A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

This is what I want, then gamble whether you get it is not very interesting decision.

I find it curious that you think combat in D&D is not very interesting.

Because that is literally what you describe happening here:

No, I'm describing a process by which the player has placed stakes on the table. Those stakes are what make the difference, not what they player just wants. I'm hoping that what the player wants goes to what stakes they set -- here the player chose a very weak action for that character because they made the in-character decision to try to keep their issues with their disgrace from the University and attempts to correct that to themselves. That the portrait turned out how it did was due to the stakes the player put on the table with the action declaration and the intent.

RNG is not interesting. What makes a good game is actually being able to study the situation and make either tactical or dramatic decisions based on that.

RNG is 100% not interesting. Please do your best to reconcile this with what I'm saying.

I was happy you'd read the SRD, but it really appears that you didn't try to understand it, you just skimmed it for new ways to use double standards.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not really. The means by which the PC examined the painting...Attuning to the Ghost Field...is an inherently dangerous thing. It’s like letting your mind touch the spirit realm. A similar thing in D&D would be traveling on the Astral Plane. It is dangerous to do so.

So, when the player rolled poorly, the consequences were in line with the nature of the action.

Much like if a fighter doesn’t put the orc down, he’s likely to be attacked by the orc. Or if the rogue fails to pick the lock, his lockpick may break. And so on. None of these consequences would be surprising to the player.

I’d imagine @Ovinomancer ’s player was not surprised to face that consequence.

Nope, he thought it was awesome. As I said, Blades may be too tailor made for this player -- they love big risks and bold play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Nope, he thought it was awesome. As I said, Blades may be too tailor made for this player -- they love big risks and bold play.

Hah that’s great. I’m currently running Galaxies in Peril, a FitD supers game, and one of my players is constantly trying to trade position for effect so that he can take Desperate actions and get some extra XP.

He’s perpetually in horrendous situations and facing horrible consequences. He loves it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not really. The means by which the PC examined the painting...Attuning to the Ghost Field...is an inherently dangerous thing. It’s like letting your mind touch the spirit realm. A similar thing in D&D would be traveling on the Astral Plane. It is dangerous to do so.

You say that but from everything that's being said about the game, the general play loop sounds like it's built upon these same kinds of "gambles" regardless of whether Attuning is used or not.

So, when the player rolled poorly, the consequences were in line with the nature of the action.

Yes, but the consequences weren't simply you failed to achieve your goal.

Perhaps it would help if I said, there are plenty of actions in plenty of D&D playstyles that can also be gambles. Some posters like iserith specifically talk about a playstyle where even skills like a perception check to hear through a door may cause guards to appear on a failure as a complication. I've never been particularly keen on how that works under his playstyle either.

Much like if a fighter doesn’t put the orc down, he’s likely to be attacked by the orc. Or if the rogue fails to pick the lock, his lockpick may break. And so on. None of these consequences would be surprising to the player.

If you are saying a fighter attempts to attack an orc minding his own business then yes the orc will start trying to attack him. But that's not contingent on whether the attack lands, it's contingent on the orc knowing he's tried to attack him. So no gamble there.

If you are saying the fighter and orc are already fighting and the fighter just misses, then that miss didn't raise stakes or make the orc more powerful. The orc didn't suddenly double in size and strength or become soul sucking because the fighter missed. There's no gamble there.

I’d imagine @Ovinomancer ’s player was not surprised to face that consequence.

Whether something is a gamble isn't affected by a player's surprise.

I guess to summarize - the inclusion of chance deciding the outcome isn't enough to make something a gamble. There must be stakes involved where you win something upon winning and lose something upon losing.

 

[FrogReaver]

I was happy you'd read the SRD, but it really appears that you didn't try to understand it, you just skimmed it for new ways to use double standards.

@Crimson Longinus

Note this response. Recall me choosing not to read the SRD. Seems doing so didn't matter in the slightest. Seen that coming a mile away...

 

[PsyzhranV2]

@Crimson Longinus

Note this response. Recall me choosing not to read the SRD. Seems doing so didn't matter in the slightest. Seen that coming a mile away...

God you are being so painfully smug right now

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Perhaps it would help if I said, there are plenty of actions in plenty of D&D playstyles that can also be gambles. Some posters like iserith specifically talk about a playstyle where even skills like a perception check to hear through a door may cause guards to appear on a failure as a complication. I've never been particularly keen on how that works under his playstyle either.

That's entirely on the GM, last I checked 5e doesn't have codified rules for guards randomly teleporting in Cyberpunk 2077 style.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Crimson Longinus

Note this response. Recall me choosing not to read the SRD. Seems doing so didn't matter in the slightest. Seen that coming a mile away...

Yes, you are correct. If the outcome of reading the SRD is to level claims where you're holding that game to a different standard than other ones, then there's no point in reading the SRD. Well done, glad you've spotted it!

 

[Ovinomancer]

You say that but from everything that's being said about the game, the general play loop sounds like it's built upon these same kinds of "gambles" regardless of whether Attuning is used or not.

I mean, if you're going to shift goalposts, then okay. Yes, Blades is built on a feedback loop where actions feed into changes in the fiction. The action "snowball" is a think that the game intends to do.

Yes, but the consequences weren't simply you failed to achieve your goal.

Why would they be, this is boring. Even 5e recommends against this.

Perhaps it would help if I said, there are plenty of actions in plenty of D&D playstyles that can also be gambles. Some posters like iserith specifically talk about a playstyle where even skills like a perception check to hear through a door may cause guards to appear on a failure as a complication. I've never been particularly keen on how that works under his playstyle either.

@iserith has never claimed any such thing. I mean, it's bad enough when you misrepresent the people in the thread, but reaching out to people not even involved to say they advocate for things they do not? That's pretty bad.

If you are saying a fighter attempts to attack an orc minding his own business then yes the orc will start trying to attack him. But that's not contingent on whether the attack lands, it's contingent on the orc knowing he's tried to attack him. So no gamble there.

If you are saying the fighter and orc are already fighting and the fighter just misses, then that miss didn't raise stakes or make the orc more powerful. The orc didn't suddenly double in size and strength or become soul sucking because the fighter missed. There's no gamble there.

Again with the strange goalpost shifts. It's not a gamble if the stakes don't change? I have some not-gambling I'd like to do with you about some horses. Don't worry, it's not gambling.

Whether something is a gamble isn't affected by a player's surprise.

Yes, obviously. Thank for the banal observation. The statement you're responding to wasn't, at all, in any way, making anything near the claim that the action wasn't a gamble if the player wasn't surprised.

I guess to summarize - the inclusion of chance deciding the outcome isn't enough to make something a gamble. There must be stakes involved where you win something upon winning and lose something upon losing.

Like D&D combat?

 

[FrogReaver]

God you are being so painfully smug right now

I'd say vindicated