Different RPG systems

[Max_Killjoy]

I would throw in, if you don't like the look of Apocalypse World itself, consider trying one of the Powered by the Apocalypse systems. Although quality is not universal they do all organize themselves around different concepts, there is probably at least one to interest anyone. (For both reasons, ask around.)

Part of that depends on why it is one does not like AW / PbtA.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: At least explain what your problem with the system is so other people can try to figure out if it applies to them or not.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Question for GMs out there who have experience with multiple systems.

Are there any particular systems that you've used that you felt gave you a completely different viewpoint on how RPGs work? I've been playing a lot of Fate over the last year, and the way it pares down the system gave me a much better sense when the story was dragging or when there were pacing problems. Now when I'm running my D&D 5e games, I have a much higher comfort level with my players improv--not because I ever disliked giving them narrative freedom, but after a year of playing Fate, I have much greater confidence in my feel for when the story is veering from our collective reality narrative.

What games have opened your eyes the most to new possibilities? I'm asking because I'm not familiar with exactly how different other games like the Storyteller System, HERO, and others are from D&D--I've played GURPS before too, and I happily mine it for mechanical ideas at times, but it didn't really change my perspective on D&D, the way Fate did.

I've run
D&D 3.5, 4, 5 and Pathfinder
Dark Heresy 2e, Deathwatch, Black Crusade
Traveller
A Time of War

They've each given me their own insights.
Traveller was probably has the most broad insight on play paradigm, in that it focuses on the generation of a character as a character instead of as a collection of combat functionalities. I try to focus more now on who characters are and who their connections and themes are.

Deathwatch particularly, but also A Time of War, have really driven in that massive and specific skill lists aren't good. Deathwatch in particular had a problem where, because it had a separate Demolition skill which was gated behind several 'levels' at it's earliest access and the consequence was that a Spec Ops team of Space Marines [including their Techmarine] couldn't breach walls or blow up objectives or other such basic tasks without blowing themselves up for like a third of the game. DH2e and BC combined a ton of skills together [Demolitions was rolled into Tech Use] and also removed "tiered" skill access gates which went a long way to fixing this problem.
Time of War also has this problem that being able to take a rank in a skill is dependent on spending a week training it from a person with both a higher training level and higher skill level than you before you spend your XP, which basically blocks players from advancing their skill competency. It also has too many skills, like DW, which means that the party can't get any adequate skill coverage.

Time of War has also taught me that no single action should take 6 die rolls to resolve, particularly in combat. In order to attack, you need to: 1: Roll to hit [2d6 Skill Check], 2: Roll to determine where the shot hit [2d6 table], 3: Assess damage reduced by armor and modified by location multiplier [no roll], 4: roll on location critical hit table [1d6 table, except for arm, hand, leg, and foot which only have 1 effect], 5: resolve critical effect [2d6 characteristic test usually], 6: test for bleeding [2d6 characteristic test], 7: test for consciousness [2d6 special characteristic test]. This is far too much.

Playing all the non-D&D systems has informed me that I prefer games with more character customization and free-form character building rather than classes with levels like 5e and Deathwatch/RT have. It makes for far more diverse character builds and characters.

And the comparison between PF and 5e has also informed me of a few more specific thoughts about D&D like systems, mostly that there are specific traits of both that I dislike and like compared to each other but in general I'd err on the side of 'more options of less use' than a smaller number of higher impact options.

[KineticDiplomat]

Dark Heresy taught me it’s ok for players to die if it buys something.

Traveller taught me that RPGs about average, faulty, imperfect people with limited options and little if any “progression” can be loads of fun and encourages thoughtful scenario design.

Blade of the Iron Throne taught me that player stories having real goals create better games than most GMs can author, and that combat is a lot more fun if player skill goes into the actual fight, not just builds and magic-puzzle-rock-paper-shotgun.

Shadowrun taught me that even an extraordinary concept can rarely survive too many rules, but the same concept can make a brilliant setting somewhere else.

OWOD taught me that some games place higher requirements on groups than others, but the reward for those games is often higher.

Ironsworn taught me solo play is possible and elegant, but I’m not disciplined enough for it.

PbtA taught me that details are often unimportant.

Rolemaster taught me that the path to better combat is not taking D&D and detailing it.

D&D taught me not to play D&D.

[Gnoman]

GURPS really cured me of the notion that HP inflation was a general positive. Turns out that a lot of game headaches go away when the PCs aren't becoming massively toughter as the game goes on.

[LordCdrMilitant]

GURPS really cured me of the notion that HP inflation was a general positive. Turns out that a lot of game headaches go away when the PCs aren't becoming massively toughter as the game goes on.

Yup. I hate HP mechanics in general, though.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yup. I hate HP mechanics in general, though.

I find HP okay when it includes or is a small buffer to a death spiral. But that's just a personal preference.

Honestly the worst part about HP inflation is that either it's rendered practically meaningless by damage inflation or it makes combat drag. I'm honestly fine with damage and HP, and even to-hit and [defence] remaining static as characters grow in power.

[Xervous]

Being the forever GM with a group of generally agreeable players I haven’t actually played many systems. Curiosity still drives me to read a new one every few months because you never know when there’s a good idea sitting in a trash heap. Biggest takeaways being:

3.5e D&D: NPC classes should be labeled properly and not served up as suggested defaults. Numbers going up for the sake of numbers generally isn’t ideal. Fancy toys should do fancy things.

4e: when providing templates or guidelines for how to produce a desired thing X it’s best to talk about it at the functional level and provide examples for how to add trappings. This goes for number crunchy stuff and narrative spice. It’s not so much something the system provided, but what it helped me realize.

5e: simplify things enough and you’ll get more people wondering why you’re even flipping coins. Also, attempts to cater to too broad an audience will yield inconsistencies. Third: don’t provide a collection of words generally describing what something does all the time in a way that makes it hard to understand what it actually means (or as it should be said, write clear, unambiguous rules).

7th sea: the best flaws are the ones that invite then reward complications and conflict. Not the drawbacks that can be avoided, nor the ones that force disruptions.

Shadowrun: hidden discounts in character building are often a needless learning curve because they often are solvable. Also: d6 dicepool is statistically beautiful, sucks to roll IRL, and is true bliss on VTT. Also, how many games fail to put emphasis on making sure the given group of characters will play well together? Great settings can tempt people in even if they dislike the rules.

PF2e: dozens of rounding error impact features to sift through add only an illusion of depth that will fade quickly as it is unmasked. If you give players options for their characters make them impactful, distinct, and preferably not a +X.

M&M3: comments on designer intent of rules, features and their usage absolutely should be given to GMs and players alike. There are countless common practices that don’t get acknowledgment in subsequent editions of various games.

WHFRP: choice flavoring in text can be exceptional for delivering the desired themes, but only when it doesn’t get in the way of understanding the rules.

[Max_Killjoy]

Part of that depends on why it is one does not like AW / PbtA.

To Max_Killjoy: At least explain what your problem with the system is so other people can try to figure out if it applies to them or not.

OK, well, I am going to post these, but to be honest up front I am not interested in anyone's attempt to explain to me why these are objectively "good" things I shouldn't dislike, or why I am "wrong", which is why I did not go into detail in the first place... so please no one waste your time and mine by doing so.

...

I don't care for the basic assumptions -- it's pretty much Forge: the RPG., whether we're looking at AW specifically or PbtA.

It is a conflict-resolution system, rather than a task-resolution system, predicated on the false assertion that task-resolution needs to be eliminated to prevent bad GMing (ie, forcing checks until the character fails), instead of just telling GMs how to be better GMs. And I don't care for the conflict resolution approach beyond that, when the character rolls the dice to crack the safe, I do not care why they are trying to open the safe, only that they are trying to open the safe.

Conflict resolution cares about "why", such that you're not rolling to see if you can open the safe, you're rolling to see if you get what you want from opening the safe -- and as far as I'm concerned, whether that thing is in the safe is determined by whether it was in the safe to begin with, not the result of a player's roll... I loath the idea of in-setting facts being subject to "superposition". If the documents are not in the safe, even an infinitely successful role will make them be in the safe when it's opened.

Plus, conflict resolution falls under disassociated mechanics, which I also do not like:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...a-brief-primer
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...iated-mechanic

It is set up to emulate genre stories within the specific genre being emulated, invoking genre tropes, etc, too often at the expense of coherence and internal consistency.

Stats -- such as Monsterheart's "Hot, Cold, Volatile, and Dark" -- that map the character into the genre/drama, and not into the "secondary world".

Rather than being set up to facilitate things like relationships when needed, it is set up to force them as a core part of the game, even where not applicable.

Playbooks, which are just another way to create predetermined roles/niches, that characters must fit into... just Classes by another name, but in this case even more genre/story based.

And I could keep going.


See also, story games -- https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...ytelling-games

[Lacco]

OK, well, I am going to post these, but to be honest up front I am not interested in anyone's attempt to explain to me why these are objectively "good" things I shouldn't dislike, or why I am "wrong", which is why I did not go into detail in the first place... so please no one waste your time and mine by doing so.

But I feel like you don't understand that they are great and need to educate you!

Just joking. I agree with most of your points. My question would be: have you seen a system, where this (emphasis mine):

Rather than being set up to facilitate things like relationships when needed, it is set up to force them as a core part of the game, even where not applicable.

is done exceptionally well? Or how would you propose this to work in general? I'm genuinely interested.

[Cluedrew]

OK, well, I am going to post these, but to be honest up front I am not interested in anyone's attempt to explain to me why these are objectively "good" things I shouldn't dislike, or why I am "wrong", which is why I did not go into detail in the first place... so please no one waste your time and mine by doing so.

OK but what were you intending accomplish with your first post? Just in case someone reads this thread without realising Powered by the Apocalypse is universally loved and adored?

In any I do enjoy Powered by the Apocalypse family (but I have no urge to play Apocalypse World). I like conflict resolution as I feel it cuts to the hard of the matter, I like the format of moves, sure play-books aren't the most flexible format (although I have played some with just one character play-book) but they are extremely evocative, I like the focus on qualitative upgrades and the diversity of characters. It is most definitely: subjectively good.

[Max_Killjoy]

OK but what were you intending accomplish with your first post? Just in case someone reads this thread without realising Powered by the Apocalypse is universally loved and adored?

First, I think you missed a "not" in there. :)

Second, the point was that your post seemed to be getting into "you just haven't found the right one yet" territory, which just isn't true for anyone who doesn't care for the basic design assumptions or mechanics of the PbtA "family".

[Max_Killjoy]

But I feel like you don't understand that they are great and need to educate you!

Just joking. I agree with most of your points. My question would be: have you seen a system, where this (emphasis mine):



is done exceptionally well? Or how would you propose this to work in general? I'm genuinely interested.

I've been trying to think of a game that does it well, but I can't... it might be a thing where systemizing it isn't needed for players who want a relationship between characters, and won't work for players who don't want the relationships.

[LibraryOgre]

For me, Ars Magica really gave me an appreciation of ensemble games with a variety of characters who might partake in any adventure (while also opening up the idea of the occasional guest GM), but also the idea of place-as-character... that the base of the characters, and its features, was an important aspect of the game itself.

[Blueiji]

Seven years of frequent LARPing (minus a period of quarantine) have completely changed my perspective on roleplaying games, both from the player and gamerunner perspective. One example of this is bleed.

The concept of “bleed” is something I hear discussed very often by LARPers, but not by TTRPGers. It refers to when OOC and IC mindsets/experience begin to blend (or “bleed”) together, typically unconsciously. This can include stuff like an IC loss causing OOC depression, or something like an OOC phobia making certain IC scenarios untenable (even if the character which the player wishes to portray wouldn’t have a problem with the matter at hand). Being able to identify, articulate, and address bleed is critical for any roleplaying ecosystem, and its a concept I’d like to see recognized more within the tabletop RPG scene.

[Kymme]

I ended up playing Masks: A New Generation with a good friend of mine from the forums a few years ago, and it completely redefinined the way I look at ttrpgs. And now, when I think about playing games like D&D 5e and 3.5, I cringe internally. Compared to the nonstop rollercoaster of fun I had with Masks, all of my previous experiences were slogs. There are no good tools in D&D and many of its various children to actually facilitate the things I want out of ttrpgs. I don't want four hour combats on a tactical grid - if I did I'd just play Chess or something - I don't want endless arguments about rules and character builds and what is and isn't overpowered. I just want to tell fun stories with my friends. And there are systems designed to do just that.

[Yora]

Apocalypse World really makes you work for it, but once you made it through the deliberate obtuseness of the writing style, there's a lot of really interesting ideas how to approach games differently.

[Vahnavoi]

Deliberate obtuseness? On what grounds is the obtuseness deliberate, and why? Genuine questions, I do not have access to the materials or any commentary from thr designer.

[Yora]

It tries very hard to evoke setting flavor while describing the mechanics. And the reliance of in-setting slang for naming mechanics makes it difficult to understand what the rules are talking about.
Not a problem unique to AW, but it's a system that's actually really useful to understand, even if you don't want to run it.

[Max_Killjoy]

AW comes out of a set of specific assumptions that includes a very strong assertion that System Matters; not just that system and setting should be compatible, but that system needs to invoke the genre conventions and setting tropes and "themes being explored". So, it's not surprising if they keep getting their setting stuff in their mechanics in a way that's not helpful, but rather obfuscating.

The tone of AW is also really condescending, IMO.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The tone of AW is also really condescending, IMO.

And highly opinionated, of the "there is only one right way to GM a TTRPG and anything else is not only badwrongfun, but outright evil" variety. "Do it my way or you're an incompetent idiot who wants to cause problems" is not exactly persuasive at making someone want to play unless they already agree with you. And that's the very strong vibe I got from a read-through.

[Yora]

AW comes out of a set of specific assumptions that includes a very strong assertion that System Matters;

Though I have to say that AW would always be my first choice to show how system makes a big difference.

[Max_Killjoy]

And highly opinionated, of the "there is only one right way to GM a TTRPG and anything else is not only badwrongfun, but outright evil" variety. "Do it my way or you're an incompetent idiot who wants to cause problems" is not exactly persuasive at making someone want to play unless they already agree with you. And that's the very strong vibe I got from a read-through.

That "you're evil" vibe isn't imaginary... Forge "head priest" Ron Edwards eventually doubled-down by asserting that players of other systems were victims of abuse and had suffered literalbrain damage.

Of course, that was also what many people consider The Forge's "jump the shark" moment, and really marked the beginning of the end for The Forge and that approach to RPG theory.

[Cluedrew]

the point was that your post seemed to be getting into "you just haven't found the right one yet" territory, which just isn't true for anyone who doesn't care for the basic design assumptions or mechanics of the PbtA "family".

Ah, well you could have just said that and I could clarify that I'm just talking about giving the family its best shot. And even if you don't end up liking it you will probably enjoy yourself more if the system is well constructed and has a premise you enjoy (or equivalently, hate it less). Sorry about the delay.

More generally, I can't speak for Apocalypse World itself because I got into Powered by the Apocalypse though different games but I will say: These are the most specialised specialty systems I have seen* and I haven't seen one that present anything outside them as wrong. At most a simple statement of "this is what this particular system is for".

* But not heard of, apparently there is a system that does not include character creation rules because all possible player characters in its single campaign are premade. That beats out even the narrowest Powered by the Apocalypse system. And now that I remember it maybe Blades in the Dark is more specialised also having a fixed setting.

[Theoboldi]

That "you're evil" vibe isn't imaginary... Forge "head priest" Ron Edwards eventually doubled-down by asserting that players of other systems were victims of abuse and had suffered literally brain damage.

Of course, that was also what many people consider The Forge's "jump the shark" moment, and really marked the beginning of the end for The Forge and that approach to RPG theory.

Sadly, the sort of thinking that lead to those ideas is still pretty wide-spread in RPG discussion circles. In discussions about PbtA or narrative games I've read, every time somebody's brought up the idea that they find narrative games difficult for beginners to play or teach to, there's been somebody claiming that actually it's D&D players who have a uniquely hard time learning new systems.

It is one of the main factors that has kept me from delving deeper into them. Which I suppose makes it pretty fitting that the PbtA game I enjoy the most, Ironsworn, is optimized for solo gaming or very small, gm-less groups.


Speaking of which, GM-less play. Something very neat I've discovered through other systems like the Mythic GM Emulator and Ironsworn, and which I really enjoy for its unique strengths. It's usually a whole lot closer to collaborative storytelling than traditional roleplaying, and really allows you to stretch those creative muscles whenever you want to. Not to mention literally not needing a GM and not needing to prepare things makes it much easier to schedule games.

It's also given me a stronger appreciation for games that do have and require a GM. Having one person in charge of the world and able to centrally make creative decisions for where the game goes has given me some wonderful experiences over the years, and is genuinely not to be underestimated.

More generally, I can't speak for Apocalypse World itself because I got into Powered by the Apocalypse though different games but I will say: These are the most specialised specialty systems I have seen* and I haven't seen one that present anything outside them as wrong. At most a simple statement of "this is what this particular system is for".

* But not heard of, apparently there is a system that does not include character creation rules because all possible player characters in its single campaign are premade. That beats out even the narrowest Powered by the Apocalypse system. And now that I remember it maybe Blades in the Dark is more specialised also having a fixed setting.

I believe you may be thinking of Lady Blackbird and its spin-offs. Somebody has made a more generic homebrew of the system, but in essence you are correct. The characters in that game (and its spin-offs) are laser-focused around a single, specific scenario about the length of one or two sessions. The mechanics meanwhile are focused around having a specific form of pacing through the way task resolution and resting works, and encouraging characters to develop over the short timespan of the adventure by giving you a huge amount of XP for replacing old character traits with new ones in specific, pre-defined way.

The way I've described it probably makes it sound more rail-roady than it is. Genuinely, I think Lady Blackbird is a brilliant little piece of game design that I'd love to try out at some point. There's something extremely clever to the way it encourages the intended game experiences without being a full straight-jacket, and I've liked it enough to import some of its elements into my own homebrew system.

[kyoryu]

Conflict resolution cares about "why", such that you're not rolling to see if you can open the safe, you're rolling to see if you get what you want from opening the safe -- and as far as I'm concerned, whether that thing is in the safe is determined by whether it was in the safe to begin with, not the result of a player's roll... I loath the idea of in-setting facts being subject to "superposition". If the documents are not in the safe, even an infinitely successful role will make them be in the safe when it's opened.

While that can be true, it's not necessarily true.

From what I can tell, the core difference is whether you specify your desired intent when rolling. Which I think makes more sense in most cases that aren't "firing an arrow", IOW, any situation where you don't do all the inputs into the action before actually doing the action. Like, if I'm charging someone, there's a ton of little things I'd do as I do that, as I reach them and grab them, etc., that can change based on my goal.

Where you run into trouble, I think, is when it's presumed that the dice can override previously established facts... which isn't really a thing. The only case where the roll should "change reality" is where reality wasn't defined in the first place. IOW, where the GM hadn't decided if something was true, but it was plausible, and so the GM might roll a dice anyway to figure it out.

So, in these situations, the two are equivalent:

1) The GM knows the information is in the safe
2) The GM knows the information is not in the safe, or it's implausible that the info is in the safe

For the second one, under "conflict resolution", the GM may not even ask for a roll since it kinda doesn't matter (unless there's something else that's time pressure going on)

The only situation where the two differ is:

3) The GM hadn't decided if the info is in the safe, but it's totally plausible.

So under task resolution, I'd normally expect the GM to make two rolls, first to see if the info is in the safe, and second to see if the safe gets opened. The only difference is that the conflict resolution mechanic combines those into a single roll.

IOW, I get your concerns, and think they're valid, but I also think that's at best a fringe reading of how it's supposed to work.

Plus, conflict resolution falls under disassociated mechanics, which I also do not like:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...a-brief-primer
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress...iated-mechanic

Conflict resolution can be disassociated, but doesn't have to be. A lot of games that use it tend to be more comfortable with author stance stuff, but it's not a requirement. I run PbtA games as character-stance as possible, which in most cases is "pretty darn character-stance". I actually prefer my games to be as character-stance as possible.

It is set up to emulate genre stories within the specific genre being emulated, invoking genre tropes, etc, too often at the expense of coherence and internal consistency.

I'm unaware of any games where the rules require you to abandon coherence or internal consistency. I don't doubt they exist, but I'd be critical of those, too.

Stats -- such as Monsterheart's "Hot, Cold, Volatile, and Dark" -- that map the character into the genre/drama, and not into the "secondary world".

Meh. They're descriptors of a character, and ones relevant to the focus of the game.

Rather than being set up to facilitate things like relationships when needed, it is set up to force them as a core part of the game, even where not applicable.

In Monsterhearts, the presumption is they are applicable. It's a game about relationships.

Also, RE and his "brain damage" can take a flying leap. Even most of the people on the Forge roasted him for that. While it's certainly a fantastic criticism of RE (and he doubled down and said it was like child abuse, and a particularly vile type), I don't think it's fair to level that at the rest of the Forge people.

Sadly, the sort of thinking that lead to those ideas is still pretty wide-spread in RPG discussion circles. In discussions about PbtA or narrative games I've read, every time somebody's brought up the idea that they find narrative games difficult for beginners to play or teach to, there's been somebody claiming that actually it's D&D players who have a uniquely hard time learning new systems.

RE and his "brain damage" can take a flying leap.

BUT I can 100% tell you that I have had an easier time teaching Fate to new players than long-term players. 100%. That's not theory, that's not following RE (can't stand the guy's arguments and think GNS is the biggest load of garbage ever, and telling me RE said something is probably the easiest way to get me to dismiss it). That's just observation.

[Theoboldi]

RE and his "brain damage" can take a flying leap.

BUT I can 100% tell you that I have had an easier time teaching Fate to new players than long-term players. 100%. That's not theory, that's not following RE (can't stand the guy's arguments and think GNS is the biggest load of garbage ever, and telling me RE said something is probably the easiest way to get me to dismiss it). That's just observation.

Well, yes, I don't disagree. But I would argue that this has more to do with new players having fewer preconceived notions than anything else. Obviously, people who come in from a background of D&D will have those. Not to mention that long-term players will also have already established roleplaying preferences, which they'll hold to while playing something new.

I just really hate the common assertion (not from you) that this is a particular trait of D&D players, and how it's used to discredit the system and its players. Especially its players.

[Xervous]

Well, yes, I don't disagree. But I would argue that this has more to do with new players having fewer preconceived notions than anything else. Obviously, people who come in from a background of D&D will have those. Not to mention that long-term players will also have already established roleplaying preferences, which they'll hold to while playing something new.

I just really hate the common assertion (not from you) that this is a particular trait of D&D players, and how it's used to discredit the system and its players. Especially its players.

If anything I’d expect correlation without causation. In all likelihood these players would have similar difficulties moving from starting system A to system B, it’s just that D&D is a big name they got drawn to. Dare I say mainstream attractions are more likely to scrape the bottom off the barrel? Yes I will. There’s only so many ways to increase the size of your audience after all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If anything I’d expect correlation without causation. In all likelihood these players would have similar difficulties moving from starting system A to system B, it’s just that D&D is a big name they got drawn to. Dare I say mainstream attractions are more likely to scrape the bottom off the barrel? Yes I will. There’s only so many ways to increase the size of your audience after all.

IMX, almost anyone who has only played <SYSTEM A> struggles to move to any other system. But those who have played all sorts of things (or no things at all) can switch more freely. And that's for any value of <SYSTEM A>.

It's like that first system embeds itself deeply and creates ruts; coming at it fresh or having lots of other paths eases things.

[KorvinStarmast]

Forge "head priest" Ron Edwards eventually doubled-down by asserting that players of other systems were victims of abuse and had suffered literal brain damage.

Not the only thing wrong with the Forge and what it did to RPG thoughts.

and really marked the beginning of the end for The Forge and that approach to RPG theory.

Ron would have been better off asking Dave Wesley about why certain things did and didn't work in the proto RPGs they were mucking about with before D&D even existed.

I wonder how many Forge regulars ever played Diplomacy.