5. The Characters
“They do this by taking illegal jobs from clients, planning their own devious missions, making alliances, destroying their enemies, and trying to stay one step ahead of the law.”
I want to start by saying that I’m a little unsure on Playbooks in Blades. The nature of these character types are just so much less directed than we have seen for so long in both PbtA and (perhaps moreso) Belonging Outside Belonging. In Apocalypse World, the playbooks are definitional: You are The Skinner. In Blades, they are…suggestive? A Cutter is a fighter, though explicitly not “the” fighter. And…so what? What makes a Cutter a better fighter than a Spider from a Bravos crew that puts a bunch of dots into Skirmish? Even before we get to “Veteran Advances” (the explicit allowance for any playbook to take any special ability from any other character type). The truth is…kind of nothing. A Cutter can be a smooth-talking bareknuckle boxer in the same way a Slide can be an unarmed scrap-fighter with a silver tongue. When it comes to design intention, these Playbooks (more on Playbooks vs Character Sheets later, I’m sure) are suggestions rather than definitions.
And this is really awesome but also invites the question that “if anyone can be anything, why have different character types anyway?” And this is why I’ve been so unsure on having “character types” in Blades. So, let’s think about it.
If we consider an Action Paths lens, a D&D Class structure (and, arguably, Apocalypse World Playbooks) are designed to limited player strategy sets to help them to understand how to play (shorten the decision loop), and keep them out of each other’s way (give them different heuristics). This is usually what’s called the Specialist Model or Niche Protection. By limiting the player’s options, we make it clearer what the “right” decisions are.
Blade’s character types suggest this, but don’t reinforce it. In D&D you are either a Fighter or a Wizard (or a Fighter/Wizard, a third thing). Instead, Blades presents this suggestion (“Be a Cutter, you’re good at fighting.”) but it’s not restrictive (Cutters can use attune, or take Tempest special abilities). This is a pretty fundamental change from the standard approach to Character Definition, and one that I’m on board for.
I think the biggest weakness is that the game is unclear on that freedom. It’s way too easy for a player to get stuck in the mindset of “I''m the Cutter so I punch”. There are very few moments where the game reaches out and suggests for players to spread out (except for resistance, an amazing tool doing double duty here. More on that later). I’d be interested in hearing reader’s experiences if they’ve had many players establish these kinds of pick’n’mix characters with pieces from many different Character Types? In my own experience, I’ve seen a lot of variety in background, Vice, and special abilities chosen from the sheet, but very rarely do I see players looking off their sheet. I’ve only done it once myself, taking the classic Not To Be Trifled With from the Cutter playbook for my Tempest.
The biggest strength of Blades is that We Follow The Fiction. Fiction First says that, yes the fiction should influence our mechanics, but it also demands that for something to be mechanically important, it needs to also be Fictionally Real. If your Playbook says Cutter, then you are not just a scoundrel who fights, in fiction, you are A Cutter. And I think there’s a power in simply declaring your Character to be a Cutter.
I’m not 100% on what that power is. No where in text does it say that a Cutter has more effect or better position in a fight (yes, it does start them with 2 dice in Skirmish, but that affects neither position nor effect) but if you put two Scoundrels against an equal-tier enemy each, something in me says that the one that is fictionally established to be a Cutter has a fictional excuse to start with both better position and effect than the Leech.
This is reinforced in the page 52 section: These are also nicknames and reputations. Being “The Cutter” isn’t about who you are or what you can do, it’s about how you’re perceived. It’s as much about your expectations as it is your abilities. Again, part of “Fiction First” play is that mechanics should also loop back into the fiction.
Which provides a really cool option there in text: A crew of all one playbook. Imagine the reputation held by a whole crew of Whispers. Imagine the way you’d be talked about! I dunno, it sounds really goddamn cool.
“The Cutter has special abilities related to combat, but that doesn’t mean they’re “the fighter” of the game. Any character type can fight well. Think of your playbook as an area of focus and preference, but not a unique skill set.”
So, as I said at the start, I used to be of the position that Blades shouldn’t have Playbooks. But honestly with the wealth of fiction available, I’ve come around on Playbooks. I’m here for it. They’re a useful tool for players, and also establish some things in the fiction.
Header Image "Rogue" by Marco Hazard is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.
