What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Apocalypse World Discussion)

[Aldarc]

This is just saying that you can run a PbtA or a d20 game as if they were a d20 game. The game will not arrest you from doing this. In effect, this is not a difference between the games.

No, it's not, and I disagree with your assertions here. Moreover, you are conflating what you want to argue with what I actually said and believe, and I would appreciate it if you didn't pull this sort of rhetorical shenanigans with me. If you pulled this sort thing with the person you were arguing with on Facebook, then I think that I can reasonably understand why they were inclined to just walk away from further conversation.

 

[pawsplay]

No, it's not, and I disagree with your assertions here. Moreover, you are conflating what you want to argue with what I actually said and believe, and I would appreciate it if you didn't pull this sort of rhetorical shenanigans with me.

I placed periods between the sentences. There are clear grammatical demarcations between what I am saying and what you are saying. There are no rhetorical "shenanigans" here, just regular rhetoric. I am fully prepared to go point by point on any reasonable basis.

If you pulled this sort thing with the person you were arguing with on Facebook, then I think that I can reasonably understand why they were inclined to just walk away from further conversation.

What I don't understand is having a conversation with someone who disagrees with you, and then not expecting them to disagree with you. We are looking at the same points, the same matter of discussion, and are at a point where we have different opinions, and have drawn different conclusions, about the same issue.

I am not engaged in "shenanigans." I 100% stand behind what I am saying. If you want me to say something different, you will need to persuade me to change my mind.

Maybe you take issue with the very idea I am prepared to utter every heresy imaginable about GNS, about PbtA games, and about how to structure a successful RPG session. I have no problem taking GNS apart into tiny little pieces. I have no problem stating that PbtA are far more conventional than often asserted, even retro in some respects. I have no lack of confidence placing my experience as a GM on the balance with anyone on these forums. I have had these same conversations dozens of times, with people very knowledgeable about their pet topics. I have been "shushed" by Ron Edwards for questioning concepts he considered to be long-settled.

I don't know what to tell you. I am prepared to debate at length, and I am confident that the longer we talk about these matters, the less resolved you will be about the things you are so certain of. However, you are under no obligation to continue. Nor am I under any obligation to silence myself.

However, I would really appreciate if if you refrained from claiming that I am coming from some place of sophistry or unsteady reasoning. You may take issue with every single thing I say, but once thing I have not done is come here and say that the things other people have argued, in good faith, are "shenanigans" or somehow not worthy of respectful discussion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is just saying that you can run a PbtA or a d20 game as if they were a d20 game. The game will not arrest you from doing this. In effect, this is not a difference between the games.

No, what we're saying is it is pretty easy for a certain sort of people to warp the rules and procedures of Dungeon World and create a different game, which they fail to recognize is NOT DUNGEON WORLD, and the play it and think they've been playing DW. This happens all the time, to such a huge extent that it is a whole meme in PbtA circles and many people excoriate DW's design in response.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Addressing the premise does not mean answering the question before you even start play. The fact that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to such a dilemma is precisely what makes such a question interesting. Apocalypse World "says nothing" about the exact same premise, which can just as easily arise in play. The idea that an RPG has the "right" answer encoded in rules actually sounds pretty antithetical to Story Now.

As you properly point out, AW does say nothing, but it doesn't PRETEND to say something, and it doesn't provide coloring book lines. It simply presents characters as fully formed human beings with all the potentiality of that humanness and puts them in a milieu where those moral questions are supposed to be, and bound to actually be, tested. D&D on the other hand gives us fairy tale morality and then underlies it with a paradigm of looting and pillaging where the REAL goal is to accumulate gold pieces (and thus XP). If a D&D game DOES focus on those moral questions, alignment does nothing and even gets in the way, and it is likely games will implode for one of several reasons unless the players basically agree to 'not look behind the curtain'.

I'm not saying you cannot play a D&D game where you focus on morality. I'm just saying that the game is of no help to you there, and because the situations are largely of the GM's devising that focus is reflecting more her agenda vs that of the players or maybe even the group as a whole. I've seen plenty of trad games where D&D blew up because people were on different pages about "the baby goblin problem" or some similar thing. I mean, it's a meme for a reason! I've never yet heard of a PbtA game which crumbled for that sort of reason. I guess it could happen, but it just seems like the generally more central nature of character makes it more likely that players are prepared to navigate that? I mean, in a lot of cases it is defanged by the premise, no character in BitD is a morally upstanding individual, by definition (or if they are, there's some serious backstory to THAT).

 

[pawsplay]

As you properly point out, AW does say nothing, but it doesn't PRETEND to say something, and it doesn't provide coloring book lines

I'm not saying you cannot play a D&D game where you focus on morality. I'm just saying that the game is of no help to you there, and because the situations are largely of the GM's devising that focus is reflecting more her agenda vs that of the players or maybe even the group as a whole.

What is the difference here? Maybe I'm missing something, but this just sounds like special pleading to me.

 

[Emberashh]

What is the difference here? Maybe I'm missing something, but this just sounds like special pleading to me.

That the GMs purpose is to sit there, run mechanics, and be NPCs. Any other participation goes against the players agenda. Even if its actually the game setting the agenda and the players just navigating that, as is the case with the hyper specific focus many of the games in question have, which isn't a bad thing, but does kind of go against the idea that they're ones setting the agenda.

 

[Clint_L]

I find to strange to claim that D&D is no help to you if you wish to focus on morality in your games. To the contrary, it is too much help to you, IMO, because it has a built-in alignment system that tries to impose a very curious, black and white moral code. I do away with the alignment system in my D&D games precisely because I think it too simple and overbearing.

I think D&D has always been an oddly moralistic game.

I like the greater focus on player choice in DW, which allows moral conflicts to become a focus or not, as the players desire. However, I've found that most systems, including D&D, do fine with that as well, particularly when you get away from the built in moral code. Probably the best TTRPG that I've played in this respect is Monsterhearts.

 

[pemerton]

The GM in a PbtA game can substantially ramp up the difficulty of certain encounters simply by setting whatever stakes they want, and by calling for more and more Moves (with the average result costing you something each and every time).

In Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, the GM doesn't call for moves. Players declare what actions their PCs perform.

There are guidelines, principles, and conditions that must be met for the GM to call for a Move roll, most particularly when the action declarations of the players for their characters meet those conditions.

Yeah, this. "If you do it, you do it."

I suppose that the suggestion is that the GM just "makes it up" that a PC is acting under fire (AW) or is defying danger (DW). But so what? I mean, suppose that they do? Play will still proceed along, with the PC either attaining their goal or the GM making some appropriate soft or hard move. I don't think that this is going to break the game - just make it a bit one note, like the Perils of Pauline.

 

[pemerton]

what really does alignment do? It simply posits some very narrow definitions of moral theories that barely even correspond with the sorts of actual real-world things we face as moral agents. Again I direct you to @pemerton's post #63. What does D&D alignment have to say about a question like "Is it morally acceptable to kill certain people, regardless of concepts of law or justice, in order to promote the good of the whole community?" D&D can say NOTHING on this subject, and where any given GM would come down on a particular instantiation of this question in play is completely arbitrary. Alignment labels will not help you even a tiny bit here. Yet THESE are the sorts of questions that actually face people, especially if they're acting in significant social roles, like as heroes or something like that. This means that alignment is also pretty much toothless in signaling what we want to engage with on this front. It's fine in terms of adding color to your game, the LG party wants the trappings of being 'good guys', the shiny armor, the place in the Sun, etc. Otherwise it's worthless.

Well, first of all, if you read the rules for AW or DW they don't grant any sort of absolute authority, there's no 'rule 0' kind of concept there. Yes, the GM has the job of deciding when a given move is There are a few details with DW bonds that I think could afford to be tweaked that would be helpful. Like, suppose I decline to exercise my "I will defend the halfling no matter what!" in a situation where it OBVIOUSLY should apply. I think that qualifies as resolving the bond, you simply proved that you don't ACTUALLY value that relationship. I note that a lot of DW players don't seem to do this when they probably should. The GM can be pretty instrumental here in making this subsystem really have some heft.

These are two very good posts. I think the second, in particular, is important in relation to DW Bonds. A similar sort of point could be made about Burning Wheel Beliefs.

As you properly point out, AW does say nothing, but it doesn't PRETEND to say something

Here, on the other hand, we find ourselves in disagreement. I'll explain.

The basic structure of AW play is (1) GM makes a soft move, (2) player declares an action for their PC, then either (3a) GM makes a move (soft or hard, as appropriate) in response to (2) or else (3b) player rolls the dice to resolve a move that is triggered by their (2). (3a) will be followed by another (2). (3b) will be followed by (3a) and then another (2).

In this basic structure, the only opportunity that a player has to resolve the rising action via some sort of climax - even just a local/immediate one - is by triggering a move and hence disrupting the (1), (2), (3a), (2) etc cycle of play.

And there are ultimately only two moves by which players can do that: seizing by force, or seducing /manipulating a NPC. (Going aggro, even if fully successful, still lets the player of the other character have the last word.)

So AW does say something. I mean, in principle the game could have an action, when you make a point to someone motivated by your sincere love for them. But it doesn't! The fact that seizing by force, and seducing or manipulating, are the two pathways to finality in resolution is the game saying something about the situations that it presents.

Of course a player can respond to the game's opinion on these matters as they wish - for instance, renounce violence and drive off into the desert sunset - but that's likely to be the end of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I find to strange to claim that D&D is no help to you if you wish to focus on morality in your games. To the contrary, it is too much help to you, IMO, because it has a built-in alignment system that tries to impose a very curious, black and white moral code. I do away with the alignment system in my D&D games precisely because I think it too simple and overbearing.

Your concluding sentence, here, appears to be in tension with your opening sentence. I mean, if you find alignment too simple and overbearing, and hence drop it, perhaps that is one reason why people are claiming that D&D is of no help if you wish to focus on morality.

D&D has some other features too that are relevant here. It encourages violence as the path to finality in resolution, which obviously can cause some subtlety in moral judgement to be elided. And it tends to make the source of player advancement in the game (ie XP) either (i) taking money, and/or (ii) killing things, and/or (iii) achieving some GM-determined goal or milestone. None of these supports sincere player engagement with moral questions. (i) and (ii) obviously push play towards expedience; and (iii) supports the GM rather than the players exercising moral judgement.

What is the difference here? Maybe I'm missing something, but this just sounds like special pleading to me.

Well, I've just given some reasons.

There are more that could be given, but those will do for starters.

 

[Clint_L]

Your concluding sentence, here, appears to be in tension with your opening sentence. I mean, if you find alignment too simple and overbearing, and hence drop it, perhaps that is one reason why people are claiming that D&D is of no help if you wish to focus on morality.

I think it just doesn't focus on morality in the way that those people want. Certainly not in the way that I want. Gygax was a strongly moralistic person (see his many statements about morality and alignment) and so, for that matter, are most of the fantasy texts that influenced the early development of D&D. Fantasy as a genre is extraordinarily moralistic, and it reflects in D&D.

The problem (for me) with D&D's morality isn't that it's missing, it's that it defaults to a simplistic morality that generally doesn't generate the kinds of stories that interest me. Kind of like most fantasy fiction, to be honest. So I just get rid of alignment and ask players to come up with an initial want and need for their characters, and go from there.

D&D has some other features too that are relevant here. It encourages violence as the path to finality in resolution, which obviously can cause some subtlety in moral judgement to be elided. And it tends to make the source of player advancement in the game (ie XP) either (i) taking money, and/or (ii) killing things, and/or (iii) achieving some GM-determined goal or milestone. None of these supports sincere player engagement with moral questions. (i) and (ii) obviously push play towards expedience; and (iii) supports the GM rather than the players exercising moral judgement.

Well, I think the alignment system is an attempt to get players to play their characters in ways that do address moral issues and hopefully generate stories and conflict. It's just really ham fisted. I agree that it doesn't exactly synergize super well with other aspects of character play and development, but, you know, that's kind of D&D for you. It's not news that it's a messy system (I write that with love). I know that the alignment system works well for lots of folks in terms of adding a moral element to their game, even if it's not for me. I see it in the context of Gygax trying to figure out what an RPG was, and trying to force players to do more than just play as themselves.

I think PbtA games have the potential to do morality better because they encourage characters to think more in terms of wants and needs, often framed as bonds, relationships and so forth, and this typically leads to players having to confront moral dilemmas in a more complicated way. Basically, instead of telling players "your character is lawful good, have them do what a lawful good person would do", PbtA games typically lead to stories where players have to work out moral responses based on relationships and context. It tends to be more nuanced and realistic, IMO.

TLDR: I think it's a strength that PbtA games don't try to force morality ("choose your alignment") but rather provide an avenue for players to create and discover their character's morality, recognizing that it might change with time and context.