Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8652914" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] and [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]You've gotten a lot of answers on this from folks above.  I'm going to put my thoughts on these things. INTENT + FAIL FORWARD + OBJECTIVE DCS (BURNING WHEEL FAMILY OF GAMES)What does this design care about and what does it do?* The game engine cares deeply about player protagonism as the primary machine of moving the fiction.  Players intent is overwhelmingly the source of the propulsion for the movement of the fiction.  However, this may be somewhat or mostly detached from the gamestate (you get what you want but things are worse for you as well vs you get what you want). * The gamestate to fiction relationship is left up to players at both the PC build stage ("do I want to build to archetype and have things go well for my character in their archetypal shtick or do I want my archetypal shtick to be a source of wear and tear - physically/emotionally/philosophically - on my character?") and at the action declaration/approach-phase ("do I want to approach this in a way that is more apt to lead to fallout - Fail Forward - and mark xp/advance or do I want to to approach this in a way that is less apt to lead to fallout - I get what I want no strings attached and no cost to my PC within the gamestate but no advance/xp?"). * Obstacle rating or difficulty class or opposing dice pool is both unbounded + not not tethered to PC advancement + table-facing.  So what this means is that the game is going to be more injurious to your PC than the alternative design and it will become particularly so if you don't (a) build robustly to archetype so you can marshal a ton of resources to bring to bear to defeat obstacles/opposition and (b) simultaneously approach obstacles/opposition in ways that let you declare actions which hew to your archetype.  And you know this going in.* Reward cycles and resources gained to marshal against future opposition overwhelmingly demand that you_struggle.  Advancement and resource marshaling is contingent upon struggle and hardship and worsened gamestate.  You the player struggle with your decision-points (thematically for sure...but also tactically and strategically and how those intersect) and your character "feels it" and is invariably eroded underfoot.  Its a design that makes it impossible to "conception proof" (lets call it) your character.  This is very intentional.  It is the sought, and designed in, experience.  Its to make for a more brutal, more swingy gamestate experience where you're accruing a lot of PC attrition (physically/emotionally/philosophically) that leads to a particularly challenging emotional quality to play.  You have a lot of control over the gamestate via build and approach/declared actions...but there are absolutely limits to this.  Even the most optimized play is going to yield a character-ablating, conception-challenging and altering experience. INTENT + FAIL FORWARD + SUBJECTIVE DCS (4E, 13TH AGE, AND A FAIR AMOUNT OF PBTA/FITD EXPERIENCE)What does this design care about and what does it do?* The game engine cares deeply about player protagonism as the primary machine of moving the fiction.  Players intent is overwhelmingly the source of the propulsion for the movement of the fiction.  However, the game also cares deeply that the cognitive space the player inhabits when assuming their archetypal shtick + gamestate + attendant fiction relationship be very tightly coupled.  The game will not let you "build to gamestate-incompetency" (lets call it) within your archetype.  You WILL BE robustly capable and potent within archetype.  Period.  You lead with archetype...the gamestate will tend very much toward following.* Given that the gamestate to fiction relationship is not left up to players when it comes to their archetypal shtick (when you engage in your archetype's moveset, the gamestate will follow in predictable path), there are only two sources of gamestate opposition within the player's purview:1)  Choose suboptimally (or worse) within your decision-tree.  Obviously this means going outside of your archetypal shtick or it could mean calling upon thematic resources or orienting the situation in a particular way that tends toward punishing your character/changing the situation adversely (this is often related to gaining a boon/advance/xp...some sort of downstream aid).2)  "Punch above your belt."  Take on challenges (these challenges might be physical, emotional, philosophical or the intersection of some/all) that yield a higher propensity for negative gamestate outcomes (and attendant fiction) or a worse degree of gamestate consequences (and attendant fiction).  You want to test yourself?  You want big rewards?  You want heightened danger?  Choose your enemies/goals/threats accordingly or overextend yourself on purpose.Regardless, (1) and (2) also yield potent player protagonism (players are driving the play) but its a different matrix of decision-space/game engine than in the first system design.* Because we want to achieve the design goals/experience outlined above, obstacle rating or difficulty class or opposing dice pool is both relatively bounded + tethered to PC advancement + table-facing.  So what this means is that the game is going to be dramatically reduce injuriousness to your PC in proportion to (a) your ability to orient the situation such that you can bring your archetype to bear upon it (+ the reality that principled GMing which follows dramatic needs will invariably mean an abundance of scenes framed around archetype) and (b) in proportion to player inputs around (1) and (2) above.[HR][/HR]So really, what it boils down to might be this:* The first design has a "built-in HARD MODE" that you just can't get around.  Its going to hurt you and keep hurting you despite the reality that you're "getting what you want."  The game is meant to be a struggle.  Experiencing that struggle and seeing how your agents within the fiction (your character first among them) wear down and either resolve themselves to carry on or be resigned to their fate is the point.  Your ass is always in the fire...period, full_stop.* The latter design has a "built-in HARD/MEDIUM MODE toggle."  The game very much might be a struggle.  And certain rewards will increase in proportion to struggle and enhanced hardship and danger.  But the throttle setting has more player input (by design) until you have formally bit off more than you can chew (on purpose, because you'll know that going in) and now you have to pull your ass out of the fire if you can.</blockquote>

Verification