Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs

[Crimson Longinus]

Suppose that, in AD&D, you declare an attack, and roll your d20, and the GM narrates the Kobold squeaking out "No, don't kill me!" Are you allowed to take back?

No, but the GM should narrate the kobold reaction before the attack roll is made. But the issue with the go aggro is that it combines threat and violence in one roll, thus making impossible to change course between them.

 

[pemerton]

No, but the GM should narrate the kobold reaction before the attack roll is made.

And in AW, the established fiction will have established the likely trajectory of whatever move the GM makes as part of the adjudication of Going Aggro.

 

[niklinna]

Suppose that, in AD&D, you declare an attack, and roll your d20, and the GM narrates the Kobold squeaking out "No, don't kill me!" Are you allowed to take back?

Presumably this is after you roll your d20, but before you roll damage?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

think one issue at hand is that, "Baker wrote this essay" and "Baker made these games" doesn't actually show that the elements in the essay, as presented in that essay, are actionable by someone who isn't Baker.

Like, Stephen Hawking, definitely an expert on physics, wrote A Brief History of Time. It gives a conceptual overview of several cosmological ideas. It isn't actionable, however - you get some understanding, but can't actually DO anything with the concepts.

Seriously? I mean, this is NOT PARTICLE PHYSICS. I had to learn a decent amount of math and QM in school, enough to know that beyond a rather basic and superficial understanding (which is all I claim to have) they are REALLY HARD subjects.

RPGs OTOH are NOT! I routinely do work which is far more exacting than any RPG design, and I would venture that most people here do also (Granting that mastery of any subject requires some specific talent and experience, so not to claim we are all qualified to be excellent RPG designers). Still, there is a vast amount of evidence (simply go to dtrpg and search on 'PbtA') that a VERY large number of people have found it perfectly easy to design these sorts of games. Beyond that they've diversified the sub-genre wildly.

Anyone here with the ambition to put together a game along the lines suggested by Mr and Mrs Baker is PERFECTLY capable of doing so. It may turn out rather modestly, but any of us can make a go of it and grasp the essential concepts involved.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You probably have to allow for mechanics that are not invoked proximal to the action resolution.

In classic D&D, the mechanics that enabled that action declaration (acquiring the hammer and spikes as resources to use) were invoked in the past, back in town when the PC spent points of gold to establish that they had bought the hammer and spikes.

Indeed, we can even contemplate a game in which the imaginative narration part of play is entirely (or almost entirely) divorced from mechanical resolution:

First, the players and GM engage in a trick-taking game with an ordinary deck of cards - Pitch, cribbage, hearts, spades, or what have you. The score value of each trick, and who took it, and the suit of the card that finally won the trick are recorded.

Then, the GM will frame, and the players will collaboratively narrate imaginative scenes that will tell the story of the PCs trying to reach some goal - one per trick in the card game - each scene with some central conflict. Whoever won the trick for the scene succeeds in that conflict. The suit of the card that took the trick inspires how the conflict is resolved: Hearts for success through social interaction, Spades for violent conflict, Clubs for application of magic, and Diamonds for displays of skill or cleverness. The value of the trick can inspire the degree of success in the conflict resolution.

If the GM won the card game, overall, the PCs fail at achieving the overall narrative goal of the adventure. If one of the players (or the players collectively) won, they achieve their own overall narrative goal for the session.

Imaginative engagement is still core to play, roles are still taken by players. But the narrative is unknown at the time the mechanics of conflict resolution are invoked.

You been hanging out too much with @loverdrive too much lately man?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Since the Eat the Reich Kickstarter happened, he basically took a break on working on it. If you join his discord via his patreon, you can see where Howitt's been updating the ideas at.

I think how Hollows does boss battles is one of the great innovations in TTRPGs the last couple of decades. It really solved so many problems I had with boss-focused TTRPG combat.

Eh, I didn't read through it in a super thorough way, and haven't played it, but I feel like its basically drawing on a lot of existing game design. The basic 'range band' concept dates all the way back to Traveller. 13a isn't quite as detailed in terms of positioning as Hollows, but it is basically doing the same sort of thing. I don't recall specifically a game with a 'healing area' (the refuge) but moving to an extreme range band in Traveller does basically the same sort of thing. In terms of the action economy and move/turn architecture it seems pretty reminiscent of a number of other d20 games, 4e, 5e, 3e, PF2 maybe (don't know a lot about it), etc. There's definitely a specific tone, and obviously the pure focus on single "solo" monsters is a bit unique. I think it definitely has combined things in a bit of its own way, but at the same time it is pretty solidly in the design tradition of quite a few games going way back as far as the 1970s.

The terrain tags and threats are interesting, although the tags at least seem to be a bit of a mix between scene distinctions and fairly standard terrain, just handled in a bit of an abstract way. I assume the idea is you might narrate what all this looks like in play, though I am reminded of @Manbearcat's point that games which don't REQUIRE things don't really ask for them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, but the GM should narrate the kobold reaction before the attack roll is made. But the issue with the go aggro is that it combines threat and violence in one roll, thus making impossible to change course between them.

You can choose Go Aggro or Manipulate/Seduce. The first one is triggered by situations where you USE FORCE. One of the possible results of Go Aggro is that the target 'gives way' (IE breaks in wargame terminology). Manipulate is triggered when you THREATEN or otherwise attempt to get another to do what you want WITHOUT resorting to force. If you want to depict a change in strategy, well you could try to manipulate someone and when that fails THEN you bash their face in, and that's 2 moves with a resolution in between (and thus the GM might introduce some new factor). Once you raise your fist and throw the punch, you're fighting, just like in D&D! I mean, classic AD&D has the same distinction, you encounter, then you enter the parley phase, or you have the option to go straight to combat. I don't see any difference here.

 

[Umbran]

Seriously? I mean, this is NOT PARTICLE PHYSICS. I had to learn a decent amount of math and QM in school, enough to know that beyond a rather basic and superficial understanding (which is all I claim to have) they are REALLY HARD subjects.

I know. I'm a physicist.

But how hard it is isn't the point. The point is that there's a wide gulf between telling you about a concept, and giving you the information to make it practically actionable. I can describe the basic operation of an internal combustion engine, but that won't allow you to adjust the timing chain to make it actually work - and that's not "REALLY HARD".

 

[Umbran]

You been hanging out too much with @loverdrive too much lately man?

No. So little, in fact, that I don't know what about the post seems similar, to you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can choose Go Aggro or Manipulate/Seduce. The first one is triggered by situations where you USE FORCE. One of the possible results of Go Aggro is that the target 'gives way' (IE breaks in wargame terminology). Manipulate is triggered when you THREATEN or otherwise attempt to get another to do what you want WITHOUT resorting to force. If you want to depict a change in strategy, well you could try to manipulate someone and when that fails THEN you bash their face in, and that's 2 moves with a resolution in between (and thus the GM might introduce some new factor). Once you raise your fist and throw the punch, you're fighting, just like in D&D! I mean, classic AD&D has the same distinction, you encounter, then you enter the parley phase, or you have the option to go straight to combat. I don't see any difference here.

That would make sense, but it is not what the rules say. For some reson threatening is both part of go aggro and seduce/manipulate.

GO AGGRO

Going aggro on someone means threatening or attacking them when
it’s not, or not yet, a fight. Use it whenever the character’s definitely the
aggressor: when the target isn’t expecting the attack, isn’t prepared to
fight back, doesn’t want to fight back, or can’t fight back effectively.
If the target forces the character’s hand and sucks it up, that means that
the character inflicts harm upon the target as established, determined by
her weapon and the target’s armor. At this point, the player can’t decide
not to inflict harm, it’s gone too far for that.

So taking this at face value would seem to lead the sort of dilemma that was described.