Is it fun to plan a heist?

[SableWyvern]

It's also okay not to try to minimize someone's points by claiming that they are just a personal preference.

It is just personal preference. Flashback mechanics are not some objective good that must be included in everyone's game, and can never negatively impact play, no matter how much you might like it to be otherwise.

If no one else at the table wants a game involving a flashback mechanic, you can't just say, "Well, I'll still use it, and it just won't affect anyone else." Because it does affect the nature of the game.

 

[Blue]

It is just personal preference.

I gave a list of points why I felt it wasn't a personal preference, but good game design that is neutral or positive for all players. (In the context that the game did have frequent planning and prep needed.) I think they are correct, you may see flaws in them I don't. Generally it's more helpful for the discussion to address why you feel the points are incorrect rather than just doubling down on dismissing it as a personal preference.

To some degree everything about RPG rules is a personal preference, that's why we're blessed with such an abundance of RPGs to match all of our desires. But that doesn't invalidate every design discussion.

 

[SableWyvern]

I gave a list of points why I felt it wasn't a personal preference, but good game design that is neutral or positive for all players. (In the context that the game did have frequent planning and prep needed.) I think they are correct, you may see flaws in them I don't. Generally it's more helpful for the discussion to address why you feel the points are incorrect rather than just doubling down on dismissing it as a personal preference.

To some degree everything about RPG rules is a personal preference, that's why we're blessed with such an abundance of RPGs to match all of our desires. But that doesn't invalidate every design discussion.

My counterpoint is simple:

Does allowing flashbacks change the way players interact with the world?

Clearly, the answer is yes.

In that case, if people don't want a game where that style of interaction is accepted, then they can clearly be a negative. Your flashback doesn't just change the game for you -- it definitely changes it for the GM, and it most likely changes the game for the other players, whose characters now exist in a world you've just rewritten in some way.

You could just as well say that all games should allow all mechanics and techniques, and each participant can just choose which ones they want to use and which they don't. But this ignores that those mechanics and techniques are not being employed in a vacuum, they effect everyone's experience.

Beyond all that, the only reason I can see that you would even want to make an argument that flashback mechanics are an objective good is because you want to force them into every game you participate in, even if no one else at the table does, instead of looking for tables where everyone is on board with what you want in the first place.

 

[Blue]

My counterpoint is simple:

Does allowing flashbacks change the way players interact with the world?

Clearly, the answer is yes.

In that case, if people don't want a game where that style of interaction is accepted, then they can clearly be a negative. Your flashback doesn't just change the game for you -- it definitely changes it for the GM, and it most likely changes the game for the other players, whose characters now exist in a world you've just rewritten in some way.

There, valid criticism of my point so we can discuss it.

I was approaching this from in inclusive perspective, I'd rather, for example, allow bards and people who don't like them don't have to play them. Instead of saying that I am the arbiter of correctness and you can't play a bard either.

But you bring up a good point about those at the table not being aligned. Why do you feel it hurts your play if someone else makes use of a flashback? It's a long standing literary device. If it's like BitD flashbacks it will usually have a cost associated with it that means they are picking that over other choices, while your character retains all of that currency for the other, more common uses.

You could just as well say that all games should allow all mechanics and techniques, and each participant can just choose which ones they want to use and which they don't. But this ignores that those mechanics and techniques are not being employed in a vacuum, they effect everyone's experience.

But I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth so you can make a strawman attack against me.

Beyond all that, the only reason I can see that you would even want to make an argument that flashback mechanics are an objective good is because you want to force them into every game you participate in, even if no one else at the table does, instead of looking for tables where everyone is on board with what you want in the first place.

Here you are guessing my intent, seeming so you can cast it in a poor light. Please, you started with the personal attacks before and I thought we could move past them. I'm not retaliating, just can we keep this on point about how it affects the game instead of logical fallacies and trying to tar my motives?

 

[SableWyvern]

But you bring up a good point about those at the table not being aligned. Why do you feel it hurts your play if someone else makes use of a flashback? It's a long standing literary device. If it's like BitD flashbacks it will usually have a cost associated with it that means they are picking that over other choices, while your character retains all of that currency for the other, more common uses.

Usually, but not always, my preferred playstyle is one where players have control over their characters in the present, and explore a world from the perspective of those characters.

Giving a player the ability to alter the nature of the world or the past is simply not in keeping with that style of play.

I have no problem at all with flashbacks in Blades, because if we're playing Blades, we've already agreed that the playstyle is different.

I accept that I may have unfairly characterised your intent, and apologise for that.

 

[pemerton]

I think you are misunderstanding my use of "honestly" there. I only meant without the benefit of plot manipulative mechanics -- to make the choices at the time in play from the perspective of their character, as someone else put it upthread.

Choosing from the perspective of my character does not rule out "flashbacks". Remembering something I did in the past is something my PC can do.

"Flashbacks" are very common in RPGing - eg the PCs arrive at a town, and the GM says to one of the players "This is where you [ie that players' PC] grew up." And the player - thinking for a few seconds, and never having pondered their PC's origins before - responds, "Oh yeah, but my parents died when I was an adolsecent, so I'm an orphan."

Or two players are engaging in in-character banter, and one of them mentions fine Elven wines, and the other responds, in character, "I once quaffed a whole flagon!" Thereby making up a memory that their PC has.

The difference is not that the memory is "retroactive" - nearly all PC memories in RPGing are - but that what is remembered is not mere colour but is immediately relevant to the situation the PC (and player) find themself in.

Usually, but not always, my preferred playstyle is one where players have control over their characters in the present, and explore a world from the perspective of those characters.

This is only possible if the players play PCs who are mostly amnesiac.

 

[SableWyvern]

This is only possible if the players play PCs who are mostly amnesiac.

Sure, there will always be times when you fill in background details that weren't already established.

Flashbacks in the context we're discussing here revolve around filling in those details in a way that is specifically designed to influence the present in a non-causal way.

I can't really be bothered getting into an extended semantic argument about it. If you don't see a difference, that's fine by me. My point is simply that some people do.

 

[pemerton]

Flashbacks in the context we're discussing here revolve around filling in those details in a way that is specifically designed to influence the present in a non-causal way.

I can't really be bothered getting into an extended semantic argument about it. If you don't see a difference, that's fine by me. My point is simply that some people do.

Remembering (as my PC) that I once quaffed a whole flagon of Elven wine means that now I can boast to the other PC about it.

Remembering (as my PC) that I packed an extra coil of rope means that now I can use the rope.

The difference that I see is that one is mere colour, while the other actually matters to play. Maybe that's what you mean by "influence the present in a non-causal way"? Though I have to say, using the rope I packed seems like a causal influence to me.

 

[SableWyvern]

I have to say, using the rope I packed seems like a causal influence to me.

I refer you to my previous post regarding how interested I am (or am not) in arguing semantics.

 

[pemerton]

I refer you to my previous post regarding how interested I am (or am not) in arguing semantics.

And I refer you to my previous post, which is not about semantics - as in, the meaning of words - but is just pointing out that you are wrong in your description of flashbacks.