18 thoughts on ““A guitar is not a piano.””

  4. As I read it, it’s like a potentiated “to do it, do it”. The dynamic on the table would be: the GM presents a situation > players choose their characters course of action and intent > the group translates it to the rules, dice are rolled > the GM describe the consequences of the roll and introduces a new situation. Right?

    I assume that players then will try to vye for advantages, and design plans that exploit their chosen higher stats. This promotes the classic party of complementary character types. How detrimental would be for a crew having more than one character of the same type?   

  5. They could focus on using their doubled strength to approach a goal?

    If two are good at murdering they murder two people, or they get a more murderous approach to murder the one guy/gal they want to off?

    In the end they can more or less determine what they like to roll,..

  6. Sure, but if they don’t have a Lurk, for example, they are prone to fall into traps, get busted red handed and such. Same thing if they encounter cultists and don’t have a Whisperer to protect them from supernatural attacks.

    This is all guessing, maybe the system is more forgiving or character types overlap in some areas. 

  7. Well, in that sneak peak they didn’t have a lurk for scenario 1 and 2, yet it still went fine. Even though usually one would suspect that some information gathering has to be done beforehand. Tess could as well be a whisperer protected by powerful ghosts.

    That they didn’t need a lurk or a whisperer was because the players approach didn’t include lurking or ghost summoning. So only if things get south,… lets say Tessa is a whisperer (at least in the GM mind) the Murderer to be botches or fails at the “enter room” roll, then the GM can bring the ghost things into play. Just not preplanned / as some show stopper requirement.. if Tessa is a whisperer but the would be murderer rolls sixes all along, the ghosts won’t get into play,..

  8. I really like this analogous approach. Its a fantasic way of using example to spell out mechanical choices at the table that then reflect the tone of your game.

    I REALLY dig the way player choice of approach (and the steps involved) determines the NPC’s narrative importance in the story. Of course this is all part of the conversation as a group, but (as a player) if you really want to make an NPC (and their undiscovered fictional potential) an important narrative touchstone re-incorporated into the fiction:

    You simply need to invest some downtime mechanics into them and then ask the GM to establish a scene to resolve it.

    The mechanics explicity guide scene framing and NPC importance to the unfolding drama which is often a difficult-to-be-comfortable-with skill in improvisational play.

    Oh and for the record? My choice of instrument would be the drone of a didj.

  9. Oh and John Harper? Teaching the game through multiple examples of play? AWESOME!

    You’ll be vying with Vincent Baker for excellence in tution on how to run your games with this level of goodness 🙂

    Maybe an example of a non-optimal approach to applying the mechanics to the fiction would be helpful too?

  10. Jennifer Fuss That’s a perfectly fine way to play it, sure. That’s not what I do, though. As the GM, I decide if Tress is a summoner or not, and that’s a fact about her that I have in my notes or carry in my head. If they don’t discover that fact before they go in to murder her, well, too bad. She’s protected by her pet spirit and tough luck for you. She wouldn’t become a summoner suddenly because of a bad roll. It was always true.

    Both approaches are fine. It’s just my personal preference as GM to have discoverable facts in the game world. The outcomes ride on the dice rolls, but not the facts, in other words.

  13. You think? I believe that GMs will jump from one approach to the other naturally. It’s something we all do when mastering a table (“oh, prowling failure, ummmmh, Tessa is a whisperer, so maybe she has a ghost guarding her flat.”)

    On the other hand I love when games have a strong set of obligations and practices for the GM. Narrower parameters delegate a lot of the thought process to the rules, leaving me to focus on keeping the game flowing. 

  15. Even though I admire games like Lady Blackbird and Ghost Lines for their economy, things like “page 16” are a big part of my excitement about this project.  _Blades_ is going to include the latest Harper’s brew of GM-ing advice that we’ve had excellent sips of at places like The Mighty Atom and Story Games over the years.

    But instead of a sip, Blades is going to be a long hearty draught.

    Inspires me to re-read Spirit of the Century, and some of my favorite Rob Donoghue blog posts, actually.

  17. Its been true that it is a different approach in general, even if both can be mixed. The question at hand was a bit different though.

    If Tess is a competent Whisperer the assumption might be that a group needs a specialist for the occult in his team. If not they might get killed by ghost with no chance to fight back or it wouldn’t be possible to sneak murder her as the ghost is watching.

    From what I understood the character still has a chance to get through with her “murder Tess with mundane means” plan as the ghosts from Tess would only be actively threatening the attacker if one of the probably desperate rolls goes wrong.

    In other RPGs with ghosts like VtM if the group tries to ambush a Giovanni or in SR the group tries to ambush a Shaman the lack of an Necromancer or a Runner versed in magic might lead to a plot-block situation where the players can’t do stuff because they are missing said player. Where the GM might feel tempted or even obliged to get them a NPC Necromancer / Mage runner. Which can be unsatisfactory for the player of the actual Necromancer / Mage who feels very much replaced or to the non-magic group who get that NPC like “trainings wheels” to their side.

  18. Oh, yes, I see what you mean, Jennifer. It’s true that you always have a chance. The rolls might be desperate, and the risks might be great, but you can almost always make a roll.

    And yeah, you don’t really need to specialize roles and bring “one of each” on operations. Even with a zero rating in an action, someone can usually get 2 dice to roll, which is pretty decent.

Comments are closed.