I don't understand why anyone would go to print with a game that has never been played by anybody, or major components of a game that have never been run. Sure, things slip through the cracks (there's a new level 2 spell in Xanathar's Guide that can be used to heal 10d6 for every party member when cast outside combat, for example), but ranging from Starfinder's obviously untested high-tier starships to 3.5 epic-level splats to entire games that nobody plays or has ever played, I don't know why people go to print with that crap.

Cortex-type games make no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around all the out-of-character dice counting and lack of definition of characters. Tried a few times. It didn't help that the books were poorly edited and would reference concepts that hadn't yet been introduced at that point in the rules, or else just explained in only the vaguest way.

Quote from: Dumarest;1008469Cortex-type games make no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around all the out-of-character dice counting and lack of definition of characters. Tried a few times. It didn't help that the books were poorly edited and would reference concepts that hadn't yet been introduced at that point in the rules, or else just explained in only the vaguest way.

I was completely confounded by Marvel Heroic until I suddenly understood it while reading Fate Core of all things.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1007300I don't hate Shadowrun or anything, but I never "Got" it. Wasn't the whole point of Cyberpunk as a genre that it's a more "Realistic" view of the future? So then you add elves and magic to it?

I felt exactly the same. Cyberpunk was its own thing. You don't have to hash in fantasy / magic into everything under the sun.

Quote from: Dumarest;1008469Cortex-type games make no sense to me. I can't wrap my head around all the out-of-character dice counting and lack of definition of characters. Tried a few times. It didn't help that the books were poorly edited and would reference concepts that hadn't yet been introduced at that point in the rules, or else just explained in only the vaguest way.

Quote from: KrimsonI was completely confounded by Marvel Heroic until I suddenly understood it while reading Fate Core of all things.

The Cortex system, at least in the MHR version I played with, actually changes the rhythm of how you play at the table because of the dice-pool building mechanics. Rather than declaring your actions and then rolling to see the outcome, you roll them all first and then 'spend' them in different ways depending on what you want to do. The building element can be time consuming for the initiated, but players do eventually work out how to build quickly with practice. It helps if they don't spend too much time pondering on the specific relevance of each dice they choose - rather, they just quickly pick a die-type from each section of the sheet. Honestly, it doesn't usually make much difference and the can simply narrate the various aspects after the roll in a freeform way.

The lack of definition is actually an advantage in the supers genre because it allows for widely disparate power levels to be given equal potency to the narrative while still presenting a measure of the respective power levels. So while the Black Widow might be in no way comparable to the physical power of the Hulk, she can still interact in a narrative/combative sense as she does in the comics and movies, rather than getting bogged down in the physical reality of it as is attempted in a system like Champions or whatever. I guess that makes it an argument for narrativism vs simulationism, right there, and yes there is an influence of Fate in it's design accordingly. The balancing mechanism that makes it work is that one of the dice is held back as an effect dice and the value of this is the dice type used not the roll. As such, the Hulk rolling a D12 (Godlike strength) is always going to have a greater potential impact, even though the accuracy may not be (hence the Black Widow can still win).

However, Fate itself owes a lot of its design to antecedents like Maelstrom Storytelling (scene framing contests), Nobilis (Miracle points), Everyway (Drama, Karma and Fate), Amber (Good stuff/Bad stuff), Dogs in the Vineyard (pre-rolled dice pools) and MET (spending pooled traits in contests), so it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The power level 'balancing' via narrative design can also be seen more subtly in other games - like Doctor Who, where the story-points are distributed based on the power level of characters: the less powerful the character, the more story points they have in reserve to influence the play.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1008537The Cortex system, at least in the MHR version I played with, actually changes the rhythm of how you play at the table because of the dice-pool building mechanics. Rather than declaring your actions and then rolling to see the outcome, you roll them all first and then 'spend' them in different ways depending on what you want to do. The building element can be time consuming for the initiated, but players do eventually work out how to build quickly with practice. It helps if they don't spend too much time pondering on the specific relevance of each dice they choose - rather, they just quickly pick a die-type from each section of the sheet. Honestly, it doesn't usually make much difference and the can simply narrate the various aspects after the roll in a freeform way.

The lack of definition is actually an advantage in the supers genre because it allows for widely disparate power levels to be given equal potency to the narrative while still presenting a measure of the respective power levels. So while the Black Widow might be in no way comparable to the physical power of the Hulk, she can still interact in a narrative/combative sense as she does in the comics and movies, rather than getting bogged down in the physical reality of it as is attempted in a system like Champions or whatever. I guess that makes it an argument for narrativism vs simulationism, right there, and yes there is an influence of Fate in it's design accordingly. The balancing mechanism that makes it work is that one of the dice is held back as an effect dice and the value of this is the dice type used not the roll. As such, the Hulk rolling a D12 (Godlike strength) is always going to have a greater potential impact, even though the accuracy may not be (hence the Black Widow can still win).

However, Fate itself owes a lot of its design to antecedents like Maelstrom Storytelling (scene framing contests), Nobilis (Miracle points), Everyway (Drama, Karma and Fate), Amber (Good stuff/Bad stuff), Dogs in the Vineyard (pre-rolled dice pools) and MET (spending pooled traits in contests), so it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The power level 'balancing' via narrative design can also be seen more subtly in other games - like Doctor Who, where the story-points are distributed based on the power level of characters: the less powerful the character, the more story points they have in reserve to influence the play.

I meant more lack of definition in the three sentences used to describe characters that basically can mean whatever you want them to mean and, at least when I played it, just invited players to try to bend them for advantages and argue with the ref how being "Sentinel of Liberty" (or whatever) should make it easier to beat up so-and-so. But I found the range of abilities too narrow as well. All the "street level" characters felt the same: Combat Expert, check! Stealth Master, check! Acrobatics Wunderkind, check! And so on. Eh, not for me. I'm sure other people got mileage out of it.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1008537The lack of definition is actually an advantage in the supers genre because it allows for widely disparate power levels to be given equal potency to the narrative while still presenting a measure of the respective power levels.

That is one thing I liked about MHR. The dice pool system was pretty easy once you got over the initial learning curve. It's not perfect though, and as I recall playing Spider-Man was basically like having an I Win button.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1007350Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth

Really did not get it. At all.

No one on Earth did.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007460The Apocalypse World games don't do anything that hasn't been done before, beyond codifying it all in tedious verbosity, usually at the expense of setting depth. Collaborative world building is older than the RPG hobby itself. The actual game system is basically just Classes, traits and roll 2D6 against a target number. Indeed the heavy use of fixed Archetypes often means that players have less choices than in other games. Compare Dungeon World to the current edition of D&D and you can see this plainly.

Apocalypse World has merely managed to convince it's fanbase of the illusion of profundity.

Astoundingly true.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007552There is no such thing as a 'Trad game', just games that some fans don't want to acknowledge for having original ideas.

The issue is not whether we like them or not - I've had plenty of sessions of PbtA style games to be able to experience and enjoy them. What I don't 'get', however, is why their fans regard them as being radically different to any game that has been played before. Its their self-identity that I don't get.

I've never encountered a fan of AW who claimed it was radically different than other RPGs. The most common praise I've seen for PbtA is simply the speed of play. I don't think one can judge any game by its most rabid internet fans claims. Imagine if one did that for D&D.

Quote from: Voros;1008981I've never encountered a fan of AW who claimed it was radically different than other RPGs.

There is at least one person on this thread who has claimed it.

It's not just 'rabid fans' either. There is a shared viewpoint that AW games have introduced something "new" to gaming, in a collaborative storytelling sense, that didn't exist before. The games are described as "cutting edge" design and "deeper" explorations than others of a similar genre, quite regularly.

What they are is neatly packaged and easy to play games, tailored quite well to genres that are generally well established - D&D-esque fantasy, post-apocalypse, cyberpunk, urban fantasy, etc. The conciseness and straightforward nature of their game designs make them appreciably easy to learn and play - but they aren't radically new, and do not explore their narratives in any deeper way than other games. Many fans seemed to have convinced themselves of this, however.

Sigh.. this is getting tiresome.

I dont know if PbtA games are super innovative or whatever. But they surely are pretty "unconventional" for trad style games. Just ask a trad GM to gamemaster it without reading the book (and not grokkin its intended playstyle) and see for yourself. That's why beginner GMs and players tend to get it faster than vet ones. This "unconventional" nature comes mainly from elements that, perhaps not original by themselves, are novel in the way they're meshed together to provide an experience that's A) fast B) player-driven and C) genre-coherent. Some of these elements are:

-- Playbooks, thematic archetypes containing all available progression options in a single sheet.

-- 2d6 mechanic that's simple and provide a fail-forward structure of "Yes, Yes but.., and No and..".

-- The use of explicit moves, for both the players and the MC.

-- Explicit prohibition for GM to prep plots in advance to first session.

-- Pick from a list, a kissing cousin to the random table.

-- Info-gathering moves where players obtain privileged info by asking questions from a list after rolling dice, instead of rolling for each piece of info invented by the DM.

-- Player-to-player interaction-mediating moves that are given as much importance as player-to-NPCs ones.

-- World-building during play.

-- Explicitly stated MC agenda and principles (in addition to explicit moves).

-- Fronts and front creation.

-- Only players roll dice, MC doesn't.

Again, those elements already existed in some form or another in other games, but the way they were emphasized and combined together towards a specific playstyle is pretty singular. YMMV and all that. I don't care really. The games success and popularity speaks for themselves.

EDIT: ironically, as Justin said before, OD&D is the game that, played by the book, most approaches the experience of some PbtA games. And I agree, even if their experiences are not really identical (eg: the GM has more say and authority in OD&D than in PbtA games).

QuoteJust ask a trad GM to gamemaster it without reading the book and see for yourself.

What games would one GM without even reading the rules first?

Damn, I wrote a big answer but lost it trying to edit. Sigh. I'll write it again later.

Quote from: Itachi;1009018Sigh.. this is getting tiresome.

That is because of your belligerent view that any of the things you list are actually new to gaming or somehow introduced by Apocalypse World. All they are is just presenting the same ideas from other games with a new list of jargon - "moves" instead of "actions" or trait descriptions. "Playbooks" instead of character sheets or character journals. Explicit instructions not to plan plots? Go read Toon or HoL, or even some magazine articles on D&D from way back and then get back to me. Pick from a list? You mean like Champions or GURPS templates? Ongoing, collaborative world building? Give me break - we've all been doing this from D&D onwards! If you cannot find examples of every single factor that you list in previous games, then you simply aren't looking.

You have convinced yourself that there is such a thing as "Trad GM" to justify your belief that you are doing things in anyway different to what GMs have been doing in all sorts of games for decades. I've played Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Monsterhearts and Monster of the Week. They only thing that is not enjoyable about playing them is the fans that continue to claim they are something they are not.