13. The Game Structure
This is going to be the first section in which I outright reject the phases of play that are positioned by Blades in the Dark. This is, if you ask me, the part of the game that is least necessary and most poorly executed. I’m going to explain why for a few reasons, and I will offer a change that drives better player behaviour.
Part One: Blades Phases….Blases. Blases in the Dases.
Quick Quiz! How many phases of play does Blades in the Dark have?
Blades in the Dark has two phases of play. The Score, and the time between the score, functionally called Downtime.
Well actually there’s 3, because there’s also “Free Play”.
Um, actually, there’s 4 because the engagement role is its own phase.
There’s also kind of a 5th though, because the game also uses “The Session” as a phase
Simple, right? Then we just add in that the lines between them are fuzzy, and we get this:
Holy shit, this is a gorgeous image. Truly my favourite example of aesthetically designed games (Blades p9)
“The phases are a conceptual model to help you organize the game. They’re not meant to be rigid structures that restrict your options (this is why they’re presented as amorphous blobs of ink without hard edges). Think of the phases as a menu of options to fit whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish in play. Each phase suits a different goal.”
According to John, the phases need to be structurally separated because they have different goals: Freeplay wants to zoom out, Scores want to zoom in. Downtime wants to….exist? Harper seems to imply the role of Downtime is respite, which…I’m not sure I agree with.
Part Two: On Phases and Consistency
There’s a thing that’s performed at the end of a training session with animals, it’s called the “End-of-Session Signal”.
Imagine you’re training a dog. The key to classic training is consistency. So every time the dog gives you its paw, you give it a treat. Paw, treat, paw, treat. Eventually the dog learns the connection. Then you finish training, maybe jackpot the dog with a handful of treats. Then you head to the kitchen to cook dinner. What does the dog do?
It walks up and rubs its paw against your leg. Again and again. Because it wants more treats and you have consistently asked for and rewarded the behaviour. You’ve taught the dog what to do and now it’s doing it. Now, in part this is annoying because you don’t want the dog pawing at you, but it’s also weakening the training. You’ve moved from continuous to partial reinforcement too early. This is where the end-of-session signal comes in.
By telling the dog “okay, all gone” or “training done” or “no more jobs”, you create a separation between when the behaviour will be rewarded and when it wont be. This ensures more consistent learning by anchoring the “reward schedule” in time.
(And yes, long-term, you do want to move to an intermittent variable schedule because they are more resistant to extinction but dammit, this is about Blades in the Dark)
By dividing the game up into phases, Blades can also ensure that players know when they’re rewarded for being bold and adventurous. This is why the Score phase ends with the Jackpot Payout system. It’s rewarding you for doing what it wants.
Part Three: Rolling Initiative and Rolling Uphill
The other benefit to separating these phases is that it creates a rise and fall of action. By saying that Scores are full of consequence and immediacy, and by saying that Downtime is a time for respite, we get a Freytag’s pyramid, where action rises and falls. This is the D&D Combat, rest, explore, combat cycle, and it’s good. It works!
Blade’s version is EXCEPTIONAL though, because it places reward structures at the end of each phase. I’ve already discussed the Payout discussion being used to reward ambitious (greedy) behaviour during the Score, and the Engagement Role does that for the very zoomed out planning phase that occurs during freeplay (YMMV). In both cases, these rituals also cause players to look ahead, and start thinking about where they fall on the anticipation curve/Freytag’s pyramid.
(As a macro note, doing XP at the end of sessions is also an end-of-session signal with Jackpot that has become industry standard. It’s great to see Blades approaching slices of time that aren’t “per session” for this approach. When desired behaviour changes, mark it and jackpot.)
Part Four: Out of Phase
And so my general frustration with phases occurs when they’re used as prescriptive rules that don’t “follow the fiction”, without using the things that help us move through phases (like the signals and jackpots mentioned earlier). In this case, the phase is something players are TOLD is happening, rather than something that happens. And this is where I think Blades in the Dark is weakest around its phase definitions.
For one thing, the character sheet (as the main user interface) doesn’t change. This creates an expectation that the interactions the players can make are the same. There’s often a bit of confusion around "wait so when I heal do I do an action roll, or…do I need to fictionally justify my training or does…”. Some people will say that I simply don’t understand Blades (and that’s fair. This is a journey of understanding. It wouldn’t be worth much if I knew everything already). I will defend against that accusation though by saying that this kind of “you just have to remember the rule and employ it” runs contrary to a lot of Blades’ design, and occurs mostly because the split during phases is unclear.
Here’s an example: Can I resist overindulging my vice? This is an interesting question. It’s probably not intended, but there’s nothing in Overindulge or Resistance rules that disallow it. The only reason we’d think that is that “resistance is for Scores, overindulging happens in downtime” is a perfectly fine answer. Can I resist an Entanglement I don’t like? Blades is clear that resisting is to reject “a consequence you don’t like”. Just tell the GM “no, I don’t think so, I’m resisting that”. It’s an edge case that specifically feels off because the phases are doing more work than they say. So fine, I can or I can’t, your call will vary. But it’s unclear and it’s unclear because the UI doesn’t change but the expectations of the system do.
Okay, now how about while Gathering Information?
For a comparative example, see Band of Blades, which fundamentally changes roles and UX.
Part Five: When do you change and how?
Let’s face it: Blades’ phases are unclear as heck. By design, certainly: “(this is why they’re presented as amorphous blobs of ink without hard edges)” (BitD, p8). And I don’t have a particular issue with this, with the idea that phases of play should bleed into each other, but that bleed should be reinforcing the primary needs of the phase, not breaking it down.
This is why the flashback mechanic is so perfect. By taking a player character back to the pre-Score time, it could be really disruptive to the building anticipation of the Score, but instead, the game asks you to spend stress, which keeps you on that increasing curve! It’s a great way to remind a player “yeah sure you can flash back to that, but the important thing is what’s happening here, and the rewards and currencies of this Phase". God it’s just so good.
But that same thing isn’t true with Downtime actions and Freeplay. Or with Freeplay and Downtime. Or with Freeplay and Engagement. In each of these cases, especially Engagement, dipping out of them breaks flow in a way that can’t be held together with resources. This is partly because Downtime is heavily led by the mechanics rather than the fiction. Downtime is very concerned first and foremost about how many downtime actions you have to use. It sets out a list of permitted actions and allows the player to interact with them.
This is why Downtime and Freeplay want to be separate. Freeplay is strictly fiction-first with the mechanics willing to stay right out of the conversation, while Downtime is mechanics-first-supported-by-fiction (and very very well supported by fiction. This isn’t a criticism to say they’re driven by mechanics). But the issue is that Blades doesn’t have a Jackpot or End-of-Session signal to move between Downtime and Freeplay, making that edge so fuzzy as to not be able to properly sustain the guidance of play.
I don’t want to be so presumptuous as to talk about how I’d fix it. For one thing, Blades isn’t my game and it wasn’t designed as pieces (and nor should it be considered as pieces). I could talk to you about how I might design something similar in a different project, but this isn’t a “the easy fix to Blades is to do something else”. One change I have made to procedure when I GM is check for heat and entanglements after downtime actions. It gives the players a chance to reduce heat from the mission before they get in trouble for it. Which I don’t mind, because it gives the players a feeling of having outsmarted the system (not the System of Blades, but as in the criminal justice system of Duskvol)[dun dun]. Here, I’m using the heat roll and discussions around it as the jackpot and signal that we’re moving out of Downtime.
I’d argue that moving these consequences to the end also better protects the Downtime structure for it’s purpose: “[…]you shift to downtime, the pressure’s off. The PCs are safe and can enjoy a brief respite from danger to recover and regroup before they jump back into the cycle of play again.” (BitD, p8). We don’t remind players that there’s consequences and entanglements until Freeplay. Then we bring the consequences into a position where players are ready to deal with it by going out into the world again (a score). Granted, it still leaves Downtime a touch stilted in comparison to the other mechanics of play (it’s still unclear if you can resist your overindulgence, for example), but it makes the answers to those edge cases easier to adjudicate because Downtime Isn’t Freeplay and there’s a clear End-of-Session signal (and jackpot) between it.
Another thing I’d like to look into, in a different time, is the variability of Downtime, especially from my own experiences in Band of Blades. I obviously don’t have time or space for it here, but it’s going on the board.
Header image is "DSC02471" by mister b 1138 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
