A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Aldarc]

Cool, because I don't like having to "getcha." If you would actually read what I am saying and not twist things around, you wouldn't be "got" by me. I made no assumption.

A desire to refrain from playing your "gotcha games" doesn't mean that you "got me." It means that I don't want to get roped into playing them by you. Please stop trying to turn every discussion into a competition to be won.

Then that's what you should have said instead of inventing fiction about me making assumptions.

Your "because if" still implies things about the game, reality, etc. that are not necessarily true. For example, your entire bit about 3 rounds of combat in "Into the Odd" being 18 seconds is most definitely an assumption that you bring from D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

If I'm reading [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] correctly, that system doesn't have any means of completely avoiding damage ("endurance drain") - though it seems you can try in the fiction to avoid being hit, you'll be hit anyway. Put another way, every attack hits at least to some extent with the only variable being how much damage is inflicted.

That said, a question for [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] : [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] may have a valid point, I think, in questioning how long it takes to recover endurance loss suffered through avoided attacks (i.e. simple combat exertion) vs non-avoided attacks.

I say "may have" above in that the answer will largely depend on the answer to a bigger question: whether endurance drain is seen as fatigue (easy to recover) or "meat" damage (not so easy to recover) or a combination of both, or whether the game system bothers with such distinctions. In the realism-authenticity debate this matters because 99% of the time fatigue "damage" is easier to recover from than "meat" damage - after hard exertion you can recover for a few minutes and be good to go again (e.g. a hockey player does a shift on the ice, recovers for a few minutes on the bench, and is good to go for another shift) but if your finger gets mashed that's gonna hurt for days.

I don't necessarily think that it matters. From what I recall, and maybe [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] can clarify his views, but he plays (per RAW) in 5E that the first half of hit point loss is luck, fatigue, abstracted that do not reflect actually being "hit" while the second half of hit point loss are "meat" hits. However, 5E does not make a distinction with how the first half (fatigue/luck) are recovered versus how the second half (meat) are recovered. In fact I am not sure if D&D makes a distinction between the recovery of HP. The closest is maybe subdual damage from 3E though subdual represents damage inflicted meant to subdue. Star Wars in 3E distinguished between wounds and HP. One could make the argument that D&D does this by distinguishing between HP damage and ability score damage. But [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I'm not sure that this is a clear cut valid point at least without not scrutinizing the assumptions that our own games (namely D&D) about these sort of things.

 

[Lanefan]

As a professional who must engage in travel to do my job, I very rarely find I lack a tool to overcome an issue onsite. We take drills, hardware, test equipment, etc. Long experience informs our packout. Assuming my character has long similar experience with their job and can reasonably plan ahead, I don't know why I as a player should akso have such experience.

The corollary questions then become, how many tools do you take on a typical site visit that don't end up getting used? And, is this all gear that's carried by you or is it carried by/in a vehicle to be pulled out if and when required?

I ask because the comparison being made is with examples of game mechanics trying to emulate limits - in some cases rather severe limits - where people are carrying only what they themselves can carry. The character isn't taking a gear-laden horse to the site of the score, for example, if for no other reason than its presence would likely be a dead giveaway that someting was afoot.

Another possible flaw with your real-life example is that you-as-you quite likely have means of information access a typical PC probably doesn't. For example (and not knowing anything more about your specific job than what you've posted here) it's reasonable to think you can phone ahead to someone already on site, ask what the issue is, and then pack to suit. A character on the other hand, has to prepare for a possibly very wide range of potential occurrences as best she can within her limitations as enforced by the game mechanics in use.

However, addressing your point, I would think that a player is akways making chouces to "win" (whatever that means) by succeeding at their chisen tasks. Isn't, then, all play tmaimed at trying to succeed "gamist" under your definition, including, say, trying to preplan your gear to be as comprehensive as possible? In short, your definition isn't very useful in analyzing ehich parts of a game are "gamist."

There's an admittedly fine line sometimes between playing to a character's own sense of self-preservation and outright gamism...it's one of those things where even though there's no hard and fast definition you kind of know which is which when you see it.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, that was poor wording on my part. What I meant was that you may have a difficult decision about gear without there being some RP related reason to make a supoptimal choice. Like the fastidious elf who wants to have a grooming kit....the game is not as concerned with such RP only related decisions.

Ah, OK.

Well, every serial is made up of episodes. What Blades does is try to make those episodes one session each. There could be any number of linked Scores where one leads to the next and then the next and so on.....but the game as designed expects each session to contain a Score. That's not always the case, though.

The game doesn't push back too heavily against extending a Score, though. The main area is that XP is intended to be awarded at the end of each session. So idealy, you'd complete a session and a Score, and then get XP. If a Score takes more than one session, do you grant XP per session or per Score? That would be the big question.

Having said that, the setting is different than most D&D style settings in that you generally aren't going on long expedition/excavation style missions. The setting is an urban location, and the characters are a gang or similar criminal group within that city. So usually, you're performing a heist or an attack on a rival or springing someone from jail or some other activity that won't be like a prolonged dungeon crawl.

So a completely different setting as well, then, from the typical pseudo-medieval or pseudo-renaissance D&D. Got it.

Given this, then short missions being the basis of (most) play makes much more sense.

Fair enough. But then if things don't go well, do they have to retrieve their belongings? If they flee, is all their gear lost?

What is this thing you call "flee"?

Unless there's extenuating curcumstances it's easy to assume they swoop by and at least pick up their packs on the way out. Where it gets nasty is if the foe has a teleporting effect when it hits an opponent...but even then not all their gear is lost - they'd still have whatever they were wearing, and what they had in hand, and what they had in small containers e.g. belt pouches or scabbards. But it's still a headache for the characters.

One effect dropping gear does have is that if the dropped gear gets hit by an AoE effect its saves are "unattended" i.e. it doesn't get any bonuses that the owner might give it were it being carried.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing the system....it's fine. But I just think it's not really very realistic when you scrutinize it at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's perfect. It just seems a little better than ignoring it all.

I don't think the inventory slots versus item weight is more metagame. I could see that argument about the other aspect of being able to choose during play rather than ahead of play, even if I disagree with it. But inventory slots and item weight are trying to replicate the same thing....."a person can only carry so much".

In a broad sense, I agree. The question then is one of granularity in detail.

Okay, cool. I know many games where there isn't even a home base of any kind!

IME that would be unusual. The home base might not be the same for every character, mind you, but most if not all characters have a base of some sort.

In my current campaign, for example, Decks of Many Things have turned up The Keep far more often than random chance would seem to dictate (particularly for one specific player who seems to get one every flippin' time!); thus parties have their choice of several small castles to use as a base (and each owning character obviously bases him/herself at his/her own keep); three of these castles that have been put quite close together have become something of a base for nearly all now.

Early on in the campaign, before Keeps started springing up like weeds, one character built a small inn and pub which became home base for loads of people for a while. One character - who oddly enough isn't even a Cleric - has made a particular temple her home base, and it's hundreds of miles away from where most other characters base themselves.

Sure it does....if you encounter something that early in the Score, you have to decide if you want to devote an inventory slot or two to the challenge at hand, and risk not having something later on.

Maybe they decide to kill the dog. Maybe one of the other characters has a potion that could knock the dog out. In those cases, maybe they can get away without having to have someone devote an inventory slot to the meat.

To keep the example simple I've been assuming this score was being done by a character acting alone. Once you get a whole party involved then yes, it would be possible to cover way more eventualities in either system simply by having different people carry different things: "Joe, you take the cracker tools. Cindy, you're on ropes. Bobbie, pitons and grapnels are yours. Pips, you're the bagman once we get in. I'll worry about lights and covers. Everyone got a weapon and face charcoal? Right, let's go!"

But yes, the character could decide to kill the dog - or try to - and risk a lot of noise; or could even try to tame or befriend the dog, again at some risk if the attempt fails.

I don't think there's any way (or desire) for the GM to guarantee failure. Most obstacles can be overcome in more than one way, and there are multiple crew members, so a variety of challenges is desired, really.

Fair enough.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't necessarily think that it matters. From what I recall, and maybe [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] can clarify his views, but he plays (per RAW) in 5E that the first half of hit point loss is luck, fatigue, abstracted that do not reflect actually being "hit" while the second half of hit point loss are "meat" hits. However, 5E does not make a distinction with how the first half (fatigue/luck) are recovered versus how the second half (meat) are recovered. In fact I am not sure if D&D makes a distinction between the recovery of HP. The closest is maybe subdual damage from 3E though subdual represents damage inflicted meant to subdue. Star Wars in 3E distinguished between wounds and HP. One could make the argument that D&D does this by distinguishing between HP damage and ability score damage. But [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I'm not sure that this is a clear cut valid point at least without not scrutinizing the assumptions that our own games (namely D&D) about these sort of things.

Fair point re D&D; we long ago overlaid a body-fatigue system on to hit points in 1e D&D because of just this, along with mechanics for how they do recover differently.

IMO 5e seriously missed the boat on this - they got down to the dock by having h.p. be first-half luck and second-half a bit meatier, but then failed to get aboard by having them recover differently. 4e, for all its other failings, was really on to something with its 'bloodied' mechanic...and even there could have taken it a lot further.

But I was more asking you about the system (whose name I forget now) that you were referencing upthread and that Max was responsding to, where every attack "drains your endurance" (I think that's the term you used for it), and how recovery works there.

 

[Aldarc]

But I was more asking you about the system (whose name I forget now) that you were referencing upthread and that Max was responsding to, where every attack "drains your endurance" (I think that's the term you used for it), and how recovery works there.

Into the Odd. I don't necessarily know if every attack drains your endurance. It's simply that there are no attack rolls, only damage. (Armor does mitigate damage.) So the fiction is loose with explaining and rationalizing the mechanics. "Draining your endurance" was one possible explanation among many rather than an official one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The corollary questions then become, how many tools do you take on a typical site visit that don't end up getting used? And, is this all gear that's carried by you or is it carried by/in a vehicle to be pulled out if and when required?

I ask because the comparison being made is with examples of game mechanics trying to emulate limits - in some cases rather severe limits - where people are carrying only what they themselves can carry. The character isn't taking a gear-laden horse to the site of the score, for example, if for no other reason than its presence would likely be a dead giveaway that someting was afoot.

Another possible flaw with your real-life example is that you-as-you quite likely have means of information access a typical PC probably doesn't. For example (and not knowing anything more about your specific job than what you've posted here) it's reasonable to think you can phone ahead to someone already on site, ask what the issue is, and then pack to suit. A character on the other hand, has to prepare for a possibly very wide range of potential occurrences as best she can within her limitations as enforced by the game mechanics in use.

When was the last time, in your game, someone said "shucks! I was going to bring [thing] but didn't have room for it?" Every time in my games it wasn't because it couldn't be sqeezed into someone's inventory but because it was not thought of. So, no, I don't see your corollary to be very telling at all.

D&D has always been loose with emcumberance because it's a gane that has a "bring the kitchen sink" style of play. A good question would be if this kind of player-aimed puzzle improves "realism" at all.

There's an admittedly fine line sometimes between playing to a character's own sense of self-preservation and outright gamism...it's one of those things where even though there's no hard and fast definition you kind of know which is which when you see it.

I do not, or, rather, this is not a problem I have at all. I expect my players to advocate for their characters, which neans they should be striving to succeed at all times. It's ridiculous, in a discussion of "realism" in games, to add a new term "gamist" that describes trying to succeed! I mean, to avoid "gamist" play as players we have to make suboptimal choices for our characters, but this is in pursuit of "realism?"

When will it be recognized that these terms and ideas are being presented not in service of a discussion of how games work but instead to protect a specific style of play? "Realism," "authenticity," and now "gamist" aren't being presented as things that describe how we play but instead as stand-ins to make subjective preferences sound less like subjective preference. We play pretend elf ganes, folks. It's okay to just say you like your elves this way and not have to make it seem like your elves are the most logical, most realistic, least gamey pretend elves there are.

There's value in discussing how we play, but not if your part is just trying to make your elves the most proper ones. How you like your elves is great! We can have different elves. But we can also talk about how you pretend in relation to elves in a way that might better play because we've looked at how play works and understand it better and so can get even closer to how we like our elves. So much of these discussions seem to be more a defense of a system rather than how we can best achieve our own version of pretend elves.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't necessarily think that it matters. From what I recall, and maybe [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] can clarify his views, but he plays (per RAW) in 5E that the first half of hit point loss is luck, fatigue, abstracted that do not reflect actually being "hit" while the second half of hit point loss are "meat" hits.

This isn't accurate. The second half are not meat hits. They are still skill, luck, fatigue, etc. hits, but ones which show some slight meat damage such as scratches, small cuts and bruising. There is only ever one true meat hit in 5e, and that's when the one being hit drops to 0.

However, 5E does not make a distinction with how the first half (fatigue/luck) are recovered versus how the second half (meat) are recovered. In fact I am not sure if D&D makes a distinction between the recovery of HP.

It's mostly consistent, except for that last hit. You can go from a hit that literally by RAW has you dying and then be up and going a short time later through use of hit dice or a long rest. I don't like that part of it at all. I am using a variant of the gritty realism rest variant. I don't mind a short rest being an hour, but I've made a long rest 7 days.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I’m not sure what the impediment to understanding is in this thread.

1. We make up systems in our heads so that we can represent certain phenomena in an exercise of shared imagination.

2. The systems are not empirically derived. We just make them up. We base them on “ideas” that we have about “things” in which we have no expertise: human recovery, medieval warfare, warp physics, mental illness – whatever. They are highly genre- and system-dependent.

3. These systems do not now become “realistic.” They are at best clumsy caricatures of a narrow selection of possibilities within the phenomena which we are representing.

The insanity mechanic in Call of Cthulhu does not add realism to CoC. The disease mechanic in 1e does not add realism to D&D. The mustering out process in Traveller does not add realism to Traveller. The glory mechanic does not add realism to Pendragon.

They are all little games which we play with our imagination in order to lend structure and emphasis.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What you say is true, however sometimes we employ research to determine actual limits and capabilities in the real world. These we attempt to port over to the game through various sub-systems of the rules.

There is a wide variance on how these limits and capabilities are interpreted given the goals and genre of the games we play. Given this, I'm really only quibbling with your second point.