TrippyHippy, Apoc World is a footnote to D&D, as is any RPG. This fact is not mutually exclusive to doing things differently or pushing the hobby in new directions. See Runequest, Champions, Vampire, Sorcerer, Amber, etc.

And no, White Wolf never did Fail Forward. The only game that did it before Apoc World was Talislanta.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009139Of course, our usual method of triggering "hack and slash" was to say "I'm gonna kill the fucker."

"Kill that fucker" is nice. Spirit of 77 calls it "Smoke that Ass".

 I'm also fond of Sagas "Tempt Fate" for Act under Fire. It sounds prophetic!

Quote from: Itachi;1009147"Kill that fucker" is nice. Spirit of 77 calls it "Smoke that Ass".

 I'm also fond of Sagas "Tempt Fate" for Act under Fire. It sounds prophetic!

It's like somebody once asking "I want to know WHY you're hitting the orc with your sword."

It's a three foot long piece of razor sharp steel.  I'm hitting the orc with it because I want the fucker to die.

Quote from: Itachi;1009145TrippyHippy, Apoc World is a footnote to D&D, as is any RPG. This fact is not mutually exclusive to doing things differently or pushing the hobby in new directions. See Runequest, Champions, Vampire, Sorcerer, Amber, etc.

And no, White Wolf never did Fail Forward. The only game that did it before Apoc World was Talislanta.

White Wolf's original World of Darkness games (Vampire, et al) had five levels of success (and two levels of failure), including a 'Partial Success' which was when you didn't manage to pull off what you wanted (rolling just one successful dice), but still worked towards the goal in some positive way. You only got a complete success when you collected three successful dice from the pool of dice rolled. A partial success is a 'fail forward' in a different jargon. Explain why it is not?

Apocalypse World simply has levels of success: roll more than 10 - complete success, 7 or more - some type of limited success (usually based on a listed option), and less than 7 a failure. You seem to think these as being radically new?! It's exactly the same thing as levels of success. Moreover, if 'fail forward' is the big innovation you are selling....it's merely highlighting the crux of your argument in a microcosm: you seem to think that 'fail forward' has never been done before, whilst rejected the cases in other games where it patently has. This is why, therefore, you think that Apocalypse World is something radically new when others do not.

And sure, games like RuneQuest, Champions etc still owe things to D&D, but they actually did things that were tangibly innovative (not Sorcerer - another game that claims to have done more than it actually did). RuneQuest actually developed a full blooded skill system and removed Class & Level play, for example. Champions actually built out the whole effects-driven powers and points buy. Amber actually made a complete system without dice or randomiser. These things are actually tangibly new - but they still presented themselves as being the same type of game as D&D - without creating false dichotomies beyond the obvious point that individual games worked with different systems of play.

What you are describing with Apocolypse World, however, amounts to changing the terminology for processes that already exist in other games, and then formatting the game in a particular way. And because of this you believe you can then describe it as being significantly different to a "trad" game. It's totally conceited.

How can games 'claim to do more than it did'? People can claim things, not games. Any evidence that Baker or Edwards personally made these broad claims of innovation? Or is it just some fans on the net?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009141But, I don't have anything personal against Crane, Thor & crew.  Luke's got himself some super annoying sycophants on awfulpurple, but that's different.

For sure, lots of systems have 'fans' whose fanaticism does little to help the rep of the system. The killjoys of GURPS and even AD&D come to mind, as well as the smug end of storygames.

Quote from: Voros;1009171How can games 'claim to do more than it did'? People can claim things, not games. Any evidence that Baker or Edwards personally made these broad claims of innovation? Or is it just some fans on the net?

Fans were mainly the ones making grandiose claims about games (as evidence on this thread); Edwards certainly cultivated the adulatory behaviour but also used his position to denigrate other games too ('Vampire causes brain damage', etc).

I'm less concerned by Baker's behaviour as far as I can see - he certainly sells his game, but that is fine by me and I certainly don't begrudge him the efficacy of his game design either. However, anybody who perpetuates the myth that there is some sort of underlying division between "Trad" and "Indie" games is making unfounded claims about those games. Neither category really exists.

I tend to agree, obviously so-called 'indie' games techniques and mechanics are prefigured in a number of 'trad' games. Seems to me often a game is considered 'trad' simply because it is older. Many of the mechanics in so-called 'indie' games are visible in games like Runequest, Paranoia, Ghostbusters, James Bond, etc.

Exactly.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009157White Wolf's original World of Darkness games (Vampire, et al) had five levels of success (and two levels of failure), including a 'Partial Success' which was when you didn't manage to pull off what you wanted (rolling just one successful dice), but still worked towards the goal in some positive way. You only got a complete success when you collected three successful dice from the pool of dice rolled. A partial success is a 'fail forward' in a different jargon. Explain why it is not?

Apocalypse World simply has levels of success: roll more than 10 - complete success, 7 or more - some type of limited success (usually based on a listed option), and less than 7 a failure. You seem to think these as being radically new?! It's exactly the same thing as levels of success. Moreover, if 'fail forward' is the big innovation you are selling....it's merely highlighting the crux of your argument in a microcosm: you seem to think that 'fail forward' has never been done before, whilst rejected the cases in other games where it patently has. This is why, therefore, you think that Apocalypse World is something radically new when others do not.

And sure, games like RuneQuest, Champions etc still owe things to D&D, but they actually did things that were tangibly innovative (not Sorcerer - another game that claims to have done more than it actually did). RuneQuest actually developed a full blooded skill system and removed Class & Level play, for example. Champions actually built out the whole effects-driven powers and points buy. Amber actually made a complete system without dice or randomiser. These things are actually tangibly new - but they still presented themselves as being the same type of game as D&D - without creating false dichotomies beyond the obvious point that individual games worked with different systems of play.

What you are describing with Apocolypse World, however, amounts to changing the terminology for processes that already exist in other games, and then formatting the game in a particular way. And because of this you believe you can then describe it as being significantly different to a "trad" game. It's totally conceited.

Well said.  Yet welcome to the internet, where people think that if they never saw it before or its not on the internet it doesn't exist; rather than it is just a survey of their ignorance.   Traveller, Melee and Wizard introduced a skill based system , no Class or Level system prior to RuneQuest, but RuneQuest provided a whole fantasy focused system (and a cool take on it) before In the Labyrinth.

There is nothing that irks me more than "changing the terminology for processes that already exist in other games" then claiming to have done something new.  It's at best myopic smugness, at worst taking credit for someone else's idea.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009157White Wolf's original World of Darkness games (Vampire, et al) had five levels of success (and two levels of failure), including a 'Partial Success' which was when you didn't manage to pull off what you wanted (rolling just one successful dice), but still worked towards the goal in some positive way. You only got a complete success when you collected three successful dice from the pool of dice rolled. A partial success is a 'fail forward' in a different jargon. Explain why it is not?

If you mean that table that has something like this..

1 success - poor success (you fix the engine but just barely, it will work very poorly)
2 successes - marginal success (it's a ugly job and the engine will work, but any time now it will break)
3 successes - success (you fix the engine and it works normally)
4 successes - great success (you manage to improve the engine performance above it's default)
5 successes - awesome success
Etc

Is that it? Because if so, you're wrong. That table has nothing to do with fail forward. That's just degrees of success. Fail forward, as commonly defined, introduces new elements or complications to keep pushing the narrative forward/avoid it to stop in a dead end. This usually is synonymous with "Yes, but.." and "No, and..". If that table was FF it would look like...


0 success - "No, and... ". You fail at fixing the engine and make a lot of noise in the process, attracting the attention of nearby raiders.
1 success - "Yes, but... ". You fix it, but you make a lot of noise in the process, attracting the attention of nearby raiders.
2 successes - "Yes, and... ". You fix it, and inside you find a scrap of paper with a code written on it. Seems like the password to that safe the group located before".

See how there are two axis in effect in this new table. One concerned with the task (fixing the engine), the other introducing new elements to avoid the fiction to stop in its place (raiders, paper with code). Contrast it with that Vampire table which is concerned with just 1 axis.

At this point, Itachi, you are just arguing a moronic level of distinction. New elements are introduced with partial successes through a multitude of examples in real WoD games. In any case, you are making up two separate tables that aren't actually in any books and making a vague distinction that is a a bit like the difference between an Aussie and Kiwi accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2gii2nenUg

And this is why White Wolf's system is bad, it provides nothing but arguments because it's not concisely explained to allow for people to make consistently clear judgements.  Making it unplayable without a lot of help, but it's not incomprehensible.

Perhaps what is incomprehensible is why people willingly play any game with it.

Oh, yeah, another game I don't get Wraith: The Oblivion.  What's the point if it's all meaningless anyway?

QuoteFail forward, as commonly defined, introduces new elements or complications to keep pushing the narrative forward/avoid it to stop in a dead end.

People bring up this "dead end" a lot, like it's somehow really common for a GM to put a locked door in the middle of his railroad campaign that, if the thief fails to open it, ends the campaign right then and there. I've never seen anyone but a novice do this. "Fail Forward" seems a lot like basic GMing advice relevant to any game.

I agree, Fearsomepirate. I also never saw much actual dead-ends while playing other games. What I constantly saw, though, were failed rolls not leading anywhere except "Try again?". This was particularly bad in perception rolls, where the GM had something prepped that he wanted players to detect, but then players succeeded each other rolling until someone rolled a success (or he gave up and give the info anyway). But it also happened on climbing walls, opening locks, fast talking guards, etc. Now some groups already dealt with this in pretty smart ways without the need for rules, sure, but then I've seen this "Try again" advice explicit in actual editions of games like Vampire, Shadowrun and Gurps, so it's not fair to blame a group for not dealing with this either.

On the other hand, though, Failing Forward also brings it's share of potential problems, like the fact it usually goes beyond the original task being attempted to address the intentionality of the player (eg: You fail at climbing but a griffin sympathizes with you and carry you to the top; you open the lock but there's a complication...hmm lemme think ...ok, there is now a guard inside the room). Lots of players have their immersion broken when facing this kind of resolution. And it's a totally fair position.