Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8415302" data-attributes="member: 16814">This doesn't even make sense within the system.&nbsp; There's no restrictions, because there's nothing to restrict.&nbsp; What DW does is have playbooks, where aren't quite analogous to a class (more an collection of moves for an archetype).&nbsp; You can mix and match moves between playbooks, even.&nbsp; Races aren't really defined, with the idea that the players will define what the race is in relation to the game world for that game.&nbsp; So, if you pick dwarf, then you get to defined what being a dwarf means in this game, which doesn't have to be the same in the next game.That's because you're suppose to define your game world at the table, with the players.&nbsp; This is core in the concept of ask questions and use the answers -- you create what this apocalypse looks like when you sit down and create characters and establish the initial state of the game.&nbsp; You leave big spaces blank, and fill them in as you need to, often relying on the players to help do this work.&nbsp; The setting is implied enough to give some kind of initial genre push, but the details are up to your table for each game.&nbsp; The setting is specific to the game, which is an inversion of how D&amp;D usually does things, where setting is often agnostic to the game.Cool, play a different game, then and use the setting.&nbsp; Blades isn't about exploring the setting -- that's just some nice backdrop to what the game is about.&nbsp; In other words, to me, all of that setting stuff is superfluous to the point of the game, not vice versa.&nbsp; I don't play Blades for the setting, I play it for the game, and the setting is neat.&nbsp; The setting is there to give the backdrop that this is how horrible it is, not as a puzzle to be solved in the game.&nbsp; Admittedly, if you're coming from D&amp;D where such a setting detail is a clear hook to go investigate the GM's story idea (or the setting author, if published), then this is where you expect it to lead and it's disappointing it doesn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8415302, member: 16814"] This doesn't even make sense within the system. There's no restrictions, because there's nothing to restrict. What DW does is have playbooks, where aren't quite analogous to a class (more an collection of moves for an archetype). You can mix and match moves between playbooks, even. Races aren't really defined, with the idea that the players will define what the race is in relation to the game world for that game. So, if you pick dwarf, then you get to defined what being a dwarf means in this game, which doesn't have to be the same in the next game. That's because you're suppose to define your game world at the table, with the players. This is core in the concept of ask questions and use the answers -- you create what this apocalypse looks like when you sit down and create characters and establish the initial state of the game. You leave big spaces blank, and fill them in as you need to, often relying on the players to help do this work. The setting is implied enough to give some kind of initial genre push, but the details are up to your table for each game. The setting is specific to the game, which is an inversion of how D&D usually does things, where setting is often agnostic to the game. Cool, play a different game, then and use the setting. Blades isn't about exploring the setting -- that's just some nice backdrop to what the game is about. In other words, to me, all of that setting stuff is superfluous to the point of the game, not vice versa. I don't play Blades for the setting, I play it for the game, and the setting is neat. The setting is there to give the backdrop that this is how horrible it is, not as a puzzle to be solved in the game. Admittedly, if you're coming from D&D where such a setting detail is a clear hook to go investigate the GM's story idea (or the setting author, if published), then this is where you expect it to lead and it's disappointing it doesn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification