Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7601272" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I can see the resemblance to C+ that you draw there.Here are the reasons I would say it’s better (3 Cs oddly enough):ConstraintClarityCognitive WorkspaceAs you (and surely others) know, I regularly champion systemized GM constraint. It’s one of the reasons I adore the PBtA systems (and Baker’s work broadly). AW and DW constrain the GM elegantly and quite clearly. However, there are some edge cases that arise which temporarily reduce that constraint, requiring the games’ (clear and robust) Agenda and Principles to work extra hard to guide the GM’s move. This is a momentary increase in cognitive workload on the GM and often requires extra play conversation/table time to divulge that workload so the interface between the fiction and the rules meet are clear to the players. Which goes to me next “C”...ClarityThe Blades tech naturally clarified all cases (so no edge case emerges). The players understand both the magnitude and nature of both their opposition/obstacle and their own efforts. That lets them know the severity of trouble (in terms of immediate Consequences, big C) that’s on the table when they get themselves into a situation, the impact of their own push-back against it(on to the last “C”)...As a result, their Cognitive Workspace can allow players to then better orient themselves (odds, opportunity cost, etc) to attack the situation or revise their PC’s orientation or their approach in order to assert better control (if that’s feasible) of the arrangement of/relationships of elements in the fiction (including the PCs). Physically, the Position:Effect relationship and the player reorienting themselves is similar to the way a climber, a competitor, or a negotiator evaluates the risk:reward of one course charted versus another.</blockquote>

Verification