|
Post by vyrrk on Feb 26, 2018 12:23:43 GMT -8
Ok... So I'm going to run a game of Monster of the Week for some friends of mine next month. I've read through multiple PbtA books and almost all of them say "Play to find out".
What does that mean to you? How much do you prep for your PbtA games? Just world building and motivations? I hear people say that the games basically run themselves... Do you feel that way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 13:31:14 GMT -8
So to me 'play to find out' really means don't plan ahead, to the extent that I wouldn't even include worldbuilding in initial prep but do that as part of session 0 with the players.
The thing is though that I don't see it as something unique to PbtA or even essential to the mechanics of PbtA. Really it's a philosophy more than anything and could be applied to most games (within reason, games with mechanically complex NPCs will always require a bit of prep unless they're in the book to start with).
I would disagree that the games basically run themselves. The fact that success / fail states are pre-defined in player moves help by limiting the narrative choices available and ensuring you keep to genre but that doesn't make it run itself, everything will still fall down without a GM to hold it together.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Feb 26, 2018 20:52:12 GMT -8
(To me...) "Play to find out" means being open to the way the players maneuver and the way the dice fall. Planning some stuff out? Sure. Railroading? Not so much. But loosely, that's it.
I think many GMless games are good training for this, as you learn quite quickly that it's about working off of each others ideas and leapfrogging ahead, instead of having very strong thoughts on direction and trying to shoehorn them in.
|
|
hoobuk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 80
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, D&D 5E, Savage Worlds, WoD20, Cortex+
Currently Playing: Vampire Dark Ages 20th Anniversary, D&D 5E, Pathfinder
Currently Running: Monster of the Week
Favorite Species of Monkey: Capucin
|
Post by hoobuk on Feb 28, 2018 19:25:39 GMT -8
The way I interpret it is that I as GM give the PCs as much authority on the narrative as I have. I prep Monster of the Week more than any other PbtA, and I love the Mystery worksheet for coming up with ideas, but my mystery sheets seldom have much to do with how the game actually goes. I actually think MotW is the absolute best book for learning how to prep for PbtA, by the way. Plan your mystery sheet according to what would happen if the PCs *didn't* show up. But be prepared to drop almost everything as soon as your PCs come up with something more interesting. (For me, it usually means some NPC names and the monster/minion stats & attacks.)
I love running PbtA because I have no idea what's going to happen. My job as GM is to frame the players' actions and find a way to make all their choices fit together into a cohesive arc. The challenge then is not how well you prep (like in traditional games) but how well you put the pieces together. Listen to the backstories, goals, and fears of your PCs and then find ways to connect them. It's the same as planning a D&D adventure in many ways, but you're writing the grand epic story as it happens instead of writing it alone and hoping the players don't screw it up too much! Haha!
|
|
|
Post by vyrrk on Mar 1, 2018 12:19:24 GMT -8
The way I interpret it is that I as GM give the PCs as much authority on the narrative as I have. I prep Monster of the Week more than any other PbtA, and I love the Mystery worksheet for coming up with ideas, but my mystery sheets seldom have much to do with how the game actually goes. I actually think MotW is the absolute best book for learning how to prep for PbtA, by the way. Plan your mystery sheet according to what would happen if the PCs *didn't* show up. But be prepared to drop almost everything as soon as your PCs come up with something more interesting. (For me, it usually means some NPC names and the monster/minion stats & attacks.) I love running PbtA because I have no idea what's going to happen. My job as GM is to frame the players' actions and find a way to make all their choices fit together into a cohesive arc. The challenge then is not how well you prep (like in traditional games) but how well you put the pieces together. Listen to the backstories, goals, and fears of your PCs and then find ways to connect them. It's the same as planning a D&D adventure in many ways, but you're writing the grand epic story as it happens instead of writing it alone and hoping the players don't screw it up too much! Haha! Thanks for this. I really respect your opinion because of how much I enjoy Interpol X!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 13:19:12 GMT -8
It's the same as planning a D&D adventure in many ways, but you're writing the grand epic story as it happens instead of writing it alone and hoping the players don't screw it up too much! Haha! So I think this is one of the aspects that actually really annoys me about how people evangelise PbtA. I have repeatedly heard people make similar statements and then make it sound like PbtA is unique in this sense when really it's not, you can prep like that for any game. It's basically how I have prepped most of my GMing career and I think I could prep like that for most systems. Even D&D thanks to monster manuals taking the work out of creating mechanically complex characters. Not trying to take away from PbtA as I think the stronger games do really well in codifying how to play and prep in a way that seems to have fallen by the wayside in a lot of other games. In most systems the 'how to roleplay' section can usually be skipped they are that generic and playstyles, therefore, are more likely to be something you learn from those around you. PbtA, on the other hand, tends towards an explicit playstyle and makes it as important as the mechanics. I'd actually be interested to see how well PbtA mechanics do with an extensive prep approach, my assumption would be fine so long as you tailored the moves correctly. What immediately comes to mind is a Dungeon World style game focused solely on Dungeons built entirely ahead of time so moves reveal information and it becomes more of a puzzle to them put the pieces together.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Mar 1, 2018 15:47:41 GMT -8
Yeah you can do it in any system but it just goes down so smooth and beautiful in PbtA. I think it also helps GMs be stronger in their middle game (react to what is going on) since the beginning game happens a lot with session zero (not unlike Traveller).
I, personally, and having fun finding out what the players are planning to do. At one point last sessions (in MASKS), they went to a diner and discussed how to deal with the press. I just got out of their way and let them role play the hell out of it. That diner (Jimmy's 24/7) didn't exist five minutes before it was mentioned by a player and ended up having specialized seats for more problematic heroes and was filled with wanna be sidekicks. That's my joy with the system right there. I think my players reading their section of the rulebook really hammered the idea of a shared world and they are more into building on parts of it.
|
|
hoobuk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 80
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, D&D 5E, Savage Worlds, WoD20, Cortex+
Currently Playing: Vampire Dark Ages 20th Anniversary, D&D 5E, Pathfinder
Currently Running: Monster of the Week
Favorite Species of Monkey: Capucin
|
Post by hoobuk on Mar 6, 2018 15:12:45 GMT -8
The way I interpret it is that I as GM give the PCs as much authority on the narrative as I have. I prep Monster of the Week more than any other PbtA, and I love the Mystery worksheet for coming up with ideas, but my mystery sheets seldom have much to do with how the game actually goes. I actually think MotW is the absolute best book for learning how to prep for PbtA, by the way. Plan your mystery sheet according to what would happen if the PCs *didn't* show up. But be prepared to drop almost everything as soon as your PCs come up with something more interesting. (For me, it usually means some NPC names and the monster/minion stats & attacks.) I love running PbtA because I have no idea what's going to happen. My job as GM is to frame the players' actions and find a way to make all their choices fit together into a cohesive arc. The challenge then is not how well you prep (like in traditional games) but how well you put the pieces together. Listen to the backstories, goals, and fears of your PCs and then find ways to connect them. It's the same as planning a D&D adventure in many ways, but you're writing the grand epic story as it happens instead of writing it alone and hoping the players don't screw it up too much! Haha! Thanks for this. I really respect your opinion because of how much I enjoy Interpol X! So glad you like it! It's been such a joy to play and run! And I'm always happy to chat about Monster of the Week and PbtA in general if you ever need. MotW is me 3rd favorite game of all time, right behind Masks and Monsterhearts!
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 6, 2018 23:02:05 GMT -8
I know I'm not allowed in this section of the forum, but I have to say, "play to find out" has been practiced by over-worked GMs for decades.
I call it "I forgot to prep, so I'm going to go with the whims of the players and dice."
As Eric said, this is the key to any strong mid-game.
It's nice that it's been codified. But i have to say, back in the 1980s, when I was running my old GURPS Fantasy game on Friday nights, I would often forget to prep. But the players had plans. So it was okay.
And I think that's true with any good game. The beginning is determined by fiat, either the GM or by the players. The mid-game is all about the GM reacting to the players. The players are driving the story. For the end, the GM is searching for a good, climactic endpoint.
These responsibilities can be outsourced in all sorts of ways, but in the end, I don't think there's innovation with "play to find out." It's the way a lot of us have been running games for decades.
And Adam, if you disagree, we should save that for the next show you're on...
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Mar 7, 2018 1:29:08 GMT -8
I think there is some innovation in play to find out. And that is mostly not on the GM side. As Stu says, GM’s have been winging it for decades. At least I have.
But no, the innovation here is the command to players about their characters. Don’t come to the table with a strong immutable concept of your character, or pages of backstory. You will discover who you are through play. Just pick up a playbook that takes your fancy, take a couple of choices to make it your own, then “play to find out” who you actually are.
You might argue that idea too has been around for ages (Traveller character creation is a mini-game in itself) but the concept had definitely changed how I create characters since I discovered PBTA games. Simpler character generation, with fewer choices is the way forward for me. Let’s make my character unique through play, not what Robin Laws calls “homework”. Which is why I find some modern systems decidedly old fashioned in character creation (looking at you, Star Wars and L5R 5th Beta).
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Mar 7, 2018 8:53:17 GMT -8
These responsibilities can be outsourced in all sorts of ways, but in the end, I don't think there's innovation with "play to find out." It's the way a lot of us have been running games for decades. I think that's true, many folks ran games like this anyways, or at least sometimes did (e.g. when they forgot to prep, or prepped "right" and the players went "left". However, I think that one thing that these games (modern, hippie, whatever you want to call them) do is formalize how the game is supposed to be run in a manner which prioritizes this methodology or play style. You can get in a D&D game and get one of many different running styles from adversarial to collaborative and so on, but that's completely up to the DM and how they read and interpreted the rules, which didn't mandate a whole lot on some of these subjects. They may have given tips on running the game, but not told you how to do so in an explicit manner. Whereas some of these games actual mandate how the GM is supposed to play with the players. How, or even if, they are supposed to or allowed to prepare any of the story ahead of time. This may not be different from how some of us ran things anyways, but it's definitely different from how the earlier games were written to be played. This standardizes the mode of play for these games to some extent. If you are a GM which needs to have things prepared ahead of time, this is not the game for you. (Or to a different extent: This game will force you to play outside of your comfort zone - also a good thing.) And of course you can ignore some or any of that, as in any game, but the game as written prioritizes that play style. Just like playing as written for Microscope or The Quiet Year actually mandates how much each player can contribute as a means of enforcing that everyone is participating equally. You can simply ignore the rules of the game, and allow players to talk as much as they want, or suggest things to other players, but you will find a very different result where quiet players may very well participate less in the story. And Adam, if you disagree, we should save that for the next show you're on... Oh... Fight! Fight! Fight! But no, the innovation here is the command to players about their characters. Don’t come to the table with a strong immutable concept of your character, or pages of backstory. You will discover who you are through play. Great perspective, and so valid!
|
|
hoobuk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 80
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, D&D 5E, Savage Worlds, WoD20, Cortex+
Currently Playing: Vampire Dark Ages 20th Anniversary, D&D 5E, Pathfinder
Currently Running: Monster of the Week
Favorite Species of Monkey: Capucin
|
Post by hoobuk on Mar 8, 2018 18:45:44 GMT -8
Well, I'm not allowed to disagree with Stu, yet, so I won't. But I agree with all of you, actually! As Fredrix and Tomes said, the innovation is that it's built into the game, instead of being an "if the GM forgot to prep" thing. I think mainly it helps the GM and PCs both from assuming that the game is on rails, so that everyone gets equal surprise.
|
|
hoobuk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 80
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, D&D 5E, Savage Worlds, WoD20, Cortex+
Currently Playing: Vampire Dark Ages 20th Anniversary, D&D 5E, Pathfinder
Currently Running: Monster of the Week
Favorite Species of Monkey: Capucin
|
Post by hoobuk on Mar 8, 2018 18:46:25 GMT -8
Also... Stu! Get back in your corner! Haha!
|
|
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 Mar 14, 2018 1:23:03 GMT -8
What the hell? I'm gone for a few months and suddenly everyone is down here in the PBTA sub forums having a discussion. Seriously? I see how it is. I agree with essentially everything that's been said here. Including the parts about "playing to find out" not being the exclusive property of PBTA games. You can do that in any system, really. "Play to find out" for me is similar to something that gets said on the show a lot: as GM, don't worry about how the PCs are going to deal with an issue. It's not your responsibility as GM to come up with solutions, nor should you even attempt to do that. As hoobuk said, you write up your session notes, or whatever prep you want to do, as if the PCs didn't get involved. If the NPCs / monsters / situations in your game had free reign and progressed to their logical conclusion, what would that look like? After you've figured that out, you play to find out how the PCs are going to get involved, changes things, and how the world is going to react. I too think Monster of the Week does a great job of showing this, though Dungeon World and of course Apocalypse World also talks about it. Those were the first places I encountered the concept, which is why I incorrectly and unfairly associate the play style as a PBTA thing.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on May 27, 2018 14:19:30 GMT -8
BUT! I do wonder about "PtFO" vs "Some Prep & Some Improv" strategies. I don't know about your groups but if I'm GMing or am playing in a game with GM who's just totally winging it? I feel like I can feel the world morphing, immersion in an interesting plot with their mood/energy level. I like to have something prepped to build from. If a GM says "Hey we're playing Dungeon World and I've got a map lets go!" vs "Hey we're playing Dungeon World session 0 happened and these are some of the things I would like to see take place and these are some of the things in the world that most certainly ARE taking place"...Anyway I like the latter. Sessions where the GM has engaged in zero prep? They always seem to show their puppet strings and frayed edges.
These PbtA AP's have been fantastic examples of how to really roll with what the PCs are up for but its really nice to see them still being used from Episode to episode to further develop the story. How much of that is used by the GM to prep for the next session ?
|
|