Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Faolyn]

I don't think that's what the game says,

Well, my Masks character literally has a move that reads "When you comfort or support someone by telling them lies they want to hear, roll +Savior instead of +Mundane. On a hit, if they open up to you, take Influence over them." ("Comfort or support" is a specific move.)

but I do think a player with a Move like that can go in with a pretty good expectation of how an attempt to lie to some officials would be resolved.

But in reality, you don't need to have a single Deception skill to have character's lie. In PbtA games--and in fact, in games of many types--NPCs are given motivations and personalities. Or if they're not, you can often decide what they are based on their stats. Which means that even in a crunchy game, you don't have to have PCs roll Deception to successfully tell a lie; you can have a note saying that an NPC is particularly gullible, or has a Wisdom of 6.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So here's the next question: How do you know that the "individual design" of other games aren't present in D&D (or whatever), but you're so used to D&D (or whatever other system you consider to be good) that it no longer bothers you? I already addressed the problem with trap feats/archetypes/classes, and that's a big one--but you're probably used to them. You know what to take and what to avoid. You've seen dozens of threads or videos showing you workarounds. You know how the math works in D&D.

I'm extremely aware of warts in systems I've used regularly. Its not a mystery to me, nor something I'll just shrug about. Either they're things people know to work around or I've house ruled them (which, in fact, I did with the build/advance bug in Aberrant many years ago).

But you know what? That doesn't make those areas any less of a problem just because I've already addressed them.

My group rotates GMs, and we just got to a stopping point in Masks (a PbtA game, if you didn't know) and last week just started up D&D again. And some of the issues I have with D&D came and smacked me in the face. Did I screw up when I multiclassed to Fighter? Should I take another level in Fighter next time they level up, or should I wait until after I get their next Rogue archetype ability? Did I screw up when I took a feat instead of upping stats? My character really need higher Int and Cha for class/archetype reasons, but Piercer is so good for damage as a duelist. My character and another PC (a monk) are both Dex-based with equal scores. Am I keeping up? Am I contributing as much as I can? Is that player stepping on my niche because their background or archetype or whatever gave them thieves' tools and they're better at them than I am?

Again, if you're waiting for me to compliment heavy exception based design, you're going to be waiting for a while.

I really do think it's because you're used to D&D.

Given I haven't played or run D&D proper in 25 years, and haven't run a derivative until my current 13th Age game in the same time, that seems--unlikely. If you want to suggest its about my familiarity with trad games in general, it might be the base of an argument.

But at any rate, this is 100% a player issue and 0% a system issue. If you have a player who gets angry because their build isn't as good as it could have been, or isn't as good as someone else's, then they would also get angry for any other reason, regardless of system.

Not my experience.

I think the biggest problem with WoD games is that they're clearly meant to be fiction-first games but were created during the mechanics-first era, and now they're locked in because people will be annoyed if they decide to start putting out WoD books using a system that's more like Fate or PbtA.

Storypath actually leans considerably more into narrative conceits. Probably closer to Fate than PbtA, but its definitely farther along than any trad game I'm familiar with.

But considering that literal decades have passed since it came out, I think they're pretty aware of what "impact" they have on tables. It's kind of silly to think they're oblivious. I think the problem is that you're trying to create a "perfect" character--whatever you're defining perfect as--in a game where your flaws and weaknesses are important.

This is a sufficient misreading of my statements, I don't even know what to do with it.

There's a huge spectrum of games, with "tactical combat-focused" on one end and "completely non-violent social drama" on the other, and thousands of points between those two. There's probably other axial dimensions as well. You, or certain people at your table, are specced for games (if you'll pardon the phrase) at one point on those axes. If you play a game on a completely different part of those axes, it's not the game's fault if you bounce off it.

You do realize my objections would apply to games with no combat at all, right?

Maybe it's not common. Maybe I'm just really lucky with my table. But is that a good reason to dismiss the idea?

Since I've seen plenty of the contrary either directly or by discussion over the years? To me, yes.

 

[payn]

So to have consistency in a game, you have to repeat the same things over and over again. As soon as you do anything different, the 'game' won't be consistent

In every game the DM has to have the same 20 foot chasm transplanted to wherever the character is now, so the character can jump over it again.

Because if the next 20 foot chasm is in the Frozenfar, covered with Ice and high winds. The player should not expect the consistency of just "oh my character jumps over it...again". Though it is clearly a more difficult jump to anyone with common sense, and yet many players will refuse to see it.

So many players get stuck in this : Their character opens say ten doors in some ruins. For some reason the player now thinks the character can open every door in "some ruins" or worse, everywhere. So two more adventures on, the character is again in some ruins. But "suddenly" the character can't open the doors. The player then gets all mad as the game has no "consistency".

No.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, that's almost entirely mechanics. That's literally how the system works. Roleplay until you trigger a move, then follow the move's instructions. The big difference is that in more traditional games, most of this would be handled by dice.

I'm not talking about triggering moves. I'm talking about simply produces a result that does not intrinsically trigger one, in fact.

For example, from my Masks playbook: Moldable: When you pierce the mask of someone whose respect you crave, you can always ask “How could I gain Influence over you?”, even on a miss. Take +1 ongoing to acting on the answer.

That's the result of a move. The fact its on a failure doesn't change that.

The system requires that I use the Pierce The Mask move on someone, and that this is someone who I want to respect me. When I use that move, I get to ask a certain number of questions. Anyone can use Pierce The Mask; it's a basic move and therefore, a core part of Mask's system. Because of my playbook, I get a bonus question.

I'm not sure how this relates to what I said. I'm aware of it. The two PbtA games I own have similar structures.

Actually, you can.

Like, one of the Keeper moves is "separate them." That literally means physically splitting the party. I had an adventure where the PCs are exploring a "dungeon" (basically, the basement of a hospital) they knew was being mutated and altered by extradimensional forces--and at one point yes, I had the walls move and split the party.

And another Keeper move is "inflict harm, as established." As long as you establish there's something that can harm them, you're free to use that move. "Since you're fighting the monster in a room that's on fire, you're getting burned; take 1 harm." Ditto for Masks, which uses conditions instead of harm. "Because you failed on that roll to Unleash Your Powers, you're feeling pretty Insecure about yourself; mark that condition."

At least the versions I'm familiar with requires a failed or partly failed roll on a player move for Inflict Wounds to be applied. That's not an arbitrary GM move drop; its an option as a consequence of a player move.

There are other, similar moves, like "take away some of the hunters’ stuff" and "put someone in trouble."

No, if a player rolls a 10 on Act Under Pressure, I can't say "whoops, I've decided you fail at what you're doing," in the same way that I couldn't do that to a character in any game if they succeed on a roll. And I wouldn't have any need to force a player to roll something else to "suit my view" because that's not the point of, well, any RPGs. Or at least, that would be a pretty $(!#& thing to do to players just "to suit my view"

But that's my point; in some games you effectively can do that. I don't consider that a virtue.

That's pretty untrue. A lot of the rolls in PbtA games are there to establish the fiction. If the player is trying to maneuver the fiction in a specific way and fails a roll, that's a pretty mechanical way to have a surprise. The only place that I can think of where what you're saying is true is if you feed false information on a failed roll in other games and things like that--which isn't going to be a surprise to those players unless you're also rolling all of their dice to them.

Given your response to my statement, I've concluded that even if benignly, you're misunderstanding me so consistently this and related conversations are no longer useful.

 

[Umbran]

Now, when you get time to do advancement, you do (at least on the numeric elements that have ranks) progressive cost increases to improve all those attributes, skills and powers. The net effect of this is that it produces a perverse incentive to build a character hyper-focused at the start, and broaden out over time (because the inverse is ridiculously expensive to do).

So, I played Mage: the Ascension for years. I'm quite aware of the dynamics of the system.

There's some places in which your analysis is, to my way of thinking, off the mark:

So if you've got two players, one of whom is sensitive to this sort of mechanical incentive, one who isn't

To me, your "not sensitive" obscures some very basic play dysfunction.

It means that the player can read the rulebook enough to build a character, but not care about the obvious (indeed, mostly directly stated) implications of their choices and works with a GM who doesn't talk through character generation choices with the player before play begins to make sure they understand the impact of their choices?

"Dude, really? Arete 1? Are you sure you want to do that...?"

To say this sort of thing has no social impact is, IMO, nonsensical.

To suggest that this happens accidentally, and that is the fault of the rules design, is even more nonsensical, IMO.

Do not blame on the rules design that which would be avoided by a five-minute chat with even a barely competent GM before play begins.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, I played Mage: the Ascension for years. I'm quite aware of the dynamics of the system.

There's some places in which your analysis is, to my way of thinking, off the mark:


To me, your "not sensitive" obscures some very basic play dysfunction.

It means that the player can read the rulebook enough to build a character, but not care about the obvious (indeed, mostly directly stated) implications of their choices and works with a GM who doesn't talk through character generation choices with the player before play begins to make sure they understand the impact of their choices?

What makes you assume the GM understands the implications of that starting/advancement system glitch any better than the player? Especially if they're new to it?

"Dude, really? Arete 1? Are you sure you want to do that...?"

I'd describe that as immensely clearer than "Maxing your most important attribute is a really good idea early on because its much easier then" especially if no one has really internalized that as being true. On the other hand Arete, being the most central ability for mages being important is kind of there on the tin.

To suggest that this happens accidentally, and that is the fault of the rules design, is even more nonsensical, IMO.

Then we disagree.

Do not blame on the rules design that which would be avoided by a five-minute chat with even a barely competent GM before play begins.

Since I've seen GMs that were in many ways well beyond competent make similar errors, I reject your premise.

 

[Umbran]

So to have consistency in a game, you have to repeat the same things over and over again. As soon as you do anything different, the 'game' won't be consistent.

Now you are overburdening the word.

A consistent game experience results from always using the same rules to adjudicate a given type of action. If you are jumping a chasm, and you always use the same jumping rules, the results are consistent, because they are generated in a consistent fashion.

Like, if I am using a dagger, it consistently does 1d4 damage. It does not suddenly do 1d12 just because the GM feels like it one day.

 

[Faolyn]

No. Because in most of those if you arrive at the same exact character (same stats, same skills, everything) it will have cost you the same thing.

Not really. One wrong choice can seriously mess up your character, even if it all "costs" the same.

With Storyteller there's an actual order-of-operations difference in how much the final result will cost. Someone who started with four particular skills at 3 each, and ends up with three at at 3 and one at 5 and the will cost more than someone who started out at one at 5, one at 3, and the rest at 2, even though they have exactly the same values there. Because he won't need to climb the progressive cost ladder as many times, and the initial point distribution treated a 4 and two 2's as being the same value, whereas advancement doesn't.

So your complaint is with practically every point-based system then, because they all have issues like that, or with any system where you have specialists vs. generalists.

But you still haven't shown that this is a problem that plagues a majority of people who play this game. I sometimes go to the Onyx Path subreddit and I see very few people complaining about the advancement system. A few, but not as many as you're implying.

(Also, this doesn't have anything to do with rules heavy vs. rules light.)

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not talking about triggering moves. I'm talking about simply produces a result that does not intrinsically trigger one, in fact.



That's the result of a move. The fact its on a failure doesn't change that.

Then I'm blanking, because I have no idea what you're even talking about.

At least the versions I'm familiar with requires a failed or partly failed roll on a player move for Inflict Wounds to be applied. That's not an arbitrary GM move drop; its an option as a consequence of a player move.

That's entirely possible. They're not all identical. I don't know what games you have. I'd have to see the list of GM Moves to know, and I certainly haven't read them all.

But that's my point; in some games you effectively can do that. I don't consider that a virtue.

You consider it a virtue for the GM to be able to screw with the players out of the blue for no reason?

Given your response to my statement, I've concluded that even if benignly, you're misunderstanding me so consistently this and related conversations are no longer useful.

You're very vague. Your first sentence doesn't make any grammatical sense, for instance, and you've mentioned PbtA games that don't let the MC do anything without naming them, so how am I able to even know what you're talking about?

 

[pemerton]

But you're not forcing a result on the PC as far as I can tell.

So, a "condition" would generally be a hard move. And so would be imposed when the rules permit and the GM decides that it follows from the fiction.

The rules of Apocalypse World permit a hard move (i) when a player's adjusted roll for a move is 6 or less, or (ii) when a player hands a golden opportunity on a plate.

This is why I am saying that the key difference is not the mechanics, but the rules that constrain a GM making a hard move.

To give a concrete example: in Moldvay Basic, it's fair game (as far as rules and procedures are concerned) to have deadly traps strike from nowhere. The opening of the chest in the example of play, where Black Dougal dies from a poison needle (because the player fails a save) is an example.

In Dungeon World, on the other hand, you die from the poison (a hard move by the GM) is not permissible in the absence of a soft move that put the life of the PC at stake in some fashion.

I think they tell quite a bit about what's different from playing OD&D and Monster of the Week (I can't speak of Basic).

OD&D is much the same as Moldvay Basic in this context.

I've run Monster of the Week (in fact, I need to get started on the next adventure) and I haven't found it to be rigid at all. Yes, PbtA games can seem (edit to write in actual English here) that way from the outside ("What if I want to do something not covered by the moves?") but the moves aren't the end-all and be-all of these games. Characters can do anything they want; the Moves are just there if the PCs do something that triggers them. Otherwise, the play, meaning conversation, just continues.

Yeah, but since that's entirely non-mechanical, its also largely irrelevant to system resolution. A lot of it would be handled in general the same way in virtually any game.

But it's not the same in virtually any RPG.

Consider, again, classic D&D (in any of its varieties - Moldvay Basic, Gygax's AD&D, OD&D, etc): as part of the conversation, it is permitted for the GM to make hard moves (including "nothing happens") just as their prep, and their extrapolation from their prep, dictatees. But in Dungeon World the making of hard moves is governed by completely different principles. Likewise Apocalypse World. I don't know how different Monster of the Week is from these other PbtA RPGs, but I'd be surprised if it's closer to classic D&D than it is to them.