Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7448176" data-attributes="member: 16814">I agree with this last point, that the GMing necessary to achieve the system goals is different, and that Blades certainly constrains mechanically the GM's role vs 5e.  I, however, don't agree that the term 'principled and disciplined GMing' applies MORE to Blades than 5e.  If you define 'principled and disciplined' as 'follows the advice and constrains within the game' then there's tons' of 5e GMs that fit that bill, but that really doesn't seem to hit the mark you're trying to set.  I think, instead, that the mark you're hitting is 'constrained GMing'.  Now, to be perfectly clear, I think this is great.  I love Blades, and I follow the advice, because it does work to serve up what it says on the tin.  But, I also follow some openly presented and core guiding principles when I run 5e, which also act to serve up the experience I'm going for.  I find it distressing that my GMing in Blades would be referred to as 'principled and disciplined' but my GMing in D&D would be called 'fiat' by your preferred lexicon.  Especially since, as I look at it, I use fiat in Blades quite a bit, and I use discipline and principle when I run 5e.That's the issue I have -- the setting of terms in ways that privileges some games in positive terms and disadvantages others in negative terms when the actual terms are present in both.I do not disagree, at all, that there are very different GMing ethoses present between 5e and Blades (or many other games) and that those ethoses result in very different responsibilities and authorities in those games, some mechanically enforced, some just guidelines for play.  And, I think it's important to stress the impacts those kinds of constraints can have on play.  I'm not denying the impact or difference these ethoses have -- it's really very different and creates a different feel altogether.  I also enjoy discussing those differences.  I don't like when the terms become loaded to the point of 'my game features principled and disciplined GMing and yours doesn't because it has too much GM fiat'.  I find that antagonistic, not helpful.  And I play both sides of the fence, so it's not knee-jerk defensiveness of D&D.  If you ask me, the lack of GM ethos in D&D results in wildly divergent experiences from table to table.  I've had good luck (or rather, active curation), but I see bad games as often discussed here all the time.  I get the desire to play in a game where the player has mechanically enforced power to direct the game and the DM is limited in how they can interact with player provided direction.  I do get it.  I even like those games.  But, that limitation doesn't, in my book, adhere to the GM suddenly becoming more principled or disciplined so much as the system specifically limits the GM's ability to do anything outside of their narrow responsibilities.  The GM advice in Blades, as a point of interest, can be applied as guidance for players with very little changing needed.  And that's because the GM is really just another player in Blades with a different set of responsibilities to the players.  The players have a ton of responsibility in Blades as well.Oh, I strongly disagree on this.  Strongly.  Blades isn't more lethal, as a system, at all.  It can be as lethal or more lethal, but that's so individual game dependent that it's useless to draw a general statement.  I've certainly played in D&D where it was astoundingly, brutally, casually more lethal than my Blades game, where I've hurt the PCs and hurt them, but none have died yet.Now, if you mean 'PCs are punished harshly but not killed' then, yeah, my Blades game definitely does that more than I've seen in most D&D.</blockquote>

Verification