Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7448256" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]Going to work backwards. 1) I’m talking about the play default. 2) I’m talking about players skilled in the system.3) What I’m saying with respect to Blades vs D&D is probably more perceived “loss condition”, “actual loss condition”, and the general brutality of play.With respect to the combination of 1 and 2 above, skilled D&D players are going to overwhelm the default adventuring day and/or encounter budget and/or dungeon delve paradigm, regardless of system. Skilled play produces characters, teamwork, a developed knowledge base, and rote power plays (be it combat, exploration/divination/investigation, or social) that will overwhelm the systems defsult parameters/expectations.As such, the ability to avoid loss conditions, punitive character fallout, or punitive story fallout becomes extreme. So nobs are turned, buttons are pushed, levers are pulled, stops are pulled out to recalibrate.With Blades, even skilled players are almost surely to be dealing with at least 1 Trauma level after maybe 4 Scores (sometimes less) at the systrm’s default. Forget Harm (which they very likely may be dealing with a Harm 1 or 2, maybe a couple 1s at that point), forget relationship fallout, forget Incarceration and an ass whooping . You tell your average D&D player that they have this permanent, negative (but helpful and harmful simultaneously system-wise, so both positive and negative feedback) behavioral trait and that is a “loss condition” for a lot of players. Couple that with all the other bad stuff that is invariably going to happen to your character (both in the fiction and mechanically), that singular characters get retired (not just killed, but retired or walked away from due to damage accrued) at a rate that your average D&D player would blanch at.So that is what I was going for (I think perhaps you agree given your last paragraph?).As to the stuff at the top:I’m perfectly fine with “(system-)constrained GMing.” I would include system in there because I’m not sure that is implied to your average RPG conversant (first question may be “by what?”).As for “fiat GMing”, I’m absolutely fine with an alternative. I just find that folks on ENWorld typically connote “unconstrained authority” over the gamestate and over the disposition of play (with caveats of distasteful behavior and abject malfeasance of course) as SOP for the discipline of GMing.  And there is plenty of support for that position with various iterations of Rule 0, “lead storyteller”, “sole arbiter/referee”, “GM’s game/setting”, and the other aspects of system which require heavy GM mediation (and authorize it).Tony uses “empowered GMing.” I’m not sure that carries any sort of differentiating accuracy (in fact, I personally feel less empowered as a system piles mental overhead and increased resolution mechanics mediation upon me). So what is a descriptor that differentiates upon the spectrum of authority/latitude/constraint? “Apex latitude GMing.” That sounds so terrible that it just_might_work... (not really).</blockquote>

Verification