The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Campbell]

If the PCs usually operate as a group, ideally pooling their strengths and skills such that the whole ends up being a bit more than the sum of the parts, that sounds like a party from here. They might do different things in different ways than a typical D&D group might, but they're still a group. D&D's class system somewhat encourages this interdependence by giving each class specific strengths and weaknesses, though this has been watered down some in recent editions.

If the PCs generally travel etc. together but don't usually operate as a group then other than entirely-table-dependent in-character bonds of friendship etc. what keeps them together?

And if they operate entirely as individuals (which seems highly unlikely) then why have everyone at the same table each week?

In Apocalypse World the players play prominent members of a hard hold, a post-apocalyptic community that is scarce in resources. Almost all the action takes place within the confines of the hard hold. The community faces outside threats as well as internal strife. We're largely playing to find out if the player characters will pull together or tear each other down. It's the GM's job to frame situations that put the bonds within the community in doubt as well as to present external threats. One of the things you're supposed to do as a GM is to introduce NPCs that create conflicts of interest between player characters in order to put pressure on their bonds with one another.

It's largely up to the players how much they cooperate with one another. The type of scenarios you deal with are a lot more like Deadwood than they are like a typical D&D adventure.

 

[Aldarc]

So, again, a player makes a move and fails. The referee gets to make a move as a result. That move should either come from the fiction or introduce something new to the fiction. Great. And that referee move…if it’s a sequence of events, rather than a singular event…removes the players’ agency to respond.

And again, hard framing removes player agency because it’s the referee making a series of choices for the player that they might not have made.

Do you have an actual example of hard framing that removes player agency or a move that entails a sequence of events that removes player agency from your play experiences in PbtA games that isn't this hypothetical capture scenario that no one seems satisfied with? And can you demonstrate how it removes player agency?

 

[Campbell]

A big part of what we're trying to do in games like Apocalypse World, Sorcerer or Burning Wheel is to have characters with intersecting interests and frame the sort of situations that will likely involve multiple characters if not always the same characters. As players some of the fan is getting to see how things shake out for the other characters when it's not your turn in the spotlight. Also, those moments of tension between characters (but not players) can feel really special.

 

[pemerton]

You’re intentionally misreading what I said. So what happens in a PbtA game when a PC does something not covered by a move? Either nothing mechanical or the referee makes it up.

Huh? The rules of AW are clear: if the table looks at the GM to see what happens next, the GM makes a soft move unless (i) it's a failed throw or (ii) the GM has been handed a golden opportunity to follow through with a hard move.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sorry, but how can you not? Here I am looking more broadly at Cortex Prime and Fate. Fictional descriptors for the character that involving Hindering or said descriptors in return for Plot Points. There are definitely differences between Aspects and Distinctions, PP and Fate Points, Hinderances and Compels, and other systems, but we are still looking at two games that operate with similar game philosophies and principles. IME, they both cultivate similar playstyles and game priorities. Moreover, there is an overlap of writers who have collaborated on the two systems, and there are even hybrid versions of the game out there.

I don't know anything about the overlapping writers and hybrids. And my remarks are about MHRP (and the treatment of it in the Hacker's Guide); I don't own and haven't read Cortex Prime.

My first association for Free Descriptor RPGing is Malestrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest (and I guess also Over the Edge), so to me that doesn't scream Fate.

The absence of compels strikes me as pretty significant. Also the fact that you don't normally include other people's Distinctions in your pool. And that Milestones generally include XP both for playing for and against type.

An increasingly big thing, for me, in MHRP/Cortex+ is using Scene Distinctions to establish stakes/goals - like Pursued By Giants or Uncertain As To What To Do Now - and to the best of my knowledge those wouldn't work as aspects in Fate. (My knowledge here is my recollection of Fate Core.)

So as I said, to me they seem fairly different.

 

[pemerton]

If the PCs usually operate as a group, ideally pooling their strengths and skills such that the whole ends up being a bit more than the sum of the parts, that sounds like a party from here.

OK? In which case, why would you assume that that's what is happening in Apocalypse World?

if they operate entirely as individuals (which seems highly unlikely) then why have everyone at the same table each week?

Because it's fun to play a game with one's friends?

 

[Aldarc]

I don't know anything about the overlapping writers and hybrids. And my remarks are about MHRP (and the treatment of it in the Hacker's Guide); I don't own and haven't read Cortex Prime.

My first association for Free Descriptor RPGing is Malestrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest (and I guess also Over the Edge), so to me that doesn't scream Fate.

The absence of compels strikes me as pretty significant. Also the fact that you don't normally include other people's Distinctions in your pool. And that Milestones generally include XP both for playing for and against type.

An increasingly big thing, for me, in MHRP/Cortex+ is using Scene Distinctions to establish stakes/goals - like Pursued By Giants or Uncertain As To What To Do Now - and to the best of my knowledge those wouldn't work as aspects in Fate. (My knowledge here is my recollection of Fate Core.)

So as I said, to me they seem fairly different.

The differences between Fate and Cortex are akin to the differences between FitD and PbtA. There are significant differences, but you can also recognize their close kinship when you look under the hood. If @Campbell can say that CoC and D&D are fundamentally the same game family in terms of how they operate regardless of their mechanical differences, then I think it's pretty clear that Fate and Cortex are as well.

 

[pemerton]

The differences between Fate and Cortex are akin to the differences between FitD and PbtA. There are significant differences, but you can also recognize their close kinship when you look under the hood. If @Campbell can say that CoC and D&D are fundamentally the same game family in terms of how they operate regardless of their mechanical differences, then I think it's pretty clear that Fate and Cortex are as well.

Well, because I don't know BitD/FitD other than by what I've read, I can't express a view about this issue of proximity.

I guess I would ask: will the techniques that work for Fate also work for MHRP? To me, at least, some of the big parts of GMing MHRP are coming up with Scene Distinctions and managing the Doom Pool, including choosing when to spend 2d12 to end scenes; and looking for ways to foreground the sorts of things that speak to the PC Milestones.

Without Fate experience other than having read the book, you (or someone else: I'm not setting you homeword!) would have to make the comparison to that system.

But I think if @Micah Sweet doesn't like Fate because of, say, compels or aspects, that MHRP is sufficiently different that I wouldn't say the dislike is going to obviously carry over.

 

[Lanefan]

OK? In which case, why would you assume that that's what is happening in Apocalypse World?

System-agnostic in-character logic, perhaps; in that once the PCs got to know each other they might realize they're better off working together than separately.

Because it's fun to play a game with one's friends?

Except if there's five players at the table each with a character acting largely or completely on its own, while you're in the physical* company of your friends you're not playing a game with them - at any given moment you're either playing a game with the GM or watching one of four other people play a game with the GM. If that works for a group then great; and it certainly can work well in unusual short-term situations e.g. when a group of PCs get split apart by something, but it seems like an odd dynamic for the long term.

Suggest a dynamic like this in a D&D set-up - particularly a modern one - and the squawks would rain down, as for many people watching counts as sitting out rather than playing, and sitting out (on average) 4/5 of the time wouldn't fly. Oddly enough, old-school players might be in general a bit more accepting of this, as in older-edition D&D play (e.g. 0e-1e-2e) being forced to sit out for a variable length of time is fairly commonplace either due to one's character being paralyzed or held or killed or some other bad thing or due to a character having gone (or been sent) off on its own.

* - assuming in-person play here; if it's online play even this benefit goes away.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, because I don't know BitD/FitD other than by what I've read, I can't express a view about this issue of proximity.

I guess I would ask: will the techniques that work for Fate also work for MHRP? To me, at least, some of the big parts of GMing MHRP are coming up with Scene Distinctions and managing the Doom Pool, including choosing when to spend 2d12 to end scenes; and looking for ways to foreground the sorts of things that speak to the PC Milestones.

Without Fate experience other than having read the book, you (or someone else: I'm not setting you homeword!) would have to make the comparison to that system.

Scene Distinctions are roughly equivalent to Situation Aspects. Fate doesn't have a Doom Pool per se, but the GM does have a number of Fate points for running a scene, which may also involve conceding a scene: GM Fate Points. Fate also includes Challenges, akin to 4e Skill Challenges.

I would add that Doom Pools are also not required for running Cortex Prime, though they are an add-on tool option.

But I think if @Micah Sweet doesn't like Fate because of, say, compels or aspects, that MHRP is sufficiently different that I wouldn't say the dislike is going to obviously carry over.

Here I agree that the distinction matters more, because of how Hinderances are more self-inflicted rather than lightning rods for character complications like Troubles.