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: 8651950" data-attributes="member: 71235">Your phrasing implies that you think there are already some contents in the safe, and that we are changing them. This is not the case. In such a play style, we are not exploring a pre-existing reality—we are writing it as we go.Put another way, we aren't reading a novel, not even a "choose your own adventure" book where all the options are already fixed in ink on paper. There is no safe, and the safe has no contents, until we decide what they are. We're writing the module or adventure as we go through it. As for which skill is used, there has to be some plausible fiction for how the characters get the safe open. And as I've pointed out a couple times, how they go about it will have different potential consequences/fallout for the fiction.But also, it isn't necessarily who opens the safe that determines the contents. No, that just determines the consequences/fallout of the opening. It's entirely possible that one player puts forward the stakes on what's in the safe, everybody agress to that, and then they nominate somebody else to open it! The dissociation is even worse, good heavens! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f606.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":LOL:" title="Laugh    :LOL:"  data-smilie="17"data-shortname=":LOL:" />But seriously, that's absolutely true. There is no necessary association between the character doing the check and the outcome. It's all negotiated by the participants in the collaborative process of generating the fiction. The negotiation may be collaborative or adversarial (as [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s quotation of the relevant text from Blades in the Dark shows), but the important point is that we're generating things as we go.Yes, there is a disconnect. It's a different play style, a different way of generating a fiction, to the usual exploration of a prewritten situation/scenario. That's all.They debate it because how they open the safe matters, possibly more than what's inside. If the party needs to get Jane's safecracking skills up, have her do it (maybe the master safecracker is going to retire soon, or maybe that character's player is leaving the campaign—a very dissociated concern). If we don't care about raising an alarm or leaving evidence, have the smasher do it. If we're really worried about getting that safe open without complications, then sure, have the master safecracker do it.That's totally cool. You have different preferences in play style. You like to follow things forward from established premises. The approach I'm describing involves quite a bit of logical backtracking and filling in. Heck, Blades in the Dark has a full-on "flashback" mechanic where you can literally go back in time to fill in detail...so long as it doesn't directly contradict what's been established, anyhow. Me, I love playing that way. But I love following forward too, it all depends on the game & the group.Oh, sure it can affect the odds (very little in Apocalypse World, quite a bit in Blades). Balancing odds with the stakes is a big part of the fun of playing Blades! Well, for me anyhow. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And Blades gives you lots more tools than quality of items to juggle and jigger in the process of working out those crux moments. I love it to bits.Edit: Fixed a typo.</blockquote>

Verification