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

I have played the game. Answer the question.
There is no question. It's a silly thing to suggest about the game. Sorry dude, you've lost the plot. The clock is just there to track progress. It has no specific connection to the fiction other than that. There's a heist, which is a long-term idea that exists in the fiction, and there is the action at hand that may or may not change that long term goal.

The GM will say what the effect will be, which is also (maybe) about how many ticks the clock might get, but that's it. The ticks are a secondary and background aspect of the current action. No one is telegraphing ticks.

And I don't really care if you've played the game. Your posts don't suggest any great understanding of the mechanics or design.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


There is no question. It's a silly thing to suggest about the game. Sorry dude, you've lost the plot. The clock is just there to track progress. It has no specific connection to the fiction other than that. There's a heist, which is a long-term idea that exists in the fiction, and there is the action at hand that may or may not change that long term goal.

The GM will say what the effect will be, which is also (maybe) about how many ticks the clock might get, but that's it. The ticks are a secondary and background aspect of the current action. No one is telegraphing ticks.

And I don't really care if you've played the game. Your posts don't suggest any great understanding of the mechanics or design.

So the decisions based on it are, meta, right? The characters cannot know that they can afford to take two ticks to the clock this time as there is only three on the clock previously and it needs six to be filled, and thus not spend special armour to avoid this? That is a meta decision, right? Either say yes, or actually explain why this is not the case.

I feel based on this discussion I understand what happens in the Blades way better than most people here, who seem to just play it without being aware of what the mechanics actually do and how the decisions at the table are made and what sort of incentive structures the rules create. Which is fine for playing the game but it makes discussing it rather frustrating.
 

He said multiple times that he's played. This does not sound like a good faith statement.
Not at all. The fact that says he's played means nothing in terms of his appreciation of the rules or procedures. I'm not talking about things that buried deep, or need serious inference, but just the basic rules as written. So no, I don't care that he's played.
 

So the decisions based on it are, meta, right? The characters cannot know that they can afford to take two ticks to the clock this time as there is only three on the clock previously and it needs six to be filled, and thus not spend special armour to avoid this? That is a meta decision, right? Either say yes, or actually explain why this is not the case.

I feel based on this discussion I understand what happens in the Blades way better than most people here, who seem to just play it without being aware of what the mechanics actually do and how the decisions at the table are made and what sort of incentive structures the rules create. Which is fine for playing the game but it makes discussing it rather frustrating.
Ahh, yes, I'll bow to your obviously superior understanding. Moving on...
 

Not at all. The fact that says he's played means nothing in terms of his appreciation of the rules or procedures. I'm not talking about things that buried deep, or need serious inference, but just the basic rules as written. So no, I don't care that he's played.
Then why did you suggest they couldn't have played the game because you thought their question was silly?
 

Then why did you suggest they couldn't have played the game because you thought their question was silly?
I didn't suggest he couldn't have played the game, only that he didn't understand it (you missed the sarcasm I think). It was a silly question though. I'm just done trying to push back against people with no clear idea of how the game actually works. It's all good, we have other things to talk about, I'm sure.
 

Ahh, yes, I'll bow to your obviously superior understanding. Moving on...

Thank you. And given that you seem to be unable to actually articulate your case and instead result to ad hominems then my point stands. To paraphrase Einstein, if you cannot explain your point, then perhaps you do not understand it yourself.

I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that I might be wrong about things. But it will take an actual coherent argument rather than "you just don't get it."
 

Thank you. And given that you seem to be unable to actually articulate your case and instead result to ad hominems then my point stands. To paraphrase Einstein, if you cannot explain your point, then perhaps you do not understand it yourself.

I am perfectly willing to consider the possibility that I might be wrong about things. But it will take an actual coherent argument rather than "you just don't get it."
Oh jesus. If you manage a coherent account of actual Blades play, I'll respond to it. I think that sounds fair. Unlikely, but fair.
 

A consequence clock is just a way to be non-arbitrary about outcomes in a way the players can see. A goal clock is a way to be non-arbitrary about progress in a way the players can see. The actual practice of engaging with a clock uses the same Positon and Effect mechanics as every single other Action in the game. If you want Great Effect to move beyond what the GM says is Standard, you want that and engage with that in the fiction.

Of course there’s meta/mechanic engagement, the game demands that. You’re supposed to always have a meta channel open; but it’s all supposed to go fiction -> mechanics -> fiction.

Dozens of hours of play and I haven’t had any issues keeping that going after getting myslef
And my players all comfy and performing with the design.
 

Remove ads

Top