What do you think about Powered by the Apocalypse games?

[payn]

I know this is a PbtA thread, but what are the differences in Forged in the Dark?

 

[MarkB]

I know this is a PbtA thread, but what are the differences in Forged in the Dark?

Different dice mechanic for a start. You still have the division of failure / success-with-cost / success (with Critical Success added on top), but it uses a dice pool mechanic, and it also has the concept of Position and Effect.

Position can be Controlled, Risky or Desperate, which defines the consequences of failure - Controlled might simply mean you need to try a different approach, while Desperate may result in serious harm or make it impossible to complete the task by any means.

Effect can be Limited, Standard or Great, where Limited usually means you've achieved only a minor success or made a small step towards your goal, while Great will result in a decisive victory or let you take on superior numbers.

The GM sets Position and Effect based upon the player's description of their intended action, but players can then mess with the odds - they can straight-up trade Position for Effect, such as choosing to downgrade from Risky to Desperate position in order to upgrade their Effect, or else they can act together to change the odds in their favour in terms of Position and Effect, or spend limited resources to gain extra dice to roll.

Plus there are moves, abilities and equipment which players can also bring to bear to affect the odds.

It tends to turn every roll into a negotiation, which feels like it would slow down play, but these actions tend to have a larger effect within the narrative than an individual check or attack in, say, D&D would, so it balances out.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I know this is a PbtA thread, but what are the differences in Forged in the Dark?

Different mechanical structure. The dice work differently, but the main new feature is position and effect, set by the GM with input to the player. Position sets the danger level of complications (controlled, risky, desperate) and effect the impact of success (limited, normal, great). This adds more nuance to rolls and clearly communicates outcome spaces. Other large change is the Resistance roll, where you resist a complication either mitigating or neutralizing it. This can cost a lot or a little depending on the roll (it's a random element so it's always a bit risky to resist). Otherwise a different injury system and a much more codified structure of play (freeplay, score, downtime). It builds off of PbtA such that it should be immediately graspable by someone familiar with PbtA, but has a lot of changes in mechanical structures.

 

[innerdude]

Is this something any of the rules sets point out? I don't recall seeing that guideline anywhere in Masks - and when it comes to Masks, if you're trying to emulate teen super-hero teams you're going to have 4-7 characters.

No, nothing specific in any rules I've seen (re: number of players). But from both my Dungeon World and Ironsworn active play experiences, 1 GM + 4 players was better than 5 players.

Several Ironsworn sessions only had 3 players, and the experience didn't suffer, and in many ways was more engaging, as individual character focus could have more depth.

5 players was particularly distracting in Dungeon World combat, with the way it handles initiative (free form reactive to player declarations).

Fewer players also helps with one of the elements brought up, which is managing the mental overhead of the "escalation cycle" of partial success / success with cost elements. Fewer players keeps the contextual areas of fiction necessarily smaller and easier to manage from frame to frame.

As I said before, 3 players is probably ideal, 4 players is do-able but you'll have to be on your toes, 5 is stretching the limits of GM ingenuity, and 6+ would be a flat out "No, that's too many."

Specifically for Masks, since you brought it up --- I've read the rules but haven't played it. It was my impression that there might be 4-7 members of the "Teen Titans" in the fiction, but some of them are likely going to be NPCs.

Sort of like in Buffy --- Buffy, Willow, Xander, and Giles are your PCs. Cordelia, Angel, Faith, Oz, and Spike, though often present and central to much of the series, are NPCs.

The first X-Men movie is really about 3 of the characters --- Wolverine, Professor X, and Rogue. (You could kind-of, sort-of argue that Jean Gray might qualify as a PC-level protagonist as well.)

Sure, Cyclops, Firestarter, and Storm are major characters with significant screen time, but the story isn't really about them. They're around and doing "stuff" with the protagonists, but it would be pretty easy to cast them as NPCs in an RPG. They're there when they matter to the protagonists, but not so consequential as to focus the story on them.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I know this is a PbtA thread, but what are the differences in Forged in the Dark?

There are a lot of specific differences, and just as PbtA games can be very different from one another, there's a lot of variety among FitD games.

But imo the biggest difference is that in FitD when the player gets a consequence, they can choose to resist it, usually by adding a variable amount of Stress points. Resisting might totally negate a consequence (the guard didn't see you sneaking around) or reduce it (the guard isn't raising the alarm, but they are coming to investigate).

Once your Stress track is full, you take a Trauma, typically meaning you're basically out of the session. Traumas are different from physical injuries, in that they usually can't be removed, they have lingering effects (you're paranoid, etc.) and if you get four of them, your character is retired.

Though Traumas are usually permanent, Stress is removed by doing something in downtime (play alternates between a score/mission phase, and then a downtime phase), like indulging in a Vice.

The PCs' ability to resist--at least until they're full on Stress--means GMs are maybe encouraged to move harder against them than in PbtA (if you're familiar with Brindlewood Bay or The Between, resisting is a little like putting on a Crown or Mask). Other stuff gets generated and accelerated, too. Gaining Stress through resisting consequences feeds into downtime activities and the narrative consequences those can generate. And the Traumas that result from running out of Stress are another kind of existential threat, in addition to whether you live or die. Also, in theory, racking up Traumas makes you more and more of a weirdo, which is fun to play. Resisting consequences isn't the only way to accrue Stress and start related things rolling, but it's a consistent one.


Another big difference is that FitD games tend to be more specific about the stakes of each dice roll. Based on the fictional positioning, including what the PC is trying to do, the GM might say that what a PC is doing is a risky action that will have limited effect (firing a slew of wild shots at approaching enemies while you run for cover, hoping to rattle them or keep their heads down for a moment) or it's a desperate action with moderate effect (you're standing your ground, gunslinger-style, and trying to drop as many as you can). A lot of stuff might factor into how dangerous or effective the action is, like how many enemies there are, whether they have armor, what kind of weapon you're using, etc. I'm probably making it sound more complicated than it is, but to me it offers a bit more structure to a given action than in PbtA, and that has its benefits and drawbacks.


I'm personally way more comfortable with FitD's generally more structured (but still very very open-ended) approach than with PbtA, because I'm still a trad little baby at heart. But they share a lot, especially the common dice roll result of success-with-consequence, and the overall emphasis on consequences driving the entire play loop, instead of constant GM prep.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Perhaps we should have passed around the talking stick, instead of all answering @payn at once.

I think I was the least clear, for the record.

 

[innerdude]

I'm personally way more comfortable with FitD's generally more structured (but still very very open-ended) approach than with PbtA, because I'm still a trad little baby at heart. But they share a lot, especially the common dice roll result of success-with-consequence, and the overall emphasis on consequences driving the entire play loop, instead of constant GM prep.

I've yet to play my first FitD game (hurry up, Court of Blades Kickstarter!), but my experience with Ironsworn was similar. One of the reasons I found Ironsworn easier to grasp was the additional structural layers it adds to the PbtA "core"--- the vow mechanic, momentum, assets, a slightly more expansive set of moves with more specific results, and the progress track (which are pretty much the same as FitD "clocks").

 

[payn]

Thank you for the responses. I can see how the additional mechanical support helps some folks, but I really like the ambiguity that PbtA provides. I'd have to see FitD in action to get a good feel of it.

 

[MarkB]

A couple more things worth mentioning that are in common for, at least, the FitD systems I've used is the emphasis on established places and organisations. In Blades in the Dark you're part of a criminal gang, and choosing which type of gang is as important as choosing individual character playbooks. You'll advance your gang and expand your base through the course of a campaign, and forge alliances and enmities with a variety of different factions.

You're also operating within a structured city environment, within which you'll establish a base and territory, and as you carry out jobs in different parts of the city you'll interact with different factions.

Scum and Villainy works similarly, except that in place of a city you have a small set of star systems, and your characters are part of a starship crew, with your starship replacing the base and becoming an active part of both jobs and downtime.

This structure adds a lot to a campaign, but a GM coming into the system for the first time may find themselves needing to do more homework than they expected, and adapting these systems to different settings also requires quite a bit of prep time. I originally bought Scum and Villainy with the aim of running a Star Wars campaign, and coming up with a full set of Star Wars themed factions took a lot of writing and a lot of time on Wookieepedia. It's also a mistake to expand to a galaxy-level playing field, you need that tight-focused setting in order for the factional play to really work.

That said, once you've got a grip on the system, it's incredibly easy to improvise on-the-fly within any particular game session. I came into sessions with little idea what players were going to decide to do as their next job, and had no trouble putting together something for them within the time it took them to finish prepping for the job, and likewise when playing Blades in the Dark we frequently threw some curveballs at our GM and the scenarios he brought together in response never felt rushed or unpolished.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Thank you for the responses. I can see how the additional mechanical support helps some folks, but I really like the ambiguity that PbtA provides. I'd have to see FitD in action to get a good feel of it.

One more thing, which is kind of the original elevator pitch for Blades in the Dark.

A lot of FitD games have something that's basically a character sheet (or playbook) for the group. In Blades it's the Crew Sheet, where you mark off the territories and gambling dens and police-on-the-payroll and other elements you add to your criminal empire, as well as a separate crew XP track and crew abilities. In Scum and Villainy you have a Ship Sheet, where you pick upgrades to your ship, and your crew, etc.

But in both of those games those sheets are also where you mark down your current Heat points, and your related Wanted level.

To me, Heat (or its equivalent) is what makes FitD sing.

Kill someone during your heist? More Heat than usual. Kill a cop? Loads of Heat. At war with another crew or faction? More Heat for every score/mission you do. Need an extra die for a crucial roll? The GM might offer a Devil's Bargain, a one-time bonus that comes with a consequence, such as extra Heat (you leave evidence behind, etc.). The more Heat, the higher your Wanted level, meaning more and better authorities coming after you, and possible consequences or story beats to try to reduce Wanted/Heat.

It might sound like a super specific mechanic, but think about how many RPGs feature PCs as criminals or rebels of some kind. And it's a single rule that ripples out to touch on so many other mechanical elements of the game, but it also helps establish the consequences of being a loose cannon or pack of murder hobos, and sets up even more play loops. It's the first system I've come across where being a criminal feels criminal, and where the idea of being at war with another group has a cost (in addition to getting more Heat during a war, you make less money and have fewer activities during downtime phases--being a tough guy better be worth it).

In other words, FitD's structure and mechanics might make it seem narrower or more specific than PbtA, but what it does, it does really well.