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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 8650923" data-attributes="member: 71235">If locking in of this type (as contrasted with pre-scripted material) is part of play, then how it's done doesn't matter. The story—or the chain of events, to be more fussy about it—is being driven by generative dramatic concerns, not pre-scripted logical or dramatic concerns. I've been in Blades sessions where we went through several steps to investigate and inquire and determine where our objective must be (or even to generate the dramatic need for such a thing)—and that established that it was there, although the critical check at the climactic moment could scupper or complicate our efforts up to that point, for some other reason. I've been in Blades sessions where we players just put forward a likely fact in the moment, and because we succeeded on the check, it was true. (Or if we failed on the check, and the stakes were specifically that it was or was not there, then it wasn't there.) It all depended on how we wanted to go about things and where we wanted to dive into detail. In all cases, the stakes of each check were open and accepted as to how things would shake out, based on the dice roll (which, by the way, leaves room for "something bad's gonna happen, but you're not sure what"!).Locking in of this type is not compatible with GNS process-sim play, clearly. That involves the GM establishing facts about the world ahead of time and sticking to them (although how players can be assured the GM is sticking to pre-established facts is an issue). It's also not compatible with GNS high-concept sim, if that means the GM reserves all right to what's true about the world at large from moment to moment. And those traits are generally expected of those kinds of play.</blockquote>

Verification