Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 151 to 172 of 172
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by EggKookoo View Post
    This also connects to the idea that checks should only be invoked if there's a meaningful consequence of failure.
    This idea alone solves the entire problem in my experience. If it's a scenario where 40 different people can all attempt the check and one of them passing is enough to pass the challenge...you shouldn't have had anyone roll at all. There was no challenge there. Same actually goes for any such "one success to rule them all" check.

    Options in my mind (and according to the DMG) are:

    * One person makes the check, at advantage if any other person can meaningfully help.
    * The entire group makes the check, and if 50% pass, they all pass. In this scenario, 40 dunderheads is an active disadvantage.
    * Everyone makes the check in parallel but there are consequences for individual failure. This is how surprise works--everyone's passive perception is checked against the lowest Dexterity (Stealth) result[1], and those that fail get surprised. Note--this means that 40 at +0 are at a serious disadvantage compared to 3 at +2. Because all it takes is the lowest Stealth check being 11, and the entire group of 40 are surprised and none of the +2s are surprised.

    Checks represent the outcome of all the random variables, not an individual try. Failure generally should mean that that avenue is closed off and you'll need a different path forward, a change of approach at minimum.

    With perception, generally, there are two cases--
    1. everyone's searching a fixed area for something. Here, more eyes are better, hands down, as long as they don't get in each other's way. But generally, searching long enough guarantees success eventually if it's findable in the first place. So meh.
    2. Vs stealth. Here, more at lower scores don't do you any good, as surprise is an individual thing.

    "Can I roll it too?" is a common trap, but a nasty one.

    [1] If a character perceives any threat, they are not surprised. So only the lowest Dexterity (Stealth) check really matters for adjudicating surprise.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    I'm a big fan of "the appropriate person rolls, assisted by others."

    This can be the highest skilled person (can we accomplish a task?) or the lowest skilled person (will any of us fail?)
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I'm a big fan of "the appropriate person rolls, assisted by others."

    This can be the highest skilled person (can we accomplish a task?) or the lowest skilled person (will any of us fail?)
    Yeah. Or narratively making it so that what happens is that the less knowledgeable person who makes the check actually says something or asks a question that sparks the right answer on the one with the skill. Basically "have we tried saying 'friend' in elvish?", Leading to gandalf slapping his forehead and going "duh, oops, of course it's that easy."
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!

  4. - Top - End - #154
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    The problem is the way it contradicts your other argument, including "The d20 system tells me that I succeeded, but provided no help to the GM on what succeeding in this social set-up move actually meant.". Rolling d20+ bonus vs target number is fast and easy, but doesn't give you what you want.
    No it doesn't because "doesn't give you what you want". The short version is bridging that gap may not be easy or fast. The long version is everything is relative to what you are trying to do. It will always take more energy to walk a further distance but regardless of the distance you are traveling taking a rocky path that is hard to traverse is going to be harder.* The d20 system here was a clean path part of the way (up to determining my chance of success) but then left us to find our out trail the rest of the way. Does that make sense?

    As a secondary point: simple is not easy. Free-form role-playing is the simplest type of role-playing with almost no rules (some people say no but there are a few informal ones about not taking control of other people's characters and that sort of thing) and instead using narration for everything. Simple right? But is it easy? Actually it isn't that hard in my experience, but it certainly isn't so much easier for not having any additional complications.

    * Now if you are in it for the hike you might take that path anyways, which would metaphorically be the people who homebrew things for no real reason. {Whistles Innocently}

    Happily, IMO, it doesn't actually *get in the way* of producing rules for what you want: for example, you could just implement a dynamic DC now, of
    You know why do people talk like getting rid of bad rules is so much harder than adding new rules? In fact I would say getting rid of bad rules is trivial while creating new rules is - in a sense - the entire challenge of system design. The only time removing a bad rule is hard is when you have to add a new rule in its place, either because of knock-on effects or

    Consider the following modification to D&D (any edition with skills attached to stats, but I've played 5e most recently): Get rid of all combat rules. Add three new skills, a strength skill called attack, a dexterity skill called maneuver and a constitution skill called defend.

    I am now no longer sure if I was going to make a point about how overly complex combat rules are or how under developed the skill system is. I could probably make both arguments actually. But really the point is that it is pretty easy to do. I'm not going to claim the new rules I came up with in a few seconds are great but it did only take me a few seconds.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    The problem is the way it contradicts your other argument, including "The d20 system tells me that I succeeded, but provided no help to the GM on what succeeding in this social set-up move actually meant.". Rolling d20+ bonus vs target number is fast and easy, but doesn't give you what you want.

    Happily, IMO, it doesn't actually *get in the way* of producing rules for what you want: for example, you could just implement a dynamic DC now, of

    5 - Chloe wrings her hands.

    10 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man is asleep, and she doesn't know what to do.

    15 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man is asleep because she drugged the nearby lake with a sleeping potion, and she doesn't know what to do.

    20 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man (and also that deer over there) is asleep because she drugged the nearby lake with a sleeping potion, and she doesn't know what to do. If you can wake him, she promises to pour the antidote into the lake.
    The problem here is that this setup *kind of* shows wha Cluedrew is talking about.

    So you've spent this time on how Chloe reacts at various DCs to the PC's persuading her for info.

    Now do how she responds at each level for being threatened.

    Now do the other 40 NPCs in town that might get grilled for info and might know something.

    Yes, you can handwave it to "none of them know anything." But that becomes boring. You could also handwave it to all of them saying "I saw Chloe acting oddly." But then you've not really made a living, breathing community but rather a gaggle of talkative neon signs that point to Chloe.

    But with a system that is built from the ground up to support this kind of interaction and to make these sorts of things interesting *even when not planned in detail as above,* you can get a lot of outcomes without needing to plan out multiple DCs.

    AW, because it's a good example of this, has a variety of broad-idea things that can happen as a result of a partial-success on both Going Aggro (intimidation, kinda) and Seduce/Manipulate (Persuasion, kinda)

    Taking Going Aggro as a launching point, here's the kinds of things that can happen at a baseline.(Assuming the individual is not part of a Threat, which expands things.) On a 10+, they either cave in to the threat, or they take the consequences of your threat. (This means that Going Aggro specifically means you are not bluffing, and you will indeed chop their fat little fingers off if they don't talk.) On a 7-9, they *might* cave and do what you want... or they might fight back, tell you what they think you want to hear (whether that's true or not), call for help, or use a Threat Move. On a miss, they 100% don't give you what you want, and don't take your threat seriously.

    On a Seduce/Manipulate,
    On a 10+ they do what you want.
    On a 7-9, they need concrete assurance before they do anything to help you, and they likely won't do *everything* you want, if there's room for such.
    On a miss, they don't help you and the MC makes as hard a move as they want.

    It's hard to express how much branching off there is without just copy/pasting the MC moves and Threat Moves, which are pretty readily available if you google them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    No it doesn't because "doesn't give you what you want". The short version is bridging that gap may not be easy or fast. The long version is everything is relative to what you are trying to do. It will always take more energy to walk a further distance but regardless of the distance you are traveling taking a rocky path that is hard to traverse is going to be harder.* The d20 system here was a clean path part of the way (up to determining my chance of success) but then left us to find our out trail the rest of the way. Does that make sense?

    As a secondary point: simple is not easy. Free-form role-playing is the simplest type of role-playing with almost no rules (some people say no but there are a few informal ones about not taking control of other people's characters and that sort of thing) and instead using narration for everything. Simple right? But is it easy? Actually it isn't that hard in my experience, but it certainly isn't so much easier for not having any additional complications.

    * Now if you are in it for the hike you might take that path anyways, which would metaphorically be the people who homebrew things for no real reason. {Whistles Innocently}

    You know why do people talk like getting rid of bad rules is so much harder than adding new rules? In fact I would say getting rid of bad rules is trivial while creating new rules is - in a sense - the entire challenge of system design. The only time removing a bad rule is hard is when you have to add a new rule in its place, either because of knock-on effects or

    Consider the following modification to D&D (any edition with skills attached to stats, but I've played 5e most recently): Get rid of all combat rules. Add three new skills, a strength skill called attack, a dexterity skill called maneuver and a constitution skill called defend.

    I am now no longer sure if I was going to make a point about how overly complex combat rules are or how under developed the skill system is. I could probably make both arguments actually. But really the point is that it is pretty easy to do. I'm not going to claim the new rules I came up with in a few seconds are great but it did only take me a few seconds.
    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    The problem here is that this setup *kind of* shows wha Cluedrew is talking about.

    So you've spent this time on how Chloe reacts at various DCs to the PC's persuading her for info.

    Now do how she responds at each level for being threatened.

    Now do the other 40 NPCs in town that might get grilled for info and might know something.

    Yes, you can handwave it to "none of them know anything." But that becomes boring. You could also handwave it to all of them saying "I saw Chloe acting oddly." But then you've not really made a living, breathing community but rather a gaggle of talkative neon signs that point to Chloe.

    But with a system that is built from the ground up to support this kind of interaction and to make these sorts of things interesting *even when not planned in detail as above,* you can get a lot of outcomes without needing to plan out multiple DCs.

    AW, because it's a good example of this, has a variety of broad-idea things that can happen as a result of a partial-success on both Going Aggro (intimidation, kinda) and Seduce/Manipulate (Persuasion, kinda)

    Taking Going Aggro as a launching point, here's the kinds of things that can happen at a baseline.(Assuming the individual is not part of a Threat, which expands things.) On a 10+, they either cave in to the threat, or they take the consequences of your threat. (This means that Going Aggro specifically means you are not bluffing, and you will indeed chop their fat little fingers off if they don't talk.) On a 7-9, they *might* cave and do what you want... or they might fight back, tell you what they think you want to hear (whether that's true or not), call for help, or use a Threat Move. On a miss, they 100% don't give you what you want, and don't take your threat seriously.

    On a Seduce/Manipulate,
    On a 10+ they do what you want.
    On a 7-9, they need concrete assurance before they do anything to help you, and they likely won't do *everything* you want, if there's room for such.
    On a miss, they don't help you and the MC makes as hard a move as they want.

    It's hard to express how much branching off there is without just copy/pasting the MC moves and Threat Moves, which are pretty readily available if you google them.
    You come home to find a video call with me with a gun to your friend's / family member's head. "Tell me what I want to know."

    On a 10+, you either tell me the truth, *or* I blow their head off, because I cannot be bluffing if I'm using this move (and I cannot blow their head off anyway after you answer?)

    On a 7-9, you take whatever action you want, including telling me the truth or letting me blow their head off, but also possibly lying to me (which there's no rules to adjudicate?), or calling the cops (at which point, I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?).

    On a 6-, you respond, "yeah, right" (and I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?)

    This… sounds *worse* than having no rules.

    ----

    I agree that hard coding all those DCs, not just for Chloe but for every NPC for every possible social action would be… painful.

    Using 5e as a base… using 3e as a base… nah, I continue to believe that human social interaction is too complex, and so I can't say "I would". Instead, I can say… hmmm… one might create a set of DCs, based on the target's "disposition" (3e has fanatic/friendly/…/hostile), indicating the *type* of response that they would give. This would be horrifically oversimplified, and I would find it to "get in my way", but I can see many being pleased with the "good enough" structure that it gives.

    -----

    I find "removing a rule" much more difficult than "making a ruling".

    I've told you that we're playing Monopoly. You roll, land on a space, and find it blank. I rule that it's "Yahtzee", and write up the rules. Alternately, you land on "Atlantic", and I say no, declare it "Yahtzee", and write up the rules.

    I find the former more likely to be accepted than the latter.

    -----

    Thus, I find "the system has rules for this, but they're bad rules" is one example of the system getting in the way, making it harder to make good rules than simply adjudicating a more freeform game.

    Other examples of what I would consider a rocky path would be… hmmm… oh, I know, I'll pick on alignment: the system having unrelated "role-playing" mechanics where people respond with, "but an 'alignment X' character would never <otherwise reasonable result, like 'work with someone from another team' or 'accept an order to not commit suicide'>".

    Also, too many people jump to removing a rule before realizing why it was there (see my favorite example, "low magic D&D", and all the horror stories that removing wealth while ignorant of its purpose has caused).

    -----

    Still, it's nice if the system has *good* rules for things that are common and *can* have good rules (like, say, grappling).

    -----

    Easy / fast? I'll do you one better (why is Gamora): sensei always used to say, martial arts are simple, but that doesn't make them easy.

    Not sure if that's the same sentiment as you were going for or not.

    -----

    Posting from phone, these responses are in roughly reverse order of the corresponding text.

    Anything big I missed responding to?

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Thus, I find "the system has rules for this, but they're bad rules" is one example of the system getting in the way, making it harder to make good rules than simply adjudicating a more freeform game.
    Which in 5e it tends to be the resting rules. And sometimes the initiative rules.

    In 3e it was the stealth rules.

    In 4e it was the skill challenge rules and the reliance on battle mats.

    Or every D&D except 4e, Vancian / spell slot casting.

    All of these things work great if they were used as intended. The problem is that the designers made assumptions about what kind of game it should be, why these rules were designed the way they were, and then failed to explain it properly, or they explained it and people didn't listen.

    E.g. Heinsoo and his mechanical/fluff separation being somehow narrative, which I personally find to be the exact opposite, causing his Skill Challenges to be treated like a dice rolling mini game. Or Mearls talking about "story" out one side (and in the PHB) while creating a system carefully optimized for very specific kinds of dungeon delving and wilderness adventuring sites games.

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    I find [making a ruling] more likely to be accepted than [removing rules].
    The thing is we don't have a fiction layer in board games to tell us what makes sense or not and when a rule gives you a non-sensical result that is when people tend to remove (or override) rules during play. Also timing is important, for instance I would tell people I made D&D skill based before I started a campaign where I ripped out the combat system.

    Also accepted or not from your example I have enough information to erase the Atlantic space but not enough to fill in the Yahtzee space.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PRAK

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    The thing is we don't have a fiction layer in board games to tell us what makes sense or not and when a rule gives you a non-sensical result that is when people tend to remove (or override) rules during play.
    Clue, Life, Monopoly.

    Although Monopoly is interesting in that it wasn't designed to be a fun game, but to be a teaching game about uncontrolled capitalism. Seriously, what would you expect from a game named after an anti-competitive business model? People keep trying to add or change rules to make it "fun" without understanding the purpose and design principals behind it.
    Niven's Laws, #5
    If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Clue, Life, Monopoly.

    Although Monopoly is interesting in that it wasn't designed to be a fun game, but to be a teaching game about uncontrolled capitalism. Seriously, what would you expect from a game named after an anti-competitive business model? People keep trying to add or change rules to make it "fun" without understanding the purpose and design principals behind it.
    Thats because it falls into the trap that every piece of media designed to be artistic criticism/deconstruction of something does: people consume something because they think it should be fun and so if they hear something is popular or good quality that means it must be fun because why else would so many people praise it, therefore when they found out that its not and don't know the original purpose they try to fix it, not knowing that it was doing what it was intended to do.

    and then when they find out the actual purpose they then instead of having humility to accept that what they want isn't everything and that they didn't check what it was supposed to be about so its on them that they didn't get the point, they decide that its somehow the creators fault for not making it something tailored to a desire that probably only came about after it was already made. this would all be prevented if people actually checked things but nooo.....
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  11. - Top - End - #161
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    PRAK

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    . this would all be prevented if people actually checked things but nooo.....
    It would also help if the advertising wasn't sort of deceptive. Of course if you stopped advertising Monopoly as a "fun for the family" game and called it a "learning about capital movement in unregulated markets" game then sales would drop faster than the axe on the ad exec's neck for doing it.

    People believe advertising, that's why companies spend money on them. If you put multimillion ad campaign with a movie tie-in out for Pendragon then it's sales would perk up quite a bit. Even though Pendragon is very tightly tied to one specific version of the Arthurian myth & knight in shining armor trope, and doesn't do other versions very well (and generic Medieval is pretty much right out). It almost certainly wouldn't work well for whatever movie it got tied to, and gods help you if it was a Game of Thrones movie. Same with D&D.
    Niven's Laws, #5
    If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.

  12. - Top - End - #162
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Failure should have consequences and that means it should be possible that you just lose the adventure. There should not be always a new scenario to make the failure moot.

    That is why i don't like world ending scenarios. Losing should be a real possibility but not something that needs changing the game world afterwards.



    Other than that, i don't like the whole adventure hanging on a single roll. But the players should just avoid any plans where that is the case. It is their responsibility not the GMs.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2021-01-18 at 03:18 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Which in 5e it tends to be the resting rules. And sometimes the initiative rules.

    In 3e it was the stealth rules.

    In 4e it was the skill challenge rules and the reliance on battle mats.

    Or every D&D except 4e, Vancian / spell slot casting.

    All of these things work great if they were used as intended. The problem is that the designers made assumptions about what kind of game it should be, why these rules were designed the way they were, and then failed to explain it properly, or they explained it and people didn't listen.
    The problem with D&D in particular is that it wants to be a modern story focused game, but it also wants to keep the basic mechanics of a 40 year old dungeon crawling game. And I am not sure if the people who made 5th edition are even aware of this fundamental disconnect.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Beneath the Leaves of Kaendor - Writing Sword & Sorcery
    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  14. - Top - End - #164
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    The thing is we don't have a fiction layer in board games to tell us what makes sense or not and when a rule gives you a non-sensical result that is when people tend to remove (or override) rules during play. Also timing is important, for instance I would tell people I made D&D skill based before I started a campaign where I ripped out the combat system.
    True, I am envisioning the event occurring *during* the game; thus the "bait and switch" feel / objection to changing the rules. Also the "but my NPC / DMPC was supposed be cool - the rules have failed me, I'd better change the rules to not give such a nonsensical result".

    I'm more of a "kick the GM to the curb (and tattoo a copy of the Sue files to the inside of their eyelids as necessary) if they cannot play by the agreed upon rules" type.

    Real world physics gives nonsensical results, like the platypus, or <insert political or company policy "huh?!" of your choosing>. That's just the world we live in. If game physics gives the rare nonsensical result, it's not wrong, it's just the world that they live in. If it gives frequent nonsensical results, choose better rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Failure should have consequences and that means it should be possible that you just lose the adventure. There should not be always a new scenario to make the failure moot.

    That is why i don't like world ending scenarios. Losing should be a real possibility but not something that needs changing the game world afterwards.



    Other than that, i don't like the whole adventure hanging on a single roll. But the players should just avoid any plans where that is the case. It is their responsibility not the GMs.
    I mean, Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has saved over 100 worlds, so… yeah, I've kinda played that plenty.

    What I *do* like, though, are world changing adventurers - characters with the proactive drive to change the world (overthrowing the gods being my primary example). Succeeding should be a real possibility, and something that needs changing the game world afterwards.

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    The problem with D&D in particular is that it wants to be a modern story focused game, but it also wants to keep the basic mechanics of a 40 year old dungeon crawling game. And I am not sure if the people who made 5th edition are even aware of this fundamental disconnect.
    I mean, that's been a problem for D&D since TSR and 2e.

    For that matter, the entire idea that TTRPGs should be "a modern story focused games" is a fundamental problem in the mind of any developer.

    Also it's probably worth it's own thread, but why do so many developers who want their games to be story focused churn out the most mechanically focused rules? White Wolf is infamous for it of course, but Crane and Heinsoo both think that way too. At least Mearls (theoretically) tried to pare it back.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    I mean, that's been a problem for D&D since TSR and 2e.

    For that matter, the entire idea that TTRPGs should be "a modern story focused games" is a fundamental problem in the mind of any developer.

    Also it's probably worth it's own thread, but why do so many developers who want their games to be story focused churn out the most mechanically focused rules? White Wolf is infamous for it of course, but Crane and Heinsoo both think that way too. At least Mearls (theoretically) tried to pare it back.
    your only complaining about it because its changing something that already exists that you like. the problem is not that they are trying to making a modern story focused game, its that they're trying to change a preexisting game to be something else. I bet you none your complaints would be happening if they labeled the book something else that isn't DnD. It also probably wouldn't sell.

    But then again fans complain about anything changing, so why would developers care about what fans complain about? if everything is a bad change to the fans, then there is no point to listening to fans.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  17. - Top - End - #167
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Also it's probably worth it's own thread, but why do so many developers who want their games to be story focused churn out the most mechanically focused rules? White Wolf is infamous for it of course, but Crane and Heinsoo both think that way too. At least Mearls (theoretically) tried to pare it back.
    I think because a lot of people want story focused games but are still much more comfortable with the rules structures of old systems that in turn comes from war games. At least that is how it got started, the systems that actually are story focused (even if they aren't exactly rules light) manage to break away from that. I think a lot of big names stay that way to avoid taking risks (see D&D 4e) but otherwise I couldn't say.

    Anyways I agree it worth its own thread so I will not say anything more about it in this one.

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    But then again fans complain about anything changing, so why would developers care about what fans complain about? if everything is a bad change to the fans, then there is no point to listening to fans.
    Well, that seems a little… unfair.

    Take me, for instance. I consider 2e D&D to be the best RPG I've played. When 3e came out, I gently complained about a few of the changes. But I also *liked* some of the changes.

    Then 4e came out, and I declared it both "shades of grey" boring and "not even an RPG". Oh, and declared its rendition of Toril "the Forgotten Realms, for people who hate the Forgotten Realms".

    I'm actively *for* the 5e change of removing the Wall of the Faithless, just as I would be for removing alignment. When did they remove alignment languages? Because I approve of that change, too.

    So, I think that it's fair to say that not all fans oppose all changes, nor do they oppose them all equally.

    I think that the inability to comprehend that distinction… well… show me someone who cannot make that distinction, and I'll show you someone who should not be involved with fan feedback, or in making decisions about products.

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Well, that seems a little… unfair.

    Take me, for instance. I consider 2e D&D to be the best RPG I've played. When 3e came out, I gently complained about a few of the changes. But I also *liked* some of the changes.

    Then 4e came out, and I declared it both "shades of grey" boring and "not even an RPG". Oh, and declared its rendition of Toril "the Forgotten Realms, for people who hate the Forgotten Realms".

    I'm actively *for* the 5e change of removing the Wall of the Faithless, just as I would be for removing alignment. When did they remove alignment languages? Because I approve of that change, too.

    So, I think that it's fair to say that not all fans oppose all changes, nor do they oppose them all equally.

    I think that the inability to comprehend that distinction… well… show me someone who cannot make that distinction, and I'll show you someone who should not be involved with fan feedback, or in making decisions about products.
    Well of course its unfair. your not the only one complaining, and they aren't checking everyone.

    you may be reasonable, but not everyone is. your voice gets drowned out by those who aren't who complain louder and more directly, and every change you want is something someone else doesn't. they change for one section, a different section will complain instead. and given how many franchises are, I think its pretty clear that many companies can't make the distinction. they probably aren't checking this particular forum- they're checking whatever thing they set up to complain to them directly. unless your directly complaining to them, all your doing here is the cyberspace equivalent of griping at a cafe.
    My Fan Fiction:
    To Catch A Mew
    A Kalos based pokemon fan fic. Now up to Chapter 25! I'm also on discord as "raziere".



  20. - Top - End - #170
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    You come home to find a video call with me with a gun to your friend's / family member's head. "Tell me what I want to know."

    On a 10+, you either tell me the truth, *or* I blow their head off, because I cannot be bluffing if I'm using this move (and I cannot blow their head off anyway after you answer?)

    On a 7-9, you take whatever action you want, including telling me the truth or letting me blow their head off, but also possibly lying to me (which there's no rules to adjudicate?), or calling the cops (at which point, I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?).

    On a 6-, you respond, "yeah, right" (and I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?)

    This… sounds *worse* than having no rules.
    Well yes, when you introduce video calls to the post-apocalypse and create artificial distance which fundamentally changes the interaction, then yeah, things break down. Apocalypse World assumes... the apocalypse happened. I somehow doubt that Zoom/Skype would be the thing to survive.

    Hostage Situations are also not produceable and enactable in a single roll in AW. There would need to be several rolls before this one could happen, and that affects how THIS goes down.

    But let's take this interaction and run through how I'd run it in ACTUAL Apocalypse World.

    Let's say Domino (that's you) is in Dremmer's place, with his gun pointed at his girl, Bebop, finger on the trigger, waiting for Dremmer to get home. For the sake of giving me as much of the information I'd have at my disposal in an ACTUAL game as possible, let's say Domino is a Hardholder, and his right-hand man, Tums, is missing.

    Dremmer gets home, and he's got a couple of his guys with him.

    You Go Aggro. "Tell me what happened to Tums or I blow her brains out I swear to god, Dremmer."

    I have you roll it.

    10+, it makes the most sense for Dremmer to cave in and do what you want. (Which it will most of the time.) He says "Hey, hey, woah, calm down. I got nothin' to do with Tums, okay? He's not here, for God's sakes. I heard Tenpenny talking about getting a new prize, though. Way he was talking, it sounded like it could be Tum." (You got what you wanted)

    7-9, I have some.options. I know Domino HATES Hut. So Dremmer says "Woah, woah, hold on. I don't know ANYTHING about Tums, but I know Hut's got plans going right now." After giving that info, I ask what you do. (You got... a version of what you wanted. A lead, which will indeed get you where you wanna go, but it's a more complicatex route than a 10+.

    On a 6-, I have even more options. I get to make as hard a move as I want. So I do. I say, "Dremmer walks in, hands up, real slow. He asks Bebop if she's ok, then looks at you and smiles. It's the only warning you get. Bebop suddenly jerks to the side, falling to the floor. And while you're reacting to that, one of Dremmer's boys quick-draws a sawed-off and puts a blast of rock salt into your chest for 2 harm after your armor, and you hit the wall as your breath leaves your lungs. What do you do?" (You don't get what you want, and things get bad. Your threat isn't taken seriously and you get shot for your efforts.)

    That's how it goes in ACTUAL play. If Dremmer is on my Threat map (he's got a name, so he is probably on my Threat Map) I can draw from his Threat Impulse and Threat moves for 7-9 and Miss to make sure his choice aligns with that.

    Maybe he's the head of a Brute(Family) threat. Their impulse is "To close ranks and protect their own", so on the 7-9 Dremmer finishes out by letting Domino know that he and his friends are no longer welcome at Dremmer's establishment, and on a miss I might follow up my hard move with a softer move from Dremmer where he says "I don't care who you think you are, little 'mayor.' You don't threaten me and mine. Your power ends at my doorstep. Now crawl out of here before I have you gutted. Tums's probably happy to be out from under your heel." [Rigidly Follow or Defy Authority is a Brute move]
    If Dremmer is a grotesque and you Miss, I could also have Dremmer and friends draw guns on you. And as you pull your trigger and redecorate his walls with brainmatter wallpaper, his unflinching look makes you realize that theirs was not the loving relationship it looked like. And before you can turn your gun on him, you reap the whirlwind.


    Now, this is a VERY specific situation that you'd not just... be able to make happen without a lot of work and several rolls to even get into this position, so this is STILL a very unusual Go Aggro, and one I'd maybe not even have you roll for if I don't think Dremmer would do anything other than cave to pressure and you already jumped through my hoops to make this scene possible.

    Typically, when you Go Aggro, it's a shorter, one-off interaction. You'd not be taking the time to manufacture a hostage situation, you'd just find Dremmer and put a gun in his face. But if you did put in the work, that's great, and I can roll with it.

    The biggest takeaway is that D&D rolls can, amd often do, exist in a vacuum.

    AW rolls almost never exist in a vacuum, because they rely HEAVILY upon the fictional context of both the current scene and preceding scenes to establish the stakes and the likely outcomes.
    Last edited by ImNotTrevor; 2021-01-19 at 08:07 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Troll in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by ImNotTrevor View Post
    AW rolls almost never exist in a vacuum, because they rely HEAVILY upon the fictional context of both the current scene and preceding scenes to establish the stakes and the likely outcomes.
    Arguably, this is the defining feature of "narrative" games (in quotes to specify common usage vs. Forge terminology). I'm more heavily involved in the Fate community, and it's a common pattern that the answer to any "how do I?" question is "well, that depends...."

    And for this to work, it requires a certain amount of GM interpretation and flexibility.

    (The other interesting thing about said narrative games as the results of rules is more often constraints than actual things. And while the constraints give the GM (and often players) a high amount of leeway, they are also generally expected to be strictly adhered to. So they tend to be both very free and very rigid at the same time).
    Last edited by kyoryu; 2021-01-19 at 10:34 AM.
    "Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking)"

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Arguably, this is the defining feature of "narrative" games (in quotes to specify common usage vs. Forge terminology). I'm more heavily involved in the Fate community, and it's a common pattern that the answer to any "how do I?" question is "well, that depends...."

    And for this to work, it requires a certain amount of GM interpretation and flexibility.

    (The other interesting thing about said narrative games as the results of rules is more often constraints than actual things. And while the constraints give the GM (and often players) a high amount of leeway, they are also generally expected to be strictly adhered to. So they tend to be both very free and very rigid at the same time).
    This, I'm realizing, is why I always find it hard to explain how these systems work in a way that feels adequate.

    Explaining D&D as "you roll for things to find out if they happen" is an oversimplified but valid explanation of how it works.

    That same description doesn't really cover it for Apocalypse World, and other games that dig into what it digs into.

    Apocalypse World isn't great for roleplay because it has the most amazing resolution mechanic for social interaction EVAR, but because everything you've done so far weighs in on this roll. Not just what you've done in this scene, either. Elements from session 1 can affect a social roll in session 9, and the system gives you ways and means to keep up those kinds of connections over time.

    Now, I like exploring relationships and having the freedom to really dig into the WEIRD aspects. Those are fun as heck to me. But I'd still not recommend AW to everyone. I usually use it as an introductory system, then check in after a few sessions to see who wants more structure, and who wants less, and shake it out from there. It's a good entry point for people coming into tabletop from unusual angles, and the fact that it ISN'T D&D can shake up their expectations quite nicely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorsa View Post
    I doubt you could find a less sensitive person on these boards than ImNotTrevor.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •