I think the proposal is to make the entire game these sort of negative moves. Thus, the game becomes avoiding most moves as often as possible.
PbtA games and player cleverness
4 Likes
Personally, I’m not at all interested in designing such a game or having someone else do so.
I’m just pointing out that anyone who doesn’t understand the distinctions being made here should consider this thought experiment, and then share their thoughts with us. It will get us much further along in this discussion than anything else we can do (or that we haven’t already done). I’m calling on people to try it and share their findings!
Whether that happens here, or in a Game Design linked to this thread… I don’t mind either way!
3 Likes
Right right thank you @Deckard your goal would be to avoid the moves altogether. So… these are kind of move-ized Saving Throws 
with various outcomes. The Harm move is an existing use of them.
2 Likes
Yes, exactly. Saving throws are a perfect analogy for what I’m getting at here.
2 Likes
I would also add that the difference between Sucker, Go Aggro and Seize by force in AW is already a mechanism that pushes towards “cleverness”. It was a bit disappointing to me seeing how DW or other PbtAs where combat is an important factor miss that distinction.
For those that don’t know the difference, Sucker is dealing damage without rolling (could be snipering, backstabbing, cut-throat during sleep etc), Go Aggro is threatening violence to an unprepared subject, Seize by force is straight combat in equal starting position.
4 Likes
I’m not 100% sure I understand what the difference between Sucker and “yeah, you don’t have to roll for that, just do harm/damage/kill them” would be. It feels like Sucker is mostly a mechanical way of making that move explicitly clear, but I might be missing something.
1 Like
The second edition of “Sucker Someone” (handle it like ‘go aggro’) conflicts with the first edition interpretation (don’t roll; just inflict harm). We had a funny conversation about this with Vincent on the forums at some point a while back. So, it depends who you’re asking and how it’s adjudicated.
However, distinguishing between those as different types of moves does lend more “tactical space” to the game; it’s one of the hidden ways PbtA design can integrate “difficulty” and fictional positioning into the mechanical format of the system.
(Also, welcome to the Gauntlet!)
4 Likes
Well the difference between 1st and 2nd edition is that in AWII the MC must decide if you can fail or not. If not, you just roll damage like in AW. If you can fail then there’s the new option which is still worst then go aggro. So one part of Sucker is the same move. The new part is another level of “difficulty handling” as you said, and I like it.
2 Likes
I’m not sure I follow; isn’t the rule the same, except more explicitly stated in 2nd Edition? At least, that’s how we played the game, and how it’s handled in the 1st Ed examples.
Not sure what you mean by “still worst then go aggro” [sic].
Otherwise, yeah, I agree!
I’m going by memory but in AW rules Sucker is straight don’t roll - you deal damage. In AWII the MC must decide if the player has a chance to fail. If not it’s the same as AW. Instead if there’s a chance he rolls like go aggro, but the opponent hasn’t got the possibility to cave. So with a 7-9 is like go aggro but 10+ it’s certain damage.
1 Like
Ah, I see, yes. That was how we played 1st Ed informally, so it doesn’t feel like much of a change, but yes.
My issue with the current formulation is that it can make getting the drop on someone very ineffectual (especially compared to seize by force), but that’s just a detail of design that isn’t really important to this thread.
1 Like
I know I’m coming to this conversation a year plus late, but I only recently discovered these boards, but have been wrestling with these issues in my own game design.
I did want to say that I have, unfortunately, run into exactly the situation you described… where any attempt to talk in character or devise a plan or engage player to player conversation was constantly interrupted by the GM saying, “No, no… that is planning… just make a roll and we’ll see what happens”. It was literally the GM just telling players to roll mechanically then talking and talking as they desribed the outcomes of the roll… then if the players want to react in character or whatever… “No, no… what is your Move” and then force a roll.
It was honestly one of the WORST gaming experiences I’d ever had, and if I’d been new to the system (Blades in the Dark) or the concepts of indie storytelling/PbtA I’d have run screaming from ever trying this type of play.
Just noting that a very literal interpretation of PbtA style Move play can remove nearly all player agency aside from “Choose what Move you use at this moment, then let me narrate more to you.”
1 Like
What game were you playing, and what text were you interpreting to mean that? It’s not really a particularly helpful thing to say that this is an interpretation of “PbtA style” since individual games have different language that suggests different modes of play.
As I stated, it was Blades in the Dark in this instance.
I’m confused then, since Blades doesn’t even have moves, nor does it have PbtA style wording around when the GM is supposed to talk.
It is supposed to short-circuit planning, but strictly for the purpose of “getting to the action.” The book actually has this to say about how to play:
Blades in the Dark has a structure to play, with four parts (see the diagram at
right). By default, the game is in free play—characters talk to each other, they
go places, they do things, they make rolls as needed.
When the group is ready, they choose a target for their next criminal operation,
then choose a type of plan to employ. This triggers the engagement roll (which
establishes the situation as the operation starts) and then the game shifts into
the score phase. See page 125 for more details.
Which seems to contradict the idea that this mode of play is a “literal interpretation” of the game?
You can ruin any sort of game like this, but I don’t think it’s fair to pin the blame on the game if the GM is ignoring how the game says to play it? =/
2 Likes
Blades’ Action Roll is a generalized “move” in that it ends up with the same type of result… full success, partial/complicated success, failure. Read through that and it very specifically dictates how much the GM decides and frames a great deal of it.
And the second half of that quote you brought up… about triggering an engagement roll… it can be easily interpreted that zero “player cleverness” and planning ideas are allowed, and only the roll dictates how the score is set up. In fact it pretty much expressly says that all you get to do is choose the target and type (select from a list) and then it is all up to rolls.
The GM gets to interpret that roll, and not even the slightest amount of player input. A lot is up to interpretation, but the gist of the language very much points to “only the rolls determine what happens, player ideas need not apply.”
Again, not an interpretation I’d agree with, and I’ve played games where it was not the case, but it could be read that way and can lead to very disenfranchised play.
I just find it interesting that, IME, the newer breed of indie games were based around increasing player agency, “Yes and…” rather than tradtional “GM says No…” play. But a lot of the heavily mechanized structure (genre derived or otherwise) can lead back to the same place. “No” Rather than “no” based on lack of cleverness or mechanical mastery… it is “No” based on failure to comply with genre or requirement to accept roll outcomes even if they spiral the play into incoherence and/or unfun experience.
1 Like
I don’t really think that has anything to do with the rules; If a GM wants to go “Full no” then it doesn’t matter how the game is written. Doing that goes against every GM instruction in Blades.
I could run Sorcerer in an obnoxious “No one gets to do anything except listen to me narrate” mode too. It would be a gross disservice to what the game says the GM should do, but I don’t think it’s possible to prevent a GM who has the bit in their teeth from doing this. System matters, but only if you follow it.
So, respectfully, I disagree with your analysis.
I picture how players were reluctant and the GM pushed you into water. And it was a 10 meter dive :
1° Blades in the Dark has a very particular structure to wrap one’s head around and the engagement roll truly makes play jump into action. Had the GM explained that from the beginning, players might have seen it was not their cup of tea.
2° knowing that a roll in Blades entails scene-wide consequences, setting it up is a long back and forth negotiation : the GM probably got mixed up there. If as a GM I had explained earlier “there’s no planning, we jump to action with the engagement roll and flashback when needed”, I would have performed poorly when the table flickered on the deal.
3° But what was the “deal” really ? your play relation screams to me a very different desire between players (lots of colour and drama, rules getting out of the way?) and GM (a desire for something else, with gears and levers, etc.)
You could change rules set, still pbta (AW, The Veil) but differing moves to the last moment when the questions are tightly set up by narrative exchange and unavoidable. Or try Belonging outside Belonging (Dream Askew) and its more fluid economy. But the heist part is going to be less heisty.
If the table specifically wants a heist game (want to be competent, and are ready to fail), maybe The Sprawl or Blades. Blades can be played with narrative fluidity when you get the hang of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmw4wC7iOE), and you could try it again. You should first have a restorative debrief about the session, everybody should agree to the phase structures and be really open minded and vigilant during the first game sessions, as everybody will need the table support into this new experience. When you change system, it’s advisable to be very clear and go step by step, for fear you might lose one.
I went out on a limb there, writing like I know what happened, but it’s really for you to say what was the case. Of course, if I’m wrong, just correct or ignore the post.
TL;DR : you can talk and then roll, or talk and roll and talk, or talk really not much and then roll and talk a lot, combin. ad lib. Some rules texts are clearer than others on the question, but it’s really how you do it (=system) that matters.
About OP : the narrative exchange in setting up a move is when player cleverness comes into play.
1 Like
Actually your quick summaries are the most on point… because they describe exactly what did NOT happen.
Second point first… I agree that PbtA (done well) applies player cleverness differently… clever at adapting to what the roll tells you and how to narrate with imagination and drama and purposefully set up the next Move to be an interesting “lean in” moment where everyone can’t wait to see what happens next.
OSR player cleverness is about being masterful at covering contingencies and in some ways outsmarting the GM. PbtA (is there a general acronym for new school type narrative games?) player cleverness is more like “Whose line is it anyways?” improv… taking what the dice throw at you and using it well.
As for the first point… a) this was a one-shot at a Con, but b) I’ve played Blades at a Con before this way and it was great, so venue not withstanding…
… essentially in all those scenarios, only the GM was really allowed to talk. GM explained the rules as you stated… then set a scene where he gave us the Score (assassination, no option but to accept). We all knew the Engagement roll would put us in the middle… but any attempt to talk about “ok, cool… since we have a Hound, maybe we can lure the mark on to a balcony and he can take him out from across the street” was shut down with “no… no planning… just roll!”
This wasn’t a plan, it was an idea. But we weren’t allowed to have those.
If it had been your third scenario “talk barely then roll then talk a lot” it would have been ok. But even after the roll, any attempts by players to interpret the situation and essentially get to role play or bring adaptive player cleverness (as above) to bear were shut down. “No no… just tell me what move you make”
Again… I’m not saying Blades was designed to be run this way… but having experienced it I went back and read the rules again and can see how they could be interpreted this way. A couple of sentences scattered about free play, but 99% of the text focusing on “make rolls and GM states what happen” can be interpreted in such a heavy handed way. I don’t think it was malicious as much as simply… inexperienced. But in a Con setting, it has to work right the first time… there is no reset.
All that said, and in my own play and game design… there is a truism with NMA (New Model Army… I can make up my own acronyms) games… the leaner and more results based the design, vs. heavy transaction based mechanics… the more mature the playgroup must be.
Essentially… how much of free play and/or player agency and/or managing of expectations is simply assumed to be understood, vs. how much of explaining and guiding those behaviors should be written into the rules for less experienced players to grasp?
2 Likes
Thank you for this very useful frame.
1 Like