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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You can reference the mechanics plenty to my mind, and in my preference, so long as those mechanics are modeling something real in the fiction. This avoids your entire dichotomy.

 

[TwoSix]

You can reference the mechanics plenty to my mind, and in my preference, so long as those mechanics are modeling something real in the fiction. This avoids your entire dichotomy.

No it doesn’t. The situations I described above are about stakes versus no stakes, not diegetic vs non-diegetic mechanics.

Centering a game around diegetic mechanics can have utility for some play modes, but isn’t connected to the point I was making.

A mechanic might be intended to directly model a certain fictional state, but that doesn’t mean referencing that model is also staying in the fictional frame simultaneously.

 

[FrogReaver]

No it doesn’t. The situations I described above are about stakes versus no stakes, not diegetic vs non-diegetic mechanics.

Centering a game around diegetic mechanics can have utility for some play modes, but isn’t connected to the point I was making.

A mechanic might be intended to directly model a certain fictional state, but that doesn’t mean referencing that model is also staying in the fictional frame simultaneously.

Instead of pitting it as stakes vs no stakes OR diegetic vs non-diegetic perhaps we should break that into 4 categories. Stakes and diegetic. Stakes and non-diegetic. No stakes and diegetic. No stakes and non-diegetic. That may aid in clarity?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No it doesn’t. The situations I described above are about stakes versus no stakes, not diegetic vs non-diegetic mechanics.

Centering a game around diegetic mechanics can have utility for some play modes, but isn’t connected to the point I was making.

A mechanic might be intended to directly model a certain fictional state, but that doesn’t mean referencing that model is also staying in the fictional frame simultaneously.

Ok, can you provide an example of what you're talking about?

 

[hawkeyefan]

My own personal experience with this is that while I might sometimes get a sense of some pending thing happening, the achieved accuracy of that sense both in outcome and in timing ranges from mediocre to abysmal.

Given that, I don't assume any greater degree of intuition on the part of my characters until-unless something in the game tells me I can; on which the fiction becomes that much less believable.

I expect you’re likely assuming the worst to bolster your argument. I mean… what we’re talking about is a pretty essential human ability and has been key to our survival as a race.

And then on top of that, Blades in the Dark does assume a greater degree of intuition for the characters. They are expected to he competent and capable scoundrels. They are nit average joes or run if the mill people. If that was the case, they wouldn’t be scoundrels.

As a player, the narration of slowly-approaching doom (if done at all well) would or should be enough for me to roleplay the increasing stress being placed on my character. A player-facing clock or counter would a) needlessly add out-of-character stress on me-the-player and b) make that sense of impending doom far more accurate in terms of timing and-or nearness than seems believable.

I never understand this argument. If the purpose of the narration is to provide an accurate summary of the situation… if the goal is understanding… then why argue against something that helps that?

Also, no matter how good the narration, it will NEVER equal the experience of actually being there. That’s an impossibility. So personally, I find that clocks and similar game elements actually help me as a player feel as informed as the character would be.

To address your A and B. On A… I don’t see how it’s an unnecessary out of character stress. It correlates to what’s happening in the fiction.

As for B, again, I think your take on what’s believable is off. Competent people have feelings about progressing situations. They have hunches and instincts and all kinds of sensory input that may inform them. I don’t think it’s unbelievable at all.

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.

Yeah, again… I think what you’re describing is your game specifically, and not Blades in the Dark generally. That’s based on my personal experience and also those of many other people, some of whom have also been replying to you in this thread.

I think you’ve made your decision and so I expect I’ll stop commenting on this. All I’ll add is that if you put half as much energy into listening a bit and trying to get what people are saying… if you tried to make what they say work instead of trying to prove that it doesn’t… I expect your game would improve. But for whatever reason, that doesn’t seem to be what you want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I never understand this argument. If the purpose of the narration is to provide an accurate summary of the situation… if the goal is understanding… then why argue against something that helps that?

First of all, whether it helps at all is subjective. Secondly, some of us simply see these sorts of meta (IMO) mechanics as off-putting and reducing our fun.

Also, no matter how good the narration, it will NEVER equal the experience of actually being there. That’s an impossibility. So personally, I find that clocks and similar game elements actually help me as a player feel as informed as the character would be.

That's subjective of course. Personally clocks and similar meta (IMO) mechanics take me decidedly out of the narrative when I'm forced to interact with them.

As for B, again, I think your take on what’s believable is off.

I would say that your take is simply different than his. Your opinion isn't more "right" than @Lanefan 's.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I mean that is best part of most RPGs, and definitely of our Blades games. But of course this does not mean there are no stakes, as even if it is just the characters discussing among themselves, their relationships and goals are at the stake. Do we do this or that, is this the sort of sacrifice we are willing to make? Do I trust this other PC? A lot of stakes, and probably more interesting ones than whether I can roll a big number on the dice.

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.

It is perfectly bueno sometimes, it is one of the main reasons for having a GM.

But yes, one purpose of the mechanics is for the GM to disclaim decision making. Basically every RPG ever has rules that do this.
But this does not require the rules to be so abstract that the player and character decision making diverge. That is what I am talking about, the play becoming focused on the rules over the fiction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I mean based on your criteria, "fiction first" is meaningless; there is no RPG published that isn't that, as in any RPG the most rules are at least in some abstract sense connected to the fiction.

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.

What I am talking about is gameplay that is mostly fuelled by the rules and fiction invented on top of that. Like if when sneaking in a mansion complication occurs and this results guards becoming suspicious and a clock ticks, then the discussion becomes about checking stress status and whether it is worth to resist or use special armour at this point or only when the lock is ticked next time and who should conserve their stress or special abilities for later. And then decision is made based on that, to for example a spider to use their special armour and then it is invented what this means in the fiction. It is hard to see that this waffling about resources and the tactics consideration reflect in meaningful sense anything that is going on in the fiction. It is just tactics discussion based on mechanics, and then some fiction is spun from it afterwards. And it doesn't need to be even a discussion, it can be just the player making decisions based on these factors in their head. It not about the fiction.

And yes, you can try avoid this, but also because the rules are so abstract, it invites it. You must think in terms of these mechanics for the game to even function.

 

[Lanefan]

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

There has to be more to it than that, I'd think, else this is just a rewording of the basic granular play loop common to all RPGs:

Player declares character action (fiction)
The game system - GM fiat, dice, negotiation, or whatever other method - determines the outcome (mechanics)
The GM narrates what happens (fiction)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Also, no matter how good the narration, it will NEVER equal the experience of actually being there. That’s an impossibility. So personally, I find that clocks and similar game elements actually help me as a player feel as informed as the character would be.

So I actually agree with you here to a point. Mechanics can be tools to communicate the understanding that the characters have. The danger with this of course is that once when these mechanics are sufficiently abstracted you sort of have to think in their terms instead of in the terms of the fiction, and the game becomes more about the rules than the fiction. Like in D&D hit points are very abstract and gamey, so people often tend to mostly think about them just in tactical gameplay terms rather than what they represent. Harm in Blades being codified as specific injuries is a mechanical representation which is more robustly connected to the fiction, and thus avoids the fiction getting lost.

Yeah, again… I think what you’re describing is your game specifically, and not Blades in the Dark generally. That’s based on my personal experience and also those of many other people, some of whom have also been replying to you in this thread.

So you do not stop to consider the mechanics when you play? The sort of thought I described in my latest reply to @zakael19 do not enter your head? On what basis then you make decisions to whether a resits ticks on clock, use special armour etc then? Like I am not trying to be flippant, I am genuinely curious about how people think of these things.

I think you’ve made your decision and so I expect I’ll stop commenting on this. All I’ll add is that if you put half as much energy into listening a bit and trying to get what people are saying… if you tried to make what they say work instead of trying to prove that it doesn’t… I expect your game would improve. But for whatever reason, that doesn’t seem to be what you want.

I mean we discuss what works and what does with our gaming group all the time. It is not that it is either or. And I certainly do appreciate tips for making the game to work better, it is just that most responses are "Well, that just doesn't happen." Good for you, I guess, but it is not super helpful.

But to me this also a game design discussion. About player goals, decision making, and what sort of incentives different sort of mechanics create etc. But it is so hard to discuss, as it is so impossible to find common ground even about the very basic axioms.