Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8652128" data-attributes="member: 16814">Not at all in the same way, and I disagree with your opening sentence pretty strongly.&nbsp; The GM is not a gate that actions need to pass to be implemented in these games.&nbsp; I've never once been told, nor have I told my players when running, that an action is not allowed.&nbsp; The closest that I've seen is when an action is declared that is wildly at odds with other's understanding of the fiction (not just the GM's) and then there's a discussion.&nbsp; Nothing at all in the game texts even suggest that the GM is the gate that actions need to pass -- this isn't mentioned as a duty of the GM.&nbsp; And in games that are very clear about what jobs people have at the table, you'd think such a thing would be mentioned if it was intended.Also, everything is in the open and transparent for everyone.&nbsp; And open for challenge.&nbsp; Your example of negotiating the king to hand over the kingdom is badly flawed in many ways.&nbsp; 1) this shouldn't be happening at all, because it's violating the principles of play on the players side.&nbsp; The idea that you can get to the king and then have a discussion to get him to give you the kingdom is not what these games entertain as play to begin with. This isn't a problem the GM needs to address as a GM, but one that needs to stop the game and have a serious table discussion about what it is you're all doing.&nbsp; 2) if, for the sake of argument, it does happen, then the GM's choices about the challenge are still bound by the principles of play, and since everything is in the open, players can look and challenge on that basis.&nbsp; So if it is in play (arguendo) then the GM's choice here aren't 100% fiat 'suck it up players' because they can hold the GM's feet to the fire and call that table break as well on the GM as they can on the players.&nbsp; And, since everyone in these games should be engaged with playing to find out and fully onboard with the games agendas and principles, this isn't even a thing that's worrisome or challenging to the people.&nbsp; Aliens, on the other hand, is rather traditional in it's authority structure.&nbsp; It's not at all the same kind of game as Blades in the Dark, but much more like D&amp;D in it's authorities and structures.&nbsp; So, yeah, the Aliens GM should be making a lot of judgement calls about the fiction and presenting those as they bear on play in a way that wouldn't look at all odd at a D&amp;D table.&nbsp; But Blades?&nbsp; Not even close to how D&amp;D plays.&nbsp; And the GM is very much more constrained in their judgement, where it applies, and how it's used.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8652128, member: 16814"] Not at all in the same way, and I disagree with your opening sentence pretty strongly. The GM is not a gate that actions need to pass to be implemented in these games. I've never once been told, nor have I told my players when running, that an action is not allowed. The closest that I've seen is when an action is declared that is wildly at odds with other's understanding of the fiction (not just the GM's) and then there's a discussion. Nothing at all in the game texts even suggest that the GM is the gate that actions need to pass -- this isn't mentioned as a duty of the GM. And in games that are very clear about what jobs people have at the table, you'd think such a thing would be mentioned if it was intended. Also, everything is in the open and transparent for everyone. And open for challenge. Your example of negotiating the king to hand over the kingdom is badly flawed in many ways. 1) this shouldn't be happening at all, because it's violating the principles of play on the players side. The idea that you can get to the king and then have a discussion to get him to give you the kingdom is not what these games entertain as play to begin with. This isn't a problem the GM needs to address as a GM, but one that needs to stop the game and have a serious table discussion about what it is you're all doing. 2) if, for the sake of argument, it does happen, then the GM's choices about the challenge are still bound by the principles of play, and since everything is in the open, players can look and challenge on that basis. So if it is in play (arguendo) then the GM's choice here aren't 100% fiat 'suck it up players' because they can hold the GM's feet to the fire and call that table break as well on the GM as they can on the players. And, since everyone in these games should be engaged with playing to find out and fully onboard with the games agendas and principles, this isn't even a thing that's worrisome or challenging to the people. Aliens, on the other hand, is rather traditional in it's authority structure. It's not at all the same kind of game as Blades in the Dark, but much more like D&D in it's authorities and structures. So, yeah, the Aliens GM should be making a lot of judgement calls about the fiction and presenting those as they bear on play in a way that wouldn't look at all odd at a D&D table. But Blades? Not even close to how D&D plays. And the GM is very much more constrained in their judgement, where it applies, and how it's used. [/QUOTE]

Verification