Let's Talk About "Intended Playstyle"

[Thomas Shey]

Terms have meaning in their context. That you refuse to acknowledge that meaning in order to argue with the term instead of discuss the subject is on you.

I think that's a little unfair. Words have connotational meanings even when they are used as terms of art. I don't think "opinionated" is an extremely strong case there, but there is connotational loading there and you can't entirely get away from that in general discussion even when the term-of-art is appropriate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What would you consider an example of a game with a strong intended playstyle that is not opinionated?

How do you read games that have a genre/style focus, but not an exceptionally strong play methodology focus? Chill 3e is very much intended for structured supernatural hunting, and is really not set up for anything else (the skill list makes this very clear) but the actual play style within it isn't strongly focused (though its not really trad in its methodology).

 

[Reynard]

The vast majority of super hero RPGs that aren't heavily narrativist (Mutants & Masterminds, Marvel Multiverse, FASERIP). You can play those games more or less however you like, no matter what they say.

If that is the case, how do they present an intended playstyle? It isn't as if "supers" represents a monolithic playstyle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If that is the case, how do they present an intended playstyle? It isn't as if "supers" represents a monolithic playstyle.

Broadly. They're games that are aiming at a broad Big-Two-and-similar style experience. While you find offshoots within those that are more idiosyncratic, you can make some general expectations as to what a typical superhero experience will look like (especially in team books).

 

[Micah Sweet]

If that is the case, how do they present an intended playstyle? It isn't as if "supers" represents a monolithic playstyle.

Most super hero games I've seen strongly suggest a four-color playstyle, but by no means do the mechanics push for such, at least not all strongly.

 

[Aldarc]

The "author's opinions" is not at all what "opinionated" means in this context.

That's generally what is meant, IMHO, by an "opinionated game." The author's voice and opinions come through in the text.

 

[Reynard]

That's generally what is meant, IMHO, by an "opinionated game." The author's voice and opinions come through in the text.

I don't know what to tell you. That is not what it means in the context of games. It means that it demands very specific play.

 

[aramis erak]

There's also the "negative reinforcement", which I think has at least two aspects to it:

(1) For the player, if you don't earn artha - which requires play that engages your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits in the relevant ways - then you can't really have any hope of success;

Not quite true...
But without artha, you trade off advancement for success. You can still succeed. Or you do things you know are too hard to succeed, fishing for the ones that the GM doesn't beat you soundly in the "if this fails" declaration, and accept a failure to get those challenging Advancement Marks. You can even slough extra dice from Help, FoRKs, Gear, prep, and other conditionals in order to let yourself be unable to succeed.

For those not fluent in BW... there are three categories of XP for each advanceable score: Routine tests, Difficult Tests, and Challenging Tests. For skills, Levels 1-4 require (Level) routine and (level/2⤴) difficult, but no challenging (but may sub a challenging for 2 difficults). Levels 5-9, you need (level/2⤴) difficult and about (level/3⤴) challenging, but routines no longer count.
Note that challenging requires a difficulty higher than the sum of all non-artha-provided dice thrown - in other words, cannot be successful. The Routine is difficulty up to about 3/4 the number of dice; challenging is the in between. Note that the formulae I used are descriptives; it's actually table driven.

And advancement requires tests with consequences, but does not require success at those tasks.
So, without artha, you can either succceed, or you can embrace failures to advance. I actually had a player do that in BE... they needed that challenging to make level 6 in a skill, one they desperately needed for a later action, so they decided to not use their FoRKs and reject help on that Ob6 test... they failed... it hurt... but they now had Persuasion 6. And it paid back that hurt.

More Lingo: FoRK = Field of Related Knowledge. If you have a useful skill for supporting your action, you can invoke it as a FoRK, and essentially self help gaining 1 (2 if you've godlike skill levels) die to the pool.
Help: you get a die from an ally helping. In FTF play, the rules require them to hand you one of their dice... preferably distinct from your own.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've had players who would absolutely eat a failure if it was needed for them to get advancement. They wouldn't necessarily like it, but it wouldn't even be a question.

 

[pemerton]

Not quite true...

In my experience (and outside of Revised Sorcery), dice pools with more than 6 or 7 dice in them from skills, FoRKs and help, aren't that common. But Obstacles above 3 aren't that uncommon. Hence why I think that, if you don't have Artha, you're not really going to succeed.

In play of both BW and Torchbearer 2e, I find that the use of Fate to open up 6s is particularly important.