Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9249583" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Vincent's concentric, collapsible design makes "tinkering" in PBtA games a very different process and experience than in a Trad system that is not similarly designed.[USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] mentioned The Perilous Wilds above for DW (I've used it since it came out; its excellent).  Its basically:* A new Ranger playbook.* New handling of Companions/Hirelings.* New Custom Moves and tags primarily focused on wilderness discovery and danger.I would say that PW is a perfect example of the sort of "tinkering" you will find in these kinds of games.  Everything hews methodological-wise and substrate-wise entirely to the core design of one of the four layers of Vincent's design of Apocalypse World.  The only other thing that you'll see within this vein is alternative xp models and introduction of other gear/threats which, again, hews to the core design.Its just not common, imo, to see something like "hey let me hack Dungeon World to mirror The Between's core loop of phases or mirror Blades in the Dark's loadout scheme vs DW's stock inventory model."  If that is going to happen, you're going to build a new game, because one of the key layers of design is being fundamentally rewired and that rewiring has cascading effects on the rest of play.EDIT - Figured I'd throw this edit in right quick.The above is quite different than a question of, say, "how do we hack Torchbearer to support Town-based Adventures?"  Now I'm thinking about how several, very important, integrated components of Torchbearer are impacted:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Grind (4 turn clock on Turns that generates Conditions each time it goes off).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The recovery paradigm of play, particularly as it pertains to accruing Checks to spend on recovery moves in Camp phase in the Wild (and how Camp phase itself has key procedures and decision-points that impact play).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The ration and food spoilation economy of play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The light economy of play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How to remap the tight Adventure model (short, medium, long) for the wild onto Town.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How the expected attrition & advancement relationship of Journey Tests/Linked Tests/Conflicts (or Toll if you're using that system in 2e) to get to and from the wilderness Adventure site and back to a Town is impacted.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How all of this engages with the Resources and Inventory economy of play.</li> </ul>Torchbearer is profoundly more integrated and intricate than any PBtA game so you have major design and cascade implications when you try to perturb and/or reskin/remap the system.  You can absolutely do it (I've run Town Adventures), but you better_know_what the hell_you're doing.  You better know the system very well in all the discrete ways mentioned above and in how they integrate.  PBtA design doesn't have this kind of concerns.  But its a tradeoff, because you can't get the sort of amazing intricacy of decision-space management in any PBtA game as you do in Torchbearer.  That isn't to say that the decision-space management in various PBtA games isn't intricate or extremely consequential (a well-run DW game by an agile, aggressive GM who understands the levers/widgets/attrition model can be a harrowing experience), but it just cannot rise to the level of Torchbearer...and that is due to the nature of design tradeoffs and their impact on play.</blockquote>

Verification