Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7878460" data-attributes="member: 42582">In Apocalypse World going aggro is based on Hard, while acting under fire is based on Cool.Are you envisaging a long list of movews each associated with a particular stat - or are you envisaging changing the state to reflect genres and what is expected to matter in play? The former seems like it might still be genre-limited. The latter seems like we're now setting out a whole design philosphy or approach rather than an actual system. (I would put PbtA - as opposed to any particular PbtA game - in this category.)This looks like you're describing a meta-system -&nbsp; a basic system structure/framework, with the details to be cashed out based on particular genre.I think that there is a relationship between system/mechanics, and the sort of thematic &quot;heaviness&quot;/&quot;seriousness&quot; that a system can produce/support.I'm asserting that neither Prince Valiant nor MHRP can handle really serious genre/theme - eg WWI - because of their approach to consequences. Whereas I think BW and AW can handle more serious stuff.I'm not sure it's easy to explain why, but here's one thought: in Prince Valiant it is always up to the GM to stipulate the consequences of being dropped to zero in Brawn or Presence as a result of conflict. How would the GM, in good faith, stipulate a consequence of (say) drowining in chlorine gas in a shellhole? In MHRP a player has to stipulate a consequence (a complication, or pushing through Stress to Trauma), to bring it about.Whereas BW puts it much more into the system to produce harsh consequences. And makes it easier for players to put more on the line in their action declarations.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7878460, member: 42582"] In Apocalypse World [I]going aggro[/I] is based on Hard, while [I]acting under fire [/I]is based on Cool. Are you envisaging a long list of movews each associated with a particular stat - or are you envisaging changing the state to reflect genres and what is expected to matter in play? The former seems like it might still be genre-limited. The latter seems like we're now setting out a whole design philosphy or approach rather than an actual system. (I would put PbtA - as opposed to any particular PbtA game - in this category.) This looks like you're describing a meta-system - a basic system structure/framework, with the details to be cashed out based on particular genre. I think that there is a relationship between system/mechanics, and the sort of thematic "heaviness"/"seriousness" that a system can produce/support. I'm asserting that neither Prince Valiant nor MHRP can handle really serious genre/theme - eg WWI - because of their approach to consequences. Whereas I think BW and AW can handle more serious stuff. I'm not sure it's easy to explain why, but here's one thought: in Prince Valiant it is always up to the GM to stipulate the consequences of being dropped to zero in Brawn or Presence as a result of conflict. How would the GM, in good faith, stipulate a consequence of (say) drowining in chlorine gas in a shellhole? In MHRP a player has to stipulate a consequence (a complication, or pushing through Stress to Trauma), to bring it about. Whereas BW puts it much more into the system to produce harsh consequences. And makes it easier for players to put more on the line in their action declarations. [/QUOTE]

Verification