Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8018225" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I didn’t say that having descriptions was the flaw. It can become very frustrating to speak with you at times. My point has been that part of the problem in the OP is that the DM has described a NPC. The players have no way of knowing how that description translates into game mechanics, so they really aren’t sure how to engage with it. Then, additionally, the DM can simply deny that a declared action has any chance for success.This can lead to less player agency. I don’t even know how you can argue that....not without resorting to some overly broad definition of agency. Take a system that doesn’t allow a GM to simply decide that an action is impossible. Others have mentioned the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”. The GM can either say that the action succeeds, or he calls for a roll to determine the outcome. He can’t deny it outright. Such a system is designed to maintain player agency by not having an option that totally removes it.Blades in the Dark does allow the GM to declare that a stated action will have zero effect. However, this is coupled with the player’s ability to spend stress to push for effect. This means that on a success, instead of zero effect, the PC gets limited effect. The same thing happens if the player rolls a critical. So although a GM can decide an action has no chance, the player has resources at his disposal to override that decision for a cost, and to still have a chance.This is all discussed openly between the GM and players so that the player knows his chances for success and the severity of consequences for failure. Basically the GM and players discuss the fiction, and then they put the fiction into game terms, and then the player decides to proceed or not.</blockquote>

Verification