|
Post by HourEleven on Jun 19, 2014 7:45:05 GMT -8
Just read Dungeon World and apoc World again...
And something about them just doesn't excite me. I had put off reading them because I was certain my GM-drive would kick into full gear (like Cortex+ did. Set back my current games by months because I started writing up Cortex+ campaigns instead of prepping my actual games), but I was totally turned off. I'm super frustrated because I don't know why they don't excite me. I don't have a specific system "type" I'm drawn to, I love FAE and Hero equally - hell, I even love Tales of Blades and Heroes, and that shit is mostly just story telling between wargame rounds (I kid, I kid, Andrea; it's a well thought out system). Yet I read and reread DW and didn't get excited.
Let me say this, I'm not setting out to attack the system, I just want to know why it doesn't excite me like I was sure it would (it's rare I don't lose my mind over every new system I read). I'm hoping to figure out why by the end of this text wall. I think I want to look at DW and Apoc World separately because I think they serve different purposes. Now keep in mind, I haven't played any *World games, only read the books (I'm a rule book junky to the Nth degree).
-----
I think what bothers me about DW is that it sets out to "update" or "modernize," in the narrative sense, that old school dungeon crawl. But it seems to do it by "fixing" things that never seemed a problem for me in the first place. It unifies the way you "do things" into a single system. And that's great (lord knows pathfinder is a system of pure exceptions: A is the rule, and the next twenty pages are the exceptions to the rule), except the early editions (1e/BX) didn't really have this problem. Yet it manages to keep the lack of variety that those early editions had (at least Elf isn't a class, ha).
If I'm going to dungeon crawl, I have three main options: retroclone(or original 1e/BX), pathfinder3.5, DW (I'm not even mentioning 4e on purpose). Retro clones have the minimal rules of those sweet 1e/BX days (although combat feels very "same-y" and "swing sword, swing sword, swing sword"), but good luck making two Fighter class characters that aren't pretty much the exact same. Pathfinder, on the other hand, has very varied combat, but is the biggest rules cluster fuck I've ever seen, it's a body composed entirely of band aids holding it together; however, I ran a campaign where every player was a multiclassed "Bard-Barian" and each was so different because of archetypes and feat builds, etc. DW (appears from reading, that it) takes the idea of minimal rules from retroclones, tries to use Moves to create the varied combat of pathfinder, but retains the crippling "sameness" of characters from the retroclones. I have a suspicion that this is on purpose, and the reason (excuse) is "nostalgia."
As I think more about it, the entire thing seems to be built around incentivizing, or more so just requiring, the dramatic narration that was completely optional and often ignored in those early dungeon crawl rule sets. Is that the main benefit? Because there was always room in the rules for it back in those 1e and BX days, but it wasn't compulsory or built in ( I'd say DW makes it "expected" as I could imagine someone not narrating their Moves at all) like it is in DW. Is that fair to say? I would rather have good Roleplayers at my table and a retroclone with a dozen new and well balanced classes than a game that is just as character limiting but will encourage RP. Again, I might be missing something - that's just how it reads to me.
-----
As for Apoc World... I don't know what is gained by modern games with "classes." I feel like that is an incredibly out dated concept.
I'll say that I love the world creation session, etc. But I'm not sure that needs to be codified as a part of Apoc World, you can really bring that into almost any system (like Fred Hicks says about GUMSHOE, there's more to it than the clue system, the clue system can be glued onto any other system quite easily) although I prefer my own train wreck mashup of Cortex+Drama's relationship web and Dresdens city construction - that I use for almost every game I run. But I digress. My biggest problem with Apoc World is that I feel like I'm ordering off a small fast food menu when making characters, from attributes to appearance.
I guess I expected something really new and modern and found a very basic [2d6+stat for TN] that I've seen a million times before with a menu of "cool things to do" that will keep me staring at a list looking for a chance to "do something cool." It might play very different than it reads (lord knows FateCore reads like its a bunch of kids playing Cowboys and Indians, but it plays out super technical and mechanical).
-----
I think I'll need to run a game before I'll know for sure what I feel about it.....
So, experienced players of the *world games, tell me about it. What's not in the words on the page? Show me the love.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Jun 19, 2014 14:23:18 GMT -8
Have you tried any AP podcasts of the *World games? They didn't click for me until I heard a couple of actual games.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jun 19, 2014 19:02:29 GMT -8
I think what I found exciting and special about the *world games is this built in demand for players to take narrative control. I honestly had never had thought to include that element in my games. It appears that many new(relatively) systems have incorporated this concept. Like Stu Venable's game Moment of Truth where players can actually take control away from the GM for a moment and completely change a scene. Much of what Dungeon World does has probably been duplicated by good, RP heavy gaming groups. But by building it into the system it certainly pushes even the most "rules lawyery" player towards a more narrative style of game. Whenever you get the opportunity to game online we should play some Apocalypse World/Old World of Darkness hack. Those classes you don't really enjoy are just examples. I immediately created new ones or hybrids of existing ones.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Jun 19, 2014 21:34:15 GMT -8
Wyrm, that's a good idea. Isn't it great we live in where we can just watch people play a system at a moments notice?
Pints, yeah I think I take for granted how novel some of those concepts might be. Color me spoiled rotten that I've had entire game sessions where we never picked up a dice, yet the story advances (sessions where you don't pick up dice because two asshats can't stop arguing is a different mess altogether.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Jun 21, 2014 15:00:51 GMT -8
How easy is it to create new "Moves" that are balanced? With some experience is it as easy as making "stunts" in Fate?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 21, 2014 16:35:56 GMT -8
Well, I'm horribly biased as the * World games are at the top of my Favorite Systems list. Can you clarify what you mean when you say that Dungeon World "manages to keep the lack of variety"? Are you talking about character classes, or are you talking about mechanics because there's so few Basic Moves? I always tell people that, despite being the game being called Dungeon World, it any more or less a dungeon crawl than D&D or Pathfinder. Moves, in my opinion, aren't an attempt to create varied combat options with minimal rules; they are indications what the game is about and what the characters will be doing (the same goes for all Apocalypse World-based games). You'll notice there's no Basic Move for turning someone on, or for casting magic, or for opening your brain to the psychic maelstrom in Dungeon World. Because the game, and the fiction it's based on, isn't about those things. Monsterhearts has a Basic Move for turning someone on, because that game is about being a sexy teenage monster. Monster of the Week has a Basic Move for casting magic spells, because in that game anyone can use magic simply by following the directions in a book. Apocalypse World has a Basic Move for opening your brain to the psychic maelstrom to get information, because, well, that game is just weird. It's also worth pointing out that in Apocalypse World-based games, the fiction and the mechanics are the same thing. They're pretty much inseparable. I've had to explain this to some of my players in the past, but moves aren't the only things your characters can do. They simply kick in when certain fictional actions happen. When a player narrates their character doing something, usually their character just does it. But if the narrated action meets the trigger for a move, then the move tells us (usually with dice) what happens. Narrating your character's action is possible in any roleplaying game. Apocalypse World-based games require the player to do so right in the rules. Take the fictional action to get the mechanical result. Or, to quote from the Book of Apocalypse: The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it's the move and the player rolls dice. Again, can you clarify what you mean by "character limiting"? I've had some of the most creative, unique, and memorable characters in my Apocalypse World-based games. More so than in other systems. I don't really see Apocalypse World playbooks as classes. They're more the archetypal character types you find in post-apocalyptic media. I wouldn't say that world creation in Apocalypse World is crucial, but it's close to it. The "Chinese Menu" approach is intentional; limited options help spark creativity. The names, and looks of Apocalypse World is one of my favorite things about it. Picking one of those names says something about your character. A Gunlugger named Keeler is very different from a Gunlugger named Vonk the Sculptor. Monsterhearts does that as well, but it's something I felt was lacking in Dungeon World. I hope I don't come off as a douchebag here, but you don't sit there, "staring at a list looking for a chance to 'do something cool.'" in Apocalypse World-based games. You fucking go out and do something cool! The moves and dice tell you want fall out happens or what hard choices you have to make because of your actions.
|
|
|
Post by HourEleven on Jun 21, 2014 16:53:41 GMT -8
No, that was exactly what I was looking for and actually answers a lot of my questions. You interpreted my reactions to the rulebook exactly and I can see how it could work the way you describe. I'm really going to have give the game a shot; it's just too different from the norm, I think you have to see the machine running to really "get it." I'm really looking to get sold on it.
I think my biggest hurdle is that I will have to extensively run one of the existing *world flavors to understand the system deep enough to make my own hack. I almost never run non-generic systems. Do they have anything akin to Fates "toolkit" or C+'s "hacking guide"? Or if I get comfortable enough with the system are the mechanics totally straight forward and obvious?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 21, 2014 18:15:06 GMT -8
Glad I helped. I believe you're familiar with FAE, right? Well the conversation between the player and the GM about what their character does and how they do it is similar between FAE and an AW-based game. In FAE the player narrates what they want their character to do, and the GM (or sometimes the player) says what approach is appropriate based on that narration. In AW-based games, the player narrates what they want their character to do, and the GM (or sometimes the player) says what move, if any, triggers based on that narration. A question asked by people new to FAE is "Why don't I just always use (Approach X), as it's my character's best one?" The answer is "the fiction". Even if Quick is your character's highest rated Approach, there are an almost infinite number of situations that simply won't make sense to do quickly. People new to AW-based games ask "Why don't I just always do (Move X), since it looks awesome?" Just like in FAE, the answer is still "the fiction". Fiction is probably the most important thing in AW-based games. Building custom moves in AW-based games is, I imagine, similar to making Stunts in Fate-based games; more art than science. Balance isn't really an issue, though of course you don't want to make a disgustingly overpowered move. The basic structure of a move is "When you [fictional trigger], roll+[something]. On a 10+, [positive effect]. On a 7-9, [mixed result, hard choice, or cost]." Some moves list what happens on a miss, but some don't. So when making a custom move, you think about the fiction and think about what those good, mixed, and bad results could be. You also think about the fictional trigger, as that says a lot about the move. To give you an example, I'm currently working on a custom move for a Monster of the Week monster. The creature is extremely skilled at wrestling and grappling, and so that's something important I'm using a custom move to highlight and draw attention to. The move looks like this: When you wrestle or grapple with the [redacted], roll +Tough. On a 10+, the [redacted] doesn't pin you, and it doesn't lock its fingers around your throat. On a 7-9, choose one or the other. On a 6-, you're in real trouble. The best result you can hope for when wrestling with the creature is holding it off. It's so good at what it does, that holding your own is a success. (You can see here that I shifted what "success" means to raise the difficulty, rather than messing with numbers.) On a mixed result, you're either going to end up on the ground or you're going to be in a strangle hold, your choice. On a bad result, you're both pinned and being strangled. The move won't trigger if someone tries to shoot the thing, stab it, hit it with some kind of magic, or anything other than attempt to wrestle it. I'm actually thinking about changing the trigger to "when you get within arm's length of an angry [redacted]" just to make it that much more dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jun 30, 2014 15:42:25 GMT -8
How easy is it to create new "Moves" that are balanced? With some experience is it as easy as making "stunts" in Fate? It's fairly easy, just make the consequences interesting and make sure there is no no-go option, so they actually have to make an interesting decision. Can't stress this enough. Moves give you a way to influence the fiction. A thief has lock-picking moves and therefore will not be better at it than anyone else, he'll just be able to influence the fiction better than anyone else when lock-picking. Same for any other move, including combat. It's about being able to get what you want in the fiction, not about tactical variety or mechanical simplicity.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 30, 2014 16:41:24 GMT -8
How easy is it to create new "Moves" that are balanced? With some experience is it as easy as making "stunts" in Fate? It's fairly easy, just make the consequences interesting and make sure there is no no-go option, so they actually have to make an interesting decision. Can't stress this enough. Moves give you a way to influence the fiction. A thief has lock-picking moves and therefore will not be better at it than anyone else, he'll just be able to influence the fiction better than anyone else when lock-picking. Same for any other move, including combat. It's about being able to get what you want in the fiction, not about tactical variety or mechanical simplicity. Moves also help establish the setting with their triggers and results. I'm kicking around the idea of a prison game, inspired by Orange is the new Black (since I've been binge watching it recently). There needs to be a "call someone out" move, since getting up in someone's face and intimidating them or getting them to back down is something that happens often. But I'm still figuring out the trigger. Does the character need to threaten violence as part of the action? If so, does that mean it's impossible to intimidate someone without threatening violence? What happens if the person is unwilling to follow through with the violent threat? Does the move force them to? What are the results? Can the target fight back to show they're not scared (even if they actually are)? What would a "success with complications" result mean? Apocalypse World style moves are a lot more than just universal generic actions. They direct the fiction, help reinforce the genre, build setting, highlight what the characters will be doing in game, and act as task resolution all in one nifty little package. I've seen some people say things like "Big deal. AW is just 2d6+stat mechanics." which is missing the point. The heart of any AW-based game is the moves. Which moves are present and which are missing says a lot about the game.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jul 1, 2014 16:23:59 GMT -8
It's fairly easy, just make the consequences interesting and make sure there is no no-go option, so they actually have to make an interesting decision. Can't stress this enough. Moves give you a way to influence the fiction. A thief has lock-picking moves and therefore will not be better at it than anyone else, he'll just be able to influence the fiction better than anyone else when lock-picking. Same for any other move, including combat. It's about being able to get what you want in the fiction, not about tactical variety or mechanical simplicity. Moves also help establish the setting with their triggers and results. I'm kicking around the idea of a prison game, inspired by Orange is the new Black (since I've been binge watching it recently). There needs to be a "call someone out" move, since getting up in someone's face and intimidating them or getting them to back down is something that happens often. But I'm still figuring out the trigger. Does the character need to threaten violence as part of the action? If so, does that mean it's impossible to intimidate someone without threatening violence? What happens if the person is unwilling to follow through with the violent threat? Does the move force them to? What are the results? Can the target fight back to show they're not scared (even if they actually are)? What would a "success with complications" result mean? Apocalypse World style moves are a lot more than just universal generic actions. They direct the fiction, help reinforce the genre, build setting, highlight what the characters will be doing in game, and act as task resolution all in one nifty little package. I've seen some people say things like "Big deal. AW is just 2d6+stat mechanics." which is missing the point. The heart of any AW-based game is the moves. Which moves are present and which are missing says a lot about the game. My friend is also working on a OitNB hack! From what I recall it plays off the strings form MonsterHearts.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jul 1, 2014 16:49:22 GMT -8
My friend is also working on a OitNB hack! From what I recall it plays off the strings form MonsterHearts. Son of a... Bitch, don't make me cut you! In all honesty, I'm not surprised. Both AW and OitnB are popular, so I can't have been the only one to come up with that idea. I had also considered using Strings from Monsterhearts to represent the ebb and flow of favors. I'd be interested in seeing how your friend's hack comes out. So I can shank them and steal their idea.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Jul 2, 2014 2:53:27 GMT -8
What if the prison was full of Monsters!??!!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 2, 2014 5:20:13 GMT -8
What if the prison was full of Monsters!??!! That's Sanctuary with Amanda Tapping . . . Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 9:30:10 GMT -8
I think my biggest hurdle is that I will have to extensively run one of the existing *world flavors to understand the system deep enough to make my own hack. I almost never run non-generic systems. Do they have anything akin to Fates "toolkit" or C+'s "hacking guide"? Or if I get comfortable enough with the system are the mechanics totally straight forward and obvious? This might be 5 months late (give me a break, I just signed up like a half hour ago), but if you're still looking for a guide to "hacking" AW, the designer of Monster Hearts (Avery McDoldno, one of the coolest people I've never met) has a free pdf just for you: buriedwithoutceremony.com/simple-world/That being said, I'd suggest you try out the base game(s) before trying to create one of your own. Also, speaking of 5 months, did you ever get a chance to try out the game? I'm with Hyvemynd--it's my all time favorite game system.
|
|