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 May 24, 2017 18:04:04 GMT -8
Just bought The Black Hack after a conversation with Probie Tim and goddamn it. There's a lot to like in those compact 20 A5-sized pages. I especially like that everything is player facing. Meaning the GM doesn't roll dice apart from monster damage. When a monster attacks, the player rolls to see if their character avoids it. The simplified Theater of the Mind ranges of Close Nearby, Far-Away, and Distant are also nice. I also like the fact there's no list of actions characters can take. More and more I find myself uninterested in games that have a list of actions characters can do, especially if they have very rigid and specific effects. I feel it restricts players and causes the GM to scramble when players want to do something "off list". I much prefer guidelines on how to handle broad types of actions, and The Black Hack provides that. I'm still a PbtA devotee, but The Black Hack has me (surprisingly) excited in a way many other recent games I've purchased haven't. Plus, it's only $2!
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 24, 2017 18:58:34 GMT -8
*ahem* Mwuh huh hah ha haa!
|
|
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 May 24, 2017 19:42:24 GMT -8
*ahem* Mwuh huh hah ha haa! You dirty, dirty enabler. Also, brain flash! (That's a thing, right?) You could TOTALLY use Dungeon World style GM, monster, and location moves in The Black Hack. Whenever the player fails an attribute test, just make a GM or monster move as appropriate. Sweet!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 1:28:11 GMT -8
Wait, I'm confused - how does a list of actions differ from a list of PbtA style moves?
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 25, 2017 4:57:33 GMT -8
Wait, I'm confused - how does a list of actions differ from a list of PbtA style moves? PBTA style moves are more flexible in interpretation than most predefined actions. for example, in dungeon world, a failure could mean you triggered a trap or alerted a monster as appropriate to the description used for the action. but the complication need not be specifically a trap or monster. it could be as simple as a bowstring snapping or a sword chipping or you being defenseless against being attacked because you left yourself open. plus, the GM can come up with unique moves for the players, like when i played a wizard in dungeon world and got approved to have an intelligence based at will version of the magical volley that only dealt 1d4 damage on a success. it was weaker than magic missile in that game, but the big advantage was it gave traditional style wizards something to do in every fight that was at least somewhat useful without forcing them to resort to casting "Shankabitch" and failing horribly without that critical hit. because if you looked at old school D&D without old school at will offensive cantrips, wizards were literally unable to contribute anything useful to combat and had to attempt to shank uselessly with a dagger to look like they were doing something just to get a share of group combat contribution XP. they knew their contribution was worthless, but they tried it just to get a chance to earn XP. i find it more effective to give Wizards an at will ranged intelligence based attack that deals 1d4 untyped damage and doesn't scale in those OSR systems. so that they can prepare spells other than magic missile, though i require them to roll an intelligence based attack roll for that at will volley. i found it really doesn't imbalance things much, except you see a lot less magic missiles at the low levels.
|
|
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 May 25, 2017 5:11:08 GMT -8
Wait, I'm confused - how does a list of actions differ from a list of PbtA style moves? I was expecting a question similar to this, and have been thinking about it after making that post. In all honesty, the biggest factor here is most likely bias. I really like PbtA games, and so games that don't use PbtA style moves are "less good" in my opinion. Trying to set aside my bias though, I think it's a presentation thing. Long lists of actions that are written like a technical manual don't really grab me in the same way the phrasing of PbtA moves do. They're dry and boring, especially if the actions have lots of triggers, and conditions. I most recently encountered this when reading The Shadow of the Demon Lord core book a few nights back. A partial list of the actions characters can take looks like this: Those are be no means terrible, mind you. They're short, easy to digest, and make their point pretty quickly. The entries for stunts and maneuvers are perhaps better examples of what I'm talking about: Again, those aren't so bad I guess. The last two are a bit wordy. I'm not saying that the entries for Escape and Feint are poorly written or could be simplified. I'm just saying they read like a technical manual, which I don't particularly care for. They're kind of dry and boring, but I understand the rules need to be written in such a way so that everyone at the table knows precisely what mechanical effects happen when a character attempts these maneuvers. As for PbtA style moves, I really like the "When you (action)..." phrasing. The conditions necessary for the action to happen are almost always conveyed in non-technical language as part of that trigger. At least in the PbtA games that are better written. Reading those again, I think I have a better idea of why I don't really care for them. It gets back to that thing I've said before about me seeing roleplaying games as being on a spectrum, where one end is pure rules and the other end is pure trust. Some games ensure fair play through clear rules that lay out precisely what actions trigger what effects, and what those effects do. If there is any confusion or dispute about something that happens in the game, anyone can refer to the rules to clear things up. Other games ensure fair play by encouraging the group to come to a decision on their own. When there's confusion or a dispute about something in game, the players (including the GM) often talk it out. Now I don't think that any roleplaying game is on either of those ends of the spectrum. All of them are more or less towards the middle. But I tend to prefer games that push more towards the trust end, mainly because I get my "rules games fix" elsewhere. When I read the entry for Stabilize above, my first thought is "Well duh the creature I'm going to stabilize has to be incapacitated and within my character's reach. How else would my character stabilize them?" But that's because I'm looking at it from a trust perspective. For someone coming from a rules perspective, they'd want to know what conditions need to be true for the action to happen. Hopefully that makes sense. That was a rather stream of consciousness kind of post, and I think my ideas changed as I was writing it out. Looking at it now, I will totally rescind that "I feel it restricts players..." line on my original post. The reason I don't really care for the list of actions thing is entirely because of the type of gamer I am.
|
|
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 May 25, 2017 5:21:08 GMT -8
PBTA style moves are more flexible in interpretation than most predefined actions. Possibly. The triggers for the moves in PbtA games can range from very specific to very broad. That isn't always a good thing though. As much as I like PbtA games, I have sometimes found myself thinking "Well, you could have worded that a lot better" as some move triggers. Being flexible in interpretation is great, but it's a double edged sword. plus, the GM can come up with unique moves for the players, To be fair, GMs (and players) can totally do that in non-PbtA games. There is absolutely nothing stopping players from making up new actions on the fly based on what's happening in the game. like when i played a wizard in dungeon world and got approved to have an intelligence based at will version of the magical volley that only dealt 1d4 damage on a success. it was weaker than magic missile in that game, but the big advantage was it gave traditional style wizards something to do in every fight that was at least somewhat useful without forcing them to resort to casting "Shankabitch" and failing horribly without that critical hit. because if you looked at old school D&D without old school at will offensive cantrips, wizards were literally unable to contribute anything useful to combat and had to attempt to shank uselessly with a dagger to look like they were doing something just to get a share of group combat contribution XP. they knew their contribution was worthless, but they tried it just to get a chance to earn XP. i find it more effective to give Wizards an at will ranged intelligence based attack that deals 1d4 untyped damage and doesn't scale in those OSR systems. so that they can prepare spells other than magic missile, though i require them to roll an intelligence based attack roll for that at will volley. i found it really doesn't imbalance things much, except you see a lot less magic missiles at the low levels. Yeah, you've gone off on a tangent here. I'm not sure what in that above paragraph comes from old school D&D and what comes from Dungeon World.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 25, 2017 5:30:12 GMT -8
You dirty, dirty enabler. *sly wink*
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 25, 2017 5:37:51 GMT -8
that paragraph was kind of a mishmash of a dungeon world modification based on bad memories of old school D&D. in old School D&D, wizards who used up their one daily spell had absolutely no way to contribute to a fight, the best they could do was swing uselessly and make it look like they were doing something when they were merely fishing for that natural 20.
i would have rather that old school D&D included some form of at will offensive option for wizards that wasn't linked to their likely abysmally low physical stats. the thing is, even a d4 damage with an intelligence based attack roll that had about a 40% chance of hitting was better than a d8 damage with a 95% chance to miss.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 25, 2017 5:51:08 GMT -8
in old School D&D, wizards who used up their one daily spell had absolutely no way to contribute to a fight That's... not entirely correct, and a large misconception about magic-users.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on May 25, 2017 5:58:39 GMT -8
Yah, I've heard good things about The Indie Hack as well. Gotta check these things out one of these days.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 25, 2017 6:15:45 GMT -8
in old School D&D, wizards who used up their one daily spell had absolutely no way to contribute to a fight That's... not entirely correct, and a large misconception about magic-users. it is true about low level magic users in old school D&D though. you get like one spell, then you are completely unable to inflict damage in combat because you most likely have neither the strength nor the dexterity to have a respectable accuracy. and if you aren't contributing to the defeat of your enemies, you generally aren't helping the party 85% of the time, because 85% of the rules are dedicated to combat and the primary advancement reward came from killing sentient beings and taking their stuff. contributing tactical advantage means nothing if you have nobody who has a reliable chance to inflict damage. i don't count being able to hit if you roll a natural 20 a contribution if you only ever hit on a natural 20.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on May 25, 2017 6:30:00 GMT -8
That's... not entirely correct, and a large misconception about magic-users. it is true about low level magic users in old school D&D though. you get like one spell, then you are completely unable to inflict damage in combat because you most likely have neither the strength nor the dexterity to have a respectable accuracy. No, it is not true. You get more spells as you level up, but beyond that, you can create scrolls and potions, you can get hirelings to fight on your behalf, there are many, many things you can do. If the player of a magic-user casts one spell and sits in a corner yawning for the rest of the combat, that's a player and GM problem.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 25, 2017 6:45:09 GMT -8
i know you can get hirelings to fight on your behalf. but not every group allowed you to recruit hirelings, and any hirelings you recruited ate a share of the experience and ate a share of the loot, which made nightmarish slow leveling even more nightmarishly slow. i'm usually used to blazing through the first five levels in about 10 sessions at 6 hours apiece.
i had GMs who wouldn't allow combat oriented hirelings because combat was already slow, because we had about 15 characters among 6 players.
|
|
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 May 25, 2017 17:29:58 GMT -8
i know you can get hirelings to fight on your behalf. but not every group allowed you to recruit hirelings, and any hirelings you recruited ate a share of the experience and ate a share of the loot, which made nightmarish slow leveling even more nightmarishly slow. i'm usually used to blazing through the first five levels in about 10 sessions at 6 hours apiece. i had GMs who wouldn't allow combat oriented hirelings because combat was already slow, because we had about 15 characters among 6 players. I have to agree with Probie Tim here. What you've mentioned above is due to choices the GM has made. Not the system. While magic user may get a small number of spells per day in earlier versions of D&D-ish games, the rules aren't preventing the character from doing other things. That is entirely the player or GM's doing.
|
|