TheRPGSite

I don't mean games that you just don't like. I mean games that people like that you don't understand how people like.  Either because the rules are incomprehensible, or because the setting is gibberish, or because you just don't get what characters in the game are supposed to do.

Any candidates?

Fiasco
Dread

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Fate and Apocalypse World. Aspects and stupid mechanics that force the GM to do something do not do anything for me.

I do get Fiasco and Dread. They are funnish group activities, but not exactly what I'd describe being a roleplaying game.

There probably are some, but I can't list any that I'd be confident putting in that bucket.  So many that have material that doesn't appeal to me, such that I never get to the point to learning whether the setting or rules or ideas make no sense.  For example, I sometimes hear that some of the World of Darkness games are incoherent, but there is nothing about them that makes me want to even read them to find out.

If I try hard enough, I think I can get how some people can like every game I've ever considered.

Whitebox D&D was a hold-out until a week or so ago when you guys explained many of the parts that never made any sense to me.

Savage Worlds

I know it is popular, and I've had people tell me how it has many similarities to HERO which is a game I've played a lot, but I just can't get my head around the rules.

I've tried, I've had people explain it to me, but every time I sit down and try to read the rules I just don't get it. I literally read a chapter then think what did I just read?



Edited for clarification, as I misread point of the OP. I don't get how the rules for Savage Worlds work. It is a generic rule set so I understand the appeal of the rules, I just don't get how they work.

There are plenty of games that have zero appeal to me, but while I don't understand the appeal to others it doesn't bother me that there are people who like those games. I know there are games and genres that I like that others don't, that doesn't bother me either.

PbtA and D&D in all its forms

FATE. Catalyst Shadowrun. D&D 3.x/PF. Exalted. Mage the Ascencion. Supers genre.

(Tempted to say RIFTS, but it's like a siren song to my inner 14 yr old boy who just wants shit to 'asplode! It reads like great theoretical fun!)

Fiasco (whether a RPG or not) and Savage Worlds never made sense to me, either, until I actually played them. For OD&D, I think it helps to have played miniatures games and wargames first the way I did. From there the rules seem to make a lot more sense, but folks I know who game from a RPG background seem to struggle with the rules more.

Actually, most RPGs make more sense when you play them than when you read them. That's why I think it's kind of dumb for companies to fill up so many pages with "what is an RPG" and "how do you play" stuff.

I'm still having issues with Fudge and Fate and all variants thereof. They read like they are supposed to be straightforward, but somehow I don't get them.

Eh, a lot of people do things I just can't wrap my heads around.  The attractions of binge drinking escape me.  Sleeve tattoos.  Facial piercings.  And let's not even get started on how people can honestly claim that power sources are evil because of their political affiliation.  Worrying about why people prefer games I don't get is far down on the list.

Any game without some randomizing tool (e.g. Amber diceless, etc.).   I guess I need the crutch of a die/dice.

Standard D20/3.x/Pathfinder. TSR D&D, OSR, 5e, 4e, 13th Age all work out for me relatively well.  But I totally brainlock at 3.x and can't grasp it. "Ohh it is so simple.
Just add relevant modfiers to and d20 and roll over or equal to DC." No its not (fucking liar...) . Conan d20, CoC d20 and Midnight to name a few games that look very solid and appealing.  But I just can't make the commitment.

While I generally agree with Ravenswing, I must mention the Palladium's Rifts here;). The more I hear about it, the less I like any of the ideas. No, I don't mean merely the system.

Mind you, that's from someone who for a long time wasn't ably understand why some people are upset over furry settings:D! Granted, my first introduction to those were the Ninja Turtles, Kung-fu Panda and Usagi Yojimbo, in that order. So I always assumed that this is what most people would be looking for, too:p!
I'm still mildly amused that this seems not to be the case for quite a few.

I have some curiosity about the gaming community's obsession with Lovecraftian horror. Sure, it's unique and interesting, at least at first glance, but there seems to be this fascination with sticking it everywhere.

 And I'm not sure why they find it horrifying. An irrational, inhuman, Godless universe is the kind of thing many people take for granted in the cultures where gaming has taken root. ;) I can see how Lovecraft was horrifying to those living in a culture running on residual Christianity without a solid grounding in divine Truth, but today? He seems to be running on themes that are so ubiquitous as to be cliches.

 But this may be a sign of hope--maybe they realize that the kind of cosmos they and Lovecraft dreamed up is no fit habitation for the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve. :)

Quote from: Teodrik;1007235Standard D20/3.x/Pathfinder. TSR D&D, OSR, 5e, 4e, 13th Age all work out for me relatively well.  But I totally brainlock at 3.x and can't grasp it. "Ohh it is so simple.
Just add relevant modfiers to and d20 and roll over or equal to DC." No its not (fucking liar...) . Conan d20, CoC d20 and Midnight to name a few games that look very solid and appealing.  But I just can't make the commitment.

I completely get what you're saying, though for me it appears as 1st edition AD&D is having that effect on myself. I'm reading the armor/weapon tables - matrices and I'm pretty baffled. Coming from 3rd Edition/d20 system as a base, and looking at my *newly rolled* 1st level Paladin I can see that I don't do very much on the attack side. I have a Strength of 15 (woot!) and in 3e and 5e that would be pretty good (+2 to attack, damage) yet in 1st Edition......yea I can carry some heavier stuff I think. Does this affect damage? If I roll a d20 (and get say an 11) do I add anything from Str 15 at 1st level? At 4th level?

This isn't a judgement call about the system, I'm intrigued by it and I want to learn to play older versions, as it adds perspective (and I enjoy the fact that it's the version they use in Stranger Things) but just sitting down and reading the books doesn't necessarily equate to clarity of learning the system, haha.

Exalted. Falls under "setting is gibberish" to me. I think there's something there, but every time someone tries to explain it to me I just don't get it.

Chageling 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.

Quote from: Batman;1007254I completely get what you're saying, though for me it appears as 1st edition AD&D is having that effect on myself. I'm reading the armor/weapon tables - matrices and I'm pretty baffled. Coming from 3rd Edition/d20 system as a base, and looking at my *newly rolled* 1st level Paladin I can see that I don't do very much on the attack side. I have a Strength of 15 (woot!) and in 3e and 5e that would be pretty good (+2 to attack, damage) yet in 1st Edition......yea I can carry some heavier stuff I think. Does this affect damage? If I roll a d20 (and get say an 11) do I add anything from Str 15 at 1st level? At 4th level?

  That's a no to both. On the broader point, see if you can find some cheap 2nd Edition books. The rules are 90% identical, but the 2E presentation is considerably clearer for most people trying to learn the rules. Once you feel you've got a handle on them, go back to 1st Edition for differences and the older 'feel'. (I personally prefer the tone and feel of 2nd Edition, but that's a matter of taste.)

  Note that I started the game in a group using the 1E Player's Handbook and the 2E DMG, so I may have had the worst of all possible worlds. :)

No. I can't think of any.

Quote from: Batman;1007254I completely get what you're saying, though for me it appears as 1st edition AD&D is having that effect on myself. I'm reading the armor/weapon tables - matrices and I'm pretty baffled. Coming from 3rd Edition/d20 system as a base, and looking at my *newly rolled* 1st level Paladin I can see that I don't do very much on the attack side. I have a Strength of 15 (woot!) and in 3e and 5e that would be pretty good (+2 to attack, damage) yet in 1st Edition......yea I can carry some heavier stuff I think. Does this affect damage? If I roll a d20 (and get say an 11) do I add anything from Str 15 at 1st level? At 4th level?

This isn't a judgement call about the system, I'm intrigued by it and I want to learn to play older versions, as it adds perspective (and I enjoy the fact that it's the version they use in Stranger Things) but just sitting down and reading the books doesn't necessarily equate to clarity of learning the system, haha.

You should try out either Moldvay Basic/Expert or Mentzer Basic-Expert(red&blue boxes) and treat anything AD&D as a supplement of spells, classes and monsters. Runs a lot smoother and is  more mechanically tight. Thats seems a how a substantial number of people actually played in the old TSR days. Ignoring the more wonky stuff in the AD&D core rules.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1007260Note that I started the game in a group using the 1E Player's Handbook and the 2E DMG, so I may have had the worst of all possible worlds. :)

Well at least you HAD rules books ;) . I learned playing from the D&D Adventure Game box set which was the last a 2ed AD&D introductionary product for new players. Problem was that it did not have rules for making characters and very few spells. So I had to use Baldurs Gate/Icewind Dale PC games to roll up characters and look in the game manual for spells. Save the character and use cheat codes to level up so I could get the stats for next level. Funny thing is that it worked surprisingly well.

But yeah... 2ed PHB + 1ed DMG and 1ed MM (not so keen on the wordy echology write-ups in 2ed MM) would be my preference for AD&D.

Quote from: Moracai;1007176Fate and Apocalypse World. Aspects and stupid mechanics that force the GM to do something do not do anything for me.

This is why I like really like Fudge/Fate games.

If it helps, just think of Aspects as situational modifiers for skills, and attributes checks. The players have a pool of resources known as Fate Points which they can spend to apply new situational modifiers (Named conveniently, Aspects), ...for just about any situation. The GM begins the game describing the situational aspects already in play that will affect random dice rolls.

The players can use their Fate Points to heroically and dramatically escape certain death, or otherwise spin a situation or encounter into their favor, and the GM can also, at any point in time create new Aspects and apply new challenges including random encounters, escalating or deescalating conflicts, or to introduce a new plot twist. Each time the GM spins the game about thusly, he has to give away new Fate Point to one or more players, who can then use such points to alter play. This mainatins balance for the game as a whole.

This is actually a very nice mechanic for speeding up gameplay, for maintaining pacing, and so that players can get the game moving if it stalls or drags on. Fudge/Fate games are high-octane games characterized by heroism, drama, with speedy combat and conflict resolution, and features multiple plot twists. It has alot going for it as a really fun RPG if you happen to like games featuring many cliffhangers, and high adventure.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1007288Fudge/Fate games are high-octane games characterized by heroism, drama, with speedy combat and conflict resolution, and features multiple plot twists. It has alot going for it as a really fun RPG if you happen to like games featuring many cliffhangers, and high adventure.

This sounds great as an idea, but are there any write-ups, actual play podcasts/vids, etc that show those new to it how to achieve that kind of play?  I tried to grok it with SOTC but never played.

The Internet Provides:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=537ltZR7K28

I have one game on my shelf, I just haven't played. Caeron 3000

Published by Thomas Scott in 2003 this is a Sci-Fantasy game that I really tried to like, but just couldn't. It's a d20 game with Humans, and seven other playable alien races. In addition to all the stats and math you have for d20, they added even more numbers wanking, Like, for example Skill Affinity, which means that rate you advance your skill ranks are modified by what race you are. You also have skills caps based on race There are also secondary attributes Health, Stamina, and Mana. There's Cybernetics, which is not integrated as part of skills, but has its own separate rules mechanics, and ditto that for Psionics as well. Then we have Spells, on top of everything else. In game players in addition to taking various types of damage in conflicts may have to make morale checks, and if they fail, the GM or other players get to control what the player does. I'm almost 100% against such meta-gaming mechanics, and only with great reluctance allow fear spells and other similar effects into my fantasy games because of the high probability that such mechanics will get abused by the players. There's Attribute checks, skills checks, ability checks, and observation checks. This is a book with 168 pages, but only about twenty or so are directly applicable to the game setting as background or to help with adventure generation, ...the rest is pure mechanics.

Quote from: flyingmice;1007277No. I can't think of any.

I'll have to think of something, cartoon housewives with a scoring system where you win based on innuendo and lose on coming out and actually saying things.  Gossip Queens.  The game uses a mixing spoon, a spatula, and a toilet brush as randomizers much like drawing lots to see who gets which task.  :D

More seriously KABAL and MISSION never made sense to me nor did Man Myth and Magic.  The rules were just a mess and we figured out Timeship.  Good grief, who thought Timeship was a good idea?  Lee Gold's Lands of Adventure, calculate the leverage force of your weapon based on its length and your one handed load.  Okay actually that's one I want a copy of, so sue me, Gold had some interesting ideas on magic and miracles and the mythic Greece and King Arthur settings weren't bad.

I 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 don't think I will ever get Champions/Hero as the system is just way too complicated for my tastes. Maybe you had to grow up with it or something. Not sure I really get RIFTS either.

I also don't get how fans of both Fate or Apocalypse World are sold on the idea that they are most innovative games ever, when most of the ideas within have been around for donkey's years. Having said that, I've no issue with actually playing them.

Other Suns: There are some really odd maths needed during chargen. Its also a bit obtuse in chargen.

Avalon Hills Standard Edition RuneQuest: freaking hell the rules are organized in the worst way possible.

Gurps: Something about the organization of this one too keeps adding an extra barrier to getting into it.

d20m Gamma World: Where to begin with this train wreck. Incomplete rules, literally broken rules, obtuse rules, abusable rules, etc ad nausium.

Probably others.

Eoris Essence. Beautiful game, robust rule set. Setting is the worst philosophical gibberish I've ever read. It's almost like it was written by someone who'd read Philosophy 101 for Dummies while free basing acid and then wrote the setting mythology based on the resulting trip.

Anything by White Wolf or Palladium, Fate.
I find the mechanics lacking and the settings boring.

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?

Not really; it's just dystopian or noir SF.  I'd say it's a more likely future than the Roddenberry-esque "We all grow up to play nice with one another, really we do" fantasy, but I won't live long enough to find out who's right in any event.  Shadowrun was just a Hollywood high concept "Ooo, let's take cyberpunk and put elves and orcs and magic in!" bolstered by a quantum leap in production values, the best the industry had seen to date by far.

Two that I had to work hard to understand were Tribe 8 and Cadwallon... both of which seemed to be purposefully obfuscating their setting to some degree.

Tribe 8 presented most everything in narrative form, rather than straight description... making it hard to find particular details.

Cadwallon had baroque writing and iffy translation... and Rackham liked to scatter vital tidbits across several game lines so that you never quite felt you were getting the whole picture. (Cadwallon's rules are also written to be less than clear, but not particularly difficult once you read them over a couple times).

The frustrating thing is that both are great settings so I didn't want to just give up.

Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth

Really did not get it. At all.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1007245I have some curiosity about the gaming community's obsession with Lovecraftian horror. Sure, it's unique and interesting, at least at first glance, but there seems to be this fascination with sticking it everywhere.

 And I'm not sure why they find it horrifying. An irrational, inhuman, Godless universe is the kind of thing many people take for granted in the cultures where gaming has taken root. ;) I can see how Lovecraft was horrifying to those living in a culture running on residual Christianity without a solid grounding in divine Truth, but today? He seems to be running on themes that are so ubiquitous as to be cliches.

 But this may be a sign of hope--maybe they realize that the kind of cosmos they and Lovecraft dreamed up is no fit habitation for the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve. :)

I was heavily leaning on answering universal systems until I read this.  I like the idea of Lovecraftian horror and many of the settings but can't imagine getting anyone to play without turning into Ghostbusters.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007301I don't think I will ever get Champions/Hero as the system is just way too complicated for my tastes. Maybe you had to grow up with it or something. Not sure I really get RIFTS either.

I also don't get how fans of both Fate or Apocalypse World are sold on the idea that they are most innovative games ever, when most of the ideas within have been around for donkey's years. Having said that, I've no issue with actually playing them.

I'm a big fan of HERO, but I think you are right it helped immensely that I was there from the beginning. I picked up this funny little game Champions at Dundracon in '81 or '82, it was only 128 pages or so, with lots of pictures. I've never been a huge comic book fan so I played with it some, but really got into the system when it branched out into Pulp (Justice Inc), Fantasy (Fantasy HERO) and modern (Espionage / Danger International) which kept the focus pretty tight. 4th ed came along in 1988-89 compiling all the rules into a generic rule set or a larger supers oriented Champions book.

I think 4th ed was still manageable for a beginner, about 256 pages but unless you were doing supers you didn't need a lot of the more complicated rules. But the 3rd ed stand alone genre books was probably the end of the easy introduction phase of the game. With the exception of a magic user in Fantasy HERO there was little mention of the more complex building aspect of the game, Champions has always been the most complicated aspect of the game regardless of edition, just the nature of supers games.


If I hadn't followed the evolution of the game, I'm not sure I would be a fan either. I probably could have muddled through the 4th ed generic rules, but 5th and 6th are pretty intimidating mountains to climb. HERO eventually produced introductory versions with Sidekick (a basic quick start rules set) and much later standalone Champions and Fantasy HERO. I'm not sure how helpful introductory (quick start) rules are for a game as far as drawing in new players. I think the stand alone games were a good idea, but came far too late.

Champions is the most visible genre of the system which doesn't really help combat the image of HERO is hard, because Supers is by far the most complex application of the system. It also doesn't help that many fans of the system revel in its vast rules showing off all it can do rather than introducing people the the basics.


I'm also a fan of GURPS and it has similar issues. I'm lost when it comes to 4th ed. I managed with 3rd edition, again because I started from the beginning. I've never had the same kind of mastery with GURPS that I have with HERO. Navigating the changes between 3rd and 4th ed and the total mass of 4th, I've just gotten lost along the way.

From my own collection: Nephilim. While the game itself is somewhat comprehensible if you read it really hard, what to do with it and how escapes me.

Fate at the top of my list. I've tried several times with different versions. Just don't get it at all.

I played Aftermath! once, took a week to roll up a character and then a session to decide that nobody understood how it worked.

When I played Traveller, I could never work out how Initiative worked.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1007369Fate at the top of my list. I've tried several times with different versions. Just don't get it at all.

I have the opposite issue. I fully 'get' Fate.

I just think it's a shit game.

So far there's no game I don't get. At least among the ones I've read or played.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007301I don't think I will ever get Champions/Hero as the system is just way too complicated for my tastes. Maybe you had to grow up with it or something. Not sure I really get RIFTS either.

I also don't get how fans of both Fate or Apocalypse World are sold on the idea that they are most innovative games ever, when most of the ideas within have been around for donkey's years. Having said that, I've no issue with actually playing them.

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.

Quote from: Itachi;1007379About 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.

No, it really isn't. Like, at all.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007438No, it really isn't. Like, at all.

What game did it before?

One might argue HERO's advantages and disadvantages as a form of story currency which instructs the Game Master in the direction of the story.  I think that's the earliest thing I could point to.  Certainly the various things in a character's back story might be considered a form of player directed plot determination.  I'm not sure when that first showed up Villains and Vigilantes first edition perhaps?  I'm not sure where hero points might have been first introduced, Victory Games James Bond 007 perhaps?  It was certainly a forward thinking game but Marvel Superheros might have been there first with Karma Points being spent for things.

Quote from: Itachi;1007447What game did it before?

Player driven/anti-railroading? Try Ars Magica. Heck, even try Champions or any other game where players take collaborative ownership of a setting premise through their own choices made in character generation. It's not a new idea.

Apocalypse World has a neat system and package, but the way in which it's fans like to claim it's basically re-invented the RPG wheel is what makes it offputting.

Hmm 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. ;)

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" (:D) 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.

I get the general idea of pretty much all RPGs/Storygames, etc. The "Makes No Sense" part for me is usually about intelligibility.

So... "Darksword Adventures", one of the first RPGs I bought, because you could buy it in paperback in the Fantasy section of K-Mart. Now, I'd never (and still haven't) read the actual Darksword novels, so I think that combined with the strange presentation of the game, and (I strongly suspect) poor rules ended with middle-school me feeling both very intrigued and "This doesn't quite make sense".

Next up: "Immortal: The Invisible War" A very '90s RPG with a wacky system, setting, and a ton of unnecessarily obscure jargon to describe game terms.  Don't make me learn your obscure jargon, '90s game. I know your jargon uses some old-timey words, possibly in another language, possibly without you knowing what they actually mean. There was a brief period of pre-internet time where doing this was a hand-wavey means of implying depth or profundity, it seems.

Also: As a huge fan of White Wolf's "Street Fighter" RPG, I remember being intrigued by both "Weapons of the Gods" and "Legends of the Wulin", but I could never cut through all of the flowery language and fiction that suffocate what I assume are the rules in there somewhere. Basically, the game promised cool things, but wanted me to work too hard for me to push through. Maybe I'm lazy, or maybe they should learn how to be concise.

White Wolf's "Wraith: The Oblivion", I know it's not incomprehensible, but it falls more on that "What am I supposed to do?" side of things. I'm edging into talking about my tastes more than "Games That Make No Sense To Me" with that though. There are a lot of games that came out in the '90s that had these... "gamer settings" that required you to learn their special lingo and read their history/learn their invented cosmology, etc. that created a large barrier to entry/caring for me.

Quote from: itachi;1007541and traveller don't really have formal rules for the gm to follow.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

:rolleyes:

Quote from: NeonAce;1007572Next up: "Immortal: The Invisible War" A very '90s RPG with a wacky system, setting, and a ton of unnecessarily obscure jargon to describe game terms.  Don't make me learn your obscure jargon, '90s game. I know your jargon uses some old-timey words, possibly in another language, possibly without you knowing what they actually mean. There was a brief period of pre-internet time where doing this was a hand-wavey means of implying depth or profundity, it seems.

To me, and there were a few games like this in the 90s, it's not a question of not getting what the authors were trying to do, but more a question of bad execution. Over-jargonised, badly organised, poorly researched and pretentious-but-conceptually-under-developed games were actually ten-a-penny in the aftermath of White Wolf's success in the decade. Immortal was just one of these. You could get some inspiration from reading parts of it, but it wasn't very playable for the reasons you cite.

QuoteWhite Wolf's "Wraith: The Oblivion", I know it's not incomprehensible, but it falls more on that "What am I supposed to do?" side of things. I'm edging into talking about my tastes more than "Games That Make No Sense To Me" with that though. There are a lot of games that came out in the '90s that had these... "gamer settings" that required you to learn their special lingo and read their history/learn their invented cosmology, etc. that created a large barrier to entry/caring for me.

Ironically, "What am I supposed to do?" is basically the premise of the game, in effect. You're dead, but caught in limbo that stops you moving on, literally clinging onto the fetters that link you back to your old life while your own dark side tries to push you towards Oblivion. It's an existential nightmare, that may well be difficult to 'get' for many people, although they can still respect it as a gaming concept. Good choice.

Quote from: willie the duckExcepting 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).

I've heard somewhere that cyberpunk is about projecting society's anxieties and fears. If that's the case being more realistic sounds reasonable, in the sense its something near us, that we know and care in some way. By that angle Shadowun really feels off.

Then again Shadowrun seem to have it's fair share of "projected anxieties" in the way megacorps abuse the population and environment, metahumans suffer racial prejudice, etc. Ironically, from my reading of it, it even managed to show more anxieties than the supposedly realistic game, Cyberpunk 2020, which always felt kinda to me artificial with it's focus in the glitz and "woohoo! We are cyberpunks!" ethos.

Champions, Hero system, Savage worlds.
Pretty much all those point buy systems seem too much like hard work and only those who obsessively know the rules will end up with far better characters than those who are vaguely familiar.

It just doesn't interest me at all.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1007613Champions, Hero system, Savage worlds.
Pretty much all those point buy systems seem too much like hard work and only those who obsessively know the rules will end up with far better characters than those who are vaguely familiar.

It just doesn't interest me at all.

I would say with all those games that one thing I don't really get any more, these days, is the need for generic, universal systems. I mean I get it, I suppose - having a one-size-fits-all system that you can hang any setting on - but they always leave me feeling unsatisfied in some way or another.

Quote from: NeonAce;1007572Also: As a huge fan of White Wolf's "Street Fighter" RPG, I remember being intrigued by both "Weapons of the Gods" and "Legends of the Wulin", but I could never cut through all of the flowery language and fiction that suffocate what I assume are the rules in there somewhere. Basically, the game promised cool things, but wanted me to work too hard for me to push through. Maybe I'm lazy, or maybe they should learn how to be concise.

Why not both;)?

Avalon Hill's "Magic Realm."  Incredibly lush production values, gorgeous components, and a boringly simple game play -- like, on the order of "Dungeon"*.  There are hints in the rules that there was supposed to be more, but to the best of my knowledge it never arrived.  Where is the game that these components go to?


*Dungeon is a perfectly fun game, but it never aspired to anything else

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1007967Avalon Hill's "Magic Realm."  Incredibly lush production values, gorgeous components, and a boringly simple game play -- like, on the order of "Dungeon"*.  There are hints in the rules that there was supposed to be more, but to the best of my knowledge it never arrived.  Where is the game that these components go to?

I think that's the first time I have heard anyone refer to Magic Realm as "simple."

Would be interesting to see Magic Realm get a more modern overhaul.  There's a lot of neat shit there that just didn't quite gel together for me.

It's not simply written, but the actual game play turned out to be disappointingly simple; wander around, bash things, take their stuff.

But the game is full of puzzling features.  Like the "enchanting" hexes.  Heavy, full color, two sided hexes.  They must have cost a mint to produce.  And if you enchant a hex, you get a small bonus to magic.

That's IT?  All that foofraw for a small bonus?

Quote from: NeonAce;1007572So... "Darksword Adventures", one of the first RPGs I bought, because you could buy it in paperback in the Fantasy section of K-Mart. Now, I'd never (and still haven't) read the actual Darksword novels, so I think that combined with the strange presentation of the game, and (I strongly suspect) poor rules ended with middle-school me feeling both very intrigued and "This doesn't quite make sense".
.

I had a GM in high school who ran that. He was a huge fan of the trilogy and I think that familiarity with the books was pretty helpful in making the sessions a success. I enjoyed it a lot. I still have no idea how much he was running it RAW (he was the kind of GM who didn't really place a premium on adhering strictly to the rules). It had a very unusual but flexible magic system as I recall. Again, no idea how strictly he was running the game but basically you could attempt all kinds of magic effects by describing what you were trying to do and he resolved how closely you achieve that with the rules in the book. The book was a paper back the size of a standard novel, so it was kind of an odd rulebook. I didn't read it, so just going by what we played at the table.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007621I would say with all those games that one thing I don't really get any more, these days, is the need for generic, universal systems. I mean I get it, I suppose - having a one-size-fits-all system that you can hang any setting on - but they always leave me feeling unsatisfied in some way or another.

I like the IDEA of it, but the reality, in my experience is you have a set of core rules, that's fine.
Then you have a separate book for each Genre/setting/whatever that often breaks or changes those rules.
Then you have to flip between the Core rules and the setting book to generate a character/find out how some mechanic works and so on.
It just seems to create more work.

Quote from: NeonAce;1007572So... "Darksword Adventures", one of the first RPGs I bought, because you could buy it in paperback in the Fantasy section of K-Mart. Now, I'd never (and still haven't) read the actual Darksword novels, so I think that combined with the strange presentation of the game, and (I strongly suspect) poor rules ended with middle-school me feeling both very intrigued and "This doesn't quite make sense".

I think I've tried reading that trilogy three times.  Only reading Darksword Adventures even tempted the second and third attempt.  75% of that book is like a Volo's Guide to the Forgotten Realms.  The last quarter is a rather odd, for the time, tacked on RPG.  I enjoyed the setting but thought it would take a fair amount of understanding on the players part to play as a RPG.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1007552So how is 'fail forward' any different to a 'partial success' or a 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.

There 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.

PbtA is just old style gaming, reworded to give it "indie" cred.

Quote from: 3rik;1008165PbtA is just old style gaming, reworded to give it "indie" cred.

Yeah, that's one possible way to look at it, for sure;).

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.

I've had fun playing DW but there's not a damn thing new in it.

TrippyHippy, if you actually read my post, you'll see I never said those things are new.

Quote from: Itachi;1009025TrippyHippy, if you actually read my post, you'll see I never said those things are new.

No, your most recent descriptor is 'unconventional'... which many might read as 'new' but whatever... how it is 'unconventional' if, as Trippy points out, it seems to be made up entirely of 'conventional' elements?
Or is this just 'unconventional' like strange food combinations... bananas & saurkraut? broccoli & jam?

I'd say it's the later, Simlasa.

Quote from: Itachi;1009025TrippyHippy, if you actually read my post, you'll see I never said those things are new.

You had already said this, however:

Quote from: ItachiAbout 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.

....and you are wrong about that.

If you are now wanting to revise your arguments to suggest they are "unconventional" instead, then you are wrong about that too.

Apocalypse World is basically the same sort of product as something like All Flesh Must Be Eaten - nothing unconventional, but an eclectic range of sources towards creating a system that can do a specific genre emulation. Nothing wrong with that, and plenty of fun to be had, but nobody ever claimed that All Flesh Must Be Eaten was anything more significant than it actually was.

Oh sure, All Flesh Must be Eaten does genre emulation really well, doesn't it? WEll, does it also do fail-forward well? How about no GM prep play? Or only players roll dice? Or about playbooks? Or player-to-player mediating mechanics, does it have it too? Or explicit GM rules to guarantee the game will be all about whats on the tin? Oh how about being easily hackable to allow a multitude of hacks on other genres and themes?

Yeaaah, AFMbE doesn't do any of those other things, right? That's the point. The combination of those features into a cohesive whole, interesting and novel enough to cause a small explosion of hacks and even bleeding into OSR and other styles (see Mutant Year Zero, Cypher, Beyond the Wall, New Kult, Blades in the Dark, etc). The novelty is, like Simlasa said, in mixing existing ingredients, like bananas with saurkraut. Only the result was good enough to become the new hot for a lot of people. And that's it. ;)

Quote from: Itachi;1009054Oh sure, All Flesh Must be Eaten does genre emulation really well, doesn't it? WEll, does it also do fail-forward well? How about no GM prep play? Or only players roll dice? Or about playbooks? Or player-to-player mediating mechanics, does it have it too? Or explicit GM rules to guarantee the game will be all about whats on the tin? Oh how about being easily hackable to allow a multitude of hacks on other genres and themes?

Yeaaah, AFMbE doesn't do any of those other things, right? That's the point. The combination of those features into a cohesive whole, interesting and novel enough to cause a small explosion of hacks and even bleeding into OSR and other styles (see Mutant Year Zero, Cypher, Beyond the Wall, New Kult, Blades in the Dark, etc). The novelty is, like Simlasa said, in mixing existing ingredients, like bananas with saurkraut. Only the result was good enough to become the new hot for a lot of people. And that's it. ;)

No prep play in any Zombie game I've ever played in. Fail forward is a bogus distinction, when you have degrees of success as mentioned before. Ditto 'playbooks' when you can simply have a printed out pre-gen with traits written on to the sheet. Your distinctions simply aren't that distinctive. Moreover, the point is that both are just systems comprised of gaming ideas established through other games, but AFMBE doesn't need to try and stake a claim that it's reinvented the wheel.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1009024I've had fun playing DW but there's not a damn thing new in it.

Like a lot of that kind of game it's great for absurdist comedy but every damn game turns into absurdist comedy.

DCC 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.

Amber what's the point of stats if you can bullshit the GM into letting you win.  If a person has a higher Warfare Stat, and it's a sword fight, sorry, you can't use any other stats, he's going to keep stabbing you until you stopped trying to use your Psyche on him.  I can't wrap my mind around the lack of randomizing agent either.

Fate the aspects, still can't wrap my mind around them.  Doesn't help that most of the games I picked up are highly confrontational between GM and Player.

Transhuman Space there's no conflict in here, what do you actually do???

Most other games, even if they're unplayable messes (Looking at you Exalted, bah, all of White Wolf's line) I can understand.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009079Amber what's the point of stats if you can bullshit the GM into letting you win.  If a person has a higher Warfare Stat, and it's a sword fight, sorry, you can't use any other stats, he's going to keep stabbing you until you stopped trying to use your Psyche on him.  I can't wrap my mind around the lack of randomizing agent either.

Amber isn't my cup to tea either but it's kind of like how I dropped a troll into an intro 1st level adventure. The PCs knew enough D&D to knew they had no chance in hell of beating a troll in a fair fight so they didn't try to beat the troll in a fair fight they did other things. Amber is supposed to be like that all the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1008908No one on Earth did.

Indeed, but it was interesting to read a thread on the big purple for a change: some posters were trying to claim it was "interesting". LOL.

Adding to my list of "Nope, wanted to get it, but just don't get it" is Torchbearer. In particular the combat system and the experience system. I just can't get my head around why you would make the first so unimmersive and the latter so unnecessarily complicated.

I 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).

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1009088Indeed, but it was interesting to read a thread on the big purple for a change: some posters were trying to claim it was "interesting". LOL.

Adding to my list of "Nope, wanted to get it, but just don't get it" is Torchbearer. In particular the combat system and the experience system. I just can't get my head around why you would make the first so unimmersive and the latter so unnecessarily complicated.

Consider 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?

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).

When 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'.

Quote from: Daztur;1009080Amber isn't my cup to tea either but it's kind of like how I dropped a troll into an intro 1st level adventure. The PCs knew enough D&D to knew they had no chance in hell of beating a troll in a fair fight so they didn't try to beat the troll in a fair fight they did other things. Amber is supposed to be like that all the time.

Not every GM gets the opportunity to game with perceptive players. They have one tool and it's a hammer. They figure every problem is a nail.

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.

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 (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.

Quote from: Itachi;1009239I 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).

This is painfully bad GMing. Unfortunately, I agree, it's common. I think it's an artifact of 3rd edition where rolls seemed pretty hard-coded into the rules, so GMs got used to always calling them. 5e, by contrast, is clear up front that the GM should only call for rolls when he (meaning myself) wants a random result. If I know what result I want, I won't have the players roll. End of story. Do I need to have the thief pick the lock on the wardrobe, revealing that the baron has stashed his dead wife in there? Then when the thief attempts to pick the lock, I merely say, "The lock is of fairly simple workmanship, and you deftly pick it without much effort."

I typically allow one check at my table (exception is Open Doors, in which case monsters are on alert if you fail the first roll), but I don't ever do the "roll to advance" stuff that can kill the game.

Fearsomepirate, I don't think it's an artifact of a particular game so much as an artifact of the gaming culture around that time. The first time I saw this "problem" was on Shadowrun 2nd edition from 1992, where the rules suggest you to try again any skill test you fail (as long as you add +1 to the target number) and incentivize playing "gotcha" with players through repeated perception tests. That was almost a decade before 3rd ed D&D. And Shadowrun was not alone in this, I'm sure if I re-read my copies of pupular games of the time, like Gurps and Vampire, I will find similar things.

The irony is that OD&D already had this solved, among other things, by instructing the GM to change the dungeon "state" with each failed roll (so a failed pick could mean an enemy guard shows up in the corridor). If I had to guess, I would say the problem appeared when gaming "got out of the dungeon", with authors attempting new genres/premises and something getting lost in translation. Only recently, in the last decade or so, gaming culture re-learned, or just came to appreciate again, this "fail forward/avoid letting the game state stagnate" feature, as it's been showing up in more and more popular games. At least that's my impression.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009222And 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?

I've already spoken about Wraith further up. It is a good example of a game that is difficult to get, but I like it. It's a good candidate for the thread question. The key aspect of gameplay is that it is about playing souls who have to ask the question about "so what are we supposed to do now?". It's an existential crisis - which is certainly not going to be for everyone - making it ironic when players also ask "so what are we supposed to do now?" as a criticism.

In the case of the WW system criticism, I never had any problem with it. I wasn't fixated with 'rules-as-written', however, and was happy to follow the 'golden rule' of interpreting them to suit our group's needs to tell the story we wanted, which is somewhat out of fashion. However, this whole tack of arguing these rules produce narrative dead-ends, but 'fail forward' opens up great vistas of opportunity, when they both do the same thing, to me, just highlights issues with the GM rather than the game system.

Sounds like a weak-GM-crutch that's been re-branded as good game design. Heaven forbid a PC fail to fix a car engine yet not make noise summoning guards. Don't include that possibility... ugh. Better not have a system for seeing if PCs spot something, because they might make a situation where they "need" the PCs to spot it, yet roll for it... argh.

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 wish I could tell you that "this is not how you play DCC", but it does seem to be how a lot of people play DCC. It's a really stupid way to play DCC though, in that you never get to really enjoy all the other much more sophisticated stuff that DCC can do.

QuoteAmber what's the point of stats if you can bullshit the GM into letting you win.

That's not how Amber works.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009637I wish I could tell you that "this is not how you play DCC", but it does seem to be how a lot of people play DCC. It's a really stupid way to play DCC though, in that you never get to really enjoy all the other much more sophisticated stuff that DCC can do.
.

Would you care to elaborate?

Quote from: Nexus;1009638Would you care to elaborate?

In DCC circles there is a good bit of talk of running 'tournament' games and introductory funnels... to where I can see how someone might get the idea that that is the main thrust of the game. It's partially Goodman's fault because of the way they hype DCC... and the collector mentality they push to sell product... but the game really is much more full-bodied than that, PCs get tougher quickly, and in the years I've been playing I've only played in two funnel games and a LOT of our games don't involve dungeons at all.
I'm glad that I bought and read the corebook early on, before some of the sillier company/fanboy stuff that has built up around the game.

DCC makes sense to me, but it's firmly rooted in a gonzo ascetic I just don't enjoy (wacky random tables, silly comic pictures).

I also don't understand the appeal of games that are focused around brutally restricting GM scope and replacing it with "everything the player's encounter they created, most of which is being made up on the spot." I know that you don't *have* to play PBTA games that way, but that's how they're built - there's a proscribed list of GM moves, which you're only allowed to use the strongest ones in limited cases, you're supposed to "leave blanks" and have the players fill in all that stuff. This is part of a larger movement to strip the GM of any authority (see Unknown Armies 3) or an reason to enjoy running games. Just listen to any podcast or ask advice on any site about how you're supposed to run them. I also don't buy that they exist to make the GM's life easier. There's lots of ways to make the GM's life easier that don't have anything to do with shifting the locus of control over to the player's whims at the moment. For example, systems that make dice rolls player-facing, or use different, simple mechanics for describing obstacles and antagonists.

Also, I don't get why so many story-game people are so hostile using concepts to describe game systems. Traditional and Story Game seem like perfectly useful descriptions of game systems - the former tend to have GM's in charge of stuff except for the player's being in charge of their character and what they do.

Like Simlasa said: DCC is awesome and mid and higher levels. It's a fantastic game that has a ton of elements to it that will only be usable in longer-term play. And yet it seems to me like most people use it for 0-level funnels or one-shot type of games and the very notion of getting a player even to 2nd or 3rd level seems unthinkable.

If the creators of the game promotes a certain play style, then that's the play style people assumes the game is built around.  You shouldn't be surprised or disappointed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009785If the creators of the game promotes a certain play style, then that's the play style people assumes the game is built around.  You shouldn't be surprised or disappointed.

Yeah, it's odd that they do that. The funnel is fun but the real meats & taters comes after... and I'm guessing that since Goodman Games publishes a number of modules labeled as being for 4th, 5th, and 6th level they must believe some groups are playing beyond the funnel. I know our GM pulls from them sometimes... our group now being a mix of 0-5th.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009785If the creators of the game promotes a certain play style, then that's the play style people assumes the game is built around.  You shouldn't be surprised or disappointed.

I agree that Goodman themselves have somewhat emphasized zero-level funnels and low-level play. I'm guessing there's some kind of marketing behind that; it's probably a basic fact that most people don't play campaigns as long as mine, for example, and that tend to do far more one-shots or short runs. This is something that allows for the selling of a lot of low-level adventures.

But they created a game that is ALSO awesome at higher levels, and it is a bit disappointing that the majority of the emphasis among the fandom has been for the lower-level stuff alone.

All right, off the topic for this question:  Is there way of playing DCC without having to go through said funnel?  (Honest question, the game does intrigue me, but as I stated, I don't get the appeal of the level funnel.)

Yes, roll up a character and make it level 1 or level 3 or whatever you want. You just lose some possibly entertaining background covering how your crappy gong farmer or radish farmer dealt with the beastmen or whatever.

Edit: One thing I'll add is that back in 1974/5 when I started playing we all took a group of characters along for the ride and rotated them to the front of the party as their friends died and generally came out with one or two level 2 characters so a funnel isn't new it's just not what we called it back then.

We used to do similar, a large party of first level characters, 1 as PC and the rest NPC hirelings. As the PCs died the NPCs got promoted. Eventually one would survive,

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1010213All right, off the topic for this question:  Is there way of playing DCC without having to go through said funnel?  (Honest question, the game does intrigue me, but as I stated, I don't get the appeal of the level funnel.)

Yes, certainly. In my DCC campaign, players start with three level-0 characters but the adventures themselves are not a 'funnel', not meant to intentionally be lethal for characters. They're just regular adventures. As soon as they get 10xp, the player picks one from his surviving characters to run as his full-time PC.

Quote from: Simlasa;1009654In DCC circles there is a good bit of talk of running 'tournament' games and introductory funnels... to where I can see how someone might get the idea that that is the main thrust of the game. It's partially Goodman's fault because of the way they hype DCC... and the collector mentality they push to sell product... but the game really is much more full-bodied than that, PCs get tougher quickly, and in the years I've been playing I've only played in two funnel games and a LOT of our games don't involve dungeons at all.
I'm glad that I bought and read the corebook early on, before some of the sillier company/fanboy stuff that has built up around the game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1009784Like Simlasa said: DCC is awesome and mid and higher levels. It's a fantastic game that has a ton of elements to it that will only be usable in longer-term play. And yet it seems to me like most people use it for 0-level funnels or one-shot type of games and the very notion of getting a player even to 2nd or 3rd level seems unthinkable.

Thanks

Quote from: Simlasa;1009787Yeah, it's odd that they do that. The funnel is fun but the real meats & taters comes after... and I'm guessing that since Goodman Games publishes a number of modules labeled as being for 4th, 5th, and 6th level they must believe some groups are playing beyond the funnel. I know our GM pulls from them sometimes... our group now being a mix of 0-5th.

The Funnel is a big part of the game DCC that I don't get.

Quote from: Nexus;1010626The Funnel is a big part of the game DCC that I don't get.

It actually reminds me of most very low-level D&D I've played over the years, regardless of edition.  We had a 3.5 campaign back when it came out in which every player had to replace their 1st level character at least once because of PC deaths until someone hit second level.  Even a high-HP class at 1st level is seldom more than a hit or two away from dying.

Quote from: Hermes Serpent;1010215Yes, roll up a character and make it level 1 or level 3 or whatever you want. You just lose some possibly entertaining background covering how your crappy gong farmer or radish farmer dealt with the beastmen or whatever.

This can be done in any game. Just take the starting characters and give them the desired amount of experience and equipment.  Some games formalize this, some don't, but it can always be done.

Quote from: Nexus;1010626The Funnel is a big part of the game DCC that I don't get.

The conceit of TSR/OSR D&D has always been that a 1st level character is not someone fresh off the farm.  They are already a trained Magic-User/Cleric/Thief/Fighter/etc and have been through the requisite training to get them to that first level.  Up to now, that change from farmboy or gongfarmer to a young Fafhrd has always been background.

The funnel is the extraordinary event that changed their lives and turned them away from the Path of Everyone Else and set them on the Path of the Few, the Proud, the Badass Movers and Shakers.

Think of the funnel as Star Wars for Luke.  It's their Call to Adventure if you want to put it in Campbell terms.
The Siege of Venarium, for example, was Conan's Funnel.
The two "origin story" short stories of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are their funnels.

Now the thing that's a little odd about the funnel as presented by DCC is that all the players have characters who are undergoing that same trial.  They may all survive, they may not, but somehow, out of that crucible, some characters will come out of it changed and ready to leave their old life behind.

People who do funnels all the time or at conventions probably enjoy the challenge of a zero-level character or maybe get into the 4th wall fun of "doing a funnel".

I think of the funnel as an interactive backstory.  Instead of authoring it, I'm playing to find out what happens and letting the setting and our play at the table give us our backstories and connections to each other.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010684I think of the funnel as an interactive backstory.  Instead of authoring it, I'm playing to find out what happens and letting the setting and our play at the table give us our backstories and connections to each other.

Now that is a take that I had no considered.  Like it.

Quote from: Voros;1009124Judging 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.

I'm not interested. I'm not judging either. I was just stating that that was the exact impression I got as well, nothing else.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010684The conceit of TSR/OSR D&D has always been that a 1st level character is not someone fresh off the farm.

Until recently, no one I spoke of who played D&D thought that.  And I found out why as well, recently, below.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010684They are already a trained Magic-User/Cleric/Thief/Fighter/etc and have been through the requisite training to get them to that first level.  Up to now, that change from farmboy or gongfarmer to a young Fafhrd has always been background.

What I heard was that the issue is the fragility of the characters.  At first level, very few PC's feel like they're trained experts.  Also, given that the starting ages start between 16-20 (Unless a wizard in earlier editions), that also doesn't give the common North American (remember, most of players are not Medieval History experts) person's perception of being 'skilled'.  Couple that with the low amount of hit points, and you have a misconception between the game and the player.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1010751Until recently, no one I spoke of who played D&D thought that.  And I found out why as well, recently, below.



What I heard was that the issue is the fragility of the characters.  At first level, very few PC's feel like they're trained experts.  Also, given that the starting ages start between 16-20 (Unless a wizard in earlier editions), that also doesn't give the common North American (remember, most of players are not Medieval History experts) person's perception of being 'skilled'.  Couple that with the low amount of hit points, and you have a misconception between the game and the player.

It felt like there was significant disagreement with the idea that 1st level PCs weren't fresh faced Noobs in discussions about backgrounds/backstories.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1010751What I heard was that the issue is the fragility of the characters.  At first level, very few PC's feel like they're trained experts.  Also, given that the starting ages start between 16-20 (Unless a wizard in earlier editions), that also doesn't give the common North American (remember, most of players are not Medieval History experts) person's perception of being 'skilled'.  Couple that with the low amount of hit points, and you have a misconception between the game and the player.

That's an important point. The 'conceit of TSR/OSR D&D' is only what it is able to communicate to its' audience. I think that's why a lot of people felt that there already was an effective funnel/crucible/interactive backstory in TSR-era D&D in teh journey from 1st level to 2nd.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1010757That's an important point. The 'conceit of TSR/OSR D&D' is only what it is able to communicate to its' audience. I think that's why a lot of people felt that there already was an effective funnel/crucible/interactive backstory in TSR-era D&D in teh journey from 1st level to 2nd.

It probably felt different if you had played a bunch of Chainmail first. The fact that a Normal Man has but half a hit die and worse chance to hit than a true Fighter, and that a Hero can fell four ordinary men in a single blow doesn't really register in a visceral way when you start right off the bat heading into the cave to slay the foul creatures hiding there.

Yes. The difference between first level Fighting Men (Veterans) and normal men is sharp in Chainmail. It is actually pretty sharp in the D&D rules going forward as well. It's just that nobody ever really looks at the difference in to hit chances, hit points, etc between those zero level ordinary people and first level PCs. Dying from a single sword stroke just doesn't feel heroic when you have visions of Conan running through your fevered brain.

And an amazing number of people missed that characters and creatures of 2 HD or more get 1 attack per HD against 1 HD or less creatures.  Which means that suddenly the Veteran's 1+1 HD makes a BIG difference.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010769And an amazing number of people missed that characters and creatures of 2 HD or more get 1 attack per HD against 1 HD or less creatures.  Which means that suddenly the Veteran's 1+1 HD makes a BIG difference.

Which got removed in later editions, letting other classes, namely the Magic Users (and by that I mean Clerics and whatever else they've added, like Wizards and Sorcerers and Witches and Magus and whatnot from the various derivatives of D&D) having the single shot area effects, which got covered up by the 'extra attacks' that most classes got after.

Well, the funnel is a fun micro-game. But it's just a pity if that's ALL someone does with DCC.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010684I think of the funnel as an interactive backstory.  Instead of authoring it, I'm playing to find out what happens and letting the setting and our play at the table give us our backstories and connections to each other.

Yeah, it gets you the same effect as a good lifepath chargen, except you devote the first session to it:). That said, it works!

BTW, I'm currently playing in a DCC funnel, and we just killed two giant crabs, using basic pack tactics. They never got to act.
I wonder whether the GM is feeling disappointed in his module;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1011566BTW, I'm currently playing in a DCC funnel, and we just killed two giant crabs, using basic pack tactics. They never got to act.
I wonder whether the GM is feeling disappointed in his module;).

You might have answered this already, but have you ever played or DMed any DCC beyond the 'funnel' or lv.1-2 stage?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1012611You might have answered this already, but have you ever played or DMed any DCC beyond the 'funnel' or lv.1-2 stage?

No, but I prefer the lower levels anyway. Why the sudden question?

Quote from: AsenRG;1012793No, but I prefer the lower levels anyway. Why the sudden question?

Because of comments being made recently, regarding DCC, and my own point that higher-level play in DCC is awesome.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013647Because of comments being made recently, regarding DCC, and my own point that higher-level play in DCC is awesome.

Almost forgot to answer...:)
Now, I don't remember said comments.

But yes, I prefer the lower-level play in DCC. Doesn't mean I think higher-level games in DCC isn't awesome.
Also, I don't think low-level PCs need to be anything less than competent;).

To me both levels of play  have their charm. But higher-level DCC lets the PCs be incredibly awesome (more awesome than in regular D&D), without actually having the level of invulnerability that you often see in high-level D&D play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014639To me both levels of play  have their charm. But higher-level DCC lets the PCs be incredibly awesome (more awesome than in regular D&D), without actually having the level of invulnerability that you often see in high-level D&D play.

First you had my interest.  Now you've got my attention.

This is a bugbear I've had with D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014706First you had my interest.  Now you've got my attention.

This is a bugbear I've had with D&D.

Yeah, well, the relative danger of things like criticals, and the shorter level range (0-10 instead of 1-20 or 1-36); with much higher power differences between levels (a level 5 character in DCC is powerful like a level 10 character in terms of special ability) but without as much hit point escalation (a level 5 character in DCC still has only 5HD, after all), and of course the absence of Raise Dead spells, all adds up to make for  very powerful characters that are nonetheless vulnerable.