Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8416220" data-attributes="member: 75787">It isn't terribly useful comparing PbtA to the worst possible GM running a bad D&D investigative module. I have played literally hundreds of investigative games such as Call of Cthulhu, Trail of Cthulhu, Night's Black Agents and various Fate games that are nothing like that. The whole "roll skill and if you fail the adventure grinds to a halt" and "the investigative module is a linear path defined by the GM" argument is absolutely nothing like what is happening nowadays.Your example is literally one that modern games call out to say "don't do this". For example, from the GUMSHOE SRD:[URL unfurl="true"]https://gumshoe-srd.com/5-DesigningScenarios/[/URL]You’re constructing one way to move through the story to another core clue, not the only way. In play, you may find yourself placing the core clue from one scene in another, improvised scene inspired by the logical actions undertaken by the players. The scene structure guarantees that there’s at least one way to navigate the story, but should not preclude other scene orders. By following the structure you also ensure that you’re creating a branching narrative driven by player choices. This avoids the syndrome of the story driven by the actions of supporting characters, which the players observe more or less passively.I'm interested in PbtA, but not in comparing it to a stereotypically bad version of a traditional dungeon crawl-focused game. And [USER=7028554]@Grendel_Khan[/USER]'s comment is one I have struggled with also -- I have played maybe 8 or so PbtA sessions, and while the system has been pretty good for 'active opposition' scenes, it really has felt very turgid and limiting when faced with  passive opposition. Almost invariably it has degenerated into players making moves that result in "ask X questions about Y", and choosing one or more of the suggested menu of pre-built options. It has felt formulaic and very meta-gamey to me. And it was clear that other players felt the same.Let's take a specific example -- I am investigating a room where a crime has taken place and the criminal has fled. My goal is to find information that will help me follow the criminal. Looking at AW, it looks like READ A SITCH is the best option:READ A SITCHWhen you read a charged situation, roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?• which enemy is most vulnerable to me? • which enemy is the biggest threat?• what should I be on the lookout for?• what’s my enemy’s true position?• who’s in control here?On a miss, ask 1 anyway, but be prepared for the worst.So I guess I ask one question like "what’s my enemy’s true position?" or "where’s my best escape way past" -- already I'm in meta-mode, trying to match the answer I want to the menu of suggestions. And if I do really well ... I don't care -- I just want the answer to one question, not three.So for me, it's hard to look at this example and compare to, say, Fate, where I'd make a skill roll (or a Smarts roll in FA) and if I succeed (equivalent of 7-9) simply get the answer I need without going through the hassle of mapping it to a move menu. If I succeed with style (equiv. 10+) then the GM will either volunteer extra info or ask me what more I want from the success. And on a fail I can always get the answer with a consequence (equivalent to "be prepared for the worst"). Now, I am 100% OK with "Don't use PbtA for investigative games" -- I choose specific games for genres, and my current thinking is that PbtA just plain isn't a great fit for investigative games or ones with lots of passive opposition. But I've only played a handful of Apocalypse games, so if anyone can give an example of how PbtA gives a fun, but different experience to what a modern game like Fate does in this genre, I'm very interested.</blockquote>

Verification