Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8151799" data-attributes="member: 16814">I missed this, and can absolutely answer.  Yes, the player was keenly aware that this action would further his action to switch vices from gambling (fighting) to obligation (University).  To help, the nature of vices in Blades is a double edged sword -- they can be sources of comfort and sources of conflict.  Vices can be extremely varied -- you might enjoy the finest fashions and so spend your time indulging in them.  During downtime, a PC can indulge their vice and recover Stress.  During scores, if the player chooses to let their vice be a complication, the can make XP.  The GM has no authority to enforce vices -- they're player side only.  In this case, to recap, the PC had overindulged and their vice and a complication was earned.  I offered the player to choose how that went, and they chose to let a roll determine it.  That came up "cut off from your vice purveyor."  The character could no longer go to that purveyor to get their vice.  Purveyors are important because they're the source of the vice and that relationship is important to the character.  Here, the player was able to narrate how that cutting off happened, but this is flavor.  Now the player has a choice -- they need to find a new vice purveyor.  This is a challenge, but a pretty easy one -- the character could find a different gambling den to satisfy their vice which would cost some downtime actions and maybe some coin.  However, the player decided this was "rock bottom" and it was time to find a healthier vice, so he elected to go through the more arduous process of changing their vice.  We reviewed what that would take and set clocks (think progress tracks) for the necessary tasks.So, in the score, when the player asked about the painting being something they could take to the University, it was absolutely in the context of these tasks and their clocks.  I told the player that, sure, if the took this painting back it would be worth 2 wedges in their clock -- a lesser result -- or more if the check was really good.  Why a lesser result?  Because the action was controlled, and so the risk was low at that point.  This was set, and the player was absolutely in the know about the value of the action.What I find continuingly interesting is that there's this assumption that things are missing because it satisfies preconceptions.  Usually, these things are holding the example in discussion to a different standard than the play being nominally defended (from what, I'm not sure).  And, yet, these assumptions continually founder because the play they're trying to attack is robust and full and answers these questions easily.  The issue here isn't that this play is better, but rather that you're asking the wrong questions because you fail to grasp the fundamental shift in play.  You're charging headlong at the parts of this play that are the absolute strongest and are directed by the rules of play.  It's a matter of not knowing what you're trying to critique, so your critique is badly grounded.EDIT:  I fixed my rapid typing problems of confusing their, they're, your, and you're.  Probably still missed one, but there you go.</blockquote>

Verification