Quote from: Wrath of God on February 11, 2023, 08:55:51 PM
complications being dominant result is FEATURE not a BUG.

A feature that works like a bug is still a bug. Forcing consequences on the vast majority of actions is not an accurate modeling of the game world or of character competency, it's shit design.

QuoteA feature that works like a bug is still a bug. Forcing consequences on the vast majority of actions is not an accurate modeling of the game world or of character competency, it's shit design.

Well guess what - because PBTA is not simulationist design and it does not give a shit about accurate modeling. The mechanics has different purpose. (Though of course it should be noted - that general competences of character are in its description and assumption is if you attempt something you're pro about you succeed unless told otherwise, moves do not cover skill competences).
It's like accusing Super Mario Bros that you cannot shoot Mushroom people with AK47.

Quote from: Wrath of God on February 12, 2023, 05:09:22 AM
Well guess what - because PBTA is not simulationist design and it does not give a shit about accurate modeling.

Hence, "shit design".
I rest my case.

Game is designed to do shit I don't like, therefore it's shit design.
Very mature.

Ewww. GNS theory with my morning coffee. 🤮

Quote from: Wrath of God on February 12, 2023, 06:53:39 AM
Game is designed to do shit I don't like, therefore it's shit design.

Nope. Game is designed according to principles that don't make sense and with an even weaker statistical model for resolving actions, therefore it's shit design.
On top of that, it's GNS made manifest: it's good only as a negative example.

Quote from: FingerRod on February 12, 2023, 08:38:40 AM
Ewww. GNS theory with my morning coffee. 🤮

Heard of that in passing years ago, I'll read the Wikipedia page:

Quote
GNS theory is an informal field of study developed by Ron Edwards which attempts to create a unified theory of how role-playing games work.

Alright, maybe this endeavour has a thoughtful intention...

Quote
The theory focuses on player interaction rather than statistics, encompassing game design beyond role-playing games.

...Aaaand it's gone!

---

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory; as of 2023/02/12

QuoteNope. Game is designed according to principles that don't make sense and with an even weaker statistical model for resolving actions, therefore it's shit design.

Just because you don't understand principles does not mean they don't make sense. Again.
Statistical model serves those principles because it generally creates mounting up complications - and that's precisely what game want to achieve.

Quote from: Wrath of God on February 12, 2023, 11:13:15 AMJust because you don't understand principles does not mean they don't make sense. Again.
Statistical model serves those principles because it generally creates mounting up complications - and that's precisely what game want to achieve.

This.

It's important to remember one of the goals of the gaming culture where PbtA was borne in, was to mitigate GM fiat & railroading. So the Moves structure guarantees story complications are prompted by player's actions and not some script on the GM's notebook. It's a very player-driven and improvisational style that takes the narrative power away from one guy at the table and distributes it among everybody. Sure, the GM will still be the one to come up with the narrative beat, but he will need to follow the lead given by the PCs, like a jazz band riffing off each other.

Many GMs coming from a trad gaming culture have difficulties adapting to it, as the system actively fights the GM if he/she wants to break from the style. I know I had some problems myself, but eventually we groked it and had some memorable games. Blades in the Dark in particular really sang for us, with Sagas of the Icelanders a close second.

Quote from: Itachi on February 12, 2023, 01:11:17 PM
It's important to remember one of the goals of the gaming culture where PbtA was borne in, was to mitigate GM fiat & railroading.

So, using mechanics to solve a player problem.  Pretty sure that's the definition of "shit design."  And also destined to create more problems than it solves...

In fairness, I can see why the PbtA design could limit narrative flexibility to that end, as every complication requires immediate resolution with the issues directly in front of the characters.

Keeping solid notes would be mandatory, especially if the complications wind up affecting the overall plot rather than the immediate situation. I imagine that it's sometimes necessary to make up new moves mid-game, whenever a premade one can't provide a satisfactory fit, and that would be a problem for a group that may be relying on the premade moves too much in order to resolve their character choices.

I really doubt that it prevents dice fudging altogether, or even properly discourages it. People don't always enforce touch-move-touch-take consistently in one-off chess games. If the goal is to remove GM abuse, I think we just need to wait long enough for a GM that can introduce spiteful and vindictive complications, ruthlessly using the hard and soft moves with the fronts, to steer the players into a desired sequence of situations or consequences, all in a manner that remains consistent to the fiction. This seems like a sensible way to attempt breaking this system, if they're just taking "easy mode GM" for granted with the system.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 12, 2023, 01:50:42 PM

Quote from: Itachi on February 12, 2023, 01:11:17 PM
It's important to remember one of the goals of the gaming culture where PbtA was borne in, was to mitigate GM fiat & railroading.

So, using mechanics to solve a player problem.  Pretty sure that's the definition of "shit design."  And also destined to create more problems than it solves...

Rather than a player problem, I see this as a (valid) group preference. Railroading/GM-driven/more scripted adventures have their place - in mistery and horror games, for example. That there are other playstyles out there that aim for different experiences doesn't make them wrong or a problem.

Quote from: ClusterFlusterIn fairness, I can see why the PbtA design could limit narrative flexibility to that end, as every complication requires immediate resolution with the issues directly in front of the characters.

Keeping solid notes would be mandatory, especially if the complications wind up affecting the overall plot rather than the immediate situation. I imagine that it's sometimes necessary to make up new moves mid-game, whenever a premade one can't provide a satisfactory fit, and that would be a problem for a group that may be relying on the premade moves too much in order to resolve their character choices.

Don't know if I understand what you're saying here exactly? (sorry english is not my native language). Not all complication requires immediate resolution, sometimes yes, other times no. Sometimes complications can be as simple as "okay, you manage to jump the wall unnoticed... but your bag of lockpicks got pinced and fell to the ground outside". Other times it can indeed be hooks for future situations like "Father John accepts the proposition to hide you bunch in his church while the heat is high... but he asks for a price in the form of some shady services", in which case yes, some notes are desirable.

QuoteI really doubt that it prevents dice fudging altogether, or even properly discourages it. People don't always enforce touch-move-touch-take consistently in one-off chess games. If the goal is to remove GM abuse, I think we just need to wait long enough for a GM that can introduce spiteful and vindictive complications, ruthlessly using the hard and soft moves with the fronts, to steer the players into a desired sequence of situations or consequences, all in a manner that remains consistent to the fiction. This seems like a sensible way to attempt breaking this system, if they're just taking "easy mode GM" for granted with the system.

About the fudging, most Moves pass the decisions to the players. Example being the "On a 10+, pick two options, on a 7-9 pick one...". And this tends to snowball where one move decision prompts another move and on and on. When the GM realizes, his plans for the night was sidelined altogether in lieu of whatever the players are pursuing at the moment. That's my point. For an improvisational or sandbox-inclined GM, it will run smooth and easy. For a GM fixed on his own plot though? He will be fighting the structure at every step.

Forgive me, all that typing is rather exhausting and I may have confused myself...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 12, 2023, 01:50:42 PM

Quote from: Itachi on February 12, 2023, 01:11:17 PM
It's important to remember one of the goals of the gaming culture where PbtA was borne in, was to mitigate GM fiat & railroading.

So, using mechanics to solve a player problem.  Pretty sure that's the definition of "shit design."  And also destined to create more problems than it solves...

This is literally what happened. And the retards that kept dickriding the Forge theories started making games where GMing is removed in lieu of players who don't really want to play TTRPG's to pretend they are. When in reality they're just playing a brand of complex boardgames.

There *is* a point to having a GM. That you have a shit GM, or shit players is not going to be ameliorated by any rules or mechanics.

Quote from: tenbones on February 14, 2023, 10:46:44 AMThat you have a shit GM, or shit players is not going to be ameliorated by any rules or mechanics.

Except it was? PbtA and it's progeny (Blades in the Dark included) in fact solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading, as anyone who actually played these games can attest.

Have you ever played one of these games?