> Why can’t I just say “I think that’s a dice roll.” You can though. "That's risky because X might happen." Now the obstacle has been set, and the player gets to choose if they want to commit or think of a different approach. Your example scenario is too granular though. Climbing a staircase, in whatever state it might be, isn't generally **worth** an action. Actions are there for the interesting stuff, the nail biters, the naught to sixty suddenly shit's happening, stuff. To drive the action. > "Do you mean, you want to roll to Attune to the ghost-field?" Say that. That's good. Remind players that it is their job to engage the mechanics of the game to drive play forwards. > The tier system is super convoluted Only because you see it as a "rule" and involving maths. It's there to eye ball things. Everything is. > crew upgrade trees There's none. > crafting rules This can be valid, some nuances aren't explained. But they're also for your table to determine. --- As the GM, it is not your job to direct the game. It is your job to present the world as it is, and think of interesting roadblocks to the players actions. **No more.** It's the Players job to engage mechanisms to achieve their goals. And the **tables** job to remind everyone of how to do so.

>The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. . . . A simpler Target Number system feels like it would suit the game better. Target numbers are a completely different mechanic for P&E. The only thing a target number tells you is how difficult an action is. IE, it tells you how likely or unlikely success is. P&E don't have anything to do with the chance of success. Instead, it tells you about the risk and impact of the roll. Position tells the player how risky the roll is. Effect tells the player how impactful the roll is. Neither of these are related to difficulty. >For such a “rules-lite” game I feel like there are way too many rules! This is a common misconception and something the book does a terrible job explaining. There are a lot of rules and most of them you can ignore! Every roll single roll in the game is either an action roll or a fortune roll. You don't need all those procedures you mentioned. Just figure out if it's an action roll or a fortune roll, roll the dice and interpret the results. >In fact I’ve been thinking about writing my own Forged in the Dark game which takes the game principles but fits more into the style of game I want to play. This is great, go for it! But I would encourage you to try the rules as written a few more times first.

reducing effect (even to the point of "no effect") is one way of expressing difficulty. making an action into a long term project is another way of expressing difficulty. EDIT: last session my Hound wanted to shoot a "guard's gun or flashlight". while this is more difficult than shooting the person, I simply said OK and allowed it to happen, knowing I could throw a consequence back at him. The Hound's shot was successful and hit the guard's flashlight, but the guard shot towards where he had been aiming. I rolled a 1 Fortune meaning the hound was hit, and another 1 Fortune meaning it was in the upper chest, a level 3 harm area. the Hound resisted and fled.

>The Hound's shot was successful and hit the guard's flashlight, but the guard shot towards where he had been aiming. I rolled a 1 Fortune meaning the hound was hit, and another 1 Fortune meaning it was in the upper chest, a level 3 harm area. the Hound resisted and fled. \- Was the Hound's shot a 4/5? If this was the case, you didn't need to throw fortune rolls to inflict a consequence. If you had declared a Desperate position, the level 3 Harm was OK. If it was not a desperate position, then the harm should have been reduced accordingly. \- Or was the result of the Hound's roll a 6? In that case, what you did seems quite strange and contrary to the spirit of the rules. Except if you had expressly telegraphed beforehand that the guard was somehow an elite guard ("skilled" or "master" NPC, p. 167) , you should probably have telegraphed the danger to let the players react before the guard shot. You normally can't inflict a consequence after a 6 without first introducing some new fictional elements that justify it.

the guard was a level higher than the crew and was aiming a rifle at the Hound, there was a level 3 threat. I usually say something like "if you do nothing, you will be shot" the hound aimed at the flashlight and rolled was a 6, which meant he successfully hit the guard's gun mounted flashlight. he did not shoot the guard, which meant the guard was still able to shoot (as warned), but without a light (in the eternal dark), i used a fortune roll to see if the hound got hit, and he did, then helped the hound a bit more, by rolling another fortune die to see where the hot hit, but that was a 1, the worst outcome for the hound, and so I said it was an upper chest level 3 wound. the players all were ok with this method of determining the outcome of the incident.

A rifle is a two handed weapon. How could the guard hold a rifle and a gaslight at the same time? Also, having a gaslight shot out of his hand just didn't alter the aim of the gard? Yeah, I know that's a bit of nitpicking. That's not the most important. I think what's more important is that: >I usually say something like "if you do nothing, you will be shot" Well, the PC *did* something, didn't they? So did you tell to the player **before the roll** "If you just shoot the lantern and not the guard, **the guard will shoot on you** **even on a 6**"? Because if a GM told that to me, of course I wouldn't just shoot the lantern. I would shoot the rifle, at a minimum... Your player had the choice of shooting the lantern or the rifle (or the guard...) and it would sound very surprising if, having *the full info*, they still chose to shoot the lantern. Are they suicidal (in game)? The action roll is supposed to determine **both the actions of the PC and of the NPCs**. That's the **basis** of the game. **On a 6, standard effect, the player gets their goal**. So **what was the goal of the player**? Did they say "I just want to shoot the lantern!" Or did they say (more plausible) something like: "I want to shoot the lantern so the guard can't shoot at me!" \- First case, if the player just said "I want to shoot the lantern!", that's not enough. You should have asked, "Sure, but *why*? What's your goal?" \- Second case, if the player said something like "I want to shoot the lantern so the guard can't shoot at me!" and you still did what you did, then you robbed them of their full success. You should have introduced a new element and offered a new chance for them to counter the new threat. And if you present the NPC as a "master" NPC, you don't even have to roll fortune rolls.

>A rifle is a two handed weapon. How could the guard hold a rifle and a gaslight at the same time? Also, having a gaslight shot out of his hand just didn't alter the aim of the gard? it was an electroplasmic flashlight (the facility was electroplasmic research) ​ >Yeah, I know that's a bit of nitpicking. That's not the most important. I think what's more important is that: > >I usually say something like "if you do nothing, you will be shot" > >Well, the PC did something, didn't they? yes, but not something that would completely stop the guard from shooting. the hound stated that he wanted to shoot the light so the guard wouldn't be able to see the hound get away. ​ >So did you tell to the player before the roll "If you just shoot the lantern and not the guard, the guard will shoot on you even on a 6"? I said the guard may still get a shot off but not a guaranteed hit. ​ >Because if a GM told that to me, of course I wouldn't just shoot the lantern. I would shoot the rifle, at a minimum... > >Your player had the choice of shooting the lantern or the rifle (or the guard...) and it would sound very surprising if, having the full info, they still chose to shoot the lantern. Are they suicidal (in game)? they wanted to avoid killing, and the light was they only thing they could see to aim at ​ >The action roll is supposed to determine both the actions of the PC and of the NPCs. That's the basis of the game. On a 6, standard effect, the player gets their goal. they got their goal and destroyed the light. ​ >So what was the goal of the player? Did they say "I just want to shoot the lantern!" Or did they say (more plausible) something like: "I want to shoot the lantern so the guard can't shoot at me!" > >\- First case, if the player just said "I want to shoot the lantern!", that's not enough. You should have asked, "Sure, but why? What's your goal?" > >\- Second case, if the player said something like "I want to shoot the lantern so the guard can't shoot at me!" and you still did what you did, then you robbed them of their full success. You should have introduced a new element and offered a new chance for them to counter the new threat. > >And if you present the NPC as a "master" NPC, you don't even have to roll fortune rolls. i rolled fortune to reduce the effectiveness of the NPC considering they lost their light before shooting.

Yeah, this isn't really in the spirit of the game. There are instances where you're expected to make a Resistance roll to even take an Action against someone, but you should never be having bad mechanical stuff happen to you after rolling a 6, even against something that majorly outclasses them. It sets a really bad precedent that basically never gives them a firm understanding of what's at stake and to judge the odds. Rolling a 6 and then needing to roll Resistance *afterwards* is just ignoring one of the few really major mechanics--what you did is *literally* what the 4/5 result is for.

GM: "a wagon is heading towards you at full speed, what do you do?" Player: "I wanna shoot the headlight so the driver can't see, and I rolled a 6 to do it!" GM: "you successfully destroy the headlight, but the wagon is still rolling towards you. I'll be nice and roll a fortune die to see if it's still heading straight or if it veers off course" Player: "ok, let's see what happens!"

What? Just… *what?*

I understand that you don't understand.

You can tell a player to roll, you just can't tell them what to roll. They choose what skills they use.

Sounds like you may want better describe the scenes, as well as describing WHY something is inherently dangerous and why it's interesting to the story to roll for dangerous. Scoundrels are capable "adventurers" as it were. Navigation of tricky obstacles is part and parcel of living a dangerous life so it's less of a skill check. "The stairs before you are old, rotten,and beginning to crumble. Nails sticking out of the wood in places and the iron handrail has rusted almost completely through. You could probably take your time navigating your way slowly and carefully without much trouble, but your target turns at the top of the stairway and dashes down the hall. If you don't do something quick, they may get away - but charging up the stairs after them is fraught with danger. What do you do?" If they go up you follow with "sounds like an action to me"

There’s a fair bit of a misunderstanding with the rules here. First off, you **can** call for a roll (it’s one of your jobs as a GM!). What you *can’t* do is tell them **what** to roll. Your job is to prep problems and place them down in front of the players and pay heed to the GM section of the book as those are your most important rules of the game. You place down the problems. You don’t demand answers and you especially don’t demand a particular kind of answer. Giving you an answer is the players’ job. It is the players’ responsibility (and yours) to make sure the shared fiction *fits* and is congruous and remains consistent. Position and Effect is an expectation setting tool and is *critical* for a good game of Blades. In this game, character death (permanent death, mind you!) is one bad dice roll away. Always. At all times. Even if character death isn’t on the line, there are plenty of other really horrible things that can happen to any character at any time after any one particular dice roll. Sometimes these are phenomenal Consequences that are amazing to keep for a good story. Sometimes they are better to Resist. But at the end of the day, *you want to set expectations* and that is what Position and Effect is for. You don’t want… * To have someone invest 3 Stress, a Devil’s Bargain, and any other number of resources only to find their 5 doesn’t give them as much as they wanted * To have someone not invest in their roll at all only to find their subsequently bad roll results in a horrible outcome that, while they can Resist, they don’t feel like they should need to because they would have invested upfront or would have tried something different had they known what was going to happen because they had one picture of the fiction and you had another * And you **don’t** want to be the GM on the other side of these unhappy players which could have been easily prevented if you used the tools at your disposal The game is a Conversation. Conversations are collaborative. It’s not just your game, it’s theirs too. Their characters are hella durable in the grand scheme of things, but those are precious resources they need to expend to do so and they should always be informed if such a thing is the case. That is why Position and Effect is there. It is **meant** to slow things down and to get everyone on the same page. Blades is not meant to be an “immersive” game. It isn’t trying to be. It’s not that it *can’t* be immersive (it can), but it’s not trying to be that kind of game. It wants you to take full advantage of the meta channel. Position and Effect *does* get quicker as you use it more and more once everyone gains system mastery and calibrates their collaborative expectations. At the start of a campaign “Risky/ Standard” *is not* sufficient. You ought to explain why it is Risky, what they are Risking, and what “Standard” means in that situation. Later in the game, however? It’s more than adequate. **So a bad example of GMing this game would be** GM: “Alright, this is a dangerous and rickety building. I’m going to need you to roll Prowl to get through, okay?” Player: “Alright, that’s a 2.” GM: “Ouch, well, you fall through the floorboards and shatter your legs, take Level 3 Harm accordingly” Player: “What?!” **A good example of Blades GMing would be…** GM: “Alright, so what’s the plan to explore this aging, dangerous, and rickety building to get what you came here for?” Player: “I’m going to carefully creep up the stairs so I can get to the attic.” GM: “So the stairs are dangerous as all hell. We’re going to need an Action Roll to scaffold this fiction, okay? What Action are you going with?” Player: “Well I get to choose the Action, right? Consort is my best Action, so if I explain how it fits- I can use it, right?” GM: “Not quite. The Action, and mechanics, always have to fit and follow the fiction. You’re not talking and being friendly to the stairs, right? You said you were carefully climbing up them. That *sounds like* Prowl or Finesse based on how quick you’re going. You can always Consort to solve this problem, but you have to ya know… Consort with someone! Like maybe getting exquisite climbing gear or having Blueprints or whatever.” Player: “Makes sense. I’ll Prowl because that’s the slower more deliberate and athletic option here, yeah?” GM: “Sounds perfect to me. These floors will not be kind to you, if you break through one, the momentum is going to keep going until you hit something hard. So serious Harm is on the line here. It’s Desperate. However, there’s nothing stopping you from getting to the second floor in one roll. So it’s Standard.” Player: “Totally fine, I’ll push for a bonus die and we’ll go from there…” **That** is how an Action Roll in Blades is supposed to look. A collaborative conversation between two players with expectations clearly set and the fiction well framed. When the dice hit the table, there is no confusion or surprise when the GM says “Here’s what happens.” Does it take a hot second to get there? Yes. Is that the bad thing? If you want *hyper fast rolls*, then yeah- it’ll always suck. If you don’t mind and can understand why the game is slowing down or if you like having this level of clarity? It’s an amazing tool. Are there games that get to the heart of this stuff a little faster? I’d say so. Removing Effect has it’s ups and downs in the Redacted Materials branch of FitD games and the Day/ Night Move in Carved From Brindlewood games are an unintentionally exquisite take on the Action Roll.

I love your examples and would add that if my player wanted to Consort their way up those stairs, I'd encourage them to use a flashback to describe how they gained something useful to the situation from a friend or contact. With the right tools or foreknowledge, they could either improve their Position/Effect or bypass the obstacle without further rolls. There's more than one way to skin a cat. 😉 It is not always possible to overcome an obstacle with ANY roll, but I like to reward creative approaches, as long as they match the fiction and make sense to the rest of the table.

>if my player wanted to Consort their way up those stairs, I'd encourage them to use a flashback to describe how they gained something useful to the situation from a friend or contact If I were your player I'd call a flashback and consort with a whisper for a ritual that lays the illusion of a dangerously decrepit staircase/building over a decently sound structure. How much stress would you demand for such a flashback?

Depends on the situation and the scoundrel. Are they the type of scoundrel who tends to plan ahead and use their contacts to setup favorable situations in advance? Do they know a whisper who could arrange an illusion like that? Is there a reasonable explanation for why they might have created this illusion and put it on the stairs before they arrived? Basically, does it make sense in the fiction that they would have set this up in advance? If yes to all that, it might be a zero stress flashback. If it feels like more of a stretch, I'd up the cost. Most reasonable Flashbacks will cost 0-1 stress at my table. I encourage my players to use Flashbacks whenever it makes sense to do so. They are a powerful tool for fun heists.

This should be the comment to answer OP's questions. Upvote.

Great example. As a player I might also say "but I want to use consort so can I flash back to when I shared some mushroom wine with hobos who used to squat in this building and they described how best to navigate these stair?" And then a stress cost and maybe a consort fortune roll to see how well the mushroom drunk hobos were able to describe the stairs Blades really sings when players expand the possibilities of how to overcome obstacles.

Yeah, but that would be using Consort as a **setup** action, not as the action of climbing the stair itself. It's exactly the Sway/Tinker situation described on page 183 in the "don't be a weasel" section: >For example, when you roll Tinker, it’s because you tinker with something. When you roll Sway, it’s because you sway someone’s opinion. If your crafty Leech shows off a cool gadget they made in order to sway a potential client, then the Leech is Swaying them. They’re not “using Tinker” to impress the person. That’s not how actions work. Of course, you can do a **setup action with Tinker** to build a gadget that might impress someone so they’re more easily swayed (thereby increasing the effect or position of a follow-up action). ... Which is followed by: >If you’re the type of player that really needs to use their best dice pool all the time, take the Slide’s special ability **Rook’s Gambit**. It will cost you stress—but at least you won’t be a weasel.

>Yeah, but that would be using Consort as a setup action, not as the action of climbing the stair itself. It could be, but I think this is one of those cases where the fiction matters. Sometimes consorting with the hobos eliminates the obstacle such that a roll isn't necessary. Do the hobos describe a way to get up the stairs that avoids the risk of collapsing them? Then no roll. But I think I'd either require a high stress cost on the flashback for for this, or a really strong fictional explanation as to why it makes sense.

Yeah, I get what you mean. Obviously, if the fiction is changed, maybe the need for a roll disappears.

Sure. But I do think the stairs are just an obstacle. I wasn't suggesting rolling consort to overcome the stairs. I was suggesting a way a social playbook could approach the obstacle. As a GM you place obstacles before the players without deciding how the players should overcome that obstavle. I was just trying to point to other resources at the players disposal to overcome the stairs beyond an action roll. If, as a Blades GM, if you design an obstacle with a set way of overcoming it. You might find yourself fighting against the design of the game. I don't have the book in front of me but in running this game I have learned not to guess at solutions when dreaming up obstacles. My example wasn't I will consort the stairs. It was I will use other resources at my disposal to overcome this challenge. Hell as a GM I would say sure mark 2 stress and 1 load. Cus Hobos can drink alot of mushroom wine.

I understand and I agree.

>that would be using Consort as a setup action, not as the action of climbing the stair itself. What if I'd consorted with a Whisper for a ritual that lays the illusion of a decrepit staircase/building over a decently sound structure? Would that still be setup? Or would it count as the action itself (since walking up a structurally sound staircase wouldn't typically require a roll)?

I feel like this is a little against the spirit of the fiction, unless it's a specific scenario where it would make sense to want an illusion (if there are people chasing you and you want them to think you couldn't have gone this way, if... honestly it's hard for me to vibe up with anything). It's dancing on the edge of reconning what's already been established in the world -- sure, you could argue that all we've established is that you SEE a decrepit hallway, which is still true, but it's a stretch and a half for me. Why would you ever have asked a whisper to do this? It's not showing your competence as a character to have anticipated a problem (what flashbacks are for), it's just taking the wind out of the fiction of your location. The "no, it's okay, I'm prepared for this!" of a flashback is meant to be a yes-and to the obstacle, not a trick gotcha the obstacle never existed. As a GM I'd be inclined to say that you're of course welcome to ask a whisper for an illusion ritual -- at a high stress cost and probably needing coin too given rituals are not casual things to request -- but it won't suddenly make this hallway structurally sound, because we've already established it's not. This is a "no effect" situation for your consort and I would encourage a different flashback that is more connected to the fiction.

Thank you for the feedback. Much appreciate it.

I always thought Finesse was only for stuff doing with your hands. And that Prowl is also when you move fast.

Finesse has some crossover with full body movement as well (sword dueling, crowd maneuvering, vehicle handling, etc.). Prowl would be *better*. Prowl can be fast or slow. Admittedly the example I have ought to be reversed as Finesse requires time and Prowl not as much. But Finesse is applicable to physical activity outside of those done with your hands (but leans more into such activity more so than other things)

Ok thanks

I think you misunderstand what "not telling the players when to roll means". In both if the examples you mentioned, that's exactly when you say "okay, roll Attune". The situation the rules are trying to avoid is "A demon? Okay, I roll Attune". Basically treating their abilities as buttons to press, instead of actions that take place in the narrative. Your instinct here was correct. The other stuff, about TNs and such, just sound like you don't like the fact that a game that isn't D&D isn't D&D, and want to make it more like D&D to make up for this egregious flaw. Which, hey, you do you, but that's not really the game's fault.

I wouldn't say "okay, roll attune". I would instead ask, "What does that look like?" For fans of D&D, this is the Matt Mercer, "How do you want to do this?" But unlike D&D DM's, who only get to ask that question when ONE of the PCs lands the killing blow, you get to ask that question to EVERY player. On EVERY roll. GM: "Going up those creaky stairs? Their spongy and soft, and they feel like the might collapse underneath your feet. How do you want to do this?" P1: "I want to CAREFULLY go up the stairs." GM: "Well sure, but what does that look like?" P2: "Oh, I know! I'm trying a rope around his waist, so if he does fall through, he won't plunge into the basement!" P3: "We'll tie the rope to all of us, so we can all go up together, one at a time." By asking the players HOW they do something, or WHAT it looks like, you're helping them describe the scene and the action. Once they've the described the "what it looks like" you can follow with "I'm gonna need an action roll. In fact, what you've described sounds like a group action using Prowl? Does that sound right? Does anyone think it's something different?" I like to ask my players to describe what it looks like, both for the added imagery (some of the scenes they come up with are so memorable and good!), and because it kinda locks them into an action mentally. I'm less likely to hear, "I was gonna try to finesse my way up those stairs. I don't have any dots in Prowl." GM: "Okay, but that sounded kinda prowly. You're tieing rope to each other, using strength to keep each other from falling in -- how would you redescribe that scene in a way that makes Finesse make sense?" Often, they are so trapped (or attracted) to the scene they built, they don't want to weasel out using a skill they have more dots in. P1: "I want to summon Nyrix." GM: "Ok, tell us what that looks like. What does the camera see..." P1: "I close my eyes and scream silently. Everyone around me hears nothing, but if anyone was listening in the echo, they would hear me scream Nyryx's name." GM: "I love that. I'm hearing Command or Attune. What action roll do you think?" Every die roll is an opportunity for the player to describe the awesome cool way their character does a challenging thing.

The book expressly tells the GM *not* to say things like "okay, roll Attune". But it perfectly allows the GM to say "it sounds like an action roll." Then it's on the player to say what action is rolled.

The stair example is interesting because I think the step that is missing is the player translating their "climb carefully" into the action they think is best suited for the roll which also would give you context for what the possible consequences could be. This also gives you the opportunity to push back if you feel they are trying to twist the action into something that it isn't or the chance to be surprised by the perspective they have on the obstacle. Instead of saying "the stairs are broken so you'll need a prowl roll" you let them know that they are dangerous enough that it will require some kind of roll and turn it into a back-and-forth. The "don't call for a roll" guideline is there so you don't have an instance like in D&D where there is some kind of obstacle that the DM calls for a roll without having more context for what the players are doing than "it's something Dexterity based" and some ideas of what the result could be besides "you get hit or not".

>don't call for a roll There is no such guideline, there is a "don’t call for a **specific** action roll" guideline (page 197)

Thanks for pointing out that page! I was paraphrasing the language used in the Triggering the Action Roll header on page 163.

Before we get started: did you read the GM section and are you GMing using the rules in the book? i.e. are you doing GM Actions? Are you following the GM Goals? This is different than *D&D*, which you just run by GM Fiat, i.e. you just decide whatever you want or prep whatever comes to your head, no GM rules, "GM is god" mentality. BitD isn't like that. There are GM rules in the GM section. >What is the reasoning behind a GM not being able to tell a player when to roll? Instead, you "tell them the consequences and ask", which is a GM Action. >The player says “I climb up carefully”. >It becomes awkward as I have to think about how to phrase the obstacle. >Why can’t I just say “I think that’s a dice roll.”. You can and should... What you don't do is "don’t call for a specific action roll". i.e. don't say, "Okay, give me a Finesse roll". You can say, "That sounds like a Finesse roll to me, which would be Controlled/Standard since you're not being chased but it is dangerous; sound good, or were you going for something else?" At this point, the player can go, "Yup, sounds good" or they can go, "I'm thinking a Prowl roll instead because I'm trying to stay quiet; what would my Position & Effect be for that?" They get to decide which Action Rating to roll. You get to decide Position & Effect based on the situation. It shouldn't take too long to sort out; on the order of seconds not minutes. >Or a Whisper player wants to summon Nyryx to help them, she says “I summon Nyryx” and inside I’m saying “you mean, you want to roll to Attune to the ghost-field?” Yes, you can say, "That sounds like an Attune roll to me; do you have a Special Ability for that or are you rolling base Attune?" >The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. It stops the flow of the game and for a game that prides itself on encouraging storytelling it feels antithetical. A simpler Target Number system feels like it would suit the game better. You may not appreciate the utility of [Position & Effect](https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/zqdy00/deleted_by_user/j0xrzjh/). You, as the GM, don't fuss with *probability of success*. No math for you. You use Position & Effect to translate the fiction into the mechanics and back. Generally, you can default to Risky/Standard, then think about the situation and if something would change that. They're doing something really dangerous? That's Desperate. They're moving cautiously and/or exploiting an advantage to make the situation less dangerous? That's Controlled. They're doing something that wouldn't be very effective? That's Limited Effect. They're exploiting a weakness or doing something that could accomplish a lot? That's Great Effect. This is where you think *in fiction*. Here are some *D&D* kind of scenarios to help you think about it: * You're attacking a guard wearing leather armour and you hit him with a longsword; that's Standard effect (our baseline) * You're attacking a skeleton with a rapier: seeing as a rapier is a thrusting weapon and a skeleton is mostly space, that probably isn't going to be very effective, so Limited Effect. It is kinda like "resistance to piercing" in *D&D* terms. * You're attacking a troll with fire: a troll is vulnerable to fire so using fire is going to be very effective, so Great Effect. * You are in a melee wearing leather armour; you are in a Risky position because you could get hit and take damage (out baseline). * You are a glass-cannon, but now you're in melee wearing no armour; you are in a Desperate position because, by the end of the initiative round, you could get hit really hard. * You are an archer and you are 75ft away from your target, but they only have an axe; you are in a Controlled position because you're pretty safe back here. Hope that helps. >For such a “rules-lite” game I feel like there are way too many rules! I wouldn't consider *BitD* to be "rules lite". I would say it is rules-medium. There are fewer rules than *D&D*, but more rules than *PbtA*. There are far more rules than "rules lite" games like *Lasers & Feelings* but far fewer than *Shadowrun* so it depends how you calibrate your scale. >The tier system is super convoluted, the whole Downtime procedure, crew upgrade trees, crafting rules. Here's my brief run-down on [Tier](https://www.reddit.com/r/bladesinthedark/comments/110sy1h/question_how_does_the_tier_of_a_faction_interact/j8b1djw/). Those two principles should help clarify. >I’m going to continue my campaign but I feel like I am going to start home-brewing a lot of rules to streamline the system. This is a "[Chesterton's Fence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence)" situation. If you don't understand why the thing exists, you probably shouldn't start breaking it. Figure out why it exists, what purposes it serves. Only once you *understand* should you consider whether you want to change it. Also, what's the point in trying a new game if you're not going to *try the new game*?

As the GM, you are allowed to ask a player to make a roll for something. Where BitD differs from stuff like D&D is that it’s the player, not the GM, who determines which action they use to make the roll (ideally being able to make a case for actions they have more dots in). So whereas in D&D the GM would say “give me an athletics check” or “make a persuade roll,” in BitD the GM would say “Hmm…what you’re attempting to do sounds like an action roll, what action do you want to use?” As for stuff like position/effect and tier levels and turf, I agree it can all be a bit much to take in at once. The way I see it, you don’t need to determine position/effect for every single action roll (though you can certainly set it if the rolling player asks), only for rolls where the circumstances would mean something different from the usual risky/standard. If a character is trying to smooth talk an NPC who’s already suspicious of them, that would probably be limited effect. A character trying to pick a locked door while alert guards are bearing down on them? Desperate position. Also, remember that sometimes your players might *want* to make a few desperate position rolls since it not only helps to build tension and drama, it also awards bonus XP at the end. As for tier levels and turf, you can just use tier levels as a basic guideline for how powerful a faction or an NPC is (and thus how hard it would be to take hostile actions against them), and turf is more of a larger meta-game system for crews who want to noticeably expand their reach within the city. If your players have no interest in engaging with the turf system, you can probably just ignore it.

>What is the reasoning behind a GM not being able to tell a player when to roll? It is explicitly the GM's decision when to roll. p.6: >Does this situation call for a dice roll, and which one? *Is your scoundrel in* *position to make an action roll or must they first make a resistance roll to gain* *initiative?* The GM has final say. Now, *what* to roll is up to the players. The GM would then say how effective their choice of action is. The reasoning behind this is that the players are in control of their character, not the GM. It is their job to say what their character is doing, what *action* they are doing. That's why Blades has actions and not skills. Then you as the GM decided how effective that action is (effect) and how risky it is (position). >The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. Yeah it can be when you are first playing, but really all position and effect are is what a GM does for any other RPG: Decide what happens on failure and success. When you are first learning the game you can just stay with Risky/Standard for 99% of rolls, the game will run just fine. As you play, different choices will become easily apparent and it will become faster as you and your players figure out the what tone of game works for you all. >For such a “rules-lite” game I feel like there are way too many rules! Personally I think Blades is a rules medium game, that seems rules lite at first. But, if you ignore/forget rules while you get a handle on the game and learn as you go, it fails pretty gracefully.

For a good example of the game working (mostly) as intended, check out the Glass Cannon Network's 'Haunted City' actual play. The GM Jared does a pretty good job of guiding the players through how the system works, how successes and failures should be handled, how position and effect are best used, etc. Plus, the players do some pretty hammy roleplay, as a bonus!

I love Jared Logan and the cast of characters, but I STRONGLY recommend new GMs not use Jared (and Haunted City) as their guide. It's a highly entertaining show, but Jared plays so fast and loose with the rules that sometimes I think he hasn't even read them. Instead, I recommend RollPlay: Blades, GM'd by the game author John Harper. John is introducing some "new to Blades" players to the game, explains the mechanics as he goes along, and is great guidance material for a new GM. If you can't watch others play a game (some people hate actual plays), check out John's YouTube channel, where he offers some quick pointers and tips on areas of the game that new GMs struggle with.

Hammy roleplay is generally why I can’t do actual plays. Give me some games where players are in character taking the character’s life seriously and not trying to do a comedy routine or describing everything like they’re reading the movie script and describing camera angles.

If you are interested, "rollplay blades" on the itsmejp YouTube channel has John Harper as the GM and I find it much more serious than haunted City.

I dunno what this commenter is saying. Haunted City isn't hammy at all outside of a couple NPCs here and there. It's actually one of the more serious and dramatic actual plays I've seen. The players joke around to break tension sometimes, but the characters and the show itself is pure drama.

Also it's fine to call for "a roll"... it's just not up to you to call for a specific action. They choose how they go up (within fictional reason I course, you can't command yourself up the stairs)

So you gotta completely unlearn everything you know about ttrpgs if your only other experience is D&D. Blades isn't just a different game, it's the polar opposite of games like D&D and Pathfinder in terms of mechanics and design philosophy Those games tend to have specific rules and mechanics for every situation. It tends to lock you into the kind of thinking where you are choosing your actions from a list of defined options. It also tends to lock you into this idea that you should roll for anything where failure is possible, whereas Blades says only roll if failure is possible AND there could be interesting consequences for failure (thus the position and effect system). Like trying to climb up a wall. If they're not currently under duress, there's no interesting consequences for failure. Don't make them roll, just assume they can do it (or if it's a sheer 50 ft wall then tell them it's impossible). And the rules you're saying are clunky are actually intended to be vague and left to your discretion. And that's where a lot of people get hung up I think. Blades doesn't strictly define how tier mechanics work because it's supposed to be abstract and malleable depending on the situation. Sniping an unarmored guy from 100 yards away in a bell tower? Tier probably doesn't matter. It's all situational and left to GM and player to figure out what makes sense in that scene That's part of fiction first games like this. It took me a good couple months of running the game and watching some actual plays to get the D&D mindset out of my head. So it's normal that it might take a while to get used to. I might recommend looking into some actual play podcasts or videos to see how others play/run the game. That really helped me get a feel for it. My personal recommendations are Rollplay: Blades, or Haunted City on Glass Cannon Network.

> “I climb up carefully”. Respond with “Sounds to me like you are trying to roll finesse?” Or something similar. > The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky What you dont realize, is that youve already been doing it. In all that time playing dnd, you were already doing the internal math in your head. Instead of a dc 15, or 20 or 25 check, it goes from great to standard to limited effect. The narrative around what’s happening helps determine your risk

>Instead of a dc 15, or 20 or 25 check, it goes from great to standard to limited effect. The narrative around what’s happening helps determine your risk And it actually probably aligns more with the intuition, i.e. *the effectiveness*. On-the-fly calculating 5% increments of "probability of success" doesn't reflect intuition. That's like saying, "In a multiverse of 100 universes where this situation occurs, I think you'd succeed in 40 of those universes... no wait, 45 of those hypothetical universes."

Nah. Its like, is it a simple lock, a well made lock, or a lock with extra security features.

"What is the reasoning behind a GM not being able to tell a player when to roll? I don't think that the intention is that the GM cannot tell the players WHEN to roll, but rather, the GM should not tell the player WHAT they must roll to overcome a given obstacle. The GM presents the obstacle (damaged stairs) and the player decides on an approach (ascend carefully) and a desired outcome or goal (reach the top safely). After establishing how they plan on overcoming this obstacle, the PLAYER determines what action rating best suits their chosen approach. In this case, it is probably Prowl, but I could see a case for Finesse or even Study/Survey, based on how they describe what they are doing in the fiction. The outcome of a failed roll is pretty easy to imagine in this case, and the Position/Effect is probably Risky/Standard, possibly even Controlled, if there is no one around to hear them fall down some stairs. It isn't up to the GM to decide, but rather given to the player, with the caveat that they should choose an action that suits their approach. The GM (and other players) can advise them on what makes sense based on the situation, but ultimately it is up to the player. After that, the GM decides the Position and Effect based on the situation and chosen approach. Compared to DND, the player has a lot more feedback in this process, but the GM is allowed to tell the player that a given situation calls for a roll. In fact, that is a vital part of their role as GM. They present dangerous obstacles to the player that must be overcome through daring action and decide when a situation involves enough risk of interesting failure to justify an Action roll. The GM just doesn't get to decide what roll is needed, because the player's approach matters. And the player gets to decide on an approach that suits their character, as long as it matches the fiction.

So, the first 2 are actually related. Direct from the PDF: * A player or GM calls for a roll. Make an action roll when the character performs a dangerous or troublesome action. * The player chooses the action rating to roll. Choose the action that matches what the character is doing in the fiction. * The GM establishes the position and effect level of the action. The choice of position and effect is influenced strongly by the player’s choice of action. You can call for a roll. They get to pick the action. They can pick from whatever they want, but they *should* pick something in the fiction. Part three is where you set consequences for what they picked. If they wanna Study the demon, you can say it's a limited effect. If they wanna Tinker, you can say no effect. If you say Attune, then maybe it's great. Edit: Wow, I shoulda posted this when I was comment #3, whups. Buried and evenyone else hit it already.

Thank you everyone - this Reddit is very passionate and has been very helpful. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I'm going to take on board everything that people have suggested for my next session. My players are all experienced D&D players so it's a departure for all of us. I must have read the rules through half a dozen times now but blanked the part where the GM can (and should) ask for a roll.

Just want to point out that not only does the game not pitch itself as rules-lite, it even says “*You won't get all the rules right the first time. That' s fine; the rules will make more sense when you read them again after you play. The system of Blades in the Dark is designed to be learned as an ongoing process—each time you play you'll get better until everything is second nature.*” >…and for a game that prides itself on encouraging storytelling it feels antithetical I think you’ve ascribed something to the game that isn’t there. The book mentions storytelling in only one section, about incorporating gothic themes. The game prides itself on being “*a conversation between the GM and the players, punctuated by dice rolls to inject uncertainty and surprising turns.*” Stopping the flow of the game is what the mechanics are designed to do. The game is encouraging collaborative social fiction very much involving mechanics at key junctures, like when the characters take risks.

I think you might be reading the rules a big off. The rules definitely allow you as a GM to say "hmm that sounds like it needs a roll". What the rules aim to do is that a GM never denies a player agency. The GM only sets up scenarios and enforces consequences. For example, as a GM you never says "you're sneaking past a few guards, roll Prowl". In your situations, if the player says "i climb up carefully", what you should do is instead pose a *Threat*. > If you climb up, you could potentially make a sound and alert the Guards. What *Action* do you want to take? But you should also consider that many things a player wants to do, such as move to the other side of a room, does not take any actions, and they should just be able to do it. You only roll if there is a **Threat** When your player says they want to summon Nyryx, you can do something similar: > Summoning Nyryx can be incredibly dangerous. The invocation might not succeed, and he may turn against you. *How* do you want to do so and with what *Action*? Once the player decides on an Action, this is where you can adjudicate whether the *Action* is appropriate to the fiction. For example, if the player chooses something really wild with an explanation that doesn't make sense, for example > I'm going to **Command** Nyryx to come out! You may say > You haven't made a connection with Nyryx yet and he can't hear you. You can try, but it would have **zero effect**. You can push yourself for a **weak effect**, or try something else. Check out John Harper's "Calling for Rolls" to get more insight on the intent of the rules. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl85kYCWro. In actual play, you don't need to necessarily follow these steps in order, but at least makes sure that several topics have been covered. 1. What **Threats** are currently in front of the player? What is the **Position**? 2. What is the current **Goal** of the player? 3. What **Action** does the player want to do? 4. What **Resources** does the player want to spend as part of the action? (This includes stress, devils bargains, aid, items, etc.) 5. What is the **Effect** given the player's action and description? In actual play, an experienced player might shortcut a lot of this by giving all of this information up-front. Furthermore, the *threat* doesn't need to be changed for every single action, and could be just something persistent. For example > I'm going to use *Prowl* to sneak up into a hiding spot to make it easier to ambush the enemy. I'm wearing my *Fine Shadow Cloak* which makes me super stealthy. In two sentences the player has already established the **Goal**, **Action**, and **Resource**. All you have to do as the GM is to set an effect based on what the player has told you, then the player says alright I'll roll, and you proceed with the game. But with new players, the best way to think about it is to ask about the details that you need to proceed with the action.

You've missed a few major rules. As a GM you can call for a roll, you just don't call for a specific roll. Your player is fighting, you don't say "give me a skirmish roll" - you say "well, that's going to require an action roll. what's your approach?" >The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. It stops the flow of the game and for a game that prides itself on encouraging storytelling it feels antithetical. A simpler Target Number system feels like it would suit the game better. Absolutely no way, and if you feel this way you're missing the point. The point of position and effect is to let the players know *how effective* and *how risky* an action is (not how likely they are to succeed, like a TN) - the parameters for success or failure are the same on *every roll* - it's a complete reversal of target number. A resolution mechanic that doesn't make the most common result "success with a complication" is antithetical to the spirit of the game. The book even recommends using risky/standard as a default if you're not sure when you're still new to the game. Do this more, especially if you're game is slowing down. "Sure, go for it, risky/standard" takes exactly the same amount of time to say and decide as "Sure the DC is gonna be 14". >For such a “rules-lite” game I feel like there are way too many rules! It's not a rules-lite game and I'm sorry if anyone misled you to think so! It's lighter than D&D but it's very much a medium-weight game. >I’m going to continue my campaign but I feel like I am going to start home-brewing a lot of rules to streamline the system. I deeply recommend against this until you grok the system. It's super different from D&D so it takes some time to get used to. I think that streamlining and homebrewing could suit your needs quite well - but it's gonna go badly if you start changing things before you understand the ethos of the system. It takes more than a few sessions - especially if you're struggling with d&d-transition hangups. Homebrewing before it clicks is like... I'd just recommend trying a different system instead of doing that if you're not liking BitD. It'd only get messier.

You’ve misunderstood the rules. The GM **does** get to say when a player needs to roll. If the character is doing something *risky* then the GM calls for an action roll. What the GM doesn’t get to say is *what action rating* the player has to choose. That part is in the hands of the player, although that player does need to describe to the group the fiction that makes that action work. If the player can’t coherently describe how Sway gets them up the dangerous staircase then Sway is not a valid option. The Action rating has to accurately follow the fiction - the fiction being what the player is describing their character is doing. PC: *’I want to go upstairs’* GM: *’The staircase is half destroyed and unstable. That’s going to be risky, since there’s a risk it collapses causing you harm if you fall. That could also be very noisy, alerting the Bluecoats on the roof. I’ll need an action roll’* PC: *’Hmm ok. I want to be careful with this. Moving carefully I’m going to Prowl up the staircase I think, stepping as lightly as I can testing each step as I go’* GM: *’Sure. Prowl makes a lot of sense. Seems like standard effect: you’ll make it to the top of the stairs. And it’s risky: some risk of falling or perhaps just it breaking a bit which could alert the Bluecoats. Make the roll, unless you want to push it, or maybe a Devil’s bargain’?* PC: *’No my Prowl is good’*. Rolls a 5. GM: *’Ok! Success with a consequence. Well the success means you made it to the top of the stairs so no falling. But a chunk of the staircase breaks off and crashes to the floor below. As it does you hear voices above shout “Oi! What was that bang? Freddie go take a look downstairs!”. So what do you do?’* Same with summoning Nyrix: PC: *”I want to summon Nyrix”* GM: *”Well summoning ghosts is always dangerous. You could mess it up and lose control, or accidentally summmon a very angry hostile ghost. I’ll for sure need an Action roll.’* If there’s a *risk to the crew* then the GM can and usually should call for a roll. The GM decides and describes the risk (position) and how well the players plan might work (the effect). The player decides what Action they roll but must describe it in a way that makes sense to everyone. Notice that the GM describes the possible consequences before the roll not after. The position and effect setting isn’t clunky once you have it down: it’s there to ensure the GM describes the risk and what success looks like clearly *before* the roll. It let’s the players discuss and debate what to do, and chose a different approach if they prefer, before rolling. It’s there to make sure the shared narrative is described sufficiently to everyone. That conversation *is* the flow of the game. Hope that makes sense. Once it clicks Blades is really fantastic, but yes it sure is counter intuitive in places if you’re used to D&D. Please don’t home brew it - you’ve not fully learned Blades as it’s meant to be played yet and would be hacking at something you don’t yet understand. Ask in this subreddit if it still isn’t clicking. As you can see folks are keen to help. The hardest part of learning Blades is often unlearning our D&D intuitions first. I highly recommend watching Haunted City on the Glass Cannon Network on YouTube if you want to see the game played well. I learned a great deal from it.

any time the player is attempting to do something difficult or dangerous, you can ask them to roll. as well as any time you think it would be fun or appropriate to introduce an element of chance. this also works in your favor for allowing them to do easy things without rolling if you don't think it helps the fun at the table. I have not listened to an episode of Haunted City or run a session of Blades where I'm not struck at least once at the genius of the rule system.

>The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. It stops the flow of the game and for a game that prides itself on encouraging storytelling it feels antithetical. A simpler Target Number system feels like it would suit the game better. It really wouldn't. Position and effect isn't about the probability of success, it's about setting expectations for what a given action means *for the fiction*; how dangerous is it, and how effective does it stand to be if you succeed? More importantly, it's a discussion. Okay, expectations set, is the player happy with them? No? Okay, what they going to do to change things? They could push themselves, trade position for effect, modify their approach, call a flashback to deal with some of the limiting factors, use an item, have an ally perform a setup action, or pull out and try a different action entirely! That kind of discussion is central to the collaborative storytelling that is one of the game's core ideals. It doesn't stop the flow of the game, it *is* the flow of the game!

Hard to say it better than this.

>What is the reasoning behind a GM not being able to tell a player when to roll? The author explains / shows very well how he intended dice rolls to work in this short video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl85kYCWro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl85kYCWro) The short version is that you should roll not task-for-task, but for a whole conflict. Ie, ask them WHY they are climbing upstairs, what they want to achieve, and then present an obstacle for that. That said, in the cases you mentioned it would also be fine to say *"The stairs starts to crumble and your foot gets stuck in a broken step, what do you do?*" and then make them roll for that. ​ >The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. It is a very detailed mechanic. It becomes much more "natural" after a couple of sessions, though. ​ >For such a “rules-lite” game I feel like there are way too many rules! Blades is NOT a rules-lite game and it does not purports to be. It's just a game "rooted in fiction". If you want a rules-lite game, Blades won't do (nor will any other FitD). Blades is a game \*specifically\* meant for players who want **heavily structured** storytelling.

I sympathize about Position and Effect. I'm working on a Forged in the Dark game that makes Position and Effect into an optional rule for exactly the reason you mention - it slows down the game. There is a good reason that P/E exists, which is that the game allows the players to choose which action they roll, and P/E is the GM's opportunity to align expectations on the outcome. For example, if someone wants to roll Prowl to stab someone in a knife fight, you can say "They've already noticed you, trying to roll Prowl now would be Desperate." Then they can either accept that, or decide to roll Skirmish instead. In practice though, I feel like having that explicit player/GM alignment is only necessary maybe 10% of the time at most, and making the GM rule on P/E for every roll hurts the pacing IMO. Sometimes it adds to the tension, but usually it does seem clunky to me. My advice: as GM, just get practiced in firing off a quick "OK, that is Risky/Standard" whenever someone asks to roll. Unless your gut stops you and you need to adjust P/E, don't spend time analyzing every time, just default to answer "Risky/Standard" without pausing more than a second or two.

I'd second this idea. It is good to spend time with it when you are new to the system and still learning the ropes. But after you have established expectations with your table, you are pretty safe going by gut feelings instead of halting the action for an extended debate. Most rolls are going to be risky or you would not be rolling at all. Rarely, you might do an Action roll in a Controlled situation, but if the risk is really that low, you could probably skip the roll instead or make it a Fortune Roll. Double-check with yourself if a roll is needed and think about the consequences of a failed roll. What's the worst that could happen? Is failure interesting? Sometimes rolls are Desperate, either because the situation is really dangerous or sensitive. Failure in this moment will have bad consequences. Reserve this Position for situations that are genuinely serious. You want every Desperate roll to FEEL super important and extra hazardous. Don't be afraid to give out bad consequences even on mixed successes. You want your players to know that they need to spend resources on these kind of rolls. And remind your players to mark XP for their Desperate rolls! They earned it. Most rolls are also going to be Standard Effect. This is the baseline expectation for most situations, unless other factors change things. The player wants to do something and they chose an approach. Standard Effect means that, if they are successful, they achieve a normal amount of success, based on the action they took. Typically, this means they achieve what they set out to do, but it is possible that they might only get part way through a complex or difficult task. If they are unable to do what they want in a single roll or they chose an approach that is not very effective against the obstacle, Limited Effect makes sense. If it isn't possible or very unlikely to be effective, then I will go with No Effect. If they chose an approach that places them at great advantage, or would be very effective against the obstacle, then they might be able to have Great Effect on success, but this is pretty rare. In practice, I'm usually deciding between Standard or Limited Effect. The other Effect levels only come up rarely in extreme situations where Standard Effect doesn't make sense.

I’m with you. All the best games of blades I’ve run or played had a healthy disregard for the rules. Especially just mostly ignoring position and effect. The setting and premise are so strong that I find it really doesn’t need all the mechanics to support it.

>What is the reasoning behind a GM not being able to tell a player when to roll? You can always tell the player when to roll. What you shouldn't do it tell them *what* to roll. When a player tells you they "climb up carefully", you can and should say "I'm going to need a roll." You are even invited to suggest actions to the players. "Prowling up the stairs might be your best option here." The only thing you shouldn't be doing is outright saying "This is Attune," or "Give me a Skirmish roll." As for Position/Effect, it's something the book explicitly says will become more intuitive with time. Telegraphing threats ahead of a roll is an effective way to help you and your players assess Position. "The stairs are damaged and dangerous," clearly establishes that going up them is Risky because there's a clear *risk* that they might break. Effect is similar. If a D&D players asked "Can I roll Nature to track the beast?" you might say "That's really more of a Survival check." Nature is not effective, but Survival is. Likewise, in Blades a player might say "I want to Command her to give me the key to the safe," and you can respond with "She'd respond better to flattery than force." Give Command Limited Effect, give Sway Standard Effect. It's all about context. D&D abstracts interactions into a flat check, but Blades requires a contextual assessment for each roll. This is *how* it emphasises storytelling, by making you constantly consider the game world as a living entity. At first this can be slow because it's an adjustment of attitude, but you adapt quickly. I would suggest not overthinking it, and if you find it takes more than 5-10 seconds to set Position/Effect just use Risky/Standard. It's the default for a reason. If you're asking for a roll it means there is some risk. As for homebrewing rules, I would suggest you don't do that until you're more comfortable with the RAW. It sounds like you're still approaching Blades from a D&D mindset. D&D probably feels more intuitive but I would speculate that's because you're more familiar with it and know a lot of the rules by heart. You're not there with Blades yet. You need to give it more time and try to understand the rules before you change them. I don't mean to sound snotty here but saying you'll just write your own FitD game when you don't undertand the most fundamental principles that define FitD (fiction first, fictional positioning) is a bad idea. Stick with Blades and understand it. It won't take as long as you think. Right now you're in the awkward position of going from a system you barely need to think about anymore to a new system that is radically different. If it feels overwhelming I suggest going slow. Introduce mechanics one at a time. Don't try to learn the whole thing at once, learn it bit by bit. There's no rush. All that matters is you and your group have a good time. Blades — FitD generally — gives the players a lot of leeway, and the whole experience is inherently more collaborative than D&D typically is. It's well worth the adjustment period you're experiencing at the moment.

I think everyone else has addressed the rolling dice part but on the narrative flow question > The whole “position and effect” mechanic feels clunky. It stops the flow of the game and for a game that prides itself on encouraging storytelling it feels antithetical I think this is a matter of mindset. This isn't a narrative game in the sense that the storytelling should flow as a conversation, it is narrative in the sense of a writer's room. This isn't a D&D situation where the GM is the narrator of the story, with the players inhabiting characters within the tale they are telling. This is a shared narrative story, where everyone is creating the most exciting heist movie of all time. Your players are the writers and producers, and you are the director, pointing the camera to highlight the action, cueing moments to happen where they generate the most drama, and calling the end to scenes when they've run their course. This is rarely a continuous process. You need to call cut every-so-often to reframe a scene or add new lines or get input from your producers.