Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Breaking Star Games]

I readily confess that I find PBtA games difficult to play. I'm so much rooted in the traditional BRP-paradigm that I sort of collide with the PBtA philosophy.

So if I wanted to try a game powered by this engine, what is recommended? Monster of the Week? Blades in the Dark? Kult?

Preferably something that can be a mini-campaign of six to eight sessions.

I think unfortunately the answer is based on what you and your table of players will find the most exciting. The more passion you have with the genre/themes, the more fun the game will be.

Six to eight sessions for a lot of PbtA can be nearly a full campaign since most of its mechanics are so fast-resolving. A fight in most PbtAs can be resolved in one or a few rolls which would have been 30+ minutes in D&D 5e. When we did a D&D 5e inspired game using Cult of the Reptile God, it took about 12 sessions. With Dungeon World, it took 2 sessions.

As much as I love Avatar Legends (looks at profile pic), I do think it has a bit more mechanical complexity than most PbtA with a somewhat unintuitive system of status effects and combat. And it can be difficult to GM at first as you really need a good understanding of all the PCs' Principles (these are basically philosophies they believe in). As the world is supposed to push and pull on these. But Magpie is great at explaining PbtA and their most recent games have some great (and extensive, they are long) writing.

But if you wanted just the popular highlights of great systems. This is a good and recent thread - I'd see if any sound exciting to you.

Root: The RPG will be my recommendation - its low magic medieval-like in an anthropomorphic Woodland fantasy. Much of the reason is because like Avatar Legends, Magpie does a good job explaining PbtA. Also most people are pretty familiar with the tropes of D&D (but no magic users in Root) and Root definitely feels that way as you are old school mercenary adventurers out to make fortune without angering powerful factions too much.

The Playbooks (classes) aren't too narratively focused and the mechanics make it so you have a lot of resources as the GM to improv complications. One issue is the gear system is a little complex at first, but pre-made PCs can help streamline that aspect while everyone learns the system.

It can play out quite episodic but its up to your table how long you may stay in a "clearing" (town). But I think 6-8 is great so you get to really experience some of the factions getting upset and retaliating, maybe PCs taking sides.

 

[clearstream]

Let's say that a player swings their sword at a dragon. In D&D thinking, that's a straight-up attack roll. The player will often roll if they have a chance to succeed or not.

I don't think it impacts your point, but DM in D&D decides when to call for initiative. They're not obliged to resolve the action by going to combat. Particularly if it can't harm the dragon. What's at stake here is probably - do you provoke the dragon into incinerating you?

 

[clearstream]

You know what? If you are familiar with Avatar: The Last Airbender, I'm gonna say Avatar Legends. Play that. That also works better with more episodic play that could work for a short mini-campaign.

Avatar is worth playing, however I didn't suggest it because it has a distinct approach to conflicts. One that builds on top of core PbtA process.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but in every RPG ever they 'exist' to serve the game's purposes. I mean, I'll yield on The Bat Cave, it had some sort of pre-existing fictional existence that needs to be respected if you are doing that sort of thing. However, it still came into play for a reason that is intrinsic to the play of THIS GAME.

Sure, but then we move away from your argument about mad wizards and their budgets, and into matters of out-of-setting gamism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Another way we differ: I don't make assertions about how implausible your fiction is!

You sure like to take comments personally. At what point have I said anything disparaging about your fiction?

 

[FrogReaver]

I see nothing wrong with your example.

Can the consequence move be indirect?
i.e. nothing to do with the rifle or firing a shot but that a loose tile made the character lose footing so a further "climb/balance/reflex" check is needed....

What about a malfunction? Bullet caught in rifle chamber, requiring delay while character fixes problem. I'm not a gun-guy so I'm spitballing here.

You mean besides it not being satisfying to us?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then why don’t you talk about your actual experiences with the games? Forgive my assumption, but there’s nothing about your posts that shows you understand these games. In fact there is often the opposite.

I see now you said you like Monster of the Week the most. Why? Beyond the genre/concept, I mean. What did you enjoy about play? What playbook did you play? What did you dislike about play? What about the other players?

Same for Apocalypse World. What playbook did you play? What happened in the first session? What did you not like about it? How about Dungeon World?

What kind of differnces did you notice from these games compared to a more trad game like D&D? What about to each other? What kinds of similarities?

Do you have any specifics? Or are you just in this thread to kind of backhandedly poo-poo on these games while holding up your hands and saying “but hey everyone can like what they like”?

What is your goal in posting in these threads?

I'll answer your last question first. Someone posted that they had a hard time getting answers about PBtA games that lacked a certain "holier than thou" and perhaps elitist attitude (not their exact words). I thought they had a point and posted to support them, then got drawn in when the playstyle's defenders leapt into the fray. Since I like debate and playing devil's advocate, I stuck around.

Regarding your request for more detail on my PBtA experiences, which I note you seem to doubt (is it that hard to accept other people might not enjoy what you enjoy?), I will admit all three were pretty brief. I enjoyed Monster of the Week solely because I like the genre a lot (big fan of the stories it's inspired by) and I like my friends. Never liked the system. I played an Antiquarian (I think), or in any case the Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer archetype, my favorite role in most stories. Free roleplay as this character was far more fun to me than interacting with the system. I would play again, but only because I liked my character, the genre, and my companions. System had nothing to do with the fun I had.

The other two experiences were longer ago, with different people. I like the post-apocalyptic genre quite a bit (that's why I joined that group in the first place), but to my and some other player's perspectives, the system kept getting in the way. People would keep their eyes glued to their playbooks, looking for moves to make and ways to get mechanical advantage. I left after three sessions and decided to watch the original Clash of the Titans on cable instead (my roommate was the GM so we were playing in the garage).

My Dungeon World experience was even briefer (I think just one session), but much the same. It had the added drawback of running up against my expectations as a decades-long D&D player, and unlearning those lessons wasn't worth playing a game in the same genre I'm comfortable with in another style. I think I played a fighter-type there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, not exactly.

You both seem to want sensible and plausible fiction from your RPGs. @pemerton didn’t share his actual play reports to try and convince you to like a game… he shared them to show you examples of plausible, verisimilitudinous fiction produce by these types of games.

Which you claimed they don’t do.

So he provided examples to counter your claim.

You respond with “eh all that evidence that counters my claim doesn’t mean much to me!”

It’s not a very strong argument for your claim.

Because my claim is subjective. As I said above, I'm sure @pemerton 's games are quite plausible for them and their players. But they wouldn't be for me, because that systems' assumptions are too counter to my preference to see the fiction created as having the verisimilitude I want out of fantasy gaming. It's nothing against them or their style of play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree that Dungeon World is danger-filled, action-adventure play by design and execution in the play (it can't help but be). I don't agree that it is dungeon-focused play (either thematically or procedurally) at all. It might include a dungeon here and there, but it falls well short of the mark of "dungeon-focused."

The thematic and design touchstones for Dungeon World are Burning Wheel (xp, the first End of Session question, and some themes and mythology sprinkled about in playbooks), Shadows of Yesterday (alignment), AW/Freemarket (bonds), and Basic + AD&D (playbooks, EoS questions sans the aforementioned ones, Hirelings, Encumbrance/Coin, Monsters and general mythology). Such a mix generates a dynamic where "play goes where the playbooks, the bonds, the alignment, and the players' protagonism via their PCs goes" and that such tends to skew heavily away from dungeon crawling on the balance.

For instance, the last DW game I GMed (Druid and Fighter playbooks) saw 1 dungeon in their 1-10 game. This ancient ruin was an emergent feature of them trying to escape <the equivalent of> supernatural, spiritual pyroclasm and getting trapped in a cave-in. The 1-10 game I GMed before that (Wizard and Paladin) saw 1 duneon in its span. This ancient ruin was goal-directed by the players and generated via a Spout Lore move.

I would say that spread mentioned above (the % of dungeon content and the nature of the dungeon content generated) is about right in all the DW games I've run (which is a ridiculous amount of hours and levels in the last 10 years...and I'm just talking DW...not Stonetop).

Then why are people telling me about how focused the rules of DW are on dungeon-crawling, if that's not true?

 

[FrogReaver]

Then why are people telling me about how focused the rules of DW are on dungeon-crawling, if that's not true?

I’ve noticed that while often similar the posters supporting a game say different things about it. D&D players do the same with D&D but it’s kind of expected that D&D games will be played very differently. That’s consistently not what’s said about these games. IMO this is part of the source of repeated questions.