GURPs vs FATE

[chuckdee]

So, I think that for many people, the issue is that they don't have the concept of "blank spaces" in their view of roleplaying games, especially for time sequences. Like, if you skip from dinner to the next morning, that's not "blank", it's assumed you did "non-consequential default activities" for that time. So for you (and me), that might be a blank space (at least in some games). For them, it's not blank. It's established that you did nothing of consequence, and now we're changing that.

Very nice. I think that explains the difference in thought processes. And it's a conceit that you accept if you play a game where those 'blank spaces' can become important.

 

[Stumpydave]

I've always played, and ran (bear in mind until recently most of my roleplaying was some form of LARP - or at least used LARP rules) with a view that characters are the flawed lens through which players interact with the game world. So from that point of view a lot of in-character discussion and acting is expected and encouraged - so Storygaming...I suppose.
However, there is always that reference back to skill numbers, attributes, the bonuses gained from certain powers. Trying to game the system to beat whatever obstacle the GM or another player has put in your way. I figure this would be a traditional view of an RPG.
But its a balancing act. You can't have SG without acknowledging the framework rules give, but the other hand comparing stats and bonuses against each other without the context provided by the story means you're just playing a homebrew of top trumps.

I figure I've misunderstood the original question. Pay me no heed, just let an old man ramble.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, I think that for many people, the issue is that they don't have the concept of "blank spaces" in their view of roleplaying games, especially for time sequences. Like, if you skip from dinner to the next morning, that's not "blank", it's assumed you did "non-consequential default activities" for that time. So for you (and me), that might be a blank space (at least in some games). For them, it's not blank. It's established that you did nothing of consequence, and now we're changing that.

Like this:
That sounds to me like someone not thinking there's a "blank" there. Which, to pedantically emphasize I'm assuming good faith is a totally fine viewpoint and preference.

The point isn't one is right or wrong, but we can't even really discuss whether flashbacks are a retcon because the real issue is unestablished/blank spaces and whether or not they exist, and under what circumstances.

Right, this is a great point. The perception of it is what's important. And I think that this is something that's game specific and/or playgroup specific.

Like, when I play D&D, I wouldn't expect to always be able to jump back and fill in such a blank space, with some minor exceptions. Something like "oh I meant to buy potions before we got on the road....can I do that?" is an example I brought up earlier. I wouldn't expect, upon coming face to face with Snurre Ironbelly, that I could jump back and have visited his hall the day before and bribed him. That's not how D&D works.

By the same token, anyone playing Blades in the Dark has to accept that those blank spaces are indeed blank. It's not that nothing happened during those times, it's that we don't know what's happened during those times. That is how Blades works.

As someone who enjoys both kinds of games () I think that this is an important factor. And, even with the same rules set, different groups will have different thresholds for all of this stuff.

Nobody here is arguing (I hope) that OOC decisions are IC. What some people are arguing, I think (I am, at least), is:

1. For some people, once you've internalized the procedures with the OOC stuff, it doesn't break immersion more than many other things we take for granted
2. For some people, a game with 2% OOC decision time and 5% mechanics time can be more immersive overall than a game with 0% OOC time and 15% mechanics time

Right. My take on it is that any little bit of OOC elements that I use in a game like BitD are not so great as to reduce the overall amount of roleplay or immersion. Especially when OOC decisions I make as a player are all about my character and their goals. Yes, I do sometimes make decisions as a player, and the Flashback mechanic is specifically a player resource.....but the other elements of the game, the other changes from a more traditional approach, are what I think can make it just as or even more immersive.

 

[CRKrueger]

So the "blank space" is what exactly? A section of time that we just pencil in what happened with the understanding that we'll retcon it later? And that's not a meta concept?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So the "blank space" is what exactly? A section of time that we just pencil in what happened with the understanding that we'll retcon it later? And that's not a meta concept?

I would expect that even with your stated goals of play that not every minute of every day is accounted for, right? And additionally, that there may possibly be stretches of game where the sequence of events may not be as important as others.....like when the PCs are in a town and safe from danger and are all pursuing individual tasks like shopping or checking on contacts and the like. Everyone may be doing their own thing, and we're not worried exactly about when each happens, or exactly how long it takes.

Is that safe to say?

If so, then the blank spots are literally just that.....any time that is not specifically accounted for. If the action of an entire day in town consists of "I went and bought some gear while the wizard recovered from his wounds at the tavern and the thief checked in with the local guild to see if there are any potential jobs for us" then there's plenty of time not accounted for.

 

[robiswrong]

So the "blank space" is what exactly? A section of time that we just pencil in what happened with the understanding that we'll retcon it later? And that's not a meta concept?

Anything that hasn't been established.

We meet Bill the Baker. The players buy some bread from him and go on their way.

Is Bill married? Does he have kids? What's his favorite color? Did he used to be a warrior? Who is he related to? If Bill is just created as a throwaway NPC, we don't necessarily know these things. We can answer them at any point without contradicting anything.

But as soon as we make a decision about something (Bill is from Landaria) then we can't contradict it. (No, Bill can't be related to you, you're from Countrania, and he's from Landaria, that doesn't make sense). We can also affirm that BIll doesn't have a wife, at which point that's set in place.

Blank/grey spaces are just the "it hasn't been established" bits. Not good or bad. In most, especially traditional games, time is assumed to move forward and, like I said, things not gone over are presumed to have been "inconsequential default activities". And I'm certainly not saying that's wrong in any way.

I also don't think it's necessarily an assumption that we will pencil that in later. For people that use blank spaces (especially temporal), it's an understanding that we can, if appropriate.

I'd also say it's not a "retcon" in the classic sense. Retcons classically involve actually changing something that was established. This is more like filling in things that weren't established, one way or the other. Of course, to circle around, a lot of people do assume that if we've advanced to morning, that means that everything up to then was filled with "inconsequential default activity" unless specified otherwise, so in that case it would be a retcon... it's just that other people don't have that assumption so it's not.

 

[CRKrueger]

I would expect that even with your stated goals of play that not every minute of every day is accounted for, right? And additionally, that there may possibly be stretches of game where the sequence of events may not be as important as others.....like when the PCs are in a town and safe from danger and are all pursuing individual tasks like shopping or checking on contacts and the like. Everyone may be doing their own thing, and we're not worried exactly about when each happens, or exactly how long it takes.

Is that safe to say?

If so, then the blank spots are literally just that.....any time that is not specifically accounted for. If the action of an entire day in town consists of "I went and bought some gear while the wizard recovered from his wounds at the tavern and the thief checked in with the local guild to see if there are any potential jobs for us" then there's plenty of time not accounted for.

Yeah but the “blank spaces” idea exists just so you can say later “Didn’t I mention that I had a secret meeting with the King’s Spymaster, and he told me the password his agents use to get past the Bishop’s Elite Guard, so we can get past the King’s Guard Obstacle.”

Anything that hasn't been established.

We meet Bill the Baker. The players buy some bread from him and go on their way.

Is Bill married? Does he have kids? What's his favorite color? Did he used to be a warrior? Who is he related to? If Bill is just created as a throwaway NPC, we don't necessarily know these things. We can answer them at any point without contradicting anything.

But as soon as we make a decision about something (Bill is from Landaria) then we can't contradict it. (No, Bill can't be related to you, you're from Countrania, and he's from Landaria, that doesn't make sense). We can also affirm that BIll doesn't have a wife, at which point that's set in place.

Blank/grey spaces are just the "it hasn't been established" bits. Not good or bad. In most, especially traditional games, time is assumed to move forward and, like I said, things not gone over are presumed to have been "inconsequential default activities". And I'm certainly not saying that's wrong in any way.

I also don't think it's necessarily an assumption that we will pencil that in later. For people that use blank spaces (especially temporal), it's an understanding that we can, if appropriate.

In other words everything we do carries with it the meta understanding that the entire setting is in a Schrodinger’s state until defined by interaction with the player characters and subject to change at a whim by those players for the sake of what makes the better story.

 

[robertsconley]

But wouldn't testing the characters involve things like dice rolls? So if someone says "hey, can we bribe the guards?" this is certainly something that the characters would consider. Do you think that players will always think of everything that an actual person living in that world would think of? This is what I mean by testing the players.

There is the plan involving a talent or skill, and there is the execution of the talent or skill. Formulating plans is easily taught or coached in my experience. Execution is represented by the mechanics. I don't know if you remember me talking about how I handled roleplaying with a stutterer but it is the same principle in operation in my campaign.

If the GM has prepped the situation, then the GM already knows what options may be available, and which are most likely to succeed. There may even be a specific option that is required, depending on the circumstances. So isn't it just a matter of if the players think of the "correct" or most likely option?

No, it like life. It is a situation, what correct depends on one's goals, and the goals may change dynamically in real time. There is no right answers only consequences some positive, some negative, some neutral.

If as a referee, you think there only certain ways thing ought to go then you going to run into issue like you describe.

If they only think of the option that has little chance of success, how does this reflect on the characters rather than the players?

The challenge of refereeing tabletop roleplaying campaigns is managing the verbal and visual bandwidth (if one uses props or minis). One should strive to hone one's technique as a referee to tersely convey the information needed for the players to plan what they want to do as their characters. There is no right way to do this but there is a test. If the players wind up playing twenty questions with you. Then whatever it you tried failed in that regard.

Or maybe the GM presents the various options to the players, and it's up to them to determine which may be best suited to their characters based on the characters' strengths? That seems to lean a little more toward being in character, but it also involves the GM sharing details with them, which may or may not suit, depending on the style.

It possible a character talent's entitles the players to more information than they would otherwise have. But the operative principle for me would be what it would look like if I was standing witnessing the action and hearing the thoughts.

Okay, so for me, a Flashback is really accomplishing the same thing as your take on coaching. It goes about it differently, but the end goal is the same. I think that some folks may find a player facing ability that emulates their character's actual ability to plan to be more fun and in character than listening to the GM tell them what to do.

The difference that any coaching I do happen before, while BitD's Flashback is after the fact, a crucial difference. It not possible with flashback to come up with a new plan based on the new circumstances as Harper makes clear it can't change established elements. Since the point of coaching is to supply players what they need to know, the entire plan may change in light of that information.

I'm not sure what you mean here in relation to Blades. I get the HP/archer example and how some games handle it better, but I don't follow the connection you're making to BitD. Can you clarify?

Many feel a fighter with 20 HP charging an archer doing 1d6 damage is a fundamentally gamey or unrealistic situation. Rising solely from how the mechanics of D&D work. Likewise with initiating a flashback, that is something fundamentally gamey, OOC, or unrealistic. Rising solely how the mechanics of BitD work.

Well I think that the idea is that the unexpected can happen. You cannot plan for every possible outcome. So things may not go according to plan. If Bluecoats show up, that's a complication for sure......and now the players have to decide how to deal with the problem. They can attack or sneak past them or whatever they like. In addition, they can try and use a Flashback to see if there was an earlier action they could have taken that would make the Bluecoats' presence not a problem, or less of one.

In my campaign with the BitD setting, you won't get a chance for a flashback. You either plan for it and execute said plan. Or you deal with the situation with the resources on hand. And that is a fundamentally different experience than what BitD is offering. Some would prefer how I handle it, and some would prefer how BitD handles. My way has OOG consequences for what I need to do and Harper's way has different consequences for a BitD needs to do. And they are not the same. Nor they are "better" or "worse" as they the result of perusing different experiences.

It puts a lot of the burden to drive play on the players themselves. It requires that they be more proactive than reactive.

No I disagree, both ways require the players to be proactive. Just in different ways.

It is very much a sandbox style game.

I disagree because the play has to follow the below structure while sandbox campaign the way I play them has no preconceived notion of how things ought to go beyond the loop I described elsewhere where you tell me what it is you do as your character and I describe what happens. In essence there is no equivalent in sandbox campaigns to downtime, engagement rolls or the score. There is just Free Play organized how the players see fit to organize their time as their character.

Again I agree there are benefit to following Harper's structure below. But there are consequences as well.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think this comes again from differing definitions.

In the realm of adventure and campaign structure, linear vs sandbox, BitD is undeniably more sandbox. It is written to be centered on player character decisions and dealing with unexpected consequences of those decisions, not on a "plot" that the GM comes up with that the players then play through.

I don't particularly think that adding an assumed play structure makes a game stop being a sandbox. Unless you think that a hexcrawl is also not a sandbox.

(honestly I find most games already have assumed play structures, whether we acknowledge them or not).

 

[robiswrong]

In other words everything we do carries with it the meta understanding that the entire setting is in a Schrodinger’s state until defined by interaction with the player characters and subject to change at a whim by those players for the sake of what makes the better story.

I don't think this is a good faith reading - you're telling us what we're saying, and it's not what we're saying, especially using loaded words and phrases like "subject to change at a whim" and "for the sake of what makes a better story".

Again, I am against the whole "do what makes a better story" thing, as I've said many times. That's not an agenda I have.

And "changes at a whim" implies that it's some kind of almost inverse-Bill-and-Ted thing. While I havent' played enough BitD to really tell you, in the games where I've played, these types of things are comparatively rare. Even in BitD I'd assume that the use of Flashbacks is pretty limited and a good amount/the majority of the time you're playing through fairly "normally".

But, yes, Inverse-Bill-and-Ted: the Game wouldn't be interesting to me.

I disagree because the play has to follow the below structure while sandbox campaign the way I play them has no preconceived notion of how things ought to go beyond the loop I described elsewhere where you tell me what it is you do as your character and I describe what happens. In essence there is no equivalent in sandbox campaigns to downtime, engagement rolls or the score. There is just Free Play organized how the players see fit to organize their time as their character.

I don't think I agree with that. Even going back to old versions of D&D, you had several structures that you went between - free play, hex-crawl, dungeon exploration, and combat, each with their own procedures and specialized flows. They're different ones than BitD has, for sure, and you're right that the "engagement roll" isn't something that existed, but I don't think the idea of different procedures for different subsections of the game is particularly novel to BitD.

I mean, with BitD there's possibly a strong presumption that you'll enter the "score" subgame, but there was a fairly strong presumption in old D&D that you'd enter the dungeon subgame as well.

(I'll also freely admit that many games don't have those specialized dungeon/hexcrawl structures, but most of them do have a separate structure around combat as opposed to "free play")

 

[EmperorNorton]

And "changes at a whim" implies that it's some kind of almost inverse-Bill-and-Ted thing. While I havent' played enough BitD to really tell you, in the games where I've played, these types of things are comparatively rare. Even in BitD I'd assume that the use of Flashbacks is pretty limited and a good amount/the majority of the time you're playing through fairly "normally".

Having played a decent amount of BitD, I find stress WAY too hard to recover to use flashbacks on a whim. There are too many things I need stress for.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah but the “blank spaces” idea exists just so you can say later “Didn’t I mention that I had a secret meeting with the King’s Spymaster, and he told me the password his agents use to get past the Bishop’s Elite Guard, so we can get past the King’s Guard Obstacle.”

Well, no not just for that. They exist simply because they exist, right? Because we don't narrate every minute of every day of the characters' lives. That's why such blank spaces exist.

Blades does give players the ability to fill in parts of those spaces to try and help them with obstacles they face, yes. Your example seems kind of off, though.

Let's forget the chronology for a moment. Would you as a GM in your game allow the PCs to simply have access to the King's Spymaster? So that they could reach out to him prior to some kind of job and then use info he provided to execute that job?

My guess is that you would not. Not unless the Spymaster had previously become friendly or otherwise cooperative with the PCs. If he had, then you might allow it.

The same would apply to a Flashback. It's not some kind of ability to carte blanche take authorial power and rewrite things to how you want. The actions are constrained by what's been established in the fiction, just as they would be in your game. The only difference is when the action is declared in real time.

In other words everything we do carries with it the meta understanding that the entire setting is in a Schrodinger’s state until defined by interaction with the player characters and subject to change at a whim by those players for the sake of what makes the better story.

No, I think you're misinterpreting here; it's not the entire setting so much as certain blank areas, but even then, the characters are constrained by established fiction and their own ability and so on. And it certainly is not done at whim; there's a valuable resource that will likely need to be spent on all but the most basic of Flashbacks, and it's a resource that is used for many things, so the decision to use it is meaningful.

And the goal with most Flashbacks is not to make a better story. It's to address an obstacle facing the characters.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't think I agree with that. Even going back to old versions of D&D, you had several structures that you went between - free play, hex-crawl, dungeon exploration, and combat, each with their own procedures and specialized flows.

While the referee was free to impose a structure it was not required or needed. OD&D was a toolkit of Gygax's "Useful things I did from when I ran a campaign". It only with AD&D that he adopted the tone here how it must be played in the sense you are talking about. But despite that since AD&D replicated what OD&D did, his statement turned out to be an opinion not a hard and fast way the game must be played in the way Harper presentation of BitD structure is.

And this is what I did when I used AD&D as my primary system. I had to because I let players trash my setting. And to make that interesting it all had to be roughly what BitD calls Free Play.

They're different ones than BitD has, for sure, and you're right that the "engagement roll" isn't something that existed, but I don't think the idea of different procedures for different subsections of the game is particularly novel to BitD.

Nor is my criticism or comments on that kind of structure limited to BitD. I adopt a similar position with Ars Magica and how it manages time.

I mean, with BitD there's possibly a strong presumption that you'll enter the "score" subgame, but there was a fairly strong presumption in old D&D that you'd enter the dungeon subgame as well.

The dungeon wasn't a sub game. It was a locale that the most aids in book to describe. Big difference in perspective. OD&D was littered with tools and aid for other locales as well.

 

[CRKrueger]

I don't think this is a good faith reading - you're telling us what we're saying, and it's not what we're saying, especially using loaded words and phrases like "subject to change at a whim" and "for the sake of what makes a better story".

Again, I am against the whole "do what makes a better story" thing, as I've said many times. That's not an agenda I have.

And "changes at a whim" implies that it's some kind of almost inverse-Bill-and-Ted thing. While I havent' played enough BitD to really tell you, in the games where I've played, these types of things are comparatively rare. Even in BitD I'd assume that the use of Flashbacks is pretty limited and a good amount/the majority of the time you're playing through fairly "normally".

But, yes, Inverse-Bill-and-Ted: the Game wouldn't be interesting to me.

Fair enough, but come on: The name of Bill the Blacksmith’s Wife isn’t the same thing as “Oh instead of just selling me a dagger, he also sold me a copy of the key to the Royal Dungeons, which he helped outfit.” That’s not just filling in info that hasn’t dropped yet, it’s deliberately changing what did happen.

In BitD there is no planning or preparation. Flashbacks and Load (which basically is just a number. The more Load you have, the more obviously a thief you are, and a Load just represents items and tools. You don’t have to decide what items you actually bring, you just decide what the load is whenever you need it.) are meant to replace the planning process. As long as you have unassigned Load, you have whatever tool you need, when you need it. As long as you’re willing to risk stress, you can Flashback your way to mitigating any obstacle.

The whole point is your character does super competent things that the player invokes retroactively when needed. Not Roleplaying through actually doing it, but narrating after the fact how they did it beforehand.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, it like life. It is a situation, what correct depends on one's goals, and the goals may change dynamically in real time. There is no right answers only consequences some positive, some negative, some neutral.

If as a referee, you think there only certain ways thing ought to go then you going to run into issue like you describe.

Right, but as a referee, it's your job to kind of set up the situation ahead of time, which means you have a good sense of the odds of the routes the players may want to go, right? If their goal is to get into the duke's castle, you're going to know if an open assault is suicidal, or if there's a secret entrance through the sewer, and so on. A lot of these things are going to be established, so you'll have an idea of what the players may have the characters try in order to get in.

So when they actually do present a plan, you'll have considered it and have a good sense for it's chance of success (based on strength of opposition or any number of other fictional elements).

Now, this is not to say that characters can't make mistakes, but whose chances do you think are better of actually picking a better plan.....a player or an actual adventurer/criminal/hero/whatever in the game world? Who has more complete information available to them?

This is why I say it's a test of the players' skill.

Now, that's not to say that character skill doesn't come into it. You may have some of these things determined only by successful checks on the part of the characters and so on. And you may coach them to help bridge any world knowledge gaps between players and characters.

And of course, players being the rascally bastards that they are, they may come up with some kind of plan that you didn't think of, and so you have to kind of determine things on short notice, or even on the fly.

Many feel a fighter with 20 HP charging an archer doing 1d6 damage is a fundamentally gamey or unrealistic situation. Rising solely from how the mechanics of D&D work. Likewise with initiating a flashback, that is something fundamentally gamey, OOC, or unrealistic. Rising solely how the mechanics of BitD work.

Okay, understood. I'd say that the key difference here is that the fighter charging the archer is an in world event that the characters can observe and are meant to accept. With the Flashback in Blades, there's no effect for the character. Perhaps you could frame it as "you recall having met with the watch commander the day before...." or something.

What's odd is an observable in world event in one case, and outside the game in the other.

No I disagree, both ways require the players to be proactive. Just in different ways.

I don't know.....I think responding to coaching is pretty reactive. I'm not saying that proactive action is absent from more traditional games, but it likely won't be as required as in BitD.

I disagree because the play has to follow the below structure while sandbox campaign the way I play them has no preconceived notion of how things ought to go beyond the loop I described elsewhere where you tell me what it is you do as your character and I describe what happens. In essence there is no equivalent in sandbox campaigns to downtime, engagement rolls or the score. There is just Free Play organized how the players see fit to organize their time as their character.

Again I agree there are benefit to following Harper's structure below. But there are consequences as well.

That structure is meant to help guide the GM, it's not "required" as you say.

And I disagree that sandbox games don't have a structure of some sort. They're very structured in many cases. Explore a new hex? Okay, the GM now makes a roll and consults some tables. Camp for the night? Okay, let me check the random encounter table.

The idea that the structure offered in Blades is some rigid thing, but structures in other games are loose and flexible is inaccurate. I think it's just that they are less directly defined in many cases.

 

[EmperorNorton]

The whole point is your character does super competent things that the player invokes retroactively when needed. Not Roleplaying through actually doing it, but narrating after the fact how they did it beforehand.

I think you are using different definitions of "roleplaying" and "narrating" here. If I flash back to a scene of bribing the guards, we still roleplay it. I don't just say "I bribed the guards yesterday" and then roll dice. I roleplay approaching the guards, the GM roleplays the guards, and then we roll the dice when necessary.

There are situations where "I did x" and then you roll the dice, but it is the same type of situations where that is how we would have handled it no matter when it was done. Like my example of setting up explosives in the tunnels underneath a vault the day before. If I said "I'm setting up some explosives so that I can set them off from above and drop the floor into this tunnel" while playing through planning and I was standing in the tunnel, we would have just rolled dice to see if I did it correctly.

 

[robiswrong]

The dungeon wasn't a sub game. It was a locale that the most aids in book to describe. Big difference in perspective. OD&D was littered with tools and aid for other locales as well.

It kinda was. Or whatever term you want to use - once you went in the dungeon you started doing tracking time in 10 minute increments, started marking food and torch lives, making random encounters on that schedule, etc. I mean, it wasn't a completely different game, but it was still a structure tacked on top of the free play kind of stuff that could normally happen.

Same with hex crawls.

Same with combat (initiative, turns, etc.)

Fair enough, but come on: The name of Bill the Blacksmith’s Wife isn’t the same thing as “Oh instead of just selling me a dagger, he also sold me a copy of the key to the Royal Dungeons, which he helped outfit.” That’s not just filling in info that hasn’t dropped yet, it’s deliberately changing what did happen.

Cool, so let's tease this out a bit. There's a few things in your example that I think are getting conflated:

1. Can you make assertions about the blank spaces?
2. How plausible do they have to be?

Most games that allow "blank space additions" put constraints on them in some way. You can't just willy-nilly play Inverse-Bill-And-Ted.

So, can you assert the blacksmith wife's name? Maybe, but asserting he has a wife is probably the interesting thing.

Can you use some resource at your disposal (clearly OOC) to say "nah, I actually did buy some lockpicks from the blacksmith yesterday"? Sure, since that's a thing you can normally do anyway.

Can you use the same OOC resource to declare that the blacksmith gave you the master key to the dungeon? Nope. It's not plausible. You couldn't do it in "real time", so how could you do it in a flashback? I know of no game that allows for this type of thing that allows characters carte blanche when doing these additions. In every case I know of, it's limited in some fashion in terms of frequency, cannot overwrite anything that's already positively established, and has to be "plausible" by some definition.

So, no, nobody is arguing that your example of getting the key to the Royal Dungeons is something that should be happening.

In BitD there is no planning or preparation. Flashbacks and Load (which basically is just a number. The more Load you have, the more obviously a thief you are, and a Load just represents items and tools. You don’t have to decide what items you actually bring, you just decide what the load is whenever you need it.) are meant to replace the planning process. As long as you have unassigned Load, you have whatever tool you need, when you need it. As long as you’re willing to risk stress, you can Flashback your way to mitigating any obstacle.

For Load, sure, so long as it's plausible (I'd presume). You can only do that some number of times.

For Flashbacks, the mitigation still has to be plausible (and played through). And apparently Stress is a fairly limiting resource unless you're GMing in Easy Mode, in which case, does it matter?

The whole point is your character does super competent things that the player invokes retroactively when needed. Not Roleplaying through actually doing it, but narrating after the fact how they did it beforehand.

Except you do roleplay Flashbacks. And that's not the entirety of the game. I'm not sure, practically, what percentage it ends up being, to be fair.

And I don't think I've heard anyone that's into the system describe the "whole point" of the system in those terms. Sounds like hawkeyefan is more into than I am, so, does that match your views on why to play it, hawkeyefan ?

But, yes, it's a different experience. It's one designed for people that don't want to spend hours and hours on the planning phase of a heist game, but still want to do "heists". It's a bad fit for people that do want to do that planning.

 

[TristramEvans]

The whole point is your character does super competent things that the player invokes retroactively when needed. Not Roleplaying through actually doing it, but narrating after the fact how they did it beforehand.

I think a few pages ago it was aptly described as a tool for playing a certain character archetype from media. That the tool itself is toomuch of an immmersion-breaking conciet for you or I probably just goes without saying at this point.

But really what idea are people trying to express to eah other about the mechanic? I think CRK is saying that the conciet is OOC. If we accept that, but also accept for certain people it's a neccessarily useul concession to make the game flow easier as well, in a way that doesn't disrupt their gameplay experience the way it would or CRK (raisins in oatmeal) is there much left to argue then, as we seem to have entered into the realm of just personal tastes in playstyles?

It seems to me like Passions in Pendragon, For some people they are fantastic tools for evoking the specific genre of Arthurian myths, and for some people they are intrusive personality mechanics that interfere with role-playing, and so some people like them and some don't, but it really just comes down to the choice to play Pendragon or not depending on one's tastes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For Load, sure, so long as it's plausible (I'd presume). You can only do that some number of times.

For Flashbacks, the mitigation still has to be plausible (and played through). And apparently Stress is a fairly limiting resource unless you're GMing in Easy Mode, in which case, does it matter?

With Load, it's something you select before a mission; Light, Normal, or Heavy, which have 3, 5, and 6 inventory spots, respectively. Based on what you've chosen, you may appear loaded for bear and certain actions that rely on speed or stealth where being laden with equipment would be bad will likely be more difficult for you, or will take more time to complete, or similar.

Then each playbook/class has a standard list of items that they can choose from as needed to fill those inventory slots. There are standard items that appear on each playbook's list, and then a subset specific to each playbook. So you can't have anything/everything. Something off your list would likely require an expenditure beforehand.

Some items count as two inventory slots, such as a rifle. Once you've reached your max number of inventory slots, you don't have any more equipment.

Except you do roleplay Flashbacks. And that's not the entirety of the game. I'm not sure, practically, what percentage it ends up being, to be fair.

And I don't think I've heard anyone that's into the system describe the "whole point" of the system in those terms. Sounds like hawkeyefan is more into than I am, so, does that match your views on why to play it, @hawkeyefan ?

But, yes, it's a different experience. It's one designed for people that don't want to spend hours and hours on the planning phase of a heist game, but still want to do "heists". It's a bad fit for people that do want to do that planning.

Flashbacks are pretty uncommon, in my experience, but I'm sure that will vary by group. Maybe averaging one to two per session, maybe. Sometimes there'll be more, others there will be none. The thing is that Stress is used for Flashbacks, but it's also used to Push rolls to increase your chances, or to assist a teammate to improve theirs, and it's also used to power special playbook abilities AND for Resisting consequences. So it's a finite resource that has to be managed, and it has several uses. And once you're out of it, the character is out of the score. So no....it's not something you can just spend without concerns to Flashback your way to victory.

That would be like if I said "Agh a Wizard in D&D can just magic their way to victory" and ignored the whole idea of spells by level and spells known and so on. It shows an incomplete understanding of the mechanic.

As for the "whole point".....yeah, I think the intention, as with any game, is to deliver a fun experience. This one simply has an alternate take on inventory management and how planning occurs. As you say, those parts are designed to deliver a different experience. But the rest of the game? It's so similar to what we'd call traditional roleplaying that some of the ideas that have been suggested here really blow my mind.

I think a few pages ago it was aptly described as a tool for playing a certain character archetype from media. That the tool itself is toomuch of an immmersion-breaking conciet for you or I probably just goes without saying at this point.

But really what idea are people trying to express to eah other about the mechanic? I think CRK is saying that the conciet is OOC. If we accept that, but also accept for certain people it's a neccessarily useul concession to make the game flow easier as well, in a way that doesn't disrupt their gameplay experience the way it would or CRK (raisins in oatmeal) is there much left to argue then, as we seem to have entered into the realm of just personal tastes in playstyles?

Yeah, I think the subjective nature of who may or may not like a mechanic like Flashbacks is fairly clear, of the folks who've been posting. I think at this point, I'm posting only to clear up any misconceptions about what the mechanics actually do. I've played a good amount of Blades in the Dark, so I feel confident about my ability to clarify how the game works.

I've never played Mithras, on the other hand. And although I've been led to understand it can do anything, I'd probably defer to the folks who've actually played it before I offered my two cents.

 

[robertsconley]

It kinda was. Or whatever term you want to use - once you went in the dungeon you started doing tracking time in 10 minute increments, started marking food and torch lives, making random encounters on that schedule, etc. I mean, it wasn't a completely different game, but it was still a structure tacked on top of the free play kind of stuff that could normally happen.

Everything stated about Dungeons applied to other locales as well. Food, torches, wandering monsters, rest. Nor it was present like how Harper present the structure of Blades in the Dark. Most of it was found in Book III but other bits were scattered around. The theme as one could call it was more "This is how I handle X". What pieces were used and when was clearly left up to the referee.

Same with combat (initiative, turns, etc.)

You have a misconception about combat if you think it is a mode. In OD&D it was barely there except for a few bits and pieces. The reader was expected to use their knowledge of how man to man combat was handled in miniature wargames to make full use of the material. The only mode present in OD&D was the player describe what they do as their character and the referee tells them what happened.

1. Can you make assertions about the blank spaces?

Only before they happen. If the player declines to have their character doing something it is assumed that nothing of note happens. Subject to periodic checks of random events. But if it has been noted that nothing has happened then nothing happened.

But I am not a dick about it. If a player forgot to do something or it obvious something would have happen. We rewind, deal with it and move forward patching up stuff as needed to make it all consistent. And I can tell when it the player is bullshitting me about it.

2. How plausible do they have to be?

Very but I will patch up the "timeline" if need be. But it doesn't happen often because I pay attention to players learning their goals and if they miss a step their character wouldn't I will point it out before play continues. In addition I manage in-game time in a way that everybody has opportunities. I basically do a round robins around the table. "Does your character do anything for the rest of the morning/afternoon/etc?"

Very effective, perhaps too effective as often one session equals one actual game day with everybody getting their fill of adventures and interacting with the setting.

Most games that allow "blank space additions" put constraints on them in some way. You can't just willy-nilly play Inverse-Bill-And-Ted.

I get that, and my criticism still stands. They are disruptive to playing in-character and they are not the panacea their creator make them out to be. But one tool to allow group to get on with the action with minimal prep.

So, can you assert the blacksmith wife's name? Maybe, but asserting he has a wife is probably the interesting thing.

Players suggest details all the time. I just don't need mechanics to make that happen in my campaign. If it consistent often it gets incorporated. But players are bias as well as myself so many time I will resort to a random table. Or in the case of the blacksmith wife a simple roll modified by the blacksmith's age.

Can you use some resource at your disposal (clearly OOC) to say "nah, I actually did buy some lockpicks from the blacksmith yesterday"? Sure, since that's a thing you can normally do anyway.

Not is a not a thing you can normally. Nothing in my campaign something normal to do. Either you are in a place where there is a blacksmith that can sell you lockpicks or you are not. If you are in such a place then you need to make the time to buy them.

But verisimilitude is important to me so I use random tables and roleplaying to be bring the locale to life.

To give you a better sense of how it work I suggest this blog post I wrote about a campaign I ran. It includes details on what the players did while in Abberset.

GURPS Majestic Wilderlands Campaign Update #1

Can you use the same OOC resource to declare that the blacksmith gave you the master key to the dungeon? Nope. It's not plausible. You couldn't do it in "real time", so how could you do it in a flashback? I know of no game that allows for this type of thing that allows characters carte blanche when doing these additions. In every case I know of, it's limited in some fashion in terms of frequency, cannot overwrite anything that's already positively established, and has to be "plausible" by some definition.

So, no, nobody is arguing that your example of getting the key to the Royal Dungeons is something that should be happening.

Good but doesn't change my criticism and that is something that occurs "After the fact" even when it narrow in scope. I have learned over the years that there is no telling what details will cause the players to rethink their plans or do something different if they only known about it at the time.

 

[Endless Flight]

 

[AsenRG]

I play an RPG with no meta or dissociated mechanics for 4 hours.
You play an RPG with meta and dissociated mechanics for 4 hours.

I’ve spent more time Roleplaying than you. Sorry, that’s objective fact.

Does that make your game not an RPG? Nope, anyone who claims that what I’m doing is strawmanning.

You may bounce back and forth between IC and OOC easily, that doesn’t mean you’re not doing so.
That you are not IC when you are OOC is objective fact. What is subjective is that you don’t notice the difference or aren’t aware that there even is one.

What’s hilarious is all the narrative roleplayers actually believing that the people who value deep in-character immersion (something that they don’t describe themselves doing) are Roleplaying just like they are, and for some reason they all apparently lack the ability to switch between IC and OOC.

The idea that people who value deep IC Immersion in RPGs, and whose goals prioritize Roleplaying as a primary goal, just might be Roleplaying differently than people who specifically play games that inject meta mechanics?
Oh that’s just anathema.

The idea that people who prefer games without those meta mechanics and people who prefer games with those meta mechanics are always on the exact same side of this argument? That’s just coincidence, surely.

I'm just quoting this post for easier reference, and because I agree strongly with it.

(Mind you, sometimes I do want to play a storygame, so you can keep considering me a dirty storygamer in disguise! I just find them different enough that this is almost never the time when I also want to play an RPG, so I rarely have to choose).

My experience over 40 years of sandbox campaigns is that most hobbyists play a version of themselves with the abilities of the characters. Occasionally throwing in a quirk or two that different. Since I realized that, I found the only requirement make what I do work is that players roleplaying using first person not third person. If they want to immerse themselves or act as a different personality great! But only do it if it is something you enjoy. Otherwise keep play your characters like you always do. Except be prepared to do some first person roleplaying.

As a general note, there are several reasons beyond preference why I insist on first person roleplaying. The focus of my campaigns is to allow players to make their mark on the setting. Which could mean a whole bunch of things and have different impacts on the setting. If that the point of a campaign, then the player need to interact with the setting. First person roleplaying makes this easier because it engages the players natural social instincts. A lot more people can be social (first person) then describe how to be social (third person).

It also cuts down on mad dog and "burn the village" behavior. There is a noticeable shift in how the NPCs are treated when I use first person roleplaying as opposed to third person. In short players tend to treat NPCs more as people with first person roleplaying. By itself first person roleplaying is not the decisive factor but coupled with everything else I do it helps players become more comfortable with interacting with the setting, and pursuing what interests them. And in some cases leads to the players becoming immersed in the sense of eläytyminen.

I only want to say that I've noticed the same trend. Though I attribute the lower incidence of "mad dog/burn the village" behaviour to the raise in the average age of my players...but it could also be the move to more first-person style of roleplaying. I'm not sure I could tell.

Also, robertsconley was it you who said "HPs mean something in-universe"? (I lost the post and I ain't going back through this thread).
If it was you...what, exactly, do they mean and how does it look when they go up due to a new level?

See, to me this seems more about the abilities of the player. If you expect the players to do all the preparation for the job....all the information gathering, all the bribes, everything....then what you’re really doing is testing the players. You’re seeing if the players can think of all possibilities ahead of time.

Yeah, except - all games test the abilities of the player to an extent. And RPGs are games, says so right in the name.

 

[robertsconley]

Also, robertsconley was it you who said "HPs mean something in-universe"? (I lost the post and I ain't going back through this thread).
If it was you...what, exactly, do they mean and how does it look when they go up due to a new level?

Yes I said that. The short answer Hit Point represents combat endurance. How long a character and creatures can continue until they can't fight (or die). By itself it doesn't address injury and never did. But Combat endurance is a thing. In GURPS we can say this character can last longer in combat than that character.

The difference is that in GURPS we know why that character can last longer. Maybe it high Health, a high Damage Resistance, or a great skill. It could be a bunch of things in combination, but GURPS has the details to let us know exactly why. So do other systems like Runequest.

D&D just has a single number. And when it reaches zero that character or creature can't participate in combat or in some cases is outright dead.

All we can say about a character with 40 hit points versus 20 hit point is that with everything else equal for whatever reason the character with 40 points can last twice as long as the character with 20 hit points.

So what happens with you level? You get more hit points. So in GURPS getting more points means you can buy a advantage or boost up your skills both of which can boost how long your character can last in combat. The same thing in D&D except it more abstract as represented by the boost in a single number.

But at times we want get a sense of the injuries suffered by the character. So since D&D is silent on that we have to come up with a ruling if we want that detail.

The below is my ruling. It not the only way to handle this but it has the virtue of being 100% compatible with RAW for most classic edition. It just a way of describing how characters get injury rather than adding new mechanics. Sometime good description is half the battle for verisimilitude.

Finally, I get if you and other still find this a kludge. It why Runequest was made and why other RPGs continue to get made.

Hope this helps.

 

[David Johansen]

Finally, I get if you and other still find this a kludge. It why Runequest was made and why other RPGs continue to get made.

I certainly hope not, more powerful magic-users have already taken out one argument against D&D, if they replaced HP and AC with something reasonable it'd be impossible to get people to play other games.

 

[TJS]

I think the flashback mechanic can work out a lot like a traditional rpg but it potentially asks a lot of the GM for it to be so.

For it to feel like a normal scene there needs to be not just an NPC and a PC goal but some level of complication to that which makes interactivity meaningful - for example the blacksmith could give you the key to the dungeon but you need to overcome his fear of repercussions if it gets found out you gave it to him, and offer him something more than just a wad of cash. You also need to be able to play through the whole scene very quickly so it doesn't take over the game and leave the rest of the party bored and kills the tension of doing the score.

Absent that, it can well just be something descriptive - this is where it can end up feeling more like storytelling than role-playing - eg the player describes how they got the key from the blacksmith.

 

[Lessa]

MERGED

This article seems to encapsulate very well some innovations from the last decade or so, which the author calls "trindie" because of the way they fuse traditional + indie sensibilities, in his opinion. I know a lot of folks here also grok those features, so here it goes..

A Few of My Favorite (Trindie) Things - The Indie Game Reading Club

I posted the 2014 edition of my ongoing “Best of the Twenty-Teens” series recently. In it, I called 2014 “The Year of the Trindie,” which got me thinking about what trindie even means. There’s quite a lot in that space as I conceive it: conventional (“trad”) power and resolution arrangements...

www.indiegamereadingclub.com

 

[Justin Alexander]

The decision to use the flashback is made as a player yes. The decision to attempt a Sway action to bribe the official is very much in character.

I think those things are inherently tied together, aren't they?

I would think obviously NOT. You can, after all, make Sway checks and bribe officials without invoking the flashback mechanic. They're obviously separate things.

I don't see the need to separate the two things, other than to define the individual parts.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding here is an entire thread hung up on the failure to separate these things.

But really what idea are people trying to express to eah other about the mechanic? I think CRK is saying that the conciet is OOC. If we accept that, but also accept for certain people it's a neccessarily useul concession to make the game flow easier as well, in a way that doesn't disrupt their gameplay experience the way it would or CRK (raisins in oatmeal) is there much left to argue then, as we seem to have entered into the realm of just personal tastes in playstyles?

The next step is to ditch the dissociated mechanic and look at the issue of scenes which are framed non-linearly.

You don't need a flashback mechanic to do that. You just need a GM who says, "Okay, let's stop here for a second and play a new scene that happened in the past."

When you're playing out the scene in the past, are you roleplaying? Are you playing a roleplaying game?

...

...

...

Spoilers: It's a trick question. You ever split the party, run events for one half of the group, and then go back and play out the events for the other half of the group? Then you've framed non-linear scenes in which future outcomes were known and the players all tacitly agreed not to violate known continuity. (For example, by immediately changing their mind and going with the first group, even though we know they didn't do that because we've already played through those events with the first group.)

The idea that doing this means you aren't roleplaying or playing a roleplaying game is prima facie absurd.

In the realm of adventure and campaign structure, linear vs sandbox, BitD is undeniably more sandbox. It is written to be centered on player character decisions and dealing with unexpected consequences of those decisions, not on a "plot" that the GM comes up with that the players then play through.

I don't particularly think that adding an assumed play structure makes a game stop being a sandbox. Unless you think that a hexcrawl is also not a sandbox.

Don't be ridiculous, EmperorNorton.

As we all know, any pre-1980 game structures are just "guidelines" while any game structures from post-2000 mean that a game isn't a roleplaying game.

The evidence is that we've been using the pre-1980 game structures for 30+ years and have completely internalized them to the point where we think they're the one true way of interfacing with a fictional game space.

 

[TristramEvans]

I would think obviously NOT. You can, after all, make Sway checks and bribe officials without invoking the flashback mechanic. They're obviously separate things.



Well, the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding here is an entire thread hung up on the failure to separate these things.



The next step is to ditch the dissociated mechanic and look at the issue of scenes which are framed non-linearly.

You don't need a flashback mechanic to do that. You just need a GM who says, "Okay, let's stop here for a second and play a new scene that happened in the past."

When you're playing out the scene in the past, are you roleplaying? Are you playing a roleplaying game?


Spoilers: It's a trick question. You ever split the party, run events for one half of the group, and then go back and play out the events for the other half of the group? Then you've framed non-linear scenes in which future outcomes were known and the players all tacitly agreed not to violate known continuity. (For example, by immediately changing their mind and going with the first group, even though we know they didn't do that because we've already played through those events with the first group.)

The idea that doing this means you aren't roleplaying or playing a roleplaying game is prima facie absurd.

Yeah, I wouldn'tmake the argument that wasn't role-playing, although I've never had the experience of splitting the group causing one or more characters to play through a situation they know the outcome to, or rewriting what was already established - that would be a nono in my games. If certain players get info other players shouldn't have I will inevitably physically seperate them during the game. But obviously I'm more hardlined about that than others, simply as a matter of preference.

 

[chuckdee]

Having played a decent amount of BitD, I find stress WAY too hard to recover to use flashbacks on a whim. There are too many things I need stress for.

Totally agreed. We've planned whole heists around not having enough stress to do things in a certain way.

 

[TristramEvans]

In other words everything we do carries with it the meta understanding that the entire setting is in a Schrodinger’s state until defined by interaction with the player characters and subject to change at a whim by those players for the sake of what makes the better story.

I haven't seen hawkeyefan make the argument that such "opportunities" need be repurposed to fit a narrative agenda. Obviously they could, but that seems a seperate conciet from what's being described.

 

[hawkeyefan]

MERGED

Pretty solid examples. Many of which could work for a variety of games. I’m a big fan of players making all the rolls. And the triangle he talks about.

Indiegame Reading Club is a pretty good blog.

 

[Trippy]

Storygame is an anagram of Greasy Tom.
Roleplaying game is an anagram of.....

 

[Nobby-W]

Mine eyes glazeth over ...

 

[David Johansen]

I haven't seen hawkeyefan make the argument that such "opportunities" need be repurposed to fit a narrative agenda. Obviously they could, but that seems a seperate conciet from what's being described.

"agenda"...hmmm...maybe that's it...

 

[TristramEvans]

"agenda"...hmmm...maybe that's it...

I only meant their plan to destroy the hobby, warp the minds of our children, and weaken the resolve of our allies....nothing nefarious!

 

[David Johansen]

Sure, but what do you call it when you set out with the end in mind?

 

[CRKrueger]

MERGED

"Trindie", that's like saying a Lamborghini melted down and reforged into a Landrover is a 4xSports. A game that took all those examples and incorporated them wouldn't be anything remotely close to a game anyone would call a Traditional RPG.

Of course, we all know this and this is a Modus Operandi Post, so go for it. Remember the talking points.

• Totally Traditional
• D&D did it too
• Doesn't stop "Immersion" - your definition of which includes "Vague Enjoyment of what is happening".
• Is completely "In Character" - your definition of which includes a completely 3rd party discussion between you and other people about your character in some vaguely tangential way.
• If the game is kinda sorta in any way fantasy in a D&D sense, it's OSR.
• Anyone who disagrees with anything is a Gatekeeper, OneTrueWayist, Grognard, Gygaxian Talmudic Taliban Apologist, and overall poopyhead.

You have my permission to just use that as a sig from now on and save us all a whole lot of idiocy.

Oh yeah, this isn't a MOD+ thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Bored, eh?

 

[Andrew J. Luther]

I just read it and my main takeaway is the writer is a big fan of Mutant Year Zero, Burning Wheel, and BitD.

I’m not a fan of most of those elements, as presented in the article. I’ve never played Torchbearer, but is it’s focus on resource management in dungeon crawls really any better than early editions of D&D, if played as they were intended to be played?

And some stuff like only players rolling is something that was in the M&M Masterminds Manual (something I’ve used in that system since 2005).

I don’t know, maybe I’m just being grumpy, but it reads more like “these are my favourite 3-4 games” than it does “these are actually innovative new things.”

 

[The Butcher]

Yeah, I’m having a hard time finding an identity between the quotes games beyond “I really like this.”

Also calling some of these games “trad” is really stretching it.