Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8028227" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yeah, the point is that the player forces the GM to pick one of the two.  This doesn't exist, ever, in 5e.  Either the GM has the NPC agree with your demand, or the NPC suffers whatever you've threatened.  The Burgomaster calling for the guard is neither of these -- it's not a book-legal move by the GM.The key is force your hand and suck it up -- this means they choose the "or else" and that "or else" happens to them.  The nature of AW means that Go Aggro requires an 'or else.'  That's missing in the OP, but given that the player in question immediately tried to take the Burgomaster hostage, I went with that as the "or else."  That's the nature of Go Aggro, on a success, you either give in or you suck up the "or else."What did the Burgomaster suck up?  What bad happened because he refused?  Your example has no bad for the Burgomaster.  It has good -- the odds shift in his favor.  Choosing this outcome isn't just bad GMing -- it's not following the rules.And, no, the example in the book follows this exactly -- the GM chooses to have the NPC not accede and so he gets brain fried.  Since the specific move used doesn't require going loud as part of the Go Aggro (which usually does), the PC was able to leave the brain fried NPC without starting a fight with the henchmen.  Seems like exactly what needed to happen -- now the NPC has a serious level of Harm, which will make any future engagement easier for the PCs until the NPC can reasonably get help (if the PCs, for example, don't press for a while, I can see that Harm rolling off).Randomly determining if a door is trapped is nothing like what I described play in PbtA as, regarding the fiction of a trapped door.  It's not random.FATE doesn't go far enough in telling you how to play it -- it's wishy-washy.  As I run a 5e game you'd be hard pressed to find isn't by the book, I don't have a problem with either style of game.  FATE just doesn't give enough insight into how it works and so appears to support multiple playstyles -- and it does, to a degree, but if you bring a D&D mindset, it's not going to work well.  That's my gripe with FATE -- it just soft pedals that it's actually a different game, so people bounce off of it.Let see, the last few campaigns in 5e I've run -- a Big Plot game, which was a cosmic mystery, full of deep backstory to uncover and plotting tightly; a hex-crawl exploration game of a prison plane, not plotted but mapped pretty well; and a Sigil-based Planescape game where I don't yet know who the villain of the campaign will be, or what will be the focus, despite having run it for a bit over a year.  I don't have a "way" I see how stories emerge, I see lots of "ways."  And I'll use every one of them, if they're fun.  But, when I run/play Blades, and when I look at PbtA games, I see how they're used to tell stories and I use that way when I run those games.  I do different things when I run 5e.Regardless, how you run games like FATE and Blades is not antagonistic, or petty jerkry.  It's actually far more disciplined and constrained than most of the other games I've tried, especially 5e.  Not to say that individuals aren't disciplined when running 5e, but the system has very little discipline.  It says, "the GM decides," and pretty much leaves it there, maybe with some vague handwaves at technique.  You can clearly see this in the official adventures, which are all over the map in approach and certainly don't leverage the ruleset very well most of the time.</blockquote>

Verification