I'm wondering about PbtA games, as far as the problem being too many complications as a result of the dice system.
Why not delay the complications?
What if any encounter that could also reasonably become a combat, has a sort of Tension Score, like hit points, and every time you snare a social complication, the Tension Score goes up. If that score hits it's maximum, now its time to fight, and it's not over until someone's run, captured or dead.
That is kind of how the threat clocks mechanic is supposed to work. For example, you might have a clock with 6 segments on it for a group of PCs infiltrating a compound of some sort (warlord base/megacorp/whatever).
On a 10+ nothing happens. On a 7-9 you fill in a segment On a <6 you fill in two segments.
Each segment might have an effect on the situation. Maybe segment 1 and 2 don't do anything. They are a buffer of a sort. Segment 3 might mean the guards saw something funny and are a little more keyed up. Segment 4 means they know there is an issue somewhere but don't know what it is. They are now harder to sneak around. When segment 5 gets ticked the guards know there is a problem and maybe call in reserves or activate security measures. Once segment 6 is ticked then it's shoot first and ask questions later.
Yep, that's what countdown clocks are for. You can fill segments as a consequence of failures or complications, and when it fills up something bad happens.
Also, Blades in the Dark introduced the Devil's Bargain - you succeed now but take a (harsh) complication later.
PbtA is flawed from the start, the only way to "fix" the complications problem is to remove them entirely.
7+ on 2d6 --> the move works but something else happens is a fancy way of saying "there's always complications, even on trivial activities".
Quote from: Vestragor on February 11, 2023, 04:30:55 AM
PbtA is flawed from the start, the only way to "fix" the complications problem is to remove them entirely.
7+ on 2d6 --> the move works but something else happens is a fancy way of saying "there's always complications, even on trivial activities".
I'm not much of a PbtA player, but this seems wrong, can you explain what you mean?
1. you don't roll for trivial activities
2. you don't have complications on 10+, only on 7-9
3. if you have any bonus on the roll, your chance of succeeding without complications is > 1/6
Quote from: Naburimannu on February 11, 2023, 06:10:27 AM
I'm not much of a PbtA player, but this seems wrong, can you explain what you mean?
Basic math.
7+ on 2d6, with no modifiers, means 58.3%; 10+, 16.6%. This means, roughly, that an unskilled, incompetent character will succeed in
whatever he's trying to do 6 times out of ten. Roughly four times out of ten, he'll succeed with something else happening, and one time out of six nothing else but success will happen.
This quickly escalates once bonuses are taken into account, to the point that even a simple +2 essentially means "don't bother rolling for success, simply roll to see what else happens".
And this brings us to the real heart of the matter....
Quote from: Naburimannu on February 11, 2023, 06:10:27 AM
1. you don't roll for trivial activities
Nope.
Every activity in a PbtA game is trivial, by design. The system is built from the grounds up as to make failure impossible: rolling is only meant to artificially trigger consequences. It's a masterpiece of bad modelling and even worse basic assumption.
Don't feed the troll, gentlemen.
... No, not trolling, I completely forgot about the threat clock, that's AW only and not DW.
Quote from: Vestragor on February 11, 2023, 06:47:19 AM
Quote from: Naburimannu on February 11, 2023, 06:10:27 AM
1. you don't roll for trivial activities
Nope. Every activity in a PbtA game is trivial, by design. The system is built from the grounds up as to make failure impossible: rolling is only meant to artificially trigger consequences. It's a masterpiece of bad modelling and even worse basic assumption.
That is... truly evil design.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 11, 2023, 11:19:14 AM
... No, not trolling, I completely forgot about the threat clock, that's AW only and not DW.
Oh no, I'm not referring to you.Your reasoning is sound. I'm talking about the guy who said PbtA is "flawed from the start".
About Dungeon World, I could swear it presents clocks too. But then I've played it after AW so I may have brought some baggage.
Quote from: Itachi on February 11, 2023, 11:36:06 AM
I'm talking about the guy who said PbtA is "flawed from the start".
Since when facts are trolling, dude ? Numbers don't lie, the game is designed from the ground up so that consequences will always be the predominant result of every roll.
Shit design at its finest.
Quote from: Itachi on February 11, 2023, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 11, 2023, 11:19:14 AM
... No, not trolling, I completely forgot about the threat clock, that's AW only and not DW.
Oh no, I'm not referring to you.Your reasoning is sound. I'm talking about the guy who said PbtA is "flawed from the start".
About Dungeon World, I could swear it presents clocks too. But then I've played it after AW so I may have brought some baggage.
Fair enough, sorry I've been getting the gauntlet.
Reviewing the basic moves, it's clear none of them are "trivial" in the sense of being mundane, but I think that he has a point about the successes becoming "trivial" in that they are virtually guaranteed. It's basically a Marty Stu/Mary Sue game mechanic with that consideration, with the possibility of complications giving the illusion of danger and risk. I never plugged that into a calculator using AnyDice stats until now, it's an incredible irony that you can have a +3 bonus to your rolls that would push you into range for reliable full successes, made for any of your efforts made in a bleak, apocalyptic setting where survival is never guaranteed. Complications could get less frequent as you level up, but then the entire dread of the setting is dispelled. That adventuring only makes sense if every party finds an "Eden" at the end of every campaign.
The clock is not in Dungeon World at all, I remember being intrigued by the concept when I skimmed over AW. The threat clock had been replaced in favour of a list of setting moves that I tried to organize into categories once, which is kind of how you move the action with factions out of frame.
At this point, I should grant that I have been away from roleplaying games for something like 3-5 years. I missed a lot.
Yep, PbtA is not intended for campaign play*, but for one-shots or short campaigns of a dozen or so sessions. If the PCs are reaching +3 in more than one stat it's probably time to pack it and go for the next game. The appeal of the engine is not in the math anyway, but in how the moves prompt interesting and colorful choices and situations.
*There are exceptions (like Legacy), but these usually do generational play where players rotate characters.
That really puts it all together then!
The World of Dungeons print out is way more appealing to that end, using the DW book as a sort of advanced guide if you wanted to.
It all depends as to what people get introduced to first, I suppose.
QuoteSince when facts are trolling, dude ? Numbers don't lie, the game is designed from the ground up so that consequences will always be the predominant result of every roll.
Shit design at its finest.
Yes. But actually no.
Because a) complications being dominant result is FEATURE not a BUG. This is game where rolls have first and foremost dramatic not simulating meaning.
It's not meant to lead to powergaming - it's meant to lead to SPIRAL of more and more consequences generating more and more plot twists.
QuoteNope. Every activity in a PbtA game is trivial, by design. The system is built from the grounds up as to make failure impossible: rolling is only meant to artificially trigger consequences. It's a masterpiece of bad modelling and even worse basic assumption.
I played BITD that shared generally same design - and failure in action was very much possibility.
I mean it's not that rare to roll under 7 with 2d6, or to roll under 4 on 1d6 roll.
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 (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?
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 11:41:41 AM
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?
Press X to doubt
Imagine actually believing this propaganda...
Quote from: Brad on February 14, 2023, 11:44:07 AM
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 11:41:41 AM
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?
Press X to doubt
Imagine actually believing this propaganda...
Have you ever read or played any of the games being talked about here, like, Blades in the Dark or some PbtA like Monsterhearts?
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 11:57:54 AM
Have you ever read or played any of the games being talked about here, like, Blades in the Dark or some PbtA like Monsterhearts?
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
Dude, no fucking game mechanics in the known universe can stop a bad GM. The problem is solved by finding someone else to run the game.
So, you don't even know the games in question and is taking conclusions about them.
Do you realize that's the definition of ignorance? Or in plain english, 'talking out of your ass'?
Why is multiclassing a "move"?
Quote from: Brad on February 14, 2023, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 11:57:54 AM
Have you ever read or played any of the games being talked about here, like, Blades in the Dark or some PbtA like Monsterhearts?
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
Dude, no fucking game mechanics in the known universe can stop a bad GM. The problem is solved by finding someone else to run the game.
So is that a "no" then?
No game anywhere will stop a GM who will knowingly or maliciously do shitty things. What the PbtA games do accomplish is stopping GMs (especially those new to GMing) casually or accidentally falling into those bad behaviors.
Quote from: rgalex on February 14, 2023, 12:18:25 PMSo is that a "no" then?
No game anywhere will stop a GM who will knowingly or maliciously do shitty things. What the PbtA games do accomplish is stopping GMs (especially those new to GMing) casually or accidentally falling into those bad behaviors.
Fair assessment.
I would complement by saying that PbtA rules will still
impose difficulties on a GM maliciously trying to railroad players into pre-written plots.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 14, 2023, 12:16:40 PM
Why is multiclassing a "move"?
I'm guessing you are talking about Dungeon World. It isn't a move. Multiclass Moves are a description of an ability you get from another class when you multiclass. If you are a wizard and you learn a fighter move, that fighter move is a multiclass move. Being a multiclass move you are considered 1 level lower when using it.
Which is why it is classified as a move under the leveling up moves section.
Quote from: rgalex on February 14, 2023, 12:18:25 PM
So is that a "no" then?
No game anywhere will stop a GM who will knowingly or maliciously do shitty things. What the PbtA games do accomplish is stopping GMs (especially those new to GMing) casually or accidentally falling into those bad behaviors.
Because we've always had driverless cars.
Another PbtA that's easy to grok is Monster of the Week.
(Just saying because you seem genuinelly curious about the engine, and I find Dungeon World's text somewhat bloated and confusing in parts)
I always thought Monster of the Week was more of a supplement than a system?
Edit:
In all fairness, PbtA has now given me the kind of taste in my mouth of peanut butter with chocolate, and they lean harder away from RPGs than presented. I'll need to really drill down on them on my own time before I know more beyond an overview.
I'm unimpressed with PbtA because it looks to my (admittedly inexperienced eye) like a shotgun marriage between the Lone Wolf RPG book series and the Amber diceless system.
Plus, the probability curve strikes me as weird. On a 2d6, seven is the most common result, which means unless your dice luck is dogshit bad you're probably going to succeed most of the time with a decent bonus.
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 11:41:41 AM
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?
I do own Blades in the Dark. Never ran it for very specific reasons. It's too far removed from the actual game. Since I GM most of the time, anyone that has a problem with "GM fiat" *and* wants to play using mechanics like Blades in the Dark (and PbtA by extension) is telling me they don't want to play the kinds of games I run. Inversely - I am not a player of such games because I actually want to do things Blades in the Dark uses it's mechanics to gloss over. I want to plan and execute my daring heists and dastardly shit by actually playing it out.
Metamechanics have their time and place - but an entire game made out of them is a different brand of game than I care about. GM's are a *feature* not a problem. Of course this requires that you find a good one, or you skill up and become one.
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 12:13:35 PM
So, you don't even know the games in question and is taking conclusions about them.
Do you realize that's the definition of ignorance? Or in plain english, 'talking out of your ass'?
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
SOLVED THE PROBLEM
IT'S SOLVED! DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE!
Is English so hard for you fucktards to grasp? This statement is ludicrous on its face. My God...
Quote from: rgalex on February 14, 2023, 12:18:25 PM
So is that a "no" then?
No game anywhere will stop a GM who will knowingly or maliciously do shitty things. What the PbtA games do accomplish is stopping GMs (especially those new to GMing) casually or accidentally falling into those bad behaviors.
Again, NO GAME MECHANICS CAN STOP A BAD GM. You can say something like, "These mechanics encourage a style of play that keeps GMs from engaging in certain behaviors that could lead to railroading et al", but they don't STOP or SOLVE anything.
You dumbfuck storygamers want to make these overarching, blanket statements. The End. Like there's no argument whatsoever and you're just a retard for daring to question the superiority of that garbage. It's astounding. Zero evidence, just "Have you played this before? LOL QED I AM RIGHT." No. I even said I tried to play Dungeon World and it sucked. So therefore my evidence is that it sucks. What is the evidence these problems are SOLVED? Besides just saying so? I want actual fucking facts, not "The page here says X." Show me how X in any fucking possible way mitigates jackass GMing.
Sorry troll, you're going into ignore.
If anybody else wants to continue the discussion, I'll be around.
Adam Koebel was canceled over a fairly infamous robot scene. PbtA games solving GM railroading sort of falls apart before it gets off the ground.
I played AW. In addition to a GM railroading, all of the players can too. There is nothing that prevents it.
PbtA is susceptible to bad roleplaying or railroading just like any other system.
Seems like this is wearing into story gamming vs roleplaying territory. To be generous, the problem of bad GM fiat and railroading was solved through fiat and plot by committee when the problem was the bad GM, not GM fiat or having a structured plot. Now discovering that there is a traitor among you is bad thing because there was not traitor there whatsoever until the complication generated, as opposed to a proper game were discovering the presence of a traitor is a good thing because you can now take care of the problem. Shaggy dog storytelling by committee solves the problem of a good game ruined by a bad GM by replacing it with a poor game to be run or ruined by said committee.
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 06:16:07 PM
Sorry troll, you're going into ignore.
If anybody else wants to continue the discussion, I'll be around.
Troll: someone who asks for a DIRECT, SPECIFIC example about a ridiculous blanket statement. Fuck off, storyfag.
I'll reiterate: Dungeon World is obtuse and incoherent in general, and my singular experience with it was not fun. I guess I am "doing it wrong" because I think it sucks? "You're not eating this shit sandwich correctly. You only THINK it tastes bad, but that's because you're not enlightened enough to comprehend the smorgasbord of flavors!"
Quote from: Brad on February 15, 2023, 10:23:27 AM
Quote from: Itachi on February 14, 2023, 06:16:07 PM
Sorry troll, you're going into ignore.
If anybody else wants to continue the discussion, I'll be around.
Troll: someone who asks for a DIRECT, SPECIFIC example about a ridiculous blanket statement. Fuck off, storyfag.
I'll reiterate: Dungeon World is obtuse and incoherent in general, and my singular experience with it was not fun. I guess I am "doing it wrong" because I think it sucks? "You're not eating this shit sandwich correctly. You only THINK it tastes bad, but that's because you're not enlightened enough to comprehend the smorgasbord of flavors!"
Christ man. You are the one who barged in here like AW fucked your mom and huffing your own farts trying to prove a point. I mean, I get it. It's kinda your thing around here but fuck dude. Your shtick is getting old. Maybe go find a new one.
PbtA itself isn't the be-all/end-all of gaming. It's not the next holy messiah that's going to win everyone over. It does appeal to a lot of people though, hence why it stuck around and has spread. You don't like it, fine. Don't play it. But don't fucking come in here spouting "storyfag" and claiming people who do like it are some kind of holier than thou elitist who are oppressing you poor lowly shepherds of true gaming.
Now, to the points at hand, yes words mean things and "solved the problem" was said. But you know what, you can solve something without being 100%. Like you said, it can't stop someone hell bent on doing it wrong, but if it stops 6, 7, 8 out of 10 people... seems like a pretty good solution to me.
You want an example, fine. I've got this guy in my gaming group, he's a good player but a horrible GM. Every time he has tried to run D&D for us it's like riding a train through Ohio and we are desperately trying to derail it. We've played a few AW games and DW games over the years. He liked DW enough that he wanted to try his hand at running it the next time we played. DW made him a fucking savant GM! He was literally glowing with a holy light while he ran it. That was the best game I've ever played and my life is fucking complete. Oh, no wait, he ran a halfway decent game and the few times he tried to lay down some tracks he caught himself because of the rules. We had fun and he learned to loosen up a bit.
Now, I will agree that DW is pretty bad when it comes to presentation. If it's your first time reading a PbtA game, there is a good chance you are not going to get it on the first read. I think that's a result of being one of the 1st, if not the 1st, to use the rules outside of AW. They just didn't do a great job.
Here is a thread talking about PbtA for people who wants to know more..
https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-do-you-think-about-powered-by-the-apocalypse-games.687210/
Quote from: rgalex on February 15, 2023, 12:34:16 PM
Christ man. You are the one who barged in here like AW fucked your mom and huffing your own farts trying to prove a point. I mean, I get it. It's kinda your thing around here but fuck dude. Your shtick is getting old. Maybe go find a new one.
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
He said that flat out. No evidence, just a matter of fact. Provides no evidence to the claim. None. Am I supposed to take this shit seriously? I don't, so any semblance of "you sound mad" is just furious typing. It in no way reflects how much I actually care about this nonsense beyond trying to get some storygamer fucks to admit they are full of shit. Play Dungeon World all you want, I literally do not care, but stop claiming it is a magical panacea that solves all the world's problems, cures cancer, and turns horse piss into top shelf whiskey. The only schtick getting old is the same old song and dance of this ludicrous line of reasoning that, somehow, traditional RPGs are pure trash because the GM runs the game. I am sick of that stupidity to the point that any time someone proposes such a ridiculous notion I think the appropriate response is to reply in kind and call them a fucking loser.
QuoteNow, to the points at hand, yes words mean things and "solved the problem" was said. But you know what, you can solve something without being 100%. Like you said, it can't stop someone hell bent on doing it wrong, but if it stops 6, 7, 8 out of 10 people... seems like a pretty good solution to me.
"solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading"
There is no nuance there. It isn't, "It helps with some issues people have with certain GMs...", it literally says solves. And I do not think it's stopping ANYONE from being a bad GM whatsoever because 1) they can just be bad anyway, and 2) at a certain point you're no longer running the game anyway so is it really a GM?
QuoteNow, I will agree that DW is pretty bad when it comes to presentation. If it's your first time reading a PbtA game, there is a good chance you are not going to get it on the first read. I think that's a result of being one of the 1st, if not the 1st, to use the rules outside of AW. They just didn't do a great job.
Then why is it passed off as the end-all-be-all of gaming all the time? It's garbage. The fact I was told to read a document almost the same size as the rulebook to "get it" is enough to know it sucks. Sorry, not sorry. Fuck storygames and fuck Dungeon World.
Quote from: Itachi on February 15, 2023, 01:14:33 PM
Here is a thread talking about PbtA for people who wants to know more..
https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-do-you-think-about-powered-by-the-apocalypse-games.687210/
It's really just suck all the way down
Lol what. XD
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 15, 2023, 01:30:32 PM
It's really just suck all the way down
QuoteThey are one of the few games you can play " wrong".
Needs lots player buy-in and being comfortable with opposing player agendas.
Players need to be happy with some agency loss on occasion.
Certainly certificate 15+ in most experiences I've seen.
No dice roll is wasted or unneccesary.
"agency loss"
Have fun wanking each other off, I guess.
There's an ancient Chinese fable about a guy who gets a new horse, and the chain of events ends with his son not being drafted in the army because his son broke his leg from falling off that horse during a ride. At each stage of this fable, the father stoically questions whether or not the circumstances were fortunate. This father has agency over the chain of events, rather than letting those events dictate his framing.
What would you count as fortunate or unfortunate during a session?
For example: You miss an attack in combat...
PbtA: This final boss encounter just got even more epically complicated than the other times you missed!
BitD: You're going to have to figure out how your trauma has affected your ability to cope with all of this and drop out from the heist!
Fiasco: Let's sort dice into little piles and be arbitrarily cruel to select members of our little make-believe town of Sims, since there's no consequences!
AD&D: Swing again. Or run, fuck it. You can regroup and try again, or not, totally optional. That other set of ruins looks more interesting anyway.
If all the world's a stage, and each person is a story unto himself, you wouldn't want to live by narrative rules that intentionally piled up complications, or rewarded you for recalling past traumas, or outright failing an attempt as the only means to grow as a character, with every little thing that you do.
Would you transport yourself into the story of:
Harry Potter? Yay!
Lord of the Rings? Yay!
Game of Thrones? Nah I'm good...
Personally, I'd like to chill with based ancient Chinese father way more than... do whatever the fuck storygames are supposed to do, as the drama you put into your framing is the entire driver of those "games" altogether. No thanks. You actually get more agency from the fact that none of that shit is hard-coded into the AD&D system itself.
Quote from: Brad on February 15, 2023, 04:00:08 PM
"agency loss"
Have fun wanking each other off, I guess.
He's got that covered for himself, I'm out.
Edit: I just read that more carefully. Hell of a monkey wrench there.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 15, 2023, 04:55:55 PMPersonally, I'd like to chill with based ancient Chinese father way more than... do whatever the fuck storygames are supposed to do, as the drama you put into your framing is the entire driver of those "games" altogether. No thanks. You actually get more agency from the fact that none of that shit is hard-coded into the AD&D system itself.
Yep, and that's fine. Apples and oranges and all that. At least you seemed to give a honest chance to it and formed a founded opinion. Instead of, you know pulling shit out of your ass to justify some hate like other people do.
Great, I'll take +1 ongoing to Hard Pass.
Haha nice. ;D
PbtA isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd comment on success rate and risk.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 11, 2023, 12:14:03 PM
Reviewing the basic moves, it's clear none of them are "trivial" in the sense of being mundane, but I think that he has a point about the successes becoming "trivial" in that they are virtually guaranteed. It's basically a Marty Stu/Mary Sue game mechanic with that consideration, with the possibility of complications giving the illusion of danger and risk. I never plugged that into a calculator using AnyDice stats until now, it's an incredible irony that you can have a +3 bonus to your rolls that would push you into range for reliable full successes, made for any of your efforts made in a bleak, apocalyptic setting where survival is never guaranteed. Complications could get less frequent as you level up, but then the entire dread of the setting is dispelled.
My most common PbtA game is Monster of the Week (MotW), which is semi-horror. I'm not sure which games you've played, but as I've played and run it, the risk is quite real. As I've GMed it, it's one of the most punishing games that I run. MotW evens that out by having luck points, but the point is that players need those.
In traditional RPGs, a failed player roll means nothing happens. In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell" (for "Act Under Pressure" in MotW) or similar. That makes the risk of a roll very real. If the GM doesn't follow through with that, then it can be lame - but that's true for any game. If the GM goes easy then it isn't threatening.
For me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell"
Breaking news ! PbtA invented critical failures !
Another fine example of shit design and barely understood modeling principles: you can either succeed (10+), succeed with something random happening (7+) or fail horribly. Whoever came up with something so fucked up and illogical was clearly smoking something
very good, and I want some.
Quote from: Itachi on February 15, 2023, 05:11:59 PM
Yep, and that's fine. Apples and oranges and all that. At least you seemed to give a honest chance to it and formed a founded opinion. Instead of, you know pulling shit out of your ass to justify some hate like other people do.
And still this bs continues. Actually trying to play the game doesn't count as an "honest chance" because if you arrive at the conclusion is sucks, you are clearly playing it wrong.
QuoteThey are one of the few games you can play " wrong".
I wish this was a parody, but it's not. The crackpipe of Dungeon World and similar games is very appealing to the right kind of weak-minded individual, I suppose.
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AMFor me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.
I agree. If the GM doesn't go hard on players on 6-/failures the game fizzles. I had some difficulties with this myself at first, seeing as I'm a historically "goodie" GM.
Quote from: Vestragor on February 16, 2023, 02:30:08 AM
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell"
Breaking news ! PbtA invented critical failures !
Another fine example of shit design and barely understood modeling principles: you can either succeed (10+), succeed with something random happening (7+) or fail horribly. Whoever came up with something so fucked up and illogical was clearly smoking something very good, and I want some.
That's close, but a roll in PbtA isn't just PC action. It's also rolling for enemy action and/or random encounters. So a failure isn't necessarily the PC doing poorly at the task. Since the GM never rolls, this folds together a GM roll and a player roll.
To take an example, consider traditional combat. In a traditional RPG, there are four typical results of a combat round:
1) Enemy misses, PC misses. i.e. "double-whiff"
2) Enemy hits, PC misses.
3) Enemy hits, PC hits.
4) Enemy misses, PC hits.
In PbtA, #1 never happens. The same sort of thing will happen in the fiction, but in game mechanics, we skip over that part, because it is of no consequence. Instead, the roll decides among results #2 to #4, and the GM might describe "The combatants circle first as they try each other out, then move in for real." - representing the same thing as double-whiffs.
Similarly, if the PCs are trying to sneak into the fortress. In a traditional RPG, the GM might roll multiple times on the random encounter table for patrols every ten minutes to see if the PCs encounter anything. Then they'd roll for the patrol perception skill and the players would roll on their stealth skill. Eventually, the PCs get in without being detected, or they'd be spotted and confronted, or perhaps they have a choice.
This would be just one roll in PbtA.
Note that the players rolling 6- doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs did poorly in attempting stealth. It could be that they got unlucky with patrols and the patrols did particularly well with their perception.
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
PbtA isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd comment on success rate and risk.
In traditional RPGs, a failed player roll means nothing happens. In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell" (for "Act Under Pressure" in MotW) or similar. That makes the risk of a roll very real. If the GM doesn't follow through with that, then it can be lame - but that's true for any game. If the GM goes easy then it isn't threatening.
For me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.
Rather in D&D, where the player is in complete control of all those circumstances by just allowing him to decide how to react to successes and failures. In PbtA, the system tells you that there has to be a reaction that is always more than "nothing." The need to have the system enforce the story on the PC's, and the PC's over the GM, actually limits PC agency to continue the session. You're not thinking tactically anymore, you're thinking conveniently. You don't really learn anything.
So there's no real reason to layer degrees of success and failure on the dice rolls. In D&D, if you hit, you can immediately pivot into an intimidation check against a nearby opponent, if you want. If you miss, you can just roleplay your character becoming so shocked that he trips on something, falling right prone. Not that you'd really want to do that, but that's the advantage of having a plain pass/fail mechanism. The action is in your hands because it's not restricted to the game rules. And once you've noticed that there are no moves for "retreat" or "ambush" it's clear that the PbtA system is only ever good at railroading its players towards the great climax that they wanted anyway.
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: Vestragor on February 16, 2023, 02:30:08 AM
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell"
Breaking news ! PbtA invented critical failures !
Another fine example of shit design and barely understood modeling principles: you can either succeed (10+), succeed with something random happening (7+) or fail horribly. Whoever came up with something so fucked up and illogical was clearly smoking something very good, and I want some.
That's close, but a roll in PbtA isn't just PC action. It's also rolling for enemy action and/or random encounters. So a failure isn't necessarily the PC doing poorly at the task. Since the GM never rolls, this folds together a GM roll and a player roll.
To take an example, consider traditional combat. In a traditional RPG, there are four typical results of a combat round:
1) Enemy misses, PC misses. i.e. "double-whiff"
2) Enemy hits, PC misses.
3) Enemy hits, PC hits.
4) Enemy misses, PC hits.
In PbtA, #1 never happens. The same sort of thing will happen in the fiction, but in game mechanics, we skip over that part, because it is of no consequence. Instead, the roll decides among results #2 to #4, and the GM might describe "The combatants circle first as they try each other out, then move in for real." - representing the same thing as double-whiffs.
Similarly, if the PCs are trying to sneak into the fortress. In a traditional RPG, the GM might roll multiple times on the random encounter table for patrols every ten minutes to see if the PCs encounter anything. Then they'd roll for the patrol perception skill and the players would roll on their stealth skill. Eventually, the PCs get in without being detected, or they'd be spotted and confronted, or perhaps they have a choice.
This would be just one roll in PbtA.
Note that the players rolling 6- doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs did poorly in attempting stealth. It could be that they got unlucky with patrols and the patrols did particularly well with their perception.
The fact that you can't have #1 in PbtA is is something that's not really helping your case. When two fighters miss each other in D&D, there's an opening for them both to laugh it off, and a parlay can begin. There's no room for de-escalation otherwise in PbtA unless you've put the enemy into a spotlight of humiliation by hitting him first, or getting hit and begging for mercy. Otherwise, there's no chance to assess your enemy's strengths by failing to meet the target AC.
Also, if it's not insane to pre-roll initiative orders before the D&D session starts, it's not insane to pre-roll the routine of the fortress patrols if you can estimate the number of rounds it takes for the PCs to scale the walls. This winds up being a strawman for GM's that haven't realized that they haven't prepped enough. The spot checks are something you can do once the PCs have poked their heads above the walls and started moving through the hallways.
There's more tension built up by expanding on this problem solving process with one-off checks that help the player reassess his progress. And, the next time you scale a different set of walls, the scenario is entirely different, and you can use different tactics to accomplish this similar situation in a new place, and you'll never be guaranteed the same outcome in every instance of bypassing patrols. This has a metagame effect of sharpening the player's wits to better play his characters. Putting that entire process of sneaking into a fortress onto a single die roll is akin to presenting a logical puzzle in-game but letting the players roll with character skills to solve it, like a button masher in a SF/MK game.
If the guards did well with their perception, the PCs didn't do well-enough with their stealth. That's the pass-fail paradigm folded into opposing rolls already doing exactly what you're hoping to do.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
PbtA isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd comment on success rate and risk.
In traditional RPGs, a failed player roll means nothing happens. In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell" (for "Act Under Pressure" in MotW) or similar. That makes the risk of a roll very real. If the GM doesn't follow through with that, then it can be lame - but that's true for any game. If the GM goes easy then it isn't threatening.
For me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.
Rather in D&D, where the player is in complete control of all those circumstances by just allowing him to decide how to react to successes and failures. In PbtA, the system tells you that there has to be a reaction that is always more than "nothing." The need to have the system enforce the story on the PC's, and the PC's over the GM, actually limits PC agency to continue the session. You're not thinking tactically anymore, you're thinking conveniently. You don't really learn anything.
I'm confused by the shift of topic. From what I understood previously, you were saying that PbtA enabled Marty Stus with only an illusion of risk. Do you still think that? I can't tell what you're saying about risk.
In general, it seems like you're trying to bash PbtA. My point wasn't to advocate for it, but to explain the difference in approach. I enjoy traditional RPGs, and they're the most common sort of RPGs I run. I'm GMing a D&D campaign currently. Still, I also enjoy PbtA from time to time. If you don't like it, that's fine - but we can at least discuss specifics of how it runs, even if our tastes differ.
As far as player agency, I'm not sure how far we disagree. I would agree that PbtA has more granularity than D&D, so it is less tactical. There are fewer rounds and rolls in a typical combat, and thus fewer choices. However, combat also resolves faster, so players can go on to make other choices. In wargames, this is the spectrum of tactical vs strategic. I don't think there's a right choice here - there are pros and cons of each. As you put it,
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 11:09:28 AM
That's close, but a roll in PbtA isn't just PC action. It's also rolling for enemy action and/or random encounters. So a failure isn't necessarily the PC doing poorly at the task. Since the GM never rolls, this folds together a GM roll and a player roll.
The fact that you can't have #1 in PbtA is is something that's not really helping your case. When two fighters miss each other in D&D, there's an opening for them both to laugh it off, and a parlay can begin. There's no room for de-escalation otherwise in PbtA unless you've put the enemy into a spotlight of humiliation by hitting him first, or getting hit and begging for mercy. Otherwise, there's no chance to assess your enemy's strengths by failing to meet the target AC.
Right. There are fewer decision points in PbtA since there are fewer rolls in a combat. In D&D, you might have a round at the start where nothing happens -- leaving more time to change moment to moment. There's less of that in PbtA. Among more traditional RPGs, it has parallels to Tunnels & Trolls, which has a more abstracted and fast-resolving combat.
On the other hand, there are some systems like GURPS that are more granular than D&D. In GURPS, you make new decisions every second -- as opposed to six seconds in D&D. In D&D, you can rush forward and attack in the same turn. In a system like Phoenix Command, there are decisions at smaller than a second.
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 06:54:12 PM
On the other hand, there are some systems like GURPS that are more granular than D&D. In GURPS, you make new decisions every second -- as opposed to six seconds in D&D. In D&D, you can rush forward and attack in the same turn. In a system like Phoenix Command, there are decisions at smaller than a second.
Wait, have you actually seen somebody playing Phoenix Command? :o I have never met anyone with enough of a maths brain to go through a section of PC combat and not get lost midway... :-\
Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 06:54:12 PM
I'm confused by the shift of topic. From what I understood previously, you were saying that PbtA enabled Marty Stus with only an illusion of risk. Do you still think that? I can't tell what you're saying about risk.
In general, it seems like you're trying to bash PbtA. My point wasn't to advocate for it, but to explain the difference in approach. I enjoy traditional RPGs, and they're the most common sort of RPGs I run. I'm GMing a D&D campaign currently. Still, I also enjoy PbtA from time to time. If you don't like it, that's fine - but we can at least discuss specifics of how it runs, even if our tastes differ.
Fair, I won't accuse you of trying to push it on anyone yourself. My bashing it at all would have to be the result of the license taken with "subjective taste," and now any D&D-style games get unduly bashed from the from the other side. I don't think that any storygamers are really confident that they could handle what they criticize. They just lean on a prepackaged style of play, and they've gotten smug about the brevity of these rules, mistaking that for any depth of character, game, story, or world.
Quote
As far as player agency, I'm not sure how far we disagree. I would agree that PbtA has more granularity than D&D, so it is less tactical. There are fewer rounds and rolls in a typical combat, and thus fewer choices. However, combat also resolves faster, so players can go on to make other choices. In wargames, this is the spectrum of tactical vs strategic. I don't think there's a right choice here - there are pros and cons of each. As you put it,
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM
The fact that you can't have #1 in PbtA is is something that's not really helping your case. When two fighters miss each other in D&D, there's an opening for them both to laugh it off, and a parlay can begin. There's no room for de-escalation otherwise in PbtA unless you've put the enemy into a spotlight of humiliation by hitting him first, or getting hit and begging for mercy. Otherwise, there's no chance to assess your enemy's strengths by failing to meet the target AC.
Right. There are fewer decision points in PbtA since there are fewer rolls in a combat. In D&D, you might have a round at the start where nothing happens -- leaving more time to change moment to moment. There's less of that in PbtA. Among more traditional RPGs, it has parallels to Tunnels & Trolls, which has a more abstracted and fast-resolving combat.
On the other hand, there are some systems like GURPS that are more granular than D&D. In GURPS, you make new decisions every second -- as opposed to six seconds in D&D. In D&D, you can rush forward and attack in the same turn. In a system like Phoenix Command, there are decisions at smaller than a second.
Again, this doesn't address my concern, and GURPS is a higher granularity of pacing, totally different from PbtA's granularity of framing and complications. A newbie player in old school D&Ds can make choices from a limited pool with what he is most immediately familiar, but he draws those choices from what has been described about the environment around his character. He comes up with them himself, and this pool grows over time as a player, and the lack of attachment to granularity provides that freedom within the game. But these storygamers will never confront this reality, because the battle lines have already been drawn as far as they care. I'm not really confident that I'm getting anywhere with you in this discussion as it is.
Quote from: ClusterFlusterFair, I won't accuse you of trying to push it on anyone yourself. My bashing it at all would have to be the result of the license taken with "subjective taste," and now any D&D-style games get unduly bashed from the from the other side. I don't think that any storygamers are really confident that they could handle what they criticize.
This statement sounds weird to me because, again, I don't see any players bashing D&D in the circles I meander. On the contrary, the groups I know or participate play all kinds of games, from D&D to storygames to boardgames to videogames, and while we have our own preferences ("John dislikes Blades, Tina dislikes 3E D&D and Mike dislikes Overwatch") we never take that as judgements of value about those games, same way we would never say horror movies are objectively inferior to action movies, or karate is objectivelly inferior to jiujitsu. We understand these games differ in form and style and that's it, some people will prefer one or the other and fun will be had when tastes meet.
Quote from: Itachi on February 17, 2023, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: ClusterFlusterFair, I won't accuse you of trying to push it on anyone yourself. My bashing it at all would have to be the result of the license taken with "subjective taste," and now any D&D-style games get unduly bashed from the from the other side. I don't think that any storygamers are really confident that they could handle what they criticize.
This statement sounds weird to me because, again, I don't see any players bashing D&D in the circles I meander. On the contrary, the groups I know or participate play all kinds of games, from D&D to storygames to boardgames to videogames, and while we have our own preferences ("John dislikes Blades, Tina dislikes 3E D&D and Mike dislikes Overwatch") we never take that as judgements of value about those games, same way we would never say horror movies are objectively inferior to action movies, or karate is objectivelly inferior to jiujitsu. We understand these games differ in form and style and that's it, some people will prefer one or the other and fun will be had when tastes meet.
I've talked to a number of One-True-Way-ist storygamers, who disparage all traditional RPGs. Then again, I've been gaming since long before The Forge and the story games crowd. In discussions back in the 1990s, I also encountered many One-True-Way-ists who would disparage D&D in favor of their preferred game. These days, you can just play the wrong edition of D&D and you can get disparaged for playing D&D the wrong way.
Still, I think most gamers are happy to try a different game and even if they don't like it, they just accept that it's not their cup of tea.
To ClusterFluster,
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 10:45:13 PM
A newbie player in old school D&Ds can make choices from a limited pool with what he is most immediately familiar, but he draws those choices from what has been described about the environment around his character. He comes up with them himself, and this pool grows over time as a player, and the lack of attachment to granularity provides that freedom within the game. But these storygamers will never confront this reality, because the battle lines have already been drawn as far as they care. I'm not really confident that I'm getting anywhere with you in this discussion as it is.
OK. It's your thread. What are you looking for? From the original post, I thought you were interested in discussion about how to play PbtA. Do you still want discussion of complications and handling rolls from people who play PbtA?
Not anymore, at this point I'm just going to drop it.
I've played PbtA and Dungeon World and consider the systems to be hot garbage, specifically from how much they lean into putting too much into the hands of GM fiat. Given that 7-9, the largest probability chunk of a 2d6 roll, boils down to 'tee hee the GM makes something up about how you didn't really succeed', even what should be an extremely competent character with a +2 modifier has a high likelihood of getting that result on any check: in fact +2 has the same probability of that result, there's just diminished probability of outright failure and increased probability of outright success.
Mind, I don't consider 'success with a setback' or 'failure with an advantage' to be inherently bad. Arguably my favorite system is Genesys, which has both of those outcomes. The difference is that the system is not tilted in a way to make those outcomes the most likely outcome of any check regardless of other modifiers. If something goes awry, it should have gone awry for a better reason than the game having stacked the deck for that to happen.
Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM
And once you've noticed that there are no moves for "retreat" or "ambush" it's clear that the PbtA system is only ever good at railroading its players towards the great climax that they wanted anyway.
Both of those would fall under Defy Danger.
...or Act under Fire, in AW.
QuoteExcept 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.
I played and I'm gonna deeply disagree. While sure railroading is against rules (though it was always faux paus even in trad games), and storygame RPGs are understandable reaction to all abominable trends of 90's and early 2000's that people her kinda ignore. However GM fiat is... very strong in those. Establishing risk and results for instance and applying them to descriptive not numerative PC's competences hang mostly on GM bias. Way more than in games when you have specific skills and specific difficulty levels for specific tasks IMHO. (Not to mention deciding what those limited or enhanced results even will be - that's all on GM. Massive responsibility.)
I'd say advantage of SG is that they force GM to constantly improvise and no rely on prep so they train specifically this muscle - but this improvisation in classic PBTA/FITD game hangs heavily on GM's fiat.
And I generally agree with others skepticism in terms of railroading - GM who wanna railroad will just ignore those rules that forbid him to do it, and houserule to do his own shit.
Just like they always did. However of course how game present rules have influence over people learning them - so while 90s - 2000s very linear adventure design trend common in many popular system was promoting railroading, well this may discourage it. (I mean it could - but what I see of 5e those fuckers are really into rails and narrative bits from cheapest drama, and 5e eats all SG movement in one bite). Which means people was not wrong to kinda mock your SOLVED assesement - it was way to strong.
QuoteAdam Koebel was canceled over a fairly infamous robot scene. PbtA games solving GM railroading sort of falls apart before it gets off the ground.
Now however Far Verona campaign as I checked was run on Stars Without Numbers not PBTA. SO IT'S OSR FAULT! ;)
QuoteI've played PbtA and Dungeon World and consider the systems to be hot garbage, specifically from how much they lean into putting too much into the hands of GM fiat. Given that 7-9, the largest probability chunk of a 2d6 roll, boils down to 'tee hee the GM makes something up about how you didn't really succeed', even what should be an extremely competent character with a +2 modifier has a high likelihood of getting that result on any check: in fact +2 has the same probability of that result, there's just diminished probability of outright failure and increased probability of outright success.
Mind, I don't consider 'success with a setback' or 'failure with an advantage' to be inherently bad. Arguably my favorite system is Genesys, which has both of those outcomes. The difference is that the system is not tilted in a way to make those outcomes the most likely outcome of any check regardless of other modifiers. If something goes awry, it should have gone awry for a better reason than the game having stacked the deck for that to happen.
I'd say in this way GM is kinda breaking contract of game. Because 7-9 definitely means you succeeded in declared action.
Consequence that negates success is kinda against the rules.
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 19, 2023, 06:15:12 PMAnd I generally agree with others skepticism in terms of railroading - GM who wanna railroad will just ignore those rules that forbid him to do it, and houserule to do his own shit.
Just like they always did.
For real? I'm skeptical about such a thing really happening.
See, in the case of PbtA, just like the storygaming culture where it emerged, the rules can't be ignored as the book(s) makes it clear they're not GM advice, but explicit rules. So any player who knows this fact - and "don't prep plots" and "play to find" and agenda & principles - is eligible to call bullshit on a GM going against them.
I suspect that being invited to play PbtA and then see the GM railroading the group through a pre-written narrative would feel considerably awkward, and as out of place as being invited to play OD&D and finding a diceless cosplay LARPing session. Expect discrete WTF looks between players and probably some excuse to go home early. The only scenario I could see that working would be with a group of people who don't know PbtA yet (or OD&D).
QuoteSee, in the case of PbtA, just like the storygaming culture where it emerged, the rules can't be ignored as the book(s) makes it clear they're not GM advice, but explicit rules. So any player who knows this fact - and "don't prep plots" and "play to find" and agenda & principles - is eligible to call bullshit on a GM going against them.
Yeah but this will work only on newbie groups who started with storygame RPGs and whole dropping golden rule schtick. Problem is - biggest RPG is still DnD, and 5e promotes golden rule like no DnD before to mask serious lacking procedures for GMs.
And still GM has massive power over fiction by implementing consequences of SwC and fails. And defining position and effect.
Not to mention - what actually I forced my GM to do - most of players will be kinda reactive, and wanting specific situation not vague find out bullshit.
QuoteI suspect that being invited to play PbtA and then see the GM railroading the group through a pre-written narrative would feel considerably awkward, and as out of place as being invited to play OD&D and finding a diceless cosplay LARPing session. Expect discrete WTF looks between players and probably some excuse to go home early. The only scenario I could see that working would be with a group of people who don't know PbtA yet (or OD&D).
Or you know people playing whatever team/DM wants because it's their group.
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 20, 2023, 05:34:59 PM
QuoteSee, in the case of PbtA, just like the storygaming culture where it emerged, the rules can't be ignored as the book(s) makes it clear they're not GM advice, but explicit rules. So any player who knows this fact - and "don't prep plots" and "play to find" and agenda & principles - is eligible to call bullshit on a GM going against them.
Yeah but this will work only on newbie groups who started with storygame RPGs and whole dropping golden rule schtick. Problem is - biggest RPG is still DnD, and 5e promotes golden rule like no DnD before to mask serious lacking procedures for GMs.
The two groups I play with nowadays never heard of storygames for a long time into their roleplaying lives, and still play them by the rules. So I would say this is a group thing, where groups who approach new games with their cup full of other games baggage will probably ignore it, while groups that actually read each game texts in isolation and try to follow their instructions will do things differently.
QuoteAnd still GM has massive power over fiction by implementing consequences of SwC and fails. And defining position and effect.
Not to mention - what actually I forced my GM to do - most of players will be kinda reactive, and wanting specific situation not vague find out bullshit.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. You forced your GM to be reactive? What is "vague find out bullshit"?
My biggest issue with PbtA and Genesys is the dice forcing the narrative often feels... forced. Sort of the game dictating "get creative" on the whim of dice, rather than when you're feeling creative. Fate Core using a meta-currency or actions(create advantage), seems to me to work better in that you can pick and choose when you want to get creative. With the exception that as Fate got more popular it really began feel like a religion of "narrative first" began to take control away from a player going "I want to create advantage to rack up a +2, let's say I feint with my sword to Create an Opening, let's roll to see if it happens/I get a free tag on it". That became "wrong" and you needed to "narrate" what you did, then pick the action that matched it. >:(
Other games, like Cypher, also share and solve the problem. You frequently see GMs grasp at straws to explain a nat 1 on d20 "intrusion", often times just giving up and ignoring a nat 1, while choice intrusions of giving the players an XP for popping one in when the GM sees a natural opening(the women you were hitting on in the bar is the mayor's wife! here's an XP) flows much more naturally at tables.
I like the idea of Dungeon World trying to create a randomized story with unpredictability, but I mostly feel like older D&D with its encounter rolls, surprise rolls, reaction rolls and morale rolls did it better. And it's a shame that those concepts have been mostly abandoned by modern RPG design.
Quote from: Dracones on February 22, 2023, 03:28:52 PM
My biggest issue with PbtA and Genesys is the dice forcing the narrative often feels... forced. Sort of the game dictating "get creative" on the whim of dice, rather than when you're feeling creative.
I see this over and over again here. I'm not sure I get what you mean by forcing you to get creative. Most of the 7-9 succeed but results already have the but spelled out. Sometimes you get a choice, but with very few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are you making something up completely.
Hack and Slash says the monster gets to attack you. Volley gives the choice of changing you position, doing less damage or using more ammo. Defy Danger is probably one of the only ones that asks the GM to come up with something because it's a general catch-all move and therefore have a wide variety of possible outcomes.
Now, if you mean having to come up with stuff on a <6 fail roll, it's not much different than other GMing situations. The PC fails an attack, the monster gets to make a counter attack. They fail to climb a wall, when they fall they take some damage or break their lantern. There is a nice set of GM moves that are pretty much consequences most games would levy against the player anyway.
Genesys has an escape valve: gain strain on threat, lose strain on advantage. If a result involving threat or advantage comes into play and there's no good narrative thing to have as part of the result, you can always fall back on, "You succeed but it was tiring." Combat of course has big tables of threat/advantage results that can be applied to take the load off of a GM or player to come up with something creative on the spot, but if someone's fixing a flat tire or whatever and pops up a couple threats and it's not really relevant to the game to say, "You get the new tire on but ominous things may happen." you can just slap strain on the character and keep going.
Quote from: rgalex on February 22, 2023, 04:04:30 PM
I see this over and over again here. I'm not sure I get what you mean by forcing you to get creative. Most of the 7-9 succeed but results already have the but spelled out. Sometimes you get a choice, but with very few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are you making something up completely.
Hack and Slash says the monster gets to attack you. Volley gives the choice of changing you position, doing less damage or using more ammo. Defy Danger is probably one of the only ones that asks the GM to come up with something because it's a general catch-all move and therefore have a wide variety of possible outcomes.
The Hack and Slack monster attacks you can vary a lot. Do they do damage? Do they activate a special quality? What happens on an attack is pretty much GM fiat much more so than D&D. A ghoul's "gnaws off limbs" is like, when do they gnaw limbs off? First hack and slash response? Second, third? In D&D a vorpal sword tells you it's a nat 20 roll.
Volley's moving to be placed in danger. You slip and fall off a cliff? Just stumble near? Does a monster move to attack you, or just notice you? Wide open to GM fiat.
Discern Realities is a large mess of "think up something on the spot".
Spout Lore: "I pick up a stick off the ground and spout lore. So tell me GM what is interesting and useful about this stick?"
The above is picking on Dungeon World a bit. Something like Freebooters 2E cleans up the above moves a lot. But it still feels like trying to force every peg into a round hole no matter what shape it is.
Quote from: Valatar on February 22, 2023, 04:45:14 PM
Genesys has an escape valve: gain strain on threat, lose strain on advantage. If a result involving threat or advantage comes into play and there's no good narrative thing to have as part of the result, you can always fall back on, "You succeed but it was tiring."
The Genesys escape valve, yeah I missed that. That sounds like a nice hack to help with the issue. It was nice to see this system get picked up by another company after FFG dropped it.
I can see where the "forcing the GM to get creative" argument comes from, as I've had times where the constant "..at a cost" from Defy Danger/Act Under Fire (or the 4-5 roll from Blades) made me struggle too. But you can usually fall back to "take damage/stress/condition tag" (whatever that game's main sthick is) when on a dry spell, so there's that.
About the "Gnaw off limbs", in most PbtA that would be considered a hard move. Hard moves must be telegraphed by the GM, so the players have a sense for what's coming up, and know it's not trivial.