Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7879574" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Either, I was just citing it as an example/extension of what I was talking about. I think for a &quot;universal&quot; version of something like this. I would include only a small set of general action types (as Fate does). For the sake of designer sanity, I would personally not want to write a genre-spanning set of specific moves. I generally agree with your assessment, although I think there's a bit of a gray area between system and meta-system for games like Fate, Strike!, or even Savage Worlds, that provide a relatively strict design framework with flexible trappings attached. PbtA doesn't (AFAIK) have such a &quot;core&quot; as part of its zeitgeist is tying all the mechanics very closely to the material thematically (even if its core is fairly easy to suss out).I tend to agree, although I see the &quot;heaviness&quot;/&quot;seriousness&quot; dimension as something rather easily tweaked. (perhaps depending on your core mechanics). IME, things like investigative vs heroic action are much more problematic. I think the introductory material in some of the earlier Gumshoe games was pretty spot on about how there are fundamental differences in the nature of designing a scenario.IME,&nbsp; this is definitely tied to player buy-in.&nbsp; I mean, if I sign up to play in a WWI game I've got to think that's a possibility. If nobody at the table wants to hear or say those things...then why are we playing a serious WWI game? I'm not sure why its any better that the GM say...reads the gas results off of a chart rather than describe them ex tempore. However, there is definitely a mechanical influence on these things, but I've seen it go a couple of ways. In looser games, once the &quot;improv&quot; juices start flowing....things tend to get progressively sillier. Just human nature with a bunch of clever people, AFAICT. Then again, my experiences tend to go the opposite direction from your example.&nbsp; i.e. A GM is shooting for a grimmer/more serious game, but can't make it happen because...mechanics (I won't mention HP here, I just won't....darn it.)To cross this back to the previous issue, I thought the recovery/Vice mechanics in Blades in the Dark were/are pretty genius. Without writing an encyclopedic list of such optional subsystems, I don't see a universal system of any kind is to be designed that fits all genre possibilities.. However, with the stipulation that this would be some kind of &quot;standard&quot; heroic rpg, I think I would still lean towards using a &quot;dramatic&quot; framework for the attributes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7879574, member: 6688937"] Either, I was just citing it as an example/extension of what I was talking about. I think for a "universal" version of something like this. I would include only a small set of general action types (as Fate does). For the sake of designer sanity, I would personally not want to write a genre-spanning set of specific moves. I generally agree with your assessment, although I think there's a bit of a gray area between system and meta-system for games like Fate, Strike!, or even Savage Worlds, that provide a relatively strict design framework with flexible trappings attached. PbtA doesn't (AFAIK) have such a "core" as part of its zeitgeist is tying all the mechanics very closely to the material thematically (even if its core is fairly easy to suss out). I tend to agree, although I see the "heaviness"/"seriousness" dimension as something rather easily tweaked. (perhaps depending on your core mechanics). IME, things like investigative vs heroic action are much more problematic. I think the introductory material in some of the earlier Gumshoe games was pretty spot on about how there are fundamental differences in the nature of designing a scenario. IME, this is definitely tied to player buy-in. I mean, if I sign up to play in a WWI game I've got to think that's a possibility. If nobody at the table wants to hear or say those things...then why are we playing a serious WWI game? I'm not sure why its any better that the GM say...reads the gas results off of a chart rather than describe them ex tempore. However, there is definitely a mechanical influence on these things, but I've seen it go a couple of ways. In looser games, once the "improv" juices start flowing....things tend to get progressively sillier. Just human nature with a bunch of clever people, AFAICT. Then again, my experiences tend to go the opposite direction from your example. i.e. A GM is shooting for a grimmer/more serious game, but can't make it happen because...mechanics (I won't mention HP here, I just won't....darn it.) To cross this back to the previous issue, I thought the recovery/Vice mechanics in Blades in the Dark were/are pretty genius. Without writing an encyclopedic list of such optional subsystems, I don't see a universal system of any kind is to be designed that fits all genre possibilities.. However, with the stipulation that this would be some kind of "standard" heroic rpg, I think I would still lean towards using a "dramatic" framework for the attributes. [/QUOTE]

Verification