Episode 23 of The Gauntlet Podcast released today! In this one, we discuss several games in the opening segment, including Jackson Tegu’s Kaleidoscope, Lost Days of Memories & Madness, and Paul Czege’s The Clay That Woke.
Our main topic is John Harper’s Blades in the Dark.
Now I’m worried it has become too mechanistic in later versions based on all the feedback he’s getting…
Now I’m worried it has become too mechanistic in later versions based on all the feedback he’s getting…
I VOLUNTEER AS TRIBUTE!!! To test play “Blades in the Dark”.
I VOLUNTEER AS TRIBUTE!!! To test play “Blades in the Dark”.
Nice episode! RE: the quick Clay segment…I haven’t played it, but maybe the jungle bits are supposed to be a sort of contrast/reprieve from the social elements of the rest of the game. Which might be why they felt fitting.
Nice episode! RE: the quick Clay segment…I haven’t played it, but maybe the jungle bits are supposed to be a sort of contrast/reprieve from the social elements of the rest of the game. Which might be why they felt fitting.
Thanks for the critique! I can address a couple points:
– No one is making this game except me. My goal is to make the game I want, not the game the fans want. I’m not offended by your conspiracy theory, though! That was amusing. 🙂
– The primary goal for Blades is to play fiction forward. It’s really interesting that you see the game as exactly backwards from how I intend it and how it’s played (IME). I think it’s probably an issue of presentation at this point. For instance, a progress clock is something that tracks the state of the fiction, not a mechanic that determines the fictional state. They’re like a speedometer (showing the current speed), not a control dial which sets the speed.
So, if you do a thing in the fiction that should finish off the clock, then you finish it off. All the mechanics and numbers are there to give players concrete tools to use beyond, “just do what seems right to you.”
So, yeah. Somehow I’ve given you the exactly backwards impression for how the fiction and the mechanics correlate in the game. That’s great feedback to get! I’ll definitely keep that in mind as I revise the text and how I present the systems.
I think your comparison to Burning Wheel is very apt. The game is quite crunchy (though it has fewer systems than DW or AW, in fact). It’s not quite my usual ultra minimal design. 🙂 I totally understand if it’s not a good fit for you.
Thanks again for the critique! I really appreciate the feedback.
Thanks for the critique! I can address a couple points:
– No one is making this game except me. My goal is to make the game I want, not the game the fans want. I’m not offended by your conspiracy theory, though! That was amusing. 🙂
– The primary goal for Blades is to play fiction forward. It’s really interesting that you see the game as exactly backwards from how I intend it and how it’s played (IME). I think it’s probably an issue of presentation at this point. For instance, a progress clock is something that tracks the state of the fiction, not a mechanic that determines the fictional state. They’re like a speedometer (showing the current speed), not a control dial which sets the speed.
So, if you do a thing in the fiction that should finish off the clock, then you finish it off. All the mechanics and numbers are there to give players concrete tools to use beyond, “just do what seems right to you.”
So, yeah. Somehow I’ve given you the exactly backwards impression for how the fiction and the mechanics correlate in the game. That’s great feedback to get! I’ll definitely keep that in mind as I revise the text and how I present the systems.
I think your comparison to Burning Wheel is very apt. The game is quite crunchy (though it has fewer systems than DW or AW, in fact). It’s not quite my usual ultra minimal design. 🙂 I totally understand if it’s not a good fit for you.
Thanks again for the critique! I really appreciate the feedback.
Do you think the issue is perhaps you’re trying to convey all the rules at an accelerated pace to make the quick start work without all the additional elements to soften the rules overload? John Harper
Do you think the issue is perhaps you’re trying to convey all the rules at an accelerated pace to make the quick start work without all the additional elements to soften the rules overload? John Harper
Yeah, that’s definitely a factor!
Yeah, that’s definitely a factor!
Jason Cordova and Daniel Lewis, have you ever thought about running a segment or show about specific mechanics and how you would improve them? I just got done re-listening to podcast no.3 PVP, and while you discussed the various problems you have found and those games that were better or worse at mitigating this issue, you never provided a possible solution.
It is just an idea, but I think it would be an interesting listen for you two and the guest host to do a little homework and each of you come up with a basic system related to one part of a story or rpg game which you think is lacking and then discuss the proposed solution on the show.
It could lead to some really interesting possibilities or at least a system that is so broken that it would be humorous. We tried something like this during the mandatory fun club events and for the most part failed spectacularly. At the time we were trying to create whole games from basic ideas. Working on just a small part of a game might prove to be more reasonable.
Apropos of nothing, I love the podcast and what you guys do. I cannot wait for the next segment no matter what it is.
Jason Cordova and Daniel Lewis, have you ever thought about running a segment or show about specific mechanics and how you would improve them? I just got done re-listening to podcast no.3 PVP, and while you discussed the various problems you have found and those games that were better or worse at mitigating this issue, you never provided a possible solution.
It is just an idea, but I think it would be an interesting listen for you two and the guest host to do a little homework and each of you come up with a basic system related to one part of a story or rpg game which you think is lacking and then discuss the proposed solution on the show.
It could lead to some really interesting possibilities or at least a system that is so broken that it would be humorous. We tried something like this during the mandatory fun club events and for the most part failed spectacularly. At the time we were trying to create whole games from basic ideas. Working on just a small part of a game might prove to be more reasonable.
Apropos of nothing, I love the podcast and what you guys do. I cannot wait for the next segment no matter what it is.
Wait, that’s all I get? :argh:
Wait, that’s all I get? :argh:
Ferrell Riley It’s Daniel Lewis’s fault – he was hurrying me up.
Ferrell Riley It’s Daniel Lewis’s fault – he was hurrying me up.
Such are the sacrifices we make for a high quality podcast
Such are the sacrifices we make for a high quality podcast
If you want to keep TQY fresh, try changing the setting. One of our coolest playtests was about a struggling colony on an alien planet. This was back when the game had factions, one player ended up representing the labor robots. Mix things up a bit and it gives you new contexts to interpret the same cards.
Also, Dan, and other elf haters, you should try Ron Edwards’ game Elfs, in which the elves are also conniving murderous bastards. Also maybe read Looking For Group, in which the Elves are the evil empire- no memory stealing, but still pretty cool.
If you want to keep TQY fresh, try changing the setting. One of our coolest playtests was about a struggling colony on an alien planet. This was back when the game had factions, one player ended up representing the labor robots. Mix things up a bit and it gives you new contexts to interpret the same cards.
Also, Dan, and other elf haters, you should try Ron Edwards’ game Elfs, in which the elves are also conniving murderous bastards. Also maybe read Looking For Group, in which the Elves are the evil empire- no memory stealing, but still pretty cool.