Powered by the Apocalypse

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
ffilz said:
On PbtA being an RPG, it's worth considering what Vincent Baker was doing when he created Apocalypse World. He was exploring RPG structures and procedures and trying express all the theorizing about RPGs he was doing in a game. How many people's reaction to PbtA comes out of it's origins in The Forge vs. any idea at all of what an RPG should look like and do? I think the innovation in Apocalypse World is not any of the specific mechanics or presentations but purely the fact that it was built intentionally from Baker's thoughts on RPG theory. Of course that means that many of the PbtA games are no more revolutionary than the numerous "fantasy heart breakers" that followed D&D (of any edition - lots of D20 heart breakers...) since the authors are just copying concepts without basing their efforts in any understanding of theory.
Click to expand...
Vince has dropped Forge Theory anyway.

The Big Model was nifty when it was current. It was fun and useful to me, and I owe it my games from Dogs in the Vineyard to Apocalypse World, but rpg design has left it behind.

Among many others, but most particularly, I don't think that the idea of Creative Agendas stands up after all, let alone G, N, and S as its representatives.

We used to think that RPGs were one game. In, like, the 90s or whenever. We would say things like "what is the object of a RPG?" as though all RPGs would have the same one.

GNS was a real step forward: "RPGs aren't one game, they're THREE!"

But, of course, RPGs aren't three games either. Every RPG, like every other kind of game, is its own. You can taxonomize them if you want, but then you're constructing artificial categories and cramming games into them, not learning or finding out something true about the games themselves.
Click to expand...

From https://web.archive.org/web/2019111...com/forums/discussion/20273/the-big-model-rip

So while the theory was an influence on PbtA it was (in Vince's words at least) a theory based on false premises. So I'm not sure that not following the theory is the issue here; if anything following it is more likely to be an issue with bad PbtA games.

More importantly, I'm not convinced that "an interest in RPG theory" and "great design" go hand in hand in the first place. There's certainly great designers with an interest in the area; Greg Costikyan has been into ludology before it was called that. But then you have someone like Greg Stafford who, from what I can tell, was never really involved in the theory debate side of things.

But perhaps the biggest counterexample is Ron Edwards himself. If an obsession with theory leads to good design, I don't see it in his frankly not very good rpg output. Does anyone seriously want to make an argument that Sorceror is better or even more innovative than Pendragon or Ghostbusters?

At the end of the day, the whole theory hothouse that was The Forge seems to have produced roughly the same percentage of brilliant, average and bad games as everyone else.
 
Black Leaf said:
Vince has dropped Forge Theory anyway.

From https://web.archive.org/web/2019111...com/forums/discussion/20273/the-big-model-rip

So while the theory was an influence on PbtA it was (in Vince's words at least) a theory based on false premises. So I'm not sure that not following the theory is the issue here; if anything following it is more likely to be an issue with bad PbtA games.

More importantly, I'm not convinced that "an interest in RPG theory" and "great design" go hand in hand in the first place. There's certainly great designers with an interest in the area; Greg Costikyan has been into ludology before it was called that. But then you have someone like Greg Stafford who, from what I can tell, was never really involved in the theory debate side of things.

But perhaps the biggest counterexample is Ron Edwards himself. If an obsession with theory leads to good design, I don't see it in his frankly not very good rpg output. Does anyone seriously want to make an argument that Sorceror is better or even more innovative than Pendragon or Ghostbusters?

At the end of the day, the whole theory hothouse that was The Forge seems to have produced roughly the same percentage of brilliant, average and bad games as everyone else.
Click to expand...
I haven't kept up much with Vincent, but makes sense. I never felt that Apocalypse World tried to be anything specific in the Big Model but it is clear to me that it was derived from the things Vincent was exploring from a theory perspective in the years before he published Apocalypse World. And yea, those who obsessed over theory went off in the weeds. Vincent's theorizing seemed much more related to actual gaming experiences than others.
 
Black Leaf said:
But perhaps the biggest counterexample is Ron Edwards himself. If an obsession with theory leads to good design, I don't see it in his frankly not very good rpg output. Does anyone seriously want to make an argument that Sorceror is better or even more innovative than Pendragon or Ghostbusters?
Click to expand...
Forge theory always smells to me like "here's a theory that objectively proves my preferences" (which is unfortunately too common in RPG circles)

As such, I feel it is very good at producing games that Ron Edwards likes.
 
robiswrong said:
Forge theory always smells to me like "here's a theory that objectively proves my preferences" (which is unfortunately too common in RPG circles)

As such, I feel it is very good at producing games that Ron Edwards likes.
Click to expand...
As the old joke goes.

Narratist - Game Ron likes

Gamist - Game Ron doesn't like

Simulationist - Game Ron doesn't understand
 
My many attempts to try PbtA games, boils down to: Some aren't in quite the same wheelhouse as other RPG's I enjoy, some are, and some I don't know what they're doing. AKA: That one works for me but is wierd, that other one is great, and some of these are whaat? (Notably: Monster of the Week, Farflung, work well for me. Masks? Uh? Not sure what to do with that focused a superhero game, without more solid framework for powers or clearer archetypes (rather than this character is a TROPE big letters, and all about how they behave rather than what they DO.)
 
Silverlion said:
My many attempts to try PbtA games, boils down to: Some aren't in quite the same wheelhouse as other RPG's I enjoy, some are, and some I don't know what they're doing. AKA: That one works for me but is wierd, that other one is great, and some of these are whaat? (Notably: Monster of the Week, Farflung, work well for me. Masks? Uh? Not sure what to do with that focused a superhero game, without more solid framework for powers or clearer archetypes (rather than this character is a TROPE big letters, and all about how they behave rather than what they DO.)
Click to expand...
I find that if a PbtA game adheres closer to Apocalypse World 1e in terms of level of crunch and overall design philosophy, I can probably take to it pretty much like a duck to water(I hate the use of the word philosophy here, but I can't think of a better word; it's not that deep). It's when they start adding extra stuff with a poor work-to-reward ratio that I start to check out mentally. Urban Shadows(at least 1e) straddles that line for me, while Apocalypse World 2e and Masks jump over it in different ways and are a lot less fun for me as a result. I can't be entirely sure without actually getting to play it, but Monster of the Week seems like it's not too complicated. I even made a ghost dude for it once, but the game fell through before I could play.
 
I like AW and some of the games of similar crunch but in general prefer the PbtA games that strip down the mechanics even further but I think my tastes these days run lighter in general.
 
Last edited:
I respect AW in terms of knowing what it wants to achieve (which I think is the big issue with some of the later games using the mechanics), but the writing style turns me off. I've got very little to the table so far, but the ones that intrigue me the most are the ones that use it for PvP focused games; Legacy Life Among the Ruins and Bedlam Hall. But a lot of that is already existing preference.

I do get confused by the idea they're light crunch though. AW weighs in at 304 pages and very little of that is setting fluff or additional options, it's mostly core. They're easily medium crunch.

The PbTA people who contrast it favourably to how "other RPGs have so many rules it gets in the way of the story" again make me suspect their main previous experience was D&D. It's not GURPS, but it's hardly Boot Hill either. I'd put it somewhere around the same level as something like 1e Palladium Fantasy.
 
I think I partially disagree. There are very few actual mechanics in AW, just a number of variations on those parts. Really it's just moves, player moves on the one hand and GM moves on the other, with the bulk of the remainder being attention to explicit focus on play loops. There are very few subsystems or anything mechanical that falls outside those categories. That said, the lists of moves aren't short, so it's doesn't exactly feel light either, especially some of the other PbtA games that really splat moves. My personal experience is that after an initial learning curve with the lists of moves it does actually feel rules light, but it didn't my first few times.
 
Black Leaf said:
but the ones that intrigue me the most are the ones that use it for PvP focused games; Legacy Life Among the Ruins and Bedlam Hall. But a lot of that is already existing preference.
Click to expand...

I really like Legacy Life Among the Ruins, as well as some of it's "World of Legacy" books (games that take the basic structure of "faction + character with timeskips where the faction is the constant for players" and build different things) like Godsend and Rhapsody of Blood.
 
I think there are some versions that add a lot, but do so in a way that is appealing, or that accomplishes something new. Like Legacy Life Among the Ruins. It adds a few levels to things, but it does so in order to open up the generational aspect of the game, and so it's worthwhile.

Looking at the playtest material for Stonetop, and it adds a good amount of stuff to what's essentially Dungeon World (it started as a playset for DW, but then morphed into its own game) but it does so to establish the steading of Stonetop, which serves as the focus of the game, and ties everything together.

Those additions take the core and then bring something more to it, something which is engaging enough to make the extra crunch worthwhile.

I do agree with A Fiery Flying Roll Black Leaf to an extent that some of the games can get very involved. A lot of it is expanded lists of moves, which then have multiple outcomes to choose from based on the result of the roll. So the game becomes lists of lists and you need to reference them all the time.
 
hawkeyefan said:
I think there are some versions that add a lot, but do so in a way that is appealing, or that accomplishes something new. Like Legacy Life Among the Ruins. It adds a few levels to things, but it does so in order to open up the generational aspect of the game, and so it's worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure, "not rules lite" isn't a criticism; I love my rules lite games but my game of En Garde! is ridiculously crunchy (over 200 pages of house rules? Rules for venereal disease, going to the theatre and running your own shop? It's got 'em).

I just think it's an inaccurate description of PbtA and potentially one of the factors in some groups bouncing off it. Especially GMs. If you come in expecting a streamlined resolution system, it's going to take you by surprise.
 
Black Leaf said:
Oh, sure, "not rules lite" isn't a criticism; I love my rules lite games but my game of En Garde! is ridiculously crunchy (over 200 pages of house rules? Rules for venereal disease, going to the theatre and running your own shop? It's got 'em).

I just think it's an inaccurate description of PbtA and potentially one of the factors in some groups bouncing off it. Especially GMs. If you come in expecting a streamlined resolution system, it's going to take you by surprise.
Click to expand...

I think it’s because there’s a core mechanic that is used for pretty much everything. Like anytime you roll, it’s gonna be 2d6+stat and the tiered results 10+, 7-9, and 6-. Except for some exceptions you don’t roll any other dice.

Compared to many games where you have attack rolls that are one thing, skill rolls which may be different, damage rolls, saving throws, and so on.

So sometimes it gets classified as rules light, but that’s more by comparison to rules heavy games. When you look at actual rules light games, yeah, there’s clearly more to most PbtA games.

Like Legacy: Life Among the Ruins; that game has a lot that appeals to me. I haven’t played or run it yet, and honestly it’s a little intimidating. There are so many moves. The core mechanic is always there, but the results for a 7-9 on this move versus that move….it seems like a lot to remember.
 
Last edited:
EmperorNorton said:
I really like Legacy Life Among the Ruins, as well as some of it's "World of Legacy" books (games that take the basic structure of "faction + character with timeskips where the faction is the constant for players" and build different things) like Godsend and Rhapsody of Blood.
Click to expand...
Voidheart Symphony is also excellent, which was an offshoot of Rhapsody of Blood. I like it more than Legacy TBH, which I like quite a bit.

I do agree though that UFO Press PbtA RPGs tend to be complex with a lot of interlinked moves and often embedded gameplay loops.

The good thing about PbtA not being a system but a design approach is that PbtA games vary wildly in terms of complexity. If you want rules light, you can play Hearts of Wulin, tremulus, or Dungeon World. If you want something with a little more crunch, try Masks, Avatar Legends, or Impulse Drive. If you want something with a definite rules heft, Legacy, Root, or Urban Shadows are good ones.

Once you have read and/or played a few PbtA RPGs you can also get a feel for what level of complexity to expect by the publisher and playbooks.
 
I actually don't like PbtA that much. Legacy Life Among the Ruins I like in SPITE of it being PbtA.

I like some of the ideas, but I like how those ideas are implemented in something like the FitD systems better.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I actually don't like PbtA that much. Legacy Life Among the Ruins I like in SPITE of it being PbtA.

I like some of the ideas, but I like how those ideas are implemented in something like the FitD systems better.
Click to expand...
I'm biased because I have a lot more experience with it, but FitD is simply a better designed chassis.

And yet, notably, it gets nowhere near as many games made using it. I think the reasons for that are several.

It's much more focused. If you're doing anything other than heist variants it's going to take a lot of work.

It's nowhere near as easy to hack (in general, doing so in the confines of Blades is easier; new playbooks etc.), because of the fact that if you do you'll need to rewrite at least some of the mechanics to fit. Part of the reason for the PbtA glut is that it's deceptively easy to use. (Actually doing so well is probably about as hard as doing so with FitD).

The FitD community is a lot smaller and more closeknit. Which comes with some massive benefits (most FitD games seem to have gone through an informal process of peer review) but I suspect it seems less accessible to designers.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I like some of the ideas, but I like how those ideas are implemented in something like the FitD systems better.
Click to expand...
A good chunk of FitD fan base are people who were interested in PbtA but don’t entirely like the rules approach. It’s common for a fan base of something new and popular like PbtA to be carved up by things that are adjacent (similar yet different) over time.

I personally still like PbtA a lot more than FitD but I can see what FitD is attempting to “fix” for that subset of the PbtA fanbase and why that subset would then see it as confirmation that FitD is better than PbtA. It’s really just personal preferences however.
 
I think FitD is starting to catch on and we’re seeing more and more takes on it. The quality is, of course, all over the map, just as it is with PbtA or any other rules system. But I think there are already solid FitD takes on most of the major genres; Scum & Villainy, Band of Blades, and Galaxies in Peril are all games I’ve played that I would say are well done. So that’s space-opera, fantasy military, and super heroes. Then you have games like Copperhead County, Brinkwood, and Court of Blades…I’ve not played them, but each seems well regarded.

And those are just some of them. It’s only been about 6 years since Blades Kickstarted and about 4 years since it was published. I expect it will continue to inspire new FitD takes and hacks.
 
hawkeyefan said:
I think FitD is starting to catch on and we’re seeing more and more takes on it. . . . . And those are just some of them. It’s only been about 6 years since Blades Kickstarted and about 4 years since it was published. I expect it will continue to inspire new FitD takes and hacks.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Given how new Blades in the Dark is, relatively speaking, I think FitD has a really impressive number of games based on it. And I expect the number to keep growing. It looks really solid, and Blades in the Dark is one of those games I have the actual hardcover book for and would really love to get to try out sometime. It seems like a blast.

I'm not going to bother scrolling back to find it, but I recall something being said about PbtA games being more rules-medium, and I dunno. The size of the books can be deceptive here. A lot of it's advice and examples, not so much the rules themselves. And a lot of PbtA games put out a free pared-down set of the rules for quick reference - I know Apocalypse World 1e and Monsterhearts did, at least - and those were everything needed to play - and run - the games in like 4 to 6 pages. I did eventually get the books for both games, but those documents served me well for a number of games. I'd actually run Monsterhearts for some friends at least a couple times before buying the book. And I'd played both at least a couple times each, too. That feels pretty light. (But for the record, I play GURPS just fine and don't find it intrusive at all; at least on the player side, I can keep track of one character just fine and actually find making GURPS characters kinda fun. It's like its own game. But yeah, GURPS and me go waaaaaay back. Like to '96.)
 
There are also more storygame-oriented PbtA rulesets like Sagas of the Icelanders which tend to be quite rules light due to the focused style of play.
 
Personally I prefer PbtA because while FitD solves a lot of problems, they're not ones I have (With either the heist concept or the underlying system goals). But it's design work is fabulous, and it does what it does very well, I'm just interested in other things.
 
FitD isn't any kind of attempt to 'fix' PbtA. It's just a rules set designed using the PbtA design principles, at least in part. It certainly isn't supposed to be a replacement, nor has John Harper (or anyone else) ever claimed that to be true to the best of my knowledge. Relying to fans to frame that sort of thing is asking for trouble IMO. FitD and PbtA have as many prejudiced and intolerant one-true-wayist fans as any other corner of the hobby, sadly.
 
Fenris-77 said:
FitD isn't any kind of attempt to 'fix' PbtA. It's just a rules set designed using the PbtA design principles, at least in part. It certainly isn't supposed to be a replacement, nor has John Harper (or anyone else) ever claimed that to be true to the best of my knowledge. Relying to fans to frame that sort of thing is asking for trouble IMO. FitD and PbtA have as many prejudiced and intolerant one-true-wayist fans as any other corner of the hobby, sadly.
Click to expand...

Harper describes Blades as a PbtA game, last I knew. I certainly don’t think he sees them as oppositional.
 
Ladybird said:
Personally I prefer PbtA because while FitD solves a lot of problems, they're not ones I have (With either the heist concept or the underlying system goals). But it's design work is fabulous, and it does what it does very well, I'm just interested in other things.
Click to expand...
I wish this was a more common statement (about games in general, not FitD specifically).
 
Fenris-77 said:
FitD isn't any kind of attempt to 'fix' PbtA. It's just a rules set designed using the PbtA design principles, at least in part. It certainly isn't supposed to be a replacement, nor has John Harper (or anyone else) ever claimed that to be true to the best of my knowledge. Relying to fans to frame that sort of thing is asking for trouble IMO. FitD and PbtA have as many prejudiced and intolerant one-true-wayist fans as any other corner of the hobby, sadly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn't implying that FitD is meant to be a replacement or upgrade to PbtA, more that FitD is a deeply focussed system in and off itself but I'm happy with more generalised ones.
 
Actually, I think the thing I like more about FitD over PbtA is the part that is less focused.

In PbtA it's like ok, they are doing something, let me try to find the move that is related to that thing from the however many moves there are. Needing to remember a bunch of moves is a pain, and then every character has more moves that are unique to their playbook.

In FitD that same process is much more similar to a straight traditional rpg. "You are doing x, ok, that is y skill (ok, they are called "actions" in BitD but they are basically just skills)". FitD playbooks don't tend to have upgrades that are whole new moves, they tend to just alter/enhance things that everyone can do already.

I feel like in FitD I have less overall rules to remember.
 
I think the core mechanic in both games is equally simple. Where the complexity comes in is the moves and their results for PbtA, and the Downtime, Crew, and Faction elements for FitD.

Then, different games using these systems may tweak things even further, adding whole sub-systems or rules modules as needed. This seems more true of PbtA so far....more games have taken that core and then added more or gone further with the changes. But that's likely due to it being around longer.

I think which may feel simpler or lighter to folks is likely a matter of playing versus running, or maybe just in the kinds of rules that they tend to struggle with remembering. I know some GMs who have internalized all the moves and results for certain PbtA games, and so they don't think of it as rules heavy...but when they play Blades, they need to consult the Heat chart every single time, so they consider Blades heavier.

They're pretty comparable, all in all.
 
hawkeyefan said:
I think the core mechanic in both games is equally simple. Where the complexity comes in is the moves and their results for PbtA, and the Downtime, Crew, and Faction elements for FitD.
Click to expand...

I think the big thing to me is that most of that is in the "slower" parts of the game if you know what I mean. Having to look up some downtime rules to cover what a character does with the week or two between jobs doesn't seem that big of a deal.

It's also why the whole faction stuff in Legacy doesn't bother me that much, since it is all there to help simulate timeskip when things aren't happening bam bam bam like in the middle of a dungeon/heist/whatever.
 
hawkeyefan said:
I think the core mechanic in both games is equally simple. Where the complexity comes in is the moves and their results for PbtA, and the Downtime, Crew, and Faction elements for FitD.

Then, different games using these systems may tweak things even further, adding whole sub-systems or rules modules as needed. This seems more true of PbtA so far....more games have taken that core and then added more or gone further with the changes. But that's likely due to it being around longer.

I think which may feel simpler or lighter to folks is likely a matter of playing versus running, or maybe just in the kinds of rules that they tend to struggle with remembering. I know some GMs who have internalized all the moves and results for certain PbtA games, and so they don't think of it as rules heavy...but when they play Blades, they need to consult the Heat chart every single time, so they consider Blades heavier.

They're pretty comparable, all in all.
Click to expand...
Position and effect tend to be what people find heavy in Blades I think, but those come with practice like any rule.
 
EmperorNorton said:
I think the big thing to me is that most of that is in the "slower" parts of the game if you know what I mean. Having to look up some downtime rules to cover what a character does with the week or two between jobs doesn't seem that big of a deal.

It's also why the whole faction stuff in Legacy doesn't bother me that much, since it is all there to help simulate timeskip when things aren't happening bam bam bam like in the middle of a dungeon/heist/whatever.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. I have a cheat sheet I keep with all that shit on it because I know I'm not gonna commit it all to memory, no matter how familiar I am with it.

When I've played PbtA games (Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, mostly) I also keep a moves reference sheet handy.

Edited to add: Good to hear about Legacy, as I really do want to play that game at some point, and the sheer number of moves due to the familes and eras is what has me intimidated. My GMing of PbtA is fairly limited, in the grand scheme.
Black Leaf said:
Position and effect tend to be what people find heavy in Blades I think, but those come with practice like any rule.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's heavy, exactly, but I take your point and I don't mean to quibble; it certainly is an element that folks struggle with. If it's desperate, and I get a 1-3 it means X and if I get a 4-5 it means Y, and so on....that can take a while to get the knack, for sure.
 
Season Two of the Between just dropped on DriveThru, it contains my playbook, the Unquiet.

Season 2 of The Between expands the innovative game of gothic horror with a new playbook, a new Mastermind, and 4 new Threats. You must have a copy of The Between to use this material.

Details of what you'll find in Season 2:

The Unquiet A new hunter is joining Hargrave House: The Unquiet! This character is the ghost of a hunter who lived in Hargrave House many decades ago. They were betrayed by one of their contemporaries, and are now haunting Hargrave House until they can destroy the descendant of the one who betrayed them. They will help the current residents of Hargrave House until they are able to exact their revenge.

Admiral Flagg A new, terrifying enemy has appeared to challenge Hargrave House: Vice Admiral Flagg! Unlike Theodora Brathwaite, Admiral Flagg considers himself a loyal servant of the Queen. Unfortunately, that loyalty entails destroying the city of London itself, which Flagg considers to be a rot and stain on the British Empire. Admiral Flagg introduces elements of cosmic horror to your campaign of The Between.

The Spider Silk Seamstress The Spider Silk Seamstress is a new Threat by Gabriel Robinson. It introduces the world of the Fae to The Between. Sir Richard Harlowe, an ally of Hargrave House, has been found dead, hollowed out and wrapped in silk-like threads. Hargrave House learns that a Fae creature in the guise of an alluring fashion designer is behind the murder. Can they stop the Fae creature before she claims more victims among London's social elite?

The Demon of Kilburn Abbey The Demon of Kilburn Abbey is a new Threat by Petra Volkhausen. It introduces demonic terrors to The Between. The monks of Kilburn Abbey are being tormented by an unholy entity after recent renovation work: the corpse of a young girl was found walled up in the abbey, and whatever dark forces she summoned to her while trapped there is now loose in the world. Can Hargrave House banish the demon... or will they choose a darker path that sees them trying to control it for their own ends?

The St. Petersburg Mirror The St. Petersburg Mirror is a new Threat by David Morrison. Along with The Whateley Camera from Season 1, it's the second Threat that focuses on an object of power. A young civil servant is being blackmailed by shadowy forces that use a supposed medium, Madam Serafima, to gather information about their marks. Hargrave House wouldn't normally be interested in such a matter, if not for some details that indicate Madam Serafima might possess an actual object of power, the legendary St. Petersburg Mirror.

The West End Wraith The West End Wraith is a new Threat by David Morrison. It's inspired by The Phantom of the Operaand The Hunchback of Notre Dame. A popular musical venue in the West End is being "haunted" by the so-called West End Wraith. But is the Wraith really a wraith, and are their intentions actually foul, or are their actions a misguided attempt to protect someone who works at the venue? Hargrave House investigates to uncover the truth of the matter.
 
Hey folks, how is it going? Long time no see. :smile:

Passing by just to say I've stumbled with this neat videogame just yesterday called "Citizen Sleeper", a mix of life-simulation and visual novel, and I came to know it's powered by the apocalypse, which I found curious. Here is the trailer (headphones recommended to feel the vibes):





The funny thing is, while I was initially hooked by it's trans-humanist-capitalist premise, I kept noticing it's system was so similar to powered by the apocalypse, with all those moody stat names, d6 dice, countdown clocks, "stress" meters, XP rewarding character drives/milestones, successes at costs, failed rolls leading to bad outcomes instead of "nothing happens", etc. I kept thinking "damn, if this dev isn't a fan of powered by the apocalypse games it's a hell of a coincidence", until I found this twitter where he describes what inpired the game ideas for an Edge Magazine article and bingo! the developer admits Blades in the Dark was a direct inpiration while working on the game:





Interesting, huh?
 
I've been playing that... almost done with it. It might be inspired by it, but the system is a different enough I think with the fact that the dice are your actions and you assign them after to the different actions rather than the narrative indicating the action then rolling 2d6 for the result.
 
chuckdee said:
I've been playing that... almost done with it. It might be inspired by it, but the system is a different enough I think with the fact that the dice are your actions and you assign them after to the different actions rather than the narrative indicating the action then rolling 2d6 for the result.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think he tweaked the dice system a bit when porting it to other media and premise. He says something about that in the article above, in that what really captivated him was the use of Stress to fuel success in actions, and that it usually came with a cost "...and then something else happens", which kept the story flowing. I think he ended up focusing more on this part.

Curiously, he also says the story for the game actually came from his time unemployed, gig work and Uber drivers, and not from Blade Runner and cyberpunk fiction, which is interesting. Though it's possible he acknowledges those down the article, hard to say with only one page.

I've finished the game yesteday and found it adorable. Great writing, nice themes, superb atmosphere and NPCs, addicting gameplay. Only downside is that the sim- part gets easy too soon (I've failed only 3 drives among dozens). But it's a nice game regardless, specially as a one-person effort.
 
Oh by the way, if somebody knows some hack for PbtA (or FitD) for Citizen Sleeper, let me know. It's basically Blade Runner where you are the replicate running away from your Corp owners in some space station, while dealing with your body obsolescence and prejudice from normal people, etc.

Thanks in advance.
 
Lessa said:
Oh by the way, if somebody knows some hack for PbtA (or FitD) for Citizen Sleeper, let me know. It's basically Blade Runner where you are the replicate running away from your Corp owners in some space station, while dealing with your body obsolescence and prejudice from normal people, etc.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I think the system used in Citizen Sleeper would translate over well in all honesty. It's just not PbtA or FitD other than inspired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top