This Old Argument (That Wasn’t Started by Anyone in Particular)

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tautological? You think throwing out a label on something means you win an argument? Is that like pointing at a reference and getting points?
The fact that a substantial number of players don't see it that way should be evidence that the flashback mechanic is enough of a removal from their normal mode of play to be a barrier. It's weird that you are trying to convince people that they're wrong about what they have played. Granted, you've already rolled out the "it wasn't being run correctly" argument, but I'll only assent to so many crappy game experiments before I decide to stick with what I like.
 
Justin Alexander said:
So those who are interested in roleplaying mechanics can see the distinction clearly. Those who are interested in narrative control mechanics can't see the distinction clearly, because they treat roleplaying mechanics as just another form of narrative control mechanic.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

The reason that most people can't see the distinction is because in my opinion the majority just engage with mechanics as they are and aren't overly concerned with which stance they are in. I think the majority of players flit from stance to stance depending on the circumstances and game they are playing, and preferences are not very strict. They might prefer one stance but they don't HATE all the other stances.

I think also your framing is part of the reason I find it weird. It is framed as though people who like narrative RPGs ONLY like author stance and always use author stance.

That just isn't my experience. I've actually very rarely run into anyone who played that way. They don't "treat roleplaying mechanics as just another form of narrative control mechanic", they just have no problem with reconciling different games having different amounts of each stance built into the rules, and flit from stance to stance depending on system and situation in game.

I think people who are strict to one stance at the exclusion of others are an exception, not the majority. And of course, this doesn't make them wrong. They enjoy what they enjoy, and that is fine. And people in both directions will see a stronger difference between games that are written with the different stances primary.

People who enjoy all stances are the ones who can't tell a difference, because since they enjoy all of them, they have never had to consider how they are different.

Note: I'm using author stance in the form of narrative author stance, because I don't want to type it out the extra word each time.

EDIT: Extra Note: As someone who likes most types of games, but leans more towards narrative games in later years, I can guarantee that I can indeed tell the difference between the different kind of mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Justin Alexander said:
This is largely tangential, but your friend appears to have been confused. Based on your description I'm honestly a little baffled on what he was trying to do. Blades in the Dark heists work like this:
....
I'd think you were describing some mangled understanding of the Engagement Roll, but the whole point of that mechanic is that it takes like 15 seconds and then -- bingo, bango -- you're in the heist, so I don't know how you could have spent enough time in that resolution to get frustrated by what was happening.
Click to expand...

Well I am trying to remember something I did two years ago for a game that I had an unpleasant time with.

Justin Alexander said:
(3) Cut to the PCs encountering their first obstacle during the heist. The Engagement Roll determines the position they're in as the heist begins (controlled, risky, or desperate).
(4) You play out the heist. This works just like any other RPG, but players can trigger flashback scenes to establish planning they would have done.
Click to expand...

I believe my disconnect occurred during this. I did not get the point of the flashback mechanics. I wasn't interested in pursuing flashbacks as the heist itself interesting, had a good plan with contingency to deal with consequences of failures. Obviously some folks made it work and have fun with it. However for me Blades in the Dark mechanics are too arbitrary and its structure is too restrictive.

The way I view it is similar to Call of Cthulu, CoC campaigns are best run with the referee understand the horror genre. Likewise Blades in the Dark is be used by groups who know how the heist genre works especially the final act where everything is explained.
 
The Butcher said:
I really find the “author stance” (am I using this right?) no more immersion-breaking than, say, grid-oriented combat, or looking up a table. But then I’ve only been to what might be the shallow end of the pool (PbtA and a little Fate).
Click to expand...
The difference author stance and grid combat is that author stance doesn't reflect anything in the reality of the setting. It is a meta concept mean to define future events in order to shape a collaborative story. Grid based combat in contrast is an abstraction of how time and movement plays out in combat.

Neither is better or worse than the other but they are different tools doing different things despite using rule mechanics for RPGs.
 
Justin Alexander said:
It's in bold because, if you're playing BitD the way it's described in the rulebook, you play it out.
Click to expand...

It not just playing it out. It playing it out through the structure defined by Blades in the Dark specifically flashback. When I roleplay a character I don't like to be distracted from being in the moment. That my preferences. So using the flashback mechanic breaks from being in the moment. So when I am bitching why don't we just get it on with it and play it out I am talking about moving on to the next encounter or complication that follows from the consequences of the group choices.

Now that I am thinking about another reason it was frustrating is because another player and I were experienced roleplayer. Not just experienced but also experienced in planning and executing heists not just in tabletop but in LARP. So during the early part of the session we were covered the contingencies with the group while coming up with the plan. But it wasn't a basic plan. So the need for flashbacks was even more jarring.

It almost like the game wants the group to make a bare bones out of your ass plan first, then later use flashback to make it more polished than it really was.
 
Last edited:
robertsconley said:
The difference author stance and grid combat is that author stance doesn't reflect anything in the reality of the setting. It is a meta concept mean to define future events in order to shape a collaborative story. Grid based combat in contrast is an abstraction of how time and movement plays out in combat.

Neither is better or worse than the other but they are different tools doing different things despite using rule mechanics for RPGs.
Click to expand...

Preaching to the choir here, Rob.

My point being that switching gears is bound to be immersion-breaking.

Once you’ve slipped out of your PC’s POV, IME the content of the interruption has very little to do with preserving immersion; getting the interruption resolved as quick as possible is one’s best shot at keeping everyone invested.
 
Justin Alexander said:
Same thing is true with board games. The normal use of the term "board" is a long, thin, flat piece of WOOD. Wood, dammit. Not cardboard. But there's this group, mainly online, that persists in trying to assert a particular definition of the term 'board' which is so narrow as to miss the real point of what BOARDS really are. I am resisting that assertion here, just as I am resisting the fact that 'board' (narrative) and 'board game' (narrative game) are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
...and you're posting on what we used to call bulletin boards. :grin:
 
TristramEvans said:
A Traditional RPG can be played in any manner a person wants. D&D can be used to run a "Narrative Playstyles", Prince Valiant: The Story-Telling Game can be run as an Immersive first-person sandbox.

A Storygame, however, enforcs a Narrative playstyle mechanically. Let's ditch that word "Narrative" though as a bit vague and nebulous. A Storygame's mechanics enforce a third-person view.

A Storygame undermines that goal in every way by presenting mechanics that require (or only make sense from) a third person perspective.
Click to expand...

EmperorNorton said:
It isn't that something is missing, it is that something unwelcome is added.

It is also why I think for the majority, who don't have a preference for solely IC RP in their game, or have a preference for the additional meta mechanics, often can't tell the difference between the types.
Click to expand...

Quoted and highlighted for absolute, universal truth.
 
Last edited:
Justin Alexander said:
Thus, those who prefer storytelling games can use roleplaying mechanics as if they were narrative control mechanics.

The reverse is not true: The decisions you make with narrative control mechanics are inherently not roleplaying decisions.

So those who are interested in roleplaying mechanics can see the distinction clearly. Those who are interested in narrative control mechanics can't see the distinction clearly, because they treat roleplaying mechanics as just another form of narrative control mechanic.
Click to expand...

Brilliantly stated. Lots of people don't understand, or see any difference, because they've always played as if their character was in a story, and made decisions both from the first and the third person to roleplay the character and affect the narrative. This goes back to the 70's, which is why people have been talking about this since the usenet days.
 
Trippy said:
Well, your are wrong about that, too then. Character driven is literally allowing players to make their own stories for their own characters. And if OD&D had both of those things, then it would be as much of a narrative game as any other. The point that most early OD&D modules weren't actually like that and instead, tended to resemble war-games with maps with miniatures, merely demonstrates how there has always been a tension between a narrative style and a wargaming style in the hobby.
Click to expand...

Holy shit on toast points.

Dude, you are so wrong that the light from right will not reach you for a thousand millenia.

OD&D was ALL ABOUT players making their own stories for their own characters. And it started that way from the very beginning; when Dave Arneson's BLACKMOOR players decided NOT to defend the town against the forces of the Egg of Coot and instead all went off each doing their own agenda.

If you think linear kill zone convention modules represent majority play of OD&D, you're utterly wrong. Don't take my word for it, Tim Kask, Rob Kuntz, Mike Carr, Greg Swenson, Ross Maker, and many others from those days besides me are still alive and on the Web.
 
Honestly, my whole position on it is: There is a difference, but the majority of players won't care, while a minority of players will care a whole lot, and there isn't a right or wrong to any of it, but that it is useful to understand the differences when designing and recommending games depending on the taste of the people you are designing for or recommending to.

Also, that I like the variety and want all kinds of games and hybrids of games to continue to be made and enjoyed :smile:.
 
EmperorNorton said:
Honestly, my whole position on it is: There is a difference, but the majority of players won't care, while a minority of players will care a whole lot, and there isn't a right or wrong to any of it, but that it is useful to understand the differences when designing and recommending games depending on the taste of the people you are designing for or recommending to.

Also, that I like the variety and want all kinds of games and hybrids of games to continue to be made and enjoyed :smile:.
Click to expand...

I agree that to new players these distinctions are often not as (or even remotely) important as even ‘trad’ rpgs strike them as strange and novel. One is far more likely to encounter resistance to ‘new’ mechanics, ironically, from those with more rpg experience.

Storygame are just a variation to them, that an rpg would be different mechanically from another in perspective is no more a surprise to them than Lords of Waterdeep being different from Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective.
 
EmperorNorton said:
This isn't about the Forge dude, narrative mechanics are a thing, and the storytelling system has jack all to do with it. WoD was a really traditional system.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the rest of the topic yet and some people might already said it before, but I have to agree with this. WoD was more about storytelling and not about "rollplaying", but narrative games just have mechanics in different less traditional places. Quite often in those games characters don't have skills or attributes. They have mechanics to influence the setting, the story or are just a little vague.
 
Heh "roleplaying vs rollplaying", that's an iteration of this argument I've not heard in a long time.

Dbfj.gif
 
I think WoD was mostly intented to be more rules light. I mostly rolled for task resolution, but because the system was so clunky we didn't roll often at all. Two times an hour or so. And fights happened once or twice a game evening. I thought the general concensus was that Powered by the Apocalypse is a narrative system, FATE is some sort of hybrid narrative/traditional system and WoD is not a narrative system at all. You can also call BRP a narrative system, because you don't roll that often in that system and it kind of moves out of the way. It just doesn't seem right.
 
Voros said:
I agree that to new players these distinctions are often not as (or even remotely) important as even ‘trad’ rpgs strike them as strange and novel. One is far more likely to encounter resistance to ‘new’ mechanics, ironically, from those with more rpg experience.

Storygame are just a variation to them, that an rpg would be different mechanically from another in perspective is no more a surprise to them than Lords of Waterdeep being different from Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my experience. Sure, they recognise the difference, but they don't consider those differences significant in a way people online do.
 
As an anecdote, when explaining rules I know people thought The Veil (PbtA) had more "personality rules" like Mythras had "more combat rules" and VtM had more "vampire rules".
As EmperorNorton EmperorNorton said they will see the difference, but the difference between PbtA games and 5E will be seen as of the same magnitude as that between 5E and Mythras.
 
Trippy said:
Which is yet another way of saying you lost the argument. :hehe:
Click to expand...
I really dislike stuff like this - trying to make it impossible for things to cool down or let the other person make a graceful exit. "Playing to 'win'" is really a sign of bad faith.
The Butcher said:
I really find the “author stance” (am I using this right?) no more immersion-breaking than, say, grid-oriented combat, or looking up a table.
Click to expand...
I've recently decided exactly what it is I don't like about player-driven narratives. When players are involved in the invention of the world, then they lose the ability to explore and discover the world.

Taking it back a step, I've often thought that traditional role-playing establishes three critical voices to determine what happens: the GM, the players, and the dice. Since every role is balanced by two others, none of those voices is able to control what will happen. Thus, all the human participants are able to experience surprise.

This is what I enjoy as a GM. Even though I dictate the setting and background events, I'm constantly surrendering control to the players and the dice, and they are both constantly surprising and amusing me.

Now, when players are unable to discover, they lose a big element of surprise. And when the players aren't surprised, the GM isn't surprised, because it's a lot easier for him to anticipate their reactions to the things that they invented themselves. And thus the GM's surprise is also diminished.

Anyway, that's why I'm not a big fan of those kinds of games. I think they can work and they can be fun, but they lose something for me compared to more traditional role-playing.
 
Edgewise said:
I really dislike stuff like this - trying to make it impossible for things to cool down or let the other person make a graceful exit. "Playing to 'win'" is really a sign of bad faith.

I've recently decided exactly what it is I don't like about player-driven narratives. When players are involved in the invention of the world, then they lose the ability to explore and discover the world.

Taking it back a step, I've often thought that traditional role-playing establishes three critical voices to determine what happens: the GM, the players, and the dice. Since every role is balanced by two others, none of those voices is able to control what will happen. Thus, all the human participants are able to experience surprise.

This is what I enjoy as a GM. Even though I dictate the setting and background events, I'm constantly surrendering control to the players and the dice, and they are both constantly surprising and amusing me.

Now, when players are unable to discover, they lose a big element of surprise. And when the players aren't surprised, the GM isn't surprised, because it's a lot easier for him to anticipate their reactions to the things that they invented themselves. And thus the GM's surprise is also diminished.

Anyway, that's why I'm not a big fan of those kinds of games. I think they can work and they can be fun, but they lose something for me compared to more traditional role-playing.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree, a major part of the appeal of these kind games is in the collective discovery of the world among the players and the GM. Everyone introduces and builds off of what others introduce and when it works it leads to emergent creation that surprises everyone at the table.

In essence what you describe as your experience as a GM is what happens for everyone at the table when these games are working because contra to the term 'GMless' games it would be more accurate to describe these as games where everyone at the table is a GM.
 
Voros said:
I'd disagree, a major part of the appeal of these kind games is in the collective discovery of the world among the players and the GM. Everyone introduces and builds off of what others introduce and when it works it leads to emergent creation that surprises everyone at the table.
Click to expand...
Collective worldbuilding or collaborative storytelling can be fun but it is not the same experience as pretending to be a character within a setting having adventures.

The main difference is in the former a consistent third person view of what going on. Discovery is the result of the collaboration.

In the latter the player is playing a character only has a first person view. Discovery is about experience elements of the setting for the first time. Elements that a referee created previous or extrapolated on the fly from what been established about the setting.

The difference is of the same magnitude as the one between Melee/Wizard and The Fantasy Trip, it a matter of focus not necessarily mechanics. However because of the difference, games that focus on building collaborative narratives will develop in their own way. Just has tabletop RPGs developed in their own way from their wargame progenitors due to the focus on playing individual characters .
 
EmperorNorton said:
He didn't say it was the same, he just said that there is still discovery for everyone in a narrative game.
Click to expand...
I realize that. The way it was written, I felt a inaccurate equivalence was being drawn. The context of what being discovered.

For example I drew up a king's list for one of the realms in my Majestic Wilderlands to work out an issue with my timeline. In recent years I adapted a fanon Harn article called Family Tree to generate a plausible series of succession. I may have some highlights I need to incorporate but in general I don't know what happens.

Then as I work my way through the generations, I figure out what happens to the realm beyond the broad strokes I penned in my earlier writing. There is a sense of discovery and revelation throughout the process. However it is not the same sense I got as a player when I played in one of my friend's campaigns and pieces together important elements of his settings history. Because we were playing tabletop roleplaying in a traditional way, I know what I was seeking was there. But had to do the work as my character while limited by my abilities as that character to discover it.

Both involved discovery but the context put both in a very different light.
 
Last edited:
EmperorNorton said:
He didn't say it was the same, he just said that there is still discovery for everyone in a narrative game.
Click to expand...
Fine - but in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying there is none with player-driven narratives. I try not to traffic in absolutes. But I do feel that discovery is greatly diminished when you design the world by committee. Perhaps the degree is subjective but I think it's hard to argue that surprise isn't at least a little reduced.
 
Idk, I wouldn't say it is noticeably reduced. Like, if you have 4 players and 1 GM. Even if every person is equally contributing to the world, 4/5ths of the world isn't created by you.

And I've never found any narrative game to be that extreme. Generally the GM still creates a lot more of the world than the players do, outside of like GMless games, but that is a much more extreme type of game.

I just feel like the "the players lose the ability to discover" thing feels like no game I've ever played, and I play a lot of narrative games.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I just feel like the "the players lose the ability to discover" thing feels like no game I've ever played, and I play a lot of narrative games.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'm glad I hedged a little to say it was subjective. I should have also mentioned that different tables will have different experiences.
 
under_score said:
Tautological? You think throwing out a label on something means you win an argument? Is that like pointing at a reference and getting points? The fact that a substantial number of players don't see it that way should be evidence that the flashback mechanic is enough of a removal from their normal mode of play to be a barrier. It's weird that you are trying to convince people that they're wrong about what they have played. Granted, you've already rolled out the "it wasn't being run correctly" argument, but I'll only assent to so many crappy game experiments before I decide to stick with what I like.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea what you're babbling about.

(1) Robert didn't mention the flashback mechanic in his original post. The discussion wasn't about the flashback mechanic. Robert said they weren't playing out the heist and I highlighted text emphasizing that my central point was that you DO play out the heist in full in BitD. Your attempts to interpret my comments to mean something other than that despite my explicit statement that this is not the case is simply bizarre.

(2) I've already said that I wasn't a fan of the flashback mechanic, so your random ranting that I'm trying to tell everyone that doesn't like the flashback mechanic that they're wrong just makes you sound delusional.

(3) As for your continued claim that playing out a scene means that you're not playing out that scene... Fuck, man. That's deep. But I haven't taken enough bong hits to really appreciate how deep it is.

EmperorNorton said:
I think also your framing is part of the reason I find it weird. It is framed as though people who like narrative RPGs ONLY like author stance and always use author stance.
Click to expand...

Narrative control mechanics don't require the use of Author stance. Edwards would typically describe them as being Director stance, actually, having coined the term almost explicitly for that purpose. And, as I noted in the post you're replying to, one can use the Author stance with roleplaying mechanics. The term was actually coined to describe interaction with roleplaying mechanics and even Edwards uses it in that sense, describing those who do so without back-filling in the character motivation to be actually engaged in Pawn stance (which is similar, but for Edwards distinct).

So, no. You've misunderstood me somewhere.

As I mentioned before, stance theory is kind of a hot mess. But they're generally separate from the distinction between storytelling mechanics and roleplaying mechanics. They can be seen as sometimes overlapping those mechanics (and Edwards certainly tried forcing that hard, although it ends up warped because... well, Edwards), but they're primarily focused on talking about how people both observe and participate/contribute to the game.

For example, original stance theory was:

Audience - observing the game from your own POV
In-Character - observing the game from the POV of the character you're playing and making decisions as-if you were your character
Actor - making a meta-game decision about how to portray your character to the other participants
Author - evaluating the development of the game in terms of a goal you have as a player and making decisions to realize that goal

The idea of this theory was never that a player would squat in one of these stances. Rather every player does all of these things, "leaping back and forth between these stances so quickly and intuitively that they are likely to be unaware that they are doing so at all."

Edgewise said:
Fine - but in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying there is none with player-driven narratives. I try not to traffic in absolutes. But I do feel that discovery is greatly diminished when you design the world by committee. Perhaps the degree is subjective but I think it's hard to argue that surprise isn't at least a little reduced.
Click to expand...

Some authors similarly describe their creative process as "discovering" stuff about their characters or their world. I've had the same experience.

But it's just a fundamentally different experience than exploring a world that exists outside of yourself.

There are multiple facets to this, though, when it comes to storytelling/roleplaying games. First, there's the illusion that the world being presented by the GM actually exists. This is an illusion that can be broken even if the players don't have narrative control. For example, there was a game I ran about twenty years ago where the players were eagerly exploring the ruins beneath a city... until they discovered that the ruins were being generated randomly, at which point their interest in the ruins evaporated.

Second, there's the "spoiler" effect. This can ALSO be disrupted in other ways. For example, I had a player who did not like cut-scene techniques because it gave them knowledge their character didn't have.
 
robertsconley said:
It almost like the game wants the group to make a bare bones out of your ass plan first, then later use flashback to make it more polished than it really was.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not, there's no "almost" about it. One of the design goals of BitD is that you can play out Dishonored and Oceans Eleven with little-to-no prep for GM and players.

I can understand the appeal. While there is nothing so satisfying as a heist adventure when the players are really engaged, I had a group of players who were just overwhelmed by the very concept. I had to break the fourth wall with them for a minute to explain (1) this was not intended to be an adventure where they could hack their way through it, (2) it wasn't designed to be impossible, and (3) they had the freedom to just scarper off. They went with that.

Still, I'd say that if you can't really do a heist adventure, then don't do a heist adventure. But that's me - sometimes a GM and his or her players want the cinematic experience of a steampunk heist without all the interminable planning on the part of the players and bookkeeping for the GM. Voila: Blades in the Dark
 
I've kind of always disliked the standard heist setup myself. Like if you just run it straight like you would if you played it all out rather than using something like Blades in the Dark's system it always felt like it went like this: You plan for hours and hours usually, then either your plan goes perfectly, in which case, the actual heist isn't very interesting, or the plan goes pear shaped, and the hours of planning feels like it was kind of pointless.

Not saying no one else can enjoy it, but it always felt like the planning was all that mattered, or it didn't matter at all so why do it.

Also, I've always subscribed to the "The characters are more competent at their job than I am" approach to RPGs. Why would I be as good at planning a heist as a criminal mastermind anyway? Things like Blades in the Dark's flashback mechanics or the way it does gear let my character be more competent than me at his job. (Also before someone starts the whole thing of Flashbacks "making everything too easy" or "stifles player creativity" something like that, remember it does still have a cost in game, you can't do it constantly, and you still have to think up what you do in the flashback (Not saying anyone has said these things, I've just heard both in the past))

Idk man. I just prefer 1. The more improvisational style that lets me play the heist rather than playing out meticulously planning a heist, and 2. Being able to play characters who are more capable than me.
 
We're really saying a lot of the same things. For instance, when you say this:
EmperorNorton said:
You plan for hours and hours usually, then either your plan goes perfectly, in which case, the actual heist isn't very interesting, or the plan goes pear shaped, and the hours of planning feels like it was kind of pointless.
Click to expand...
...it's pretty similar to this:
Edgewise said:
While there is nothing so satisfying as a heist adventure when the players are really engaged, I had a group of players who were just overwhelmed by the very concept.
Click to expand...
And this:
EmperorNorton said:
Idk man. I just prefer 1. The more improvisational style that lets me play the heist rather than playing out meticulously planning a heist, and 2. Being able to play characters who are more capable than me.
Click to expand...
...is a lot like this:
Edgewise said:
...sometimes a GM and his or her players want the cinematic experience of a steampunk heist without all the interminable planning on the part of the players and bookkeeping for the GM. Voila: Blades in the Dark
Click to expand...
That's all fine! I recognize that different things work for different people. Even among others who say they aren't into player-designed narratives, my reasons are a little different. The whole IC/OOC dynamic is not as big a deal for me. That's why player authorship takes me out of things more than, say, combat run on a battlemap.
 
I wasn't disagreeing with you on that. I was more agreeing with you but saying it in my own words as someone who does like the style of Blades.

And adding in the part 2 part of being able to play characters who are better at their jobs than I would be.
 
Somehow I think the concept of Swo' should weigh heavily into This Old Arguement, but I'm currently at a loss how to do it... :grin:
 
Justin Alexander said:
(1) Robert didn't mention the flashback mechanic in his original post. The discussion wasn't about the flashback mechanic. Robert said they weren't playing out the heist and I highlighted text emphasizing that my central point was that you DO play out the heist in full in BitD. Your attempts to interpret my comments to mean something other than that despite my explicit statement that this is not the case is simply bizarre.
Click to expand...
Robert has gone on to clarify his thoughts on the flashback mechanic, I was just ahead of you in understanding him to be referring to that. The rest of your post is much twattery. You used to write interesting stuff, but you're kind of a dweeb who tries to argue like you're gonna win points for standing on a podium screaming "GOTCHA!" It's impossible to have an interesting discussion with someone as puerile as that. Grow up.
 
Edgewise said:
Maybe you're being sarcastic, but in case you're not, there's no "almost" about it. One of the design goals of BitD is that you can play out Dishonored and Oceans Eleven with little-to-no prep for GM and players.
Click to expand...

What I highlighted is a laudable goal, and put what I remember from my friends copy of the rules in better context.

Edgewise said:
- sometimes a GM and his or her players want the cinematic experience of a steampunk heist without all the interminable planning on the part of the players and bookkeeping for the GM. Voila: Blades in the Dark
Click to expand...
The issue seem to be then that the system is not forgiving when one or more of the players can actually plan a heist, can get the group working on a plan, and accomplish it in a timely manner.

My friend and I are experienced at playing LARPs so were used to herding cats to get something done including when there is a intricate plan involved. This was further reinforced by the fact nearly all of the group there were also LARP players.

Or it could be the system is forgiving but other friend who refereed was not used to running it with people who could formulate a coherent heist plan. Knowing his regular group, they were not there that day, from playing LARP, I can see the appeal of a system that allows them to play out a heist with little or no prep.

Edgewise said:
(1) this was not intended to be an adventure where they could hack their way through it, (2) it wasn't designed to be impossible, and (3) they had the freedom to just scarper off. They went with that.
Click to expand...

I wasn't treating it like a hack and slash adventure. I am not being defensive, just clarifying that I knew full well the adventure was a heist and I played my character accordingly.

Edgewise said:
Still, I'd say that if you can't really do a heist adventure, then don't do a heist adventure.
Click to expand...

I concur, for me my goto example of this is Call of Cthulu which works best when a referee is able to effective use horror tropes and the group is into the horror genre. Which doesn't include me but did include two of my friends both running memorable sessions/campaigns.
 
under_score said:
Robert has gone on to clarify his thoughts on the flashback mechanic, I was just ahead of you in understanding him to be referring to that. The rest of your post is much twattery. You used to write interesting stuff, but you're kind of a dweeb who tries to argue like you're gonna win points for standing on a podium screaming "GOTCHA!" It's impossible to have an interesting discussion with someone as puerile as that. Grow up.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
EmperorNorton said:
Idk, I wouldn't say it is noticeably reduced. Like, if you have 4 players and 1 GM. Even if every person is equally contributing to the world, 4/5ths of the world isn't created by you.

And I've never found any narrative game to be that extreme. Generally the GM still creates a lot more of the world than the players do, outside of like GMless games, but that is a much more extreme type of game.

I just feel like the "the players lose the ability to discover" thing feels like no game I've ever played, and I play a lot of narrative games.
Click to expand...


Different strokes, etc. It's the thing I hated about Dungeon World. As a player I don't want to help build the world, period. Your mileage may thingy.
 
I think that the concept of 1st person role playing vs. 3rd person story telling makes sense as two extremes on the ladder of categorizing what a particular game supports as a play style. I mean, individually, each player may have their own style that fits on this ladder (I know people who are leaning towards 3rd person, but are firmly ROLEPLAYING not storytelling), but we're talking about which one the game system actually supports.

1st person role-playing
"Jane Doe decides to take action x because that's what she would do, world-building and narrative structure be damned"
Games that have no mechanics that support decisions or outcomes beyond a character's immediate abilities or knowledge.

3rd person story-telling
"the character, Jane Doe, decides to take action x because that's what SHOULD happen in this type of story and supports this part of world building".
Games that have mechanics to alter the fate of one or more characters or change the world around them beyond the characters' immediate abilities or knowledge.

Granted, most games support a bit of both, and most actual humans play their characters somewhere in the middle. Jane Doe might do X, but her player knows that because she's part of organization Y, she would instead decide to act differently. Or because Jane has no more Fate Points/Bennies/Drama points etc, she might make a less hasty, risky decision, even though the character wouldn't know that's she's running on fumes.

Interesting conversation outside of the name calling and pretentiousness on display.
 
under_score said:
Doesn't flashback to planning you would have done to resolve challenges imply you aren't playing out those situations?
Click to expand...
No. It just means you play them out as flashbacks and do your planning with hindsight, although a trivial flashback could be as simple as 'I made sure I have XX' and there's not much more to roleplay. If you think of the way that Ocean's 11 jumped around to various bits of prep during the casino heist it's sort of like a role playing version of that. The mechanic is designed to produce a narrative of a competent team of professional thieves doing a heist.

We've done a bit of it in my PbP Scum and Villainy game here, although perhaps not as much as could have been so it's necessarily a terribly good example of using the flashback mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top