Hey Jface! Thanks for making this video. Having also seen that episode of Knights of Last Call, this Threat system that John Harper wrote about in Deep Cuts is very reminiscent of 7th Sea 2e's task resolution mechanic, which goes as follows (working off of memory here): 1) Whenever the GM determines that a character that is trying to accomplish a goal is putting their skills to the test (via the player's narrative description), they determine what threats and opportunities present themselves. 2) The player then determines which attribute + skill they will use and roll Xd10, where X = their attribute + skill total. The goal here is to generate as many "raises" as possible and every increment of 10 generates one raise (unless otherwise specified). 3) To simply succeed at a task, you need to spend one raise. Any additional raises generated can be used to either buy off threats or to capitalize on opportunities. If it's a logical stretch to apply that attribute + skill combo to buy off a specific threat or to capitalize on a specific opportunity, it costs an additional raise. 4) Any threats that are not bought off with raises occur (i.e. taking damage, losing resources, introducing new complications, etc.). Any opportunities that are capitalized on with raises occur (i.e. dealing additional damage, acquiring extra resources, gaining new perks, etc.). The two biggest downsides to this system are that it takes more effort and practice to implement and master this method of task resolution and it takes more time to implement as well. The upside is that this system is great for producing memorable moments of action and drama, since many relevant factors are taken into account (certainly more than "I don't do the thing...now what?") This kind of system is great for a group that doesn't mind being in the writer's room. Consequently, it's anathema for a group that wants to stay immersed in their characters and the game world.
The conversation now being about the PCs saying what they want and the GM saying what the threats are sounds fun and might be an improvement over "position and effect".
Hey, very nice review. This additional threats mechanics seems like a must have! In case you still have space for additional games analysis, I would like to recommend Household. D6 dice pool with matching numbers as resulting power. I also fell in love with this game premise. Good luck with your game!
Thanks for the comment! I agree. The adding threat mechanic is a must! Building an RPG: Borrowing from Household th-cam.com/video/xLzcyjGMEGA/w-d-xo.html I did a very small vid on Houshold awhile back. I see it had an expansion coming out. Maybe I’ll do a deeper dive!
I’ve been using the _concept_ of Threat Rolls for awhile now and these are the issues I’ve encountered: 1) Stating the potential cost of failure does not always establish the potential cost of success. Say you’re leaping across a pit to evade capture. The risk of falling down or being captured only applies on failure. However the risk of your pursuers seeing where you went applies regardless. Good thing they didn’t say they were trying to _evade_ their pursuers, as then falling would _also_ apply regardless. 2) Adding too many risks to a roll can become distracting, cumbersome and ridiculous. A single choice, risk, or ‘yes, but’ per roll or decision point seems ideal, and follow up rolls (Which BitD still uses) can be used to resolve additional risks. 3) Explicitly knowing the outcome of an action/intent can be _extremely_ immersion breaking for some and add to the ‘writer’s room’ feel BitD is notorious for. Some of this can be mitigated by framing these costs as concerns or possibilities like implied in the book. Ideally I want the GM to state the potential cost of success and the player to state the potential cost of failure but haven’t found a satisfactory way to invoke this organically. And conceptually I do like how adding more risks makes it more likely to avoid any single one but less likely to avoid all of them, mechanically trading risk for choice. The mismatch however is that BitD is still using a 3 state system to establish a multi-state result, and not avoiding every risk is the very definition of a partial or mixed success already.
Harper should have released this as seperate superhero game - ie giving the players loads of control but piling on the danger sounds more like a supers fit. Having not played this version its hard to say, but it looks like the GM has to descibe the possible outcome and then describe the actual outcome. Personally I'd rather only do it the once and surprise the players (or have the players surprise me) with the actual outcome. Do check my channel for the best actual plays of BitD with rules commentary ('Hanging with the Wrong Crowd' is the best one).
I played wicked ones and I flipped the set up to be just like this with consequences. I told you the worst result, you rolled and narrated what happened. Having success and failure states usually they had 0 issues with what was going to happen and it went great. RIP Wicked Ones.
Threat roll is how my system works. Nice to see great minds think alike heh. Too bad there's still a lot of unneeded "complication" cruft. One day he'll catch up to me I'm sure.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey Jface! Thanks for making this video.
Having also seen that episode of Knights of Last Call, this Threat system that John Harper wrote about in Deep Cuts is very reminiscent of 7th Sea 2e's task resolution mechanic, which goes as follows (working off of memory here):
1) Whenever the GM determines that a character that is trying to accomplish a goal is putting their skills to the test (via the player's narrative description), they determine what threats and opportunities present themselves.
2) The player then determines which attribute + skill they will use and roll Xd10, where X = their attribute + skill total. The goal here is to generate as many "raises" as possible and every increment of 10 generates one raise (unless otherwise specified).
3) To simply succeed at a task, you need to spend one raise. Any additional raises generated can be used to either buy off threats or to capitalize on opportunities. If it's a logical stretch to apply that attribute + skill combo to buy off a specific threat or to capitalize on a specific opportunity, it costs an additional raise.
4) Any threats that are not bought off with raises occur (i.e. taking damage, losing resources, introducing new complications, etc.). Any opportunities that are capitalized on with raises occur (i.e. dealing additional damage, acquiring extra resources, gaining new perks, etc.).
The two biggest downsides to this system are that it takes more effort and practice to implement and master this method of task resolution and it takes more time to implement as well. The upside is that this system is great for producing memorable moments of action and drama, since many relevant factors are taken into account (certainly more than "I don't do the thing...now what?")
This kind of system is great for a group that doesn't mind being in the writer's room. Consequently, it's anathema for a group that wants to stay immersed in their characters and the game world.
No way it’s Goblinville! John Harper turned Blades in the Dark into Goblinville? Let’s go!
Have always loved this channel, it’s helped me a lot in building my own TTRPG by learning about other game’s mechanics!
Appreciate it! Glad the channel has helped
The conversation now being about the PCs saying what they want and the GM saying what the threats are sounds fun and might be an improvement over "position and effect".
Well put. I think you summarized it better than I did!
I really hope you can get an interview with John Harper to ask more about his thoughts on the rules refresh!
You and me both!
Hey, very nice review. This additional threats mechanics seems like a must have! In case you still have space for additional games analysis, I would like to recommend Household. D6 dice pool with matching numbers as resulting power. I also fell in love with this game premise. Good luck with your game!
Thanks for the comment! I agree. The adding threat mechanic is a must!
Building an RPG: Borrowing from Household
th-cam.com/video/xLzcyjGMEGA/w-d-xo.html
I did a very small vid on Houshold awhile back. I see it had an expansion coming out. Maybe I’ll do a deeper dive!
@@jfacegames7354 Missed that one, thanks
I think he just remembered Otherkind Dice and designed with that in mind
I’ve been using the _concept_ of Threat Rolls for awhile now and these are the issues I’ve encountered:
1) Stating the potential cost of failure does not always establish the potential cost of success. Say you’re leaping across a pit to evade capture. The risk of falling down or being captured only applies on failure. However the risk of your pursuers seeing where you went applies regardless. Good thing they didn’t say they were trying to _evade_ their pursuers, as then falling would _also_ apply regardless.
2) Adding too many risks to a roll can become distracting, cumbersome and ridiculous. A single choice, risk, or ‘yes, but’ per roll or decision point seems ideal, and follow up rolls (Which BitD still uses) can be used to resolve additional risks.
3) Explicitly knowing the outcome of an action/intent can be _extremely_ immersion breaking for some and add to the ‘writer’s room’ feel BitD is notorious for. Some of this can be mitigated by framing these costs as concerns or possibilities like implied in the book.
Ideally I want the GM to state the potential cost of success and the player to state the potential cost of failure but haven’t found a satisfactory way to invoke this organically. And conceptually I do like how adding more risks makes it more likely to avoid any single one but less likely to avoid all of them, mechanically trading risk for choice. The mismatch however is that BitD is still using a 3 state system to establish a multi-state result, and not avoiding every risk is the very definition of a partial or mixed success already.
Harper should have released this as seperate superhero game - ie giving the players loads of control but piling on the danger sounds more like a supers fit. Having not played this version its hard to say, but it looks like the GM has to descibe the possible outcome and then describe the actual outcome. Personally I'd rather only do it the once and surprise the players (or have the players surprise me) with the actual outcome. Do check my channel for the best actual plays of BitD with rules commentary ('Hanging with the Wrong Crowd' is the best one).
I played wicked ones and I flipped the set up to be just like this with consequences. I told you the worst result, you rolled and narrated what happened. Having success and failure states usually they had 0 issues with what was going to happen and it went great. RIP Wicked Ones.
Threat roll is how my system works. Nice to see great minds think alike heh. Too bad there's still a lot of unneeded "complication" cruft. One day he'll catch up to me I'm sure.
🤪
The more I learn about Forged in the Dark, the more I prefer Year Zero Engine
first
yes you are!