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

[Crimson Longinus]

Welp, I'm all out of explanation on the topic, so we can disagree in some kind of companionable fashion.

I guess we have to. I believe that you believe that there is a difference, but I do not see such actually being articulated in you explanation, and I have tried my best to point out why that is.

 

[TwoSix]

If my character is observant enough to notice the bolded (otherwise why are you narrating it) shouldn't I get a chance for my character to react to that observation - duck behind a table, or flee out the back, or wave hello and smile cutely - before they clomp over to me?

This is an example of something that seems prevalent in this style of play, going by various play reports and examples I've seen, and it bugs me to no end: a lack of granularity - or, dare I say, very small-scale railroading - that denies me-as-player the agency to have my character (try to) do what it would do.

Now maybe the fact that an entanglement was rolled (as opposed to a threat) means the narration here is in error and my character shouldn't have noticed the bluecoats until they got to me and started speaking, by which time it's too late to react to their presence across the room. But I can only work with what's given, which here implies I saw them coming and had more than enough time to react.

I think part of the issue there is that it's coming from an old-school approach where consequences are something to be avoided, rather than leaned into because they help generate more interesting fiction.

Avoiding consequences and conflict to make events easier for the characters generates a fiction, but I would argue not a particularly interesting one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think part of the issue there is that it's coming from an old-school approach where consequences are something to be avoided, rather than leaned into because they help generate more interesting fiction.

Avoiding consequences and conflict to make events easier for the characters generates a fiction, but I would argue not a particularly interesting one.

Then why the game has so many mechanical widgets for avoiding consequences?

 

[TwoSix]

Then why the game has so many mechanical widgets for avoiding consequences?

I don't really see clocks as a mechanism for avoiding consequences. I see them as a method for staggering the consequences out over the course of a score.

For @Lanefan's specific example, I would clarify that you shouldn't try to avoid consequences by doing some kind of "But what about X" narration. If the GM is allowed to establish a consequence, and the consequence is that the guard notices the characters, just roll with it and build on it. The ask for increased granularity at the moment of narration seems to me to be beholden to a playstyle that's more risk-averse than Blades would really warrant.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think part of the issue there is that it's coming from an old-school approach where consequences are something to be avoided, rather than leaned into because they help generate more interesting fiction.

Avoiding consequences and conflict to make events easier for the characters generates a fiction, but I would argue not a particularly interesting one.

But it does make logical sense to avoid unnecessary consequences. Seeking such things out doesn't fit setting logic the majority of the time.

 

[TwoSix]

But it does make logical sense to avoid unnecessary consequences. Seeking such things out doesn't fit setting logic the majority of the time.

Micah, I am 100% sure you are aware that you would hate playing a game like Blades.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Micah, I am 100% sure you are aware that you would hate playing a game like Blades.

Oh, I am. The entire game philosophy rubs me the wrong way. Worse than PBtA for me (I can and have got behind playing that at least, if not running it).

 

[FrogReaver]

So, if the outcome of a dice roll is ever "nothing happens" in a game like Blades something has gone horribly wrong. In a case where you, say, rolled a 4/5 and the GM says "yeah you get in through the roof but a beam creaks and you see the guards start looking around in confusion, I'm going to start an 'Alerted' clock" lots of things have happened! You're inside (made it past an obstacle); you've got the fiction responding; you've got a concrete indicator of how on edge people are.



You mean like the list of Threats on these quick reference sheets? (pretty much every FITD I've seen has a list of sample consequences on the GM reference, some better then others, games like Songs for the Dusk even have suggestions for purely social Harms and such)

Side rant. One thing that perplexes me is that BitD proponents tend to act like the game is very fleshed out with little to no DM fiat and little the DM can do wrong if he and the players follow the rules and principles, but I see a big potential difference in when, why and how different DMs use clocks and since it’s just a tool in their toolbox without guidance on when you must or must not use them (just that you can) then that seems to introduce much potential for DM Fiat and arbitrariness to put their hand on the scale so to speak.

 

[Umbran]

So that discussion is core to the mechanical design of the game and the way in which it's played. The player is always making declarations towards goals, the GM's role is to tell them the Effect (how far towards that goal they'll get based on teh fiction and what they've said). The player then has a litany of ways to affect that Effect statement built into the mechanics, many but not all with costs. It's a very transparent process which is open to table discussion, and no dice are rolled before everybody is clear and you've adjudicated all the potential ways to boost things.

Sure.

But, I want to roll back to the start of this thread of conversation - the assertion that how hard a thing is to do is never being judged.

From the player's point of view, how hard it is to reach their goal, whether it is one move or several, is being judged. The GM, in adjudicating effects, is effectively deciding how hard it is for the player to get to their goal.

Let me be clear - I don't mind that the GM is deciding how hard it is. That is common across loads of games. I minded the assertion that somehow the GM is not part of this determination!

 

[Pedantic]

From the player's point of view, how hard it is to reach their goal, whether it is one move or several, is being judged. The GM, in adjudicating effects, is effectively deciding how hard it is for the player to get to their goal.

This is exactly the doublethink I can't seem to do that these games require. Do I or do I not have a goal I am trying to achieve? If I do, then striving to achieve it means limiting obstacles and eeking out advantage with each action. If I don't, then I can't apply the logic of gameplay to my decision making, and the exact structure of when to strive and when to accept and why consistently eludes me.