Grade the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) System

[AbdulAlhazred]

What were you saying about being emotionally invested? Calm down.

Outlier

dismissive. lol.

 

[Manbearcat]

Can you make this post without the thesaurus?

Possibly rude but this is incredibly hard to parse and is inundated with a lot of fluffy jargon that, frankly, sounds more like marketing than objective analysis.

What I see is a lot of expensive words that only serve to cloud what is meant.

If they can't or won't rephrase in plain language, it speaks to a refusal to actually communicate.

Case in point, it actually took nearly a minute for ChatGPT to parse the post and spit out that all it actually said is that these games don't have any structure in them that overrides the rules.

Which, of course, is baloney (the very presence of a GM disproves that notion) and doesn't actually dispute the writers room description to begin with; that description has nothing to do with overriding rules and its another bizarre strawman being pulled out of the aether to suggest it is.

"Possibly rude."

Alright, a reframe for your particular "thesaurus minefield" with coalitional and whatever else being out of bounds yet parse and inundated is all good? Since you've optimized for hostility and escalation in much of your post thus far, I'll try the most plain thing possible. The below_doesn't_happen:

JAN/STU/PAT: "Hey guys lets all do this story about these characters that have these scenes and then these big arcs that happen and then end in this particular way. <everyone cheers in unison>

Hey GM Bob! Make this scene, these arcs, this ending happen!"

GM BOB: "Sounds great crew, how about we do this, that, and this other thing to make the scenes and arcs happen and end in this particular way! Totally outside of the way we're supposed to play this game, but whatever! I'm the GM! I DO WHAT I WANT SUCKA!"

JAN/STU/PAT: "Well, this sounds like crap so scrap that. But that sounds cool...lets do that. Oh and maybe if you changed this other thing a bit so its more like that other thing?"

GM BOB: "Oh yeah! Cool! Lets do this STORYTIME VOLTRON THING!"

TIMMY: "Uh, guys...that isn't how this game plays..."

JAN/STU/PAT/GM BOB: "SHUT UP TIMMY!"

---

Doesn't happen.

If you're doing that, it is totally outside of everything that is Apocalypse World; everything. Which, by the way, just because the game has a GM doesn't mean that the GM can do whatever-the-eff they want. There are games for that, but this isn't one of them. But of course you know that already because of your rigorous, totally culture war-free, play and assessment of AW.

The MC (GM) Section and reiterated (is reiterated too jargon-ey?...too thesaurus-ey?...too whatever it is you have a problem with?)...errr stated many times throughout the text (is "text" high and mighty jargon?)...errr book:

Vincent Baker's general commentary and each of his games all have some version of this.

---

Final thought. I initially thought I knew what people were trying to invoke <THESUARUS SIREN WAILING IN THE BACKGROUND> with this (totally wrong and obviously so if you've played or run these games to any degree) "writer's room" concept, but, if its not what I've cited above (which hopefully the above example is jargon and thesaurus free...I'd hate to get inundated with more responses that I can only parse as weirdly hostile), then what is it?

So if its not the above, then does this ENW interpretation of "writer's room" rest upon "do you have transparent metagame table-talk during play?" <JARGON THESAURUS SIREN WAILING IN THE BACKGROUND>

Is that what is happening here?

If so, then the entirety of my B/X and RC dungeoncrawling and hexcrawling from 1984 through 1997 (with plenty intermingled, thesaurus needed, from 97 on) was and has been a "writer's room."

But that just can't be true. I mean...that is so clearly not true that it just can't be true. Can it?

 

[Emberashh]

NEVER OVERRIDDEN.

Im sure you have enforced that at your table given how super seriously you take your storygaming.

Most people in the hobby recognize though that GMs have an outset means of overriding the game by being facilitators, and PBTAs tendency to share more of that same control with players means its more likely for rules to get dropped when they don't work.

And it must be reiterated that there being a wrong way to play the game is not good design in games you're trying to assert are all about agency and being able to act freely.

This is one of those brain worms I had to get over with my own game, fwiw. As much as Im consciously working to weave many concurrent gameplay loops together in a way thats seamless and non-abrasive, so that the experience I want to convey is fully achievable, I'm also consciously designing the game to not break down if some group decides some aspect of it isn't for them; which is going to happen given the sheer scope of the game now.

I'm not going to be able to rely on telling people they're playing the game wrong, because I'm fundamentally not designing a game that requires a specific experience. PBTA games do require it however, and while Im sure you'll disagree, just remember what I just said about there being a wrong way to play.

When they share their direct experiences, emphasizing that their gameplay doesn't mirror the "writer's room" approach, it's disheartening to witness their insights being doubted. Such skepticism further underscores the possible biases and the absence of sincere dialogue some may be introducing to this discussion.

I think if I hadn't used that description as a negative (which as repeated, is not how its commonly invoked) that the people you refer to wouldn't have had anything to dispute.

That is where the doubt comes from, as it seems driven more by the fact that I'm not praising the game for what it is and much less about the specific term I used.

And given the discourse from them has invariably focused on disputing that term, when I personally am clearly much more interested in a direct design discussion, reinforces that doubt about what they actually care about.

And as for what you linked, its pretty critical to note that actors stance isn't exclusive to storygames, and I would argue in particular that its implied opposite is far less a part of trad and other games than is assumed, and where it exists is rooted in the same thing Im essentially talking about when I talk about certain designs just being bad and needing to be fixed. (Of which I consider deleting the design to be a lesser solution)

"Possibly rude."

Acknowledging I was rude is meant to convey that I'm not just kneejerk reacting, but did not appreciate having to reread a post multiple times and eventually shove it in an LLM just so I could understand what could have been conveyed much more simply.

Alright, a reframe for your particular "thesaurus minefield" with coalitional and whatever else being out of bounds yet parse and inundated is all good?

Here's the thing about communication: anyone who knows what the words parse and inundated mean will understand what I said. They aren't uncommon words and they're easily understood contextually.

I did not understand what you meant by saying coalitional, because the more common word for what you were trying to say is "collaborative", a word choice that would have been much more straightforward and made more immediate sense, even in the context of a big word salad.

But individual word choice simply isn't the problem. Its masking a substantial paragraph with every other word being either non-standard, contextually incoherenr, or both.

what is it?

Ill let the robit take this one, as at this point Im tired of this contrived debate

In the context of tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs), PBTA stands for "Powered by the Apocalypse," which is a game system and framework. When PBTA games are described as "writer's room style," it means that they encourage collaborative storytelling and narrative development among the players, much like how a group of writers in a TV show's writer's room work together to craft a story.

Here are some key features of PBTA games that contribute to this writer's room style:

1. Narrative Focus: PBTA games prioritize storytelling over strict adherence to rules or mechanics. Players are encouraged to contribute to the narrative, adding depth and detail to the world and characters.

2. Shared Worldbuilding: Players often have a say in shaping the game world, including its history, locations, and important figures. This collaborative world-building enhances the storytelling experience.

3. Player Agency: PBTA games empower players to make meaningful choices that affect the direction of the story. These choices often lead to unexpected and dramatic outcomes.

4. Loose Rules Framework: PBTA systems typically have rules that are more flexible and open to interpretation. This allows for creativity and encourages players to describe their actions in vivid detail.

5. Moves and Triggers: PBTA games use a system of "moves" or "moves triggers" that guide the narrative based on character actions. When a player's character takes a specific action, it triggers a move, which can lead to various outcomes, creating a dynamic and evolving story.

6. Collaborative Storytelling: The Game Master (GM) in a PBTA game often shares narrative control with the players. Instead of the GM dictating the entire story, everyone works together to shape the plot and resolve conflicts.

Overall, PBTA games foster a cooperative and improvisational storytelling experience where the narrative is developed collectively, similar to how a group of writers collaborates in a writer's room to create a TV series or movie script. This approach allows for rich, character-driven narratives and unpredictable plot twists, making PBTA games a unique and engaging TTRPG experience.

Pretty important to clarify as well that when I position the writers room style as being a negative, its from the perspective of valuing systemic interaction and systemic emergence, which these games fundamentally aren't capable of providing for (as they're explicitly designed in a way that minimizes that possibility).

Hence, why the bulk of what Ive been trying to talk about is not this continued naughty word over a common phrase, but actual game design and to what degree the design of these games actually contributes to their stated goals.

I've already related that I don't think these games are good at doing what they set out to do on their own terms; they aren't good examples of what they try to be. My own preferences, philosophy, and thoughts on game design are meant to contextualize why Ive come to that conclusion.

But, its gone ignored because apparently people really don't want to talk about any of that. But who boy do they want to drone on and on and on about nothing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

 

[Gradine]

 

[Campbell]

For anyone who is interested in why some Story Now practitioners get driven up a wall by this writer's room claptrap it's because getting away from having to weave things together and using Improv Comedy principles/techniques was a big part of the desire for a lot of us to try games like Apocalypse World. Advocating for particular story arcs, outcomes and the like was and still is considered anathematic to that sort of play. That's what keep the story feral is all about - it's urging players to advocate for their characters right here right now. To be present in the damn moment and just play their characters hard.

Saying play looks like a writer's room is accusing people of doing something they are working their level best not to do. Over the last 15 years or so of posting on these boards character advocacy (as opposed to story advocacy), bleed and avoiding player side railroading have been fairly consistent themes of my posts. They also have been consistent themes in the spaces I have discussed games like Apocalypse World as seen here:

Character Advocacy: Part II

I hear a lot of stories about people who get tripped up in games because they want their characters to fail and don’t know how to work that into the system. A couple of questions that comes to mind…

playpassionately.wordpress.com

I should note that I do not like find story advocacy strictly bad (though I did at one time). Part of my growth as a GM and role player over the last 5+ years has been to be able to enjoy more curated styles of play for their own sake. It did take me a while to get to the point where I could run Vampire again and I am really happy I was able to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

I’m not naming names. I’m offering an easy choice: cut the sniping, cut the rudeness, cut the name calling & insults.

OR

ejections & possible thread closure will follow.

 

[innerdude]

. . . when I position the writers room style as being a negative, its from the perspective of valuing systemic interaction and systemic emergence, which these games fundamentally aren't capable of providing for (as they're explicitly designed in a way that minimizes that possibility).

Okay. Would you care to clarify the bolded phrases in such a way that they are more than trite, meaningless word salad?

I don't think these games are good at doing what they set out to do on their own terms; they aren't good examples of what they try to be.

And what, exactly, in your opinion are PbtA / "Story Now" games trying to be?

My own preferences, philosophy, and thoughts on game design are meant to contextualize why Ive come to that conclusion.

But, its gone ignored because apparently people really don't want to talk about any of that. But who boy do they want to drone on and on and on about nothing.

Please, enlighten us all, great guru.

 

[Emberashh]

Okay. Would you care to clarify the bolded phrases in such a way that they are more than trite, meaningless word salad?

Those terms respectively refer to the capability of system rules to interact with each other independently of player input and the emergence of new gameplay as a result.

Ie, metal attracks lightning, boomerangs are metal and can be thrown at a distance, use boomerangs to provoke a lightning strike on an enemy.

And as for the cynical word salad comment, these are specific ideas in game design. Its normal that they aren't immediately understood and as such it'd be expected for someone to ask what they mean.

What they are not, however, is an obfuscation, deliberate or otherwise. These are the concise terms for these concepts.

And what, exactly, in your opinion are PbtA / "Story Now" games trying to be?

You answered your own question.

Please, enlighten us all, great guru.

You can read the topic. Im not reiterating what I've already posted just so you can predictably cherry pick it to death.

 

[Umbran]

Please, enlighten us all, great guru.

Mod Note:
The first post after a moderator says to stop with the sniping, and this is what we see?

Im not reiterating what I've already posted just so you can predictably cherry pick it to death.

Mod Note:
If pre-emptive dismissal of arguments is all you want to offer, next time, don't offer anything. Simply disengaging is an option.

Per previous warning to the thread, both of you are done in this discussion.