Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs

[Emberashh]

Drawing on existing game design has nothing to do with my point. Nothing innovative comes out of nowhere. Yes, you can trace back its design, but it is a new thing.

Can also be said that the assertion that you can trace elements to some earlier game is pretty dismissive of the overall experience the new game delivers.

There is no other, released game thats really doing what Hollows is in the way that it does it. That some elements might be similar to something else doesn't detract from that nor make it any less innovative.

Its often said by non-creatives that creativity and originality are dead and everything is just derivative. That isn't really true, of course, but it also neglects the idea that performance is something that can never truly be derivative without plagiarism.

Whether you're making a painting, writing a book, or designing a game, your end result is going to be irrevocably unique, even if the style and ideas you utilized are similar to someone elses.

This is after all what makes seeing different takes on the same Play valuable. You haven't seen everything the Play can offer if you've only seen one performance.

Likewise for painting the same scene or object, or reading 5 different books in the same genre.

Lord of the Rings might have been foundational to modern fantasy, but that doesn't make the Ranger's Apprentice, Harry Potter, or Imaro merely derivatives unworthy of the distinction of being innovative.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I laughed, but I have read and watched plenty of fiction where somebody got something much different than what they wanted from their poorly-controlled attempt at "mere threat" of violence. If you put a sharp blade to somebody's jugular, or draw a loaded gun at all, that's a fraught situation. I'd be strongly inclined as an Apocalypse World GM to make clear to players that doing either of those things clearly counts as Going Aggro rather than Seduce or Manipulate. A roll of 6- when harm or death is very much on the table, especially if by accident, means that harm or death is very much happening.

I'm with you here about drawing steel being fraught. I was being a little flip, but it occurred to me after I posted that a lot of my D&D games (as a player or a GM) have often had a sort of hysterical danger to their tone (things are violent, ludicrous, and deadly serious all at the same time). Particularly early in campaigns, it's been easy for characters to get in way over their heads, especially when doing things like drawing steel to intimidate. And, though I'd be perfectly comfortable having Marvin's head be cut off in Burning Wheel after a failed check, I'd be hesitant to make the same call for a failed skill check in most D&D games I've run, even for the same group of players. Maybe I need to be braver as a GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you're making pretty drastic assumptions. We're talking about not abstracting all the elements that go into the interaction.

That doesn't preclude nor exclude the capability to portray an irrational character.

I’m not making any assumptions.

If you intend to follow through on whatever threat you’re making, REGARDLESS OF THE RESPONSE, then Go Aggro. It’s a situation where violence isn’t yet on the table and you are undoubtedly putting it on the table.

If that’s not the case… if you’re not certain you’re willing to do violence, then make some other move.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Go Aggro seems like confused and superfluous move to me. You can handle the threatening part with Manipulate/Seduce, and if you decide to escalate to violence you can use battle moves. Then the whole issue we are dealing with there is avoided.

OK, how about the situation where you are not sure you will or will not go ahead and blow his brains out, but you drew and pointed the gun at his head anyway? It turns out, for whatever reasons, it goes off, and the inevitable ugliness ensues. How does your system handle this? You see, all you are going to achieve is constructing a narrative where you are always in total, calm, rational control of the situation. You can't go anywhere else, and that's DEFINITELY not where AW wants to go! It just won't work within the agenda of that game, and your approach will not feel authentic (take this from someone who's actually dealt with people pointing guns at them). Now, it may be a perfectly valid approach for 'test of skill' AD&D (or 5e played that way). It just isn't a valid approach for AW and 'test of skill' is not going to produce highly intense in-character RP that FEELS realistic like AW does. I mean, AW is not perfect, though it may be as close as we can get with TTRPG, to this sort of experience, but it has advantages over classic/Trad approaches. Again, that won't necessarily meet your goals, but be clear what those are!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It has nothing to do with optimal, it is about inhabiting a character and making decisions from their perspective in real time. So of course how the person being threatened responds is a huge deal, and ignoring that seems utterly absurd to me.

There's only one thing that is REALISTIC about when guns are drawn. There's an immediate question of survival of imminent death, and you are NOT going to think through what comes next, you are going to act. This is how human nature works, you find out instantly "what you are made of" in a way I cannot describe nor emulate using your techniques. The idea that you will instant by instant calculate exactly what to do next is nonsensical. Sure, if the game is about being James Bond 007 then I'm all for it, but that's not what AW is about, not at all. The situations are very real life, but amped up, so when violence and threats of such arise, there's no calm, cool, collected thinking, you either viscerally are or are not going to do the deed and that's not something you consciously decide! The player gets to commit to being willing or unwilling and the rules then honor that commitment. In the actual blinding instant of the action itself you don't get to choose AGAIN. If you did, the course of many many people's lives would have gone differently!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This makes sense, but it is not what anyone else is saying. Also Go Aggro explicitly is about making threats, and then we have separate In Battle for combat, so to me these moves seem confused. Again, why don't we just have Manipulate for threatening and combat moves for actual violence? What's the point of Go Aggro?

I think it simply embodies that indefinable moment when neither party really knows exactly what is about to transpire. You have, as a player, been granted the right to choose "Yes, I am potentially willing to follow through" and OK, that's not necessarily unrealistic, most people BELIEVE they know what they're doing. So the point of Go Aggro is to produce those dubious moments where neither the players nor the characters can be sure of what the future holds. Now, if you get a 10+, well, you were right, you're a ruthless bastard and the other guy has one choice, to give in or to take the hit. Given that this is, generally, an NPC choosing it will be a choice governed by the agenda and principles of the GM, so decided by a genuine objective assessment of the target. I interpret 7-9 as a situation where, probably, the target acts quickly and before the threat is brought fully to bear, like backing away from your knife, taking cover, or simply running. The player now gets a chance to, in character, evaluate and decide, do I attack or do I deescalate?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I laughed, but I have read and watched plenty of fiction where somebody got something much different than what they wanted from their poorly-controlled attempt at "mere threat" of violence. If you put a sharp blade to somebody's jugular, or draw a loaded gun at all, that's a fraught situation. I'd be strongly inclined as an Apocalypse World GM to make clear to players that doing either of those things clearly counts as Going Aggro rather than Seduce or Manipulate. A roll of 6- when harm or death is very much on the table, especially if by accident, means that harm or death is very much happening.

Right, and my point is, REAL LIFE is like this too! Its not like what some people seem to want where they get to analyze everything in bullet time and pick a strategy. The action is moving faster than human thought, and maybe even faster than human reflex!

 

[Emberashh]

I’m not making any assumptions.

You're asserting without incontrovertible evidence what two different people think. Thats what an assumption is.

Doesn't mean you can't draw conclusions, but you also can't assert what other people think. And I would know, given I don't always respect that to my own, Red Text themed detriment.

If you intend to follow through on whatever threat you’re making, REGARDLESS OF THE RESPONSE, then Go Aggro. It’s a situation where violence isn’t yet on the table and you are undoubtedly putting it on the table.

And if we aren't abstracting an entire interaction, there are times when being willing and intending to follow through isn't the end of the interaction.

To make up an example, in Inglorious Basterds theres the scene where the Bear beats a particularly brave Nazi officer to death with a baseball bat.

Nothing about the Bear up to the moment he threatens the Nazi with the bat says he'd be unwilling to follow through, and as the scene plays out, he definitely has zero qualms about it. Thats who he is.

But, imagine he sees the bravery the Nazi puts up and decides not to. Its not a reflection of being unwilling, perhaps hes just impressed at the unshakeable bravery and the Basterds decide on another route to get the info they want.

Go Aggro necessarily precludes this, because its triggers and outcomes are prewritten, and so in order for this hypothetical scene to occur, a meta discussion has to take place to waste time negotiating all of this to see if the game can even support it, and if it can, what if anything needs to be done.

A less abstracted experience wouldn't preclude this scene, nor require any negotiation. The Bear's player describes how he threatens, perhaps making an Intimidation check (perhaps not), and the GM per the result or just pure roleplay advises that the Nazi doesn't falter.

The Bear's player then decides what to do. Beat him to death, or do something else.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're asserting without incontrovertible evidence what two different people think. Thats what an assumption is.

Doesn't mean you can't draw conclusions, but you also can't assert what other people think. And I would know, given I don't always respect that to my own, Red Text themed detriment.

I’m just going off what you’re saying. I don’t have to assume.

And if we aren't abstracting an entire interaction, there are times when being willing and intending to follow through isn't the end of the interaction.

To make up an example, in Inglorious Basterds theres the scene where the Bear beats a particularly brave Nazi officer to death with a baseball bat.

Nothing about the Bear up to the moment he threatens the Nazi with the bat says he'd be unwilling to follow through, and as the scene plays out, he definitely has zero qualms about it. Thats who he is.

But, imagine he sees the bravery the Nazi puts up and decides not to. Its not a reflection of being unwilling, perhaps hes just impressed at the unshakeable bravery and the Basterds decide on another route to get the info they want.

If you think there was any other way for that scene to go, I think you missed the entire point of the scene.

The Bear knew exactly what he was going to do. There was nothing the German officer could have done to dissuade him.

Bad example to go to. It’s a perfect example of what Go Aggro is about.

Go Aggro necessarily precludes this, because its triggers and outcomes are prewritten, and so in order for this hypothetical scene to occur, a meta discussion has to take place to waste time negotiating all of this to see if the game can even support it, and if it can, what if anything needs to be done.

A less abstracted experience wouldn't preclude this scene, nor require any negotiation. The Bear's player describes how he threatens, perhaps making an Intimidation check (perhaps not), and the GM per the result or just pure roleplay advises that the Nazi doesn't falter.

The Bear's player then decides what to do. Beat him to death, or do something else.

No, theBear’s player had already decided. If this was an RPG with players, I’d say the Bear’s player was playing boldly, not shying away from committing to a course of action.

 

[Emberashh]

Bad example to go to

Not at all, given I explicitly made a hypothetical out of it. You can't deny the premise of the hypothetical like that.

The new scene in the hypothetical game scenario =/= same scene from the film. You can't judge the hypothetical by making a non-sequitur about the movie.

No, theBear’s player had already decided.

I'm the Bears player and I hadn't decided. I fundamentally couldn't until I actually threatened the dude and saw his reaction. I can't do that if the Move is already engaged. I don't have a choice in the matter once the Move is in process, as the Move itself explicitly says.

Again, without stepping out of the scene and negotiating some other way to resolve the scene, which as said is just as undesirable, my hypothetical does not work in AW.