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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9634164" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Ah, okay. Well then look at the many posts I've made in this thread about how much input the GM has in relation to predetermined mystery scenarios. Or any number of other examples that have been brought up. That the GM has input is certain. As for being bound by myth... that varies by game. Certainly there are setting elements and the like that can be expected. Blades in the Dark is likely to take place in Doskvol, with its many districts and factions and there will be scoundrels and scores and criminal shenanigans and so on. Dogs in the Vineyard has the GM prepare a town before play, which will be filled with potential conflict. So a lot of this is predetermined. The main difference here, in my opinion, is that the discovery of that myth is not the interesting part, but rather what do the Dogs do about it. The GM isn't trying to keep these details hidden from the players. So no... I'm not going to accept your assertion without some kind of evidence to support it. While I disagree that it's at all like a writer's room... clearly the character will have an idea of the level of risk in most cases, so when the player is advocating for a different position, they're doing so based on something in the fiction to support that... even if this bothers a player in some way and breaks their immersion, that doesn't have anything to do with the gamist element that we're talking about. That's very clearly a sim-immersionist view and rather proves what [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is talking about. Gamism is far less a concern for sim-immersionists. In this case, the player is more concerned with portraying their character than with interacting with the rules of the game. Blades in the Dark has Postion: three categories of Risk/Danger Level for any action. Then, there is Effect, this is the outcome of the action and there are three primary categories: Great, Standard, or Limited. There are also instances of Zero Effect or Beyond Great effect in certain circumstances. These are two axes. Known to the players before any roll is made. Negotiable if the player thinks that another is in order based on the situation in play. In D&D, the DM has six recommended DCs 5, 10, 15 20, 25, and 30, with 5 being Very Easy and 30 being Nearly Impossible. However, there are also many other numbers within that range that can be used. I have seen DCs of 18 or 22 and so on. So a wider range of difficulties. And what about the risk? What about the level of success? Perhaps you get a Critical Success on a Nat 20, and maybe a Fumble or Crit Fail on a Nat 1. But those are dependent on the group and are unknown prior to the roll. So how do we determine what happens on a failure? Sometimes, as with a spell, the consequences may be very clear. Other times, they're not clear at all. This axis as you described it for Blades, is not set at all. This can be a complete unknown to the player prior to their roll.And yes... that may be the case for the character. But again, that's where sim-immersionism has a priority other than gamism. Because again, I think your experience with the game is flawed in some way. Based on what you've shared of your play, I think your GM is smuggling in practices better suited to more trad-based play. If you have something supporting your assertions here, either principles from the text that would counter those I've already shared (which would be very odd) or examples of actual play, share them. But just saying "I think this" really doesn't do a lot of work here. Sure, but D&D is the game many are mentioning. If you have a different game in mind that is more clear on its processes, then please bring it up as an example.</blockquote>

Verification