct 31, 2015 22:42 |
|
Stress and consequences seem way too deadly/debilitating now, and it doesn't make much sense since consequences were tied to certain stress levels, so how can you take the specific level of consequence without knowing that now? Definitely don't like that change.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 14:55 |
|
For as fawning as the first post is, this game seems to have stalled out both in forum interest and mechanical efficiency. This is version 3 of wildly revising the core mechanics, right?
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 19:06 |
|
Golden Bee posted:For as fawning as the first post is, this game seems to have stalled out both in forum interest and mechanical efficiency. This is version 3 of wildly revising the core mechanics, right? Certainly. The latest update mentions things progressing well, and that might be true in terms of getting closer to print, but, mechanically, it seems we're getting a bunch of "horizontal" updates and no progress forward towards a definite design. People were saying it's better to revise a game after public playtests than not to, but at this point it seems as if the first version of the rules were barely playtested at all. Either that, or John Harper is really, really indecisive.
|
# ? Nov 1, 2015 19:19 |
|
I don't know about anyone else but even considering this game is very much My Jam, until the rules are finalised at least as much as the core game mechanics being set I can't really get that invested in it or muster up the effort to follow it because if I decide I like it that game might literally not exist by the time of the next revision. Until a version of the game comes along which I can be pretty sure looks like what I'll end up having paid for, I'm not really that interested in reading it. I would if I had the spare time to do proper playtests and submit feedback - but I don't, and I'm willing to bet many other people don't either. I bought a game that I thought I would enjoy and it basically doesn't exist yet, so... ehh? Edit: That's not to say what I've read of these playtests looks crap. Far from it. It's just I have no idea what's going to carry over so even if I like some bits, I can't really consider those "in the game"
|
# ? Nov 2, 2015 01:40 |
|
If I had known the rules would be changing this many times and going this far from what was available in the KS, I wouldn't have backed it.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2015 15:30 |
|
homullus posted:If I had known the rules would be changing this many times and going this far from what was available in the KS, I wouldn't have backed it. Realistically, the die rolling mechanic has gotten simpler, skills got better, and overall stuff has been added (like tier, holds, turf, etc), which are good. The only thing I don't like are how stress and consequences are done now, and I have a feeling they might get changed back or cleaned up anyway.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2015 15:45 |
|
I like Blades, I ran 1-and-a-half mission PbP, and I don't regret my backing at all, but I don't feel like committing to running it again for a while specifically because the core game is still changing.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2015 15:51 |
|
Fenarisk posted:Realistically, the die rolling mechanic has gotten simpler, skills got better, and overall stuff has been added (like tier, holds, turf, etc), which are good. The only thing I don't like are how stress and consequences are done now, and I have a feeling they might get changed back or cleaned up anyway. Yeah, I have a similar knee-jerk response to stress and consequences and such but I want to fiddle with them until I can really grasp how they work out in numbers before I talk about it on the G+ group that the author actually reads. He's been super good about taking feedback from there so far, so I share your feeling about them getting rolled back. That said, I do kind of like how overindulging works now - if you wipe too much Stress, you've gone too far.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2015 17:15 |
|
My group has been playing it semi-weekly (whenever schedules line up) since pretty much the end of the kickstarter and every time stress mechanics get updated a few of us go "oh man it looks so terrible and harsh now" and we just play through and it turns out its not so bad. Granted we've got about 2 fatigue each and are only a Tier 1 gang, but hey, poor choices were sometimes made on our parts.
|
# ? Nov 2, 2015 18:15 |
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:New version of the Quickstart, v4. Also, the game is definitely "behind schedule" and not going to make the original November 2015 estimate. No big deal, IMO, its progressing very well. I'd rather have the game November 2016 and it be amazing. Everyone's already said it: this game seems to be due for tons of annealing yet, and while each subsequent edition is playable, it's getting better at a crawl. I hope Harper takes six more months and makes it great instead of rushing it and delivering it closer to the current state.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 04:21 |
|
Even when he hammers out the core rules and he's happy with them, there's still waiting for a ton of additional gang types along with their turfs, and maybe another playbook or two. The only thing that makes me sad is having to wait longer for some of the good hacks like the Cyberpunk one, because at this point anyone working on one from the stretch goals probably gave up and is waiting for him to finish the rules concretely.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 04:36 |
|
A recent kickstarter update a couple days ago included some new stuff, specifically crew sheets for Cults and Smugglers (as well as a slightly revised Thieves crew sheet). In addition there was a sampling of new abilities independent of specific playbooks, including one that seems to point to the existence of a Ghost playbook. Smugglers looks pretty fun.
|
# ? Dec 8, 2015 08:18 |
|
New quickstart rules (v5), and Harper has decided these are the final rules:quote:The rules are finished! That's right, version 5 is the final iteration of the core mechanics. Nothing significant will change going forward (maybe just a number here or there if we find an error). If you've been waiting for the rules to stabilize before you start playing with the Early Access PDF, your wait is over.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2016 00:19 |
|
Another update has come down. Including one big piece of news:quote:Are you ready for this? The rules are finished! That's right, version 5 is the final iteration of the core mechanics. Nothing significant will change going forward (maybe just a number here or there if we find an error). If you've been waiting for the rules to stabilize before you start playing with the Early Access PDF, your wait is over. Changelog for the new version: quote:VERSION 5 CHANGELOG
|
# ? Jan 11, 2016 00:20 |
|
For people who missed the kickstarter, John just put the current draft up on DriveThru, which will be updated up to and including the final version.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2016 02:36 |
|
Evil Mastermind posted:For people who missed the kickstarter, John just put the current draft up on DriveThru, which will be updated up to and including the final version. Great, picked it up right away. But I don't have anyone to play with.
|
# ? Jan 11, 2016 19:20 |
|
Try it as PbP on here, minimal social stigma for it failing too!
|
# ? Jan 11, 2016 19:56 |
|
Just read / skimmed v5. Several systems have improved:
That said, I'm sad about this being the "final draft". I'm not really happy with the end product. It feels bloated and spartan at the same time; it's a game that knew what it wanted to be, then tried to be something else, and landed somewhere in the middle. Previous quick-start releases, for all their other flaws, often seemed far more focused. I could go into specific points, but all of them boil down to: "why did you complicate X this way?" In the system as it is, aimed at narrative action, why all these little bits, bobs, ups, and downs? I guess I keep thinking back to Vincent Baker's comment: Apocalypse World, p. 268 posted:Here’s a custom threat move. People new to the game occasionally ask me for this one. It’s general, it modifies nearly very other move: As I've been reading v5, I keep asking myself the following: could I dump dominant/risky/desperate and play this with 2d8+attribute?
Like I said, I'm mostly just sad. This game looked so awesome at the outset, and reading through, it seems like it landed somewhere else. (That said, if I can, I'll try playtesting v5 this weekend and report back.) QuantumNinja fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 12, 2016 |
# ? Jan 12, 2016 06:35 |
|
I just picked up the early access version on DriveThruRPG and I really like what I'm seeing, though I don't have much to base it on. I'm actually interested in your critiques, QuantumNinja, because I'm considering hacking this for use in a very different setting/time period and I'm wondering what you'd have done differently, or what previous versions did better.
Harrow fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 13, 2016 |
# ? Jan 13, 2016 20:50 |
|
Harrow posted:I just picked up the early access version on DriveThruRPG and I really like what I'm seeing, though I don't have much to base it on. I'm actually interested in your critiques, QuantumNinja, because I'm considering hacking this for use in a very different setting/time period and I'm wondering what you'd have done differently, or what previous versions did better. In a few months all the stretch goal hacks are coming out, so look for those. Some of the notable ones are cyberpunk and I think a pirate one. There's also a dungeon crawling adventuring company one but we will see how that goes.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2016 22:06 |
|
One question I have after reading this thread and v5 of the rules: how is Effect determined based on an Action roll? I read earlier in the thread about some sort of separate roll to determine Effect after a successful Action roll, but I don't see anything about that in the current rules--was that removed? If so, is it entirely up to the GM to interpret the circumstances/degree of success and assign the Effect level?Fenarisk posted:In a few months all the stretch goal hacks are coming out, so look for those. Some of the notable ones are cyberpunk and I think a pirate one. There's also a dungeon crawling adventuring company one but we will see how that goes. I was just thinking that a dungeon crawl hack seems pretty natural. My own setting, if I ever end up running that game, would probably require a hack of its own, since I doubt anyone's already making a version of this for an alternate-history World War I where magic is real. But the basic core of this system seems like it would fit perfectly with what I'm trying to accomplish, so my plan is to playtest it with my group for a while and then see if I want to hack it to fit the game I'd been planning. It helps that my group is stacked with Dishonored fans so Blades in the Dark's own setting will be a pretty easy sell. Harrow fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jan 13, 2016 |
# ? Jan 13, 2016 22:31 |
|
The Band of Blades hack might be up your alley.
|
# ? Jan 13, 2016 23:53 |
|
Harrow posted:I just picked up the early access version on DriveThruRPG and I really like what I'm seeing, though I don't have much to base it on. I'm actually interested in your critiques, QuantumNinja, because I'm considering hacking this for use in a very different setting/time period and I'm wondering what you'd have done differently, or what previous versions did better. I think my post summed it up: there is a ton of complexity where there could be none, and a lack of complexity where some could help. I feel like the entire core mechanic could be replaced with a pair of d8s, for example. Other examples include four tracks for health, 30 factions to keep track of as a GM (even just 1/3 would be annoying to do clocks for), a two-axis system for GMs specifying how rolls might go (fixed in previous versions!), 12 attributes (more than Shadowrun), an under-specified GM clock economy ("add some ticks, or don't, or whatever, when some rolls <5"), and flat itemization. More importantly, all of these congeal into 5-7 complicated subsystems. Maybe these are excusable, individually, since none is unlivable. But together, I can only ask: "Why?" While the first release was a half-complete game with a narrative-first promise and some middling problems, the latest is full of bloated subsystems that decries that promise. I mean, think about this: we have four tracks for health, but each of the three dozen items gets a single-sentence description, all crammed on a single page. Like I said, it's bloated in some ways and spartan in others. At the end of all of that, I gotta ask: "Why? Why all of this complexity where I shouldn't care, and none of it I might?" As such, it's left a bad taste in my mouth.
|
# ? Jan 14, 2016 01:17 |
|
QuantumNinja posted:I think my post summed it up: there is a ton of complexity where there could be none, and a lack of complexity where some could help. I feel like the entire core mechanic could be replaced with a pair of d8s, for example. Other examples include four tracks for health, 30 factions to keep track of as a GM (even just 1/3 would be annoying to do clocks for), a two-axis system for GMs specifying how rolls might go (fixed in previous versions!), 12 attributes (more than Shadowrun), an under-specified GM clock economy ("add some ticks, or don't, or whatever, when some rolls <5"), and flat itemization. Four tracks for health? All I see is harm, or do stress and trauma count, too? (Those seem like separate systems to me.) I'm probably missing something. Anyway--coming at it totally fresh, it seems like a consistent and coherent game to me, but I haven't played it yet. I intend to, and maybe my opinion will change. I agree that it's weird how little description items get, and the book seems organized very strangely, and there are some areas where the rules and/or recommendations are unclear to me just based on the wording (does the Whisper's Tempest ability require an Attune roll or what? How does the GM determine effect level? Just how does Planning work?). I think what I like, at first read, is:
|
# ? Jan 14, 2016 01:31 |
|
QuantumNinja posted:I think my post summed it up: there is a ton of complexity where there could be none, and a lack of complexity where some could help. I feel like the entire core mechanic could be replaced with a pair of d8s, for example. Other examples include four tracks for health, 30 factions to keep track of as a GM (even just 1/3 would be annoying to do clocks for), a two-axis system for GMs specifying how rolls might go (fixed in previous versions!), 12 attributes (more than Shadowrun), an under-specified GM clock economy ("add some ticks, or don't, or whatever, when some rolls <5"), and flat itemization. I feel like the factions are there as a complete list, and groups can pick what they want out of it, using as many or as few as they want. This is basically the setting book as well so it makes sense. Four tracks for "health" isn't bad in my mind, as stress and harm are the ones that'll change a bit, and trauma and vice are long term and not often changing.
|
# ? Jan 14, 2016 02:07 |
|
Yo I didn't say it was a bad system. There's a ton of cool poo poo, like I said in my first post about the fifth revision. But you wanted my complaints, so I trotted them out. Basically, I think it could be a lot better, and I'm sad about it. Fenarisk posted:I feel like the factions are there as a complete list, and groups can pick what they want out of it, using as many or as few as they want. This is basically the setting book as well so it makes sense. There is a health track, a stress track, a trauma track, and a healing long-term goal track. I wasn't even counting vice. But my question is: what does having 4-5 tracks add to the game that having 1-3 wouldn't? You could fold the health penalties into the stress track with just a little effort, and the healing clock is just... well, okay I guess. E: Okay, if we treat trauma as long-term (healing track certainly isn't, because it's resolved every session or two), then there are 3 health tracks and two long-term health tracks (trauma and vice). Again, is this really an important addition? QuantumNinja fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 14, 2016 |
# ? Jan 14, 2016 02:33 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 04:11 |
|
QuantumNinja posted:Yo I didn't say it was a bad system. There's a ton of cool poo poo, like I said in my first post about the fifth revision. But you wanted my complaints, so I trotted them out. Basically, I think it could be a lot better, and I'm sad about it. Oh yeah, I get you. I'll probably end up agreeing with you after I play it, who knows. I'm happy to have your take on it going into a playtest so I know what to watch out for and what might trip me and my players up. EDIT: I think I can see how it got where it is, though. It looks like it's really trying to emphasize the "running a crew" aspect of things--it's all very Lies of Locke Lamora, or at least that's the vibe I get. That mashed up with Dishonored. All of the things that actually happen while you're on an operation seem like what's handled in more narrative terms or with less nitty-gritty detail, while the crew management, projects, and long-term healing and trauma stuff get a lot of detail. It's kind of interesting and I'm not sure what to make of it. I think I'd be tempted to add more detail to items, possible loot, and that kind of thing were I to create a hack down the line. I love this system's bones, at least on a reading, but I can see how it's sort of... lopsided. Harrow fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 14, 2016 |
# ? Jan 14, 2016 02:37 |