40. Example of Play and The Strother Problem
I had promised in previous episodes to discuss how as a GM I run Gathering Information to provide a better (more action roll-focused) experience, but I think Episode 39 fulfilled that. Besides, the remit of The Daily Blade isn’t in redesigning Blades. That kind of discussion can only come from the praxis of designing new FitD games, and there are plenty of people doing that work right now. So I’ll move off Gathering Information, and keep progressing through the book. If you want to consider that one of the many lies this blog has told, I look forward to it being held against me.
Page 40 of Blades in the Dark has been referenced before in our exploration. It’s an example of play, which has made it useful to quote into sections. However, I have a real bugbear in the text of this example:
Billhooks and Bloodletters. A showdown between a few thugs and three PCs. We find out that the Billhooks are led by the gang’s second in command.
Sean and Stras discuss some options for how they might further intimidate the Billhooks, maybe even by busting out some arcane power to get even greater effect on them, but Adam (Canter’s player) steps in and takes the initiative. “Screw it,” he says, “Canter just walks up and shoots Coran in the kneecap. ‘That’s how it is, fool.’” Everyone shakes their heads and chuckles, of course he does! This is how Canter Haig solves problems.
Example of Play - Blades in the Dark p40
The text breaks down almost immediately, and I want you to say where. So I’ll just continue quoting for a section:
So what action is this? Adam thinks and says, “Well, I mean, I’m still trying to force them to do something. I’m shooting a gun, but I’m not Skirmishing or Hunting here. I’m forcing him to give this nonsense up. So it’s Command... which I have zero dice in, ha. Here we go.” […]
The GM says it’s a desperate roll, because obviously it is. Adam rolls 2d and gets... two sixes—a critical success! He grins, “That’s how you do it, people.” Blam! Coran takes a bullet to the knee and Canter commands the Billhooks to back off. With a critical success, Canter’s effect is increased, from standard to great. Is that enough to make them back down?
The GM says, “I don’t know... I mean, great effect is impressive. You ‘achieve more than usual’ it says in the rules—you get an additional benefit. But you’re also shooting the boss’s son! Would they back down after that? Even with great effect? It’s hard to imagine it. Maybe, instead, all the Billhooks flee while your gang chases them off, but Coran’s three bodyguards attack. And you keep the initiative, Canter, because of your critical here. How’s that?”
“That makes sense, yeah, but hold on,” Adam says, “I can push myself for extra effect, right? If Canter takes 2 stress for +1 effect, to make it extreme effect, is that enough to just shut all this down and dominate them right now?”
Example of Play - Blades in the Dark p40
The breakdown here is pretty clear to me: If the player has standard effect, crits, and still has to push themselves to achieve their goal, then we’re actually not using the system to talk about effect in the way it wants to be talked about. Effect is Relative to a goal. We’ve discussed this before. The game tends to waffle between Standard effect is “You achieve what we’d expect as “normal” with this action” (Effect, Blades, p24), and “standard effect is that you achieve your goal”. The game is unclear about whether it wants effect to be a discussion of PC’s relative (to the situation) potency, or a discussion of the PC’s relative (to their goal) capacity.
Just as a quick refresher, the example of p25 (quoted in Episode 21) says that Una has zero effect to tear down a tower stone-by-stone: “The tower is dominant in quality, scale, and potency. Unless those factors are countered somehow, Una’s effect level is zero before she starts." (Dominant Factors, p25). Thus Una’s effect is relative to her Goal, not to “what is considered normal”. Arguably, what is considered normal IS the zero effect outcome.
So I don’t think it’s contentious to say that Blades in the Dark has an unclear expression of what Standard Effect means through it’s examples. And the falloff here is exactly that problem: Adam understands his Effect to be Standard, rolls a Crit, and then is still told (with GREAT EFFECT) that he can’t achieve his goal of frightening the Billhooks away. It’s clear, then, that in setting Effect, the GM has not framed the situation correctly.
And thus, a Strother Problem because “what we’ve got here is failure to communicate”. (Cool Hand Luke, Rosenburg, 1967). A more accurate discussion by the GM would be “Canter, you’re going to blow the guy’s kneecap out. Whatever else happens, Coran is going down like a sack of potatoes here. The stakes, though, on your side, sound like they’re not about hurting the guy, right?” Don’t forget that the Action Roll starts with an unambiguous assessment of player goals. If Adam agrees (which I suspect from the context of the example, he would), then we talk Effect relative to the chosen path of action - Coran’s thugs can’t back down from an active violent act against the boss. But Coran can’t fight and will have to be carried out. The GM sets position: “You’re escalating, obviously. Which gives you a position of Limited here. If Standard is that the Billhooks clear out now and deal with you later, you’re currently Limited. Coran and his two bodyguard-type goons will be forced to leave, but they’ll throw the other three lackies at you in a 1:1 just to try and slow you down or save their own rep. They can’t just walk away from violence against a leader like that. The position is Desperate too: You’re escalating, so when they jump you they’re not going to hold back. There’s blood on the stones now.”
Looking back from the result that we got (the player having to Crit and then Push to get the goal they wanted), the GM started them out on Zero effect. Blades in the Dark doesn’t allow for the GM to play the “Oh you got a crit, well…still not standard effect” dice fudging that is going on in this example. I’d go so far as to say that this example of play is a real failure by the GM to leverage the tools of the game to explain the situation they’re trying to present. Remember the key to position and effect is forcing the GM to solidify fiction so that players understand their fictional leverage within the model, and can negotiate around that (using cool fiction).
One of the things I love about Blades in the Dark is that clarity that approach matters. That by combining goal with approach we get a systemic negotiation of player-control over outcome. I’ve also said in previous (Hard Move Adjacent) lives that discussing approach through the lens of mechanics is one of my favourite ways to have that conversation. I, personally, would be fascinated to say to the players (or hear from the GM as a player) “Coran is no coward. I want you to know that about him. He’s also a strict proponent of what we’d call ‘the Chicago Way’ - You send of theirs to the hospital, they send one of yours the morgue. If you shoot him in the leg, this escalates right here and right now. I’m gonna start you at No Effect”. Then, being the systemic game of negotiation that it is I could say “but of course, you have stress and pushing and resisting, so don’t take No Effect as me saying not to do it!”
Of course, that same benefit is clear in the example text as well: The game has reached a really unfortunate unresolvable state - The player’s expectations (and, in fact, what they deserve by the rules) isn’t being given to them. It could be an unresolvable impasse. Of course, Blades has solutions - Spend some extra stress, maybe do a resist, mark off some gear. The game has plenty of resources to resolve these impasses after they’re generated.
That, I think, is the key to systems that require a degree of negotiation. I’ve spoken before about some more foundational approaches to maintaining Faith in the Model, but I think it’s fascinating how much safety net Blades has built in to the resolution system.
