NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8415892" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm not following what you're saying here.  As a player, I quite often lack knowledge relevant to the situation my character finds themselves in, especially in relation to determining stakes and odds.  I, for instance, have no experience with picking locks, but my character might, so my knowledge is not terribly useful here for determining stakes.  So this can be done a few ways -- the game can provide me with this information based on how it resolves conflicts (ie, stats, skills, resolution methods, etc) so that I can make an informed decision this way despite my lack of actual experience with picking locks (the system's say).  Or, the game might use consensus building, where we discuss it at the table and find a way forward for this conflict by establishing stakes and building out a shared knowledge of the situation (the table's say).  Or, it might just say that Bob says what happens and I don't have any way to gain knowledge because it's not shared (the GM's say).  Or, it might be that the player just gets to declare what happens here (the player's say).  Or, it could use some combination of the three.  So, without additional clarity on what you mean by player knowledge here, I don't have an answer for you.I can say that when I GM and am faced with determining the outcome of a situation where I lack personal knowledge and experience, like with picking a lock, I much prefer to have the system have a say here.  Maybe not to the exclusion of all else, but I feel it's an important piece of the puzzle for me.  This is why I very much enjoy Blades -- the system has a strong say, but there's also parts of the player's say, the GM's say, and even the table's say that feed in.  FKR seems adamant about removing the system's say and leaning heavily on the GM's say, with individual GM's being able to flex that say to include however much of the table and player's say they want.  I suppose, in the neo-trad approach, there's also the setting's say, which I didn't really account for here.  I feel this is really a subset of player/table/GM say, though, as the setting has to be filtered through these to get that say.</blockquote>

Verification