@Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg In a 1980s game there would be a whole Running a Bookshop supplement that you could play as a separate game with a little effort. In a modern game there would be numbers on a scale of 1-6 for Stock, Atmosphere, etc. I confess my tendency is closer to the former.

I toyed with that idea in a Dads Army extended setting, to allow access to contraband, and things from the funeral home, and the bank, without having to make lists. It needs a little structure of "yes, of course you can have a ladder" to "no the Butcher doesn't have unicorn meat" though.

Slightly crunchier than "Sure" and less than a dime bar.

@RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

I think there's an argument for both. If everyone has a separate trade in the game, it's difficult for *everyone* to do their thing, whereas if it's just about the single book shop, that's fine. Granular detail. But I'd retain the Stock/Atmosphere stuff for the equivalent of the NPCs bookshops, so that players had natural commercial competition without me having to micromanage it*

*I would totally micromanage it, but I am trying to be better...

@RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

This is of course an issue of reasonableness being fun at the table, and when you sit down to write things things you are immediately exposed to "other gamers" and them wanting jet engines and a phaser, or being instantly bored with inventory.

@RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

Pendragon was ok for generational nobility, but it didn't feed the pig.

*may have been reading a book about victorian village pig farming*

And one about "Monasteries of Somerset" but there are less pigs in it.

I think the problem with Pendragon looking on it now is the "end of year" thing feels very computer-sim, or King of Dragon Pass comp game. It's convenient but artificial. Which suits some Arthuriana but not mud+plague

@Taskerland @RogerBW @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

@Taskerland @Printdevil @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg My problem with Pendragon is that I'd be happy to play a chivalric Arthurian game, and I'd be happy to play a down in the mud game about keeping your heir alive and not building your stable on Dead Horse Mire, but I don't want to whip back and forth between them. The rules for birth and survival of children force you to become wealthy (or, potentially, to sleep with every woman you meet) if you want any reasonable chance of getting an heir who can take over before adventure does you in, and that's not a pressure that feels right for a chivalric knight.

But on the plus side, it is one of the games that I could play Bok in.

@RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

@Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg In fact it feels like the same thing Blades in the Dark is doing: nah, you don't need to _role-play_, ew, just roll the die to see whether there's a complication.

*booing intensifies*

@RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

@RogerBW I love these types of shortcuts. The amount of boring, expositional, pacing-killing scenes I had to endure in order to find out if anything fun happens is astonishing. Give me those downtime mechanics

@Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

There's a lot of different versions of Downtime. I'm very very fond of the way Golden Heroes used it as a sort of reward schedule. "You have beat the baddies thoroughly, and because of that there is some free time to do..your own stuff"

Downtime was success/XP in it.

@vdonnut @RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

@vdonnut @Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg I take your point, but I came to the game to role play, and that's more subtle than "I spend my downtime slot indulging my vice".

@Printdevil I suspect the argument would be which of us is more Bernard Blackeque tbh @RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

@RogerBW I understand your point. We did some acting out downtime scenes, especially with a player who chose Weird as their indulgence but I am not too fond of acting my scenes. I like my roleplay as in making decisions, coming up with plans and doing things. Acting a character is not my preferred activity, especially with a bunch of other awkward nerds. Which is why I love Blades and other FitD games.

@Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

My troupe would have made a basic planning to react to something take six weeks, provisions and sit end up with us eating Penguins to avoid scurvy. They were a power of magnitude happier playing in character in the downtime.

That though is the "game for the table you have, not the table you wish you had"

Unless you want to find new friends

@vdonnut @RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass @shimminbeg

@vdonnut @RogerBW @Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass it can go both ways though. I remember kingdom running and rebellion management in Pathfinder, which was rolling dice to see what events happened and how things were going, and it was tedious. I'm not saying I wanted to roleplay everything everyone was doing, but I'd have liked a middle ground.

@shimminbeg @vdonnut @Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass Which may come down to "allow roleplay, allow pure mechanics, follow the mood of the table in deciding which to use in the moment".

@vdonnut @RogerBW @Printdevil @Taskerland @BigJackBrass

But admittedly I do like playing in character, and I'm the sort of person who goes "OOC I don't expect anything to result, but IC I want to look around the exterior windows to check if anyone used a blowpipe to drug this NPC instead of them having an actual vision"

I always tend to argue for the middle ground of things, I think you have to decide on the focus that entertains your table the most, how much latitude you have around that focus, and then what they abhor.

I've met (and played with) GMs who just revelled in playing things they know the group abhor, just to be adversarial. It's an unnervingly common style in old school D&D

@shimminbeg @vdonnut @RogerBW @Taskerland @BigJackBrass