Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9667459" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I have seen both their blogs, but I would not claim to have done more than peruse them a bit. I think it's relevant because I expect it played in a way that would not work for either [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] or [USER=13383]@robertsconley[/USER] , or many of the other posters who have been commenting here. Two things on this. First, yes the setting is given some detail. But it's far from fully detailed. Elements are sketched so that they can then be used by GMs and players however they see fit. It's all a starting point, and this is made very clear in the book. Second, I think it very much matters that it's not the GM who created these things. The setting is more easily viewed as that of the game rather than "my world" to the GM. Especially when combined with the nature of the prep per the above.I believe I put it a bit more strongly than "meant and expected to interact with the setting", which you snipped, but if I wasn't clear, let me clarify now. The sandbox play being advocated for seems to be a vehicle for the GM's prepped material. That this material is what drives play. Yes, the players can engage with whatever parts they want (though I would expect there to be limits based on geography and knowledge, as well as means... all of which can be significantly controlled by the GM), but what propels the players is the GM's material. Look at the example that was provided. The PCs were hired to do a job. Then, while traveling for that job, they ran into the star-crossed lovers, and became embroiled in that situation. I believe that you know there's a difference between having an NPC with a connection to another in the setting is a bit different than sending the PCs on a mission and then having "randomly" encounter those two NPCs and become embroiled in their situation. Plus, the nature of the setting in Blades is far more mutable. I can simply ignore that bit about Djera Maha, or I can create an element that totally contradicts it. We're not beholden to the prep in a way that other games likely are. I wouldn't disagree with you that Blades can be run more traditionally at times, usually at the very beginning or perhaps when there's nothing obvious that should be next, or the players are unsure what to do. That it can accommodate that is likely a good thing, I'd say. I don't think that most trad style games can likewise handle an approach more like what Blades allows... picking a Score and a Detail and jumping into the action. But I think that you are very much cherry-picking and ignoring significant portions of the book which are contrary to your point. Don't over-prep is what I usually see, along with the idea of potential fiction and holding on lightly. And yes, generally speaking I wouldn't prep events that work as a call to action in Blades... though it could work as a natural progression of things. Certainly when a clock is filled, there could be an event that takes place... a faction going up in tier or some other development. But it's not the way I'd generally approach GMing Blades.</blockquote>

Verification