Search results

An example I've just seen is @Retreater 's thread on using a different system to run The new Enemy Within campaign instead of WFRP4e ruleset. It is for VTT, but still...

The(ir) reason is having players engage fully and only with the fiction, not with mechanical bits and tactics. I see it very relevant for the "trad." Gms I personally know that don't run games (anymore) because too much time and effort is needed to learn rulesets and explain'em afterwards...

I missed it too. I've been scrolling down quite a bit before finding it ;)

The (main?) principle of FKR philosophy is to have rules completely at Gm discretion and not player facing. An addendum might be to develop rules as you go. I encountered the FKR style proposers a few months ago. I was coming from Gumshoe Trail of Cthulhu scenario last year (where I stripped...

At my table DW produced a very high kind of fantasy. Definitely not the game for an old school dungeon crawl. IME/O

Well, once I had this GM that, after making characters and background, started the session in a completely different situation than what emerged before. That become soon the last session he ran with us.

I agree. Anyway it is doable, even just fewer dice rolls than usual. I wonder if also handing all rolls to the gm if a player wants a full immersion experience, might be a thing.

Yeah, but assuming good faith and following agenda & principles, it should't be so dissimilar. What I find interesting is that Baker acknowledge this possibility. Principled freeform is a term he coined, I guess

Correct, as Baker explained in the part I just posted above

So, the game could potentially proceed as a conversation where players declare what pcs do and gm/mc says what happens

Vincent Baker on AW's structure: Apocalypse World is designed in concentric layers, like an onion. The innermost core is the structured conversation: you say what your characters do. The MC, following their agenda and principles, says what happens, and asks you what your characters do next...

There is an implied setting, also present on players' playbooks/class sheets, and tons of gm advice, so Not Preparing Anything isn't really true. First session (or session zero) is when you make characters and explore the setting around them. Then gm builds on that. Trust your gm and go with...

Just describe what troops, monsters, magic, do, or want to do, on the battlefield, detailing as much as needed, in plain language. Dm adjudicates using logic, players of course will advocate for their side, then reach consensus, otherwise: Roll opposing D20s plus proficiency dice as per...

Npcs player-driven wargame galore, freeform.

Last session I let my players run the fight between npc aggressive young blue dragon (eager to occupy the haven of) and the npc fallen cloud giant ruler of the mountain; a female paladin of Ket, dear captive of the aforementioned giant, in the mix; their minions, also (after sessions of setting...

Sounds like standard d&d

New, disposable, blood in a vicious place is always needed. Cults will contact them. Evil sorcerers need swords. Crime factions surely have some dirty work for them. Authority probably will step up to have a word or two with newcoming swordsmen. Plenty of opportunities Are your Players...

I could see the "reason" for defenders or defences to be chosen by the party in order to gain more wealth, in a risk/reward manner.

Yes, that would be my initial concern, also. For my village I'd roll classic 2D6, where extremes are something very bad/good the Gm elaborates in a fancy situation to be played; average: just a note on the party log: village plundered, stuff taken as per normal village, moving on...

Let's say session begins and Players want to go pillage a village. How does play proceeds?