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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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 don't know what you mean, here. Do I stop to consider the mechanics? Stop what, exactly? I'm playing the game... the game has mechanics. I engage with the mechanics.

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.

Is that all people have done?

Honestly, I've never used the shrug emoji. And with good reason. Nothing says more that either "I don't care" or "I have nothing to offer". And both of those stances are hard ones to engage with.

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.

Well, if you have any questions, I would be happy to offer any advice I have. But if you're starting from an assumption that I don't quite follow, that can make it hard to offer proper advice. I mean, most of us have already acknowledged that the book could be organized better, and that information could be presented more clearly. No book is perfect, and Blades is no exception.

But... that doesn't mean that the design has failed. I mean, people are telling you that they don't experience the same issues that you describe. Yes, a couple of others have expressed similar sentiment. But many have not. So it doesn't seem inherent to the design of the game, so much as the understanding of any given group.

So I think you'd likely find more fruitful discussion talking about your experience and accepting what others are saying about their experience, and then listening to what they have to say. I've suggested quite a bit that you can do as a group to try and address some of the issues you've found.

But instead it seems like you're more convinced that it's a design issue and insisting that everyone agrees with that, when our experiences tell us otherwise. And then you blame others for the breakdown in communication.

So... if you really want to address this stuff for your game, either the one you're in now or future games, then you have to accept what people are sharing with you as their experiences. Once you do that, then we can try and see what's causing the gap between your experience and theirs, and we can see if anything can be done about it.

I'd be happy to do that. But if you just want to criticize the design, okay, you have every right to do so... but then expect push back from those of us with different experiences.

 

[Kannik]

Glad to hear that, particularly the bolded.
How does this square, however, with the [paraphrased] "players lean into the consequences rather than try to avoid them because that's what produces good fiction" take from upthread, where avoiding or mitigating the consequences in in fact in the character's better interests?

Mostly from that being of a full character (in the literary sense) and looking at ourselves. We goof up all the time. Sometimes due to stress and pressure, more often due to our foibles or blind spots or traumas, and sometimes just due to a lack of full awareness of the situation in which we find ourselves in. (This last one including the classic player knowledge vs character knowledge, but it's also how like hindsight is 20/20 with the greater perspective.)

There's often no need for any artificial or forced creation of 'drama' because it will come up organically through playing the character (again, in the literary sense, not the "I have a 12 in stealth and a sword that does a d6 damage" sense). And where the mechanics of these types of games come in to encourage this is in both toning down the penalties/consequences for doing it as well as sometimes providing a 'reward' for it (be it XP or a metacurrency or a narrative boon). Other mechanics in the games may also tie the character's values, status/position, foibles, virtues, and other more non-tangible traits as part of the resolution mechanic, either on every test or for in bursts (such as when spending a metacurrency), all working to highlight those non-tangible elements and what makes the character that character (and not someone else who also has a 12 in stealth).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't know what you mean, here. Do I stop to consider the mechanics? Stop what, exactly? I'm playing the game... the game has mechanics. I engage with the mechanics.

I think the question was pretty clear. On what basis do you make decisions about resisting a consequence, evoking a special armour etc? How do these decisions correspond to the decisions your character is making? When doing this are you trying to advance your character's goals or are you trying to make choices that result most interesting story, or perhaps something else?

Is that all people have done?

I mean there has been a lot of that, and sort of "it just works" and similar answers that do not actually address the how. Your answer above is sort of in this territory. "I just play the game" is a non-answer. Yeah, we all know it is a game, I am asking what is your decision making process like while playing this game.

Well, if you have any questions, I would be happy to offer any advice I have. But if you're starting from an assumption that I don't quite follow, that can make it hard to offer proper advice. I mean, most of us have already acknowledged that the book could be organized better, and that information could be presented more clearly. No book is perfect, and Blades is no exception.

But... that doesn't mean that the design has failed. I mean, people are telling you that they don't experience the same issues that you describe. Yes, a couple of others have expressed similar sentiment. But many have not. So it doesn't seem inherent to the design of the game, so much as the understanding of any given group.

So I think you'd likely find more fruitful discussion talking about your experience and accepting what others are saying about their experience, and then listening to what they have to say. I've suggested quite a bit that you can do as a group to try and address some of the issues you've found.

But instead it seems like you're more convinced that it's a design issue and insisting that everyone agrees with that, when our experiences tell us otherwise. And then you blame others for the breakdown in communication.

So... if you really want to address this stuff for your game, either the one you're in now or future games, then you have to accept what people are sharing with you as their experiences. Once you do that, then we can try and see what's causing the gap between your experience and theirs, and we can see if anything can be done about it.

I'd be happy to do that. But if you just want to criticize the design, okay, you have every right to do so... but then expect push back from those of us with different experiences.

I have done my best to express my experiences with the game: I have talked about the decision making process, and I have talked about what sort of behaviour certain mechanics incentivise and why. My experiences certainly might not be universal, but I have offered my rationale for my position.

Like did you read my comparison between hit points and the more concrete woulds in the Blades? Do you agree with my take that more abstracted mechanics are prone to leading the players in thinking mostly in terms of the mechanics, as the connection to what the mechanic represents becomes muddled? And if you disagree, why?

Or do you understand what I mean when I say that advocating for the character's goals and advocating for the most interesting story are different things, and that they can conflict? And that many games often are not terribly clear about which you "should" be doing?

 

[Umbran]

Or do you understand what I mean when I say that advocating for the character's goals and advocating for the most interesting story are different that, and that they can conflict? And that many games often are not terribly clear about which you "should" be doing?

So, I think I see what you are getting at, but you are keeping it so generic as to make it less clear.

Let us take an example that avoids specific rules.

Joe is playing a goblin. Moderate intelligence, not the highest Wisdom. He's on a heist in a wizard's tower, trying to acquire the famous, rune-fletched arrow Beanslicer, rumored to be in the wizard's library.

They've made their way to the laboratory, just next to the library. In the lab, bolted to a large, heavy workbench, there's a finely crafted box, with a little brass plate on the side, inscribed with the words, "Wish Generator". On the top of the box is a Big Red Button^TM. Or alternatively, make it a BigHonkin'^TM Diamond on the table, that might have a magical protection on it.

What are Joe's thought processes in his decision whether or not to push the button or grab the diamond?

Pursuing the nominal goal, Joe would ignore all distractions, and move on to the library.

But, there's a heaping stack of possible as yet unstated goals for the goblin, as well as Joe.

 

[zakael19]

Honestly, I've never used the shrug emoji. And with good reason. Nothing says more that either "I don't care" or "I have nothing to offer". And both of those stances are hard ones to engage with.

It's often a "I'm kinda at a loss here" signifier too!

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)

Yeah! That's mostly true actually! Blades uses the term and defines it using an entire page of the rulebook as part of its discussion of what it sees an RPG as, in part to draw a distinction between Blades and stuff like board games. But it's also using it specifically to try and say "hey, there's a lot of mechanics in this game, but don't engage with them if you haven't said something fictional first; and return to the fiction after." Like I quoted earlier in this thread from the rulebook:

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.

So yeah, if the player in D&D says "wait there's a lock? Ok I pull my lock picking kit out and try and open it" and the DM says "ok, give me a whatever roll" the key difference in Blades is just more around the clarity in between "what I want to do" (get what's inside the chest) and "what the GM/mechanics are adjudicating."

The only reason I keep bringing this up is because @Crimson Longinus keeps talking about engaging mechanics first. That's all.

First establish the fiction, then select a mechanical tool from the toolbox that suits the situation you need to resolve.

Which tools you pick will often be pragmatic, but can also be a stylistic choice. There’s no one right way to choose a tool, after all. The tools are there for you to use as you see fit; developing a style of use and set of precedents as you go along.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's often a "I'm kinda at a loss here" signifier too!

yeah, that is usually tends to be the sentiment I try to convey with it.

Yeah! That's mostly true actually!

But if basically all RPGs are "fiction first" then it is rather pointless to say that Blades is a fiction first RPG!

Blades uses the term and defines it using an entire page of the rulebook as part of its discussion of what it sees an RPG as, in part to draw a distinction between Blades and stuff like board games. But it's also using it specifically to try and say "hey, there's a lot of mechanics in this game, but don't engage with them if you haven't said something fictional first; and return to the fiction after." Like I quoted earlier in this thread from the rulebook:

So yeah, if the player in D&D says "wait there's a lock? Ok I pull my lock picking kit out and try and open it" and the DM says "ok, give me a whatever roll" the key difference in Blades is just more around the clarity in between "what I want to do" (get what's inside the chest) and "what the GM/mechanics are adjudicating."

The only reason I keep bringing this up is because @Crimson Longinus keeps talking about engaging mechanics first. That's all.

The thing is that with a lot of pretty abstract widgets like clocks, resistance, special armour and some other stuff, I think doing what the book says is pretty much impossible. We have these mechanical widgets which tell us we can prevent certain mechanical consequences, and that we want to utilise them is the reason why we are now inventing fiction about what it looks like.

Like sure, with basic action rolls and such that works, but a lot of the other stuff is so abstract that I really, really doubt people that do not consider the mechanics first. It is a bit like you cannot really play D&D combat fiction first and just not consider the turn order and stuff like that.

 

[zakael19]

The thing is that with a lot of pretty abstract widgets like clocks, resistance, special armour and some other stuff, I think doing what the book says is pretty much impossible. We have these mechanical widgets which tell us we can prevent certain mechanical consequences, and that we want to utilise them is the reason why we are now inventing fiction about what it looks like.

Like sure, with basic action rolls and such that works, but a lot of the other stuff is so abstract that I really, really doubt people do not consider the mechanics first. It is a bit like you cannot really play D&D combat fiction first and just not consider the turn order and stuff like that.

And we're back at this again.

My very last response on it:

We simply do not engage mechanics first at my table. We take fiction, figure out what it means in the mechanics, and go forward. If it's downtime, we start with how you're indulging your vice; if it's the objective of something we're tracking with a clock we talk about what your character is doing to achieve the objective (not 'tick a clock'); if it's recovery we talk about the doctor you go see; & etc.

I simply refuse, as the GM, to allow anything less than interesting and good fiction to occur at all times - even if it's zoomed out and some back and forth questions, it's about the fiction!

We've wrapped up a score and are in downtime, I ask Annabelle what she's going to do for her first DT action and she goes "hmm, I think what Annabelle is doing after like, taking a breather and stuff is trying to work on that Transcendent Beacon some more!" and I'll be like "cool, are you like engaging with Aodhan on that for his expertise, or just going it alone?" and she's like "no I think Annabelle is just going to retreat into her room and dig into some texts she had pulled up earlier" and I'll be like "cool, like about diagrams, or wiring or something?" and she's like "oh! no, it's some old textbooks from her monastery - techniques on how to channel energy through intimate objects"

And now we have a nice visual of Annabelle kicked out on her bed with a steaming cup of tea, idly scrolling through old texts on her smartslate and we roll some dice and mark down an Asset or progress the clock towards one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And we're back at this again.

My very last response on it:

We simply do not engage mechanics first at my table. We take fiction, figure out what it means in the mechanics, and go forward. If it's downtime, we start with how you're indulging your vice; if it's the objective of something we're tracking with a clock we talk about what your character is doing to achieve the objective (not 'tick a clock'); if it's recovery we talk about the doctor you go see; & etc.

I simply refuse, as the GM, to allow anything less than interesting and good fiction to occur at all times - even if it's zoomed out and some back and forth questions, it's about the fiction!

We've wrapped up a score and are in downtime, I ask Annabelle what she's going to do for her first DT action and she goes "hmm, I think what Annabelle is doing after like, taking a breather and stuff is trying to work on that Transcendent Beacon some more!" and I'll be like "cool, are you like engaging with Aodhan on that for his expertise, or just going it alone?" and she's like "no I think Annabelle is just going to retreat into her room and dig into some texts she had pulled up earlier" and I'll be like "cool, like about diagrams, or wiring or something?" and she's like "oh! no, it's some old textbooks from her monastery - techniques on how to channel energy through intimate objects"

And now we have a nice visual of Annabelle kicked out on her bed with a steaming cup of tea, idly scrolling through old texts on her smartslate and we roll some dice and mark down an Asset or progress the clock towards one.

But whether the eventual fiction is vivid is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about what comes first. And I just do not think that for a lot of abstract stuff the fiction can come first. Because a lot of decisions are based on how many ticks there are on the clock, what the stress situation of the chracters are and who as applicable uses of special armour available etc. Like our spider is very good at coming up with cool fiction to how they use their mastermind to protect the others, but the decision to use it in the first place is informed by the rules, not the fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the question was pretty clear. On what basis do you make decisions about resisting a consequence, evoking a special armour etc? How do these decisions correspond to the decisions your character is making? When doing this are you trying to advance your character's goals or are you trying to make choices that result most interesting story, or perhaps something else?

Yes, of course you think it was clear. You stated it. But I don't think it was clear because you said "do you stop..." so I asked specifically what you mean. Do I stop what?

You didn't actually answer that, you just pointed out to me that the question was in fact clear.

Now, you did elaborate a bit aside from what you meant by "stop". I generally decide based on what I think my character would do. Sometimes, yes, that is the obviously better choice for them. But often it isn't... because people very often act against their own interests. We see it all the time in the real world and all the time in fiction. I don't think RPGs should be any different.

My characters can be all sorts of people. So what they would do or not will vary. But in almost all cases, I'm making decisions with the character as the primary consideration. Not all decisions require this as much... I mean, using Special Armor or not if it's available is a pretty simple choice... I use it when it first comes up. Because I don't know if it will come up again in the Score. That's a pretty gamist decision, but it's also one the character would make... why wouldn't they want to resist a consequence if possible?

I don't think that the character's goals and what would make for more interesting play need to be at odds. I make characters who take risks and are bold. The game tells you to do this!

If you approach play with the kind of risk mitigation fostered by early D&D... where eventually, everyone's got ten foot poles and bags of piglets to send into rooms ahead of the party and all that other nonsense... it'll be jarring. So don't play that kind of character.

The character I played in a long campaign run by @Manbearcat was named Risk. He called himself that because he was a kind of pampered rich kid who got into crime because he was an adrenaline junkie. He didn't really need to be a criminal (at first) but got a real thrill out of it. And I played him accordingly. When it came time to make a decision for him... I would usually make the bold choice, unless I had reason not to (we learned over time that while he didn't mind placing himself and his fellow scoundrels in danger, he had a real soft spot for innocents, especially kids).

As such, there wasn't ever really a reason that the interesting choice to make from an "exciting play" or "interesting fiction" angle was at odds with what Risk would do.

I mean there has been a lot of that, and sort of "it just works" and similar answers that do not actually address the how. Your answer above is sort of in this territory. "I just play the game" is a non-answer. Yeah, we all know it is a game, I am asking what is your decision making process like while playing this game.

My previous post asked for clarification that you said was unnecessary. This is what I'm saying... accept what people are telling you. If I don't think a question you've asked is clear and ask for clarification, maybe accept that and answer the request for clarification instead of insisting that the question was clear.

I still don't know what you meant by "So you do not stop to consider the mechanics when you play?"

Sincerely... what do you mean by this? Stop doing what, exactly? I think this may matter quite a bit. I could certainly be wrong, but I think it's at least worth discussing to be sure.

I have done my best to express my experiences with the game: I have talked about the decision making process, and I have talked about what sort of behaviour certain mechanics incentivise and why. My experiences certainly might not be universal, but I have offered my rationale for my position.

Like did you read my comparison between hit points and the more concrete woulds in the Blades? Do you agree with my take that more abstracted mechanics are prone to leading the players in thinking mostly in terms of the mechanics, as the connection to what the mechanic represents becomes muddled? And if you disagree, why?

I don't disagree with your take on Hit Points versus the Harm system used in Blades. Hit points are really just a pacing mechanism. Nothing changes at all as they are lost, except that the character in question is closer to unconsciousness and/or death. Harm makes things far more specific, and has consequences as it accumulates.

But I think there's more abstraction involved in the process in Blades. Like in D&D, we know what causes Hit Point loss. If you're hit by an attack or by a spell, you will lose X number of HP, based on the weapon, attacker, and/or the spell (and whether you save or not). The process defines this, and the dice then tell us if HP are lost and how many.

In Blades, Harm is one of many consequences that a PC could face, depending on the circumstances. The process itself is less clear... it's up to the GM to determine an appropriate consequence. Sometimes, that's very easy. What do we do? We look to the fiction first. What's the situation the character was in? Is there a very obvious consequence? Are there more than one likely consequence?

This is where the GM goals and principles come into play. All of the following would play a part in this:

• Convey the fictional world honestly
• Telegraph trouble before it strikes
• Follow through
• Let everything flow from the fiction
• Bring the elements of the game system to life on the screen
• Advocate for the interests and capabilities of the NPCs

If the GM is doing all these things, he likely has an idea of what makes sense as a consequence. He'll use what's already been established in play, what the NPC wants to accomplish (if applicable), and then follow through accordingly.

All of these bullet point items can be found and elaborated upon in the book on pages 187 to 200. This is what fiction first means... you always look to the fiction first for guidance on what to do, or what happens, or what's next.

Or do you understand what I mean when I say that advocating for the character's goals and advocating for the most interesting story are different things, and that they can conflict? And that many games often are not terribly clear about which you "should" be doing?

I understand it, but I don't often find it to be the case in my games. But instead of worrying about that... do you have an example from play that you can share? Not some whiteboard hypothetical, but an actual example that came up in your game?

Share that and we can look at it and analyze it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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.

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

Yes, it's all subjective Micah. So what?

Here's my subjective opinion... the reasoning behind the "it takes me out of the fiction" mindset any time game mechanics are brought into things is mindbogglingly silly. We're playing a game... games have rules and procedures. Those will come up whenever we play a game or talk about playing a game.