So, on the "Who is Capable of Becoming a Gamemaster?" thread, Sailing Scavenger said he'd love to see disagreements to something he wrote in a long post mostly about Apocalypse World. I accepted the invitation but my post got quite long, so rather than threadbomb the end of that long thread, I've started a new one here.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723Now, I'd love to see if someone disagrees with anything I've said or if they can offer another game which accomplished the same thing earlier.

Ok.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723Whenever a PC fails a roll, or when the table goes quiet, the GM makes a move. The list basically boil down to either foreshadowing or setting up a situation. The brilliant part of having a list is that it frees up mental resources and provides constraint to be creative in. The most often used move is "Announce future badness." this gives the players something to react to, and if they don't react, something bad is likely to happen. The apocalypse setting directs the GMs brain to typical bad stuff, the distant war cries of cannibals, the water reserve is almost empty etc. Another favorite of mine is "Separate them", someone has wandered off on their own and might have to deal with a situation their character is not good at, someone might be presented with treasure and have the opportunity to be selfish about it etc.

* I don't think GM meta-moves in response to every failed roll (or table-quietness) seems like how I'd want a game world to work.

* I don't like abstract situations driven by metagame conditions. I want there to be an actual game situation preferably with a map and pre-established characters or at least encounter tables that correspond to local populations, and to track what agents are where doing what and why, and give information on what's nearby based on logic and what the PCs are doing and their perception abilities and rolls. So you notice a threat if it makes sense there is a threat and I've been tracking where it is and what it's doing and in comparison to what the PCs are doing and their relative stealth and perception skills and rolls, they get some appropriate information if/when that happens.

* I don't want the water reserve status to be based on a metagame mechanic. If the GM thinks that's an interesting thing to happen, I want the idea to appear in the gameworld in a logical way, and then be resolved logically, not because the "table fell silent" and the GM therefore decided to have something go wrong.

* I think it's great when the game situation causes interesting situations such as reasons the party splits up... however in general I tend to be annoyed when something artificial and/or meta forces the party to split up. I can see it being useful to have a list of sorts of circumstances to check and consider whether they might apply, but I'd want them to actually happen only when the situation also has that make sense, and some appropriate random chance is consulted for how likely such a situation is to happen, and to happen in a way that makes sense.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723Putting all rolls in the hands of the players. The GM does not need to simulate the actions of his NPCs by rolling for them, he simply makes the world seem real by letting them do reasonable things. There is no need to roll an opposed strength check to see if a mutant brute can beat the malnourished midget in arm-wrestling, it simply happens, there is no need to see if the sniper can blow the head off a PC, you simply announce they see the distant glint of a scope and if they stand around they are shot.

* I get that some players like to make their own rolls, and it's an interesting extension to design a game where the players make all rolls, but as you asked for disagreement, yeah I think I basically dislike and am not very interested in this style of event resolution, except possibly for a brief experiment.

* I very much like what simulationist rules provide, and I want the GM to be making rolls and not showing the players a lot of them, because I want unknown stuff to be happening in a situation with some rational non-meta non-narrative substance and logic to it, and stats and odds and well-considered well-playtested rules to determine various events and what sort of awareness the PCs have of it. Sure some things don't need a roll, but eliminating all rolls just seems like a game designer trying to make a point that it can be done that way, or narrative-oriented people who don't like the sorts of games that I like) thinking that's great.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723The loop of setting up situations, putting the players in the situation to react and then following through with the to you most obvious outcome (or if they have a move that determines the outcome you don't even need to do that) takes up very few resources in your brain and is not incidentally the fundamental loop of improv theatre.

* My usual reaction to improv theatre is hatred.

* I already have enough resources to rationally resolve situations, and enjoy doing that, so what would I do with the extra resources it frees up to have players resolve things and handwave results?

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723You set something up, someone reacts and you do the most obvious thing next. What seems obvious to you will seem real to the others and sometimes, if its something they didn't consider, they will be surprised and delighted.

* What if from decades of playing simulationist games, the obvious thing to me is to assign a chance of different outcomes based on the details of the situation, and game them out?

* It seems to me this implies never assigning odds, and not using dice to fairly assess the odds of things happening or not, and this seems like quite a weakness. For example, how would you fairly assess the odds a volley of arrows finds a niche in someone's armor or not?

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723Playing NPCs is also helped with a list, each NPC is assigned a type and a primary drive. Through this you can easily determine their next action, the added bonus is the players will notice that this character is consistent. An example would be a warlord: collector. Warlords have their own list of moves (example: buying out an ally) and collectors have a specific drive (to own people).

* Sounds rather reductionist to reduce a person to a type/drive from limited artificial lists.

* I already have skills and systems that let me easily determine a character's next actions, taking into account much more detail and nuance.

* Adding a new vocabulary categorizing characters with types of moves sounds like it could be sort of interesting, but also possibly limiting, especially if it's a hard rule and the players can figure out an NPC is a "warlord: collector" and use that to metagame knowing what their allowed moves and motives include.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723So my thought process as GM might go:
Alright, the PCs a trekking through the territory of this warlord. It's a collector so it will want to own people. A warlord move is "encircle someone". I tell the PCs they have been surrounded by warriors, their demands are they enter the service of their warlord.

That sounds like annoying metagame at a level I don't want to play. I don't mind a character with an M.O. of trying to encircle and capture people, but it sounds like you mean the GM would just have "you're surrounded" happen, and that there is no game involving movement over an actual landscape, with PCs and NPCs using their skills, ways of doing things, movements, equipment, and so on, to determine what happens in terms of who is where when, who is aware of whom, when they sleep, etc to determine whether they meet and in what circumstances.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723To my mind no other game has explicitly taught its gameplay loop to the GM, at least not one which is this open and can produce a "true" roleplaying experience.

Have you checked out Microscope? It's very explicit about what its gameplay loop is, but it's also a rather different approach, which I actually sort of like, but it's so different from the type of RPG I like that I would only use as a different sort of game, or an experimental way to try brainstorming world background content.

You've got it.  AW and its kindred almost totally replace the referee as written.  Given a "Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Bad Things" and a "Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Bad People and Monsters" you could run Dungeon World without a referee at all.

Now, nothing in the rules PREVENTS you from deciding "If they are fighting this bad guy, and they get a Failure, then I roll on this table to see what happens next."

And your whole first block about referee metamoves "if the table goes quiet" I agree with 100%.

Again, you don't HAVE to play it that way.

Thanks for responding!

It seems like your gripe with the system is that it usually operates at one level of abstraction above a classic system (and that it's not challenge based even though it can be challenging for the players). That is completely fine, my argument is that the techniques are useful to know even in a system where you track the location, line of sight etc. of each creature and that all results are fallout of the simulation. Because you inevitably run into a situation that the hard simulation does not cover and the techniques help you come up with something fast. Most games rely on either preparation or procedural generation, huge parts of the setting in AW are created moment to moment.

As an example, in the case of the party travelling through hostile terrain and an enemy warlord is attempting to encircle them I trust you don't have a detailed map covering several square miles and then track the situation moment to moment to decide where everyone is when contact is made. The terrain is drawn either from a library of maps or you make it up on the spot, perhaps modifying it if the players say they're looking for a defensible position or a place with lots of cover or something.  

Regarding the arbitrary nature of the GM moves they are usually set up by foreshadowing a problem, or laying out the risks on the table (as the player characters would see them in the setting). If water scarcity is an established problem and the players don't pre-empt it hitting them with it is fair, the example of them being encircled would probably be preceded by telling them that the area they're trying to cross is patrolled by [warlord] and that since they don't know the terrain being caught is likely unless they are vigilant about scouting. Them being encircled would be the result of them either shrugging and taking the risk or doing the scouting but failing the roll.

Quote from: Skarg;1024248My usual reaction to improv theatre is hatred.

Not disagreeing here.

Quote from: Skarg;1024248I already have enough resources to rationally resolve situations, and enjoy doing that, so what would I do with the extra resources it frees up to have players resolve things and handwave results?

Speed of play and speed of generating situations and setting. If the players go somewhere (geographically or situationally) where you are not prepared instead of pausing to look it up or generate it you can do it by the seat of your pants and get decent results. Of course any GM can improvise, my argument is that it is easier when you know a procedure to do it by.

Quote from: Skarg;1024248It seems to me this implies never assigning odds, and not using dice to fairly assess the odds of things happening or not, and this seems like quite a weakness. For example, how would you fairly assess the odds a volley of arrows finds a niche in someone's armor or not?

By the book you would calculate the damage based on the number of archers, the damage of their bows and the armor of the target and then roll+damage taken to see if they take additional damage. But you would not roll hit location to see if an arrow pierces their brain through the eye, it is a hit point system after all

Quote from: Skarg;1024248Sounds rather reductionist to reduce a person to a type/drive from limited artificial lists.

* I already have skills and systems that let me easily determine a character's next actions, taking into account much more detail and nuance.

* Adding a new vocabulary categorizing characters with types of moves sounds like it could be sort of interesting, but also possibly limiting, especially if it's a hard rule and the players can figure out an NPC is a "warlord: collector" and use that to metagame knowing what their allowed moves and motives include.

It's meant as an aid and not a straight jacket. If the GM knows a course of action the NPC should take that is not covered by their type there is nothing stopping them. In traditional systems you usually plot the short and long term goals of an NPC beforehand or maybe roll vs. their passions to see what they do unless you know the character well, the drives in AW are meant as GM aids to highly unstable and dynamic situations.

Quote from: Skarg;1024248That sounds like annoying metagame at a level I don't want to play. I don't mind a character with an M.O. of trying to encircle and capture people, but it sounds like you mean the GM would just have "you're surrounded" happen, and that there is no game involving movement over an actual landscape, with PCs and NPCs using their skills, ways of doing things, movements, equipment, and so on, to determine what happens in terms of who is where when, who is aware of whom, when they sleep, etc to determine whether they meet and in what circumstances.

My example would probably be called out as bullshit by AW players, but it would be fair if the GM foreshadowed it or explicitly warned them that it would be the result of failed or no scouting in the area.

Quote from: Skarg;1024248Have you checked out Microscope? It's very explicit about what its gameplay loop is, but it's also a rather different approach, which I actually sort of like, but it's so different from the type of RPG I like that I would only use as a different sort of game, or an experimental way to try brainstorming world background content.

I have played Microscope once and didn't have fun. It has several things in common with AW (in game setting creation being the most prominent) but I'm not sure if it was the game text, the host or the group as a whole that was at fault.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024260You've got it.  AW and its kindred almost totally replace the referee as written.  Given a "Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Bad Things" and a "Big Boys' and Big Girls' Big Book of Bad People and Monsters" you could run Dungeon World without a referee at all.

Dungeon World sucks (imho) because it tries to emulate a game style the base game was not built for. If you want to compare the implicit campaign in AW with the implicit campaign in D&D, AW PCs start at name level and deal with name level problems. Attempting to scale it down damages the game and the designer of Dungeon World (and most other AW hacks) don't understand why. It's the modern version of people trying to design their own games using D&D as a base and then being confounded when the game plays like a crippled version of D&D.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024266Dungeon World sucks (imho) because it tries to emulate a game style the base game was not built for.

I have a copy of Dungeon World but have never seen Apocalypse World. Could you tell me a bit more about the difference in the two? I sort of assumed that all of the "World" rulebooks were pretty much the same, but I get the impression from your posts that they are different.

I say this as someone who loves Apocalypse World(at least 1st edition; 2nd is . . . not thrilling me) and a few of its derivatives - a lot of its supporters love to tout it as something it's not and present it as some revolutionary magic thing that's oh so different from what came before. I think this is because it's really simple to learn how to play well enough from the freebie documents they provide on the website and so a lot of people never really look at the book and what it says on various things.

From the SS quotes, I see things in a few categores.
1) Stuff that's not unique to AW at all, such as the quote that ends with him mentioning improv theatre for reasons that escape me. GM setup, player response, reference rules, repeat is . . . not improv theatre. It's just how RPGs have always worked, regardless of ruleset.
2) Incomplete info, such as what he says about GM Moves. For the record, making the Moves in response to failed rolls is a suggestion, not a prescription, and is meant more as a pacing mechanism than anything. And the list is there to help you and inspire you when you think something should happen but are drawing a blank. Both are great for new GMs, or GMs having an off day, but it's expected that as you become more comfortable GMing that you'll kind of grow past them.
3) Pretention. I mean, that last quote . . . damn. "True roleplaying experience" my ass.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;10242712) Incomplete info, such as what he says about GM Moves. For the record, making the Moves in response to failed rolls is a suggestion, not a prescription, and is meant more as a pacing mechanism than anything. And the list is there to help you and inspire you when you think something should happen but are drawing a blank. Both are great for new GMs, or GMs having an off day, but it's expected that as you become more comfortable GMing that you'll kind of grow past them.

You should try reading my original post in context because this is exactly what I'm arguing. AW is the best game ever written because it actually teaches you to GM it instead of relying on decades of oral history.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;10242713) Pretention. I mean, that last quote . . . damn. "True roleplaying experience" my ass.

What I was trying to convey when I put "true" roleplaying in quotes was the difference between a closed and an open system. An open ("true") roleplaying system allows the players to do anything their characters could conceivably do. A closed roleplaying system which is very common in narrative based systems are games like Fiasco, Primetime Adventures or 3:16 where the narrative is completely bound to the game system.

Quote from: finarvyn;1024267I have a copy of Dungeon World but have never seen Apocalypse World. Could you tell me a bit more about the difference in the two? I sort of assumed that all of the "World" rulebooks were pretty much the same, but I get the impression from your posts that they are different.

Ignoring all the GM procedures AW is very light on rules, it is essentially a free-form game where all the content creates an implicit campaign of at first struggling to thrive in a very unstable world. The players use the instability to reshape the world and eventually create stable relationships and institutions, the conflicts in the late game arise from internal disagreements on the direction of the new civilization rather than fighting external threats. The main thing to facilitate the PvP conflicts is making sure NPCs have a different relationship to at least two PCs.

DW tries to have its cake and eat it by marrying AW and D&D. You're better off playing either or, if you apply the design philosphy behind AW to DW the game would look completely different. Vincent Baker (AW designer) tried to make a low-fantasy version of AW but he also failed.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024278You should try reading my original post in context because this is exactly what I'm arguing. AW is the best game ever written because it actually teaches you to GM it instead of relying on decades of oral history.

I wouldn't say "best game ever written," but yes, it's great in that respect. I just don't like when people present its advice as prescriptive when it's not. I remember running a PbtA session once, and on a failure I had something happen that could technically fit into two categories, and one of my players was like "hey, that's this and this; that's like two things; you only get one thing; no fair!" I was speechless.

I was also trusting that Skarg wasn't taking you out of context in his replies, so there's also that . . .

QuoteWhat I was trying to convey when I put "true" roleplaying in quotes was the difference between a closed and an open system. An open ("true") roleplaying system allows the players to do anything their characters could conceivably do. A closed roleplaying system which is very common in narrative based systems are games like Fiasco, Primetime Adventures or 3:16 where the narrative is completely bound to the game system.

I'm not familiar with 3:16, but Fiasco and PTA aren't even RPGs. I've played both, and I love both, but they're just not. And I accept a pretty broad spectrum of games as RPGs, especially for this board. So if your point was to say that AW is actually an RPG, well . . . yeah.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024278What I was trying to convey when I put "true" roleplaying in quotes was the difference between a closed and an open system. An open ("true") roleplaying system allows the players to do anything their characters could conceivably do. A closed roleplaying system which is very common in narrative based systems are games like Fiasco, Primetime Adventures or 3:16 where the narrative is completely bound to the game system.

Son, in all kindness. [John Wayne voice] folks hereabouts don't take kindly to "narrative based systems," pilgrim.  [/John Wayne voice]

(SO I don't think "in contrast to narrative systems" is necessary, because about 90% of us have no interest in them)

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024278You should try reading my original post in context because this is exactly what I'm arguing. AW is the best game ever written because it actually teaches you to GM it instead of relying on decades of oral history.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024278Apocalypse World

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024278actually teaches you to GM

[video=youtube;ZqaCEPwWGtc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaCEPwWGtc[/youtube]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024285Son, in all kindness. [John Wayne voice] folks hereabouts don't take kindly to "narrative based systems," pilgrim.  [/John Wayne voice]

(SO I don't think "in contrast to narrative systems" is necessary, because about 90% of us have no interest in them)

[Lee Van Cleef]Read my post again, sober.[/Lee Van Cleef]

You're starting off on a tough foot here, Scavenger. My condolences. Don't feel like you need to be the champion of your favorite game or anything. I never played AW, but I played dungeon world, and like you found it somewhat lacking. As a direct response of your impassioned argument for the game, I'm giving it a serious look. So you've turned some heads, at least.

In any event, welcome to the board. I'm going to vent a day's frustration at a particularly annoying set of homework assignments directly into your post. No hard feelings, but be cautioned that I do get pretty harsh from here on out and I'm too lazy to soften the wording with another editing pass.

Consider it a spirited defense of the games and gaming style that I love, an attempt to match your candor, if you will.

Anyway, enough mushy stuff.

*Cracks knuckles*

Okay, my turn.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264It seems like your gripe with the system is that it usually operates at one level of abstraction above a classic system (and that it's not challenge based even though it can be challenging for the players). That is completely fine, my argument is that the techniques are useful to know even in a system where you track the location, line of sight etc. of each creature and that all results are fallout of the simulation. Because you inevitably run into a situation that the hard simulation does not cover and the techniques help you come up with something fast. Most games rely on either preparation or procedural generation, huge parts of the setting in AW are created moment to moment.

I'm going to respond directly to this argument.

A better tool for improvising things not covered by rules is a clear understanding of the reality that the game is creating. You don't need a doctorate in the physical sciences to know how, say, rope works, or a simple pit trap. And you don't need detailed rules for these things, either. You need a functional understanding of physical reality, which the majority of us are equipped with as we live in it.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264As an example, in the case of the party travelling through hostile terrain and an enemy warlord is attempting to encircle them I trust you don't have a detailed map covering several square miles and then track the situation moment to moment to decide where everyone is when contact is made. The terrain is drawn either from a library of maps or you make it up on the spot, perhaps modifying it if the players say they're looking for a defensible position or a place with lots of cover or something.

As a matter of fact, I do have a detailed map, and I do track the movement of armies. It's not just for grins either; it's so the players can do things like predict where large armies are going, sabotage their efforts, or otherwise interact meaningfully with the game world.

This is important; the game world doesn't respond to my sudden whim OR to the "needs of the story" OR to the player's wishes, OR anything else that wouldn't mystically alter reality.
There's a map; there are details on it. This is the reality of the game world, understood through my description of the player's sense information. Characters interact with this the same way you or I interact with our world; as established facts, as a real, tangible thing.

I've heard it termed both "shared mindspace" and "tactical infinity", both cover the same ground: they describe a shared, imagined world which is real to the characters that inhabit it.

This is why the people of this board scoff at the limited range of "GM moves"; they're culled from a brief, insular period where storygamers decided they were the newly christened and anointed Gods of Roleplaying and their Words were Divine Wisdom.
They weren't, they didn't, and they aren't. These people missed the bus on RPGs, largely coming from a post-3.0 world, drawing inspiration from Vampire and it's ilk, and completely failing to learn once-essential lessons for GMs and players.

The playbook/moves, and the entire legacy that spawned them, fundamentally failed to grasp both what motivated different groups of roleplayers and the things they had made to fulfil those needs. The shared mindspace, which was so universally understood as to not even warrant mention in almost any RPG product, was simply never learned by these "visionaries".

Oceans of digital ink were spilled trying to cover the hole left by this ignorance, and that resulted in idiotic paradigms like "Simulationist /Gamist /Narrativist" and similar misguided game "theory"

The whole goddamn hobby has had to deal with that poisoned koolaid ever since. And if we don't get to somebody at the party before they've drank some, we get posts where uninformed jackasses bite their thumb at guys like Gronan, who've made contributions to this hobby so lasting and profound that it's like a high schooler taunting Nikola Tesla.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264Regarding the arbitrary nature of the GM moves they are usually set up by foreshadowing a problem, or laying out the risks on the table (as the player characters would see them in the setting). If water scarcity is an established problem and the players don't pre-empt it hitting them with it is fair, the example of them being encircled would probably be preceded by telling them that the area they're trying to cross is patrolled by [warlord] and that since they don't know the terrain being caught is likely unless they are vigilant about scouting. Them being encircled would be the result of them either shrugging and taking the risk or doing the scouting but failing the roll.

I don't actually have any substantial beef with anything said here. It is good advice to be transparent with players, to tell them the stakes clearly, and to use established setting facts consistently when delivering consequences. I mean, this is really basic stuff, covered by having a functional human brain and almost any game you'd care to name, but that doesn't mean it's bad advice. It's just pretty obvious.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264SKARG>>My usual reaction to improv theatre is hatred.
Not disagreeing here.

I've laughed at improv more than a few times. Spontaneity can lead to fun.

 

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264Speed of play and speed of generating situations and setting. If the players go somewhere (geographically or situationally) where you are not prepared instead of pausing to look it up or generate it you can do it by the seat of your pants and get decent results. Of course any GM can improvise, my argument is that it is easier when you know a procedure to do it by.

You may be underestimating just how much we tend prep old school games (My typical map is 400 6-mile hexes to a side, each keyed with content, three megadungeons, between 3-5 cities, a dozen or more smaller dungeons, and several random content generators. This is an area that is geographically nearly twice as large as the united states, and has more dungeons and creatures than the entirety of both the Conan stories and the Lord of the Rings, including the Silmarillion and the Hobbit)

I don't typically take more than a minute to either generate random content, and when you know what you need, making something up is basically instantaneous. So you're solving a non-issue, for starters.

But the trouble is that the AW stuff shoves "drama, now!" down your throat, not content, and not any sort of approachable realism. It takes the adage of "if it gets slow, men with guns bust down the door" and effectively makes it a law of the universe. Look AW, there are lulls, deal with it. It's like the guy that's constantly whistling and screaming at a concert, even when the band is intentionally getting it quieter. It's impatient, and honestly poor advice.

It doesn't generate new content, it orders you to keep things it's version of entertaining and it needs to shut the hell up; I know fun and so do my players and we'll fucking decide how this game runs.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264SKARG>>It seems to me this implies never assigning odds, and not using dice to fairly assess the odds of things happening or not, and this seems like quite a weakness. For example, how would you fairly assess the odds a volley of arrows finds a niche in someone's armor or not?
By the book you would calculate the damage based on the number of archers, the damage of their bows and the armor of the target and then roll+damage taken to see if they take additional damage. But you would not roll hit location to see if an arrow pierces their brain through the eye, it is a hit point system after all

Well, this depends on the game in question. WFRP would have you roll a hit location, if memory serves.

But assuming that you're using an HP system like D&D, your roll would be modified by the armor and cover of the target, the range of the attackers from their target, and their skill as archers. These elements are not considered in AW; roll 2D6, outcome based on playbook.

That's not a satisfying answer for some of us (Oh god especially Skarg the human calculator)

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264It's meant as an aid and not a straight jacket. If the GM knows a course of action the NPC should take that is not covered by their type there is nothing stopping them. In traditional systems you usually plot the short and long term goals of an NPC beforehand or maybe roll vs. their passions to see what they do unless you know the character well, the drives in AW are meant as GM aids to highly unstable and dynamic situations.

Another thing, you can use? For roleplaying a character in a dynamic, unstable situation? Fucking. Roleplaying. It's literally the name of the game.

Your game is once again, solving a problem that has been solved by
1) understanding what a roleplaying game IS (A game in which your play the role of imagined characters)
2) Having a functioning human brain

So... Thanks?

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264SKARG>> That sounds like annoying metagame at a level I don't want to play. I don't mind a character with an M.O. of trying to encircle and capture people, but it sounds like you mean the GM would just have "you're surrounded" happen, and that there is no game involving movement over an actual landscape, with PCs and NPCs using their skills, ways of doing things, movements, equipment, and so on, to determine what happens in terms of who is where when, who is aware of whom, when they sleep, etc to determine whether they meet and in what circumstances.
My example would probably be called out as bullshit by AW players, but it would be fair if the GM foreshadowed it or explicitly warned them that it would be the result of failed or no scouting in the area.

I'd call it bullshit if I, as a GM, created an entire massive army and then made it impossible for the players to reasonably determine and respond to its movement as a comparatively tiny group of individuals, yeah.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024298[Lee Van Cleef]Read my post again, sober.[/Lee Van Cleef]

* shrug * Fine, when Pundy breaks both your legs, don't come running to me for sympathy.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264Thanks for responding!

Sure! Thanks for inviting me to disagree and elaborate, one of my favorite things to do on a forum. ;-)

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264It seems like your gripe with the system is that it usually operates at one level of abstraction above a classic system (and that it's not challenge based even though it can be challenging for the players). That is completely fine, my argument is that the techniques are useful to know even in a system where you track the location, line of sight etc. of each creature and that all results are fallout of the simulation. Because you inevitably run into a situation that the hard simulation does not cover and the techniques help you come up with something fast. Most games rely on either preparation or procedural generation, huge parts of the setting in AW are created moment to moment.

I'd say my main reaction is about the way the gameplay operates, and what it is about. I like games that try to let players interact with the situation that the game is supposedly about. They play from their characters' limited perspectives, using their limited abilities and resources and say what they try to do and then that gets played out according to the situation. Not the meta-situation. The GM gives the players information about potential problems if/when there are potential problems and their characters happen to notice them based on what the players have the PCs do and how, the PCs' skills, etc. The players don't take over the narration, or know more about the situation than their PCs do.

I'm sure there are some interesting suggestions in AW, and you've made me a bit curious to browse them though I expect I'd use them like I do most RPG books, as enthusiasm sparks and idea seeds.

I don't really have a problem with running into situations I can't come up with some way to handle, though I prefer to have nice rules for things that can be interesting when modeled with rules.

QuoteAs an example, in the case of the party travelling through hostile terrain and an enemy warlord is attempting to encircle them I trust you don't have a detailed map covering several square miles and then track the situation moment to moment to decide where everyone is when contact is made. The terrain is drawn either from a library of maps or you make it up on the spot, perhaps modifying it if the players say they're looking for a defensible position or a place with lots of cover or something.

Well I love maps, and will have a map at some level of detail, and will add detail as needed. I try to generate at least as much detail as is needed before it is needed when possible, to avoid weird meta-effects such as you describe, where the world effectively might shape itself to create a feature because the players say they're looking for that. I don't mind a fair amount of abstraction at some scale, but I try to make it as impartial and fair and objective and logical as possible. It doesn't generally require tracking everything moment to moment or every single detail.

In the attempted NPC encirclement scenario, I'll have some sort of useful terrain map and describe and/or sketch the lay of the land for the players. I'll ask them how they deploy, what they're doing as they march, tell them what they notice taking into account their relevant skills. I'll track the same thing for the other agents in the same area, including the NPC encircler's forces and who/whatever else is around, and determine who on which side detects the other or not. If the players don't engage the NPC forces during the day, I'll ask them where and how they want to camp, how/when they post guards or patrols, etc. Again, I game it out, possibly pretty abstractly until details become important to fairly and logically resolve what happens, and doing my best to keep all meta elements out of it.

I even hate intentional meta-events in fiction. One of my least favorite parts of The Force Awakens is when, Han Solo gets caught by bounty hunters on his own ship (two groups of them IIRC), because it seems zero thought has been given to this sort of thing, and it's just being done because it's considered funny and entertaining, and also because the action and consequences are also going to be fake-as-fuck, so it ends up not actually mattering. But if I were GM'ing that (heaven forbid), I'd have a map of all ships involved, and I'd have noticed that Han Solo is a legendary smuggler who has survived to old age and so even if my players hadn't already specified the heck out of their ship's security and warning systems (which my players certainly would have), I would prompt them to do so because it makes no sense that such a character would leave their ship wide open, not notice they were being docked with, etc. Maybe there's some chance that he gets surprised like that, but if I play it out fairly, I bet the chances would be extremely low, and I would want the game to include the reasons why, including the floor plan, security systems, hearing, character talents, where people are, etc.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264Speed of play and speed of generating situations and setting. If the players go somewhere (geographically or situationally) where you are not prepared instead of pausing to look it up or generate it you can do it by the seat of your pants and get decent results. Of course any GM can improvise, my argument is that it is easier when you know a procedure to do it by.

I can see how that could be helpful for GMs who don't know how to improvise yet and want to play that way. I do know how to generate things quickly, and I also know what things I want to pre-gen and what I am willing to conjure on the spot, and how I want to do that and how I don't. I would be interested to see what they offer in AW.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264It's meant as an aid and not a straight jacket. If the GM knows a course of action the NPC should take that is not covered by their type there is nothing stopping them. In traditional systems you usually plot the short and long term goals of an NPC beforehand or maybe roll vs. their passions to see what they do unless you know the character well, the drives in AW are meant as GM aids to highly unstable and dynamic situations.

Oh interesting. I'll have to take a look some time.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264I have played Microscope once and didn't have fun. It has several things in common with AW (in game setting creation being the most prominent) but I'm not sure if it was the game text, the host or the group as a whole that was at fault.

I mainly mentioned it because you wrote you thought AW was the only game that had an explicit procedure.

I like Microscope for being interesting and suggesting a new sort of game that has an interesting byproduct of generating a game world background.

However I also struggle to really want to play it because as I said, I kind of hate improv, especially the part where everyone can make up practically anything and you're obliged to go along with it. Because of that, me playing Microscope seems very likely to run into that sort of issue unless I somehow stay liking what everyone else generates.

Which is also why I tend to avoid games where players can do more than say what their characters attempt to do. It's surreal to me, and not the thing I know I like and am interested in, which is interacting with a consistent world from the perspective of someone inside it, not also a metamagical weaver of reality and narrative.