Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I have no real exposure to Level Up. Last I played 5e was 3-4 years ago pretty much. I think its fine if 'currency' is matched with some kind of fiction. That could be limiting in a design sense though. Then again, it might be possible to construct an interesting game around currencies that have various fictional limitations and skilled play evolves out of manipulating the situation so you can be most effective. Maybe almost like 4e, but where the limiters are specific kinds of things in the fiction instead of slots or APs or HS. I mean, a magic system could certainly work that way. And if you take a bit more Chinese-like kind of spin on some of the martial stuff, you could do similar things. I mean, 4e kind of does do it with monsters to a high degree in MV and MM4 where a lot of them operate in pretty specific tactical modes. It would be a tough game to design though, because it would easily devolve down into pure puzzle-monster solving.

In a way, that's what Eclipse Phase 2e does, as a way of working around the logistical problems with body-swapping while still having a pretty crunchy system. Changing bodies will change some outright special abilities, but it doesn't change attributes, per se; it just changes the pools of spendable points associated with them.

 

[clearstream]

Vincent Baker even said as much on his blog when talking about Powered by the Apocalypse:

Yes, and I recall raising an eyebrow at the possible contradictions in that

PbtA represents an approach to RPG design as broad as any of these. Choose two given PbtA games, and you shouldn’t expect them to be any more similar than two point-buy games or two Forge games.

PbtA isn’t a system you can adapt to different genres, like GURPS, d20, Fate, One-Roll Engine. It’s an approach, a framework, a vocabulary for designing new systems that work how you want them to work.

Posters have asserted that two PbtA games must be similar. There visibly are PbtA games in different genres. But Vincent goes on to state the fundamental PbtA philosophy...

use the real things, the dice and stats and so on, to give momentum to the fictional things.

[Emphasis his.] When I write of being in the neighbourhood of PbtA it is that philosophy I have at the forefront of my mind. Two PbtA games will be dissimilar, but not on this. Vincent also discusses where you start and where you can end up. Really, the whole multi-part discussion is well worth reading.

 

[clearstream]

@Aldarc thinking about Greg Costikyn's claim that RPG systems could be generally categorised as "closed" and "open", where in the former the rules cover every eventuality and thus a GM is not required, while in the latter the rules are designed to empower a GM to unlimited invention.

Does then the concept of momentum (which is given overt mechanical form in some PbtA games) - or for emphasis, the concept of the real things giving momentum to the fictional things taken as far as possible - push a game into the closed category? That is part of what fascinates me about "Ironsworn", as it seems to answer in the affirmative. Perhaps too, the extremely concrete rules for MCing in AW continue to answer in the affirmative, but here changing the meaning of closed and open to something closer to constrained and unconstrained. Or compelled and uncompelled. Many times, dissatisfactions I read with 5e come down at root to dissatisfaction with lack of compulsion*.

To turn to differences between PbtA games, in order to see just how profound they may be

Apocalypse World’s design is based on a model of conflict between characters. It holds that when your character’s vision, best interests, or survival instinct is at odds with someone else’s

So far so good, but does this model of conflict underlie PbtA fundamentally too?

No! No it doesn’t.

This is something that @Campbell touched on up-thread, and I feel it is worth repeating.



*This isn't to propose that compulsion is good, freedom bad. Only to note a difference and consider whether it could be a source of dissatisfaction for some cohort. Entertaining equally that it could be a source of satisfaction to others.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

I think there's a fairly large difference between a game where the enumerated rules compel and constrain the GM and the GM being unnecessary. The nature of the role may change, but having someone who is responsible for framing conflicts and determining narrative fallout in accordance with the rules is absolutely vital. I would also say that GM judgement is just as crucial to good Apocalypse World play as it is to say good Vampire Fifth Edition play. It's just directed GM Judgement in that the game tells you where your judgement is required and then gives a set of principles and procedures to make those judgements.

I do think there is a big difference between a game where GM judgement is undirected, and the text does not tell you when/where/how to apply it, and one where it is directed and structured. That the role is different doesn't make it less vital though. This may be somewhat controversial, but I see coop Ironsworn and Worlds Without Masters as primarily being more about distributed GMing then the lack of a GM at all. Both rely on players taking on and sharing responsibilities that would normally rest with a GM in more normative play. Worlds Without Masters even goes on to say that if you are responsible for handling a Front that interacts with your PC you must trade fronts with someone else in the play group.

A GM is much, much more than someone who makes rulings and/or maintains the pace of play. Ironsworn is somewhat interesting though in that it provides prompts for framing if and when you want to call on them.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

I think the differences between games like [Monster of the Week, The Sprawl, etc.] and [Apocalypse World, Masks, Monsterhearts] are more than genre. They use fundamentally different play loops and very distinct differences in agendas while sharing similar design language. [Apocalypse World, Masks, Monsterhearts] are primarily crucibles that focus on putting the characters under pressure to find out who they are. [Monster of the Week, The Sprawl] are fundamentally concerned with how characters overcome the scenario and reinforce established elements of character with basic moves that reference binding GM prepared material. In that a game like Monster of the Week is more trad/neotrad in orientation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd wondered about that, Campbell. I knew that there was a considerable range of swing supposedly amongst various PbtA games (I think its come up in the past with people contrasting ApocalypseWorld and DungeonWorld) but since the only one I actually own is Monsterhearts (and interesting as I found that, it seemed unlikely others would be actually useful to me) its been hard to judge where the differences lay.

 

[Aldarc]

@clearstream

I think the differences between games like [Monster of the Week, The Sprawl, etc.] and [Apocalypse World, Masks, Monsterhearts] are more than genre. They use fundamentally different play loops and very distinct differences in agendas while sharing similar design language. [Apocalypse World, Masks, Monsterhearts] are primarily crucibles that focus on putting the characters under pressure to find out who they are. [Monster of the Week, The Sprawl] are fundamentally concerned with how characters overcome the scenario and reinforce established elements of character with basic moves that reference binding GM prepared material. In that a game like Monster of the Week is more trad/neotrad in orientation.

I would also put Stonetop, Freebooters on the Frontier, and Dungeon World among the former with MotW and The Sprawl.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would also put Stonetop, Freebooters on the Frontier, and Dungeon World among the former with MotW and The Sprawl.

I think DW & maybe Stonetop fall somewhere in between. DW at least is going to go with how the PCs interact and the stuff their motivations lead to. Fronts could push more in a trad direction but they're still filtered through a character focused play loop

 

[Manbearcat]

Orthodox Dungeon World is definitely as Story Now as it gets. Fronts in DW are basically indistinguishable from 1e AW Fronts. 2e AW eschews Fronts and instead uses Threat Map dynamics (but with Dangers/Impulses etc...so most all of the 1e tech). On the whole, the two approaches are not terribly different (its mostly just organizing in subtly different ways the same information that you'll be using to make moves). DW Fronts entail:

* ...threats to the characters specifically and to the people, places, and things the characters care about.

* When you write your campaign front, think about session-to-session trends. When you write your adventure fronts, think about what’s important right here and right now.

* <When to make Fronts?> after your first session. Your campaign front may not be complete when you first make it—that’s great! Just like blanks on a map, unknown parts of your campaign front are opportunities for future creativity.

* ...all the tools you’ll need to challenge your players.

* 2-3 Dangers with Impulses, Grim Portents and Dooms, Stakes Questions, and a relevant cast that will emerge in the course of play.


And just like in AW, all of this engages the same Agenda and Principles (which is mostly the same) and orbits around PC relationships (hx in AW but bonds in DW) and ethos statements/playbook triggers.

Threats in Stonetop are just Fronts in DW/AW1e. Operationally, these all entail the same ethos and structure. Wait until after the first session when things emerge through play and you've framed and resolved some scenes around the PC built ethos/relationship material of the characters. Let stuff percolate/accrete. Follow your players' lead about what is interesting/important and then use that stuff to challenge your players by threatening the characters and what they care about. Resolve > Rinse/Repeat.

The primary difference with Stonetop is (a) the Homefront phase (which is kind of like Dogs in the Vineyard's Towns) and (b) the fact that the Seasons Change moves generate Opportunities and Threats (the first move you make in Stonetop is Spring Bursts Forth...this generates Threat or Opportunity or Both).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Orthodox Dungeon World is definitely as Story Now as it gets. Fronts in DW are basically indistinguishable from 1e AW Fronts. 2e AW eschews Fronts and instead uses Threat Map dynamics (but with Dangers/Impulses etc...so most all of the 1e tech). On the whole, the two approaches are not terribly different (its mostly just organizing in subtly different ways the same information that you'll be using to make moves). DW Fronts entail:

* ...threats to the characters specifically and to the people, places, and things the characters care about.

* When you write your campaign front, think about session-to-session trends. When you write your adventure fronts, think about what’s important right here and right now.

* <When to make Fronts?> after your first session. Your campaign front may not be complete when you first make it—that’s great! Just like blanks on a map, unknown parts of your campaign front are opportunities for future creativity.

* ...all the tools you’ll need to challenge your players.

* 2-3 Dangers with Impulses, Grim Portents and Dooms, Stakes Questions, and a relevant cast that will emerge in the course of play.


And just like in AW, all of this engages the same Agenda and Principles (which is mostly the same) and orbits around PC relationships (hx in AW but bonds in DW) and ethos statements/playbook triggers.

Threats in Stonetop are just Fronts in DW/AW1e. Operationally, these all entail the same ethos and structure. Wait until after the first session when things emerge through play and you've framed and resolved some scenes around the PC built ethos/relationship material of the characters. Let stuff percolate/accrete. Follow your players' lead about what is interesting/important and then use that stuff to challenge your players by threatening the characters and what they care about. Resolve > Rinse/Repeat.

The primary difference with Stonetop is (a) the Homefront phase (which is kind of like Dogs in the Vineyard's Towns) and (b) the fact that the Seasons Change moves generate Opportunities and Threats (the first move you make in Stonetop is Spring Bursts Forth...this generates Threat or Opportunity or Both).

Right, Stonetop does layer on the whole 'town-as-character' which is not manifest in DW. It definitely feels like (having only fiddled with chargen so far) that character and town reinforce the dynamic but don't detract from the character focus. It may depend on the players though how that works in a given game.