Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7371832" data-attributes="member: 16814">Eh, the kinds of choices made are so different that I'm not sure this is even a question that can be answered, much less one that should be answered.  It really doesn't matter.  In both styles, the players have lots of opportunity to make choices that fit the style and the player choices.  Which has more is pointless, and, beside, from your OP and your definition of agency in respect to adding to the fiction, this isn't even important.I've read a few of your BW play reports that featured combat.  In one I recall more clearly, your character was accosted by orcs for failing a check to determine what happened at a sacked farmhouse, and the combat lacked a good deal of tactical depth as well.  At no point did it appear you had options to limit danger occurring or make tactical choices about fictional position to mitigate danger that did appear.  These are part and parcel of the DM-facing style, where players are incentivized to be risk-aware because that has positive benefits for dealing with risk.  In player facing games, risk occurs no matter what on check failures or scene framing, and there's limited logistical (when to rest, stocking up on potions/scrolls, spell expenditure rates, etc) or tactical (posting guards while a player engages in a time consuming task, having weapons drawn, scouting locations, etc) choices to make.  This is because, as a design feature, scene framing is already at a crisis point (go to the action) that requires immediate addressing of events AND failures are meant to increase stakes, so any precautions taken will have limited impacts.  Story Now games offset this by using player resources to possibly mitigate consequences (like Blades' use of the resist mechanic), but this is reactionary and not proactive action declaration -- its a choice after the fact, not behavior the player can engage with prior to failure.Again, this is intentional -- a specific design goal, even -- that's meant to engage a specific type of play.  And that's peachy awesome and not a bad thing, but, as you've said a few times, analyzing where the trade-offs and impacts are is important and requires dispassionate viewing.  There's a reason Story Now games are not the mainstream of play, and that's not because they're better systems.  They're great systems (again, looking forward to Blades tomorrow, I spent the last few hours making my Roll20 game have everything at hand for character generation and rules references), and they deliver great fun, but they're not superior systems by definition -- they're only superior systems for players/GMs looking for and able to process that style of play.  Given how much [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] continue to miss critical differences in the player-facing playstyle making some of their arguments waaaay off base, you've done similar things in describing their playstyle.  Perhaps you should take a moment and let that sink in.</blockquote>

Verification