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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7645810" data-attributes="member: 6696971">We've (ENWorld at large, you and I and others) had this conversation a lot before, it seems.As best I can tell, its a byproduct of looking at a game's component pieces individually rather than the game holistically as an integrated system, while simultaneously assuming a causality chain litmus test for "nonsensical" is bound to be violated.  I think, overwhelmingly, much of the conversation around 4e suffered this (and is the same reason why some people are inexplicably puzzled by the truism that 5e cannot recognizably reproduce a 4e game, despite being possessed of more than a few recognizable, component parts of the game). In context of each particular game (no matter what game it is that uses Story Now techniques for the game's propulsion), the idea of "prioritizing the mechanics that create the fiction over the fiction itself" just doesn't make sense.For instance, lets just assume that Blades in the Dark's Flashbacks mechanics were fundamental to D&D 5e.  There would be multiple parts to this that would integrate it with the whole game:1)  These rules allow for actions performed in the past to impact the present.2)  A flashback isn’t time travel. It can’t “undo” something that has already occurred in the present moment or otherwise fundamentally undo something that has already been established in play (the mechanics don't "prioritize the mechanics that create the fiction over the fiction itself).  3)  A player invokes a flashback to make an Ability Check for a past event that impacts their current situation in a specified way.4)  The GM sets the cost and DC, Ability Check is rolled.5)  Success and the player gets what they want.  Failure and the GM narrates what happens.6)  Just like all other facets of the game, the genre logic associated with DMG 36-41 prevail in action resolution mediation. (the mechanics don't "prioritize the mechanics that create the fiction over the fiction itself).For instance, the Fighter, being a local hero, arranged for the porter of a hotel (where a guild secretly runs operations) to unlock the back door so the Rogue could be easily inserted (in this case, the upshot might be a Very Easy Charisma check for the Fighter vs a Medium Thieves Tools check for the Rogue which could yield significant complication on failure).  If its already been established that there is no back door (or some other bit of fiction to that effect), then obviously, this would be a violation.  Since it hasn't, have at it.Success and the door is open.  The fiction moves forward to whatever situation/decision-point comes next.Failure and the GM decides that the porter has been caught (which will exacerbate a future conflict for the Rogue) and a group of guild-members have decided to entertain their night's card-playing in the rear Mudroom (complicating the effort) just in case something fishy is going on.I don't see how the above would inherently make a 5e game or a 5e game's fiction suddenly go wobbly (I mean Backgrounds don't make the game go wobbly and they codify a player's right to stipulate fiction under particular circumstance).[HR][/HR]The game Strike(!) (which is an amalgamation of D&D 4e, Mouse Guard, PBtA, Cortex+ games) preempts this line of reasoning with its "DON'T DEMAND NONSENSE" section, which it reiterates here and there throughout the text.  Clearly, Jim McGarva (its creators), must have come into contact with the sort of stuff we saw throughout the edition war against 4e:</blockquote>

Verification