Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7599784" data-attributes="member: 4937">So the GM can set and adjust the difficulty in a whole variety of ways, it's just done in a slightly different fashion, success as by setting the level of success (&quot;limited&quot;) that success will obtain and the degree of failure that failure will result in (&quot;desparate&quot;).&nbsp; Plus, you have an additional control in that you can claim that the action is one or more Tiers above the character, with a commiserate increase in the degree of success required.&nbsp; I don't know the rules, but I'd guess this is what prevents a player from just declaring that they summon lightning bolts from the sky and fry the guard.&nbsp; A high Tier character probably could, if they had the right actions, but then you'd be playing by agreement of the fiction some sort of demigod or superhero.Also, you mention the character could &quot;burn Stress to improve the Effect&quot;, which sounds like a case of narrative currency.Additionally, there is a huge panoply of other potential checks and balances here, not the least of which is that as with a traditional RPG full narration of the consequences is in the hands of the GM, as well as full rights to set the difficulty of the tasks, and in most cases the stakes (as the player can only set the positive stake, and then only is rarely going to achieve it, unless and until the GM wants them to or unless the player spends their narrative currency &quot;Stress&quot;.) To a certain extent, I'd say that the &quot;Blades&quot; game empowers the GM far more than even I'm used to in my traditional play, it just compartmentalizes the player's narrative force less.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, the player can introduce Myth into the setting, but only at the cost of allowing the GM full rein to introduce whatever Myth that they want for whatever reason that they want at all times - something that when I'm running a traditional RPG I tend to see as cheating and misuse of my GM authority - metagaming against the player to obtain the result I prefer.&nbsp; Still, what you describe has boundaries and a GM in a role as referee, so it seems like it would be functional for a functional group.&nbsp;&nbsp; I really need to go to a Con and try a few of these games, if only to stretch my abilities as a player a bit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7599784, member: 4937"] So the GM can set and adjust the difficulty in a whole variety of ways, it's just done in a slightly different fashion, success as by setting the level of success ("limited") that success will obtain and the degree of failure that failure will result in ("desparate"). Plus, you have an additional control in that you can claim that the action is one or more Tiers above the character, with a commiserate increase in the degree of success required. I don't know the rules, but I'd guess this is what prevents a player from just declaring that they summon lightning bolts from the sky and fry the guard. A high Tier character probably could, if they had the right actions, but then you'd be playing by agreement of the fiction some sort of demigod or superhero. Also, you mention the character could "burn Stress to improve the Effect", which sounds like a case of narrative currency. Additionally, there is a huge panoply of other potential checks and balances here, not the least of which is that as with a traditional RPG full narration of the consequences is in the hands of the GM, as well as full rights to set the difficulty of the tasks, and in most cases the stakes (as the player can only set the positive stake, and then only is rarely going to achieve it, unless and until the GM wants them to or unless the player spends their narrative currency "Stress".) To a certain extent, I'd say that the "Blades" game empowers the GM far more than even I'm used to in my traditional play, it just compartmentalizes the player's narrative force less. Yes, the player can introduce Myth into the setting, but only at the cost of allowing the GM full rein to introduce whatever Myth that they want for whatever reason that they want at all times - something that when I'm running a traditional RPG I tend to see as cheating and misuse of my GM authority - metagaming against the player to obtain the result I prefer. Still, what you describe has boundaries and a GM in a role as referee, so it seems like it would be functional for a functional group. I really need to go to a Con and try a few of these games, if only to stretch my abilities as a player a bit. [/QUOTE]

Verification