Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs

[The-Magic-Sword]

Right, this is a strength of PbtA IMHO and it directly addresses the criticism made of In a Wicked Age where the game MOVES ON if the players start just describing mechanical action, and then falls apart later on! In AW (etc.) you CANNOT PROCEED without the fiction, there are no moves divorced from fiction whatsoever! If someone in a DW game I am running names a move, it means nothing to me as GM. I simply ask them (often again) "what do you do?" because its up to the GM to trigger moves and up to the players to make them. Players cannot and should not 'make moves'. They're playing their PCs, RPing, and the GM's task is to apply some mechanics in order to allow things to move forward in a structured way in accordance with the themes and agendas inherent in the game.

In fact, I am kind of appalled at the idea that somehow AW or DW is less an experience of pure visceral RP than, say, 5e D&D. NOTHING could be further from the truth! There is no possible way in a D&D game I can purely inhabit my character. I can do exactly that in AW!! I can literally simply speak as my character and describe the action of my character in pure fictional terms, and I have no other obligation or function in play, aside from tossing the dice and then potentially making a few very simply mechanical choices depending on what move the GM decided was in play. This is the very farthest thing from a 'writers room' or any such thing.

Speaking from experience, its because with the way many of the systems contained within the etc (if not AW itself) are still designed to incentivize a given mechanical expression, in Masks if my character has a high danger score, that functions as a natural incentive to use the move where I roll danger, so even knowing what you're talking about, the design will guide me naturally toward "fishing" for a way to roll danger to solve the problem-- so the fictional move is "I roll danger to X" but paraphrased. So the purity is still based entirely on the player's willingness and ability to get themselves to take options without regard for the system's mathematical translation.

 

[Emberashh]

Like the character might be pretty damn ready to commit the violence, but then the person being threatened says something that makes them change their mind. (Or, not! That's for the player to decide at that moment.) You know, the Martha moment, except not done badly.

Exactly. I don't need my characters actions being defined for me, nor do I need to feel like Im walking on glass where I'll trigger a Move thats going to take that agency away from of me.

If someone were to ask me how I felt about it, I’d call it a “me” issue.

Thats kind of the unspoken truth of the whole discussion is that this is all a matter of taste. That doesn't mean that the produced gameplay can't be examined objectively (they absolutely can be once we work through the kludge of language to reach mutual understanding), but whether or not we consider that gameplay good is up to taste.

My position is this structure is not inherently a genre emulation mechanic.

In that context then sure, I don't disagree at all. But I've been using it in terms of a specific game (or set of games), rather than just the mechanic stripped of the genre theming.

While GMAGD doesn't get into aesthetics, I clearly think its an important aspect of a given game mechanic. I think with a video game audience, a lot of this gets washed away because aesthetics are much more critical and complex to convey.

Bad sound design, bad UX, bad animations, bad graphics, etc all go into the final aesthetics of a given game Action (and unlike in TTRPGs, can't be casually ignored), which makes video game aesthetics a dramattically more complex problem to solve, and one that, for that crowd, isn't often considered on just a purer gameplay level. Though, it should be.

Id even argue a failure to consider it on this fundamental level might actually be at the root of a lot of problems different video games have with feeling good to play. For example, to go back to Mario jumping from ages ago, Mario's jumps always hit the mark on aesthetics. Nintendo spends an egregious amount of time on it for every game it features, and the aesthetics reflect that.

Over in Skyrim, where Jumping is present, the same can't be said. Its there, and it ostensibly is fine (little chance of failure where it can be used, and the animations aren't necessarily bad) but in comparison there basically isn't a comparison.

Part of that is because Mario is a platformer and Skyrim isn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean jumping has to be so bad in Skyrim. A few mods later and a decade later, Skyrim jumping feels pretty good, even for a game not about jumping all over the place.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So you are saying that Go Aggro is appropriate move only in situations where the character is committed to following through with violence regardless of what happens? Because if that's the case, then I think that is an utterly useless move, as that is practically never the situation. There always could hypothetically be something that would recontextualise the situation, and what would be sufficient for that specific character we don't know until we actually get there.

But that’s not how the game works. This isn’t round by round action resolution like D&D. It’s “here’s the situation, what are you doing about it?” Make a move of some sort.

The game doesn’t want people pussyfooting around, it wants you to do something bold and commit to it. It doesn’t want you to be The Bear walking from the tunnel and then deciding you’re impressed by some Nazi being brave so you spare him.

You guys sound like you’re endlessly waiting for the GM to give you proper context instead of picking something to do and doing it.

 

[kenada]

Thats kind of the unspoken truth of the whole discussion is that this is all a matter of taste. That doesn't mean that the produced gameplay can't be examined objectively (they absolutely can be once we work through the kludge of language to reach mutual understanding), but whether or not we consider that gameplay good is up to taste.

Sure. Personally, I prefer how Blades in the Dark and other games approach things by putting constraints on how action resolution is handled while keeping them in a more traditional framework.

In my homebrew system, skill checks are initiated by the players when they want something. The referee’s role is to foreground consequences that could happen when getting it. If none can be, then the player gets what they want. Otherwise, the method [skill] and approach [attribute] are determined, then the roll is made. Any degree of success must be respected (meaning that consequences on mixed success cannot negate the success).

That retains what I view as the important elements of moves (removing action declarations from discretionary veto, making rolls out outcomes not tasks, making sure adjudication can’t intentionally or otherwise negate a successful result) while not having the parts I don’t like (the triggering and format).

In that context then sure, I don't disagree at all. But I've been using it in terms of a specific game (or set of games), rather than just the mechanic stripped of the genre theming.

I suspected we were talking past each other, which is why I wanted to clarify.

While GMAGD doesn't get into aesthetics, I clearly think its an important aspect of a given game mechanic. I think with a video game audience, a lot of this gets washed away because aesthetics are much more critical and complex to convey.

Bad sound design, bad UX, bad animations, bad graphics, etc all go into the final aesthetics of a given game Action (and unlike in TTRPGs, can't be casually ignored), which makes video game aesthetics a dramattically more complex problem to solve, and one that, for that crowd, isn't often considered on just a purer gameplay level. Though, it should be.

Id even argue a failure to consider it on this fundamental level might actually be at the root of a lot of problems different video games have with feeling good to play. For example, to go back to Mario jumping from ages ago, Mario's jumps always hit the mark on aesthetics. Nintendo spends an egregious amount of time on it for every game it features, and the aesthetics reflect that.

Over in Skyrim, where Jumping is present, the same can't be said. Its there, and it ostensibly is fine (little chance of failure where it can be used, and the animations aren't necessarily bad) but in comparison there basically isn't a comparison.

Part of that is because Mario is a platformer and Skyrim isn't, but that doesn't necessarily mean jumping has to be so bad in Skyrim. A few mods later and a decade later, Skyrim jumping feels pretty good, even for a game not about jumping all over the place.

Considering that the issues Bethesda games have with progress-breaking bugs, I don’t fault them for not having great jumping in Skyrim. I remember having to use the editor in Morrowind to fix a progression bug that not even the bug fixes mod I was using had fixed yet. On the other hand, the way FFXIV does snapshot feels pretty terrible in the Fall Guys event. That’s a game using an engine to do something it’s not really designed to do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But that’s not how the game works. This isn’t round by round action resolution like D&D. It’s “here’s the situation, what are you doing about it?” Make a move of some sort.

But stuff still happens, and it is weird that you cannot naturally react to it.

The game doesn’t want people pussyfooting around, it wants you to do something bold and commit to it. It doesn’t want you to be The Bear walking from the tunnel and then deciding you’re impressed by some Nazi being brave so you spare him.

So the game doesn't want you to roleplay?

You guys sound like you’re endlessly waiting for the GM to give you proper context instead of picking something to do and doing it.

Meaningful decision making generally requires context.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think there is much point in continuing. If you don't see why in a roleplaying game it is important to make decisions from character's perspective and actually react organically to what characters and NPCs are saying and doing, then we are not in this to do the same thing to begin with.

I think this is very important. That's why I don't want a system that looks to the GM to give "meta"-cues about whether or not the target of a violent threat is going to yield, before I as a player of my character decide whether or not to threaten violence to get what I want.

 

[pemerton]

I can't help but think Baker at some point stated that you could just call out Moves

I've never spoke to him. I only know what he says in his rulebooks.

From AW (p 12):

The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.

Usually it’s unambiguous: “dammit, I guess I crawl out there. I try to keep my head down. I’m doing it under fire?” “Yep.” But there are two ways they sometimes don’t line up, and it’s your job as MC to deal with them.

First is when a player says only that her character makes a move, without having her character actually take any such action. For instance: “I go aggro on him.” Your answer then should be “cool, what do you do?” “I seize the radio by force.” “Cool, what do you do?” “I try to seduce him.” “Cool, what do you do?”

Second is when a player has her character take action that counts as a move, but doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t intend it to be a move. For instance: “I shove him out of my way.” Your answer then should be “cool, you’re going aggro?” “I pout. ‘Well if you really don’t like me…’” “Cool, you’re trying to manipulate him?” “I squeeze way back between the tractor and the wall so they don’t see me.” “Cool, you’re acting under fire?”

You don’t ask in order to give the player a chance to decline to roll, you ask in order to give the player a chance to revise her character’s action if she really didn’t mean to make the move. “Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice.​

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think this is very important. That's why I don't want a system that looks to the GM to give "meta"-cues about whether or not the target of a violent threat is going to yield, before I as a player of my character decide whether or not to threaten violence to get what I want.

I genuinely do not understand what you mean here.

 

[Emberashh]

I genuinely do not understand what you mean here.

I don't think they trust their GM to not pull the rug out from under them with an unfair situation.

Ie, making them roll for it when it wasn't going to ever happen. Thats an issue thats solved first by adopting a GM style that just doesn't preordain those situatuons, but where it might be necessary, by ensuring you don't make someone roll.

Its the basic rule that rolling is only if the outcome is uncertain. It goes both ways. The players will generally never know the possible outcomes, but the GM might, and so if they do then they shouldn't be having a roll made.

 

[pemerton]

Generally speaking if you're in a scene you should already be feeling this just because of what the scene is. You don't need a dice mechanic to make a gun to the temple threatening

Really?

So by this measure, it is not distinctive to Dread that it uses a jenga tower as its resolution method? Or there is no difference between the uncertainty of blind declaration and simultaneous resolution, compared to declaration in full knowledge?

My view is that the way a RPG fosters emotional states at the table that correlate to, or resemble, those in the fiction, is an important feature of the RPG. And I agree with Vincent's idea that just narrate it, or (in this case) just imagine and feel it, is not a good game rule.

it should also be intuitive that why the dice are being rolled and what they introduce to the scene can also cause issues, as the prescribed actions that make up a move have to match up with what was already introduced and the outcomes have to be in-synch with the Player's Objectives.

Go Aggro, and other Moves, in assuming certain Triggers can absolutely be used in a way that equates to the player making the Triggers happen. Rather than focus on trying to improv your way into the trigger, just cede the lead up and focus on the outcome you wanted. Go Aggro has specific possible outcomes, and say you want one of them. Go Aggro, roll for it, and move on.

I don't fully follow all this - you seem to be asserting that a player can declare I go aggro with no establishing fiction or clear purpose. I don't see how that is so: apart from anything else, the player has to make it clear what their PC wants or else the GM can't adjudicate the result of a hit.

What Go Aggro is for is finding out what happens when a protagonists uses violence against another to get them to do what they want. The game chooses to make this a player-side move because the game cares about the instigation of violence. (Compare, for example, the absence of a basic move When you start your vehicle - the game is not focused, per se, on the starting of vehicles.) The game rule tells us that, when a protagonists acts violently in this way, violent consequences are always a possibility. That is one of the things the game says; a consequence of this particular currency rule, which allows using effectiveness (Hard) to generate position (and/or resources or effectiveness, depending exactly what is being demanded from the victim).

If someone doesn't want a game that makes such a statement - that allows violence to be introduced without violent consequences being in the offing - then they should not play with Go Aggro.