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 22:52:31 GMT -8
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. Thanks for posting these. If you got up to the section about Fronts in the DW book, then yeah. You've read pretty much all the stuff necessary to run the game. I'm going to respond to your points, but this is in no way my attempt to sway you or to tell you you're wrong. After all, we're talking about completely subjective opinions here. I've reordered a few of your points. -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 Tomes 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. If you don't like the concept of Moves, you're not going to like PbtA games. I've moved this up to the top because Moves are the backbone of PbtA games. If you don't like them, you're not going to like the games that use them. While it's true that players sometimes do have to have a bit of a discussion with the GM about what (if any) Move triggers, I feel that happens in any game. Also, Moves aren't meant to be hidden from the players. Just like being able to crack open the D&D 5e PHB to see how an action works, the Basic Move sheet should be right there in front of everyone for reference. Players should be able to see how the Moves trigger, the stat each is linked to, and the possible outcomes. When I'm running the game, I always reiterate the Move's outcomes just so the player is clear on what might happen. If it turns out they didn't intend to do something, I give them a chance to revise their narration, especially if they are new players. So while there may be some discussion about what Move triggers, the player should still have just as much control over what Move triggers as with performing actions in other games. In the stone golem example that tomes provided, Hack & Slash will not trigger. H&S requires the attacking character to be able to do damage against the target. If I was the GM and you had your PC swing a sword at the golem, I would make sure you understood that your sword is not going to do anything against the monster and probably give you another option. If you told me you really wanted to continue that action, I'd make a GM move. Probably something like Use up their resources by having your sword break, or simply Deal damage as the stone golem bats you out of the way. -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. When I run games of DW I always say something like "Sounds like you're triggering (Move Name)." whenever I think a player is intentionally going for a Move. Or I say something like "That's probably going to trigger (Move Name)." when a player narrates something that would trigger a Move but might not realize it. Because Moves should be open information to the players, everyone should be aware of what sorts of narrations trigger which moves. Sometimes you do need some clarification, as I mentioned above, or sometimes the player realizes they said something that will trigger a Move they don't want to happen. To me this feels the same as someone saying they're going to take an action in D&D, flipping to the action's description, the player realizing that's not what they wanted to do, and then doing something else. -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. I put this one next because again, if you don't like GM Moves, you're really not going to like PbtA games. The thing that took me a while to realize about GM Moves is that they are things that good GMs already do. They were just presented in a way I hadn't seen before. GM Moves are nothing more than a list of things to do when the GM needs to make something happen; either on a 6- dice result, when the players ignore an impending threat, or when it makes sense in the fiction. Well written GM Moves are very open ended so that they can be used in any situation. The GM Moves for DW are: Use a monster, danger, or location move / Reveal an unwelcome truth / Show signs of an approaching threat / Deal damage / Use up their resources / Turn their move back on them / Separate them / Give an opportunity that fits a class’ abilities / Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment / Offer an opportunity, with or without cost / Put someone in a spot / Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask. Often times when I'm running a game of DW I won't ever have to refer to the list of GM Moves; the current situation tells me all I need to know about what can go wrong. Fighting a dangerous enemy? Deal damage or Use a monster move make sense. Exploring a room, looking for traps, or trying to figure something out? Show signs of an approaching threat is good, as is Use up their resources. Sometimes though I get stuck or feel like I'm using one GM Move too often. That's when I scan the list and pick a move I haven't used in a while. -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. Yeah, DW is intentionally built to emulate "old-school" D&D where certain races just couldn't be certain classes. Some people really don't like that, and there are any number of fan created extras that add new races. -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. Yup. If you like rolling dice as the GM, you're probably not going to like PbtA games. 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. That's fair. PbtA games are very Narrativist. They are not attempting to simulate a specific reality, and things happen because it's dramatically appropriate for whatever particular genre the game is. If you prefer more Simulationist and Gamist games, I can absolutely see why you dislike PbtA games. -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. Do you have an example of this? I think this is one of my blind spots. I've run a lot of PbtA stuff, know how they work, and so can fill in and don't notice gaps. Again, I'm not trying to sway you to PbtA games RudeAlert. I'm also not saying you are wrong, since we are discussing subjective preferences. Based on what you've said, PbtA games are not going to give you what you enjoy, especially in regards to the GM not rolling dice and them not being simulationist or gamist games. This is very much a case of not liking a specific flavor of ice cream; no amount of people telling you you simply haven't tried the right one or gone to the right shop is going to change your preference. Out of curiosity, what game did you end up getting from your FLGS after returning DW and SW?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 0:01:03 GMT -8
So finally getting through the last bit of the GMPC piece of the podcast. I have some thoughts:
What distinguishes an NPC and a PC (played by the GM or not) is the fact that they get special treatment in the story. The camera follows them around because we as the audience (the people at the table) are supposed to be invested in their stories. After all, it is their story. They are the stars and everyone else is there in relation to them. NPC's might be extras, foils, allies, etc.
What make GM PC is when the GM decides to change roles from camera man and casting director to star of the show. Imagine going to see a Marvel movie where Stan Lee decided that instead of being a bus driver in one scene, he was going to be one of the stars of the movie. No one wants to watch Stan Lee save the day! That's what SJ (Scarlet Johansson) is for.
As a player you are like an actor. You have your part to play and its an important one. Then the director walks onto set in some costume and explains how he rewrote a lot of the script and that he's now going to take a lot of those important lines and scenes. You wouldn't stand for that shit. You are here to make a good movie that makes lots of money, not stroke his ego!
As the GM you get a lot of hats. One thing you should never get is one that says, "Staring Me" on it. You get to do it all but one thing. Don't fuck it up.
----------
Gandalf was not a GMPC. Gandalf almost never just 'saves' the party. His biggest role is messanger. He rides around trying to recruit aid for the party. Even once that aid comes, that rarely means instant resolution. The only time that is really true is with the eagles (calling a middle earth sky taxi is cool, but not really a spotlight stealer). If anything, the allies that Gandalf recruits play a larger role than he does. And in the end Gandalf leaves people on the hook for their own blunders. When they go to gondor and the hobbit (I can't remember if its merry or pippin) pledges themselves to the steward he doesn't get him off the hook. "Sorry, you just basicly joined the army, moron" was his response (paraphrased of course).
Ultimately you have to remember though that the LotR is a book series, and thus plays by different rules than an rpg. Gandalf was center stage for curing Theodan of Wormtongues influence. In an rpg that likely wouldn't have worked as well, but it isn't an rpg. Also, Gandalf would be a terrible PC. Let one guy play Jesus while everyone else plays normal people? What a rip for everyone else. It would be like playing D&D and half the group has to play NPC classes (the hobbits), half gets mundane classes (the rest of the fellowship), and the last guy gets to be an Angel and a Wizard... wtf.
|
|
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 5, 2017 1:32:27 GMT -8
Finished the episode and I could not disagree with stork's "just paint me a picture; whatever you want will be great" analogy more vehemently. PbtA games absolutely have a structure, the moves, and players do not get to "dictate what their success is going to be", regardless of how high they roll. I really don't know where the whole "tell me what went wrong", "tell me how you succeed", "tell me how you feel about hitting him" thing came from, but as gina said, it's erroneous. Someone please run a PbtA game for Stork (and not some beta version, homebrewed, playtest nonsense) if he's willing. I've got no problem with people not liking something (regardless of whether they've tried it; people can judge for themselves what things they think they'll like or not), but it's gotten to the point where I tune out most of the stuff that gets said when PbtA games are brought up because it's the hosts impressions and assumptions of how the games work rather than accurate information. Bring tomes or Jason with the Mohawk on to discuss this stuff. Hell, I'll fucking Skype in from Japan if I have to. All right. I promise that'll be the last time I mention it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 1:55:34 GMT -8
Finished the episode and I could not disagree with stork 's "just paint me a picture; whatever you want will be great" analogy more vehemently. PbtA games absolutely have a structure, the moves, and players do not get to "dictate what their success is going to be", regardless of how high they roll. I really don't know where the whole "tell me what went wrong", "tell me how you succeed", "tell me how you feel about hitting him" thing came from, but as gina said, it's erroneous. Someone please run a PbtA game for Stork (and not some beta version, homebrewed, playtest nonsense) if he's willing. I've got no problem with people not liking something (regardless of whether they've tried it; people can judge for themselves what things they think they'll like or not), but it's gotten to the point where I tune out most of the stuff that gets said when PbtA games are brought up because it's the hosts impressions and assumptions of how the games work rather than accurate information. Bring tomes or Jason with the Mohawk on to discuss this stuff. Hell, I'll fucking Skype in from Japan if I have to. All right. I promise that'll be the last time I mention it. Please, don't be quiet about this stuff. I was about to say something and seeing your post stopped me (which is a good thing, because I was gonna UNLOAD on this BS). Knowing I'm not the only one who is in dissent is sweet music to my ears.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on Jun 5, 2017 6:25:08 GMT -8
I mean, statistically someone is going to feel the same way you do about a rules system. But sure, okay.
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jun 5, 2017 8:58:19 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. oops, sorry, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jun 5, 2017 9:28:29 GMT -8
Finished the episode and I could not disagree with stork 's "just paint me a picture; whatever you want will be great" analogy more vehemently. PbtA games absolutely have a structure, the moves, and players do not get to "dictate what their success is going to be", regardless of how high they roll. I really don't know where the whole "tell me what went wrong", "tell me how you succeed", "tell me how you feel about hitting him" thing came from, but as gina said, it's erroneous. Someone please run a PbtA game for Stork (and not some beta version, homebrewed, playtest nonsense) if he's willing. I've got no problem with people not liking something (regardless of whether they've tried it; people can judge for themselves what things they think they'll like or not), but it's gotten to the point where I tune out most of the stuff that gets said when PbtA games are brought up because it's the hosts impressions and assumptions of how the games work rather than accurate information. Bring tomes or Jason with the Mohawk on to discuss this stuff. Hell, I'll fucking Skype in from Japan if I have to. All right. I promise that'll be the last time I mention it. This is a pretty quick one so I'll address that right now, I'll get to the bigger points regarding the responses to my wall of text later. Even as someone who really didn't get a good vibe from the PbtA system, I agree that Stork's representation of it is off the mark, however I should point out that even if how he describes it is wrong, that is nonetheless the feeling that the game evokes for me as well. So while it may be an erroneous representation from a mechanically accurate standpoint, from a subjective impression point of view, how he put it actually kinda hits the mark. And in the end, however a game may actually work, if it "feels" wrong then you just won't like it. Ultimately how it feels is what your impression is going to be based on, reality is basically secondary to one's subjective impression since the impression is what you actually experience. Having said all that, I totally understand people being frustrated by having a game they love being criticized based on a technical misrepresentation. I'm sure we've all been there too many times.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jun 5, 2017 12:41:59 GMT -8
Finished the episode and I could not disagree with stork's "just paint me a picture; whatever you want will be great" analogy more vehemently. PbtA games absolutely have a structure, the moves, and players do not get to "dictate what their success is going to be", regardless of how high they roll. I really don't know where the whole "tell me what went wrong", "tell me how you succeed", "tell me how you feel about hitting him" thing came from, but as gina said, it's erroneous. Someone please run a PbtA game for Stork (and not some beta version, homebrewed, playtest nonsense) if he's willing. I've got no problem with people not liking something (regardless of whether they've tried it; people can judge for themselves what things they think they'll like or not), but it's gotten to the point where I tune out most of the stuff that gets said when PbtA games are brought up because it's the hosts impressions and assumptions of how the games work rather than accurate information. Bring tomes or Jason with the Mohawk on to discuss this stuff. Hell, I'll fucking Skype in from Japan if I have to. All right. I promise that'll be the last time I mention it. Never keep quiet on this. I haven't gotten that far in the episode though. I do have a question for cadave though! You had mentioned a WWF/WWE game that you were planning on running, but gave up due to the system? What exactly were you looking to run in the world of Professional Wrestling, because I might be able to offer you a much simpler system to run your idea with?
|
|
|
Post by vyrrk on Jun 5, 2017 13:41:43 GMT -8
First: This Episode... Great show! Gina is always fun to listen to and did a great job! Rob and Probie Tim need to get a room or something. Cracked me up. CADave is funny and always and Stork is the best grumpy old man on the podcast.
Woah... PbtA games sure cause a lot of crap in this place! haha
I have read 2 of the PbtA books now and watched many games. (I haven't played so take this with a grain of salt) I really believe the system is... well... both. It is both structured and not. Stork's view of "How do you feel about hitting him" is much closer to the truth then most fans of the system would like to admit. I really don't see the why everyone wants to pretend the PbtA games are not just a slightly more structured game of Fiasco. And it looks fun as hell to play with the right group of people. The game itself explains its a "Conversation" and "its all about the fiction". Rad! Lets go! I think Stork DEEPLY needs to play a one shot of Masks or something with a good GM. I think he will have a really clear reason for loving it or hating it at that point.
Just my 2 cents... Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Jun 5, 2017 13:48:57 GMT -8
Finished the episode and I could not disagree with stork's "just paint me a picture; whatever you want will be great" analogy more vehemently. PbtA games absolutely have a structure, the moves, and players do not get to "dictate what their success is going to be", regardless of how high they roll. I really don't know where the whole "tell me what went wrong", "tell me how you succeed", "tell me how you feel about hitting him" thing came from, but as gina said, it's erroneous. Someone please run a PbtA game for Stork (and not some beta version, homebrewed, playtest nonsense) if he's willing. I've got no problem with people not liking something (regardless of whether they've tried it; people can judge for themselves what things they think they'll like or not), but it's gotten to the point where I tune out most of the stuff that gets said when PbtA games are brought up because it's the hosts impressions and assumptions of how the games work rather than accurate information. Bring tomes or Jason with the Mohawk on to discuss this stuff. Hell, I'll fucking Skype in from Japan if I have to. All right. I promise that'll be the last time I mention it. Never keep quiet on this. I haven't gotten that far in the episode though. I do have a question for cadave though! You had mentioned a WWF/WWE game that you were planning on running, but gave up due to the system? What exactly were you looking to run in the world of Professional Wrestling, because I might be able to offer you a much simpler system to run your idea with? As I understand they want a old "crappy" game to play. It's about the system as much as the setting so a simpler (better) system won't work.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 5, 2017 13:49:54 GMT -8
I've run a PbtA game for Stork and he didn't seem to observe the, "loosey goosey," thing that he's had problems with in other games. Perhaps he was being kind, perhaps it's a difference in how I run games. I dunno, what I do know is that he said he enjoyed the game. I think Stork would enjoy Masks as well, in part because it's a supers game and Stork is a fan of the genre.
As always just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by hoseirrob on Jun 5, 2017 13:57:07 GMT -8
I do have a question for cadave though! You had mentioned a WWF/WWE game that you were planning on running, but gave up due to the system? What exactly were you looking to run in the world of Professional Wrestling, because I might be able to offer you a much simpler system to run your idea with? it was less around running a WWF scenario and more about us running the WWF roleplaying game. Ever since Top Secret, Dave and I look for ancient systems to run as part of penance for some unacknowledged sins. The WWF one proved to be beyond our skill to make happen for a con. Maybe someday.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 5, 2017 14:03:35 GMT -8
Among the many design considerations in RPGs, there one I'll call "reliance on narrative vs. mechanical granularity."
Some people are cool with lots of reliance on narrative. Some people don't like much reliance on narrative at all and want everything (or most things) spelled out in one way or another. Some like it with certain aspects of a game, but not with others. Maybe you like one with your combat, but not your social, etc.
And really, what you're doing is arguing why someone doesn't like mushrooms on their pizza.
"Well you haven't had enough pizzas with mushrooms to fairly judge."
That would be an absurd thing to say, wouldn't it?
Of course, the difference between mushrooms on pizza and PtbA games is the amount of time it takes to read through one of the game books (and of course, you have to pick the right game book) and eating a slice of pizza. One takes considerably more time.
THEN, you have to play the game -- and not once will do, mind you -- several times. Oh, and it has to be with the right kind of GM.
It isn't until this point that you are QUALIFIED to DISLIKE PbtA games (which of course you won't because they're the greatest thing since sliced bread -- or pizza).
I've mentioned to a couple of the hosts that PtbA proponents are becoming about as crazy as Savage Worlds fans several years ago. And I think there's is merit to comparing this "new hawtness mania" to that old "new hawtness mania." It's almost like arguing with a religious zealot -- and about as exhausting.
Just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jun 5, 2017 14:39:49 GMT -8
I find it insane that when I mention that maybe D&D isn't as terrible as everyone treats it, I get five pages of people arguing that I'm wrong and D&D is objectively a trash game for trash people. But when one person says 'hey, PBTA games aren't the kind of game that I find stimulating' people pop out of the woodwork to explain why they're just not doing it right. The framework is great, you just need a good GM who runs the game well. Which was my point about D&D, but that's another topic.
Another thing I find strange is that the same people who decry D&D for the 5% chance of a crit fail or a crit success are fine with a system that has a 42%/28%/17% chance (on a +0/+1/+2) of a narrative fail happening ANY TIME dice are rolled.
The argument that there is structure to how the mechanics of PBTA games resolve is true, but calling Narrative Positioning equal to Mechanical Structure just is folly. The problem with Narrative Positioning is that it's all arbitrary. It's all just subjective judgement calls of the GM. There's no 'I have lock picking as a skill and thieves tools, so I'm going to pick the lock' instead we have to have a discuss whether the fiction supports my vagabond outsider has the life skills required to know how to pick locks. Oh but this lock is a weird foreign lock you've never had experience opening.
Mechanically, PBTA games take everything that's flustering about Savage Worlds and dials it up to 11. Instead of all types of shooting falling under one skill, now we have all forms hurting people falling under one move. Hope your Shadowrunner has a good Meat score, cause that's the only way to hurt people or use violence to achieve anything in The Sprawl. Sniper? Brawler? Rigger with a taser? Elaborate Trap? Nope, all one move. Compared to GURPS where you can have weak characters that are good at fighting. You can have strong characters that are bad at fighting. They are mechanically constructed and exist in the fiction a specific way.
You can say that Ronald McMuffin is a coward who's a bad shot. But when you pick up the dice he functions the same as the person next to him. Everything is just fictional trappings on top of the samey mechanics.
And you can see that why you read these games. To claim that you have to have a PHD in PBTAology to be able to speak about them is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jun 5, 2017 14:54:59 GMT -8
That being said, PBTA games are FUCKING AMAZING at what they are designed to do. Create interesting stories that have compelling characters and drama left and right. System moves are always beautifully designed. Getting Paid (Legwork) in The Sprawl is a great example. At the end of a mission, roll +Legwork. On a 10+ choose three. One a 7-9 choose one. I'ts not a set up or ambush. You are getting paid in full. The meeting doesn't attract eh attention of outside parties. The employer is identifiable. You learn something from your mission, everyone mark experience. Urban Shadows has TONS of amazing moves. The Veteran has a move where you can declare any NPC an old acquaintance. On a strong hit your old friend owes you a debt, on a weak hit you owe them a debt, and on a miss they want you dead. Oracles can make predictions about disasters and weave them into the narrative. Mask's Labels and Conditions are a beautiful way to have fights resolve narratively. But all of these stories are driven by arbitrary decisions. It's collective short form improv taken to the extreme. If your goal is to get together to tell a story that is always full of twists and turns and drama, great. But the system is going dictate much of what kind of story you can tell. You can't tell Cyberpunk stories where something goes well for the PCs once in a while in The Sprawl. The character creation system makes them hunted or have shit implants or this and that. The end mission is designed to fuck them over. The GM moves are designed to cause them problems. The game dictates the kinds of stories that work. Urban Shadows is a game of intrigue and faction based investigation based on trading debts. Monster of the Week is about investigating. I can build any character in GURPS. The mechanical choices I make have narrative impact. They exist as more than just a fictional concept. I can tell any story. I can introduce the complications the PBTA games have whenever I want. I can also not. When I introduce game elements into the simulation they have narrative weight because they are both fictional elements as well as mechanical constructs. It's not just 'because I say so' but instead 'because I say so and so does Steve Jackson. Are you really going to argue with mook?"
|
|