Why do you play games other than D&D?

[pemerton]

Yes, and it's specifically why I chose it as a contrasting option and was quite specific in my language. As I understand it, it's not actually about solving a mystery - it's about what happens along the way. The truth isn't discovered through play, it's created.

I've never played Brindlewood Bay, but I think that this post draws a contrast between "discovered" and "created" that is sharper than the reality of play. There are a lot of ways the "truth" of a RPG's fiction can be emergent rather than prepped - and my impression is that a degree of emergence is an important part of the Brindlewood Bay experience.

 

[SableWyvern]

I've never played Brindlewood Bay, but I think that this post draws a contrast between "discovered" and "created" that is sharper than the reality of play. There are a lot of ways the "truth" of a RPG's fiction can be emergent rather than prepped - and my impression is that a degree of emergence is an important part of the Brindlewood Bay experience.

I'm quite comfortable with the way I've phrased it and, in this specific case, think that treating discovered vs created as meaningfully different to prepped vs emergent is quibbling over semantics. However, I'm not nearly invested enough to be drawn into an extended argument over terminology and you're certainly entitled to hold a contrary position.

 

[DammitVictor]

Speaking of being able to drive nails with anything if it's heavy and hard enough:

You can use Cortex Prime to build an incredibly traditional old school game, like a cross between Runequest or Pendragon and The BoL Hack.

Spoiler: Horrifying Details

Core Traits:

• No Distinctions. (Heresy!)
• Heritage: at minimum, includes one species, one culture, and one social class. May include subrace, magic bloodline, etc.
  • Attached to SFX, Limits, and Hinder. Since they're ranked, hindering adds a d4 to your pool and the Heritage die to the opposed roll.
  • Take as many as you want!
• Technique: At minimum, you get Defense, Melee, Ranged, Initiative(/mobility), Covert, and Expert plus at least one Power Source.
  • Attached to SFX and Limits. Power Sources have spells/powers with specific rules.
  • I deliberately exclude Social/Noble/Face; you do you, fam.
• Ability Scores: You can use any scheme you want here. Probably don't want more than six.
  • I'd use Might, Grit, Finesse, Agility, Cunning, Savvy, and Allure. (I give good advice; I don't follow it.)
  • There's no "Charisma"; this is also intentional. "Skill checks" aren't hard-coded to abilities, to leave wiggle room.
• Virtues & Vices: These are paired, d4/d12, d6/d10, d8/d8, with a Statement that applies to each pairing. These can be Challenged, and this is important to character growth.
  • Strife/Peace. Everyone chooses Peace but... plays a D&D character; it's hilarious.
  • Authority/Liberty.
  • Glory/Safety.
  • Honor/Pragmatism.
  • Loyalty/Avarice.
• Careers: Just like BoL Careers or D&D24 Backgrounds.

Mechanical Options:

• Plot Points are diegetic and can only be spent to represent extra effort, heroic determination, and the like. You can gain Plot Points by rolling 1s, Hindering your Heritage/Techniques, and following your Virtues & Vices into entertaining predicaments.
• Life Points: Starting Life Points are based on Might + Defense and your level.
• Stress & Trauma:
  • You might gain Stress when you take Life Point damage from an attack, depending on the Effect Dice.
  • You gain or step up Trauma when you're Stressed Out or reduced to zero Life Points.
  • Characters gain an extra Stress and Trauma level for every rank of Grit, so a character with d4 Grit has an extra d4 and a character with a d8 has an extra d4, d6, and d8.
• Power Points: Power Points are based on Power Source and an Ability based on the Power Source and increase with level. Spells/powers have levels for minimum level/rank and for power point cost.
• Combat: Standard Cortex attack roll versus reaction roll. Succeeding by 5 or more lets you step up your Effect Die or keep an additional Effect Die.
  • Weapon damage is Ability Die + Technique Die + all Effect Dice.
  • Reaction to most attacks uses Ability + Defender + Armor. Damage on a failed Reaction is reduced by Armor Die + Effect Die.
• Advancement: Hybrid between objective-based XP/level and Growth Pool. Some advancements are automatic based on level and/or Power Source rank. Whenever you gain a level, you can roll your Growth Pool against any Core Trait (except Virtues & Vices) to improve it.

 

[dbm]

Genre and style are definitely different things. You can run noir / horror / four-colour supers / fantasy / sci-fi with Fate, Savage Worlds, GURPS or HERO and each would deliver the same genre with a different feel through their approach. Systems like Cortex and Fudge are more like toolkits in my opinion (and Fate is close to a toolkit too) so you can adjust the style significantly with these frameworks.

A good IP related game matches genre and style, in a poor one these clash.

 

[Fenris-77]

I've never played Brindlewood Bay, but I think that this post draws a contrast between "discovered" and "created" that is sharper than the reality of play. There are a lot of ways the "truth" of a RPG's fiction can be emergent rather than prepped - and my impression is that a degree of emergence is an important part of the Brindlewood Bay experience.

The range of possible outcomes for a given mystery in BBay is far more limited than people sometimes suggest. The careful curation of NPCs and clues in a given mystery has the effect of narrowing that field quite a bit. I won't quibble with a description of BBay play as emergent, but I find it gets used (quite poorly) as an example of all kinds of things it doesn't actually do at the table in that regard, most of them anent the mystery mechanic.

 

[pemerton]

The range of possible outcomes for a given mystery in BBay is far more limited than people sometimes suggest. The careful curation of NPCs and clues in a given mystery has the effect of narrowing that field quite a bit.

Right. This is my point, and the basis on which I expressed doubts about saying the solution is "created" rather than "discovered".

I won't quibble with a description of BBay play as emergent

Nor will I, given that I used the term!

I find it gets used (quite poorly) as an example of all kinds of things it doesn't actually do at the table in that regard, most of them anent the mystery mechanic.

I certainly have this impression also.

I'm quite comfortable with the way I've phrased it and, in this specific case, think that treating discovered vs created as meaningfully different to prepped vs emergent is quibbling over semantics.

I don't agree that it's quibbling.

Especially because "emergence" is discussed extensively as a property of RPGing in non-Brindlewood Bay contexts where it is not equated with "creation" or with "tell[ing] the story of solving a mystery".

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not completely convinced about the separation between 'solving a mystery' and 'telling the story of solving a mystery' as usefully distinct terms. At least not to do the definitional work its being asked to do in this case. I wouldn't, for example, suggest that Call of Cthulhu, in some of its adventures, somehow isn't about telling the story of solving a mystery, nor would I say that Brindlewood Bay isn't about solving a mystery.

To throw a third ingredient into the pot here, I think I'd probably say that Monster of the Week represents emergent gameplay but also retains the 'specificity of the mystery = X' that BBay sometimes confuses people about. Is MOtW 'solving a mystery' or 'telling the story of solving a mystery'. IDK, the terms don't seem to add much. Perhaps others have a nuanced view of the two terms, I'm not sure.

My suspicion is that the nature of BBay mechanic has led people to try and describe it as 'not really about solving a mystery' and this in turn leads to trying to define what it might be if it's not that. I think that the difference between emergent and prepped play (or whatever term you prefer) covers the difference between CoC and BBay without the need to split the Gordian Knot of 'what is a mystery, anyway'.

This is me spitballing, not telling anyone how it is btw.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I'm not completely convinced about the separation between 'solving a mystery' and 'telling the story of solving a mystery' as usefully distinct terms. At least not to do the definitional work its being asked to do in this case. I wouldn't, for example, suggest that Call of Cthulhu, in some of its adventures, somehow isn't about telling the story of solving a mystery, nor would I say that Brindlewood Bay isn't about solving a mystery.

To throw a third ingredient into the pot here, I think I'd probably say that Monster of the Week represents emergent gameplay but also retains the 'specificity of the mystery = X' that BBay sometimes confuses people about. Is MOtW 'solving a mystery' or 'telling the story of solving a mystery'. IDK, the terms don't seem to add much. Perhaps others have a nuanced view of the two terms, I'm not sure.

My suspicion is that the nature of BBay mechanic has led people to try and describe it as 'not really about solving a mystery' and this in turn leads to trying to define what it might be if it's not that. I think that the difference between emergent and prepped play (or whatever term you prefer) covers the difference between CoC and BBay without the need to split the Gordian Knot of 'what is a mystery, anyway'.

Brindlewood Bay gets a lot of press for trying something new for the whole investigation mystery process. I think it fails utterly to deliver on both. But the idea they were onto did spawn what does work = and that came from Apocalypse Keys.

ApocKeys went away from "letting the dice decide the truth" of the mystery, back towards "the GM decided the truth when they made the mystery", but they let the "we found a clue" be organic instead of planted by the GM. This solves problems while retaining the process of a mystery uncovery.

Now the GM need only focus on the mystery its self, and then when a CLUE pops up, they can look at their mystery aspects and define the clue at that point in time and place and circumstance. No more very very frustrating "well, i never thought a clue would be in a breadbox" or "i had to spend three weeks guessing where players might look for clues" or "i didnt know that the sailor talking about pudding was a clue" = so awful and frustrating and game breaking and exhausting!!

Once the players have enough CLUEs they can roleplay to discuss their clues, and then roll to address the mystery. on success, the GM tells them where to go based on their discussion roleplay so they can confront the mystery and they are prepared. on fail, its the same but the mystery has the upper hand. on fumble, the mystery gets away with some of it and can't be 100% resolved. on critical success the characters are prepared and have a bonus to aid them in the confrontation.
It's all still GM mystery ideas, its all still part of their plot. No dice roll just blurts out "yeah, i guess that lame idea was right" like BB does.
You still have to roleplay to find out what happened and to resolve it (final battle, race for time, escape in time, whatever the mystery finale is)

To me, this means that we there are very strong differences in how mechanics drive emergent gameplay - and its those mechanics that drive me away from D&D and towards other games. And not all of those other games get it right either...

 

[Umbran]

It might be faint praise if you say it. It's sincere praise from me, as I prefer the traditional approach to investigation. I don't need or want fancy mechanics or approaches like you might find in Gumshoe (as an example).

I reject the idea that Gumshoe's approach to investigation is "fancy".

If you have a skill, and think to use it in a place where a clue might be found... you find it.
If there's additional information, you can spend a point to get it.

That's not fancy. That's dirt simple.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I reject the idea that Gumshoe's approach to investigation is "fancy".

If you have a skill, and think to use it in a place where a clue might be found... you find it.
If there's additional information, you can spend a point to get it.

That's not fancy. That's dirt simple.

This use of "fancy" got me wondering...

Sometimes clues are person/place/thing written in the module, at a location and under specific circumstances. So the GM has to use 0 brain to generate them.

Sometimes the GM is coming up with their own mystery and they generate clues as ...person/place/thing written in the module, at a location and under specific circumstances... So by the time they are running their adventure, the clue is 0 brain for the GM.

In either case, the clue is just... there and does what it says on the tin.

But in other games, where Clues can be found and defined at any time in any place = the GM has to use brain to define and apply the clue in the middle of play. = maybe that requirement to 'make up details/clue on the spot' is seen as "fancy"? (regardless of how simple the mechanic is to find said clue is)

I dunno, it just got me wondering.

I prefer the gumshoes/make up way myself...