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

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the idea of “Meta” has broadened to the point where it’s eating its own tail. A player engaging with mechanics is not metagaming… they’re playing the freaking game. The character is not engaging in mechanics, but rather with the things the mechanics represent.

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you added on "immersionist."

Wait, the only substantial disagreement from the last exchange was about the term immersionist? Couldn’t you have just said, yea but I wouldn’t call that immersionist?

I mistakenly thought there was real substance there.

 

[Umbran]

This is about whether the decisions based on clocks are meta.

This isn't hard.

If the thing the clock is measuring is known to the characters, then it isn't meta.
If the clock's reference is unknown to the characters, then it is meta.

I hope making it simple will stop you folks from being snide at each other, because you're not exactly making the thread a good read.

 

[FrogReaver]

This isn't hard.

If the thing the clock is measuring is known to the characters, then it isn't meta.
If the clock's reference is unknown to the characters, then it is meta.

I hope making it simple will stop you folks from being snide at each other, because you're not exactly making the thread a good read.

I agree with your take but anytime one with quasi police powers weighs in it can have a bit of a chilling effect on the side that disagrees.

I don’t get the impression that everyone here agrees with your take and now it’s less likely we get to see the root cause as opposed to just silence and restarting the conversation next month under a different thread title.

 

[Umbran]

I agree with your take but anytime one with quasi police powers weighs in it can have a bit of a chilling effect on the side that disagrees.

I don’t get the impression that everyone here agrees with your take and now it’s less likely we get to see the root cause as opposed to just silence and restarting the conversation next month under a different thread title.

Okay. Next time I'll take that same report, and use it as justification to slam about in the hobnail boots of red text, instead of giving folks a conversational gambit to stand down.

 

[TwoSix]

Many rom-coms suffer from the same problem: in order to further the plot (such as it ever is) the script-writers have the characters do stupid and very avoidable things, leading to that same face-palm response from me.

Real people make stupid decisions with easily avoidable consequences all the time.

Characters who always make the appropriate, rational decision all the time are an extremely poor simulation and violate my sense of verisimilitude.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Real people make stupid decisions with easily avoidable consequences all the time.

Characters who always make the appropriate, rational decision all the time are an extremely poor simulation and violate my sense of verisimilitude.

Well, people who always make bad decisions at dramatically appropriate moments violate mine.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

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.

 

[zakael19]

Wait, the only substantial disagreement from the last exchange was about the term immersionist? Couldn’t you have just said, yea but I wouldn’t call that immersionist?

I mistakenly thought there was real substance there.

No, there’s a reason i quoted and responded to multiple things. It’s important to me that we keep any discussion of “immersion” as highly subjective and Crimson’s original statement was doing a broad brush casting of Blades and its different zoom levels. We’ve resolved that and moved on.

 

[zakael19]

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.

FWIW, “fiction first” still just means “start with fiction, go to mechanics, return to fiction.”

You agree to a fictional score, you come to a fictional approach and detail, you roll dice, you narrate what that looks like and present an obstacle, you say some stuff about getting around that obstacle, you have the P&E discussion (or do a Flashback which is almost entirely fictional), you resolve the outcomes and frame the new situation and continue.

Until there’s a significant obstacle or risk that the GM can enumerate, there’s no Action roll. That obstacle is in the fiction. Until the player says what they’re doing fictionally there’s no way to judge position or effect.

If your contention is that “my Slide tries to take a generally social approach to obstacle solving because that’s where their actions and special abilities sit” then good! You’re getting that XP and actualizing your character. Which means showing what a Slide does in the fiction to get by in the world.