Tell Me About Your Favorite Mechanics

[Aldarc]

In play I just found it to be a bit formulaic. Like episodic TV. This is the part where Sam's dark past reveals a piece of what's going on, and then we have Melissa's resourceful bit where she constructs a makeshift device to save the day. Finally, Phil does...

I like my game play a little more serial, and I haven't really come to terms with making playbooks work with that. I know you can gain additional moves, even moves from other playbooks, but I just don't know how to make it work for me just yet.

This really depends on which PbtA game you are playing and what they are trying to emulate.

 

[payn]

This really depends on which PbtA game you are playing and what they are trying to emulate.

Ill admit I'm not an expert on PbtA got a suggestion that isn't so repetitive in its playloop?

 

[Bagpuss]

Letty Ortiz

edit: Hmm maybe I should read the first post.

So "The River" from Weapons of the Gods a mechanic that lets you save dice rolls from earlier in the encounter to be used later for more powerful results (you need sets of dice so being able to swap dice results in and out of your roll offsets the randomness, and lets you pull of killer move later in the encounter).

Original Conspiracy X's psionics rules which used Zener cards you had to guess correctly to pull off your powers, so if you as a player were actually psychic you'd have an advantage. Really fitted the theme of Psionics.

Zombicide: Chronicles' mechanic of the Adrenaline meter so the characters get stronger over the course of the game session as the tension rises but, go back to basic abilities if they get a chance to rest back at base and the adrenaline wears off. Sort of the reverse of the Short Rest, Long Rest mechanic in D&D that rewards the player by making them more powerful after resting. In Zombicide: Chronicles you actually get weaker resting even if you get a chance to heal, so you are encouraged to keep pushing forward. It actually has a lot of other cool original mechanics in it.

 

[Aldarc]

Ill admit I'm not an expert on PbtA got a suggestion that isn't so repetitive in its playloop?

I apologize for not getting to this earlier. It may be helpful for me if you could first further describe what you mean by your impression that PbtA is "repetitive in its playloop." Because if I went back to your earlier example where -

This is the part where Sam's dark past reveals a piece of what's going on, and then we have Melissa's resourceful bit where she constructs a makeshift device to save the day. Finally, Phil does...

- this honestly doesn't sound all that different from a session of D&D or Pathfinder, particularly if I pick certain classes. I may count on the wizard to have the right spell that saves the day or the barbarian goes into a rage or the warlock's patron calls on a favor.

So could you maybe elaborate a bit on the repetitive and serial nature that you see in PbtA and/or playbooks and how that differs from your favorable experiences with D&D/Pathfinder and/or classes? And why is "serial" good but "episodic" is bad in your estimation, because my understanding and use of these terms is mostly synonymous or at least often closely linked in how they are implemented.

I will say in advance that I find the criticism that PbtA is not serial to be surprising because PbtA is IME mostly serial in its orientation. It's why it's good for games like Monster of the Week, the Avatar the Last Airbender television series, Masks (a teen superhero game), or the monster high school melodrama of Monster Hearts. It really wants to push the characters to grow and change over multiple sessions through the complications that their actions, choices, and failures bring into the game.

Edit: Missed another obvious question. What PbtA games have you played or read?

 

[payn]

I apologize for not getting to this earlier. It may be helpful for me if you could first further describe what you mean by your impression that PbtA is "repetitive in its playloop." Because if I went back to your earlier example where -

- this honestly doesn't sound all that different from a session of D&D or Pathfinder, particularly if I pick certain classes. I may count on the wizard to have the right spell that saves the day or the barbarian goes into a rage or the warlock's patron calls on a favor.

So could you maybe elaborate a bit on the repetitive and serial nature that you see in PbtA and/or playbooks and how that differs from your favorable experiences with D&D/Pathfinder and/or classes? And why is "serial" good but "episodic" is bad in your estimation, because my understanding and use of these terms is mostly synonymous or at least often closely linked in how they are implemented.

I will say in advance that I find the criticism that PbtA is not serial to be surprising because PbtA is IME mostly serial in its orientation. It's why it's good for games like Monster of the Week, the Avatar the Last Airbender television series, Masks (a teen superhero game), or the monster high school melodrama of Monster Hearts. It really wants to push the characters to grow and change over multiple sessions through the complications that their actions, choices, and failures bring into the game.

Edit: Missed another obvious question. What PbtA games have you played or read?

I have played both Masks and Monster of the week.

I find D&D/PF to be very different. Instead of like 3-4 moves, I have 3-4 class features, 3-4 ancestry features, 3-4 skill features, etc... I have a tool kit that isnt specifically defined, but is generally useful to be applied in a myriad of ways. I think the main difference is that the playbook moves being specific is actually a really good role play motivator. Something D&D/PF games lack, or when they do employ, only on the most surface and superficial levels and is not very motivating.

I did not mean to imply that episodic is bad, and serial is good. I really enjoy a short lived round of Masks or Monster of the Week. However, I don't enjoy playing them in perpetuity like a I do a campaign of my other favorites PF and Traveller. The PbtA games become routine, expected, and repetitive. I will say there is a good chance the GMs I had just ran the game that way and were not good at moving the plot, introducing new elements, being serial. Its a preference for me, and not a general statement of fact I'm making.

I feel the PbtA game mechanics don't really encourage serial play. I've felt the same about other closely related games too like Blades in the Dark. I really enjoy the role play encouragement and how the mechanics have a hand in that, but the play loop kills my long term interest in these games. I'm not entirely blaming the systems, but that has been my experience.

Edit: I have also ditched strict dungeon crawling and experience point awarding to get out of playloop in D&D/PF. So this is certainly a style and preference thing. Some folks lean hard in the game part of RPG, I try to limit that. YMMV.

 

[Aldarc]

I have played both Masks and Monster of the week.

I find D&D/PF to be very different. Instead of like 3-4 moves, I have 3-4 class features, 3-4 ancestry features, 3-4 skill features, etc... I have a tool kit that isnt specifically defined, but is generally useful to be applied in a myriad of ways. I think the main difference is that the playbook moves being specific is actually a really good role play motivator. Something D&D/PF games lack, or when they do employ, only on the most surface and superficial levels and is not very motivating.

Thanks, payn, for the clarifications. This is really helpful.

I do think that when it comes to D&D and Pathfinder, at least when it comes to WotC era, there is a certain element of "deck building" when it comes to your character. Your ancestry, class, feats, and skills provide you with various tools and bonuses. You are essentially building your character, which is especially true with 3e/PF1/5e style multiclassing. And I can see how that may not be as satisfiying if you are playing PbtA, where I feel that abilities or class moves can more like edges or advantages that the character has. Though there are numerous exceptions, PbtA tends to be a little more interested in the experience of dragging a character through the coals rather than building a character designed to withstand and escape the coals. There are some PbtA games that treat moves more like abilities and/or tools.

I did not mean to imply that episodic is bad, and serial is good. I really enjoy a short lived round of Masks or Monster of the Week. However, I don't enjoy playing them in perpetuity like a I do a campaign of my other favorites PF and Traveller. The PbtA games become routine, expected, and repetitive. I will say there is a good chance the GMs I had just ran the game that way and were not good at moving the plot, introducing new elements, being serial. Its a preference for me, and not a general statement of fact I'm making.

I feel the PbtA game mechanics don't really encourage serial play. I've felt the same about other closely related games too like Blades in the Dark. I really enjoy the role play encouragement and how the mechanics have a hand in that, but the play loop kills my long term interest in these games. I'm not entirely blaming the systems, but that has been my experience.

So do I understand you correctly that when you use the term "serial" you mean long-term play such as a campaign?

I'm not sure if I would agree, based upon my own personal experiences that PbtA games are repetitive, but I can see how they lend themselves to shorter-term campaigns rather than some of the longer-ones that D&D/Pathfinder cultivate. That said, I have been in many PbtA games that have lasted longer than most of my D&D campaigns, which in my own personal experience tend to end before reaching even 8th to 10th level. Sure the potential for longer-term gameplay exists, but IME it rarely reaches that point because either the GM or players burnout or become bored.

You may want to check out Ironsworn. It's free, and you can run it solo. It is meant for running campaigns of various lengths depending on how strong of a vow and oath you swear, which affects how long it takes to achieve it. But you can build your character in some interesting ways in the game, as you can select assets, abilities, and so on that can shape or improve your character.

I also will always recommend Stonetop by Jeremy Strandberg, though it isn't fully published yet. It is a hack of Dungeon World, which makes it a little more familiar for D&D players. The characters are inhabitants of an Iron Age village looking to improve its lot. The village gets its own playbook for upgrading it, somewhat similar to BitD. It's meant to be played across seasons and years. So you can even rotate characters in and out of play.

Even though there is a Masks-like quality to how Magpie Games designed Avatar Legends, characters are also expected to go out into the world and learn combat techniques. I have not played a long-term campaign of Avatar Legends, only a one-shot to get my feet wet, but maybe this would help contribute to making character progression feel a bit more like gaining new tools for your character.

 

[payn]

So do I understand you correctly that when you use the term "serial" you mean long-term play such as a campaign?

In a nut shell. Im looking for deep character development over gameplay time, although also a setting and plot that expands, develops, and matures over time. Not a simple reset after each conflict has been resolved.

I'm not sure if I would agree, based upon my own personal experiences that PbtA games are repetitive, but I can see how they lend themselves to shorter-term campaigns rather than some of the longer-ones that D&D/Pathfinder cultivate. That said, I have been in many PbtA games that have lasted longer than most of my D&D campaigns, which in my own personal experience tend to end before reaching even 8th to 10th level. Sure the potential for longer-term gameplay exists, but IME it rarely reaches that point because either the GM or players burnout or become bored.

Its true, I'm likely an outlier in my desire for an intricate, nuanced, and expounded campaign in my RPG play.

You may want to check out Ironsworn. It's free, and you can run it solo. It is meant for running campaigns of various lengths depending on how strong of a vow and oath you swear, which affects how long it takes to achieve it. But you can build your character in some interesting ways in the game, as you can select assets, abilities, and so on that can shape or improve your character.

I also will always recommend Stonetop by Jeremy Strandberg, though it isn't fully published yet. It is a hack of Dungeon World, which makes it a little more familiar for D&D players. The characters are inhabitants of an Iron Age village looking to improve its lot. The village gets its own playbook for upgrading it, somewhat similar to BitD. It's meant to be played across seasons and years. So you can even rotate characters in and out of play.

Even though there is a Masks-like quality to how Magpie Games designed Avatar Legends, characters are also expected to go out into the world and learn combat techniques. I have not played a long-term campaign of Avatar Legends, only a one-shot to get my feet wet, but maybe this would help contribute to making character progression feel a bit more like gaining new tools for your character.

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

[Aldarc]

In a nut shell. Im looking for deep character development over gameplay time, although also a setting and plot that expands, develops, and matures over time. Not a simple reset after each conflict has been resolved.

There are a number of PbtA games that aren't interested in simple resets. Sure, some may seem episodic because they jump forward in time (e.g., Stonetop), but the threats, fronts, and other issues should remain persistent problems for the PCs, especially if they weren't resolved in prior game play. Some games like Monsterhearts or Urban Shadows can't "reset" because characters should always have "strings" that exist between them and other game characters that can re-enter play. So while they may be "episodic" in some regards, they are issues that could be pulled later for dramatic moments, much in the same manner as watching a season of Vampire Diaries or True Blood.

Its true, I'm likely an outlier in my desire for an intricate, nuanced, and expounded campaign in my RPG play.

You may enjoy reading the solo campaign write-up someone has been doing for Stonetop because it shows what a campaign may look like.

Thank you for the suggestions.

Gladly. There is no guarantee that you like them. I will not be offended if you bounce off of them. Others may have their own suggestions to make.

But I'm also glad that our posts were a way for me to get to know you better. I will keep your preferences in mind for the future, especially if I encounter other games out in the wild that may tickle your fancy better, whether they are PbtA or not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

RPGs are interesting games, not least because they often aim for innovative mechanics in their design for the sake of being innovative. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't, but that isn't necessarily tied to how much we might enjoy those designs.

So, just for the sake of discussion, tell me about some of your favorite mechanics and systems in RPGs, and why you like those mechanics.

I really like the 4e Skill Challenge framework. When employed and implemented well, especially matched with some better check mechanics it rocks.

 

[billd91]

Mutants and Mastermind 3e's Extra Effort rules, specifically the Power Stunt. Its not uncommon for a superhero RPG to include some kind of ability to push your powers or do more than the character was defined as being able to do when they were created. But they usually don't give the player a chance to tap into fundamentally different potential like Mutants and Masterminds does. M&M lets a player specify an entirely different power effect from what's on the character sheet as an alternate effect of one of the powers they have. So all of those weird times a superhero pulled a previously undreamed of application of their power out of their butt? You can do that in M&M even with a character whose abilities are otherwise carefully described and purchased via build points.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In play I just found it to be a bit formulaic. Like episodic TV. This is the part where Sam's dark past reveals a piece of what's going on, and then we have Melissa's resourceful bit where she constructs a makeshift device to save the day. Finally, Phil does...

I like my game play a little more serial, and I haven't really come to terms with making playbooks work with that. I know you can gain additional moves, even moves from other playbooks, but I just don't know how to make it work for me just yet.

How is it really different from D&D class, which seems to equally put characters in a niche?

 

[payn]

How is it really different from D&D class, which seems to equally put characters in a niche?

Specific vs general.

 

[pemerton]

I like Beliefs and Relationships in the Burning Wheel family of games.

 

[Aldarc]

Specific vs general.

I'm honestly having a difficult time discerning which is which when applied to D&D/PF and the various PbtA games I know.

 

[Faolyn]

I like resource dice, in theory--I've never actually played a game that used them, but the concept seems so useful to me.

 

[GMMichael]

Also, the hit point mechanic in Genesys / FFG feels much different than D&D. It feels more like a Star Wars fight should. Death is possible, but it's radically more likely to end in surrender or retreat, or being "knocked out" of a fight via condition.

It feels like a tense race, where the PCs and opponents are using every trick up their sleeve for advantage before they're hung out to dry. In no way does it feel like a bag of hit points just being depleted.

I have to look this up. It sounds awesome.

It's not terribly sexy, but I really like Take 10/Take 20. Having an absolute value you can point to that provides a reference for how skilled you are, given time and space to practice and err is very convenient, and take 10 is a solid mechanic for action outside of a clock.

Try Take Half. For any roll. It works better for opposed rolls, but you could use it with static rolls too, with a modification like: "take half on a d10 or higher subtracts 2 points from your result."

I'd like to see a D20 skill system that defaults to using those values and translating them into actions players can take, moving rolling onto back burner as something only done when you're pushing your luck.

So a PC can do only what's listed on the character sheet? Not for me.

Also, I mentioned TOR and DW dice mechanics, but I'll broaden that to: "Simple dice mechanics that have a range of possible results, not just binary pass/fail."

Indeed. Saying a PC should "fail" on an action is like saying that "no" is a valid answer to most player inquiries. It's short and simple, but not much fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I really like using “signature skills” in my own game, which are skills you’re reliable in because you can up learning them or they’re part of your biology (spirit people talking to spirits, for instance) and so with a signature skill you always reroll any 1s in your dice pool, even if it means rerolling several times. You can still fail, but total failure is less likely, and you’ll never get the minimum result possible.

It also means that the point where you can’t “total fail” once you hit 4 ranks, because total failure is 1-9, and 4 ranks means rolling 5 total dice with a minimum of 2 on each die.

I also really like success ladders as replacement for DCs.

Blades in The Dark uses flashbacks really well.

I feel like I’m forgetting some favorites

 

[jdrakeh]

I've recently been re-reading Fading Suns (2e) and have been reminded of how great the core "blackjack" mechanic is. To succeed at an action, you need to roll under your ability rating + skill on 1d20. BUT you want to roll as high as you can under that target. The higher you roll while still remaining under said target, the more Victory Points you receive, with VPs translating directly to degree of success (the more VPs the better the degree of success).

 

[overgeeked]

I really love Playbooks and think that any number of games, trad and otherwise, can benefit from them.

While I generally like the idea of playbooks, their implementation as "story you'll work through" rather than "archetype you want to play" kinda bugs me. I don't want a predetermined story arc for my character. I want to play to find out what happens. That single bit of PbtA games has always been a bit dissonant for me.

 

[overgeeked]

More mechanics I love.

The DCC/MCC dice chain. It's a great idea. And can be used for so many different things. Nothing beats rolling the chonky boy d30 for a to-hit roll.

DCC/MCC magic/powers. I love the idea and implementation of corruption in DCC and mutations in MCC. If you try to use your magic-powers and you botch, look out. It makes magic-powers feel chaotic and dangerous. That's amazing.

MCC tech levels. A lot of sci-fi games have tech levels but there's something neat about the implementation of tech levels and rolling to understand new tech in MCC that just sings.