Thesis: We all should stop using non-D&D characters as argumentation points about D&D

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Grek

Yes, if you do something no one has suggested and literally never use any of the rules or roll any dice, you're likely not playing D&D.

However, the 5e DMG specifically mentions that dice and rules are there to help move the action along. In fact, it specifically says that it is fully, 100% ok to ignore the dice and just work off of what people do for scenarios that would normally call for ability checks. So the rules specifically say that the dice aren't needed. They also say that it's also fully, 100% ok to always call for a check and do whatever the dice say. They also say that it's fully, 100% ok to pick and choose.

The rules give the DM tremendous (in fact total) control. This does not mean that the DM is never wrong. Because that's measured based on the needs and agreements of the table, not the rules themselves. Sometimes, following the (other) printed rules is the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it's the right thing to do. By the rules themselves. The rules give the DM discretion, and in fact require the DM to exercise discretion.

Thus, the rules are tools to be used when they help and are useful. Which is a lot of the time, they're decent rules (for the things I want to do anyway, YMMV). But unlike a board game (where every possible action is specified in the rules and the rules form a contract between the players and define what is and is not possible), TTRPG rules are scaffolding to reduce the workload of the players and DM and to provide a common set of language and action resolution mechanics. As well as promote a shared headspace. But ultimately, the only rules that matter are the ones decided on by the players (including the DM). No outside observer can say "you're playing it wrong" as long as people have agreed to the rules that they're using. That's the essence of an open system.

[Kyutaru]

But if you decide to cut out the rules and the dice entirely, you are no longer playing a table top role playing game, you're just role playing at a table. Which is fine, that is an ancient and respectable tradition that dates back to our ancestors telling stories around the campfire. But it isn't really D&D either, it's some other sort of entertainment.

The rules are also the lines of text in the books, not just charts and tables and numbers. Phoenix quoted pg 6 of the PHB on the previous page which goes over the process for how to play the game, mentioning no mandatory dice rolls to do so. In fact, the rule for How to Play itself states "The DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action" but per the grammar and previous rules the clause is optional. The DM decides what happens is the rule, dice be damned. You're free to view it another way at your tables but are not free to tell people they aren't playing D&D.

The DMG is the place to see the contradictions, simultaneously claiming the world is ancient and the world is new, the world is magical and the world is mundane, monsters are everywhere and monsters are uncommon. It all depends on the setting which is determined by the DM and supported in the rules either way. This applies even to official campaign settings, which vary in rules and aren't uniform. They encourage homebrew content all over the book which would conflict with your idea of what D&D is as it alters the rules. D&D is made up of rules but no one said they were the ones the book provides by default, and even in cases where you use the book's rules they provide multiple options to choose from. Such as the Experience awards that can be done in multiple ways, not just by monster body counts, such as the previously mentioned Milestones, something that even the developer's official Adventurer League elects to use. All of this is mentioned in a CORE RULEBOOK.

What makes a D&D character special is customizing it to be your own instead of choosing from a template list. What makes a D&D world special is customizing it in the same way. The table rules are another part of that which the DMG completely supports being selective over throughout it while offering multiple answers to the same questions.

pg 236 The Roll of Dice
Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.

pg 236 Ignoring the Dice
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations. With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors.

pg 236 The Middle Path
Many DMs find that using a combination of the two approaches works best. By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in the world. Remember that dice don't run your game -- you do.

[ImNotTrevor]

The rules are also the lines of text in the books, not just charts and tables and numbers.....[truncated for space]

Again, D&D is super skittish about suggesting a Correct Way To Play D&D, since this would run counter to their claim that D&D is the Fantasy Omnisystem.

The problem being that, sure, you can just have the DM call for no rolls and just decide arbitrarily how things happen. I myself played that way. Once... when I was 13. And it sucked. And not just because my DM was also 13. (Though that factored heavily.)

However, here's the thing:
Everything you're quoting from the DMG is true of literally every TRPG whether it's listed in the book or not. There is no Tabletop Police to come and chuck you in the Dice Cage for not playing by the rules. Literally everything quoted is basically "But remember: Rule 0 exists."

Sure, yeah, but the existence of rule 0 doesn't change what D&D was DESIGNED to be and how it was DESIGNED to work.

If D&D was designed to work without dice rolls, why are dice listed *everywhere?*
Why does everyone have HitDice?
Why does it specify the types of dice each weapon uses?
Why does it measure darn near everything numerical in Dice?

Probably because it was *designed to use dice.*

Do you honestly think the r&d team went and played the game with dice and then without dice to make sure everything worked the same both ways?
Do you really think they did all the math twice to make sure both diced and diceless were equally well balanced?

Or did they design the game one way and put in a paragraph that says "but we can't stop you from playing it some other way" as if that's a grand revelation?

These quotes don't mean anything, they're ALTERNATIVE rules, not CORE rules (aside from Rule 0 but let's be real here, that doesn't need to be codified) and so holding them up as being equally designed around is, has been, and remains...
Absurd.

[Quertus]

It doesn't. It started as a discussion about what the Core Gameplay Loop of D&D is, and the role playing thing was a red herring to all that since nobody ever argued about how it handles RP.

However, I'd say D&D is best for RP in the same way the best way to teach a child to draw is to turn them loose with some paint on an easel.

For some, that limitless freedom is exactly what they need and want.

For some, maybe more supports and helps are needed to prevent them from thinking they can't do what they want, or to feel intimidated by having nothing to guide them.

I'll put it this way:
Apocalypse World, over the course of one session, took my Brother-in-Law from a place of being very skeptical about roleplaying and very uncomfortable with it, to getting so invested in the characters that he was delivering lines in-character that were causing other players to cry.

Yes, that's extreme and uncommon. But I've played D&D with him and never got that sort of behavior out of him.

I played D&D with one player for years, who preferred to play a sorcerer and use spells to find creative solutions. His RP was basically none.

Exposed him to Apocalypse World, and now he's become a master of role playing deeply unsettling Brainers who have actual goals and wants that impact other players, even if they are strange.

So, yeah, sometimes having little nudges in the system to ask deep questions and an encouragement to engage on that level is helpful.

I mean, when was the last time you played D&D and got to watch a player ask another player "For what do you crave forgiveness, and from whom?" As part of the game? That stuff changes how people approach the character. It's not just numbers on ph so many pages, but a real-ish someone they portray.

But that's MY experience and I won't claim it as superior. Just that there's no One True Right Way to foster RP.

"Best", not "right".

Your example about drawing is *perfect*. Last I knew, modern child's psychology said that young children should be given blank paper and asked to draw a lion (or just to draw), rather than being given an outline of a lion. And, clearly, at the high end, you wouldn't have gotten the Sistine Chapel (or any growth in any art) from stencils.

Same thing with role-playing. It's best not to stifle beginners with one particular stilted definition / style of role-playing. And the most advanced roleplayers will be held back by most frameworks.

However, there's a large middle ground where different tools can have various uses. As my attempts at "art" readily demonstrate.

So, as a gateway RPG, and to show for the highest ceiling, D&D has chosen the "best" answer in doing nothing.

Also, "best" is not a synonym for "universal". No, not even in the phrase "best practices". However, I do think that it was good to expose your friend to "no framework" first, so that you could accurately perceive the value that the system has on his performance.

But D&D could have multiple *optional* rules, or 5e's… bonds/goals(?)… without the system becoming completely suboptimal for role-playing - and it'd be more universal for that "middle" crowd in the process.

Or maybe that's what house rules and experience with other systems is for. Maybe blank canvases don't need to come with stencils attached.

EDIT: and, as fast as knowing things OOC, like "from whom they crave forgiveness"? I'd rather not taint my role-playing that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Best", not "right".

Your example about drawing is *perfect*. Last I knew, modern child's psychology said that young children should be given blank paper and asked to draw a lion (or just to draw), rather than being given an outline of a lion. And, clearly, at the high end, you wouldn't have gotten the Sistine Chapel (or any growth in any art) from stencils.

Same thing with role-playing. It's best not to stifle beginners with one particular stilted definition / style of role-playing. And the most advanced roleplayers will be held back by most frameworks.

However, there's a large middle ground where different tools can have various uses. As my attempts at "art" readily demonstrate.

So, as a gateway RPG, and to show for the highest ceiling, D&D has chosen the "best" answer in doing nothing.

Also, "best" is not a synonym for "universal". No, not even in the phrase "best practices". However, I do think that it was good to expose your friend to "no framework" first, so that you could accurately perceive the value that the system has on his performance.

But D&D could have multiple *optional* rules, or 5e's… bonds/goals(?)… without the system becoming completely suboptimal for role-playing - and it'd be more universal for that "middle" crowd in the process.

Or maybe that's what house rules and experience with other systems is for. Maybe blank canvases don't need to come with stencils attached.

Not only that, but tools are useful in some circumstances and for some tastes and for some people and not others.

I've taught lots of people D&D at this point--a dozen or more groups of almost entirely new players over the last five years. You know who the best roleplayers were? Not the ones with experience in TTRPGs. It was the new players. And especially the kids. The best, most fleshed out character, played the best I've seen in a long time came from my 8-year-old nephew, who'd never played before. He got super into it, came up with a simple, but well-suited character, and played it to the hilt. And generally, the ones least familiar with the tropes and "concepts" and "builds" made the characters with the most heart and who were the most connected to the setting[0].

The worst roleplayers I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with were long-time grognards, familiar with a bunch of different systems. They tended to treat their characters as mere bundles of mechanics--if there wasn't a mechanic that forced them to act a certain way, they'd look for the most mechanically-optimal route. Even if that didn't fit their character at all. The "noble samurai, bound by honor"...who had no compunctions about forcibly robbing someone because it was easier than talking to them and having to possibly pay money. The group of "noble" characters who completely blamed the mess they made all on another character who tried to do the right thing. Etc. Basically, they were chaotic evil wearing a false skin. But that's not the characters they built at all. Now correlation isn't causation. So I'm not saying that experiencing other systems or with TTRPGs in general makes you a worse roleplayer--that's just false. But it certainly is no guarantee (or even strong affect).

For me, "roleplaying mechanics" are worse than useless--they impose a "you must play this way" stricture that rarely fits what I want to do. There's a clear "this is the right way and that's the wrong way" to play in those systems. I want that to come from the setting and the events and the characters, not to be imposed from the outside by the rule system.

Others may vary, and good for them. But games are not inherently better or worse for having more or fewer "roleplaying mechanics"--it's just one choice about system design among many.

[0] probably the absolute single most important element in character design for me (especially when I'm the DM) is how the character fits into the world. It's one reason I want to be involved in character creation, so that I can help mold the world to the character and the character to the world. To find the places the character would be from, what they would know, how people would react to them. It's one reason I'm so dead-set against crude out-of-universe imports and expies--they never fit the world right. Same with complex backstories made in isolation--I'm totally willing to work with a player to fit their backstory into the world. There's tons of room for that. But there's also a lot of pre-existing stuff, and it has to remain consistent. Some races only live in certain areas, and nowhere else (halflings, I'm looking at you). Some cultures don't have nobles at all. Some cultures are landlocked. Inserting a mal-fitting character means that I, as the DM, have no way of knowing what that character would know. Which means that I can't do my usual to feed information to the character. They're a blank spot, bereft of ties to the world or to the situations. And that rankles a bit.

[Quertus]

It's one reason I'm so dead-set against crude out-of-universe imports and expies--they never fit the world right.

Inserting a mal-fitting character means that I, as the DM, have no way of knowing what that character would know. Which means that I can't do my usual to feed information to the character. They're a blank spot, bereft of ties to the world or to the situations. And that rankles a bit.

Off topic, but, out of curiosity… pretend you built an open world, and someone brought an existing character who mechanically could travel there.

You'd be under no obligation to tell them what they know - because they obviously would know approximately nothing about that world. You would only have an obligation to be their eyes and ears, to explain what they *perceive*.

Would that "rankle"? Why / why not?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Off topic, but, out of curiosity… pretend you built an open world, and someone brought an existing character who mechanically could travel there.

You'd be under no obligation to tell them what they know - because they obviously would know approximately nothing about that world. You would only have an obligation to be their eyes and ears, to explain what they *perceive*.

Would that "rankle"? Why / why not?

Setting aside the "it can't happen because the metaphysics don't allow it" concerns, let me rank what would rankle from most rankle to least.

Someone from entirely outside the known universe (ie from another world with no connection to the current one). Here the issue is mismatch--I know exactly what the character knows, which is nothing. So all Intelligence DCs (other than Investigation) are DC: No, you know nothing. All Wisdom DCs are DC: No, you have no way of understanding anything you're perceiving. All social DCs are DC:No, because you have no way of communicating or understanding the local customs. I have no scale to judge how your physical abilities match (or don't) those of people on this world, so...all physical DCs are wildcards. That character has no (or completely unknown) access to the local magic. Because the rules are not the physics. They can't be--they're incoherent if used for that. I have no way of judging anything. So I'd have to make a whole bunch of on-the-fly guesses and rulings to fit them in.

This kind of character would be the most annoying--it means that I can't rely on any shared understanding of anything and have to basically give huge info-dumps every time I turn around, or leave the character completely out of everything. To me, that would feel like an attempt to hog the attention of the DM, because that's what it would require to DM for them and bring them into the fiction. And it says that the player isn't interested in be part of the world, but just a tourist. And, rightly or wrongly, that feels like a rejection of the world I've spent so much time and energy to build.

Someone from an undeveloped part of the known world who just arrived--say someone from another continent that I know exists but know nothing about. As long as the race isn't too weird, or it's one that has existence in the world, this one isn't as bad. The physical abilities are known, the metaphysics is compatible, etc. But the culture will be completely different and alien, as will the language and the history. So they won't be making any Intelligence (History) checks, and anything else like that will be at disadvantage (at best). And any Charisma checks will be at disadvantage, at least in the beginning.

Someone with an unusual background (ie from off the map) but who has been in the main area for a while. This one is pretty much fine. Sure, you're an exotic. But I expect adventurers to have picked things up pretty fast. So you'd know the language (with an accent). You'd have some understanding of the culture. And if you said you were curious, you'd probably have some ability to even know local religions and history. I'd probably not even have to assign any penalties. I'd not be able to be as generous with the automatic success knowledge things like I'd be for anyone who grew up around here, but you wouldn't be at disadvantage.

Someone from the known universe, but from the "wrong" area. A halfling from an area that halflings don't canonically exist in. Or a goblin without a tribe[0]. This would be weird and take adjustment--I'd have to figure out why and how such a thing was possible. But would be doable, if I liked the concept and the rough backstory. I'd really prefer that the player comes to me with this idea and lets me write it into the existing world, however. Maybe there really are halflings there, and I just don't know about them yet. Sounds like it could be interesting. This one would be an opportunity to collaborate with the player to build what they know and what they don't know.

-----------
I'm very generous with not requiring knowledge-type checks for things that the character, based on background (including region of origin), race, class, and backstory, etc, would just know. Checks are for details. But I'm also relatively hardline with refusing memory-type checks for things the character can't know. I don't care what the rules say--if this is the only one of this type of beast in existence and it was created yesterday, no Intelligence (X) check will tell you anything more than what you directly perceive. Even if it's totally non-threatening (ie CR 0). If the information has been hidden by the gods, no amount of raw intelligence is going to reveal it to you. That's only going to come through the events of the game itself. So for a character from completely outside the world, everything is in this DC: No, success not possible situation. And I have to tell you every single thing and the character has to experience it themselves. Effectively, they'd be an infant in an adult body. Incapable of knowing anything about the world until they'd experienced it themselves. And that bogs everything down entirely.

I have the same issue with isekai anime--they make no sense. Alien worlds have alien laws, including laws of nature. Unless you have a divine source pumping that info into your brain (and even then) you'd be completely incapable. You wouldn't even know what questions to ask. And that doesn't make a good party member IMO.

[0] This one has actually happened, and we figured it out. Normally as a setting thing goblins are tied to their tribe because they share a huge chunk of their mid- and long-term memory space with the tribe, so a tribeless goblin only has a very short memory. Other than the genetically hard-coded stuff, they're like cats on meth with opposable thumbs. Almost literally out of sight, out of mind. Very little object persistence beyond a minute or so. Not exactly appropriate adventuring material.

[ImNotTrevor]

"Best", not "right".

Your example about drawing is *perfect*. Last I knew, modern child's psychology said that young children should be given blank paper and asked to draw a lion (or just to draw), rather than being given an outline of a lion. And, clearly, at the high end, you wouldn't have gotten the Sistine Chapel (or any growth in any art) from stencils.

Having spent the last 6 years working with children, this is the exact opposite of how you teach them a skill.

It also runs counter to what any artist has ever said to me personally or spoken about in terms of learning to draw. Artists very, very rarely learn in a vacuum, or do so without being taught the basics of composition, anatomy, form, depth, shading, etc.

Anything you don't know how to do when you pop out of the womb is a skill, and we've known a lot about how humans most successfuly aquire skills. And it's rarely to give them a problem and wait.

Same thing with role-playing. It's best not to stifle beginners with one particular stilted definition / style of role-playing. And the most advanced roleplayers will be held back by most frameworks.

Except I've had far more experience in the opposite direction. I'm something of a theatre kid and I got into roleplay before I got into D&D, and I'm also a major outlier in how people come into the system. I was always ok with doing RP. Problem was, very rarely was anyone else at the table into it as much as I was across the various tables.

Being hands-off only helps improve the role-playing experience of those who either:
1. Are experienced enough that they don't need/want the RP part (I don't need them by any stretch. I do freeform RP all the dang time and I don't exactly get complaints.)
2. Are naturally going to take to it like a duck to water.

However, there's a large middle ground where different tools can have various uses. As my attempts at "art" readily demonstrate.

So, as a gateway RPG, and to show for the highest ceiling, D&D has chosen the "best" answer in doing nothing.

I think there's a weird idea that if a system provides supports for RP or has any location where RP and Mechanics bleed over, then they must be restrictive to RP.

Let me address this:
Apocalypse World has an End Of Session Move, which involves last-minute recordkeeping and a few other bits. One of which is the History (or Hx) move.
The Hx move goes like this:
Choose a character who knew you more by the end of this session. Tell them to increase their Hx with you by +1. OR, choose a character who knows you less now. Tell them to decrease their Hx with you by -1. If neither applies, choose arbitrarily.

So... how would this prevent you from roleplaying Quertus as usual, especially given that Hx has exactly two mechanical function, one which gives 1 xp when it triggers and the other which almost never comes up? (The Help/Interfere action. The former can only help you, obviously, and the latter is only in moments of PvP which... I think I've only had one campaign out of the 10+ I've run that had even a single Interfere roll.

Also, "best" is not a synonym for "universal". No, not even in the phrase "best practices". However, I do think that it was good to expose your friend to "no framework" first, so that you could accurately perceive the value that the system has on his performance.

Though he is one, I can say that this experience has been repeated with literally every player I've had come from D&D to Apocalypse World save for one, who actively didn't like RP and played D&D for the builds.

But D&D could have multiple *optional* rules, or 5e's… bonds/goals(?)… without the system becoming completely suboptimal for role-playing - and it'd be more universal for that "middle" crowd in the process.

Or maybe that's what house rules and experience with other systems is for. Maybe blank canvases don't need to come with stencils attached.

If what you want is a blank canvas, then certainly it should remain blank.

But to put forth that D&D's approach is literally the BEST approach across all available approaches is...
Elevating preference to the level of gospel, really.

D&D is best *only for those who want a hands-off approach to RP from the system.*

New Players who have never Roleplayed before in their lives (ie, haven't picked up that skill) aren't going to be exposed to "Ok now come up with a backstory and motivations and xyz so you can roleplay" with 0 guidance and just succeed automatically 99% of the time.

As I've said, nobody has to codify HOW YOU SHOULD RP THE CHARACTER to support RP and help players think about their character's motivations. There's a billion ways to do that which don't hinder RP at all. There's also ways that do, for sure, but saying "hey, this system has really supported my players in their RP" doesn't mean it hands them a script and director's notes.

[BoringInfoGuy]

So, at this point I am not sure that everyone is using the same operational definition of roleplaying.

Be certain that everyone is NOT using the same operational definition of Roleplaying.

The classic style of Roleplaying is to have your character react as if he was a real person living in the game world. Thinking “in character” is name of the game. Once you have the concept down, you need to have very few rules about the Roleplaying aspect of the game. To clarify, I’m not saying that you can make do with a few rules about Roleplaying with room to add more. Game mechanics tied to Roleplaying can get in the way Roleplaying. Since it was said that Roleplaying is required in a PbtA, but only optional in D&D 5e To get why, let’s look at PbtA games.

PbtA is short for Powered by the Apocalypse, and refers to a family of games that use the same core mechanics developed for Apocalypse World.

I’m most familiar with the Sprawl, a cyber punk themed PbtA game. Most of the Gameplay takes place in two phases. The Legwork phase which starts with the Get the Job move and the Action Phase, which ends with the Get Paid move.

During the Legwork phase, players are likely to use the Declare a Contact move. The Player creates the contact, giving them a name, description, and explanation why some type of favor is owed between the contact and their character. Doing so adds to both their own characters story and adds a NPC to the game world.

When a player chooses to use Declare Contact, it is purely a player move. If you were a person living in The Sprawl, you could not suddenly decide you know a guy named Benji that is willing to sell you the ammo used in the prototype weapon you stole from the MegaCorp he works for. You simply cannot be thinking “in character” when creating an NPC.

If I’m trying to describe how a PbtA game is different than classic Roleplaying, Declare Contact is the best example I know to illustrate the difference.

If I’m looking for a classic Roleplaying experience, PbtA is a terrible system. It has some Roleplaying elements, but the game is about the mechanics that force you to stop thinking in character. Decide as your character that you want to fight? Use the Mix It Up move. You can fail, succeed, or succeed with complications. When the player gets complications he needs to pick two from a short list. That decision point is for the player to make as a storyteller, tweaking the direction of the narrative.

But PbtA games are not trying to give the classic Roleplaying experience. By design and intent, it delivers something very different. As a player, you have to think about, add to, and make decisions about the story. The one thing you don’t have to do is make any decisions about your character as if they lived in that world. You can, but better to think as a storyteller and decide what you want to happen to your character for the larger story.

Some may argue that PbtA games ARE Roleplaying games, but that is like trying to discuss the merits of Football while acting like American Football and Soccer Football are supposed to be the same game. You can point out some common elements, sure. But you end up with complaints that American Football does not have enough ball kicking and Soccer Football only has one player per team that seems to know how to grab the ball. Different games have different expectations. Having different descriptors helps you discuss games on their own merits.

D&D is the progenitor of Classic Roleplaying. As a player, the game is about making decisions for your character as if you were that character living in the game world.

PbtA is a Narrative / Storytelling system. As a player, the game is about making decisions about the story and how you want it to go.

Which is why complaining about the lack of narrative mechanics in 5e misses the point. It’s not a Narrative game. Yes, it does have a few Narrative mechanics, like Inspiration. But they are small in scope and effect. If you want to enjoy playing D&D 5e, (or any edition besides 4th), you have to sit down expecting a classic Roleplaying experience.

Adding PbtA or similar mechanics to D&D would not make it a better Roleplaying game, it would move it to being a Narrative game.

Final note. Neither type of game is BadWrongFun. But if you are trying to play either type of game with the Wrong set of expectations, it won’t be Fun, and the game design looks Bad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Final note. Neither type of game is BadWrongFun. But if you are trying to play either type of game with the Wrong set of expectations, it won’t be Fun, and the game design looks Bad.

Amen to that. All things in context and in support of the goals of the system. Mechanics and design that works for one system and its goals won't necessarily work for another system and its goals. And neither one is wrong or bad for doing so. Just different.

[AdAstra]

Amen to that. All things in context and in support of the goals of the system. Mechanics and design that works for one system and its goals won't necessarily work for another system and its goals. And neither one is wrong or bad for doing so. Just different.

I will say that flexibility (if it's actually good flexibility, and not just being mediocre at everything) is generally a strength. Being able to run many different kinds of game with the same system is a virtue if held in isolation. But having a specific intended experience and way of playing is not a bad thing, either.

[Cluedrew]

Your example about drawing is *perfect*. Last I knew, modern child's psychology said that young children should be given blank paper and asked to draw a lion (or just to draw), rather than being given an outline of a lion. And, clearly, at the high end, you wouldn't have gotten the Sistine Chapel (or any growth in any art) from stencils.

You are also not going to do it without any paint brushes. And completely open role-playing doesn't give you a lot of tools either. Now this does depend on how "completely open" we are talking about, see part 3.

I've taught lots of people D&D at this point--a dozen or more groups of almost entirely new players over the last five years. You know who the best roleplayers were? Not the ones with experience in TTRPGs. It was the new players. And especially the kids.

I have also noticed something a lot like this. Except it isn't "with experience in TTRPGs" its "with experience in D&D and little else". If they played all sorts of systems or none at all they are pretty good. If they have only played D&D then maybe you should watch out more.

Of course this is just an anecdote, I can't use it to prove anything. But I think it is because in the end D&D encourages you to do all those mechanically optimal things at the expense of role-playing and eventually it becomes a habit.

So, at this point I am not sure that everyone is using the same operational definition of roleplaying.

Be certain that everyone is NOT using the same operational definition of Roleplaying.

I'm also confused about what people mean by "role-playing mechanics".

The way people have been using it for most of the thread in a way that made me think it was talking about any mechanics that directly inform role-playing. Things that represent personality, social influence, mental health and so on (my thoughts on those are laid out in great detail in this thread). Here we seem to be talking about meta/narrative-level/abstract mechanics. Which is actually a separate idea even if they come up in many of the same systems.

So which one are we talking about? Are we talking about both? Even if we are talking they aren't the same thing and you can't make the same arguments about both.

[ImNotTrevor]

Be certain that everyone is NOT using the same operational definition of Roleplaying.

The classic style of Roleplaying is to have your character react as if he was a real person living in the game world. Thinking “in character” is name of the game. Once you have the concept down, you need to have very few rules about the Roleplaying aspect of the game. To clarify, I’m not saying that you can make do with a few rules about Roleplaying with room to add more. Game mechanics tied to Roleplaying can get in the way Roleplaying. Since it was said that Roleplaying is required in a PbtA, but only optional in D&D 5e To get why, let’s look at PbtA games.

PbtA is short for Powered by the Apocalypse, and refers to a family of games that use the same core mechanics developed for Apocalypse World.

I’m most familiar with the Sprawl, a cyber punk themed PbtA game. Most of the Gameplay takes place in two phases. The Legwork phase which starts with the Get the Job move and the Action Phase, which ends with the Get Paid move.

During the Legwork phase, players are likely to use the Declare a Contact move. The Player creates the contact, giving them a name, description, and explanation why some type of favor is owed between the contact and their character. Doing so adds to both their own characters story and adds a NPC to the game world.

When a player chooses to use Declare Contact, it is purely a player move. If you were a person living in The Sprawl, you could not suddenly decide you know a guy named Benji that is willing to sell you the ammo used in the prototype weapon you stole from the MegaCorp he works for. You simply cannot be thinking “in character” when creating an NPC.

If I’m trying to describe how a PbtA game is different than classic Roleplaying, Declare Contact is the best example I know to illustrate the difference.

The Declare Contact move is pretty dang unique to The Sprawl, and the Gameplay Phases are EXTREMELY unique to The Sprawl.

It's one of the most atypical PbtA games there is, so using it as an example of what they generally are is... flawed.

If I’m looking for a classic Roleplaying experience, PbtA is a terrible system.

If "To the players: your job is to play your characters as though they were real people, in whatever circumstances they find themselves—cool, competent, dangerous people, larger than life, but real." Is somehow different from "thinking in character" then please explain how.

When describing what a PbtA game is, maybe try the core system rather than an unusual offshoot.

It has some Roleplaying elements, but the game is about the mechanics that force you to stop thinking in character. Decide as your character that you want to fight? Use the Mix It Up move. You can fail, succeed, or succeed with complications. When the player gets complications he needs to pick two from a short list.

There can be outcomes that you select, yes, but these are rarely some deep story-shattering effect. In the original system, it's stuff like (if you succeed), "deal +1 Harm" or "take control of it", the "it" being the thing you wanted.

That decision point is for the player to make as a storyteller, tweaking the direction of the narrative.

Sorta. But to say this is unique to PbtA is being wildy disingenuous, as if D&D players don't have similar abilities (and stronger ones, even. Just try and tell me Teleport doesn't have stronger narrative influence than "deal a bit more damage".)

But PbtA games are not trying to give the classic Roleplaying experience. By design and intent, it delivers something very different. As a player, you have to think about, add to, and make decisions about the story. The one thing you don’t have to do is make any decisions about your character as if they lived in that world. You can, but better to think as a storyteller and decide what you want to happen to your character for the larger story.

I honestly don't think you've ever played a PbtA game.

PbtA is a Narrative / Storytelling system. As a player, the game is about making decisions about the story and how you want it to go.

Yuup. You've definitely never actually played a PbtA game. That or your MC for Sprawl was terrible.

THEN AGAIN, Sprawl actively gets flak among PbtA games since the characters are such a small piece of the machine. GRANTED, the characters are meant to feel like insignificant cogs grinding against the immense, people-eating machines that are the Corps. Which makes it EXTRA weird in PbtA terms since most PbtA games have the Characters as the most important characters in the story.

Which is why complaining about the lack of narrative mechanics in 5e misses the point. It’s not a Narrative game. Yes, it does have a few Narrative mechanics, like Inspiration. But they are small in scope and effect. If you want to enjoy playing D&D 5e, (or any edition besides 4th), you have to sit down expecting a classic Roleplaying experience.

Adding PbtA or similar mechanics to D&D would not make it a better Roleplaying game, it would move it to being a Narrative game.

Final note. Neither type of game is BadWrongFun. But if you are trying to play either type of game with the Wrong set of expectations, it won’t be Fun, and the game design looks Bad.

To clarify:
I never said D&D's design was bad. I don't know why that attitude keeps creeping in as if I'm screeching that it's bad.

It is what it is.

But as per my many years playing MORE THAN ONE PbtA system, this take on what PbtA systems is about as accurate as using Lancer as an example of how 4e worked. Yes, it carries a lot over, but there's a LOT of new stuff added on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will say that flexibility (if it's actually good flexibility, and not just being mediocre at everything) is generally a strength. Being able to run many different kinds of game with the same system is a virtue if held in isolation. But having a specific intended experience and way of playing is not a bad thing, either.

If flexibility is a goal of the system, flexibility is good. But, like every other design decision (other than "don't be FATAL"), it has tradeoffs and requires compromises. Generally, flexibility and detail are in tension (not opposition per se, but tension). And flexibility is often scope limited. Even GURPS isn't totally flexible--getting anything other than "gritty, death is easy once combat starts" out of it requires significant work (from what I understand). In addition, "many different kinds of games" has definitional problems. And there's flexibility at multiple levels--flexibility in rules, flexibility in genres of games, flexibility in how much combat is expected, flexibility in DM style, flexibility in worldbuilding, etc.

So what I'm saying is yes. And no. And "it's complicated." But systems that lie about their goals and allowed styles shouldn't do that. If the game is going to be dogmatic about the allowed styles, it should just say so. For a given quality level, generic isn't better than specific, it's just different, with different tradeoffs chosen. And, personally, I take the puffery from previous editions of D&D about being generic as being just that. Puffery that they shouldn't have said, because in practice it's very much less so. You can still do a lot of different styles, but from a much more restricted palette than, say, FATE or GURPS. And restricted in different ways.

Fortunately for me, personally, 5e does 90% of what I really want from a system and supports my preferred styles pretty darn well, with the flexibility I need where I need it and the stable support in places I'd rather not have move. In fact, I find that I rarely have to adjust rules, although I often adjust content (mainly lore). The system's rules are adjustable enough within the rules themselves and have large swaths of expected DM involvement rather than being legalistic and locked down. But most of the classes are built on strong-enough archetypes that fit the world-styles I like so they need little adjustment, same with the basic core resolution mechanics. But the game also supports a wide variation of worlds and world-details, which lets me scratch the worldbuilding urge. And it supports the style of roleplaying I prefer (the Classic style mentioned above), and doesn't force the players into Author stance. And it's flexible about optimization levels, letting me play at different levels for different groups without really worrying about trivially broken things.

But that's entirely all personal taste. I can totally agree that it wouldn't fit for other people. That doesn't make it good or bad, just not suited.

[Cluedrew]

Sorta. But to say this is unique to PbtA is being wildy disingenuous, as if D&D players don't have similar abilities (and stronger ones, even. Just try and tell me Teleport doesn't have stronger narrative influence than "deal a bit more damage".)

I assumed they were talking about mechanics that let you make a decision the character doesn't make. Which are taboo in some circles because its not in-character (and not in D&D so they aren't used to it). Actually of the narrative role-playing games I know Powered by the Apocalypse systems tend to have the least. But as it is more than one system it is hard to measure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As far as PbtA goes, I've never actually played it. But I did read the core rules. The thing that jumped out at me from that was that it was very opinionated at the meta level. That there is One True Way To Play a PbtA game (which depends on the exact offshoot, but it's designed around very confining meta rules). This is backed up by reading lots of discussion from people wondering why it's not working for them, and others responding that it's because they deviated from the One True Way To Play (most often on the GM side of things).

And the character design seems to be highly straitjacketed. Since everything follows from the fiction (ie your Moves don't trigger unless you set up the fiction to trigger them), and the playbooks are highly built around very tight archetypes (no matter how you dress them up), you have to play each playbook pretty-much by the book or your stuff just won't trigger at all. It's designed to force you down a particular path. Or so it felt on a read through.

To me that feels very inorganic and forced. It is likely just my perception, but it stood out as highly repellent to my preferred style (which wants to focus on the world first and have characters that organically grow based on what they do, rather than having to fit some pre-determined mold). It felt like it wasn't trying to teach you to play an actual person but instead teaching you to play a caricature of a real person, dominated by a few things and with everything hinging on living up to those stereotypes. There's almost certainly more depth there, but the surface was enough to push me away entirely.

[Cluedrew]

Sort of? Powered by the Apocalypse systems are (without exception I have found) focused. Why is there a "Powered by the Apocalypse" family? Well it is because Apocalypse World is masterpiece of system design. People saw it, got excited and then realized that it was focused on a very particular type of game that wasn't the one they wanted. So they took it apart and put it back together again to suit the game they wanted and from that came a bunch of Apocalypse World hacks. Eventually that got formalized into the Powered by the Apocalypse family and that is roughly where we are today.

So yes there is a one true way to play a Powered by the Apocalypse system. The way it was designed to be played. On one hand yes they are inflexible. On the other hand if your campaign matches that system they do so well. ALL of the best campaigns I have been in have been Powered by the Apocalypse systems and part of that is they don't have to compromise. They don't need mass market appeal not do they have to allow for half a dozen different campaign formats. Everything they have chosen is to make this one type of game the best it could be. The other parts of why my best campaigns were all in Powered by the Apocalypse are luck and the fact that the best GM I know only runs Powered by the Apocalypse.

As for characters... yeah that comes down to which system you pick, every one I have played has one play-book for all characters.

On Role-Playing Mechanic: Are we talking about personality or storytelling mechanics here? (I think the name should apply to the first one personally.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sort of? Powered by the Apocalypse systems are (without exception I have found) focused. Why is there a "Powered by the Apocalypse" family? Well it is because Apocalypse World is masterpiece of system design. People saw it, got excited and then realized that it was focused on a very particular type of game that wasn't the one they wanted. So they took it apart and put it back together again to suit the game they wanted and from that came a bunch of Apocalypse World hacks. Eventually that got formalized into the Powered by the Apocalypse family and that is roughly where we are today.

So yes there is a one true way to play a Powered by the Apocalypse system. The way it was designed to be played. On one hand yes they are inflexible. On the other hand if your campaign matches that system they do so well. ALL of the best campaigns I have been in have been Powered by the Apocalypse systems and part of that is they don't have to compromise. They don't need mass market appeal not do they have to allow for half a dozen different campaign formats. Everything they have chosen is to make this one type of game the best it could be. The other parts of why my best campaigns were all in Powered by the Apocalypse are luck and the fact that the best GM I know only runs Powered by the Apocalypse.

That (the focus) is a great thing, if what you want to play fits that style really well. And if it doesn't..... So in a sense, it's like my feeling about Apple products. If you stay in their "expected, happy path", things are great. Everything's smooth, intuitive, etc. But if you have a need or a desire that falls outside that path, woe betide you. You'll fight it all the way.

Which goes to my point that flexibility can be a strength or weakness. A very focused system can do one thing really really well. But if you want something different, you have to completely change the system. It's fragile under tweaking. And the inflexibility of the PbtA games extends to the worldbuilding--each game really only supports one style of world (or at least play area). Since I'm an inveterate, obligate worldbuilder (I can't run a game effectively in someone else's world without...tweaking things), that makes it a bad fit. Not a bad game, just a bad fit for me.

As for characters... yeah that comes down to which system you pick, every one I have played has one play-book for all characters.

I was probably using play-book wrongly. Basically what I meant was "class" or "class-equivalent". One "source of non-standard Moves". The one I happened to read (probably AW itself) put really strict limits on the personalities expressed by each of the class-equivalents.

On Role-Playing Mechanic: Are we talking about personality or storytelling mechanics here? (I think the name should apply to the first one personally.)

I use it for the first one, sort of. A role-playing mechanic is one that influences or imposes consequences (good or bad) on choices based on the expressed traits of the character. An example of such (in an under-developed form) is 3e D&D's alignment mechanics, especially for paladins. "You lose your class features if you do XYZ, as judged by the DM." is a role-play mechanic. And, in my opinion, a bad one (as in implemented in a way that degrades the play experience not just for the paladin's player but for the other players more often than not). But that's a separate thing. Another might be "if you act in accordance with your Traits, you get XP". Or "if XYZ happens, decrease your PDQ Trait's level by 1".

[ImNotTrevor]

As far as PbtA goes, I've never actually played it. But I did read the core rules. The thing that jumped out at me from that was that it was very opinionated at the meta level. That there is One True Way To Play a PbtA game (which depends on the exact offshoot, but it's designed around very confining meta rules). This is backed up by reading lots of discussion from people wondering why it's not working for them, and others responding that it's because they deviated from the One True Way To Play (most often on the GM side of things).

Apocalypse World does indeed declare that there is One True Right Way to GM it. There is no Rule 0 in Apocalypse World.
But that's not supposed to expand into other games. There IS a right way to be the MC in Apocalypse World. Doesn't mean that translates into other systems.

And the character design seems to be highly straitjacketed. Since everything follows from the fiction (ie your Moves don't trigger unless you set up the fiction to trigger them), and the playbooks are highly built around very tight archetypes (no matter how you dress them up), you have to play each playbook pretty-much by the book or your stuff just won't trigger at all. It's designed to force you down a particular path. Or so it felt on a read through.

I'm not sure this follows. This is like saying "D&D says you're not attacking someone unless you swing a weapon at them, and that seems restrictive." I'd not call any Playbook in AW any more restrictive than a D&D Class, and none of the Move triggers are any more restrictive than spell requirements. And probably are less so than that.

For a Brainer to do a Deep Brain Scan requires:
Time and Intimacy (mutual or one-sided)
What are those? Whatever makes sense.

But I don't find the playbooks any more restrictive than the Druid class. (Really, how many truly unique takes on "magic nature person" are there out there?)

I've had a Faceless (the "angry guy" class) that was pretty much a pacifist and only fought to defend others. The way any playbook will.play out depends on which moves you pick, both from your playbook and from others. (That's right! As you level up you can take moves from different playbooks. The Faceless can take Skinner moves, if they want.)

To me that feels very inorganic and forced. It is likely just my perception, but it stood out as highly repellent to my preferred style (which wants to focus on the world first and have characters that organically grow based on what they do, rather than having to fit some pre-determined mold). It felt like it wasn't trying to teach you to play an actual person but instead teaching you to play a caricature of a real person, dominated by a few things and with everything hinging on living up to those stereotypes. There's almost certainly more depth there, but the surface was enough to push me away entirely.

If you're reading the MC section, yes. Most NPCs are going to just Not Be That Complicated. Because you're gonna have a lot of them..
A LOT of them.

If I have a Hardholder, I now have AT LEAST 10 named NPCs I'm gonna juggle just for them.
If I have a Chopper, add 5 more.
If I have a Maestro'd, I have at least 6 and then everyone in their crew.
This is before adding the regular names and faces they'll run into because this isn't just their people that live here. By the end of a good AW game, I've got 35+ named NPCs who directly interact with PCs on a regular basis and who may have different relationships with each one.
If all of them have complex motivations and backstories, that's gonna get overwhelming for everyone.
Much easier to note that Twice wants to bang Domino, but really hates her sister, Bebop.

All this to say, if it ain't your cup of tea I'm not gonna shove Oolong down yer throat. It's not for everyone. But AW does something I wish D&D did:
It owns what it is, and doesn't pretend to be anything else, doesn't claim strengths it doesn't have, and acknowledges its weaknesses. Do you want a realistic, gritty, survival experience in the Post Apocalypse? AW is not the system for that, Vince wouldn't tell you it is, and you'd be hard-pressed to find other Long-time AW players trying to sell it as such.

AW feels more like The Walking Dead than The Road. It's a character drama in the post-apocalypse, not a story of raw, desperate survival.

[ImNotTrevor]

I was probably using play-book wrongly. Basically what I meant was "class" or "class-equivalent". One "source of non-standard Moves". The one I happened to read (probably AW itself) put really strict limits on the personalities expressed by each of the class-equivalents.

There has never been an AW playbook that dictates your personality.

There is a "flavor preview" but D&D also has these for the classes. I guess D&D also puts strict limits on the personalities expressed by each class?

As I said before, I had a very gentle Faceless and she fit in just fine and got to use plenty of class features.

I played a Faceless who was basically a more crazy version of a Paladin who spoke to "the forgotten god"(his deceased wife) to recieve guidance and strike down "heretics."

I'm running group now where the Gunlugger is a woman locked in a giant spider-legged exosuit who speaks in computer and deals purely in cold, hard, shoot-first logic.

Before that the Gunlugger of the group was a pretty normal guy who was good with guns and helped keep the local speakeasy thug-free.

And before *that* the Gunlugger was a woman scorned, deeply invested in the wellbeing of her fellow men and deeply mixed feelings about the death of the world that both kept her so comfortable and caused her so much pain. (We brought our Apocalypse a bit closer to game start for the giggles.)

The system prevented none of that. Its only rule is that the Gunlugger gets the most and best guns by default, and barfs damage like there's no tomorrow.
Nowhere will you find a rule limiting the personality of a class.

About the closest you'll get is "brainers are creepy."
But they can see your darkest secrets by having "time and intimacy" with you and make you do their bidding on pain of psychic whippings.
I've seen non-creepy brainers, yes. But most people who play the Brainer WANT to be creepy, spooky, and weird. So... where is the problem?

I use it for the first one, sort of. A role-playing mechanic is one that influences or imposes consequences (good or bad) on choices based on the expressed traits of the character. An example of such (in an under-developed form) is 3e D&D's alignment mechanics, especially for paladins. "You lose your class features if you do XYZ, as judged by the DM." is a role-play mechanic. And, in my opinion, a bad one (as in implemented in a way that degrades the play experience not just for the paladin's player but for the other players more often than not). But that's a separate thing. Another might be "if you act in accordance with your Traits, you get XP". Or "if XYZ happens, decrease your PDQ Trait's level by 1".

I agree that the Paladin Alignment mechanic is awful. Glad it got nixxed.
(Also high-key glad that Alignment is now about as important as Eye Color in terms of mechanics.)

[Lord Raziere]

I mean as far as roleplaying mechanics go, I prefer Fate over apocalypse world. it doesn't force you down any archetypes: you just pick your aspects and you gain or lose fate points depending on how hard you lean into them for good or ill. you basically define your own archetype to play out and its perfectly fine to not invoke an aspect when it would be stupid to do so. you can still be competent, effective and a good character without invoking them. and sometimes aspects just give you a benefit without even a fate point attached.

I do know however that others that I'll probably never play with say its too abstract to wrap their heads around so its not for everyone.

but I certainly prefer Fate over more blunt and clumsy roleplaying mechanics like 3.5 alignment or white wolf morality scores. while its true that 5e keeps it free, DnD didn't always do so and 3.5 can be said to be a prime example of bad roleplaying mechanics with its alignment and paladin stuff. and apocalypse world just never grabbed me, because I like playing my special snowflakes. though such characters themselves are hard to compare to anything when I make them, and I can only describe them in terms of how I take an archetype and subvert or play around with them. mostly because we've already seen the story of (character from other media) I don't want to repeat their story I want to make my own. so really my own position is a bit weird because any archetype or character I see is just a starting point for me to subvert and play with until they are my own. and when they are my own, its not really a problem that they don't measure up, because I already changed them enough to be their own thing. Not everyone goes to the effort though, so I can see why some would find hewing closer to the archetypes and characters they know useful.

though I do recommend the next time you think "I wanna play X" perhaps say "I wanna play X BUT..." or "what if X had Y?" things like that. mix it up a little.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(Also high-key glad that Alignment is now about as important as Eye Color in terms of mechanics.)

Glad there's something we can both heartily agree on. One big "non-stock" thing about my home D&D world is that I've completely removed alignment as anything other than an individual descriptor of a current behavioral paradigm, a shorthand if you will. Every character has free will and angels are just as likely to be jerks as they are to be good. Same with devils, demons, etc. Every single person is an individual. There are still "good" and "evil", but they're not cosmological quantities.

As for the PbtA stuff, I'm totally willing to admit that I'm wrong about the inflexibility/constraints. Good. But as a matter of presentation, it certainly didn't come across that way.

And I think I was reading more of the GM side, because that's what had been pointed out as "obligatory to read for anyone who wants to be a good GM of any system." And my response was...ok? These are all things that are either highly specific to one system and the game it wants to be or obvious statements that have broad support elsewhere.

For me, personally, the idea of mandatory followers or antagonists is obnoxious. Both as a DM and as a player. As a DM, that's that many people I have to find room for in the ongoing narrative, which strongly limits the places they can go and the things they can do, and sucks up precious table time. As a player, I want to find or recruit my own allies (if any) and make my own enemies from the existing NPCs. And I want a tighter focus on the party (not necessarily my character), but the party.

One other thing that I've heard about AW specifically is that there isn't a notion of a "party" as the basic unit. That the players are expected to be at odds with each other quite frequently, or at least it's totally normal for that to develop. Personally, I hate PvP. In any game, from MMOs onward. I don't play competitive games. I strongly dislike active competition. So a game where the other players are expected to be antagonists or frequently at cross-purposes is, to me, just as appealing as a mandatory open-world PvP MMO. That is, not at all. But that's very firmly something I don't like, not something that is bad.

I think there's value in discussing flexibility in game systems, but I think I'll move that to a different, more focused thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean as far as roleplaying mechanics go, I prefer Fate over apocalypse world. it doesn't force you down any archetypes: you just pick your aspects and you gain or lose fate points depending on how hard you lean into them for good or ill. you basically define your own archetype to play out and its perfectly fine to not invoke an aspect when it would be stupid to do so. you can still be competent, effective and a good character without invoking them. and sometimes aspects just give you a benefit without even a fate point attached.

I do know however that others that I'll probably never play with say its too abstract to wrap their heads around so its not for everyone.

but I certainly prefer Fate over more blunt and clumsy roleplaying mechanics like 3.5 alignment or white wolf morality scores. while its true that 5e keeps it free, DnD didn't always do so and 3.5 can be said to be a prime example of bad roleplaying mechanics with its alignment and paladin stuff. and apocalypse world just never grabbed me, because I like playing my special snowflakes. though such characters themselves are hard to compare to anything when I make them, and I can only describe them in terms of how I take an archetype and subvert or play around with them. mostly because we've already seen the story of (character from other media) I don't want to repeat their story I want to make my own. so really my own position is a bit weird because any archetype or character I see is just a starting point for me to subvert and play with until they are my own. and when they are my own, its not really a problem that they don't measure up, because I already changed them enough to be their own thing. Not everyone goes to the effort though, so I can see why some would find hewing closer to the archetypes and characters they know useful.

though I do recommend the next time you think "I wanna play X" perhaps say "I wanna play X BUT..." or "what if X had Y?" things like that. mix it up a little.

Honestly, I'd love to actually play FATE. I've read through (parts) of the freely available version and it sounds like it would be great for my "non-D&D" games. The ones that just don't fit the paradigm of D&D. And it's got some mechanical bits I've wanted to steal--thinking explicitly in terms of scenes (rather than concrete divisions of time) for resetting abilities, the more freeform aspects, etc.

[ImNotTrevor]

Glad there's something we can both heartily agree on. One big "non-stock" thing about my home D&D world is that I've completely removed alignment as anything other than an individual descriptor of a current behavioral paradigm, a shorthand if you will. Every character has free will and angels are just as likely to be jerks as they are to be good. Same with devils, demons, etc. Every single person is an individual. There are still "good" and "evil", but they're not cosmological quantities.

Indeed. All the rest of this, to me, so far reads a bit like highly opinionated lads at the pub having a hearty disagreement that's mostly just for the fun of the thing.

At least, that's how I feel.

As for the PbtA stuff, I'm totally willing to admit that I'm wrong about the inflexibility/constraints. Good. But as a matter of presentation, it certainly didn't come across that way.

If you skimmed the system as a preview and didn't read it, that tracks. The prose is jarring and in-your-face. It's easy to misread it as dictating how players should be, but really it's setting a tone.

And I think I was reading more of the GM side, because that's what had been pointed out as "obligatory to read for anyone who wants to be a good GM of any system." And my response was...ok? These are all things that are either highly specific to one system and the game it wants to be or obvious statements that have broad support elsewhere.

I'd say that a lot of its advice is stuff I'd never seen codified, and there's lots that I managed to steal and implement into other systems. (Threats, countdown clocks, a stash of MC Moves that I can repurpose if I'm ever stuck)

But the longer you've GMed, the more likely it is you've encountered these ideas.

For me, personally, the idea of mandatory followers or antagonists is obnoxious. Both as a DM and as a player. As a DM, that's that many people I have to find room for in the ongoing narrative, which strongly limits the places they can go and the things they can do, and sucks up precious table time. As a player, I want to find or recruit my own allies (if any) and make my own enemies from the existing NPCs. And I want a tighter focus on the party (not necessarily my character), but the party.

AW forbids the MC from planning the campaign out ahead of time. You improv session 1 and build from what the players have. It gives you a LOT of tools to help improv your session 1, of course, but that's another divergent point. And remember:
NPCs are super frail in AW. And you can stretch an antagonist to feature in the stories of multiple characters.

One other thing that I've heard about AW specifically is that there isn't a notion of a "party" as the basic unit. That the players are expected to be at odds with each other quite frequently, or at least it's totally normal for that to develop. Personally, I hate PvP. In any game, from MMOs onward. I don't play competitive games. I strongly dislike active competition. So a game where the other players are expected to be antagonists or frequently at cross-purposes is, to me, just as appealing as a mandatory open-world PvP MMO. That is, not at all. But that's very firmly something I don't like, not something that is bad.

Honestly, it doesn't happen that often. Quick spats here and there, but usually when the clocks start getting close to midnight, everyone gets over their feelings and deal with the problems. (Often too late, which is more fun for me. :D)

I think there's value in discussing flexibility in game systems, but I think I'll move that to a different, more focused thread.

I'll be there to screech incoherently whenever you need, Friend!

[Cluedrew]

I could talk more about flexibility, about followers and about everything else but that's going further off topic so I feel like leaving it. I just wanted to address one thing:

On PvP: The characters trying to kill each other has nothing to with the players getting into a fight. Never confuse those two things. I once ran a campaign that was centered around a character conflicted the players decided the outcome of before the campaign started. That's not a general solution but it worked in this campaign.

[Lord Raziere]

Honestly, I'd love to actually play FATE. I've read through (parts) of the freely available version and it sounds like it would be great for my "non-D&D" games. The ones that just don't fit the paradigm of D&D. And it's got some mechanical bits I've wanted to steal--thinking explicitly in terms of scenes (rather than concrete divisions of time) for resetting abilities, the more freeform aspects, etc.

Its just Fate, its not fully capitalized/an acronym anymore.

and yeah I'd Fate a great example of roleplaying mechanics and system in general myself. because no matter how abstract or concrete, funny or dramatic, or whatever, it all informs something important about your character. its all about how you define this and that and what your goal is with the system and the character. there are a lot of variations, with even system light and system heavy versions with Fate Accelerated and Strands of Fate. however its in many ways is a toolkit for the game you want as much as it is a game itself. you kind of have to define what your goal is to make proper use of it. because without that, you just have things that might potentially be a thing, but they're all unassembled and have to be put together the way it needs to work.

[ImNotTrevor]

I mean as far as roleplaying mechanics go, I prefer Fate over apocalypse world.... [truncated]

HOW DARE YOU!
jk.

I love FATE. But my personal hot take?
Fate Accelerated does a better job of maximizing the unique properties of FATE (Aspects, Stunts, etc) than FATE Core does, and is overall the better system.

String me up if you must.


But yeah, FATE is great!

Apocalypse World is my baby, but mostly because I vibe REALLY HARD with its tone. A tone I don't think FATE matches well. But FATE let me run a game where Gods and Machines were in a billion-years-long cycle of dominion over mankind while the players tried to break the wheel and the antagonist tried to escape into reality. (Our one, where we are now)

Twas great. 10/10 would run FATE again.

[Lord Raziere]

HOW DARE YOU!
jk.

I love FATE. But my personal hot take?
Fate Accelerated does a better job of maximizing the unique properties of FATE (Aspects, Stunts, etc) than FATE Core does, and is overall the better system.

String me up if you must.


But yeah, FATE is great!

Apocalypse World is my baby, but mostly because I vibe REALLY HARD with its tone. A tone I don't think FATE matches well. But FATE let me run a game where Gods and Machines were in a billion-years-long cycle of dominion over mankind while the players tried to break the wheel and the antagonist tried to escape into reality. (Our one, where we are now)

Twas great. 10/10 would run FATE again.

Eeeh. Approaches were just never my thing. like, they are the one thing I will say is a bit too abstract for me, I prefer skills. I just work better with a bunch of skills I know that do this or that a few Approaches that don't really make sense to me.

[ImNotTrevor]

Eeeh. Approaches were just never my thing. like, they are the one thing I will say is a bit too abstract for me, I prefer skills. I just work better with a bunch of skills I know that do this or that a few Approaches that don't really make sense to me.

My biggest problem with the Approaches was Quick. It irked me.

Forceful, Flashy
Two F's. Nice.
Clever, Careful
Oh, two C's! I see a pattern
Sneaky,....Quick
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I genuinely have told players that I was renaming Quick to Swift.
Both because it fits the Paired Letter pattern and is a better word for what the Approach is anyways.

And I'd not mind a mesh of FATE's Approaches and something more PbtA-ish?
Like, in AW "Hard" is the stat for Strength, but also Toughguyness and Intimidatingness and Angriness.

I think retooling the Approaches into flavorized "stats" would make a lot of sense and could possibly work.

Like, for instance, you might have a Noir campaign and change the approaches to
Moxie
Grit
Privvy
Slick
Hush

Probably some other ones, I'm very tired and just spitballing. But the idea might have legs.

[Quertus]

I think there's a weird idea that if a system provides supports for RP or has any location where RP and Mechanics bleed over, then they must be restrictive to RP.

Let me address this:
Apocalypse World has an End Of Session Move, which involves last-minute recordkeeping and a few other bits. One of which is the History (or Hx) move.
The Hx move goes like this:
Choose a character who knew you more by the end of this session. Tell them to increase their Hx with you by +1. OR, choose a character who knows you less now. Tell them to decrease their Hx with you by -1. If neither applies, choose arbitrarily.

So... how would this prevent you from roleplaying Quertus as usual, especially given that Hx has exactly two mechanical function, one which gives 1 xp when it triggers and the other which almost never comes up? (The Help/Interfere action. The former can only help you, obviously, and the latter is only in moments of PvP which... I think I've only had one campaign out of the 10+ I've run that had even a single Interfere roll.

… eh, far too many times, I've seen the one people *thought* knew them least be the one who actually knew they were allergic to peanuts / would take refuge in the church / were hurting / whatever.

That assumption of "you understand me better / poorly"? I'm guessing it "rankles" (I'm still not used to this new word).

So, I guess… there's only the question of how wrong it makes the game feel when someone you've given max Hx is utterly clueless, and someone you've given max negative Hx knows you like the back of their hand.

I'm not sure if it would really affect my role-playing of Quertus - at least, any more than any other thing that influences my perspective while playing. Which sounds like that puts it on the list of "things I don't want in a game".

But to put forth that D&D's approach is literally the BEST approach across all available approaches is...
Elevating preference to the level of gospel, really.

Ah, that one got lost in the edits: "best" from a marketing perspective *for the industry leader* as an introduction to RPGs. Based on the reasons you rejected, it would be their best choice, to make the "universal" game a flavorless blank slate / "add your own flavor as needed" in that regard. Whereas more niche games can market their niche flavors.