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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

What does this actually mean? Like in concrete terms, how will this impact the decision process and the outcomes?

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.

I think you're describing something that basically every RPG does. Of course the fiction is central. But I think more simulationistic games tend actually be more fiction first than more narrativist ones, as in the former the mechanics merely represent the fiction. In the latter the mechanics often produce outcomes, and then the participants invent fiction based on that. Like if in the Blades a character gets a trauma from sneaking past a guard, then we need to try to come up with some fiction that explains how this could happen. Also the whole basic process of the rules calling for complications and then the GM inventing what complications might occur seems rather mechanics first to me, even if what is invented would be informed by the fictional positioning. If it was actually fiction first then it would be the fictional positioning that would tell us whether any complication occurs rather than the rules.

 

[zakael19]

“Fiction first” means that we need to describe and understand the fiction of an action before we can adjudicate it:

“For example, in Blades in the Dark, there are several different mechanics that might be used if a character tries to pick the lock on a safe. It’s essentially meaningless to play mechanics-first. “I pick a lock” isn’t a mechanical choice in the game. To understand which mechanic to use, we have to first establish the fiction….

…The important concept here is that you first choose what your character does in the fiction, then the group picks a mechanic that suits the situation to resolve what happens. Once you establish the fictional action, selecting a mechanic from the options at hand is pretty easy. If you try to do it the other way around—picking the mechanic and then trying to “color-in” the fiction after—you’ll find that the game can become confusing and muddled.”

In a conventional RPG, you might say what your character does, and say what your character does, and say what your character does, and then the GM goes “oh, wait, give me a X roll.”

In Blades, with the rather different structure around who has say; P&E discussion in the open; surrounding mechanics; etc, you can’t play like that - but you still need to determine the fiction you’re adjudicating with that dice roll before the roll happens.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Currently in our D&D game players have a number of options available to them...it really can go anywhere.
Their characters are attempting to buy time for another PC involved in another AP.

So they asked me if they do abc how could it affect a certain Clock or provide benefit for them in the fiction.
I provided mechanics which would change the state for various levels of success in their course of action. There was some negotiation and clarification that took place.
Usually, I'd only reveal this information after their actions have succeeded/failed but this is the culmination of several years of play and decision-making so I'm keen to elevate the gamist aspect of the RPG to give them greater control of the storyline that will take shape.
I mean I still set the challenges according to how I envision the fiction, so there are still memorable surprises I'm able to impart on my players. I feel both parties get to enjoy surprising the other.

 

[thefutilist]

I think you're describing something that basically every RPG does. Of course the fiction is central. But I think more simulationistic games tend actually be more fiction first than more narrativist ones, as in the former the mechanics merely represent the fiction. In the latter the mechanics often produce outcomes, and then the participants invent fiction based on that. Like if in the Blades a character gets a trauma from sneaking past a guard, then we need to try to come up with some fiction that explains how this could happen. Also the whole basic process of the rules calling for complications and then the GM inventing what complications might occur seems rather mechanics first to me, even if what is invented would be informed by the fictional positioning. If it was actually fiction first then it would be the fictional positioning that would tell us whether any complication occurs rather than the rules.

We get into this a bit in the generative resolution thread. I dislike the narr/sim framing though. From where I stand AD&D is closer to Blades than Vampire the Masquerade is. Vampire (and most 90’s games) were still taking their cues from 2E D&D but at that point I’m not sure the system knew what it was doing. I really consider 90’s resolution mechanics a bit of a mess.

Have you ever played The Quiet Year or 1000 year old Vampire? They’re prompt based games. So you’ll roll a prompt such as ‘a new cult appears’, and then work that into the fiction. In that regard it would be like the trauma example. We know you’ve got trauma and now we have to explain how.

To what degree is that different from say, failing to hack a computer? In a more trad game we might roll and fail and we still have to work that into the fiction, or elide it. I do think there are discrete differences but I don’t think the differences necessary have much to do with the fictional position or what the mechanics represent.

Anyway in the case of Blades it’s kind of a mute point because as I said earlier, Blades wants to use the system and that means engaging with the currency on an authorial level. If you don’t do that then it’s just a lot of moving parts that don’t add much value and actually get in the way.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not quite sure why the mechanical play of "Set up as many clocks as possible, and finish the job just before any/all of them tick over" wouldn't produce the play you want?

Avoiding consequences with a last minute maneuver or knick-of-time save seems to me to be firmly in the "desired fiction" camp. The team gets out of the building 3 seconds before the self-destruct happens, and evades the guards by hiding in a hidden door as the guards race right by. That's avoiding clocks just before they tick over.

I dunno - when I walked out of the theatre where that film was just playing, I overheard the other patrons saying "That was too abstractly mechanical for my taste."