Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8933720" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah and I feel like Blades itself and a lot of the early Blades boosters were responsible for this situation. Personally I feel like the actual mechanics are only &quot;okay&quot; for a heist-oriented game, and the whole &quot;no planning&quot; approach that the game itself promotes doesn't really work well for that (though as I believe someone pointed out earlier, real &quot;old hands&quot; at Blade are long past pushing that approach).I think with Blades in particular it can be genuinely difficult to separate those elements, especially when dogmatic approaches to play style are involved. Dogmatic approaches which may well mirror text in the rule books.A lot of PtbA games have issues here too - Dungeon World for example - if you take a dogmatic approach to how to play/run it, as was seemingly very common, say, 8-9 years ago, I think you end up making it a lot harder for people to get into/comprehend rather than if you take a looser approach. Like, does anyone really need/benefit from Fronts? I don't think so, personally, but at the time, god forbid you suggest that (it's a more common opinion now). Point is, games where there's dogmatic discussion about &quot;how to play&quot; can be a lot harder to discuss because that can obfuscate issues.That does rely on it becoming apparent, though. It's very helpful if the person involved signposts that they're not familiar with a game. And like 7 times in 10, that happens. Most people are pretty reasonable - they say &quot;I'm not familiar [system X]&quot; or whatever. What's really unhelpful is when someone acts like they're familiar with it, and avoids saying they're not, but keeps arguing strenuously, from a position of ignorance. I don't think it's &quot;gatekeeping&quot; or whatever to frown at that.Like, I have just admit I dunno anything about Modiphus' 2d20 system. It sounds ghastly but I'm totally unfamiliar with it, so maybe it's fine?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8933720, member: 18"] Yeah and I feel like Blades itself and a lot of the early Blades boosters were responsible for this situation. Personally I feel like the actual mechanics are only "okay" for a heist-oriented game, and the whole "no planning" approach that the game itself promotes doesn't really work well for that (though as I believe someone pointed out earlier, real "old hands" at Blade are long past pushing that approach). I think with Blades in particular it can be genuinely difficult to separate those elements, especially when dogmatic approaches to play style are involved. Dogmatic approaches which may well mirror text in the rule books. A lot of PtbA games have issues here too - Dungeon World for example - if you take a dogmatic approach to how to play/run it, as was seemingly very common, say, 8-9 years ago, I think you end up making it a lot harder for people to get into/comprehend rather than if you take a looser approach. Like, does anyone really need/benefit from Fronts? I don't think so, personally, but at the time, god forbid you suggest that (it's a more common opinion now). Point is, games where there's dogmatic discussion about "how to play" can be a lot harder to discuss because that can obfuscate issues. That does rely on it becoming apparent, though. It's very helpful if the person involved signposts that they're not familiar with a game. And like 7 times in 10, that happens. Most people are pretty reasonable - they say "I'm not familiar [system X]" or whatever. What's really unhelpful is when someone acts like they're familiar with it, and avoids saying they're not, but keeps arguing strenuously, from a position of ignorance. I don't think it's "gatekeeping" or whatever to frown at that. Like, I have just admit I dunno anything about Modiphus' 2d20 system. It [I]sounds[/I] ghastly but I'm totally unfamiliar with it, so maybe it's fine? [/QUOTE]

Verification