Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Micah Sweet]

If we're staying in the fictional frame and not referencing the mechanics, one of two things is happening.

1) Nothing that has stakes and requires resolution is actually being resolved, so we're in thespian "acting like my character and having conversations" mode. Which I know plenty of players who want that to be like 95% of their gameplay, but isn't really the intent of Blades.

2) Things with stakes and consequences are happening, but they're being resolved without recourse to the mechanics. That greatly increases the chances that the GM is resolving situations via fiat, which is no bueno.

You can reference the mechanics plenty to my mind, and in my preference, so long as those mechanics are modeling something real in the fiction. This avoids your entire dichotomy.

 

[TwoSix]

You can reference the mechanics plenty to my mind, and in my preference, so long as those mechanics are modeling something real in the fiction. This avoids your entire dichotomy.

No it doesn’t. The situations I described above are about stakes versus no stakes, not diegetic vs non-diegetic mechanics.

Centering a game around diegetic mechanics can have utility for some play modes, but isn’t connected to the point I was making.

A mechanic might be intended to directly model a certain fictional state, but that doesn’t mean referencing that model is also staying in the fictional frame simultaneously.

 

[FrogReaver]

No it doesn’t. The situations I described above are about stakes versus no stakes, not diegetic vs non-diegetic mechanics.

Centering a game around diegetic mechanics can have utility for some play modes, but isn’t connected to the point I was making.

A mechanic might be intended to directly model a certain fictional state, but that doesn’t mean referencing that model is also staying in the fictional frame simultaneously.

Instead of pitting it as stakes vs no stakes OR diegetic vs non-diegetic perhaps we should break that into 4 categories. Stakes and diegetic. Stakes and non-diegetic. No stakes and diegetic. No stakes and non-diegetic. That may aid in clarity?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No it doesn’t. The situations I described above are about stakes versus no stakes, not diegetic vs non-diegetic mechanics.

Centering a game around diegetic mechanics can have utility for some play modes, but isn’t connected to the point I was making.

A mechanic might be intended to directly model a certain fictional state, but that doesn’t mean referencing that model is also staying in the fictional frame simultaneously.

Ok, can you provide an example of what you're talking about?

 

[hawkeyefan]

My own personal experience with this is that while I might sometimes get a sense of some pending thing happening, the achieved accuracy of that sense both in outcome and in timing ranges from mediocre to abysmal.

Given that, I don't assume any greater degree of intuition on the part of my characters until-unless something in the game tells me I can; on which the fiction becomes that much less believable.

I expect you’re likely assuming the worst to bolster your argument. I mean… what we’re talking about is a pretty essential human ability and has been key to our survival as a race.

And then on top of that, Blades in the Dark does assume a greater degree of intuition for the characters. They are expected to he competent and capable scoundrels. They are nit average joes or run if the mill people. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be scoundrels.

As a player, the narration of slowly-approaching doom (if done at all well) would or should be enough for me to roleplay the increasing stress being placed on my character. A player-facing clock or counter would a) needlessly add out-of-character stress on me-the-player and b) make that sense of impending doom far more accurate in terms of timing and-or nearness than seems believable.

I never understand this argument. If the purpose of the narration is to provide an accurate summary of the situation… if the goal is understanding… then why argue against something that helps that?

Also, no matter how good the narration, it will NEVER equal the experience of actually being there. That’s an impossibility. So personally, I find that clocks and similar game elements actually help me as a player feel as informed as the character would be.

To address your A and B. On A… I don’t see how it’s an unnecessary out of character stress. It correlates to what’s happening in the fiction.

As for B, again, I think your take on what’s believable is off. Competent people have feelings about progressing situations. They have hunches and instincts and all kinds of sensory input that may inform them. I don’t think it’s unbelievable at all.

Yes, most games have mechanics, and players probably engage with the mechanics. But the gameplay can also become mostly about mechanics, the fiction more as a post hoc explanation. And for purportedly fiction-first game, this happens a lot in Blades. It of course is far from unique to that game, it happens in most RPGs with complex mechnics, especially if those mechanics are not simulationistic. Like I said, D&D combat usually becomes this.

This happens in Blades because the mechanics are both relatively complex and and rather abstracted, so the players often have to consider things from mostly mechanical perspective.

Yeah, again… I think what you’re describing is your game specifically, and not Blades in the Dark generally. That’s based on my personal experience and also those of many other people, some of whom have also been replying to you in this thread.

I think you’ve made your decision and so I expect I’ll stop commenting on this. All I’ll add is that if you put half as much energy into listening a bit and trying to get what people are saying… if you tried to make what they say work instead of trying to prove that it doesn’t… I expect your game would improve. But for whatever reason, that doesn’t seem to be what you want.