Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009094When it boils down to it, you sit around a table with players and a GM, telling stories with individual actions having outcomes determined by dice rolls. Same as almost every other RPG ever. Everything else is window dressing, and having played PbtA games many times, there is nothing that hasn't been done in other games previous. There is no such thing as a 'traditional RPG'.

'Traditional RPG' can just be jargon for 'things I like'.

Of course, there is absolutely no difference at all between Fate and Hero, they do nothing fundamentally different. :rolleyes:

It is all a marketing ploy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009098Of course, there is absolutely no difference at all between Fate and Hero, they do nothing fundamentally different. :rolleyes:

It is all a marketing ploy.

They may choose to roll different dice in different ways, and have different strengths and weaknesses accordingly, but no, they are still just roleplaying game systems. The whole 'trad vs indie' dichotomy is just a marketing ploy. I'd argue that Hero is more modern than Apocalypse World as they've moved beyond Classes.

Quote from: Tetsubo;1009097'Traditional RPG' can just be jargon for 'things I like'.

It's jargon for 'games I don't want to acknowledge as innovative, because I want to aggrandise games I like through a false distinction'.

Quote from: Simlasa;1009031No, your most recent descriptor is 'unconventional'...

'Unconventional' sounds more 'interesting'.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009093Consider the intent of the author was to make a snarky hipster version of D&D focused on a mockery of Dungeoneering.  Reread the book.  Make sense now?

I've never been even near that game, let alone read any of it, but this is actually the exact impression I got from what I've read and heared about it.

Yeah, the "new recipe" is a good analogy, CRKueger.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009098Of course, there is absolutely no difference at all between Fate and Hero, they do nothing fundamentally different. :rolleyes:

It is all a marketing ploy.

Yep. There is no difference between MHR and FASERIP either. Or OD&D and Torchbearer. Or.. (you'll like this)... RAILROADING AND SANDBOX styles!!! They're just marketing ploys! :eek:

Serious now. No one is saying those games are not rpgs - they are - but they're distinct enough in style to elicit different reactions on players and sediment preferences groups (I know players that don't do railroading, others that avoid OOC mechanics, etc.)

PS: and Hippy, stop equalling fail-forward to degrees of success. They're not the same.

It seems extremely dumb to say Dungeon World GMs don't have that much authority when, based on everything I've read about PbtA games, nearly everything that happens is down to DM fiat. Which is fine---I'm a big believer in relying on a good DM rather than having a rule for how to wipe your ass---but claiming that it somehow disempowers DMs is silly.

Dungeon World is the most trad PbtA, so you may be right Fearsomepirate. But try/read Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts or Sagas and you'll understand the GM disempowering that Pundit whines so much about.

D and D in a sense. I don't get why so many people enjoy it, seemingly to the exclusion of anything else. The same with 'sandboxes' in general.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009079DCC I don't get the appeal of running of overly fragile PC's through a deathtrap, like a bunch of sheep through Tomb of Horrors (a friend of mine bought in game a flock of sheep and ran them through the ToH in front of the party...  Was a funny story) and playing the survivor.

I'm really baffled by this one. It represents a mindset (perhaps a couple) that I just don't 'get'.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009079Transhuman Space there's no conflict in here, what do you actually do?

It is a pretty common complaint. There is conflict in the setting but its very subtle and in comparatively limited locales so it doesn't jump right out at prospective GMs and som classic rpg tropes like "wandering adventurers" don't really work even less so than even in the real world except in areas that outside of the bright spots like in 4th Wave and earlier nations. There's also some aspects of the setting that held up by handwavium (True of allot of settings in fairness) but it feel more jarring given the fans tendency to harp on "hard sci-fi" the setting is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009093Consider the intent of the author was to make a snarky hipster version of D&D focused on a mockery of Dungeoneering.  Reread the book.  Make sense now?

I am afraid you might be right. Well I might be throwing it up on ebay because after re-reading those daft questions that affect traits, (or quirks or aspects or whatever) it just seems like a lot of front-loading that stalls the game at the start line.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009093Consider the intent of the author was to make a snarky hipster version of D&D focused on a mockery of Dungeoneering.  Reread the book.  Make sense now?

Seems to me you're projecting an  negative intention onto the game and text, from your tone based on some kind of intense personal dislike like when Pundit goes on about Vincent Baker.

Torchbearer reads as someone who believed all the JMal and DF spiel about the 'original intentions' of OD&D and decided to make a game based strictly on that survival ordeal dungeoncrawl idea.

Can you give an actual example of 'snark' or 'mockery' of dungeoneering in the text?

Quote from: 3rik;1009101'Unconventional' sounds more 'interesting'.


I've never been even near that game, let alone read any of it, but this is actually the exact impression I got from what I've read and heared about it.

Judging a game you haven't even read is silly.

I've read it and don't agree eith CKruger at all. I didn't care for the game but find CKruger's comments are more based on predjudice than anything in the game. The issue seems to be the 'wrong kind' of people designed the game.

Read it yourself if you want to actually know what it is like.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009092I think the way to put it Itachi is that with PbtA, it is not the ingredients, but the recipe.

And, despite what others might be saying, the recipe itself is unique in that it begins from the narrative side, includes very strong player-based narrative mechanics, collaborative world-building, and really if played raw, has a setting structure unlike most traditional RPGs, yet when played, can be played simply and close enough to traditional play (if you ignore the moves structure and strict GM limitations and just go commando, which is what Gronan did).

Interestingly, none of the group I played with liked the collaborative world building.  I suppose a group that DID like stuff like that might find it more innovative than we did.  It gave us the feeling of playing on a Holodeck with a really bad background generator.

Of course, our usual method of triggering "hack and slash" was to say "I'm gonna kill the fucker."

Quote from: Itachi;1009109Yeah, the "new recipe" is a good analogy, CRKueger.


Yep. There is no difference between MHR and FASERIP either. Or OD&D and Torchbearer. Or.. (you'll like this)... RAILROADING AND SANDBOX styles!!! They're just marketing ploys! :eek:

Serious now. No one is saying those games are not rpgs - they are - but they're distinct enough in style to elicit different reactions on players and sediment preferences groups (I know players that don't do railroading, others that avoid OOC mechanics, etc.)

PS: and Hippy, stop equalling fail-forward to degrees of success. They're not the same.

Yes, they are. The actual white wolf descriptions of their 'Partial Success' equates to exactly the same thing as fail forward.

Traveller, RuneQuest, Champions, Toon, Paranoia, Ghostbusters, Castle Falkenstein were all more radical departures from 'convention' when they were released than Apocalypse World, but they didn't try to distinguish themselves as a separate category of games (Trad vs Indie) in the manner that you are trying to do. Some of their innovations were so good that they became conventions in game design. Systems may be different between games and those systems may put weight certain aspects of the play more than others, but each game stands upon it's own merits. When fans try to equate play styles with games "Railroading and Sandbox" is says more about their limitations as a gamer or GM, than it does about the game design themselves.

If a game involves sitting around the table, playing fictional characters with one player designated as GM (or referee of any description), rolling dice to determine the outcome of actions, then the game is basically still just a footnote to D&D. I'd accept that other games have evolved from this premise - Fiasco for example, does actually change that fundamental structure to put a primacy on the story creation over the roleplaying element as did Baron Munchausen; Mind's Eye Theatre did actually involve larger groups of live-action play. Those deserve mention as alternative forms of role-play, but Apocalypse World is simply a conventional roleplaying game in all aspects apart from the marketing and self identity it perpetuates.

Quote from: Voros;1009123Seems to me you're projecting an  negative intention onto the game and text, from your tone based on some kind of intense personal dislike like when Pundit goes on about Vincent Baker.

Torchbearer reads as someone who believed all the JMal and DF spiel about the 'original intentions' of OD&D and decided to make a game based strictly on that survival ordeal dungeoncrawl idea.

Can you give an actual example of 'snark' or 'mockery' of dungeoneering in the text?

Argh, maybe later in the weekend, not going to reread it again now.  

But, I don't have anything personal against Crane, Thor & crew.  Luke's got himself some super annoying sycophants on awfulpurple, but that's different.  Burning Wheel has some very cool parts to it, even if the whole has issues I think.  Mouseguard is fun for mini-campaigns of a few sessions.