A comparative analysis of Trad Games and AW/DW

[Zalman]

I recall something similar. Not sure if it was in Dragon or what. But the concept was each player created a region and the DM wove these together to form the land the players would adventure in?

In the campaigns I've participated in, it was -- in theory -- that the characters carved out ownership of some pre-existing place (which some on this thread would have us believe means "without contributing to the existence or details of that place"). In practice, those locations were more typically invented, as you suggest, by the players (with DM input and/or collaboration) at the time they were ready to assume that ownership, and then added to the world-so-far. It may be that Gary Gygax, who essentially did this for a living, had all sorts of spots pre-primed for "takeover". But all the DMs I've played with, including myself, rarely have time for that level of preparation.

No matter the details though, it's pretty clear to me that in some for or another, the players were encouraged to contribute to the world-building. Spells of course are another example ... creating a spell is something a player does -- writes the spell, proposes it to the DM, hashes out the details through negotiation, and only then retrofits a very vague character-based explanation ("Marveau the Wizard has been sequestered for 3 months researching this new spell, and here it is ...").

[Alexander Kalinowski]

(which some on this thread would have us believe means "without contributing to the existence or details of that place"). In practice, those locations were more typically invented, as you suggest, by the players (with DM input and/or collaboration)

If you're referring to me, I'm gonna need a citation. Also, as a reminder, the controversy is not about whether it existed, the question is whether shared world-building, as outlined further above, has been typical for trad games. Nothing you said, or anyone else prior, have managed to convince me that it hasn't been atypical, more uncommon than common.

[Azraele]

Valid points. I'm having a few questions here though:

• Is this really a clear-cut trad versus PbtA thing? Or even trad versus narrativist thing?  

Here we're broching yet another subject; authorial intent. I think we can operate on the assumption that the rules as written were intended to be used as such. When this is explicitly contradicted in the text, we should use that exception as our assumed intent.

 

*]If the same mentality has existed in a fair number of trad games behind the scenes - is Vincent Baker's approach just more honest? Making it explicit? And does he bring more suspense into it, since now there is a cost attached to failure other than the GM having to fudge die rolls again (which is kinda just a price the GM has to pay)? We could say that retrieving the grail was never really in doubt for Indy - only the survival of his father and of Elsa, perhaps  

.

You're assuming here that)
1) Trad games (a nebulous term) had the clear intent to ignore their own mechanics to allow character success
2) The codification of this assumption into mechanics is merely a formalizing of this intent
3) There is no success-at-cost prior to the codification of the notion as mechanic outside of GM whim

That's a pretty far branch when you examine it

*]What are the different game styles that different people are prefering anyway? Does it relate to genre and if so - how?  

For the purposes of focusing this discussion, there are broadly two: those who feel character success is inevitable (with varying degrees of "drama") and those who feel that there is no guarantee of success.

These attitudes can persist irrespective of genre.

*]Can we address this issue without even taking a wider look at risk management in RPGs (trad or otherwise)?

I think it's fertile ground for discussion, but unecessary for the purpose of your analysis. We have a clear binary; we muddle the waters by hoisting in countless caveats. Focus.

[/LIST]

[Alexander Kalinowski]

You're assuming here that)
1) Trad games (a nebulous term) had the clear intent to ignore their own mechanics to allow character success

Clear enough for the runners of the website to have an Other Games forum, for non-traditional (storytelling) RPGs, among others. So, I feel pretty safe in using it on the RPGsite.

3) There is no success-at-cost prior to the codification of the notion as mechanic outside of GM whim

That's a pretty far branch when you examine it

It's again a question of what's typical. So, let me ask for clarification: not only shared world-building, of the type discussed previously, is not atypical for traditional RPGs but also success-at-a-cost mechanics?

Spoiler

Cue-in someone bringing up a handful of examples for success-at-a-cost mechanics in trad games that don't indicate at all that the mechanic is anywhere near as common in those games as it is in AW/DW.

For the purposes of focusing this discussion, there are broadly two: those who feel character success is inevitable (with varying degrees of "drama") and those who feel that there is no guarantee of success.

No, this is a discussion is about trad games vs AW/DW. If PCs can die in AW (and they can; they can even get murdered by fellow PCs), then that question of "philosophical divergence" does not apply. Maybe worthy of its own thread but still off-topic.

[Azraele]

Clear enough for the runners of the website to have an Other Games forum, for non-traditional (storytelling) RPGs, among others. So, I feel pretty safe in using it on the RPGsite.



It's again a question of what's typical. So, let me ask for clarification: not only shared world-building, of the type discussed previously, is not atypical for traditional RPGs but also success-at-a-cost mechanics?

Spoiler

Cue-in someone bringing up a handful of examples for success-at-a-cost mechanics in trad games that don't indicate at all that the mechanic is anywhere near as common in those games as it is in AW/DW.

No, this is a discussion is about trad games vs AW/DW. If PCs can die in AW (and they can; they can even get murdered by fellow PCs), then that question of "philosophical divergence" does not apply. Maybe worthy of its own thread but still off-topic.

Since we're deciding to focus on success at cost and shared world building, let me propose this notion from my own experience:

You can succeed at a cost without any mechanics at all.

If you ask: "can my character climb this cliff"
And the gms response entails a cost ("it will take you one hour and ten pitons")
Then you succeed at your goal of scaling the cliff, for the cost they name.

Where does this fit in to your broader analysis?

[Itachi]

Since we're deciding to focus on success at cost and shared world building, let me propose this notion from my own experience:

You can succeed at a cost without any mechanics at all.

If you ask: "can my character climb this cliff"
And the gms response entails a cost ("it will take you one hour and ten pitons")
Then you succeed at your goal of scaling the cliff, for the cost they name.

Where does this fit in to your broader analysis?

I would say there's an important difference between letting the matter to GM fiat and enforcing it through rules. Because letting it to fiat, chances are lots of GMs would say "Ok, you climb the the cliff. Now what?" instead of presenting costs.

The far-reaching consequence of that is something like Vampire the Masquerade 2nd edition, where the blurb said "Personal Horror" but as the rules never really enforced that, the game was used in a myriad ways across different tables from goth-ninjas to sopranos by night to being dropped altogether due to vagueness. Resulting in the authors whining at some point that nobody played the game as they have envisioned it.

So, it's a big difference in my book.

[Alexander Kalinowski]

We're doing system comparison in this thread, right? Between traditional systems versus DW/AW. DW/AW have clearly success-at-a-cost built in on a massive scale. I think traditional systems generally don't, especially not on that scale. So that's a difference. The conversation further above that I was trying to get to was about arriving at a judgement call regarding this difference - is this good thing or is this a bad thing?

My personal stance is that success-at-a-cost is a GM tool that has its place, particularly since I am in favor of a limited amount of railroading. Just sometimes, in certain spots, you know. However, having success-at-a-cost hardcoded into the system at a massive scale only makes sense if you want to do genre story emulation (as opposed to genre world emulation, see the thread starting post) - because you need the string of cascading complications ("Moves snowball") to drive the story forwards.

Thus, my own game has only a limited amount of success-at-a-cost built into it: it strikes only when you succeed with the narrowest possible margin on a d100 roll. Similarly, failing forward only happens when you roll too high by exactly 1 on a test. Other than that, either is shifted to GM's fiat - in part because of the Fortune Point rules, which help creating stakes lower than PC death, which in turn makes it easier for the GM to just let the party fail whenever it does.

[Azraele]

We're doing system comparison in this thread, right? Between traditional systems versus DW/AW. DW/AW have clearly success-at-a-cost built in on a massive scale. I think traditional systems generally don't, especially not on that scale. So that's a difference. The conversation further above that I was trying to get to was about arriving at a judgement call regarding this difference - is this good thing or is this a bad thing?

We're discussing more than bare mechanics though; you have to. Bare mechanics don't tell the entire story of how traditional games are played; the role of the GM is vital, and their judgment in running the living, shared imaged universe is crucial to upholding the integrity of those games. If you're mono-focusing on mechanics, you're ignoring the lion's share of what happens at a trad game table.

This point, by the way, is the one I keep harping on you for failing to understand: this is why you're wrong, in so many words. This is what you need to learn, at a fundamental level, to do any kind meaningful analysis between traditional RPGs and something like Apocalypse World.

I already linked you to some reading material on this. I again urge you to read it; it will enlighten you as to this point that you're so thoroughly missing.

My personal stance is that success-at-a-cost is a GM tool that has its place, particularly since I am in favor of a limited amount of railroading. Just sometimes, in certain spots, you know. However, having success-at-a-cost hardcoded into the system at a massive scale only makes sense if you want to do genre story emulation (as opposed to genre world emulation, see the thread starting post) - because you need the string of cascading complications ("Moves snowball") to drive the story forwards.

Yes... You're proposing a style of gaming which is as far removed from traditional roleplaying games as those games are from board games. Traditional games do not have a "story"; they're games, conclusions about the outcomes aren't considered beforehand. This is why the notion that we should "assume the heroes will triumph" is a laughable statement in traditional games; that assumption is like playing a video game with some cheat that prevents you from losing lives or taking damage. It essentially robs you of the experience of the game.

The solution of "adding in success at cost" is trying to solve a problem that's introduced when you de-fang the game around player success in the first place. If there's real danger of a player dying to a goblin's stray arrow, they play cautiously and take threats like that seriously.

This, by the way, is not mere conjecture; if you'd taken my advice and asked any of the myriad gorgnards on this forum about their experience playing trad games, this is the style of response you would have gotten: one rooted in their valuable at-the table-experience.

I'm getting the impression you're not here to actually evaluate the differences between Apocalypse World and trad games, however. It's my suspicion that you're not being intellectually honest here, hence my various callouts, insults and dismissals.

Thus, my own game has only a limited amount of success-at-a-cost built into it: it strikes only when you succeed with the narrowest possible margin on a d100 roll. Similarly, failing forward only happens when you roll too high by exactly 1 on a test. Other than that, either is shifted to GM's fiat - in part because of the Fortune Point rules, which help creating stakes lower than PC death, which in turn makes it easier for the GM to just let the party fail whenever it does.

Aaaaand suspicion confirmed. You're here to peddle your game's design. You're not interested in a genuine analysis, and not only do you not know the first thing about trad games, you have the audacity to come to a forum filled with those who do and insult them when they call you on just how egregiously you don't comprehend them.

Pathetic.

When you start a thread with a question instead of some moronic assertion, I'll be more than happy to.... How did you put it.... "Engage honestly" with the subject. But you need to be willing to extend that olive branch bucko, because this flismy wall of ill-tempered, argumentative and intellectually deceitful tripe ain't gonna fly on these forums.

Get gud at rhetoric, n00b.

[Alexander Kalinowski]

We're discussing more than bare mechanics though; you have to. Bare mechanics don't tell the entire story of how traditional games are played;

Sure and you will find that the thread starter didn't just discuss mechanics, just primarily so as this is more tangible than underlying philosophy.

I again urge you to read it; it will enlighten you as to this point that you're so thoroughly missing.

I have to point out that you haven't been sticking to the issue but switched to a personal level.

Traditional games do not have a "story"; they're games, conclusions about the outcomes aren't considered beforehand. This is why the notion that we should "assume the heroes will triumph" is a laughable statement in traditional games;

You obviously have never watched Critical Role. Modern D&D in particular seems to be about leveling your PC all the way up to level 20 and that is the expectation of a fair number of players. I have zero interest in starting another debate on what technique or philosophy is how prevalent though, as we have, once more, no way to settle the issue.

The solution of "adding in success at cost" is trying to solve a problem that's introduced when you de-fang the game around player success in the first place. If there's real danger of a player dying to a goblin's stray arrow, they play cautiously and take threats like that seriously.

Yeah but the idea that the PCs are meant to be heroes in the crunch as well is in turn a reaction to early RPGs in which the PCs didn't have that level of protection and it just wasn't fun enough for a lot of us. That's part of why old-school games became old school and metacurrency was introduced: it's a rejection of that philosophy of gaming. It has not been made out of unfamiliarity with that philosophy; quite to the contrary. It was a conscious reaction. One of the first times we used metacurrency in our games was in the 90s, when a friend ran a Rolemaster campaign and the system is just so brutal that he gave each PC 3 lifetime rerolls. That was way before the Forge.

So, yeah, success-at-a-cost is solving a problem that got introduced solely by fixing the problems of earlier games. But if anyone thinks that gamers with merely a different taste are straight-up ignorant of what they're missing out, they're deceiving themselves. Very much so. The people who design games that have metacurrency or fail forward or success-at-a-cost, they're more-or-less all familair with the games some in here are championing - and still found them wanting.

one rooted in their valuable at-the table-experience.

The implication being that it's not a matter of taste but that I (and the people who designed those foolish metacurrency games) "just don't have enough valuable at-the-table experience". LOL. I get it. You're free to believe that.

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Aaaaand suspicion confirmed. You're here to peddle your game's design.

Ah, one more thing: I mentioned my game in the thread starter, so your observation is beside the point.
Not to mention that it also lacks the insight that I am clever enough to realize that "peddling my game" this way on this forum alone would not be an efficient use of my time. This is not an effective method of shilling at all.
Not to mention that if I wanted to "peddle my game", I'd damn well do anything I could to stay out of any controversy, so as to not alienate any otherwise interested people.

[Brad]

Get gud at rhetoric, n00b.

I figured out his schtick after the first thread he made. It's always the same pattern...posit a bunch of stuff with assumptions that are demonstrably false, insist anyone who disagrees needs to provide evidence (while he provides none at all), then act like he's under attack for daring to disagree with anyone who gets agitated about his blanket statements condemning RPGs that aren't played how he likes.

Transparent and boring.

[Alexander Kalinowski]

I figured out his scht

You're being off-topic.

[Brad]

You're being off-topic.

Nahh, I actually make post about roleplaying games, not storygames.

[Itachi]

Another point of distinction between AW and more traditional games, I think, is "story-steering", in that a +1 Hot in stat do not necessarily relates to a competent charmer but as a way for the player to dictate that the story goes to directions related to charming, persuasion, etc. The game never offer explicit explanations on what someone with +1 in Hot can do, like a more simulatuonist one would do. Such a reality grounding is irrelevant in AW. This is also seen in the XP mechanic, which awards players to explore things related to "highlighted" stats by other players.

In practice/during actual play things may work very similar  between AW and a Trad game, but the motivations behind some mechanics have important differences.

[Alexander Kalinowski]

I read it more as multi-faceted character exploration but I suppose triggering quite different moves to get XP for this session amounts to story-steering as well, especially from the MC's perspective.

I am pretty sure I have seen advancement based on using specific skills or attributes in a trad game but I struggle to remember which; in any case I don't think it's typical for them either. What's more common is XP or advancement for playing your character but that tends to lead to 1-dimensional play, playing up to pre-established cliches... at least it did so back in the days. Nuanced character exploration requires deviation from cliche (like a cleric who harbors some doubt) and occasional spontaneous introduction of deviation. When a player breaks pre-established character definitions, how is the GM supposed to know if this good roleplaying (nuance) or bad roleplaying (randumb variation or, worse, metagaming)?