Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8024479" data-attributes="member: 7016699"><p>The way I see it, your character never had agency over what's in the box, whoever has narrative authority over it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And it can be understood that in a system like Burning Wheel--your play example with the feather, IIRC--the player would have been able to declare facts (the characteristics or traits, or whatever, of the feather) if the resolution had gone his way. You have brought that up as an example of player agency, and you have specifically said that if the action resolution reveals facts the GM makes up (or has made up before and written down) then the player has no (or at least less) agency.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since you're more familiar with Apocalypse World, and I've read 1E cover-to-cover twice in the last four days, I'll stick with that one. Seems as though that'll be a better conversation. I'll admit again that I haven't played the game, so I'm going by the rules and the play examples therein; I'm willing to admit things might work differently around an actual table. Anything I say is opinion and should not be taken as judging anyone for enjoying the game, or preferring that playstyle: I am genuinely happy that people enjoy the game.</p><p></p><p>There are a number of instances in the play examples that at least look like refusing to honor success on the rolls, and if those are the examples in the book I have to presume a GM might think it was OK to not honor success or even worse (and this also shows up in the play examples) punish a character for succeeding.</p><p></p><p>There doesn't seem to be much in the way of long-term accomplishments available to the PCs. It wouldn't feel to me as though I had agency if there wasn't something I could achieve. Survival doesn't feel like an accomplishment, which is why I've never been interested in Zombie Apocalypse RPGs, even when one of the guys I gamed with a lot adored them and always wanted to run them.</p><p></p><p>Many of the GM moves seem based as much around GM whim as around any sort of actual consequential or causal logic, and the idea that you're always supposed to be setting up at least the possibility of a harder move seems to contradict the idea of the GM not-planning, and Playing to Find Out What Happens--at least to contradict that as much as a GM having an idea of what's (probably, based on knowing how these players are playing their characters) going to happen in a given session or story arc.</p><p></p><p>The Hx mechanics seem as though they give players handles (or levers, or some other metaphor if you want) they can use to usurp control of another player's character. As you can probably imagine, I'm not a fan of this. This might or might not have registered as "meta" for you, but meta or not doesn't change my feelings about it.</p><p></p><p>My feeling about the Hx mechanics jibes with my sense that the game kinda instructs the GM to pit the PCs against each other. All the references to PC-NPC-PC triangles, for instance. I am not and I have never been any sort of fan of PvP. My preference, still/again not judging people.</p><p></p><p>I'm not a big fan of the stress on simplistic motivations for NPCs. Maybe keeping things so simple makes it easier to keep all the named people straight.</p><p></p><p>Overall, the game seems perfectly willing to throw the PCs into a meatgrinder if there's a good story there. I'd rather have the PCs go into the meatgrinder on their own for their own reasons, I think.</p><p></p><p>Also, one pedantic thing. The line "There are no status quos in Apocalypse World" keeps appearing, and I don't believe the writer knows what "status quo" means. There's always a status quo. It might not be stable--what the writer is trying to say--but it's always there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="prabe, post: 8024479, member: 7016699"] The way I see it, your character never had agency over what's in the box, whoever has narrative authority over it. And it can be understood that in a system like Burning Wheel--your play example with the feather, IIRC--the player would have been able to declare facts (the characteristics or traits, or whatever, of the feather) if the resolution had gone his way. You have brought that up as an example of player agency, and you have specifically said that if the action resolution reveals facts the GM makes up (or has made up before and written down) then the player has no (or at least less) agency. Since you're more familiar with Apocalypse World, and I've read 1E cover-to-cover twice in the last four days, I'll stick with that one. Seems as though that'll be a better conversation. I'll admit again that I haven't played the game, so I'm going by the rules and the play examples therein; I'm willing to admit things might work differently around an actual table. Anything I say is opinion and should not be taken as judging anyone for enjoying the game, or preferring that playstyle: I am genuinely happy that people enjoy the game. There are a number of instances in the play examples that at least look like refusing to honor success on the rolls, and if those are the examples in the book I have to presume a GM might think it was OK to not honor success or even worse (and this also shows up in the play examples) punish a character for succeeding. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of long-term accomplishments available to the PCs. It wouldn't feel to me as though I had agency if there wasn't something I could achieve. Survival doesn't feel like an accomplishment, which is why I've never been interested in Zombie Apocalypse RPGs, even when one of the guys I gamed with a lot adored them and always wanted to run them. Many of the GM moves seem based as much around GM whim as around any sort of actual consequential or causal logic, and the idea that you're always supposed to be setting up at least the possibility of a harder move seems to contradict the idea of the GM not-planning, and Playing to Find Out What Happens--at least to contradict that as much as a GM having an idea of what's (probably, based on knowing how these players are playing their characters) going to happen in a given session or story arc. The Hx mechanics seem as though they give players handles (or levers, or some other metaphor if you want) they can use to usurp control of another player's character. As you can probably imagine, I'm not a fan of this. This might or might not have registered as "meta" for you, but meta or not doesn't change my feelings about it. My feeling about the Hx mechanics jibes with my sense that the game kinda instructs the GM to pit the PCs against each other. All the references to PC-NPC-PC triangles, for instance. I am not and I have never been any sort of fan of PvP. My preference, still/again not judging people. I'm not a big fan of the stress on simplistic motivations for NPCs. Maybe keeping things so simple makes it easier to keep all the named people straight. Overall, the game seems perfectly willing to throw the PCs into a meatgrinder if there's a good story there. I'd rather have the PCs go into the meatgrinder on their own for their own reasons, I think. Also, one pedantic thing. The line "There are no status quos in Apocalypse World" keeps appearing, and I don't believe the writer knows what "status quo" means. There's always a status quo. It might not be stable--what the writer is trying to say--but it's always there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top