Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8266954" data-attributes="member: 7016699">[USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is the GM. Toru is my character; Anaya is my wife's. I wouldn't have expected a first-person reference to my character in someone else's post (without a lot of context), and since we were talking about characters, not players, it makes sense not to use second.FWIW, I fluctuate between first- and third-person in play, pretty much independent of my immersion in play or identification with my character/s.That seems to be a violent misrepresentation of how Flashbacks work in BitD. It's not free, and it is (in principle) dependent on what the character could have plausibly accomplished as part of planning for the heist. I don't even care for the game and I recognize this is ... a bad representation of the mechanic and the game play.This isn't entirely wrong, but it's still laboring, I think, under a misunderstanding of the limitations to the Flashback mechanic.Look: If a GM wants to allow the players to use lore checks to add information to the game, there are three ways I can think of to do it:1) Player makes lore check. GM hands out information and asks, &quot;How do you know this?&quot; The player has an opportunity to define something about his character.2) Player makes lore check. GM asks, &quot;What did you find out?&quot; This is explicitly asking the player to add lore to the world.3) Player asks if a piece of information is true and then makes a lore check. On a successful resolution, it's true; on an unsuccessful check, it's either untrue or inconveniently true.All of those methods work, though they work differently around the table. The only one that's remotely like a flashback is #1.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="prabe, post: 8266954, member: 7016699"] [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is the GM. Toru is my character; Anaya is my wife's. I wouldn't have expected a first-person reference to my character in someone else's post (without a lot of context), and since we were talking about [I]characters[/I], not [I]players[/I], it makes sense not to use second. FWIW, I fluctuate between first- and third-person in play, pretty much independent of my immersion in play or identification with my character/s. That seems to be a violent misrepresentation of how Flashbacks work in BitD. It's not free, and it is (in principle) dependent on what the character could have plausibly accomplished as part of planning for the heist. I don't even care for the game and I recognize this is ... a bad representation of the mechanic and the game play. This isn't entirely wrong, but it's still laboring, I think, under a misunderstanding of the limitations to the Flashback mechanic. Look: If a GM wants to allow the players to use lore checks to add information to the game, there are three ways I can think of to do it: 1) Player makes lore check. GM hands out information and asks, "How do you know this?" The player has an opportunity to define something about his character. 2) Player makes lore check. GM asks, "What did you find out?" This is explicitly asking the player to add lore to the world. 3) Player asks if a piece of information is true and then makes a lore check. On a successful resolution, it's true; on an unsuccessful check, it's either untrue or inconveniently true. All of those methods work, though they work differently around the table. The only one that's remotely like a flashback is #1. [/QUOTE]

Verification