See my post above. If the GM and Players align clear intentions and what's at stake before the roll, it doesn't need any pre-written rules outcomes. In fact, the most pre-"scripted" fail forward I've seen (Edge of the Empire) is one of the clunkiest implementation of the concept. IMHO of course.Ice9 wrote: This does, of course, run into the "So - the rules really need to at least give good guidelines for the magnitude of complication on a failure, if not specific outcomes.
Apocalypse World's problems minus the quantum bears.
Moderator: Moderators
Last edited by silva on Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
If it is going to be a rule in the game, then it has to have, at bear minimum, a rational framework and enough sensible, salient examples of implementation so as to inform people's expectations.silva wrote:If the GM and Players align clear intentions and what's at stake before the roll, it doesn't need any pre-written rules outcomes.
"Pull it out your ass"/"make it up/figure it out" (whether before or after the roll) simply does not deserve any ink. If that is the premise of a "rule", then it is not a "rule", nor a "directive", nor anything else that deserves that kind of distinction. Hell, without the bear minimums that I just gave, it doesn't even qualify as a "guideline".
But if it warrants page space and is intended to be a part of procedural play, then yes, something has to be pre-written in something resembling a complete form.
Is this thread really intending to do to "fail forward" what the neckbeards did to "munchkin"? I'm pretty sure the term had a different significance.
Personally, I'm not opposed to "success at a cost" as long as:
1) It's still success rather than the Pirrhic victories/crap worse than failure that *World uses.
2) Whatever system uses it, handles it as an exception rather than the norm (let alone 80% of time).
Other than that, I'd rather leave comedy of errors' mechanics on games made specifically to play comedies of errors or misery tourism.
Personally, I'm not opposed to "success at a cost" as long as:
1) It's still success rather than the Pirrhic victories/crap worse than failure that *World uses.
2) Whatever system uses it, handles it as an exception rather than the norm (let alone 80% of time).
Other than that, I'd rather leave comedy of errors' mechanics on games made specifically to play comedies of errors or misery tourism.
-
Foxwarrior
- Duke
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
- Location: RPG City, USA
If failing forward was something rare and only used in cases of actual failure that would be an improvement. In fact, the less it is used the better it gets. If you had a currency to spend on turning failed rolls into successes that would be okay. Maybe if on a failed roll a player wanted to wager something of their character's on a reroll with a bonus, that might be interesting. Could have a standard list of stuff that is worth X bonus. A wound, a piece of useful equipment, a piece of unique equipment, whatever.
Trying to solve the "problem" of take 10/20 is a disgraceful waste of time. Any time someone complains about having a cut and dry pass/fail on a DC system then I know that they are devoid of any useful contributions to any gameplay discussion. They're just too stupid to help it.
If you want to have a little pizzazz, some rare spice to things, sure. But if you think "Gosh, having a resolution system that is smooth with clear success/failure delineation is something in need of correcting!" then suck that barrel. Suck it so hard you get feathers in your stool. If a system can't manage a very cut and dry pass/fail resolution as its meat and potatoes then it is over complicating itself.
Trying to solve the "problem" of take 10/20 is a disgraceful waste of time. Any time someone complains about having a cut and dry pass/fail on a DC system then I know that they are devoid of any useful contributions to any gameplay discussion. They're just too stupid to help it.
If you want to have a little pizzazz, some rare spice to things, sure. But if you think "Gosh, having a resolution system that is smooth with clear success/failure delineation is something in need of correcting!" then suck that barrel. Suck it so hard you get feathers in your stool. If a system can't manage a very cut and dry pass/fail resolution as its meat and potatoes then it is over complicating itself.
Guys are forgetting that in World games most moves actually do give a range of sensible pre-written options. It's just Acting under Fire that don't, but even in this case if you align stakes before the roll you avoid the kind of pitfalls being talked about here.
Didn't understand your question. Do you mean system searches shouldn't fail ever in this game ? If that's the case I agree with you, because that's exactly how it works in the comics. Reducing the range of possible results to Success or Success at a Cost seems a much better fit.foxwarrior wrote:I'm really curious as to how someone playing Marvel Heroic Roleplaying is actually supposed to resolve a failed system search
Last edited by silva on Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
Foxwarrior
- Duke
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:54 am
- Location: RPG City, USA
Well, I can't find a fail forward rule in the book, but it says you don't have to roll when failure isn't interesting or relevant.
So, I think I prefer my house rule.
So, I think I prefer my house rule.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
Planning a new game of AW and remembered another thing that never worked well for us: the stat highlighting thing. I understand its there to promote a certain party dynamic where players are fans of each other characters and kind of suggest each other given directions of play. But at my tables the effect was always opposite - players highlighted stats other players didnt care or wanted to play out, and it ended up bothering us. For our new game we will be taking XP rules from its hacks. (Dungeon World's XP for failing tests seems a pretty good one, BTW).
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
To be clear, are you now saying that if you don't play Apocalypse World exactly as intended you're not playing it right? I thought you've been very insistent that it needs to be played as the author intends or it isn't even remotely the same game.silva wrote:Planning a new game of AW and remembered another thing that never worked well for us: the stat highlighting thing.
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
Thats right, Im no longer playing it "correctly". As playing it correctly didnt give us an interesting experience regarding character advancement.
*edit*
And yeah, this may have an impact on the game overarching experience. For ex: perhaps having players highlight each other for advancement (be it helping or hindering) impacts gameplay in some positive way my group couldnt indentify. I dont know, and dont care, because the only impact it had on us was seen as negative (aka: playing our characters in a way we didnt want to, or not being able to get XP at all).
*edit*
And yeah, this may have an impact on the game overarching experience. For ex: perhaps having players highlight each other for advancement (be it helping or hindering) impacts gameplay in some positive way my group couldnt indentify. I dont know, and dont care, because the only impact it had on us was seen as negative (aka: playing our characters in a way we didnt want to, or not being able to get XP at all).
Last edited by silva on Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
Well, we still follow the game directives (agenda and principles) and it works nice. We will just house rule the highlighting thing from now on.
One other aspect that it influenced, I suspect, was the advancement rate of characters. If the group noticed one player was rocketing ahead in XP they would highlight stats that don't fit that player recent style and behavior.
Frankly, we don't care much for this kind of meta-game dynamics. We gave it a try, we played it by the book, but in the end its not to us. Maybe with another group with a entirely different mindset I could come to appreciate it. Maybe.
I would like for the author (or someone else) to come up and say what else we lose by changing this piece of rule. I don't see more ramifications to the gameplay, but its possible there is.
One other aspect that it influenced, I suspect, was the advancement rate of characters. If the group noticed one player was rocketing ahead in XP they would highlight stats that don't fit that player recent style and behavior.
Frankly, we don't care much for this kind of meta-game dynamics. We gave it a try, we played it by the book, but in the end its not to us. Maybe with another group with a entirely different mindset I could come to appreciate it. Maybe.
I would like for the author (or someone else) to come up and say what else we lose by changing this piece of rule. I don't see more ramifications to the gameplay, but its possible there is.
Last edited by silva on Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
Funny how I dont remember reading this before but rereading the book yesterday Ive found out that, according to the Vincent, Highlighting is inspired by Keys from The Shadow of Yesterday and Fan Mail from Primetime Adventures.
The Keys inspiration seems misleading, as these work entirelly different from highlights and entice entirely different group behaviors. But the Fan Mail inspiration is very revealing, as Fan Mail worked as a reward that players gave each other at the end session to say they liked something the character did on the session. So Highlighting is indeed a kind of "I like it!" XP reward players give each other like fans. The difference being that highlighting works before the session starts, as a way to direct a given player behaviour, while Fan Mail works at the end of session as a way to reward a behaviour or feat that player did.
Thats it. We are unsatisfied with the Highlighting rule anyway, but its always nice to the origins and reasons behind it.
The Keys inspiration seems misleading, as these work entirelly different from highlights and entice entirely different group behaviors. But the Fan Mail inspiration is very revealing, as Fan Mail worked as a reward that players gave each other at the end session to say they liked something the character did on the session. So Highlighting is indeed a kind of "I like it!" XP reward players give each other like fans. The difference being that highlighting works before the session starts, as a way to direct a given player behaviour, while Fan Mail works at the end of session as a way to reward a behaviour or feat that player did.
Thats it. We are unsatisfied with the Highlighting rule anyway, but its always nice to the origins and reasons behind it.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
Sakuya Izayoi
- Knight
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:02 am
It sounds like Prime Time Adventures is simply a better game. The characters in PTA are actually being observed, as part of the metaphysics, and what the observers do matter. Just like how John Cena's story changes due to the resentment and chagrin of longtime fans, and the adoration of new ones. Nothing saying you can't play characters in a TV show about post-apocalypse survival.
Yes, its possible. At least its mechanics seem to mesh together tighter. This one in special seem totally orthogonal to the rest of the game [Apocalypse World]. This is what bothered us.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
My word, Silva really is a bottomless well of failures. TIL that he evidently shilled Apocalypse World for years before he bothered to play it and find out he doesn't like it, and also that he doesn't understand AW even a little.
You can call it a strength or a weakness, but Apocalypse World pervasively breaks down the control linkage between player and PC. That's its entire deal. It's partly a "narrativist" thing, where players are supposed to be thinking like writers as much as like method actors, and it's partly a "grittyness" thing, where creating drama by being twisted away from your character's initial concept is as valid as creating fun by living up to it. If you didn't get that, you weren't paying attention.
Go fuck yourself. Yes, stat highlighting pressure you into playing your character a way you didn't want to. No, that doesn't make it different from the rest of the game. Apocalypse World is full of this stuff. This is a game where the MC can jump cut to a scene with you in a location you never explicitly said you would go to, and it's a game where other players are explicitly allowed to use their PCs' social powers to control your PC's behavior. It's a game where "acting under fire" may include "acting against social pressure" and thus a game where you may have to roll dice to avoid sleeping with the bartender the MC thinks is hot. It's a game where the set-ups for an example story include premises like "your PC has a dissociative disorder and regularly does offscreen action chosen by the MC and not by you" and "your PC is in love with this NPC." It's a game where the standard consequence of a bad roll is "a hard bargain" -- that is, the standard consequence is that the MC pressures you to do something you wouldn't have chosen to do.For ex: perhaps having players highlight each other for advancement (be it helping or hindering) impacts gameplay in some positive way my group couldnt indentify. I dont know, and dont care, because the only impact it had on us was seen as negative (aka: playing our characters in a way we didnt want to, or not being able to get XP at all).
...
At least [other game's] mechanics seem to mesh together tighter. [Highlighting] in special seem totally orthogonal to the rest of the game [Apocalypse World]. This is what bothered us.
You can call it a strength or a weakness, but Apocalypse World pervasively breaks down the control linkage between player and PC. That's its entire deal. It's partly a "narrativist" thing, where players are supposed to be thinking like writers as much as like method actors, and it's partly a "grittyness" thing, where creating drama by being twisted away from your character's initial concept is as valid as creating fun by living up to it. If you didn't get that, you weren't paying attention.
Orion,
All the examples of "pressuring" you cited are originating on, or at least talks to, the fiction. Highlighting is the only one that works on a pure meta-game level. THATS what bothered us. I know part of the game premise is trusting players out of their comfort zones and challenging their concepts, but one thing is this coming from the fiction, another thing is this coming because, you know, I the player woke up pissed this morning so Im highlighting Weird of you all. I can accept being put out of my intended goals by some "hard bargain" originating in the fiction, Im all for it! But I dont like being put out of my goals and behaviour because some hipster group dynamics completely aborted from the fiction says so.
This is specially offensive since all other mechanics are strongly linked to the fiction - the "to do it, do it" nature of the moves, the player moves that shake the gamestate and propel the fiction into different directions, even the Hx mechanics, etc. Everything speaks to the fiction, except Highlighting.
All the examples of "pressuring" you cited are originating on, or at least talks to, the fiction. Highlighting is the only one that works on a pure meta-game level. THATS what bothered us. I know part of the game premise is trusting players out of their comfort zones and challenging their concepts, but one thing is this coming from the fiction, another thing is this coming because, you know, I the player woke up pissed this morning so Im highlighting Weird of you all. I can accept being put out of my intended goals by some "hard bargain" originating in the fiction, Im all for it! But I dont like being put out of my goals and behaviour because some hipster group dynamics completely aborted from the fiction says so.
This is specially offensive since all other mechanics are strongly linked to the fiction - the "to do it, do it" nature of the moves, the player moves that shake the gamestate and propel the fiction into different directions, even the Hx mechanics, etc. Everything speaks to the fiction, except Highlighting.
Last edited by silva on Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
For fuck's sake, Orion, how many times are we going to go over this? Don't fucking talk to silva!
Hey, if I never talked to Silva I would never have figured out how to say "Apocalypse World radically undermines the assumption that a player is in control of their PC" so succinctly. Batting him around is really quite illuminating.
Also, I don't talk to Silva but about Silva, for the benefit of those who have him on ignore. Right now he's beign wrong about what's "metagame" and what isn't. For instance, the rule that at the start of each game session you roll dice to find out what previously-unmentioned problems your cult or town has spontaneously developed. He cites this as an example of arule that is "not metagame" and "flows from the fiction"
Also, I don't talk to Silva but about Silva, for the benefit of those who have him on ignore. Right now he's beign wrong about what's "metagame" and what isn't. For instance, the rule that at the start of each game session you roll dice to find out what previously-unmentioned problems your cult or town has spontaneously developed. He cites this as an example of arule that is "not metagame" and "flows from the fiction"