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

[zakael19]

TBH, I don't quite see the point of which is first, the rules or the fiction discussion in this context. Like sure, they need to be aligned, but when the GM is deciding the consequence they are aware of both. They are aware of the fictional situation in which the consequence occurs and they are aware of what the rules list as possible consequences. So they choose something that aligns. I don't think it is necessarily clear at all which information is "first" in this process, and as long as they align I don't see why it would matter.

Well, there's the little matter that blades likes to call itself a "fiction-first" game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, there's the little matter that blades likes to call itself a "fiction-first" game.

I would treat that with similar caution than “democratic” in a name of a country.

 

[Fenris-77]

TBH, I don't quite see the point of which is first, the rules or the fiction discussion in this context. Like sure, they need to be aligned, but when the GM is deciding the consequence they are aware of both. They are aware of the fictional situation in which the consequence occurs and they are aware of what the rules list as possible consequences. So they choose something that aligns. I don't think it is necessarily clear at all which information is "first" in this process, and as long as they align I don't see why it would matter.

That's not an uncommon take. But for games like Blades and AW it really does matter. Both games and their various progeny take the conversation that stands as the heart of RPG play (all RPG play) and make it the central axis around which everything else turns. Really, it's just a different point of view to that of a trad game like D&D or CoC, but it's still central to understanding everything else the games are trying to accomplish.

Everything about play, in either format, collapses back (mostly gracefully) to the basic idea that the core activity is the current setting state (the 'fiction') and what the player(s) are going to do about it. Any action declaration demands from the GM first a matching response that changes the setting state. That's what really matters - player actions that change the setting. The mechanics wrap around that central idea to help track things over time - health, factions, whatever. The difference is really one of emphasis when compared to, say, 5E, but the emphasis is important.

 

[Lanefan]

There's going to be overlap just as there was in Rashomon. But everyone at the table has a different perspective on the game, how the campaign's events are unfolding, what importance and prominence they will assign to those events, and how they'll remember and think about them. Each player comes from a different set of events in their lives when they come to the table. Each player is working with their own PC and the priorities that PC has as a character, the priorities and considerations the player has for that PC and how they act. There are a lot of different factors flying around that affect how people perceive the game and its events.

Fair enough. I guess as long as there's enough overlap in imaginations that things can halfway-coherently move forward, all is good.

And those differences will almost certainly lead to different memories of the stories you established through play. I'd wager they'll diverge even further as time goes on if you compared those stories a month after the events are played, a year later, 3 years later, etc.

In the absence of a decent game log, this is very likely true. The game log, however, serves as a check-and-balance to drifting memories.