|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 4, 2017 16:29:00 GMT -8
PbtA is a little more subtle than having a full chapter of options with modifiers for how everything works. While that was a good example of PbtA play, you're missing the whole point: some people prefer their RPGs to have a full chapter of options with modifiers for how everything works. Unlike vampire which might require a roll to fake out the guard, who would then get a modifier for being surprised, which might then counteract the penalty for making a bite attack as a called shot to the neck Why does it seem so hard for you to accept that what I just quoted is exactly what many people want in their RPG?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 16:41:39 GMT -8
PbtA is a little more subtle than having a full chapter of options with modifiers for how everything works. While that was a good example of PbtA play, you're missing the whole point: some people prefer their RPGs to have a full chapter of options with modifiers for how everything works. Unlike vampire which might require a roll to fake out the guard, who would then get a modifier for being surprised, which might then counteract the penalty for making a bite attack as a called shot to the neck Why does it seem so hard for you to accept that what I just quoted is exactly what many people want in their RPG? Because there is a difference between saying, "I don't like this game because it's unpredictable and full of GM fiat." and, "I don't like this game because I love number crunching and complex mechanics and this system is not based on those things." People shouldn't say one thing when they mean the other. It's fine to want that chapter of stuff, but don't tell me you can't play PbtA because it isn't there, because it isn't true. Desiring complex math =/= wanting a game that functions in a predictable manner. As far as what people want, I think many people make bad decisions because they are uninformed. People assume that PbtA is a crappy system because it doesn't take a form that is familiar to them. There is more than one way to skin a cat. It's not wrong to prefer one over the other, but it is to claim that another doesn't work when it clearly does.
|
|
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 4, 2017 17:27:38 GMT -8
I bought Dungeon World and got about halfway through it before I gave up and returned it to the store (luckily I was able to get a refund so no loss there, Sweet!). I tried to go further but I could not go more than two or three pages before I saw something that literally enraged me to the point that I couldn't keep reading because I was too distracted by my own internal rant about the stupidity of what I saw. So I figured there was no point in going further, even had I put up with reading more of it, I never would have run it anyways so not only would I have wasted my money, I would have wasted my time too. Before anyone assumes that I'm just a naturally angry and hateful person (mind you, you wouldn't be entirely wrong ), I have never had such a strong negative reaction to an RPG before, and I've read quite a few, though sadly only played a much smaller subset of those I've read. Yeah, that's a bummer. I'm glad you were able to get a refund though. That was pretty cool of your FLGS. I've bought a few RPGs and hated them so much I wished I could have returned them, but they were PDFs. Oh well. If you got halfway through Dungeon World, then you've probably read all the rules. The back half of the book is mainly monsters and magic weapons. I love DW, but I have mixed feelings on how the book is laid out. There is sometimes a lot of white space on the pages, and I know people are intimidated by that 400+ page book. It is an "all in one" deal, meaning you don't need anything else to play, but I rather wish they'd split the monsters into a separate book. That would have reduced the rules and playbooks, the stuff players need to know about, to a much smaller and less intimidating volume. I'm glad you tried to give DW a shot RudeAlert, and glad you got a refund. I love it and many other PbtA games, so yeah, it's a bummer that someone else doesn't feel the same way. I get it though. People have different tastes, and someone constantly badgering you to like something, or to say you don't like something only because you don't get it, is annoying as hell. I'm going through a bit of that myself for another game. If you're willing to discuss it, I'm really interested in what enraged you so badly about DW and PbtA. It doesn't have to be here though.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 4, 2017 18:31:36 GMT -8
People say one thing when they mean another all the time, @stevensw. But that's beside the point; RudeAlert has been gaming long enough that he can pick up an RPG, flip through it, and decide based on his well established likes and dislikes if he likes it or dislikes it. I've been gaming long enough to know that I don't have to run PbtA to know that it doesn't fit my GMing style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 18:43:50 GMT -8
People say one thing when they mean another all the time, @stevensw . But that's beside the point; RudeAlert has been gaming long enough that he can pick up an RPG, flip through it, and decide based on his well established likes and dislikes if he likes it or dislikes it. I've been gaming long enough to know that I don't have to run PbtA to know that it doesn't fit my GMing style. Yeah, to me this is a great example of nonsense. Fishing for 30 years can't tell me I'm not going to enjoy fly fishing. You actually have to try things to know if you like them or not. Doing anything else is assuming. No one's putting a gun to your head and demanding you do anything. Don't want to run PbtA? Then don't. But don't tell me what you think of something you've never tried. "Escargo must be disgusting. I've eaten food long enough to know I won't like it. After all, it's made of snails!" Yeah... okay. That's just pure ignorance. I'm not going to force you or anything, but I sure as heck don't care what you think on the subject. Have you tried it and not liked it? Maybe you had a bad batch or the person preparing it did a bad job. I don't know. Maybe you really don't like it and there was nothing wrong with it. At least once you've tried it we have a sample size of 1 as opposed to 0. ------------------------------ A little bit of expansion: We never know how we are going to react or behave until we are actually in a situation. We'd all like to think we are some kind of hero figure and would jump into the water if we saw someone drowning. But is that what will actually happen? We can't say till we've been there at least once before. When it comes to what we like, tastes change. People come to like things as adults that they hated as children. Often this is a surprise to them. Palettes change. This is as true for food as it is for gaming. I probably wouldn't have liked PbtA when I first got into roleplaying games. Back then I was looking for a way to make the most powerful build and show everyone that I could hang with the big boys. Today I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I don't need a system that lets me show off my 'mastery'. I'm not as insecure as I once was. So to everyone who says: "I know what I like because I've been doing this for a long time." I don't doubt it. The question is what you don't know that you will like. What will you miss out on because you are too set in your ways to try something new (or old!)? Giving things a chance allows you to experience as much of the good as you can. What's the worst that happens, you waste a couple hours or confirm you still don't like brussel sprouts? Live a little people!
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 4, 2017 19:14:18 GMT -8
Yeah, to me this is a great example of nonsense. Fishing for 30 years can't tell me I'm not going to enjoy fly fishing. Au contraire, mi amigo. If I've fished for 30 years, I've probably learned a thing or two about my own preferences. If I've discovered, for instance, that I don't like standing in water, then yeah, I'm not going to enjoy fly fishing. Because I don't like standing in water and that's what you do when you fly fish. It's just like my brother I brought up a few threads ago. He's never had lasagna because he doesn't like melted cheese. He's tried enough melted cheese dishes in his lifetime to know that if he tries lasagna he's not going to like it, because he doesn't like melted cheese. Similarly, I bet RudeAlert has read and played and GMed enough RPGs to know after reading a portion of a given RPG if he's going to enjoy it or not. He doesn't have to fully buy-in to a system to know if it's "his thing" or not, regardless of how he explains it away. Just like... I know myself, and my gaming habits, and my GM style all well enough to say that I would not enjoy GMing PbtA because I like the gaming aspects of rolling my dice when I'm GMing in ways that PbtA doesn't allow. I don't need to actually run a game of it to know that. But if there's no room for that in your world-view, if the only way you're justified in not liking something is if you fully and completely try it out first, then we really have nothing more to talk about on this subject; we're at completely opposing odds, and all we'll be doing is going in circles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 19:35:45 GMT -8
Yeah, to me this is a great example of nonsense. Fishing for 30 years can't tell me I'm not going to enjoy fly fishing. Au contraire, mi amigo. If I've fished for 30 years, I've probably learned a thing or two about my own preferences. If I've discovered, for instance, that I don't like standing in water, then yeah, I'm not going to enjoy fly fishing. Because I don't like standing in water and that's what you do when you fly fish. Thank you for this perfect example. This is a gigantic assumption. Some people fly fish while standing in the water. Other people do it on boats in the ocean. So you've only told me you don't like what you 'think' fly fishing is. Furthermore, you might find that you hate standing in the water until you have a set of waders. Maybe you dislike standing in the water even in wader, but you might like fly fishing from a float tube! See, this is exactly the issue and why I say you have to try things. Even then, one try might not be enough. You might not know how much you are missing because you wouldn't try it or at least research it more. You'd end up stopping at the assumption that all fly fishing is done while standing in water and end up missing out on something you might really like. I could live with that (I mean, it's your loss) except for the fact that it goes a step further. You go to a forum and start talking to other people about how you dislike fly fishing. Other people get dissuaded without trying or researching based on the things they hear and see. As a consequence, less people partake of this hobby we're trying to get more people into! Its mob mentality. If enough people say it, it must be true. But that just isn't the case. And it's dangerous to fall into that trap. You might end up blaming all the world's problems on one group (and look where that got us). Now that is an extreme example, but it points the convenience and ease of going with the mob. Enough people say PbtA is a no good hippy game? Then it must be. Further it must be okay to discriminate based on that (all of which was never true!). And you know what, even your brother who dislikes cheese could be wrong. I have a grandfather who died before my time. One of the few things I know about him is that he hated tomato sauce.. that is until one day an italian lady cornered him into trying hers (it was payment for fixing her tv, and he didn't want to be rude). As you can guess, he really liked it. Turns out what he thought was tomato sauce was ketchup poured over spaghetti (his sisters were terrible cooks). Not every cheese melts the same way. Riccotta is very different from a chedder or american. Not saying your brother would like it, but that he could be wrong. He's not deathly allergic, so the only thing that happens is he tries something he doesn't like. Or he might find something he really likes. You never know until you try!
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 4, 2017 19:46:14 GMT -8
Thank you for this perfect example. This is a gigantic assumption. Some people fly fish while standing in the water. Other people do it on boats in the ocean. So you've only told me you don't like what you 'think' fly fishing is. Furthermore, you might find that you hate standing in the water until you have a set of waders. Maybe you dislike standing in the water even in wader, but you might like fly fishing from a float tube! For the love of all that is holy, that doesn't matter. Probie Tim - that's me - knows precisely dick about fishing. Someone who had been fishing for 30 years probably would know all of that. But the point is that someone who had been fishing for 30 years would know enough about his or her own fishing preferences - and about fly fishing - to be able to make a judgement call on whether they'd like fly fishing or not without having to go through it. You never know until you try! No, evidently, YOU don't know until you try. Others do. And that just doesn't work for you, so we're all wrong and you're going to prove it to us with walls of text. Knock yourself out, man, I'm going to go read my AD&D books or play WoW or something.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Jun 4, 2017 20:31:26 GMT -8
Oh, man. I love it when I read both sides of a vehement, strong argument, and I agree with them both! But, for the love of all that's holy (and unholy), I think you two can stop now. (Or you can argue against me for telling you to stop, and for me to mind my own fucken business.)
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jun 4, 2017 20:37:36 GMT -8
WALL OF TEXT ALERT To anyone who couldn't care less why I don't like the Apocalypse Engine, just skip this post.HyveMynd I ain't afraid to throw my two cents out in public, so here goes. Alright, I'll try to make as much sense as possible and avoid getting ranty. It might be a bit tricky to get my point across clearly since, in the end, this is all about subjective opinions. Also, it might be difficult to explain my dislike in a way that doesn't make me come off as a hateful psychopath given that I've never had such a strong, visceral, negative reaction to an RPG before, so I'm kind of in new territory here. Also, I haven't read the whole DW book so it is possible that there are details that I didn't get to, but I stopped at the chapter where Fronts started, and it seemed to me like I had covered the bulk of the system so, I dunno maybe I missed stuff, maybe I didn't, whatever the case may be, I saw more than enough to know this game really isn't for me. Anyways, there are a number of small things that bug me about the Apocalypse World (AW for further references) engine, none of which I would say are terrible but just ruffle my feathers, and there are other things that just do things in a way that isn't to my liking. -Right off the bat, one feature that didn't help is that DW is based on the old-fashioned character design concept of Old D&D, with races being a subset of your class, and classes representing fairly specific and kinda rigid archetypes, hence the recommendation that no two players should start with the same class due to the very limited customizablility during chargen. Not a deal breaker on its own but that's a small strike against it pretty early in the book. -Another detail specific to DW (as far as I know) is the visual presentation (also the frequent typos and small mistakes, not a big deal, but really annoying after a while, I'm kinda anal about proper spelling and language use, especially in a book I paid for). By visual presentation though I'm not referring to the abundance of dead space on the pages, I don't mind that, if anything it makes the text look less dense. My issue is with the lack of clarification when specific game terminology is used; in most games that's not really an issue but in a game where a big chunk of the engine is based on Moves that have names that sound like random sentence fragments, one would think they could have made an effort to make those terms stand out from the rest of the text. That got really old really fast. I value clarity and accessibility, "hiding" rules and technical terms like that feels kinda lazy and needlessly opaque. -The way Moves (notice how I'm capitalizing that word? DW couldn't even manage that!) work also kinda bugs me. To provide one example (perhaps not the best one but it gets my point across), in the Masks game that JiB runs he pretty frequently interrupted players in mid-sentence, either in their description of their actions or even while talking in-character to an NPC to point out which Move he figured they were using, then simply had them roll before either letting them finish what they were saying or sometimes not even, depending on the result of the roll (I don't know if he only did that at the beginning and then got better cuz I stopped watching after a few episodes). Now I realize that that's probably not the only way to do this, and I would assume that this is not the standard way (at least I would hope so) because that felt incredibly rude and disengaging. -Furthermore, I don't really like the Moves concept as a whole, it just feels too open and out of the player's control. As a player I know what I'm trying to accomplish in the game, so when I describe my action to the GM I likely have something specific in mind. Having to rely on the GM being on the same wavelength as me when it comes to interpreting my action by deciding which Move it's supposed to correspond to kinda feels like I'm losing a small amount of control over my character, and thus agency. Even if this is something like the example Steven used of a random dude trying to attack a giant stone golem and having his action interpreted as something other than "Hack and Slash" by the GM, maybe as something like "Facing Danger" (or whatever it's called) or "Analyzing Your Environment" (something like that), all in order to avoid having an action being wasted because the GM considers the attack to be a futile attempt as an actual attack and thus turns it into something else instead. That bothers the shit out of me! Just let me fucking fail already! If attacking the golem is as futile as it sounds then let ME and my character figure that out the hard way. I don't want any freebies or escape hatches; I want to be free to fail if I make the wrong decision and then find out how events unfold from there. -GM Moves! FUCK! THAT! HARD!!! I get the idea behind them, and I'll admit that an AW game (especially if it's better written than DW) could be really good for a beginner GM, especially one that has absolutely zero RPG experience of any kind. However, as someone who has a good deal of experience with RPGs, mostly as a player but I've run a few games, and read many, and listened to countless hours of podcasts giving advice on how to run games, I found those felt downright patronizing. I understand what they're for and that I shouldn't take it personally, especially since one could simply ignore them entirely, but by god that rubbed me the wrong way. My instant reaction was basically FUCK YOU BOOK!!!! Who the fuck are you telling me what I can and cannot do as a fucking GM? I don't need no damn book's fucking permission to do the shit that I feel I need to do in a game that I'M running! It felt like someone was trying to shove training wheels on my bicycle; when you no longer need those, they just get in the way. This particular point really shouldn't be a big issue since, as I already pointed out in this very paragraph, it would be the easiest thing to just ignore them and do what you feel like while running the game, but by that point in the book I was already on a hair trigger so it didn't take much for that little detail to just fucking piss me off. -Also, not rolling dice as a GM just sucks. I like rolling dice damnit! It's part of the game, I ran one system where I wasn't rolling dice and I hated it, I felt so disengaged and left out of the game. Even as a GM I'm still a PLAYER, so I want to feel that I'm still playing a game. I know there were other details that bothered me here and there but I can't quite remember them right now so I'll just go for the final meta-analysis. Using the GNS theory (I know it's not perfect but it's still pretty damn good, also just in case here's a link to the definition: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory), AW games are very much Narrativist games. I, on the other hand, fall very much in the middle of the diagram. I used to think of myself as a Narrativist until I realized that that just didn't fit me. I've come to realize that all three aspects are equally valuable for me. I want a good and interesting story, but I also want to play a GAME with clearly defined rules, and I want a setting that is reliably simulated and consistent from one moment or session to the next. I want the story, but within the framework of a solidly defined game system and contained within a stable, logical, and reliable environment. For example in the debate of the quantum ogre, I'm very much of the mindset that if the ogre was supposed to be on the left path and I took the right, then nothing exciting should happen. By the way, I'm fine with failure and dead-ends if they make sense in the logical progression of events in the game. As another example, as interesting as it may have turned out, I kinda would have preferred if Stu had kept the old lady in the Vampire game as just an ordinary old lady since there was no specific reason for her to be a Mage just for the sake of "the story." Mind you, I'm not all butthurt about it like some people, I prefer to avoid that kind of stuff but I don't think it's a sin against gaming to do so. The biggest issue with AW for me is that as a Narrativist game it sacrifices Gamism and Simulationism, for me that's the most undesirable situation because as far as I'm concerned the Narrativist element can always be introduced no matter which game you're playing. Hell, you could introduce Narrativist elements into a game of monopoly or snakes and ladders if you wanted. Introducing Narrative elements is easy, if anything I feel it's pretty much the core of RPGs. So to have a game that focuses on that one element at the expense of the other two, to me, feels incredibly ironic and redundant since I don't feel like I need any rules to promote or force Narrative elements, those are basically emergent to me. The other two components (Gamism and Simulationism) however, are NOT simply emergent. You can always introduce houserules and keep accurate records of how things have worked in the past in order to introduce, reinforce, or maintain the Gamist and Simulationist aspects of the game but that's a lot more work than introducing Narrative elements. So for me a Narrativist game just feels silly and redundant, and also sorely lacking in 2 of the 3 core values of what (to me) constitute a good game, and ironically those are the two harder ones to introduce into a game that doesn't have them. Also, just in case it needs to be pointed out, none of the above mean that I am a fan of rules-heavy games, I much prefer a comfortable rules-medium level of crunch, heck even a well constructed rules-light is fine with me. I just want there to be a solid, reliable foundation with enough detail to provide a good Gaming experience without forcing anything on me, including an interpretation of my choices that might not match my intentions.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Jun 4, 2017 21:10:37 GMT -8
Even if this is something like the example Steven used of a random dude trying to attack a giant stone golem and having his action interpreted as something other than "Hack and Slash" by the GM, maybe as something like "Facing Danger" (or whatever it's called) or "Analyzing Your Environment" (something like that), all in order to avoid having an action being wasted because the GM considers the attack to be a futile attempt as an actual attack and thus turns it into something else instead. That bothers the shit out of me! Just let me fucking fail already! If attacking the golem is as futile as it sounds then let ME and my character figure that out the hard way. I don't want any freebies or escape hatches; I want to be free to fail if I make the wrong decision and then find out how events unfold from there. That was me, not Steven... don't want him being blamed for my silly words. Also, you could totally just say (as the GM) that you try to stab that golem with the butter knife and it just doesn't do shit. And then move on. But to me that's the boring: "you missed" and the story stops. Instead you used your move to try and attack uselessly (in this case) and now I'm gonna do something, like have you roll damage, or try to avoid it, or maybe find something out while you are close... to me as a player that's more interesting. As a GM that's more interesting. But again, that's just me. But a Hack and Slash roll? Nope. Because a success there means it takes damage, and in this case the fiction just DOES NOT support that. Don't get me wrong, maybe there is a little Achille's Heel or something, but as a GM I might decide you need to try to spot it first (this isn't D&D with some "20 = critical hit no matter what" roll). At least that's the way I look at the situation. DW doesn't mandate it any which way. You could, as the GM, just have them roll Hack and Slash, and that butter knife goes in smooth into the golems rock flesh with a good roll. It's your game, and your (collective) fiction, so whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 21:11:58 GMT -8
Oh, man. I love it when I read both sides of a vehement, strong argument, and I agree with them both! But, for the love of all that's holy (and unholy), I think you two can stop now. (Or you can argue against me for telling you to stop, and for me to mind my own fucken business.) I came to the conclusion that all had been said that needed to be said. I was just trying to decide if I should post a picture of Obi-Wan going, "Give it up Probie Tim, you can't win. I have the high ground!" I decided against it, but I find it humorous and I thought someone else might as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 21:22:33 GMT -8
Even if this is something like the example Steven used of a random dude trying to attack a giant stone golem and having his action interpreted as something other than "Hack and Slash" by the GM, maybe as something like "Facing Danger" (or whatever it's called) or "Analyzing Your Environment" (something like that), all in order to avoid having an action being wasted because the GM considers the attack to be a futile attempt as an actual attack and thus turns it into something else instead. That bothers the shit out of me! Just let me fucking fail already! If attacking the golem is as futile as it sounds then let ME and my character figure that out the hard way. I don't want any freebies or escape hatches; I want to be free to fail if I make the wrong decision and then find out how events unfold from there. That was me, not Steven... don't want him being blamed for my silly words. Also, you could totally just say (as the GM) that you try to stab that golem with the butter knife and it just doesn't do shit. And then move on. But to me that's the boring: "you missed" and the story stops. Instead you used your move to try and attack uselessly (in this case) and now I'm gonna do something, like have you roll damage, or try to avoid it, or maybe find something out while you are close... to me as a player that's more interesting. As a GM that's more interesting. But again, that's just me. But a Hack and Slash roll? Nope. Because a success there means it takes damage, and in this case the fiction just DOES NOT support that. Don't get me wrong, maybe there is a little Achille's Heel or something, but as a GM I might decide you need to try to spot it first (this isn't D&D with some "20 = critical hit no matter what" roll). At least that's the way I look at the situation. DW doesn't mandate it any which way. You could, as the GM, just have them roll Hack and Slash, and that butter knife goes in smooth into the golems rock flesh with a good roll. It's your game, and your (collective) fiction, so whatever. Two things: 1) You can't have a wasted action because you don't have a turn. It's a conversation. Maybe you run up and try to stab with the butter knife. I'd then decide if a move was triggered. If it was we'd do the mechanic. Otherwise I'd continue with the game by making a move. One of my triggers as an MC is when everyone looks to me to see what happens. That just happened when you declared you were going to do something with an uncertain outcome. Hence I might narrate that the butter knife skips off its rocky flesh and it turns toward you, flailing out an arm the size of a pillar at your body. What do you do? Nothing says that just because you did something that your 'turn' is over. Nothing says it continues. Thats up to me. I might throw it back to the player again like I did above, or I might jump to someone else. In this case, I'd probably go right back to you to see what you want to do about the incoming battering ram of an arm. 2) The story doesn't stop if a player makes an ineffective attack. No where in my moves is on called 'stop everything'. It's my job to keep things moving forward as the MC. It's the rules. Its not an option, I must advance the narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 22:16:46 GMT -8
RudeAlert I found your dissection of why you dislike PbtA (DW in particular) very interesting. Thank you for sharing. I found it interesting that you disliked the rules for the MC and thought the game wasn't gamist enough. One thing I love about PbtA is that the system is robust enough to handle pretty much anything I would want to do. It also doesn't stop me from trying things by placing them behind a barrier of feats or making them non-optimal choices. I don't have to build a grappling character to have my knight grab another character and take the fight into the dirt (think the Brienne of Tarth vs Loras Tyrell fight at Renly's tournament). By keeping many situations in the realm of the narrative, it stops the game from needing rules and modifiers for every edge case. That is a good thing, in my book. I'll explain why. D&D 3.5 had lots of rules to cover lots of scenarios in a combat. Grappling rules, tripping rules, sundering rules... there were a lot of rules and a lot of modifiers. Most of those actions were partially gated behind feats. You couldn't use them effectively without a feat or a chain of feats to support them. So they weren't really options for most people (beyond edge cases). Once you did build to use them there was a whole layer of rules surrounding that action that the GM and player now needed to know. How much hardness and HP does a sword or a breastplate have? These are all things that weren't important before that the GM now needs to track for everything. Before long you end up with a morass of rules, modifiers, and penalties that you have to keep straight. The game slows down, arguements happens, its just not good. In order to avoid that, those actions get shunned. People have more effective things to do anyways. Before long you are in a situation where you have one button to press and maybe a single decision to make. I'm going to attack, so should I use power attack or not? Not every character plays that way in D&D, but you get the general gist. The rules where choking creative problem solving. Thats the exact thing those old OSR guys were all about. In an effort to be able to do everything, so much strain was added that it meant you could often do only one thing (at least well). In response to this we see 5th ed D&D slashing away complex rules in favor of mechanics like advantage/disadvantage. While it seems elegant at first, you quickly run into the problem that it doesn't stack and it cancels each other out. One disadvantage cancels all 10 of your possible advantages. Why bother trying to create a situation that is to your favor when the rules don't account for it? The best thing about keeping it narrative is that the GM has a human brain and can use it figure out more complex interactions without the need for bogging down in rules. Are you grappling in the dark with someone? Are you two also rolling around in a snow bank? Might it be rain sleet as well? And your right arm is wounded? Yeah, no sweat. Thats not a hard scene to run. (Also, this is what I like about FFG's narrative dice games, they make accounting for factors like this pretty easy. No remembering charts of shit. Its great). One thing PbtA is not is simulationist. If that is a thing you care about, its not the game for you. It would run a Vietnam movie, but not a Vietnam simulation. Gamist though? I think it is, just in different language. You are still trying to beat the ogre, but instead of doing mental math you are working a 3D model. You still have a strategy, strengths, and weaknesses; but now you have to find a way to use those to turn the situation in your favor. You don't have a defined menu to chose from (unless we are talking spell lists or the like), your character can do whatever you imagine them doing. You could beat the ogre by tying a rope to a boulder and having your rogue tie the other end to its leg while you distract it. Then a third person levers the boulder over a cliff and 'bye bye ogre'. You see, many games require you to make the most important decisions about the game at creation. If you don't get improved grapple, that won't be a strategy you will want to use. PbtA flips that on its head and asks you to make the important decisions in play. There is no, "What do you do" when you get attacked in D&D. The DM rolls and determines if you got hit (in the majority of cases). That's not the deal in DW though. You have choices to make (also why I love hero system, but I digress). My point is that just because things aren't chiseled in stone doesn't mean they don't exist. PbtA provides variety without undue burden of complexity. As a result its a shitty simulator. It won't replace GURPS or Hero System. But it does have a surprising amount of 'game' to it.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Jun 4, 2017 22:17:49 GMT -8
I'm only a few minutes in, but I'd probably be up for buying a "Friesengard Food Truck -- Open All Night (and it's always night)" t-shirt.
|
|