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: 8153827" data-attributes="member: 16814">This, again, ignores that a single roll in D&D combat can cause a major swing -- which can't be "evened out" by further rolls.  And I never said that tactics require randomness, I was pointing out that you can't remove it from this analysis the way you're trying to do without engaging in special pleading.There is no objective base reality in a make-believe game.  There's only the make-believe you've chosen to treat as objective reality.  This isn't a strong argument for a rational evaluation, though.Yes, because you, who haven't played it or experienced it at all, have the clarity of vision.  Doesn't this bode ill for your own analysis of your own game, being that direct experience must be discounted for supposition from the outside?  I suppose this means that I can tell you where the decision points in your game are and you lack the ability to refute it with your experience, you must accept my framework and argue from within that.Yes, please pull the other one, it's got bells on.Again, you have to either be unable to understand or unwilling to do so, because this has been explored a massive amount.  The player knew exactly what the chance of failure was, the player knew exactly what the level of consequence was, and the player knew exactly what any consequence would center around.  This is like saying to a D&D player that their option to tank the orc and protect the wizard is low-agency because they don't know exactly how much damage the orc could do if it hits them.  It's bonkers.This is the same thing in Blades in the Dark.  I mean, you've already mentioned the free-play investigation mode, and everything in Blades is player facing, so there's NO hidden information to miss.  When you, as a player, find out something in Blades, so does everyone else.  This makes it no less "independent" than asking Bob what Bob thinks.You're confusing your preference -- you like finding out what Bob thinks -- for an effective analysis tool.  It's not, it's just what you're used to.  It's like preferring well-done steak (you monster!) and then arguing that medium-rare is not even steak.No, it doesn't, because I'm not even talking about the RNG, here.  Yes, if the player decided a flower pot might be important, then yes, it is, and we need to resolve this.  The bit your missing is that this is exactly the same in D&D -- if a player decides a flower pot is important, then we need to resolve if it is.  What you're utterly confusing is that in Blades, that question can't be resolved by the GM saying "no." It must either be a "yes" or we must test it.  In D&D, the GM can say, "no," but could also say yes or test it.  Almost always in D&D, this will be a no, because the GM didn't think the flower pot was important, so it isn't.  The GM is exercising agency, here, the player isn't.  In Blades, though, either it's not very interesting the way the player thinks the flower pot is important, so the GM says, "yes," or it is interesting, and we test it -- because the GM is not allowed to block the players just because the GM has an idea of what should be happening and so prevents anything else.This is the entire basis of the argument that some games feature more player agency than others -- the ability of the GM to say, "no," is absolutely agency limiting.There is no "reality" -- it's all make believe.  What you're doing here is reifying the GM's make-believe in your game and then denying this same privilege to other games.  It's a double standard.  The way Blades runs is not a conch-passing story game, and thinking it is only displays your ignorance of broader game theory. It certainly doesn't mean you're right.You still haven't dealt with the fact that three years ago I was making your arguments -- nearly verbatim.  And, now, after running these games, I'm on the other side of the issue.  I know, the apostate is inviting to just dismiss, but this is an act of dogma, not consideration.</blockquote>

Verification