27. The Devil’s Bargain
(This is going back a section, because I missed the first reference to Devil’s Bargains and they are worth talking about as soon as we can)
Another part of absolutely killer tech in Blades. The Devil’s Bargain is going to come up a few times. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but I want to explore what the text has to say (initially at least).
“PCs in Blades are reckless scoundrels addicted to destructive vices—they don’t always act in their own best interests. To reflect this, the GM or any other player can offer you a bonus die if you accept a Devil’s Bargain. Common Devil’s Bargains include:
- Collateral damage, unintended harm.
- Sacrifice coin or an item.
- Betray a friend or loved one.
- Offend or anger a faction.
- Start and/or tick a troublesome clock.
- Add heat to the crew from evidence or witnesses.
- Suffer harm.
The Devil’s Bargain occurs regardless of the outcome of the roll. You make the deal, pay the price, and get the bonus die. There might not be an interesting Devil’s Bargain in every situation. If one doesn’t occur to anyone right away, that’s fine.”
There are two things that are really clear in this text for me:
The focus on concepts over balance
The timing of when we accept consequences (especially in comparison to the Hard Six of Hope)
The first is beautiful and wonderful and effortless. John very well could have written something like “Suffer one or two harm” or “Two or three ticks to a troublesome clock”. Instead he recognises that what players really need is a list of ideas, and to take those concepts forward into their own game. This is the truest thing about a Devil’s Bargain: It’s not a currency. There’s not an ongoing transactional economy in which we determine whether a Devil’s Bargain is “a good deal”. What a Devil’s Bargain that’s worth it will look like will depend wholly on the fictional and mechanical (narrative and ludic) circumstanced in which a player finds themselves. Where Stress to Dice is always 2:1, Devil’s Bargains are not, ever, codified in numbers. Stress is an legislated tender, Devil’s Bargains are a barter system.
I love this so much, and I love the clarity with which it’s written. This is also a really clear benefit to the Object-Oriented design approach, where “tick a clock” means what it needs to mean in the moment. It means as many ticks as are required to make the choice interesting. It means ticking a clock that is present and intriguing. It means, hey GM, remember how we just taught you a process and procedure for bringing threats to the table without executing on them? Just do that. Just run Clocks.exe. And so the Devil’s Bargain doesn’t have to define edges and processes, it can rely on the extant processes of the game. This may feel like it’s leaving the GM out to dry without formalising the procedure, but it’s tapping into so many other procedures that do have codified edges so it can help you out.
Now, there’s a slight weakness here, in that it’s not clear whether this Consequence can be Resisted, because when we tap into extant processes, we have to tap into it completely. We can’t half-call on a Class. Even when it runs against our expectations.
And the text isn’t explicit. It does say “The Devil’s Bargain occurs regardless of the outcome of the roll.” But a generous reading could say that the Consequence[1] gets added to the player’s collection of Consequences regardless of whether it’s a 6 or 4/5 or 1-3, but then once we enter the Resolve Consequences phase of Play (ie “We Judge The Result” p22), the PCs “have the ability to avoid or reduce consequences by resisting them” (p22). Page 32 (Resistance) also does not differentiate between Consequences employed as a result of a roll or Consequences derived from other locations. We already have precedent with preemptive consequences, that not all resistances are from a 4/5 roll. There’s a very fair reading of the text that says that Devil’s Bargain Consequences can be resisted.
[1] In this section I’ve capitalised Consequence to define it as an “Object" within our OOP framework. By using the same keyword for Devil’s Bargain outcomes as for 4/5 roll outcomes, the system evokes (or calls on) them both in the same way. The text does a similar thing using bold type for COIN and HEAT in this section (to identify them as mechanical keywords), so I feel like my approach here is in the same conversation (if not always in agreement) with the text.
In the scenario where we do allow a player to resist Devil’s Bargains, we have two resulting impacts to the play experience: Firstly, the play stops “weighing” whether the consequence is worth a die (because I can always just resist it later), and secondly, Resisted Devil’s Bargains turn into paying a variable amount of stress for another die. A push-your-luck push-yourself. Given that the game offers 2 stress OR a devil’s Bargain (never both), I think it’s clear that it doesn’t want Stress-to-+1D to be an unclear exchange rate.
From the Character Sheet v8.2
Both of those secondary impacts of the design choice would weaken Devil’s Bargains at the table to the point that they become frustrating rather than exciting, and that alone, would be enough for me to feel rock-solid in my position. I’m not sure what John’s position is on the case (don’t make me tap the Roland Barthes sign), and the third leg of the tripod that is “online community” (Making the Game Your Own, p5) does not have a settled response (in general, the response is that no, one shouldn’t, because of the “happens regardless of the roll” clause, which is weak textual justification, but aligns with my opinion that it’s just better if you don’t/can’t resist Devil’s Bargains).
As for the second, the timing on when we accept consequences…that’s going to have to wait until tomorrow [2].
[2] In an effort to keep Daily Blade sustainable posting day after day, I’m being more strict with my writing time per day. This means we may end up with concepts like Devil’s Bargains or Clocks split over several posts. It’s the nature of this commitment.
