temmogen
Initiate Douchebag
I am the thread killer
Posts: 40
Preferred Game Systems: 1st Ed. AD&D; Pathfinder; Mongoose Traveller; Call of Cuthulhu
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by temmogen on Jun 5, 2017 15:19:16 GMT -8
Been burnin thru popcorn reading this thread... My new favorite show.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jun 5, 2017 15:37:30 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. Thanks for the response! Shame I cant help you then!
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jun 5, 2017 16:08:04 GMT -8
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. My main thing is that when you roll dice in PbtA, something interesting always happens. For most d20 systems, this isn't the case. Because of playing so much pbta I've come to expect something interesting and fun to happen when i miss a TN/fail a roll in other games, and when that doesn't happen, it's a bit disappointing for me. I couldn't care less about the 5% crit fail or crit hit, because in those games, you have the same chance of rolling any face of the die, in pbta, the odds lean more towards success at a cost.
|
|
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 18:06:07 GMT -8
I mean, statistically someone is going to feel the same way you do about a rules system. But sure, okay. I've got no problem with people having a different opinion of games than I do. Lord knows I dislike some popular systems. I'd be a giant hypocrite if I could express a negative opinion about game others people liked, but threw a hissy fit when people did the same about games I liked. 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. Feelings and impressions are absolutely valid, and I am not trying to say how someone feels about a game is wrong. That's like arguing over a favorite flavor of ice cream, or whether mushrooms belong on pizza. What bugged me was the lack of "I got the impression...", "It seemed to me...", "I felt that..." at the beginning of some sentences. If you don't indicate that something is an impression, a vibe, or a feeling you have, it sounds like you are stating a fact. And if that fact is wrong, I want it to be pointed out. An example of this happened earlier in the episode when Night Witches got brought up. I believe the statement was something along the lines of "Yeah, but Night Witches is meant for one-shots." No it isn't. That game is no more designed for one-shots than D&D, Savage Worlds, or Swords & Wizardry. And Gina brought that up as a correction. I'm not saying I want the hosts to constantly fact check each other. I'm not saying someone needs to have a PhD in a game system to be allowed to talk about it. I'm not even saying you need to have played the game to talk about it. I guess all I'm saying is that it bugs me when something is presented as a fact when it is an impression. 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. That's my cue to leave this alone. I don't want to be known as a zealot on the boards or in the community. I'm aware that this is bugging me more than it should because of how much I like the games being talked about. It also seems like I'm dumping on stork, which is not the case. I think he's a great host and a great moderator. I love how he can keep things on track and bring the conversation back on topic when it's strayed too far afield. I love how he asks clarifying questions for the audience's benefit when something comes up that everyone may not understand or be familiar with. I like the perspective he brings, and I very much enjoy his self-deprecating sense of humor. I'm very worried I'm coming off as an asshole here, so, yeah. Like I said, this is the last time I'll bring it up.
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jun 5, 2017 18:29:42 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. ^^^^ This. All this. As for added details I'm going to cover a few points that kind of address some of the responses to my wall of text in a fairly brief way as I don't really feel like gradually writing a thesis on a game (and game design style) that I don't even like. Regarding what some people have said about PbtA games being a conversation, that is precisely what I DON'T want from a game. I don't want every decision point to have to stop the game while the GM and I (or the player and I if I'm GMing) hash out the details of what is "actually" going to be done in the game until we agree on some mutually satisfying middle-ground. I just want actions to be called out, rolled for, resolved, and then described within the narrative in as quick a way as possible so that the narrative can keep progressing smoothly with as few interruptions as possible. For me the idea of having to go over so many decisions in such detail so frequently just sounds like a friking nightmare. Regarding the strength of my negative reaction to PbtA, I wonder if the game by eschewing strong Gamist and Simulationist elements to focus on Narrativism somehow fell into a sort of RPG uncanny valley for me. Almost like my brain recognized it as an RPG but one that is designed in such a way that it almost appears as an abomination to my RPG sensibilities thus causing this extreme and instinctive revulsion. Almost like it's my anti-RPG, the exact opposite of what I look for in an RPG system. As I outlined in my big post, in my gaming STYLE I pretty much fall smack in the middle of the GNS chart, but because I see the narrative element as being an emergent property of gaming, what I look for in a gaming SYSTEM is almost exclusively Gamist and Simulationist. So since I expect the narrative element to be a natural emergent consequence of the gaming experience, a game that is strongly narrativist sort of interjects itself in the way of the emergent narrative that I want from the game. So, while I like the narrative aspect of RPGs, having a game that injects its own narrative elements (encoded in the very rules of the game) is kinda like pouring a ton of sugar on top of a piece of sugar pie; I love me some sweets but that's just way too much. I expect the sweetness of the sugar pie to provide satisfaction for my sweet tooth, without exaggerating the experience by going overboard. Also, I don't want every single action/roll to always lead to something "interesting," I want to be free to fail and just fall flat on my face, or fail to unlock the door, or fail to find the secret treasure vault, without something "interesting" happening every damn time. This whole "failing forward" thing just sounds like the gaming equivalent of corporate speak, it's like trying to soften the blow of failure as if I just couldn't handle it. I'm a grown ass man, I can take some fucking failures and dead-ends every once in a while, I don't need my GMs to handle me with kid gloves. That's my only issue with FFG's narrative dice, I love the concept overall but I feel like they almost don't allow you to just succeed or fail without something "special" or "fancy" happening. I know this is going to come off as condescending to those who love PbtA games and I assure you I don't mean it as such, but that's how it feels to me. I don't need to be coddled because I supposedly can't handle just a plain old boring failure. If I'm losing a battle I don't feel the need to couch my retreat under PR-speak by calling it "advancing towards the rear," I'm totally ok with just going "Oh shit! We're getting our asses grilled! Retreat!" To me having everything be "interesting" or "exciting" means that eventually nothing is. For the same reason that never failing would make success meaningless, if everything is "narratively stimulating and engaging" then everything becomes kinda flat because there's never any lulls in the progress of the story. I want ups and downs in my games, including in the level of excitement and progress speed. I want the occasional dead-end, red-tuna (fuck herring!), and just plain mistakes. Oh look the PCs totally thought person A was the killer and pursued that for several game sessions, but it was always person B all along! Well, looks like a bunch more innocents are now dead and maybe an innocent person is in jail; I wonder what will happen next! This particular example doesn't have anything to do with PbtA games specifically but it serves to demonstrate what I want from a game. Fuck. So much for being brief. Anyways, I think I'm done with this topic. There's probably more I could say but I think I've already belabored the point enough as it is. Very long story short: the Apocalypse engine is DEFINITELY not for me and neither are Narrativist games in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 19:20:31 GMT -8
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? Because it would be crazy to think that more than one type of mushroom or way of cooking it exists, especially on pizza. I'm not saying you should try mushrooms from Dominos repeatedly. Maybe you got a bad batch, but other than that it's the same every time. I wouldn't think that I knew what mushrooms on my pizza tasted like at an artisan pizza place based on my experienceeating dominos though. More than one PbtA game exists (types of mushrooms). Out of those, some GM's will do a better or worse job of running the game (how it's cooked). Asking for some type of control is not crazy. RPG's are notoriously hard to understand by a simple read through. Most people don't catch everything the first time and have to go back to refresh or double check things. A perfect rpg would be understood at a glance, but that's not most of them. Even good ones often need some reflection or discussion before they click for a reader. If you don't give it that effort you are setting yourself up for failure. Expecting to approach a new system as if it is one you are already comfortable with is an asinine expectation. Getting grumpy because it takes effort tells me that people shouldn't have bothered in the first place. If you're going to give up the first time you run into an issue you should have just stuck with whatever game you prefer to play. So yes, you do have to try more than once. Read it. Re-read it. Talk about it. Play it. Run it. Discuss it. That's what it takes. That's what it takes for any system. Expecting otherwise is the problem. Roleplaying is not a fully transferable skill. It would be like expecting someone who shoots rifles to be good with a bow. They're a 'good shot', so they should have an easy time of it, right? Heck, they have 30 years of experience and they know what they like! If the bow doesn't shoot well for them the first time out then they must clearly dislike archery... It's different. You won't know if you like it till you give it a chance. You have to let go of what you think you know. Some of what you've done before will help you. Some of it won't. I mean, you all are drinkers right? How many of you enjoyed beer the first couple times you drank it? You like it now though, don't you? It's not like we all haven't acquired tastes, given enough exposure (I'm not trying to say PbtA is only an acquired taste, fyi. I liked it from the get go). I'm not here to tell you that you must play PbtA. Just don't bash or hate on it because you wouldn't expend the effort. There are legit reasons to not like PbtA (playbooks make for limited replayability, etc). I'd love to hear about those, and not about people who dislike the system but have never played in a single session of it.
|
|
cybereverything
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 15
Preferred Game Systems: Narrative
Currently Playing: Cortex+ (mostly) not-quite Steampunk Pirate Viking...thing.
Currently Running: rotating GM for above
|
Post by cybereverything on Jun 5, 2017 19:29:02 GMT -8
Quick update, as I'm in the middle of 'how to do a boar hunt' planning for this weekend's game: We sort of split the world, but not fully - it's got a journey component to the metaplot, but I've realized that we are both not revealing each of our majors lines of inquiry. Hopefully it will turn out to be a braid of sorts - 1/3 mine, 1/3 his, and 1/3 contributions from the other three players - a co-creating versus constricting each other too much.
I'll be able to give a better update in...oh, at least 6 months. JP (not James)
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Jun 5, 2017 20:11:10 GMT -8
One thing I would like to point out.
I have now played PbtA games twice under two different and very good GMs.
It was fun but I don't like the system enough to actually want to GM it which is my litmus test for a game. I will absolutely play it again but I would rather play Savage Worlds.
I think part of it was the expectation. I kept hearing that this system was so great so life changing that I expected to be wowed when I played it. I wasn't. Thus instead of being a good time it ended up slightly disappointing me.
Be very careful how you pitch things.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jun 5, 2017 20:24:26 GMT -8
One thing I would like to point out. I have now played PbtA games twice under two different and very good GMs. It was fun but I don't like the system enough to actually want to GM it which is my litmus test for a game. I will absolutely play it again but I would rather play Savage Worlds. I think part of it was the expectation. I kept hearing that this system was so great so life changing that I expected to be wowed when I played it. I wasn't. Thus instead of being a good time it ended up slightly disappointing me. Be very careful how you pitch things. Not that I think it would change much, but looking back, I can say with certainty, that the session of WWW I ran for you and your friends, was not me at my peak.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Jun 5, 2017 20:30:43 GMT -8
One thing I would like to point out. I have now played PbtA games twice under two different and very good GMs. It was fun but I don't like the system enough to actually want to GM it which is my litmus test for a game. I will absolutely play it again but I would rather play Savage Worlds. I think part of it was the expectation. I kept hearing that this system was so great so life changing that I expected to be wowed when I played it. I wasn't. Thus instead of being a good time it ended up slightly disappointing me. Be very careful how you pitch things. Not that I think it would change much, but looking back, I can say with certainty, that the session of WWW I ran for you and your friends, was not me at my peak. It was still a good game for learning the system and after e3 and everything I am going to ask you to run it againnfor a completely in person group at some point. Like I said did enjoy playing it but it won't be my go to system. But you are doing the whole "if only I ran it better" thing at least it looks that way to me. 36 years of GMing and playing my own council will I keep and you were a fine GM.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Jun 5, 2017 20:42:42 GMT -8
As for running multiple a game with multiple GMs, we did it in Shadowrun for years. I think a lot of the discussion was a series of misunderstandings because people were using the same terms but ascribing different definitions to them. Ultimately I agree with the conclusion stork came to. I wouldn't try and coordinate anything between GMs. For our Shadowrun game, we all played in Seattle but each GM had our own corners of the city and our own cast of NPCs. I ran primarily Irish Mob and Yakuza dealing jobs to expand territory, another person ran a lot of Gang related content, and our main GM just focused on a core cast of NPCs giving random Shadowruns. I had my own plot that was moving after every session I ran, as did the story of the gangs, but our main GM didn't have one. It was really just slice of life vignettes. So when I run, the other GMs play, they don't know my plots, and are dealing with my NPCs. When I play, the same is true. You don't have to worry about someone taking over while you're in the middle of a story, because you run the game until your story is through. It worked well for us. It might be what you want, cybereverything
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jun 5, 2017 20:46:56 GMT -8
Also, I don't want every single action/roll to always lead to something "interesting," I want to be free to fail and just fall flat on my face, or fail to unlock the door, or fail to find the secret treasure vault, without something "interesting" happening every damn time. . So, I get that it's not for you, and I like to think I'm like Hyvemind, instead of the other louder person, you didn't enjoy what you read, and that's fine. My reasoning for bringing up the "something interesting happens" point is because of personal experiences in d20. Falling on your face is fun, I've no problem with that, PbtA does that for me and I love it. But I played a 5 hour session of dnd, where the d20 never once rolled above a natural 10. So every attack missed, every skill check failed. What happened? Oh, just try again next turn. Or take 10, or take 20 on skill checks. Not only was it frustrating, it was just plain old boring. Sure, I could rp to make up for it, but when that role-playing led to making a die roll, my character went back to being utterly incompetent at everything. So for me, something always happening when dice roll 'poorly' will always be more enjoyable than nothing happening when dice roll 'poorly'.
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jun 5, 2017 20:48:17 GMT -8
So yes, you do have to try more than once. Read it. Re-read it. Talk about it. Play it. Run it. Discuss it. That's what it takes. That's what it takes for any system. Expecting otherwise is the problem. Roleplaying is not a fully transferable skill. Ok, for the record, I don't think I've ever put anywhere near that much work (and yes at that point it is WORK) into any game, even the ones I was actually interested in. So why in the name of sanity would anyone ever go that far for a game that they're NOT interested in? Just in the slim off chance that maybe at some point in some nebulous future they might possibly conceivably maybe go, "hey, this game doesn't suck that much after all?" That is just not worth it. If a game requires that much work and convincing to be "enjoyed" then forget it. There are so many games out there that I do find interesting that there's absolutely no reason for me to ever spend that much time and work on a game that I'm not interested in. Even if it was the only RPG in the whole world, I could always just design my own based on what I know I do like. Also, it's not as if I'm going to live forever and have absolutely nothing else to do with my time, so you bet I'm going to prioritize based on what I actually like, not what I might possibly, conceivably, maybe someday like if the moon is in Saturn and a purple pig flies by during a solar eclipse on a late Thursday afternoon. I'm never going to play every single game ever published, nor would I ever have that much time on my hands, so one way or another I have to make choices regarding which games I'll give my time to. And that won't be the ones I'm not drawn to because the odds that I might possibly turn out to be wrong are far too low to be worth the gamble, again, especially given the sheer number of games out there that I already find appealing. There's literally no logical reason for me to devote that kind of commitment to a game I'm not drawn to, and I would argue the same is true of the vast majority of other people out there.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Jun 5, 2017 20:51:40 GMT -8
Not that I think it would change much, but looking back, I can say with certainty, that the session of WWW I ran for you and your friends, was not me at my peak. It was still a good game for learning the system and after e3 and everything I am going to ask you to run it againnfor a completely in person group at some point. Like I said did enjoy playing it but it won't be my go to system. But you are doing the whole "if only I ran it better" thing at least it looks that way to me. 36 years of GMing and playing my own council will I keep and you were a fine GM. Of course I am. Almost any artist would do that, cause they are all filled with self doubt, and if they couldn't inspire others to enjoy the fun, then it is their own failure as an artist. But, yeah, I'd run again for you, especially with a completely in person table, the mixing and matching of some in person, some online, is not something I love.
|
|
|
Post by RudeAlert on Jun 5, 2017 20:57:11 GMT -8
Also, I don't want every single action/roll to always lead to something "interesting," I want to be free to fail and just fall flat on my face, or fail to unlock the door, or fail to find the secret treasure vault, without something "interesting" happening every damn time. . So, I get that it's not for you, and I like to think I'm like Hyvemind, instead of the other louder person, you didn't enjoy what you read, and that's fine. My reasoning for bringing up the "something interesting happens" point is because of personal experiences in d20. Falling on your face is fun, I've no problem with that, PbtA does that for me and I love it. But I played a 5 hour session of dnd, where the d20 never once rolled above a natural 10. So every attack missed, every skill check failed. What happened? Oh, just try again next turn. Or take 10, or take 20 on skill checks. Not only was it frustrating, it was just plain old boring. Sure, I could rp to make up for it, but when that role-playing led to making a die roll, my character went back to being utterly incompetent at everything. So for me, something always happening when dice roll 'poorly' will always be more enjoyable than nothing happening when dice roll 'poorly'. I hear ya, it sucks when the dice gods are against you (just ask Stork!). As a minor counter point though, doesn't it feel that much more awesome when they finally turn the table and you just start kicking ass after sucking for so long? On the other hand though, I realize that that level of whiffiness is definitely annoying, hence why I like a nice bell curve to my dice-roll mechanics, and I'm also not a fan of d20, both the system and the die, in no small part for the very problem you encountered. Also, I tend to favor fewer dice-rolls in games when I GM, in part to avoid that problem, as well as ridiculous results like a master ninja assassin just failing to climb an 8-foot wall in a completely non-stressful situation due to shitty rolls. Yes, that happened, and yes it felt stupid, but that really shouldn't have required a roll and I wouldn't call for one if it happened in a game that I was GMing.
|
|