The Gaming Den

I'd play a grindhouse horror game. Just saying.

Schwarzkopf wrote:To point out the irony of your post (excuse me if you were already aware of it), Ron Edwards, Patriarch of the Forge, afaik invented the GNS terms you're using to characterize the games there.

Yes; what I was saying was that if these other writers are deep enough in the Forge gravity well to frame new designs in terms of GNS, my classification would probably be theirs ("N with a side of G, bring your own S"). I have no clue whether Stolze/Newman/Sorencrane are Forge-ites because I've essentially never gone to that forum except through links.

K wrote:I'd play a grindhouse horror game. Just saying.

I'd give it a lookover and a shot.

K,

I haven't actually looked at the Forge in years, so I have no idea what the community there is like. I like (some of) the games of people who make a point of associating themselves with the Forge, like Vincent Baker. I probably shouldn't have cited Fiasco, because I haven't played or read it and thus have no idea if it will endure. I mentioned it only because it's designed to be a one-shot, and I think that one-shot friendliness will be a big selling point for the next generation of TTRPGs. And because some of my friends like it.

All that aside, you're really mischaracterizing Apocalypse World. It's not a Magic Tea Party by any means--or rather, it uses magic tea party mostly for things you would use it for in D&D as well. Apocalypse World uses a fixed difficulty for almost all tasks, so you really can predict your odds of winning a fight with three dudes by looking at them--better, in fact, than you could predict it in most other games. Also, it has PVP-enabled powers, which magic tea party lacks.

Orion wrote:
All that aside, you're really mischaracterizing Apocalypse World. It's not a Magic Tea Party by any means--or rather, it uses magic tea party mostly for things you would use it for in D&D as well. Apocalypse World uses a fixed difficulty for almost all tasks, so you really can predict your odds of winning a fight with three dudes by looking at them--better, in fact, than you could predict it in most other games. Also, it has PVP-enabled powers, which magic tea party lacks.

Seriously? I haven't read the RPG itself, but from the forum there are people who can't figure out how to do things like.... ummm.... basic attacks. Like, at all.

Following those threads was pretty illuminating. I mean, I could see that there was a roll in there with a stat modifying it, but there were all these MTP elements that people argued about before they even got to make that roll, sometimes using entirely different rolls or actions based on equally plausible MTP justifications. The hilarious thing was that no one could agree about which MTP excuse actually worked so that a character like a "Battlebabe" could make an attack like shoot at someone with a gun.

The example fights didn't even resemble anything I'd seen before since every roll seems to involve a discussion with the MC about how he perceives certain actions and what things on your character sheet he thought you needed to make them work. The game doesn't seem to have definite answers for "how to do actions."

I can imagine that the table arguments must get super vicious with that little to work with for a ruleset. I mean, every example fight was like "well, if I was the MC I resolve actions like this...." only to have someone else come up with a different interpretation about how actions were resolved.

Heck, there are posts where people are literally going "wait, I'm confusing myself by using the mechanics. I'll just stop doing that and follow the fiction."

You can't get an accurate idea of the game by browsing the forums. The fans have a special secret language, the designer has a special secret language, and most of every rules discussion thread is spent talking about how great it is that they aren't one of those dirty "rules" gamers. The climate of the forum is definitely strongly pro-MTP, but AW actually has a lot more and clearer mechanics than the games it's marketed like.

Here's how fighting works:

If you and enemy are both prepared to fight, you make a Hard check. Then you both deal weapon damage to each other. If you passed your hard check, you get options to deal more damage or take less damage or force the enemy to rout.

If the enemy is not prepared to fight back (you snuck up on him, you attack suddenly in the middle of a neutral conversation, you have your weapon handy and he doesn't) you get to go aggro. You make your check. If you win, you can define your win condition (he runs away, he opens the door, he gives me this thing) and the target must do it or take damage. Or you can just deal damage.

In both cases weapon damage is high enough that a fight will typically be decided by one dice roll, which is really nice.

When you get to go aggro is pretty much a matter of MTP, but so is determining surprise rounds in D&D and who has weapons in hand at round 0.

Orion wrote:
If the enemy is not prepared to fight back (you snuck up on him, you attack suddenly in the middle of a neutral conversation, you have your weapon handy and he doesn't) you get to go aggro. You make your check. If you win, you can define your win condition (he runs away, he opens the door, he gives me this thing) and the target must do it or take damage. Or you can just deal damage.

It doesn't seem that easy. The forums seems unable to figure out whether trying to kill someone is Go Aggro, Seize by Force(the life of the enemy), or Act Under Fire with each kind of roll being triggered by MTP considerations. That's before you get into various rolls and effects in combat that are MTP-related like taking incidental damage because the MC decided that it was going to happen. That's before various moves change which stat you use to fight with abd are only available after MTP decisions are made.

That's just the basics. People also seem unable to figure what the actions do, like if they effect groups or what potential actions might fit under what categories.

Then there are various moves that need their own MTP decisions before they are used which win combats without even doing the combat rolls.

All in all, kind of a clusterfuck. A good MC who was super consistent could probably run a decent campaign, but even a decent MC would be basically running a full MTP game.

Look, I could pull quotes from the old 3E forums to prove that D&D is an unplayable clusterfuck. At this point all I can do is say that you should really get your hands on the PDF and take a look for yourself.

Act Under Fire is the generic roll that you make when the MC wants to make you roll but there isn't anything else applicable. Someone will suggest saying "fuck it, make him Act Under Fire" in every rules thread because a sizable number of AW players hate rules.

Go Aggro vs. Seize by Force both can be used to "just kill someone." Use the first if you have the drop on them and the second if they're shooting back. This is spelled out explicitly on a page nobody reads.

There are abilities which change which stats you roll, but in no case do they require you to "wait for MTP decisions." One lets you roll Cool when Going Aggro. There's no new information being tracked, just the old aggro vs. by force question. One gives you a psychic attack that rolls Weird. You just declare that you're doing that instead of shooting someone and there you go. It's like saying that D&D attack rolls can be STR or DEX but you don't know which until you MTP it as a bow or sword fight.

In conclusion: Read the fucking book. You should probably read it twice because parts of it are hard to get, but that's fine because that's still less reading than the D&D PHB. Don't assume that the collective bafflement of a webforum indicates a bad game.

Orion wrote: In conclusion: Read the fucking book. You should probably read it twice because parts of it are hard to get, but that's fine because that's still less reading than the D&D PHB. Don't assume that the collective bafflement of a webforum indicates a bad game.

I think that fact that the people who bought the game and like it enough to come to the official forum can't seem to figure out how to play it at even the most basic level is pretty much the deciding factor of whether it's a shitty game.

Objective data like that is pretty useful for making objective value judgments.

I mean, even if I read it and find the rules to be clear and easy and brilliant, there is a good chance that no one else at any game I'm at will understand them. That sounds shitty.

I'll be impressed by your detective skills when you find me an RPG whose forum *isn't* full of people who don't understand the rules. And After Sundown doesn't count.

Orion wrote:I'll be impressed by your detective skills when you find me an RPG whose forum *isn't* full of people who don't understand the rules. And After Sundown doesn't count.

Oh, there are always going to be tricky rules issues, but "how to make basic attacks" is an entirely different standard. When the most simple and common parts of your game confuse your player base, you should consider writing better mechanics.

It's like Mage: the Ascension. It's a fine little setting and I like the fluff a lot, but the fact that no one could exactly agree about how to cast spells in a game where everyone was a damned spellcaster is a big fucking deal and why it's a shit game.

The first sin of shit game design is a lack of clarity in the core rules that players will be forced to use.

Talking about "basic attacks" and "most simple parts" is a really deceptive way of phrasing it.

A "basic attack" is basic both because it's the rarely-used default case which is frequently modified, and because it's a small building block of a much more complicated combat minigame. Neither is true in Apocalypse World. You take your gun, you say "I muder that fucker", your MC says "roll to go aggro", you make one die roll, and then he's dead. The appropriate comparison would be:

How many AW players can adjudicate Go Aggro or Seize by Force without getting confused?

Vs.

How many D&D players can adjudicate an entire combat without getting confused by any of the spells cast, or the cover rules, or grappling?

There are seven basic actions in Apocalypse World and 4 of them are extremely confusing. The thing is, they're not the "simplest part of the game," they're the most complicated. The actual selectable PC powers are mostly either number buffs, really straightfoward abilities, or MTP.

Orion wrote: How many AW players can adjudicate Go Aggro or Seize by Force without getting confused?

Vs.

How many D&D players can adjudicate an entire combat without getting confused by any of the spells cast, or the cover rules, or grappling?

You are really trying to equate a single action that is core to every Apocalypse World combat with hundreds of potential actions that might never happen in a DnD combat?

Seriously?

Second, why do you think the fact that DnD has a few shitty rules excuses Apocalypse World for massive shittiness?

PS. Are you the writer of AP? If you are, I'll be nicer to you out of pity.

No, Vincent Baker is the writer, and he's a big part of the problem. He hung around on the Forge for so long that normal humans can no longer understand half of what he says, and the forum is full of people who are fans of him personally as much as they are fans of the game. Since they mostly favor MTP in general, they aren't used to the kind of mathhammering we do and react to it with extreme hostility.

Meanwhile, "Vx" (that's really what his fans call him) hates to tell anyone they're doing it wrong, so getting clear explanations of anything can be difficult.

I probably shouldn't have brought up graplling, since that rarely comes up in D&D. But yes, I think that the most reasonable acid test is: How difficult in this system is it to adjudicate a PC storming a hidey-hole full of enemies and shooting them up. Any game that can get that done with one die roll gets a huge amount of leeway even if that one roll is a little bit tricky.

I thought the Forge had completed it's sacred mission of irreproachable RPG design gibberish and gone into official eternal mega dormancy mode years ago.

Why is this zombie of a zombie of a zombie of game design hell still alive?

PhoneLobster wrote:zombie

I believe you answered your own question. As we all know, the only way to kill a zombie is to destroy its brain. Many men have tried, but they've all hit the same stumbling block: even with months of tireless, methodical searching, none has managed to find anything remotely resembling a brain on the entire site.

... Low blow, and probably unfair, but I couldn't help myself. I actually have no idea what accomplishments and failures to credit the Forge with, but their MTP/rules-lite slant has never made me a fan.

Orion wrote:Any game that can get that done with one die roll gets a huge amount of leeway even if that one roll is a little bit tricky.

That... no? Resolving combat with a single roll does not actually sound like a good thing, but that's going to depend how much emphasis you'd want on combat in your RPG. But generally, your RPG is going to have some focus, whether it's killing things, talking to things, politicizing things, conquering things, and if that entire minigame is resolved with a single roll, that actually sounds rather dull.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Okay, watching like 90 seconds of that, I have to say that there is no apparent upgrade in visuals from the Dark Alliance series.

Except I sorta actually liked those games, the second one was a nice nod to the characters of the first game, and the story was nifty at least. At least it was nice for its time, but this? here the demo just reflects that this game is crap. Funny to mention that I found this thread, and was rather tired and almost thought were talking about Daggerfall for some reason (an elder scrolls game).

That aside, I played the Demo, already one of the lame things that flair up, is the game only having 4 classes to play (classic Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard), and the Demo ONLY letting you play the martial classes. Hell even the intro had a friend of mine enraged at the intro had some Dwarven flag resembling a WoW Dwarf Factions very closely. Really that's not a reason why it sucks, more it just reminds me of how been said much that the developer of that edition played too many MMORPG's.

K wrote:I'd play a grindhouse horror game. Just saying.

Hell yeah, that sounds rather interesting actually, especially it's default of being Uber-BAness, or even supernatural. I'd say Schwarzkopf should consider posting it here, if you spent the years making it, and want to improve it, may as well get some criticism on it. So long as its not some semantical nitpicking, I think you'd find whatever the Den has to say about it, to be quite useful.

I'll consider it.

K wrote:I wonder if Kickstarter will be where the next new indie game comes from. They are funding like three games I'd actually like to look at.

You know, I was wondering how to finish up the Tome of Awesome. Wonder if we funded it on kickstarter and actually paid people to sit down and work on it if it would get finished.

Huh.