Quote from: Itachi;1007456Hmm I've read both Ars Magica and Champions and while the former gets it's share of player-driven incentives - and i'ts a great game on it's own - it doesn't approach the degree found in PbtA games where the concept is ingrained in the world creation, formal rules the GM must follow, up to the very resolution system.

Notice though, that I don't think PbtA reinvented the "RPG wheel", so we are not really disagreeing here.

The 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.

Please cite another game that promotes a player-driven/anti-railroading style through:

1) formal rules for the GM
2) collaborative world-building
3) resolution mechanics

If you don't cite at least one other game that does this, you can't really tell PbtA is not innovative.

And it just occurred to me that number 1 alone (formal rules for the GM) is innovative by itself, at least in the traditional niche.

I'm not sure about whole systems but I very much dislike labels such as "fronts" and "aspects" and other superfluous terminology that doesnt appear to actually help me GM. I suppose I dont like systems with no randomiser in it (no dice or cards or whatever). The random and associated risk is important to me.

Quote from: Itachi;1007467Please cite another game that promotes a player-driven/anti-railroading style through:

1) formal rules for the GM
2) collaborative world-building
3) resolution mechanics

If you don't cite at least one other game that does this, you can't really tell PbtA is not innovative.

I already have, and you are beginning to impress me as someone who won't have bad things said about Your Favourite Game.

I mean, seriously, you can't cite any other game in the last 40 years that doesn't have "formal rules for the GM" to prevent railroading? Heck, you can run Traveller without barely a plot - the players can manage most of it themselves through the various tables for trade, maintenance and exploration. The 'referee' often amounts to literally just that in gameplay, while the players just entertain themselves. And Traveller has been around since 1977.

"Collaborative World Building"?! It's always been there since the first group sat down and ran D&D. Ars Magica coined Troupe-style play to ensure than nobody missed out on being a GM. Amber is based upon creating a multiverse in the player character's own images, as is Nobilis; James Bond had dramatic editing back in the 80s, as did Toon in effect. Over The Edge, as a setting, was entirely written as an improvised collaborative effort. Games like Vampire, Amber and Castle Falkenstein had entire preludes and backstories written through specific Q&A systems during character generation.

Resolution mechanics? 'Degrees of success and/or failure' have also been around for donkey's years. Amber has no dice, where each action becomes a literal narrative device. MET games used to have traits being 'bid' in contests to create narrative outcomes. Castle Falkenstein allowed you to see your hand of cards and choose your own resolution in effect in the card you played. Everway made use of tarot-like cards to interpret 'fate' as opposed to Drama and Karma. Maelstrom Storytelling was waffling on about 'scene framing' mechanics back in 1997 too.

So what has Apocalypse World actually done that hasn't been done before in the RPG hobby? How does it do anything in these categories that hasn't been done before? If you can't provide this information then it's tantamount to admitting that PbTA has no real innovation whatsoever.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Wraeththu.  
Once upon a time there was a mutant (it's ok to call them that, that was what they called themselves) who was a hermaphrodite.  They were one of a kind and had special magickal powers, and were more in tune with the earth then you NORMAL humans.  They also discovered (the hard way) that all their body fluids treated human flesh like a strong acid and would eat away a human body in seconds.  One day they got lonely and decided "you know what? I've been sexing up all these guys (because girls are yucky) and when I finish, they dissolve into a puddle of goo, but MAYBE this time it won't happen", and something magical happened!
Instead of a screaming puddle of goo, the guy turned into a cocoon*!  After a few days the cocoon opened and out stepped another mutant!  Finally the mutant was no longer alone, and they decided that they would go out and make a whole bunch more like themselves.  Occasionally the guys they would bang were willing, and vary rarely did they turn into cocoons, but those who did turn into a cocoon, would also hatch and they too would go forth and rape.

After about 100+ years (time gets really slippy), all the men of the human race had been changed into hermaphrodites or puddles of goo. And they all lived forever, unless they died by killing one another, because they never got sick or old.  (Eventually one of them figured out how to knock up their lover, and he became the ruler of the world.  No, I'm not kidding.  This was the plot of the original trilogy.)

What happened to the women you ask? Well no one really cares about them.  Any woman who has sex with a Wraeththu automatically turns into a screaming puddle of goo, and the Wraeththu don't like having them around, so they all go off and form a nomadic tribe that is slowly dying off.  Because there are no more human males on the planet, the women are unable to replenish their numbers, so...  Yeah...

Oh, but in the game? no one knows about the forthcoming miracle birth, so the Wraeththu are all broken up into tribes that don't get along, and try to kill one another.  But all the rest?  It's in the book.  I wanna see an SJW defend this piece of shit.

*my autocorrect originally corrected this to racoon. I almost left it like that.

Quote from: Itachi;1007467Please cite another game that promotes a player-driven/anti-railroading style through:

Universalis. That came out 8 or so years before AW.
Mythic is about as old as well.

Mechanically any of the narrative games. I not only don't grasp them I don't see the appeal.

Thematically I would say CoC is the most egregious example. To my eye there are three paths for a character: 1) Insanity 2) Death 3) Insanity and then death.

I guess that I'll have to add Shadowrun and Exalted to my list. Cyberpunk/magic combo does not do anything for me. I first saw the suggestion in GURPS Cyberpunk book and thought - meh. Exalted with its convoluted mechanics is a turnoff for me as well.

I used to 'get' Vampire/WoD as a teenager, but it got old really fast for me. "Hey let's all play monsters" seems kinda childish to me.

Seems like many people are replying about games they don't like, rather than games they don't understand how anyone could like.

I don't want to go anywhere near storygames, but I get that there are people who want to invent worlds and stories together without structures such as game mechanics or GMs. I remember doing that when I was into playing make-believe with friends before I found RPGs about age 10 or 11.

I still enjoy it sometimes but in the mode of brainstorming campaign/game ideas rather than playing an RPG, where I tend to strongly prefer a consistent detailed world that needs to be discovered and struggled with by PCs, not one that players (as opposed to GMs) dream into existence.

@TrippyHippy, I don't think resolution based on degrees of success is the same as fail-forward (or how AW resolution is called these days), as the later can send the narrative in wildly unpredictable directions. And Traveller don't really have formal rules for the GM to follow.

@Justin, I think it's more than a case of "fortune in the mid" resolution. AW (and other PbtAs) are full of moves that actually makes the GM life very hard if he/she is pushing for a railroading or any structured plot. Eg: the Skinner move that makes anyone he wishes appear on his door at this exact moment, the Battlebabe move that makes any NPC die instantly, the Seidkona prophecy in Sagas, Sprout Lore in Dungeon World, Find the Job in the Sprawl, etc. The "play to find what happens" agenda is not a joke, if the GM doesn't follow it he will be actually fighting the system. I've never seen this degree of "player-driven dictatorship" () in any other trad rpg.

But you touch on an interesting point that I had forgotten - OD&D in fact has explicit rules on how the GM must conduct the dungeon exploration, and the dungoen itself is a open-ended environment by definition. So perhaps AW is just a new take on an old style.

Quote from: Omega;1007491Universalis. That came out 8 or so years before AW.
Mythic is about as old as well.

Indeed. Notice though that Universalis is not a trad game. I was referring to other games in AW spectrum.

Quote from: Skarg;1007539Seems like many people are replying about games they don't like, rather than games they don't understand how anyone could like.

I don't want to go anywhere near storygames, but I get that there are people who want to invent worlds and stories together without structures such as game mechanics or GMs. I remember doing that when I was into playing make-believe with friends before I found RPGs about age 10 or 11.

I still enjoy it sometimes but in the mode of brainstorming campaign/game ideas rather than playing an RPG, where I tend to strongly prefer a consistent detailed world that needs to be discovered and struggled with by PCs, not one that players (as opposed to GMs) dream into existence.

Yep, this is my impression too.

It actually surprises me that so many people don't get so many games. I actually don't enjoy the Supers genre much, but I can totally relate to the coolness of having super powers and kicking almighty ass!

Quote from: Itachi;1007541@TrippyHippy, I don't think resolution based on degrees of success is the same as fail-forward (or how AW resolution is called these days), as the later can send the narrative in wildly unpredictable directions. And Traveller don't really have formal rules for the GM to follow.

So how is 'fail forward' any different to a 'partial success' used in many older rpgs? A partial success means the character doesn't achieve what they set out to achieve, but still get some benefit to further their cause. A number of other games take into account the degrees of success as a narrative indicator towards how good or bad someone succeeded or failed. It's not new.

Traveller does have formal rules for a GM to follow, otherwise they wouldn't bother rolling up Worlds, Starmaps, Aliens, Encounters, etc. They'd just be making it all up and dictating to the players. They don't do that in any game I've ever played in - they follow the rules of collaborative creation.

QuoteIndeed. Notice though that Universalis is not a trad game. I was referring to other games in AW spectrum.

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

QuoteSeems like many people are replying about games they don't like, rather than games they don't understand how anyone could like.

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.

Quote from: Itachi;1007542It actually surprises me that so many people don't get so many games. I actually don't enjoy the Supers genre much, but I can totally relate to the coolness of having super powers and kicking almighty ass!

I think they just took 'not get' to mean something different.

I agree that there aren't many games that I can't wrap my head around, mostly just ones I don't personally find appealing.

Quote from: Aglondir;1007259Chageling the Dreaming. So many problems, both in theme, metaphysics, and setting. The entire reincarnation thing is a big flop and should have been edited out in draft stage. The game can't decide on thematic central conflict; is it wonder vs banality? Seelie vs unseelie? Both vs the shadow court? Commoners vs nobles? The whole thing is a sloppy mess, probably the result of too many writers.

The same is true of Wraith: the Oblivion, but I find it more disappointing because the overall game has more appeal (or more to the point, there seems like there is a game I would like buried in there).

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?

Excepting that there isn't FTL space travel, I've never considered cyberpunk to be 'more realistic' than other sci-fi. I consider it more of like the difference between low and high fantasy (which is to say it is hard to define and may be entirely subjective).

Quote from: Itachi;1007379So far there's no game I don't get. At least among the ones I've read or played.


About Apoc World, I don't know about it being the most innovative ever, but the way it meshes a lot of different concepts towards a radical player-driven/anti-railroad style is certainly new.

I don't like "player driven." I want to impact the story by my in-character decisions and by what my character does. When I've played games where I could make decisions my character could not make, and often couldn't know about, it just made my immersion much less satisfying. if that were the only way to avoid railroading GMs, I might buy into it but I find it fairly easy to avoid them.