Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[pemerton]

People can feel however they want, but unless they are willing to actually discuss how to get the deeply personal, player character focused play that doesn't really concern itself with tracking time and place or require pacing based on daily resources from games that are designed with features that actively work against those things then there is no requirement to agree or respect such sentiments.

<snip>

Can you speak to how to get that visceral, snow balling, character focused play with minimal world building using trad techniques without things like game balance, having to manage NPC stats and process simmy rules getting in the way?

This is one of several reasons why I will likely never play or GM Rolemaster again, even though it was my main game for nearly 20 years. It makes stuff matter that I'm just not that intereseted in any more.

One thing that is so enjoyable about GMing Prince Valiant is that it has almost no resource management of any kind (one player in our group has a 1x/session buff), and time and place are nothing but colour to be incorporated into scene-framing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean if you can actually explain how than we can actually have a conversation. However, the way this usually goes is that people will claim that a game will support a playstyle they actively do not enjoy and have never tried to achieve with game C while paying no need to efforts people playing game A have made running game C while being absolutely frustrated by the process. This is often done by people actively campaigning against making game C more amenable to the sort of play engendered by game A.

People can feel however they want, but unless they are willing to actually discuss how to get the deeply personal, player character focused play that doesn't really concern itself with tracking time and place or require pacing based on daily resources from games that are designed with features that actively work against those things then there is no requirement to agree or respect such sentiments.

Simply calling something narrow and not actually backing up your thesis with supporting arguments does no work here. You have not shown that you understand what is involved in supporting the sort of play these games support. Can you speak to how to get that visceral, snow balling, character focused play with minimal world building using trad techniques without things like game balance, having to manage NPC stats and process simmy rules getting in the way? Show me how C can do it. I shall wait.

That is not the kind of play I'm talking about. I don't want character-focused play with minimal world-building. Sounds awful actually. I'm talking about dungeon-focused play vs. not dungeon-focused play (for example). Dungeon World is designed explicitly for danger-filled, dungeon-focused play. Even its proponents tell me it's not designed for anything else. Any version of D&D can be dungeon-focused play, and also other things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of several reasons why I will likely never play or GM Rolemaster again, even though it was my main game for nearly 20 years. It makes stuff matter that I'm just not that intereseted in any more.

One thing that is so enjoyable about GMing Prince Valiant is that it has almost no resource management of any kind (one player in our group has a 1x/session buff), and time and place are nothing but colour to be incorporated into scene-framing.

We are nearly opposite in the things we want out of gaming, as the things you're not interested in I very much am. This is why all your actual play posts aren't going to convince me. We don't want the same things out of RPGs.

 

[Hussar]

I hope you're not talking about me. I've been very clear about my experience, and would love to see more questions and fewer assumptions.

Naw, just more of a rather cynical, and possibly snarky, commentary on how these conversations almost universally go.

It's why I never, ever ask people who don't like something to explain that thing to me. Watching people who don't like something repeatedly attempt to justify why they don't like it is just mind numbing.

I dunno. I don't talk about stuff I don't like. I just don't get the appeal.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm curious what you mean when it intersects with reality the rules are silent? From skimming the thread I can very much see it working well for dungeon exploration as moves from both sides of the table are broken down into specific terminology putting at the forefront the game aspect of the RPG.

I just mean it says little about more plausible and mundane aspects of life. There are some moves for what happens in town, or on a long journey, but they generally don't involve the sorts of adventure situations that happen in the dungeon. I mean, the town could be totally mundane and look exactly like some medieval European town, presumably. As a rule the game won't dwell there much, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What about natural cave systems? Re-purposed tombs or catacombs? Abandoned fortifications? @Lanefan Mentioned some of this stuff. The point is that not every dungeon you encounter was purpose-built by its current resident.

Sure, but in every RPG ever they 'exist' to serve the game's purposes. I mean, I'll yield on The Bat Cave, it had some sort of pre-existing fictional existence that needs to be respected if you are doing that sort of thing. However, it still came into play for a reason that is intrinsic to the play of THIS GAME.

 

[pemerton]

We are nearly opposite in the things we want out of gaming, as the things you're not interested in I very much am. This is why all your actual play posts aren't going to convince me. We don't want the same things out of RPGs.

Another way we differ: I don't make assertions about how implausible your fiction is!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mentioned in a previous post that I have played several PBtA games, and I do understand how they work. I just don't like them very much. To me, the whole system feel artificial, to me. It felt that way in Apocalypse World, and Dungeon World, and Monster of the Week, when I actually played them. In fact, I don't recall ever saying I'd never played. That was an assumption on your part, presumably based on your inability to understand how anyone could possibly disagree with your feelings on narrative games unless they have no experience with them.

Then why don’t you talk about your actual experiences with the games? Forgive my assumption, but there’s nothing about your posts that shows you understand these games. In fact there is often the opposite.

I see now you said you like Monster of the Week the most. Why? Beyond the genre/concept, I mean. What did you enjoy about play? What playbook did you play? What did you dislike about play? What about the other players?

Same for Apocalypse World. What playbook did you play? What happened in the first session? What did you not like about it? How about Dungeon World?

What kind of differnces did you notice from these games compared to a more trad game like D&D? What about to each other? What kinds of similarities?

Do you have any specifics? Or are you just in this thread to kind of backhandedly poo-poo on these games while holding up your hands and saying “but hey everyone can like what they like”?

What is your goal in posting in these threads?

 

[hawkeyefan]

We are nearly opposite in the things we want out of gaming, as the things you're not interested in I very much am. This is why all your actual play posts aren't going to convince me. We don't want the same things out of RPGs.

Well, not exactly.

You both seem to want sensible and plausible fiction from your RPGs. @pemerton didn’t share his actual play reports to try and convince you to like a game… he shared them to show you examples of plausible, verisimilitudinous fiction produce by these types of games.

Which you claimed they don’t do.

So he provided examples to counter your claim.

You respond with “eh all that evidence that counters my claim doesn’t mean much to me!”

It’s not a very strong argument for your claim.

 

[Lanefan]

And also @AbdulAlhazred and @Crimson Longinus , I guess.

Counter-intuitive thing about PbtA that many, including many fans of PbtA, don't understand is that rules takes precedence over fiction.

That explains some things.

For me, the rules of an RPG are there merely to a) reflect the fiction and maybe give a bit of playable structure to it and b) abstract those parts of the fiction that can't be done at the table.

But the fiction comes first; and if a rule says something works in manner X but common sense says no, this time it works in manner Y, then it's the rules that give way; either by being ignored for that one instance or - if it's an ongoing issue - being changed by houserule to allow the fiction to make sense.

Falling damage in D&D (all editions) is one such instance: the rules make a rude gesture at common sense once characters reach even low-moderate level. Some tables don't care; many others have houseruled falling damage somehow to bring it more in line with reality.

In World of Darkness, GURPS, Dark Heresy, whatever, and, yes, D&D, it is expected from GM to make a call whether a situation at hand warrants using the rules or not. Does this make sense? Is this situation interesting enough? Can PC even fail here? That whole "don't roll the dice if there are no interesting consequences for both failure and success."

The bolded is IMO always the most important question: given the conceits of the setting, the fiction, and the situation, does this make sense? It is even the least bit plausible?

Whether it's interesting, or whether the PCs can fail or not, or whether there's relevant consequences on either success or failure, is in my view irrelevant if it doesn't first make any sense.

In Apocalypse World, you just roll the damn dice as the damn rules tell you to and then it's GM's job to make it make sense. To make it interesting. When you kick down a door, you don't know what lies on the other side. When you go aggro on a bound hostage you don't know if the bastard didn't sneakily got out of the ropes and isn't now biding his sweet time to escape. GM doesn't either.

Which is fine until and unless the GM simply can't make it make sense to either her own satisfaction or that of the players; and then what?