What do you think about Powered by the Apocalypse games?

[Random Task]

I think one of the major improvements that Blades in the Dark makes over PbTA is the explicit assigning of stakes and position, giving more guidance to the consequences of a dice roll. I find the potential for cascading complications, with rolls begetting more rolls, exhausting in regular PbTA.

 

[Greg K]

Just got the fulfillment for the kickstarter of Good Guys Finish Last.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

It's originally from the 90's, but apparently has some tech way before it's time that's still fresh today. Once I read, perhaps I'll report back.

It is an interesting game and forms a separate branch of narrative games on the rpg tree. It was, originally part of Avengers of Justice (by Better Games) which incuded a second game, Villains Finish. Definitely wotth having a look.

 

[mythago]

Not a fan of PBTA. I really dislike the playbook aspect and don't understand the attraction to the system

It's straightforward, isn't super crunchy, does not involve buckets of dice, and really shines in settings meant to be about the interaction between the characters rather than mechanical actions on the game world. That is, if the focus of play is on the characters' interactions and personal relationships, it models those well and allows the characters to act on those things mechanically while still giving them lots of choices. Somebody already brought up Masks, which I think is the pinnacle of using the system to map a genre. Sagas of the Icelanders also uses the system well, since the milieu is one in which fate, honor, and your relationships with other people are the key to survival.

If the focus of play is about combat or tactics it's much less well suited for that focus. It's a bit LARP-y in that regard, as the characters' abilities are about pushing and pulling each other more than they are about hitting things with other things.

I confess I'm not understanding the objection to playbooks - they're essentially character classes.

 

[Greg K]

It's straightforward, isn't super crunchy, does not involve buckets of dice, and really shines in settings meant to be about the interaction between the characters rather than mechanical actions on the game world. That is, if the focus of play is on the characters' interactions and personal relationships, it models those well and allows the characters to act on those things mechanically while still giving them lots of choices. Somebody already brought up Masks, which I think is the pinnacle of using the system to map a genre. Sagas of the Icelanders also uses the system well, since the milieu is one in which fate, honor, and your relationships with other people are the key to survival.

My seven year M&M teen super campaign dealt with interractions and personal relationships just fine. PCs had to deal with one of their own becoming suicidal over abandonment issues. Another player was helped through fear of using his powers. Even had a game of capture the flag that was not won by using powers, but a female character taking advantage of a teammate's attraction to her (the female PC was played by a female player).

If the focus of play is about combat or tactics it's much less well suited for that focus. It's a bit LARP-y in that regard, as the characters' abilities are about pushing and pulling each other more than they are about hitting things with other things.

I confess I'm not understanding the objection to playbooks - they're essentially character classes.

It is that they are essentially classes.

 

[amethal]

I confess I'm not understanding the objection to playbooks - they're essentially character classes.

My objection to playbooks was that I didn't understand what they were, the term was being bandied about on the internet as if everyone knew what it meant, and in the end it became a "useful" shorthand that allowed me to reject any game that mentioned having them, sight unseen. (The only other context I had for them was from American football, which didn't help.)

It turns out they're essentially character classes and that I am way more invested in the arbitrary 1970s terminology I grew up with than I had realised.

It was actually Beyond the Wall (not a PbtA game) that showed me where I was going wrong. The description of the game made it sound amazing, and I must have missed any reference to playbooks. Then, when I got it I found out it had "playbooks" and my reaction was "Oh, is that all they are? Why didn't they say so in the first place?"

 

[Aldarc]

My seven year M&M teen super campaign dealt with interractions and personal relationships just fine. PCs had to deal with one of their own becoming suicidal over abandonment issues. Another player was helped through fear of using his powers. Even had a game of capture the flag that was not won by using powers, but a female character taking advantage of a teammate's attraction to her (the female PC was played by a female player).

So how does any of your experiences in a non-PbtA game prevent you from being able to understand, grasp, or sympathize with why people would find PbtA games appealing?

It is that they are essentially classes.

And?

 

[Manbearcat]

I've only ever GM'd Dungeon World and it went terribly. I struggled to improvise, and the players struggled to get out of the more traditional RPG mindset. But I love the idea (and am REALLY loving reading Stonetop) and wish I could play in a game with an experienced PbtA GM.

Presently I'm running 3 weekly games and 2 other intermittent games (somewhere between bimonthly and monthly). If I get some breathing room at some point in the future, I'll see if I can't run a game for you. I'm just putting this out there as a possibility, because (as I've written above) I can't confirm the ability to make some kind of commitment on any timetable. However, I've generally followed through on these kinds of requests as I very much like to introduce folks to indie games.

I confess I'm not understanding the objection to playbooks - they're essentially character classes.

It is that they are essentially classes.

My objection to playbooks was that I didn't understand what they were, the term was being bandied about on the internet as if everyone knew what it meant, and in the end it became a "useful" shorthand that allowed me to reject any game that mentioned having them, sight unseen. (The only other context I had for them was from American football, which didn't help.)

It turns out they're essentially character classes and that I am way more invested in the arbitrary 1970s terminology I grew up with than I had realised.

It was actually Beyond the Wall (not a PbtA game) that showed me where I was going wrong. The description of the game made it sound amazing, and I must have missed any reference to playbooks. Then, when I got it I found out it had "playbooks" and my reaction was "Oh, is that all they are? Why didn't they say so in the first place?"

So I'm going to throw some disagreement out there on this to give folks something to think about (or dispute if they wish).

I don't agree that playbooks are "classes" in the traditional D&D TRPG parlance sort of way.

They're not an in-fiction equivalent to "careers." They're not a common noun. They're not a part of an in-fiction, systematic classification to bin characters into types and subtypes. They're not a packet of abilities that gives expression to (or cares about) niche protection.

So what are playbooks and why did Baker formulate them in that way (using his own words):

1) They're one of a kind. Why? Two reasons:

* A simple matter of handling and expedience built into the design; so the MC/GM doesn't have to have 2 of the same playbook!

* Because they're giving expression to a very specific archetype of which we play to find out how this specific archetype manifests during play. How does this archetype impact setting/situation/external characters and how does setting/situation/external characters impact it. Through consequential action taken during play (particular to archetype), how does this expression of character change and develop during play.

2) What do playbooks do?

* They foreground/signal dramatic needs and arenas of conflict by way of expressing both the fictional content of a character and the game content of a character. The who, the why, and the how. Its personal.

* They give expression to novelty of play experience (not niche protection). This is related to that second point in (1) above, but not quite the same. Its mostly the game version of that point (but its still inextricably linked to the fictional inputs and outputs...because that is how these games function).

3) Design-wise, playbooks answer 3 important questions (and I'll just quote VB directly from lumply here):

* When you sit down to play an rpg, what do you have to establish about your character in order to begin play?

* When you play an rpg, what about your character remains constant throughout play, and what changes over the course of play?

* What about your character do you leave for play to decide? What about your character do you play to find out?

---

So anyway, I think playbook is a very good nomenclature. You make plays as a player. This is what those plays do (and this is how they're operationalized in play; fictional triggers + "if you do it, you do it"). This is how their novelty manifests both at the table (as an experience for all participants to engage with) and in the fiction that we’re imagining. Here is the why and here is the what we're playing to find out about (each respective playbook).

When there is one Gunlugger or one Fighter or one Judge or one Delinquent, its a different deal than traditional Classes (certainly D&D) in both design impetus and the downstream impact upon the fiction of play.

So I'm quite glad Vincent purposefully chose playbook. It’s not the same thing as classes in a number of consequential ways which are not remotely pedantic.

 

[amethal]

So I'm quite glad Vincent purposefully chose playbook. It’s not the same thing as classes in a number of consequential ways which are not remotely pedantic.

Thanks for the detailed post on playbooks. I had no doubt the term arose after a lot of careful consideration. (The more I find out about PbtA games, the more I appreciate just how much thought went into them, whereas my idea of game design used to be wondering whether you could combine Climb and Jump into a single Athletics skill, and if so whether it could cover Swim too.)

* When you sit down to play an rpg, what do you have to establish about your character in order to begin play?

* When you play an rpg, what about your character remains constant throughout play, and what changes over the course of play?

* What about your character do you leave for play to decide? What about your character do you play to find out?

So it's Class plus Alignment. Got it!

 

[pemerton]

I totally get it, and as much as I like the PbtA/FitD approach, I don't think it's for everyone, no shade or judgement or anything else intended, the same way 5e or Traveller aren't for everyone.

I think we've talked before about my idea that Classic Traveller is a proto-PbtA game: it's maths isn't as tight, but it has the basic idea of genre-appropriate "moves" either bound up in the skills, or in the sub-systems for making jumps, buying up trade goods, etc.

I'm not saying that someone interested in PbtA should just play Traveller instead! But imagine playing Traveller, and taking seriously that, if a PC is in a world's urban centre, then the player of that character can declare a Streetwise check to find black markets, corrupt officials and the like; and taking seriously the need to narrate a complication if a player fails their Vacc Suit check when their PC does something other than just move slowly in a vacc suit. You'd have to keep coming up with fiction, right? And you'd want that fiction to push things forward rather than shut them down.

I see PbtA as like that but with even more genre/thematically focused moves, and tighter maths.

I didn't find Apocalypse World to be a great introduction to PbtA, at least for my trad brain. The tone bugged me

Have we talked about this too? I haven't played or GMed AW yet - it's still on my list - but I'm very keen to. I find it clearer, and more compelling, than DW.

I also see it as a nice illustration of the idea that moves, in a PbtA game, tell you what the game is about. So in AW if you (as your PC) have to jump a chasm well you declare that, and the GM replies by making a soft move (unless you hand them a golden opportunity - eg they've describe the chasm as so wide no one could jump it - and then they can make a hard move instead). But if you're doing it under fire, either literally or you're jumping the chasm to get away from Dremmer's gang or whatever, then you have to roll the dice and the whole "snowball" process opens up.

There's no generic task resolution of the D&D or RQ or RM etc variety, no "what's my stat to jump a chasm" or "what's my stat to jump-start a tank" or whatever. There's just the back and forth of action declarations and GM soft moves, until a player declares an action that triggers a player-side move and then the action really starts!

(I feel that DW maybe comes a little bit too close to trying to have generic task resolution - at least to a reader like me, some of the moves don't seem quite as "crisp" as the AW ones.)

For those of us watching from the gallery, could you provide a quick explanation of fronts?

Fronts are broad-scale, lightly-defined pieces of GM "prep material" that will inform some of the fictional setting / constraints.

They're not meant to be heavy metaplots, or rigorously defined components of the setting, but they are meant to provide a backdrop for some of the conflicts the PCs will face.

To add a bit more on this: the way I see it, preparing a front is basically preparing a fictional reservoir of GM moves - stuff to say when the players look to you, or the dice come up 7 to 9 or even moreso 6-, and you've got to add some new content into the fiction. I see it as a type of prep aimed at relieving the burden of improv some posters have mentioned, but without prepping (meta)plot.

Fronts also serve as a type of bridge between two components of the fiction - setting, and characters (including the PCs). By prepping a front, the GM is thinking about how to turn the setting from "backdrop" to something active and antagonistic, and hence something at the forefront of play rather than just stage-setting. You could think of the goal as a type of immersoin-via-visceralness rather than immersion-via-detail-and-catalogues.

 

[pemerton]

If I were run a X-Men game, I would probably use Cortex Prime (although hewing closer to Smallville than Marvel Heroic).

Fighting words, for we MHRers!

I've never checked out Smallville, or the relevant chapter(s) of the Hacker's Guide, and probably should. I think that soap-opera stuff in MHR is carried by Milestones. I've seen them work reasonably well, but maybe the Smallville tech is better.