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

[hawkeyefan]

OK, fair enough.

I certainly agree.

Because you can usually also use the special armour for something else, to push yourself, so you might want to save it for that. Or the consequence for that specific thing is something you feel you can deal with and you want to save your special armour in case of something worse. Many reeasons. But I actually agree with you that from "what would the chracter do" perspective it probably makes most sense to use it in the first instance; like dad thing happens, I reflexively try to avoid it. Though of course it is somewhat questionable to what degree the chracter even is aware of such an ability in the first place.

I mean I would generally use it for its special resistance the first chance I got if I thought it made sense to resist. You're right, actually accepting the consequences is a possibility, so I should have been clearer.

As for the character being aware of the ability... I think they absolutely do. they know they're particularly good at avoiding detection, and can often manage to deal with it even when they are detected. That doesn't seem like some kind of unknown thing.

Yeah, absolutely, that is not something I want to see in any game. And when I talk about playing smart or utilising the rules tactically, this is not what I mean. Characters can and should do stupid and reckless things. But should the player try to use mechanics smartly so that the character has better chances to survive their recklessness?

Yes? Characters in Blades have a lot at their disposal to mitigate bad consequences. This is what allows the GM to hit them hard... to not feel the need to pull punches. It allows them to follow through fully on the threats that have been introduced.

Stress is, therefore, designed as a fully player used resource. The player chooses when and how to use stress, and when not to use it. Its use is never dictated by the GM. That's important and very intentional. This gives the players the ability to survive their recklessness.

Forget the word "stop." It was really not the relevant part. I merely mean at to what degree you consider the implications of the mechanics when making the decisions in the game. Like Do you consider whether the next resist roll could fill your stress gauge or not when deciding whether to resist? Do you consider how many ticks there already are on the danger clock? Do you consider who can most afford to take stress when deciding a group action? All sort of these gamey things. What impact they have on your decision making?

Yes, I consider all those things as a player when I consider using my resources. Why wouldn't I?

Again, they're representative of things in the game that the character would know. About how close are we to being found out? How much do I have left in the tank? These are things people have an idea about.

Now the "stop" part might be relevant in sense that does you group ever spend time discussing these things in midst of a game?

The "So you do not stop to consider the mechanics when you play? " is important to me because it implies some need to do so. And I don't know what I'm supposed to stop doing to play the game.

Yes. And I think clocks and the stress gauge in Blades are rather similar.

Similar to Hit Points? I think that's a pretty bad read of Stress and only a superficial read of Clocks.

As I said above... Stress is spent only at the choice of the player. That's radically different from Hit Points right there. It also serves as a resource for a few things... you can Push for an extra die or Push for Effect, you can power special abilities, and you can resist. It's far more robust of Hit Points, and, in my opinion, a much better representation of something like "effort" or "will power" or "stamina", or some combination of those things.

For Clocks, yes, they are a countdown. But they are (almost) always some external thing. This Clock is about the Red Sashes discovering you've sneaked into their sword academy. That Clock tells us how close you are to building a Hull. The other Clock tells us how bad the Gang War in Crow's Foot has gotten.

A Clock can be used for a variety of things... unlike Hit Points. And also unlike Hit Points, it's pretty clear what they actually are. I mean, we still can't agree if Hit Points are meat or not after fifty friggin years.

Looking at a Clock that's "Bluecoats Arrive" and is at 3 out of 4 ticks tells us something. Probably something like "Out on the street you hear whistles and shouts, and you know it's only a matter of moments before the Bluecoats arrive and everything goes teats up... what do you do?"

Yes, sure. It was not about that though. My point is that like in D&D abstracted things like hit points and turn order may lead people thinking foremost in the terms of rules, similar abstracted thing in the Blades lead to this as well. That was my point.

Sure, and I made another point about how that may not be the case. Abstraction is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. I don't think things that are representative in some way need to be exactly so. Some level of abstraction is likely necessary a lot of the time.

And yes, sometimes the mechanics can shape play a bit. Obviously, the initiative order is a big one in D&D... it really forces everything into a rather absurd stop and go situation that we know is solely "because game".

If you feel that Blades does this, then I would say you should instead look to the fiction first and figure out why besides "because game". There are explanations that can be found for these things that will never be found for initiative.

And when the thinking gets on this sort of abstract tactical territory, making decisions based on "what my character would do" sorta becomes weird or even impossible. The character is not thinking in those terms to begin with.

I don't think you and I are aligned on what it means to think about what my character would do. I mean, no matter what I do as a player, I narrate my character doing something, right? So that's what the character does!

No the character doesn't say "I'm going to spend Stress and Push myself for an extra die here!". I do that as the player. For the character it's something like "Damn, we're in trouble... if I don't make this shot, we may not get out of this! I'm putting everything I've got into this!"

This aversion to game mechanics is just odd. Play the game!

And to sidestep arguing over how "meta" mechanics in Blades specifically are, let's just posit a hypothetical mechanic that clearly is meta. The player can spend a plot point to alter a scene, or alter a die result and that sort of things. So then a decision to what how to use this mechanic cannot be made by "what would the character do" metric, as it is not the character making decision about it.

And I think with sufficiently abstract and detached mechanics, we sorta get into similar territory.

Eh, this is why hypotheticals aren't really helpful. I don't think what you're describing here is really what happens in Blades, so I don't know what work this example is meant to do. Let's talk about actual games and actual rules, and if possible, actual examples from play. Those are much more enlightening.

It was not really about problem in our game, it was about some posters saying that making most interesting story was a player goal in the Blades.

Sure. I mean, have you never wound up in a situation where you weren't entirely sure what your character would do? That there was more than one possibility you could see happening?

If so, do what's interesting. It's still in character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are welcome to feel that way, but referring to my feelings on this matter as "mind bogglingly silly" is not the most polite way to make a point.

I mean, we're playing games. If people want to say "rules are icky" I'm gonna call it silly. Especially knowing that you like Level Up and other forms of D&D and there are tons of mechanics involved all the time. I can't really understand the cherry picking involved of what rules are acceptable and what are not... so there doesn't appear to be any logic to it that I can discern other than your own personal taste. And that's fine... you can say that one rule harms your immersion and another doesn't just by feel... but that doesn't mean I have to agree or think that's a very clear way to determine such things.

Not @Crimson Longinus but I'll take a guess: the question is whether - in the clocks example - you're looking at the state of the countdown clock on the table and taking that meta-information into consideraton when deciding what your character tries next, even though your character might very well have limited or no idea where such things stand.

Put another way, if the countdown clock was DM-visible only (or even only in her head) and you-as-player never knew its current status, would your play of your character be any different than when the clock is up-front visible to you-as-player.

What "meta-information" are you talking about? Do you mean the Clock itself? It's not outside the game... it is part of the game. I've already explained to you that these things represent something in the fiction... so why would my character not consider them? To use my last example, if the "Bluecoats Arrive" clock is at 3 out of 4 ticks... it means they're practically on the scene. The character is going to hear whistles and shouts and so on... and they then use that information to make decisions.

Again a guess: "stop" thinking as your character first-person in favour of meta-thinking about how to stop or beat that clock staring at you across the table.

Well no one said first person thinking is required. I freely bounce from first to third person at times because I find doing so helps me as a player. And as a GM I'm in no way interested in dictating to players how they choose to engage with the game.

But aside from that, why would I stop thinking about that? Why would the character not be thinking "Oh man, the Bluecoats are nearly here... we better wrap this up quick before they show up" or even "I wonder if there's anything I can do to slow them down" which would result in unticking the clock or something similar.

There's no reason that the GM must be the sole and total source of information to the players about what's happening in the game. There are tools the GM can use. Why not do so?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean I would generally use it for its special resistance the first chance I got if I thought it made sense to resist. You're right, actually accepting the consequences is a possibility, so I should have been clearer.

As for the character being aware of the ability... I think they absolutely do. they know they're particularly good at avoiding detection, and can often manage to deal with it even when they are detected. That doesn't seem like some kind of unknown thing.

Sure, but the character does not need to decide to use their "good at avoiding detection" they just are that and is is not spent once used. So the decision making process of the player and character regarding this is pretty much completely diverged. So to me this makes the player choice to use it rather meta.

Yes, I consider all those things as a player when I consider using my resources. Why wouldn't I?

I don't know why you wouldn't, but when I earlier said me and my group consider such things I was told it was against living the scoundrel life!

Similar to Hit Points? I think that's a pretty bad read of Stress and only a superficial read of Clocks.

I meant in broad sense. They're a gamey abstraction. Not that they are used for similar purposes.

Sure, and I made another point about how that may not be the case. Abstraction is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. I don't think things that are representative in some way need to be exactly so. Some level of abstraction is likely necessary a lot of the time.

Sure, some level is. And I am not even saying it is bad per se. Like despite all the arguments over hit points they seem to function and have survived for decades. But I think in general such abstractions do make the connection between the fiction and the rules weaker and thus easily lead to the players thinking in terms of rules. Which again is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing.

And yes, sometimes the mechanics can shape play a bit. Obviously, the initiative order is a big one in D&D... it really forces everything into a rather absurd stop and go situation that we know is solely "because game".

If you feel that Blades does this, then I would say you should instead look to the fiction first and figure out why besides "because game". There are explanations that can be found for these things that will never be found for initiative.

I definitely do think Blades does this. And a lot actually. Like the whole basic structure of the game of having different distinct phases in which certain actions are siloed to and that must follow in certain order is gamey as hell. And I think the stress management is very gamey. Special armours definitely. A lot of things. And these are not automatically bad, and for example the phase structure and the downtime actions are very important for the games flow. But it most definitely is not fiction first.

I don't think you and I are aligned on what it means to think about what my character would do. I mean, no matter what I do as a player, I narrate my character doing something, right? So that's what the character does!

No the character doesn't say "I'm going to spend Stress and Push myself for an extra die here!". I do that as the player. For the character it's something like "Damn, we're in trouble... if I don't make this shot, we may not get out of this! I'm putting everything I've got into this!"

This aversion to game mechanics is just odd. Play the game!

I think that with stress management resistances and clocks the abstraction is such, that the decision making process of the player and character become pretty diverged. Yes, they represent the things you mention, but to me it definitely feels more like post hoc rationalisation.

Eh, this is why hypotheticals aren't really helpful. I don't think what you're describing here is really what happens in Blades, so I don't know what work this example is meant to do. Let's talk about actual games and actual rules, and if possible, actual examples from play. Those are much more enlightening.

I feel that certain things in Blades come very close to this. You obviously do not agree but, I think that for example using special armour is pretty much this and the stress management is rather close too.

Sure. I mean, have you never wound up in a situation where you weren't entirely sure what your character would do? That there was more than one possibility you could see happening?

If so, do what's interesting. It's still in character.

Sure, agreed!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thinking more about FitD mechanics, I don't like the flow of the basic action rolls. Like once it is established what we are rolling (which is not always straightforward due the skill overlap) we then ponder whether to spend stress to help or push yourself. Then we see whether good stuff or bad stuff or both happen. Oh no, bad stuff! GM tells about th bad stuff. Except maybe the bad stuff doesn't happen, as we can spend stress to resist it!

To me this is too finicky and too many steps for one thing. We already had an opportunity to spend stress to get more dice, thus lessen the odds of bad stuff, the resistance step where we can again use stress to lessen bad stuff seems superfluous. It also sometimes creates annoyingly stuttering fiction when the bad thing happens, but then it actually doesn't happen.

And I think Harper felt the same, as In Deep Cuts pushing oneself and resistance are combined. I think I would prefer that version of the system.

Looking at Apocalypse World, and if I understand it correctly, the process there is even more straightforward: determine what move it is and roll.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, we're playing games. If people want to say "rules are icky" I'm gonna call it silly. Especially knowing that you like Level Up and other forms of D&D and there are tons of mechanics involved all the time. I can't really understand the cherry picking involved of what rules are acceptable and what are not... so there doesn't appear to be any logic to it that I can discern other than your own personal taste. And that's fine... you can say that one rule harms your immersion and another doesn't just by feel... but that doesn't mean I have to agree or think that's a very clear way to determine such things.



What "meta-information" are you talking about? Do you mean the Clock itself? It's not outside the game... it is part of the game. I've already explained to you that these things represent something in the fiction... so why would my character not consider them? To use my last example, if the "Bluecoats Arrive" clock is at 3 out of 4 ticks... it means they're practically on the scene. The character is going to hear whistles and shouts and so on... and they then use that information to make decisions.



Well no one said first person thinking is required. I freely bounce from first to third person at times because I find doing so helps me as a player. And as a GM I'm in no way interested in dictating to players how they choose to engage with the game.

But aside from that, why would I stop thinking about that? Why would the character not be thinking "Oh man, the Bluecoats are nearly here... we better wrap this up quick before they show up" or even "I wonder if there's anything I can do to slow them down" which would result in unticking the clock or something similar.

There's no reason that the GM must be the sole and total source of information to the players about what's happening in the game. There are tools the GM can use. Why not do so?

The difference for me is when the mechanics intrude unnecessarily into the fiction. Having a doom clock would do that for me.

 

[zakael19]

And I think Harper felt the same, as In Deep Cuts pushing oneself and resistance are combined. I think I would prefer that version of the system.

Not quite, Push Yourself now comprises the old mechanic (before a roll for certain bonuses); and what was once Resistance (Pushing Yourself to using stress to get past a threat where your skills failed you). Iiits a little confusing.

Looking at Apocalypse World, and if I understand it correctly, the process there is even more straightforward: determine what move it is and roll.

Yes, by and large PBTAs are in basic math far more punishing than FITDs - in part because Resistance doesn’t exist. Blades was intentionally designed to be a game that tells stories of already competent scoundrels clawing their way up through a system that wants to bury them via grit and the ability to pull things out when they shouldn’t (and the cost they pay via body and mind along the way). You can see Harper’s early design bits (Flashbacks! Some bits that look like Actions!) in AW1e’s Advanced WordICantTypeHere chapter.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, but the character does not need to decide to use their "good at avoiding detection" they just are that and is is not spent once used. So the decision making process of the player and character regarding this is pretty much completely diverged. So to me this makes the player choice to use it rather meta.

But why wouldn't this just be a little extra effort that they put into something? Seriously, I don't see the reason you're dividing these things up so much.

I don't know why you wouldn't, but when I earlier said me and my group consider such things I was told it was against living the scoundrel life!

Well, it wasn't just that. It was more about how your group seems to be halting play to constantly angle for using their best Action Rating rather than simply accepting that even when they have zero dots in an Action, with the cost of 2 Stress they can get an extra die, giving themselves a 50% chance at success. There are already resources to be used without also constantly pushing to use your best Action Rating.

Your group should have a discussion about the Actions and how they're used and also discuss player best practices together as a group.

I meant in broad sense. They're a gamey abstraction. Not that they are used for similar purposes.


Sure, some level is. And I am not even saying it is bad per se. Like despite all the arguments over hit points they seem to function and have survived for decades. But I think in general such abstractions do make the connection between the fiction and the rules weaker and thus easily lead to the players thinking in terms of rules. Which again is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing.

Yes, they're a gamey abstraction. We're playing a game. Players thinking in terms of rules is not an issue in any way. They are players. They are playing a game.

I mean, if this is an issue for you, then I'm not sure if RPGs are the best choice to play.

I definitely do think Blades does this. And a lot actually. Like the whole basic structure of the game of having different distinct phases in which certain actions are siloed to and that must follow in certain order is gamey as hell. And I think the stress management is very gamey. Special armours definitely. A lot of things. And these are not automatically bad, and for example the phase structure and the downtime actions are very important for the games flow. But it most definitely is not fiction first.

So what? It's a game. Why fight that? The game elements that the players deal with are representative of things in the fictional world. The characters are not engaging with the game mechanics.

I simply don't understand this issue.

I think that with stress management resistances and clocks the abstraction is such, that the decision making process of the player and character become pretty diverged. Yes, they represent the things you mention, but to me it definitely feels more like post hoc rationalisation.

Yes, and I think this is a weak argument and simply restating it makes it no stronger. I've already explained why and we're now going in circles again.

I get it... you've made up your mind.

I feel that certain things in Blades come very close to this. You obviously do not agree but, I think that for example using special armour is pretty much this and the stress management is rather close too.

I don't think you've explained it well. Or explained why it's true for these game mechanics and not others. But I don't think we can get past the different way we seem to approach play... so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The difference for me is when the mechanics intrude unnecessarily into the fiction. Having a doom clock would do that for me.

But "unnecessarily" isn't what I'd call them. Again... if the purpose of a GM narrating events of play is to give the players an idea of what's going on... to inform the players as much as the characters would be informed, or as close to that as possible... then I don't think any tool that helps with that is "unnecessary". Such a tool sounds quite helpful.

If there's a specific player at the table whose ability to immerse in the game or the setting or their character is so fragile that a Clock shatters it, then all I can say to them is "this game is not for you" and again, wonder if RPGs in general might not be the right choice.

 

[Fenris-77]

Are we still talking about Blades in terms of the immersive preferences of specific posters? I have my doubts about the usefulness of that particular tangent to the thread overall. Immersion is a very specific, very personal thing and so discussion of it adds very little to an overall topic of play to find out. I don't need to read seventeen times that a game isn't to someone's taste.

 

[pemerton]

I don't need to read seventeen times that a game isn't to someone's taste.

Or do you . . . .?

Immersion is a very specific, very personal thing and so discussion of it adds very little to an overall topic of play to find out.

For me, one of the more striking things about some talk of immersion is that people are not talking about a psychological experience - that is, how they feel during play - but rather are talking directly about the "logical" structure of play, independently of any psychological consequences that might flow from that structure.

I was moved to make a related post a little while ago:

Over the past few years, I've had exchanges on these board where some posters talk about verisimilitude not by reference to the fiction, but rather in terms of mechanics. That is, some mechanics are described as unrealistic or as lacking verisimilitude in themselves rather than in terms of the fictional outcomes they tend to produce.

That is, immersion and verisimilitude get used to describe processes of play rather than the experience of play or the character of the shared fiction.

I find it interesting, but also a bit odd.