32. Setting Position and Effect (2) - Fiction vs System
Blades in the Dark has a problem. A difficult problem, and not an unsalvagable problem, but a problem. That problem is pushing yourself for effect. Or, more accurately that problem is “+1 Effect”, and other rules that attempt to condense the fictional position down into a mathematical equation that can be balanced. I may be the only one that grates against this problem, so I’ll forgive you if you want to skip today. Me, though? I’m going off (also if you hang around you get to learn about kneecapping).
“I didn’t ask how big the room was, I said I cast fireball” (if anyone knows the origin of that quote, let me know!)
Players simplify the complexity of play into simple categories that they can call on during play. For example, focus on how much damage you can do for long enough, and you end up with players employing the above heuristic. When all you care about is damage, everything is a fireball solution. The Flowchart is Do You Have Spell Slots? -Yes -> Fireball (-No-> that cantrip version of fireball. Firebolt I think? Maybe Flame Bolt).
This means that we tend to talk and think in shortcuts. So, often when I see players expressing the Position/Effect negotiation, they will express gear and/or Fine Gear as simply +1 Effect. Now, this isn’t the rule in Blades…but I struggle to blame anyone who has condensed it to that in their memory. The rule actually says that fine weapons are “+1 Quality", and that Quality is a factor which MAY interface with Action Rolls (p24) to give +1 effect. All other factors being equal, a Fine piece of Gear does give you +1 Effect. But, again, we’re talking about the shortcuts that players generate when the system is too unwieldy (and I love and adore this system, but setting effect by factors is so unwieldy). The problem is, that heuristic doesn’t interface with yesterday’s discussion about the Noteworthy, and the games’ expression of factors.
To bring in an example (same rules as yesterday, taking the spirit of in-text examples and stripping out a lot that’s not important, and changing the framing. This is from p40, and it’s the same Billhooks situation):
Sean and Stras discuss some options for how they might further intimidate the Billhooks [ed - limited effect, earlier], but Adam (Canter’s player) steps in and takes the initiative.
ADAM: “Screw it, Canter just walks up and shoots Coran [The Billhooks 2nd-in-Command, from yesterday] in the kneecap. ‘That’s how it is, fool.’”
GM: “So what action is this?”
ADAM: “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.”
GM: “Okay, it’s desperate, because obviously it is [1], standard effect.”
At this point, how does the game respond if Adam says that Canter’s pistol is Fine? And if it doesn’t, is it because the text doesn’t care, or because we don’t care (as the players).
[1] I know that this example of play breezes over the Note The Noteworthy principle of setting position and effect from yesterday. It’s a great example of how some things can be understood at the table without putting words to them. This example is from John and his friends playing together, who have a good shared understanding. So it doesn’t need to offer anchors in the same way as yesterdays examples with a New Player did.
“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.”
The reality of the situation is the the gunshot isn’t in question, right? Yeah, you shoot him in the kneecap[2]. Normal, or fine, or crumby, or huge, or Big Excellent, whatever type of gun you use, you’re going to generate the same effect here: Escalation and Intimidation.
[2]A little fun “Sidney used to rep for knee replacement surgery” insider info: Kneecapping isn’t actually done in the kneecap. It’s a shot to the popliteal fossa (back of the knee) with a .22 or similar low velocity round, which very rarely impacts the patella. Like, don’t get me wrong, you can put a gat against someone’s kneecap and fire, but like…why the kneecap? You could limit mobility shooting them anywhere else in the legs too. In fact if you wanted to put someone up for a while I’d probably recommend the ankle over the kneecap. But in either case, you’re better off- y’know what, this isn’t really the time or place.
Player’s bids for increased Position or Effect must also respect the fiction at hand. And this is why I’m so against “+1 Effect when” in the language of special abilities. Effect is (from p26) a thing “In The Fiction”. Effect isn’t a clock segment, it’s an impact on a fictional world. Which means whatever you’re using to generate +1 Effect has to be able to generate that increased effect fictionally, so why not phrase it as such?
Which, yes, all this need for fiction breaks down when we consider the rules that for 2 stress anyone can “purchase” extra effect for no fictional reason:
“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?”
“Oh, wow, yeah, that would do it. Nice! So, boom, that’s it. Arcy stares them all down, Oskarr creeps everyone out, Canter shoots Coran—and just like that, the Billhooks fold like a napkin and disappear from your turf.Example of Play p40
This really grates against me, because the thesis of today’s piece isn’t actually “Fine Gear Doesn’t Always Give You +1 Effect Even Though You’re Probably Thinking About It That Way”, it’s “Effect isn’t a mathematical equation, stop treating it like one”. But, against that thesis, there’s a pretty clear precedent right in front of us that nah, sometimes we just play the game and spend points and throw a finger to the fiction. We do that with Push Yourself, or Scout (“When you gather information to discover the location of a target, you get +1 effect.” Hound, p66), so why not with Fine Gear/Quality[3]?
[3] This is where PbtA’s descriptive tags have a massive advantage over Blade’s less descriptive tags. In PbtA the rules can support that fictional negotiation more clearly by introducing clarity and restriction (if one person says that these Rules Elide, I will turn this blog around and there’ll be no Cape Canaveral for anybody!)
Consider a significantly oversized sledgehammer, and a gorgeously-crafted spear. A Forceful weapon and a Reach weapon interact with fiction (and mechanical moves) differently. But a Fine weapon and a Fine weapon don’t. In Blade’s defence, Fine Weapons can be a lot more varied and expressive, both in text and in play. PbtA can ONLY ever define these items by the tags they have (ie the gorgeously-crafted spear can never be assessed for its beauty, or recognising the unique work of the crafter etc etc — Well, it can, but then we’re leaving the tag system and moving into Follow the Fiction, which is not a fight PbtA wants to pick with Blades).
This comes down to Peasant Railgun levels of semantics (the potency of 100 held actions gives +1 Effect — a misunderstanding of abstraction is my dominant factor). Because Blades is not simulating a world, because it’s not “the best physics engine for world-building” (Worlds Beyond Number, Ishii, 2024) it simply breaks when it’s considered a series of calculations. If Blades is simulating anything it’s simulating Prestige TV, which is defined by drama and narrative and where we choose to point the camera. Not by facts.
This is why Blades uses the word Fine and not “+1 Sword”, and while I love that, it’s a source of not-uncommon frustration that I have with the way that John has written parts of the text that follow. It’s clear what the intent is (and I agree with the intent!). It’s very clear that the purpose of setting position and effect is to generate shared understanding of the narrative (“On the same page” — Why We Do This, p27), and that stating what generates threat and dis/advantage is designed to invite players into a problem-solving activity. But the problem is that when the game presents these things as mathematical abstractions (Tier difference, +1 Quality, the entirety of page 221) that it groans.
And I don’t think that John wants people to play Position and Effect algebraically. No, no, I’m certain that he doesn’t. I’m absolutely certain that Blades didn’t want people making cheat sheets to math out position and effect, like a game of snakes and ladders (this one is for Band of Blades, but same approach). But this is the response that happens when the game of Position and Effect becomes endogenous and algebraic instead of fictional and collaborative.
John insists really early, on page FIVE that the book is a collection of Best Practices, and that “it’s my job to inspire you and maybe also point out a few interesting things I’ve come up with, too. But it’s not my job to tell you exactly what to say about everything.” And he’s SO GOOD at that throughout this text. Then, Potency. And +1 Quality, which stacks with Tier, but does not overcome Scale, and page 221 exists. Not best practices but endogenous assertions. Then, I feel like I’m back in D&D 3.5, tracking floating modifiers for the Red Hand of Doom again.
Vibe it out, talk it out. I just don’t wanna hear about your Bluecoats Railgun.
