Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I think the issue is not even experience systems but how a lot of the most popular hacks are designed around exploring a (very) specific theme with a more or less expected flow of "setup > buildup > climax > fallout".

Take Apocalypse World for eg. If you follow the advice by the letter you start with a disfunctional group of PCs scraping by to survive through scarcity, external threats and each other needs/ambitions. Then they get more powerful, join up, wipe out the external threats and make their community prosper. At this point the initial premise starts to crumble and with it the whole mechanical apparatus designed to promote it. You can continue from there but you'll have to make some conscious effort for it to continue making sense. Monsterhearts is like that, as is Night Witches, Undying, Sagas of the Icelanders, etc. We played around 10 or 12 sessions of those and the stories reached a natural point of closure for us. Could we keep playing? Totally. Did we feel the need? Not much.

I agree some hacks break that mold, though. The Sprawl is a good example, as is Dungeon World, Spirit of '77 and Legacy. I don't know Masks, Monsters of the Week and City of Mist so I can't say.

I think your traditional setting-exploration RPG ends up being potentially more longeve because a setting naturally offers more avenues for exploration: in Shadowrun you can start as a local gang fighting for turf, then turn into a crew doing heists for Johnsons, then join up some megacorp providing security detail, etc. In D&D idem. etc.

Don't know if I made much sense. Still in a hurry here. hehe
 
I have ran a number of Dungeon World campaigns. Fun, light, it's a casual way to roleplay and game if you're short on time. Not without issues or shortcomings, but it's a good game to play on breaks from heavier RPGs.

I have ran one Sprawl campaign and I really enjoyed it. I wasn't able to finish it but the clocks system ramping up pressure was very fun to play with as a GM. My players got very into the world. Again, some holes I had to quite seriously patch up - there is a massive fault in this game's pseudo 'economy' in which the Players sometimes spent more 'money' doing the missions than they did from completion. I had to tweak this in some ways to help out, and threw a lot of side gigs to help compliment the crew's 'pockets'. Still, fun game! I like Shadowrun but I much prefer meat n matrix cyberpunk. Pixie fairy dust magic shite is not my cuppa tea when dealing with The Man.
 
I think the issue is not even experience systems but how a lot of the most popular hacks are designed around exploring a (very) specific theme with a more or less expected flow of "setup > buildup > climax > fallout".

Take Apocalypse World for eg. If you follow the advice by the letter you start with a disfunctional group of PCs scraping by to survive through scarcity, external threats and each other needs/ambitions. Then they get more powerful, join up, wipe out the external threats and make their community prosper. At this point the initial premise starts to crumble and with it the whole mechanical apparatus designed to promote it. You can continue from there but you'll have to make some conscious effort for it to continue making sense. Monsterhearts is like that, as is Night Witches, Undying, Sagas of the Icelanders, etc. We played around 10 or 12 sessions of those and the stories reached a natural point of closure for us. Could we keep playing? Totally. Did we feel the need? Not much.

I agree some hacks break that mold, though. The Sprawl is a good example, as is Dungeon World, Spirit of '77 and Legacy. I don't know Masks, Monsters of the Week and City of Mist so I can't say.

I think your traditional setting-exploration RPG ends up being potentially more longeve because a setting naturally offers more avenues for exploration: in Shadowrun you can start as a local gang fighting for turf, then turn into a crew doing heists for Johnsons, then join up some megacorp providing security detail, etc. In D&D idem. etc.

Don't know if I made much sense. Still in a hurry here. hehe
Makes total sense to me, and I agree:smile:.
 
I have ran one Sprawl campaign and I really enjoyed it. I wasn't able to finish it but the clocks system ramping up pressure was very fun to play with as a GM. My players got very into the world.
You know what I love in the Sprawl? How it makes Intel and Gear into a currency, and makes it this tangible, important thing instead of just some loose info of dubious utility. Some playbooks even capitalize on that, like the Hacker which is an intel MACHINE if used right.

It's use of countdown clocks is also very good.
 
You know what I love in the Sprawl? How it makes Intel and Gear into a currency, and makes it this tangible, important thing instead of just some loose info of dubious utility. Some playbooks even capitalize on that, like the Hacker which is an intel MACHINE if used right.
Agreed - it took that notion of 'adventuring gear' a la Dungeon World and really let the Players run wild with it. I have some great moments where I would present a challenge, and thanks to their excessive, paranoid stakeouts they had intel and gear to spend - leading to cool explanations of 'well the Intel I found was that this guard's wife is having an affair with his buddy' so the Face just casually drops some hint about it. Very rewarding for the players, allows them to have neat little touches to add to the story, and make for some unpredictable moments as the GM.
 
Yeah, but dont forget they risk raising the clock in the legwork phase if they get too ambitious. This limits them hoarding Intel and Gear, right?
 
Yeah, but dont forget they risk raising the clock in the legwork phase if they get too ambitious. This limits them hoarding Intel and Gear, right?
Of course! Those exact time where they went overboard on prepping? The clock got waaaay too close to midnight during the actual heist and they typically had to fight their way out through a myriad of gunfire and close-calls.

From a GM standpoint, it was devilishly fun creating the challenges. You setup the locked doors, the passcodes, the hacking etc etc. You also create the back up, the response from police/harder corp sec, and what might happen if the secret research lab needs to purge. If the players lean too hard in Prep (grabbing INTEL & GEAR) then that likely means they will end up getting their clocks too high before the mission even begins. Don't prep enough? Welp, gonna have to get creative to get onto the floor we need to be on cos we didn't have any ID cards, and nor did we anticipate there being custodial staff working tonight (etc). Either way, the game balances challenge based on the Players' actions, guaranteeing a fun mission.
 
Anyone picked up the new Monster of the Week book? I was wondering if it was worth grabbing.
 
Didn’t know there was one! What are the details?
 
From its blurb:

In the Monster of the Week roleplaying game, hunters must solve all manner of mysteries before they can save the day. The Tome of Mysteries expands their options—and magnifies their peril-—with a wide variety of GMing advice, essays, rules, and mysteries from the Monster of the Week “Roadhouse Regulars” online community.

Tome of Mysteries requires Monster of the Week to play. In this supplement, you’ll find:
  • Eight new alternative Weird Moves that go beyond Use Magic.
  • Four new Hunter playbooks: The Gumshoe, the Hex, the Searcher, and the Pararomantic.
  • Support for weird phenomena type Mysteries like those found in Fringe or The X-Files.
  • Tips and techniques used by experienced Keepers.
  • 29 fully detailed mysteries ready to drop into your game.
 
So far, as a GM, I haven't seen anything that would make me run a PbtA game over the systems I currently have.

However I am impressed by the growing range of PbtA games out there, its almost like the Savage Worlds explosion a few years ago.

I would love to be a player in any of these games - Dungeon World, Blades In The Dark, City of Mist, Monster of the Week etc

I might also check out Monster of the Week to see if there is anything I can mine for my own games.

It's interesting to watch PbtA emerge, its definately one to keep an eye on.
 
I think the issue is not even experience systems but how a lot of the most popular hacks are designed around exploring a (very) specific theme with a more or less expected flow of "setup > buildup > climax > fallout".

Take Apocalypse World for eg. If you follow the advice by the letter you start with a disfunctional group of PCs scraping by to survive through scarcity, external threats and each other needs/ambitions. Then they get more powerful, join up, wipe out the external threats and make their community prosper. At this point the initial premise starts to crumble and with it the whole mechanical apparatus designed to promote it. You can continue from there but you'll have to make some conscious effort for it to continue making sense. Monsterhearts is like that, as is Night Witches, Undying, Sagas of the Icelanders, etc. We played around 10 or 12 sessions of those and the stories reached a natural point of closure for us. Could we keep playing? Totally. Did we feel the need? Not much.

I agree some hacks break that mold, though. The Sprawl is a good example, as is Dungeon World, Spirit of '77 and Legacy. I don't know Masks, Monsters of the Week and City of Mist so I can't say.

I think your traditional setting-exploration RPG ends up being potentially more longeve because a setting naturally offers more avenues for exploration: in Shadowrun you can start as a local gang fighting for turf, then turn into a crew doing heists for Johnsons, then join up some megacorp providing security detail, etc. In D&D idem. etc.

Don't know if I made much sense. Still in a hurry here. hehe

Well, when you're not playing to live/experience/emulate a pretend life, but to tell a story, then of course, the story ends, right? All highly narrative games have limited campaigns, that's kind of baked into the premise.
 
I was excited about a samurai PbtA on kickstarter, Thousand Arrows from Galileo Games, but they are few months late without many updates and the backers are getting nervous. Seems like there was a pirate one, too.

10268
 
I was excited about a samurai PbtA on kickstarter, Thousand Arrows from Galileo Games, but they are few months late without many updates and the backers are getting nervous. Seems like there was a pirate one, too.

Yeah I backed this one and I straight-up asked the creators if this was doomed. I don't like it when there are changes in staff, after already existing delays. Especially when some of the contributors are working on more than 1 Kickstarter at a time.

Despite their messaging, I fully expect this one to crash and burn. Perhaps a PDF draft in a few months. :sad:

EDIT: Either I misread before backing, or they simply weren't clear, but if I had known that they hadn't finished writing this product before the campaign, I wouldn't have backed. I don't usually do that any longer!
 
It might turn out fine: the project creator has given assurances, but my instincts, based on many kickstarter fundings, tells me to lower my expectations.
 
Yeah I backed this one and I straight-up asked the creators if this was doomed. I don't like it when there are changes in staff, after already existing delays. Especially when some of the contributors are working on more than 1 Kickstarter at a time.

Despite their messaging, I fully expect this one to crash and burn. Perhaps a PDF draft in a few months. :sad:

EDIT: Either I misread before backing, or they simply weren't clear, but if I had known that they hadn't finished writing this product before the campaign, I wouldn't have backed. I don't usually do that any longer!

Yeah there is a good practice in the PbtA community to playtest the hell out of their games but I don't think you should launch a KS with a Beta version of your game that isn't written and ready to go. And the tendency to tie the stretch goals to other designers additions seems to be just adding more unpreditable variables to the project.
 
(Bringing this here, seems more fitting)

Luca said:
My experience comes from a couple sessions with Dungeon World and I really disliked the overall effect of "you suck unless you keep rolling 10+ on a 2d6"... IMO, the idea that the most frequent result ends in a "success with complication" constitues an inherent problem because it invariably leads to having to constantly come up with complications AND to PC's actions which do not end up how the player really wanted. The probability structure is badly calibrated.
I wonder if the problem Luca points to is particular to Dungeon World? I don't have much experience with it - so take this with a big grain of salt - but maybe the fact most of it's moves are situational modifiers means PCs feel like constantly wallowing in the mud? While in other PbtAs moves tend to be more powerful and fiction-shaking?

Look at the Fighter from Dungeon World (I've highlighted the fiction-shaking stuff)...

2.png

Now look at the Battlebabe from Apocalypse World (again, highlighting fiction-shaking stuff)...

3.png

Both Battlebabe moves feel MUCH more powerful than the Fighter one. For starters, BB's moves allow her to paralyze or kill NPCs instantly while the Fighter allows him to break stuff, which is fine I guess? But not as powerful. Second, the 7-9 complications on the BB don't even feel like complications but just weaker versions of the effects, while the Fighter's 7-9 options are real complications - take a long time, make lots of noise or break something important (his own back probably haha). And this pattern repeats for all playbooks.

TL;DR: Perhaps in emulating a more gritty, "simulationistic" environment in D&D dungeon crawls, Dungeon World moves ended up being equally grounded and down to earth. In which case the complications in 7-9 range may feel more onerous and grating? While in other PbtAs PCs will be shaking the fiction right out of the gate with powerful moves. Now, I see the Fighter playbook does have fiction-shaking moves at high levels - from level 6 onward it has exact analogues to those Battlebabe moves, called Evil Eye (the paralyzing one) and Through Death's Eyes (the killing one) respectivelly - but then I don't know if most campaigns actually reach that point. Probably not? (mine definitely didn't) and then players stay limited to moves that just give +1 to this, +1d6 damage to that, more reach to that weapon, etc.

Makes sense?
 
Last edited:
I felt the "invariably leads to having to constantly come up with complications" in running Worlds of Peril (supers game). Every time in combat, but it was especially a game changer when the team of more than capable heroes all rolled critical failure after critical failure. The game was set in the 1930s, and what started a confrontation of a villain on a wharf ended up being an ambush from his allies, a super villain team from Nazi Germany, and ultimately with all the heroes captured and in a tanker bound for Third Reich. Luckily, it didn't have to all come solely from the spur of the moment or off the top of my head because I already had the Nazi super villain team ready to go, and I wanted the game to go in that direction eventually, but their critical failures sped it up.

The next time we played it was success after success and they were able to escape (the ship did not survive), but one character, a shapeshifter, was temporarily stuck in the form of a water bear due to a critical failure. In a supers game, it all seems to make sense.
10865
 
Last edited:
IME this feeling comes about due to GMs not varying the GM moves between soft and hard and treating any GM move as being a failure, combined with players who see “Yes but” results as not successes.

The 7-9 results in DW may be a contributing factor but I would guess if you sorted out the other two, it wouldn’t be an issue.

IME it is best for the GM to start your looking at varying their moves to reach the dramatic rhythm that best suits the group, much like a GM would do in any traditional RPG.
 
(Bringing this here, seems more fitting)


I wonder if the problem Luca points to is particular to Dungeon World? I don't have much experience with it - so take this with a big grain of salt - but maybe the fact most of it's moves are situational modifiers means PCs feel like constantly wallowing in the mud? While in other PbtAs moves tend to be more powerful and fiction-shaking?

Look at the Fighter from Dungeon World (I've highlighted the fiction-shaking stuff)...

2.png

Now look at the Battlebabe from Apocalypse World (again, highlighting fiction-shaking stuff)...

3.png

Both Battlebabe moves feel MUCH more powerful than the Fighter one. For starters, BB's moves allow her to paralyze or kill NPCs instantly while the Fighter allows him to break stuff, which is fine I guess? But not as powerful. Second, the 7-9 complications on the BB don't even feel like complications but just weaker versions of the effects, while the Fighter's 7-9 options are real complications - take a long time, make lots of noise or break something important (his own back probably haha). And this pattern repeats for all playbooks.

TL;DR: Perhaps in emulating a more gritty, "simulationistic" environment in D&D dungeon crawls, Dungeon World moves ended up being equally grounded and down to earth. In which case the complications in 7-9 range may feel more onerous and grating? While in other PbtAs PCs will be shaking the fiction right out of the gate with powerful moves. Now, I see the Fighter playbook does have fiction-shaking moves at high levels - from level 6 onward it has exact analogues to those Battlebabe moves, called Evil Eye (the paralyzing one) and Through Death's Eyes (the killing one) respectivelly - but then I don't know if most campaigns actually reach that point. Probably not? (mine definitely didn't) and then players stay limited to moves that just give +1 to this, +1d6 damage to that, more reach to that weapon, etc.

Makes sense?

Yeah I'm just not a fan of DW, I prefer the very stripped down World of Dungeons by John Harper or Freebooters on the Frontiers by Jason Lutes to the original game which feels unwieldy for PbtA.

But my tastes do run to more minimalist systems.
 
varying their moves to reach the dramatic rhythm that best suits the group, much like a GM would do in any traditional RPG.

Much like GM’s who are into narrative roleplaying would do in a traditional RPG, sure.

For others, any rhythm, dramatic or otherwise, is based mainly on character’s actions, and the verisimilitude of the world in response.

At some point narrative roleplayers are going to have to wake up to the fact that what you do? Yeah, it ain’t what we do.
 
Nice trollada, dude.

Feeling better now? Ready for another day work? :shade:
Engaging in roleplaying as a form of storytelling (which is what narrative roleplaying is), is different from not doing so.
Traditional roleplayers get fairly called out when they get all groggy and start with the not “Real Roleplaying” but narrative peeps get a pass for acting like their approach is simply the truth of what occurs for everyone and not simply one approach out of many.
 
Engaging in roleplaying as a form of storytelling (which is what narrative roleplaying is), is different from not doing so.
Traditional roleplayers get fairly called out when they get all groggy and start with the not “Real Roleplaying” but narrative peeps get a pass for acting like their approach is simply the truth of what occurs for everyone and not simply one approach out of many.
The "not real roleplaying" approach is accusatory and unpleasant while the "narrative roleplaying is just what happens at the table" is inclusive and pleasant. You're not getting called out for disliking narrative roleplaying, you're getting called out for being a dick about it.
 
The "not real roleplaying" approach is accusatory and unpleasant while the "narrative roleplaying is just what happens at the table" is inclusive and pleasant. You're not getting called out for disliking narrative roleplaying, you're getting called out for being a dick about it.
Edit: I got my threads mixed up. My response was to a different thread. For this response, see below.
 
Last edited:
Whenever I got stumped providing a complication for 7-9, I always kept a mental list ready:

- something catches fire
- the floor caves in and everyone falls down to another level
- the alarm goes off

Usually saves me in a pinch.
 
I’m getting called out for everything but what I’m actually saying.
“Difficult, adverse, even disastrous consequences are not a penalty for the Narrative Roleplayer. In fact, such strongly dramatic turns, and the possibilities for storytelling they unlock are one of the reasons they play in Narrative Roleplaying Games. In life, there may be things Worse Than Death, but not for a Narrative Roleplayer. The worst thing to happen to a character’s story is for it to end.”

Care to address that topic without assuming accusations of inferiority?
There is truth to the idea that there is fun to be found in facing setbacks in a narrative games. It's also true that there fun to be found in character death in traditional games. However, in both cases its likely the player ultimately wants to succeed. The failures make victories more satisfying.

You seem to be latching onto the idea that narrative gamers love to lose, but narrative games like HeroQuest, with its Pass-Fail Cycle really push the idea that players like a mix of success and failure.

It's an odd assertion that a story ending is the worst thing that can happen with narrative gaming. Narrative games are more likely to have an inherent structure that will bring about a definitive ending.
 
Care to address that topic without assuming accusations of inferiority?
I just have to underline this. You have this habit of coming into threads about game you don't like and making posts dripping with contempt for them. Then when you get any pushback at all, it's the other people making accusations of inferiority.

Not every thread about a narrative game needs to be about your personal hangups with them. Everyone knows what you think about narrative games already.
 
Whenever I got stumped providing a complication for 7-9, I always kept a mental list ready:

- something catches fire
- the floor caves in and everyone falls down to another level
- the alarm goes off

Usually saves me in a pinch.

That's similar to something I do for Scum & Villainy (which is FitD not PbtA, but close cousin). When planning a heist, the GM determines the work and a complication, and the players decide an approach. So for each (work, complication, approach) I jot down three ideas about things that can go wrong to refer to during the game. I call it my "trouble menu".
 
Whenever I got stumped providing a complication for 7-9, I always kept a mental list ready:

- something catches fire
- the floor caves in and everyone falls down to another level
- the alarm goes off

Usually saves me in a pinch.
Reminds me of the way locations were written up in Feng Shui adventures. They were mainly bullet-point list of all the things that could be used to hurt people in the location and possible stunts that characters could pull.
 
There is truth to the idea that there is fun to be found in facing setbacks in a narrative games. It's also true that there fun to be found in character death in traditional games. However, in both cases its likely the player ultimately wants to succeed. The failures make victories more satisfying.

You seem to be latching onto the idea that narrative gamers love to lose, but narrative games like HeroQuest, with its Pass-Fail Cycle really push the idea that players like a mix of success and failure.

It's an odd assertion that a story ending is the worst thing that can happen with narrative gaming. Narrative games are more likely to have an inherent structure that will bring about a definitive ending.
Let’s discuss this in the other thread where it belongs, my bad for crossing the streams.
 
I just have to underline this. You have this habit of coming into threads about game you don't like and making posts dripping with contempt for them. Then when you get any pushback at all, it's the other people making accusations of inferiority.

Not every thread about a narrative game needs to be about your personal hangups with them. Everyone knows what you think about narrative games already.
Eh, the “dripping with contempt” is more to do with thin skin than anything else. For someone dripping with contempt of PbtA, I’ve sure heaped a whole lot of Kudos on Baker for his design.

As for my appearance, it’s the fallacy of “just like what you do in traditional games” that I’m pointing out is incorrect.

Narrative peeps are quick to throw the accusations of BadWrongFun and OneTrueWay, but they’re also the ones that more often than not, phrase things as if traditional players approach things the same. God forbid you happen to mention that in reality, not everyone does that.

Not every post I make has to be about your hangups with me either, but that hasn’t stopped you, either, has it?

You disagree with something, or think someone’s incorrect, you post, like I did.
 
Much like GM’s who are into narrative roleplaying would do in a traditional RPG, sure.
Yeah, exactly. People can and do run traditional RPGs in the same fashion as narrative RPGs are meant to be run, and I actually remember encountering that since before I heard of the Forge.
So what is it about PbtA that gets you so much? I'm still wondering, especially since you can turn that back and run PbtA like a traditional game:tongue:!

For others, any rhythm, dramatic or otherwise, is based mainly on character’s actions, and the verisimilitude of the world in response.
Well, duh, of course it is.

At some point narrative roleplayers are going to have to wake up to the fact that what you do? Yeah, it ain’t what we do.
No two GMs do the exact same thing anyway, so rest assured, anyone* who denies two different styles of GMing work differently**, is just wrong:grin:!

*Except me. Obviously I'd have considered that already:evil:!
**But might result in pretty close games, amusingly. I don't know how or why, but that's what my observations are telling me.
 
I used the ideology of "fail forward" in Labyrinth Lord and the world didn't implode.

I suppose you could totally do a shared narrative session of an old school dungeon crawl if everyone is on the same page about the genre's expectations. Like, if everyone EXPECTS high lethality and arbitrary death, you could have a real blast. Theoretically, anyway.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top