Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9853237" data-attributes="member: 6785785">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 [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] 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. 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 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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Convey the fictional world honestly</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Telegraph trouble before it strikes</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Follow through</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let everything flow from the fiction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bring the elements of the game system to life on the screen</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Advocate for the interests and capabilities of the NPCs</li> </ul>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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification