Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9000890" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sounds cool. I am of the opinion that in Narrativist games where these sorts of issues could potentially come up (in a very general sense) that they can be handled in various ways. So, lets say my Blades in the Dark character is something similar to a cleric, that is he's become a servant of one of the Dead Gods or something like that. he could easily have a crisis of faith. This would probably manifest during a score, though it might well have its roots in other game phases. The player might be stuck in a position where this is offered as a Devil's Bargain (but again, it would have deeper roots than that, story wise). Maybe the character traumas out, and acquires this profound crisis of faith. It could get wrapped up in their vice too. I could easily see a playbook feature being replaced by a more appropriate one (there's no explicit rule for this, but I've seen it happen in play). As for the banishment thing, BitD is much less comprehensive in its explication of lore and cosmology than many games/settings are. I doubt there would be a rule to change here, the GM might come up with this, or it might be left to the players to work out, or suggest and implement. There isn't really any single specific center of authority over lore in BitD, so its pretty open.BitD's rules on arcane and spirit stuff are also pretty loose, so basically I would not consider any rulings being needed, the player might suggest the possibility, and if its OK with the other people at the table then it would happen. DW lets the GM make a move when A) a player gives them a 'golden opportunity' (something like ignoring an obvious danger that has been presented, the GM will now make that danger come into full force) B) when the players ask "what happens?" C) when a move produces a result of 6-, or whenever one states a move should be made by the GM. D) The GM might make a move, say announcing a doom or something like that at the 'proper time' (IE you might start a session where the PCs are back at the Steading by announcing a doom). In DW a 'crisis of faith' would be something entirely RPed. It might come along with a judgment that the PC's alignment has changed, or a bond being resolved, maybe a trip to Death's Door, etc. I don't see why a GM and player couldn't decide to rewrite the character using a different playbook at that point, if it makes sense to them. As with BitD, something like 'Banishment' would be entirely under the control of the table, as it isn't an element present in DW AFAIK. A conflict between PCs is also certainly possible, and again the rules are not so precisely stated as to preclude something like detecting evil on a demon pacted sorcerer. In at least these two games, I don't think there's a huge problem. I mean, it isn't likely that EXACTLY the story you outlined in your post will happen, but stories are like snowflakes, they never really repeat. Its safe to say that many cool story lines of similar sorts can arise in these games. The lack of a rule stating absolute GM authority doesn't seem necessary. The group at the table can certainly bend the rules. In our last BitD campaign we did that fairly often, not in big ways, but here and there someone at the table thought something would be cool and said "what if I rewrite these moves from this third party playbook and use them on my character?" (as an actual example). The moves (features) got reflavored and maybe adjusted a tiny bit, and the player added them to his sheet when he was getting enough XP. I think maybe he also replaced an existing feature, which the rules don't really cover, but it does seem like it can be appropriate sometimes. Certainly when changes are of the nature of "this is a legal character, I just could not have gone from character sheet X to Y by any explicit rule in the game" that seems like a pretty minor 'hack'. Maybe in a very technical sense it is 'adding a special case rule' but I'd hardly bother to call it that. Honestly, I think in narrativist circles there is generally a lot less concern for this sort of thing. If the player wanted to add a whole new subsystem to the game, that might provoke a bit more extended debate.</blockquote>

Verification