Search results

I just do not think this is true, especially with several of the things having been decided beforehand instead of as reactions to what the players say. It is real but still somewhat vague limitation to the GM's decisions, just like principles in narrative games. What you mean you don't? Wasn't...

Except "what would this person know" is part of the framework via which the GM decides what they say. I rather feel that as a player my focus is far more on what GM thinks of things in a game like Blades in the Dark where the GM is literally making up most of the stuff on the spot, and a part...

Not to mention that if this somehow happened, the alarm spell still would have done its job of giving the party an uninterrupted long rest.

Yes, it is somewhat subjective, but there still is a structure and principles that guide the decision making. Just like in narrative games for the GM deciding obstacles and consequences etc. I think it is wild to me and shows bias and inability to look things objectively if people cannot...

Right. If that is "GM fiat" then narrativist games are also full of GM fiat. I am not particularly concerned about specific definition of the term, but I wish people were at least consistent with it, instead of flipping it based on whether we are talking about their preferred style or not.

@hawkeyefan @zakael19 So what I found interesting that you both just went with the trap existing, and it's existence being a GM decision. So you wouldn't run "quantum traps" where the existence of trap is in superposition, and it will collapse into existence as a consequence of some roll...

It should have been "Was there a risk in the roll." So I am asking did the players roll some roll in the situation to discern the presence and/or nature of the trap, and if they did, what would have happened had they rolled badly? You said they gathered intel, so that's the roll I'm curious about.

@hawkeyefan But how did you decide there was a trap in the first place? @zakael19 Was there a risk in the roll for examining the safe in your Blades game?

Yes, they're quite similar. I think the clocks is a method of gamifying it and making it more concrete, though in the process some of the nuance might be lost. And of course in most games that use clocks, it is still GM who decides whether something ticks a clock or whether something else bad...

Thought experiment: Lets say the situation in the game is this. The PCs have infiltrated into a heavily guarded mansion/dungeon/castle/facility/etc. Their goal is to steal gold/money/etc. They have managed to find a safe/treasure chest/etc. There are still active guards/monsters/etc in the...

I'm sure it is, but this is the sort of mechanic I loathe, especially if it is prominent part of the game. It robs my agency over the things I find most important and compelling to decide as player in a roleplaying game. There obviously are things players can decide in this sort of game, but...

This is the sort of game where I would just hand the dice and character sheet to the GM so they can randomly autoplay my character and I would walk away and go do something where my input is actually needed.

Yes, I ma quite familiar with that paragraph. It quite clearly illustrates the vagueness of myth in Blades compared to more trad approach. But like the prep in trad game this "cloud of potential" is also mainly created by the GM, and it is the GM who chooses what about it to actualise. But they...

How?

Yes, I agree. Same with writing. It was interesting when it produced weirdness no human would. Now it just produces unimaginative cliche dullness.

Could you stop conflating objectivity with authenticity? At this point of the thread it is not possible to be genuinely confused about what "real mystery" referred to.

Sure, they are not always at odds. Now playing "optimally" might lead to boring gameplay, and that is one thing, but it goes beyond that. I think the sort of "the character tries to win, so the player tries to win" you describe works better in a game where the rules are simulationistic in a way...

It is a real difference. But I don't accept that self-imposed constraints are not constants. They are. Transparency will makes things different but I don't think "make GM accountable" really is an important difference. It matters only if you don't trust GM to run the game in principled way...

Survival, success of character goals etc. I get what you're saying, and I too think narrativism probably works better if you are not trying to "win" and instead just want to see what happens. But I think it is pretty common for people to internalise the character's goals, and thus achieving them...

Currently the issue is that the AI might insert facts from someone's Lady Silvehand/Elminster fan fiction to it, and then just hallucinate some other details.