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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grendel_Khan" data-source="post: 8770558" data-attributes="member: 7028554">Ah, that makes sense. Never mind my jabbing there.Apologies for missing that if you posted the 50k thing before my response. But I don't think that was the sequence? Anyway, good call.I'm with you for SaV, mostly because I don't like the setting. But I totally disagree about Blades in the Dark. I'd argue that the reason it's been such a huge success, and why it's getting adapted for TV, and also why some FitD hacks don't work nearly as well, is because of Blades' setting. A lot of FitD games don't realize how much went into making the Blades setting not just super playable as an RPG, but specifically using its mechanics.-You can't leave town to let the Heat die down, or pick up and move to another location when you gain too many enemies, because Duskwall is cut off from everything else.-Because everything you do or take as a crew in Duskwall provokes a reaction, the city needs to be very well defined. Check out the hi-res maps they released for the city. The place is mapped own down to every street. It's not some generic place. It's lived in and big-but-claustrophobic.-It's a supernatural setting, but the "rules" of magic and spirits and such are kept strategically vague.-It's a setting with guns, but not too many. And a setting with steampunky tech, but not too much.Now I don't personally love the idea of running that setting. Not sure why. But I can recognize why it works so well, and why it's helped turn the game into a modern classic.But maybe more to the point, I still think what you're really advocated for in this post is games without settings. I think there's a place for that, but I also think some games are harder than others to grasp without a setting.Like, for example, Blades in the Dark!</blockquote>

Verification