Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.

[Staffan]

OK, so just to clarify what you're saying -- you're finding that people are claiming Edge of the Empire is flexible, and Apocalypse World is not? I mean, we both know the opposite is true, but you're experiencing a more than expected number of people claiming otherwise?

I think what people are getting at when they say that "indie" games are more focused is more that the mechanics are weighted to produce a certain nebulous feel, whereas other games tend to work in broader narrative contexts.

For example, look at Fate. Fate is strongly based around the use of Aspects, both having them compelled in order to get fate points and activating them yourself to get bonuses. So in a typical Fate game, you will get into a lot of trouble just because of who you are (gain fate points) but in the end you'll come back and eke out victory by calling on your reserves (spending fate points). This can apply to lots of different environments: urban fantasy, pulp science-fiction, martial arts competitions, time-traveling cosmic horror, and so on, but they'll all follow a similar beat.

In a way, you could say that playing a system like Fate is like watching an episode of Blackadder (at least season 2-4). You know that when you're watching an episode of Blackadder, you're going to see a lot of snappy dialog, Edmund Blackadder being amazingly snarky but in a situation where he is somehow dependent on the favor of some superior (Queenie, Prince George, General Melchett) and Baldrick being an idiot that occasionally comes up with plans and is continually abused by Blackadder. There will be some characters that show up in some seasons but not in others, but each episode has a similar structure even if the details differ.

By contrast, a game of Age of Rebellion has a lot of variety in structure and plot, even if the starting setting is the same. You could be infiltrating and assaulting an imperial spy base. You could be negotiating deals with locals for support. You could be going on a hunt in order to impress some other locals. You could be doing a heist on an imperial supply depot in order to get supplies for your base. You could be rescuing a rebel code-breaker from imperial custody so you can make sense of the intel you're getting from your base. You could be trying to stop the Empire from learning what's going on with the base. You could be defending the base from an attempt to reclaim it. That's a lot of narrative variety, even if they are all based around "You are a team of Rebel operatives."

Of course, I wouldn't use D&D as an example of a "flexible" game. D&D has a lot of assumptions hard-coded into the game, notably the whole Zero-to-hero progression, and a lot of world-building being assumed by the rules such as gods granting their followers magical abilities.

 

[aramis erak]

Of course, I wouldn't use D&D as an example of a "flexible" game. D&D has a lot of assumptions hard-coded into the game, notably the whole Zero-to-hero progression, and a lot of world-building being assumed by the rules such as gods granting their followers magical abilities.

It's still far more broad than, say, Mouse Guard or Grey Ranks. And both of those more broad than Dogs in the Vinyard. Note that I'd not consider Mouse Guard indie, even tho' it's a forge-influenced design. Small corporate, yes. The designer and IP owner are different people, and the publisher a company.owned by neither.

It is easier to write a narrow scope than a broad one; broad ones, however, have a wider audience.

 

[Campbell]

I think there's a monumental difference between specificity of genre and how much general appeal the genre has. I don't know anyone who would argue that police procedurals are more popular than other genres because the genre is less specific than say Westerns. The same for the mass appeal of a Marvel movie.

 

[pemerton]

you could say that playing a system like Fate is like watching an episode of Blackadder (at least season 2-4). You know that when you're watching an episode of Blackadder, you're going to see a lot of snappy dialog, Edmund Blackadder being amazingly snarky but in a situation where he is somehow dependent on the favor of some superior (Queenie, Prince George, General Melchett) and Baldrick being an idiot that occasionally comes up with plans and is continually abused by Blackadder. There will be some characters that show up in some seasons but not in others, but each episode has a similar structure even if the details differ.

By contrast, a game of Age of Rebellion has a lot of variety in structure and plot, even if the starting setting is the same. You could be infiltrating and assaulting an imperial spy base. You could be negotiating deals with locals for support. You could be going on a hunt in order to impress some other locals. You could be doing a heist on an imperial supply depot in order to get supplies for your base. You could be rescuing a rebel code-breaker from imperial custody so you can make sense of the intel you're getting from your base. You could be trying to stop the Empire from learning what's going on with the base. You could be defending the base from an attempt to reclaim it. That's a lot of narrative variety, even if they are all based around "You are a team of Rebel operatives."

I don't know that I fully follow this ostensible contrast.

In Black Adder Goes Forth we have infiltration (of no man's land and enemy trenches), negotiation of deals (eg with Capt Darling), attempts to impress others, attempts to obtain supplies, and rescues missions (in Private Plane). I'm not quite sure what topic has to do with narrative structure. From a short description of possible plots, I can't tell what the narrative structure is at all, beyond the fairly generic A team of rebel operatives confronts a problem and solves it.

 

[pemerton]

I had a further thought about this. I don't know whether or not it conforms to @Campbell's line of thought.

Our group had a session scheduled yesterday but only two of us could make it. So we started a new Burning Wheel game with two PCs and sharing GM responsibilities (roughly, each frames the scenes and adjudicates the outcomes for the other). I've posted a fuller write-up here.

Even as I write the previous paragraph, it occurs to me that the capacity of a system to handle that sort of co-GMing approach is one dimension of flexibility, and not all systems exhibit it because they depend on one of the participants doing prep and/or having significant authority over unrevealed backstory.

But the main point that I wanted to bring out, for this thread, is that we got a satisfying sequence of play out of the struggle of our two PCs - both destitute disembarkees of the same vessel at the start of the session - to find money and accommodation: the refusal of payment for services rendered; the picking of a pocket; an innkeeper who wouldn't give us a room at a reasonable price but had one of us working in the kitchen so she could sleep in a corner under the hanging meats; our robbing of said innkeeper at my PC's instigation; and then the final disagreement between us over whether or not I would kill him - her magic persuaded me otherwise, but in the process she taxed herself into unconsciousness and I had to carry her out of the inn (and took all the money for myself in the process).

I've run "gritty" urban scenarios in AD&D, Rolemaster, D&D 4e (Dark Sun), and now Burning Wheel. I don't think it's trivial for a system to do these well. I think at least two things are needed: (i) a resolution framework that gives as much "heft" to trying to pick a shipmaster's pocket, or trying to sneak into the kitchen of an inn, as it does to fighting; and (ii) a broader thematic/"narrative" framework that sets parameters for the participants around what counts as a fair "move" in play, on both the player and the GM side. That second point is a bit hard to articulate, and I think often gets ignored in discussions about flexibility, but I think is incredibly important: without it, how do we know what exactly we should be having our PCs do - who should they rob, where should they go, etc? - and how do we know how exactly what is at stake with success or failure? A game in which the players are reliant on the GM at every moment to tell them who is available as a target of their scheming will end up being GM rather than player-driven, which is the opposite of what this sort of scenario seems to promise; and without frameworks for establishing what is at stake the game can swing anywhere from an "anything goes" inanity, in which no one feels the weight of the action at all, to "all trouble all the time" as the GM responds to failure, or even success, with town guards and vengeful friends and family and all the other "realistic" consequences that one would expect in these sorts of circumstances.

In my experience AD&D struggles with both (i) and (ii) - thief skills are only a weak answer to (i) and it has no real answer to (ii) at all. RM and 4e both have answers to (i) - the skill system in RM, the skill challenge framework in 4e - but still struggle with (ii) in my experience, and in 4e the siren call of combat prowess is ever-present!

I wouldn't want to assert that BW is unique in handling both (i) and (ii) without problems, but I think it certainly stands out.

 

[aramis erak]

(i) a resolution framework that gives as much "heft" to trying to pick a shipmaster's pocket, or trying to sneak into the kitchen of an inn, as it does to fighting
(ii) a broader thematic/"narrative" framework that sets parameters for the participants around what counts as a fair "move" in play, on both the player and the GM side.

Trimmed for clarity.

In my experience AD&D struggles with both (i) and (ii) - thief skills are only a weak answer to (i) and it has no real answer to (ii) at all. RM and 4e both have answers to (i) - the skill system in RM, the skill challenge framework in 4e - but still struggle with (ii) in my experience, and in 4e the siren call of combat prowess is ever-present!

I wouldn't want to assert that BW is unique in handling both (i) and (ii) without problems, but I think it certainly stands out.

In my experience, Rolemaster is pretty good about your (ii) as written, which makes me think that you may not have conveyed it adequately.

RM has very clear procedures, and the static and moving maneuver tables cover so much adequately that it was low-effort to use almost all skills sans GM... at least once the involved parties know where the needed tables are, especially for the few that don't . The big difference is that the math is easier in BW, and BW includes motivations as part of the mechanics... but IME, that's the part that relies most on GM intervention. (RM XP are mathy, but almost entirely objective.)

Likewise, AMSH can easily be run GM-less, for the same reasons: one big table for almost all things, and the Karma earned is formulaic, as well.

In both cases, the only thing I can think of that BW does and the others don't is allowing knowledge skills to make declarations. But that's not hard to add, either.

 

[pemerton]

@aramis erak

The RM tables are pretty thorough, and for me that is why RM does (i) OK.

But I don't think RM is as good at setting broader parameters around framing and consequence. Whereas the stuff you mention about BW - motivations etc - is what (I think) let's it handle these gritty urban games effectively; and as a side effect makes co-GMing feasible because there's not such a reliance on secret backstory for adjudication.

 

[aramis erak]

@aramis erak

The RM tables are pretty thorough, and for me that is why RM does (i) OK.

But I don't think RM is as good at setting broader parameters around framing and consequence. Whereas the stuff you mention about BW - motivations etc - is what (I think) let's it handle these gritty urban games effectively; and as a side effect makes co-GMing feasible because there's not such a reliance on secret backstory for adjudication.

That's the nuance you hadn't made clear prior.
I don't feel the need for them in the heavy levels BW provides.

And I find them to be an impediment to GM-less or GM-rotation play; it was one of the problems with Burning Empires (which is GM as player++ rather than referee or GM) - the adjudication of who did or did not earn Artha, especially the three adversarial characters (one or more of whom are played by the GM).

Neither is designed for GM-less nor rotating-GM play. Both have very strong systems that are easily used without GM intervention. The issue I'd have with either is that of NPCs and interacting there with, including by attempts to colocate your sword and their spleen.

 

[Yora]

I think of Indie games as being those that aren't produced by the "big" RPG companies and are largely under the control of the creator(s).

How big is big?
Is FFG big? Is Free League big? Is Evil Hat big?

 

[MGibster]

How big is big?
Is FFG big? Is Free League big? Is Evil Hat big?

By RPG standards, yes.