SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
I'm replying so late as I didn't have access to this thread for a bit.
My only point was that there is nothing in the system of consequences found in Blades that makes those consequences have long term effects, beyond what might make consequences have long term effects in any game.
I am absolutely not saying that tradtional games deal with consequences objectively better. I am saying that PbtA and FitD also do not deal with them objectively better. Players of both games are capable of giving consequences as much impact and focus as they desire.
Finally, "the mechanical aspect of consequences" in the context the phrase is used here, is largely irrelevant to me. The most important impacts of consequences to me, are not mechanical, but their impact on cause-and-effect, choices and options, and situations reflected in the game world. If the players/PCs discover that their actions and decisions have led to their nemesis placing them in a Catch-22 situation where it seems there is no happy outcome, I don't need any mechanics to tell my how that makes them feel (they can decide for themselves), to apply mechanical weight to their feelings, to inform me what the details of the Catch-22 are (we already know due to the cause-and-effect that led us here) or to push them to take a particular course of action (that's up to the players). All I want from the mechanics is a way of handling the actions they do choose to take in response.
And I'm not saying any one way is better -- you should play the way you want. But "mechanical support for consequences" in the way you're talking about isn't some untrammelled good that just makes consequences more interesting for everyone.
The only thing I'm saying the "segment of RPG systems" you're talking about doesn't do is make consequences objectively more meaningful. If might give them more directly mechanical heft in some ways, but whether that makes consequences better, more useful or more interesting is entirely a matter of personal taste.
I was the GM and the game ran that way because that's the style of game we wanted. I didn't say anything about other GMs, beyond the fact that they're also capable of running the game that way.
My only point was that there is nothing in the system of consequences found in Blades that makes those consequences have long term effects, beyond what might make consequences have long term effects in any game.
Yes, exactly. This is my point -- the consequences you can find, use and employ in pretty much all RPGs are the same and what sort of consequences you get will depend on the people at the table. It's also worth noting that, when there were long term consequences in my Blades game, they tended to not be derived from "success with consequences" rolls. They were, instead, typically just a matter of characters making decisions that naturally resulted in ongoing effects in the gameworld.
I have never found myself lacking methods of supporting consequences in a traditional game.
Misleading how? I know it is factual that Blades can be played and run the way I did (as something of a heist-of-the-week game, without the individual complications encountered within any given heist tending to become long-term problems), because I did it. And I know it is absolutely possible to play traditional games where consequences tend to have a larger long term impact than they did in that specific Blades game, because I've also done that.
I am absolutely not saying that tradtional games deal with consequences objectively better. I am saying that PbtA and FitD also do not deal with them objectively better. Players of both games are capable of giving consequences as much impact and focus as they desire.
Finally, "the mechanical aspect of consequences" in the context the phrase is used here, is largely irrelevant to me. The most important impacts of consequences to me, are not mechanical, but their impact on cause-and-effect, choices and options, and situations reflected in the game world. If the players/PCs discover that their actions and decisions have led to their nemesis placing them in a Catch-22 situation where it seems there is no happy outcome, I don't need any mechanics to tell my how that makes them feel (they can decide for themselves), to apply mechanical weight to their feelings, to inform me what the details of the Catch-22 are (we already know due to the cause-and-effect that led us here) or to push them to take a particular course of action (that's up to the players). All I want from the mechanics is a way of handling the actions they do choose to take in response.
And I'm not saying any one way is better -- you should play the way you want. But "mechanical support for consequences" in the way you're talking about isn't some untrammelled good that just makes consequences more interesting for everyone.
The only thing I'm saying the "segment of RPG systems" you're talking about doesn't do is make consequences objectively more meaningful. If might give them more directly mechanical heft in some ways, but whether that makes consequences better, more useful or more interesting is entirely a matter of personal taste.
Last edited:
