Teh hat of PbtA knows no limit

[Ladybird]

Oh yeah, completely forgot about this. Combined with the whole resolution system, we quickly figured out that the best thing to do was for the one guy who is best at combat to just go over and over again while the rest of us sat there doing nothing.

Seriously, did none of you stop to think "this seems rubbish, clearly we can't be doing it right"?

In fairness though, Dungeon World does have a very bad description of how combat is meant to work, which is a huge, glaring, omission for a D&D-like game. It definitely needs an example combat or two spelled out, not just in the examples of move usage.

Jargon: Yeah, fully agree on this one. You've got crap like rolling "Meat" to see if you're injured, rolling "Wreck" to break down a door. Just seems like they're trying way too hard to be cool. Oh yeah, "Cool" was a stat as well in one of the games I played. And it's not really fair to compare it to D&D, which came up with its jargon because it was inventing the hobby. We've had 40 years of using its jargon, so quit trying to reinvent it unnecessarily. Also, most of its jargon was taken from wargames anyway. You didn't see Gary renaming the stuff they already had just to make it cool or whatever.

* World games aren't the first games to come up with their own names for things, and they won't be the last. Every system has stats for the things it considers most important to measure about characters.

Failing Forward:

With most actions resulting in new complications, it felt like we never got a satisfying resolution to anything. At the table one of our players literally shouted "We're creating all our own problems!" at one point. This sensation is furthered by the fact that the players roll all the dice. Ultimately we decided the best choice was not to do anything, so we stopped playing.

As the games say, "be a fan of the characters", so that means wanting to see them in situations and find out what happens next. They tend to be explicit about suggesting things that might happen in their genre, rather than relying on the GM's imagination only, but this is nothing that other games don't also do or assume the GM is doing.

Moves:

As a GM, this just feels like either training wheels or handcuffs. I first starting GMing 20 years ago, I don't need Adam Koebel to tell me what to do. As a player, I felt like I was having to try to fit everything I wanted to do into the playbook. I've never seen a table of players more focused on their character sheets instead of role playing their characters.

All GMing advice is good advice, just maybe not for every table; as I mentioned earlier, PbtA games try to provide GM's with tools and advice to prevent sessions falling below a certain minimum level of fun for the table, but if you're already doing these things then you might not need the advice. Given how regularly we hear stories of bad sessions and campaigns, clearly some people do need advice.

If you're looking at your character sheets, then you're doing something wrong - you don't try to trigger moves, you do something and then go with the move if those are the rules you need.

The Insane Fandom:

PbtA fans are weirdly defensive. You can take all the shots you want at my favorite games (DCC, Call of Cthulhu, AS&SH - to get you started) and I don't care at all. But PbtA fans are largely obsessed with the celebrity of its designers and blind to its problems, even if those problems are framed as being entirely problems for a specific group of players.

Again, that's kinda the same as most game systems; every system has it's rabid fans.

You're also making a pretty huge, sweeping generalisation there.

Also, even though they love PbtA, if you say you're not interested in Blades in the Dark cause you've played and didn't like PbtA games, they'll swear on their mother's grave that Blades is totally not a PbtA game.

Blades is PbtA enough to be recognisably so (The core mechanic, the agenda, the playbooks, the player-focus), but different enough (The details of the mechanic, the structure of play) that it might fix problems your group has, maybe. Or maybe not. Honestly, in your case, I don't think it would, so don't buy it.

PbtA games don't sound like they are for you and your group, and that's fine, so... don't play them, I guess.

 

[EmperorNorton]

On the topic of insane fandom, is there ANY game that doesn't have somewhat crazy fans? Like, we all know how D&D edition wars are. And the OSR certainly has its "WHAT YOU ARE PLAYING ISN'T EVEN A ROLEPLAYING GAME" crazies. WoD was basically the Sega "Nintendon't" of the RPG world back in the day. FATE fans will insist it is the perfect game for like... everything. Etc. etc.

Honestly, I find that the fandom of most things I like are absolute garbage (Oh Star Wars), so I guess I just don't get that complaint.

 

[Baulderstone]

I mean, nerds online are arguing the whole concept of if water is actually wet.

Well, are you using it as an adjective? That would be defined as "covered or saturated with water." You can't cover water with water, as it will just blend in. Water can't really absorb water either. It just mixes in, so it can't really be saturated.

I'm going with no. Water isn't wet.

 

[Baulderstone]

On the topic of insane fandom, is there ANY game that doesn't have somewhat crazy fans? Like, we all know how D&D edition wars are. And the OSR certainly has its "WHAT YOU ARE PLAYING ISN'T EVEN A ROLEPLAYING GAME" crazies. WoD was basically the Sega "Nintendon't" of the RPG world back in the day. FATE fans will insist it is the perfect game for like... everything. Etc. etc.

Honestly, I find that the fandom of most things I like are absolute garbage (Oh Star Wars), so I guess I just don't get that complaint.

The fans of My Favorite Game™ are entirely rational in their effervescent exuberance. The fans of Your Favorite Game™ are a bunch of rabid fanboys that aren't even real gamers.

 

[CRKrueger]

The fans of My Favorite Game™ are entirely rational in their effervescent exuberance. The fans of Your Favorite Game™ are a bunch of rabid fanboys that aren't even real gamers.

Eh, it's easy to tell the fanboys from the fans no matter what side they're on. The fanboys will argue against any and every perceived criticism.

 

[Dumarest]

Well, are you using it as an adjective? That would be defined as "covered or saturated with water." You can't cover water with water, as it will just blend in. Water can't really absorb water either. It just mixes in, so it can't really be saturated.

I'm going with no. Water isn't wet.

Let the nerd rage wars begin!

Definition of wet
wetter; wettest
1 a : consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)

b of natural gas : containing appreciable quantities of readily condensable hydrocarbons

 

[Simlasa]

Let the nerd rage wars begin!

We had the 'is water wet?' discussion a few weeks ago at school. No one budged from their initial stance,
We followed it up with 'is fire hot?'

 

[Ladybird]

Define "hot".

Fire tends to be hotter than "room temperature", yeah, but on the absolute temperature scale, it's far closer to 0 K than the current theorised "absolute hot" (1.4x10^32 K, beyond which physics stops working).

The highest temperature humans have managed to create is a positively baltic 5.5x10^12 K, so wrap up warm, readers.

 

[K_Peterson]

PbtA games don't sound like they are for you and your group, and that's fine, so... don't play them, I guess.

Isn't the whole point of this thread to air your grievances about PbtA? And isn't it obviously likely that PbtA games won't be a good fit for many of the posters airing their grievances? Should it be surprising that people will express their rational - and irrational - opinions of PbtA Rpgs?

Maybe I'm the only one who finds it annoying that posters are expressing their opinions and staying on topic, and fans of PbtA are cross-examining their opinions and telling them that they're doing things wrong. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Tell us why you hate PbtA, and we'll help you see the error of your ways".

 

[EmperorNorton]

The whole point of discussion boards is to have discussions. The interchange of ideas is where the strength of discussions are.

If you don't want your opinions to be examined and questioned, if you just want a place to complain in peace, get a journal.

 

[K_Peterson]

If you don't want your opinions to be examined and questioned, if you just want a place to complain in peace, get a journal.

Or perhaps don't post in threads that explicitly ask for grievances. It's a trap!

I don't have any problem with cross-examined and questioned opinions in other threads. I expect it and hope for it.

 

[The Butcher]

Isn't the whole point of this thread to air your grievances about PbtA? And isn't it obviously likely that PbtA games won't be a good fit for many of the posters airing their grievances? Should it be surprising that people will express their rational - and irrational - opinions of PbtA Rpgs?

Maybe I'm the only one who finds it annoying that posters are expressing their opinions and staying on topic, and fans of PbtA are cross-examining their opinions and telling them that they're doing things wrong. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Tell us why you hate PbtA, and we'll help you see the error of your ways".

I did come up with the thread hoping people would state why exactly PbtA doesn't work for them — and then we could have a nice, thoughtful chat about it.

Sorry if the OP gave you the wrong impression. But speaking strictly for myself, the opportunity to have my opinions and conceits "cross-examined", as it were, is one of the reasons I still prefer old fashioned forums to blogs or most social media.

 

[K_Peterson]

Oh, I'm fine. I was being deliberately ridiculous with the trap comment.

What I think would be interesting would be to see criticisms and grievances expressed by fans of PbtA. (And there certainly have been some with Dungeon World). Because I think it really provides an in-depth perspective of the perceived flaws from those closest to the source.

But, in the last page or so, I think it's a case of grievance-expressed followed by defensive postures assumed, which IMO rarely leads to thoughtful discussion.

 

[Muchacho]

Oh, I'm fine. I was being deliberately ridiculous with the trap comment.

What I think would be interesting would be to see criticisms and grievances expressed by fans of PbtA. (And there certainly have been some with Dungeon World). Because I think it really provides an in-depth perspective of the perceived flaws from those closest to the source.

Nice idea. I go first:

1- I'm not a big fan of the "highlight stat" for advancement in Apocalypse World. I can see the kind of party dynamics it promotes, but I don't think it fits all that well with the game. I'd rather have the XP for failing rolls from Dungeon World or something else more ... grounded? I think stats highlighting would fit better in, say, Monsterhearts or World Wide Wrestling or other lighter themes.

2- The Driver playbook in AW. All his moves and color work only from inside his car, meaning every time he steps out of it he turns into a Mook.

3- Hacks that show little understanding of the engine and end up doing things that go counter it's strengths or essential traits. Dungeon World is an example. I've heard Tremulus is another. The fan-made Sixth World make me cringe.

4- The fact Its ill-fitted for long campaigns? I could be totally mistaken here, but it seems the engine has this inherent quality of making campaigns burn brighter from the get go and then exhausting faster. I've never seen a campaign reach 10 sessions with my group. Though this may be my particular experience.

 

[Ladybird]

Oh, I'm fine. I was being deliberately ridiculous with the trap comment.

What I think would be interesting would be to see criticisms and grievances expressed by fans of PbtA. (And there certainly have been some with Dungeon World). Because I think it really provides an in-depth perspective of the perceived flaws from those closest to the source.

But, in the last page or so, I think it's a case of grievance-expressed followed by defensive postures assumed, which IMO rarely leads to thoughtful discussion.

I thought we were here for people to raise discussion points, and then discuss them. The notion of, for example, a group of experienced players thinking "yes, this game clearly intends for everyone but the best combatant to sit to one side during fights" just seems utterly nonsensical to me, regardless of the system (And to clarify, I believe that this is an event that occurred, I just don't understand how, even if I can see why), and I'd like to understand how that came about.

If we want to do things the other way...

1. Sex moves. There's an attempt to name every other thing in the system as clearly as possible, but sex moves aren't that, at all. They're how a character reacts to intimacy; everything in Apocalypse World is about how there isn't enough to go around, and these should reflect how a character acts when that isn't the case for once. "Intimacy moves" is crap naming, but better.
2. Examples of combat. The games assume that combat works in the same way as every other situation where too forces are opposed, and so never drops into combat time like other systems, but that clearly doesn't work for some groups. Needs explanation, lots of, and some examples.
3. When I'm GMing, I like to roll dice sometimes, and PbtA systems take that away. I can see the reason for it, I just miss doing it.
4. The stress economy in Blades is probably too punishing.

As for the inevitable accusation of me being a PbtA fancoccinellidae, no so much, actually. I like the systems, and think the design is really interesting for how it cuts to the basics of what happens at the table, but I wouldn't describe them as even vaguely near perfect or the best thing ever.

 

[Caesar Slaad]

What I think would be interesting would be to see criticisms and grievances expressed by fans of PbtA.

I'll go!

While repeating the disclaimer that I was never really a fan of AW or DW, but some later games.

1) While I can see the upside of dispensing with traditional initiative, I can definitely see the downside. It makes player meekness and inspiration a mechanical drawback or benefit. For attentive GMs (or MCs, though I hate that term), it becomes a burden on them to make sure spotlight time is shared. When things become a burden on the GM, my instinct is to systemetize it.
2) Similarly, though I can see the upside of offloading the scope of character abilities to the "fiction", I can also see the downside there. These games rely on the GM to determine when a roll or move is warranted, and if the fiction is a determiner, basically the part of the fiction that becomes a poorly-defined set of driving attributes. In Masks (the PbtA game I actually run), what your powers/abilities do is largely a GM/player determination. But to be consistent, the the back of my head, I have power ratings (on a similar 1-10 scale as ICONS) that I keep in the back of my head as a rule-of-thumb.

So while I have been running Masks for a while, I am running Mutants & Masterminds again, and relishing in some of the tighter design aspects of the game. However, I brought back some of the stylish flourishes I got used to using in Masks, like mixed successes and pushing the heroes' dramatic buttons.

 

[Muchacho]

For attentive GMs (or MCs, though I hate that term),

I actually like the term and find it fits really nice the radical player-centered stuff the game promotes. Like the MC is the host of a TV show assuring the attractions/singers/rappers shine on stage. "Gamemaster" sounds like a bad fitting for that.

 

[TheophilusCarter]

Isn't the whole point of this thread to air your grievances about PbtA? And isn't it obviously likely that PbtA games won't be a good fit for many of the posters airing their grievances? Should it be surprising that people will express their rational - and irrational - opinions of PbtA Rpgs?

Maybe I'm the only one who finds it annoying that posters are expressing their opinions and staying on topic, and fans of PbtA are cross-examining their opinions and telling them that they're doing things wrong. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Tell us why you hate PbtA, and we'll help you see the error of your ways".

These sort of threads are weird in general. On the one hand, if someone is simply expressing their likes and dislikes about a system, I hope I would never try to tell them that they are "wrong." On the other hand, sometimes people will say "I don't like game X because it does Y," where Y is simply false of the game. As a silly example, if someone said "I hate D&D 5e because I love rolling the d20, and 5e doesn't ever use the d20," I'd feel honor-bound to say something about that ... There may be some of that going on in this thread - I don't know PbtA games well enough to say - and I think that's where we're getting some wires crossed.

 

[soltakss]

Come one, come all, and air your grievances about Apocalypse World and the Powered By The Apocalypse (PbtA) engine that launched a thousand games.

Did you play it, or just read it?

If you played, what didn't work?

I have only played it at conventions, but thoroughly enjoyed the games I played.

For me, the options are very limited. I can see why that is the case, but having experienced HeroQuest, I would like far more options.

But, the system worked for one-shots in quite different genres.

 

[soltakss]

I mean, nerds online are arguing the whole concept of if water is actually wet.

In Russian, "Mokri Doshd" means "Wet Rain" and describes the light to medium rain that seems to soak you right through, rather than a downpour or light rain. So, if they have Wet rain, does that mean that other types of rain (water) aren't wet?

 

[soltakss]

We followed it up with 'is fire hot?'

According to a very quick Google search, the answer seems to be "Not Always".

• https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience...ature_a_flame_can_be/?st=jj1isch1&sh=e5432adc
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_flame

 

[CRKrueger]

This kind of illustrates what I found bizarre about the conceits of the -world systems in general. My first impression, and one that continues to be reinforced over the years, was that the system is basically "training wheels" for roleplayers. When you say the mechanics put the focus on the player's actions I just scratch my head wondering what possible problem this is solving? Of course the PC's actions are the focus of a game - how could they not be, except in the most broken of railroads/inept GMing? Why are mechanics necessary for what is the default of any roleplaying situation? Just seems bizarre to me.

Well, there's a reason traditional roleplayers frequently see the whole "training wheels" thing...you're not the actual audience.

Vince Baker was not writing Apocalypse World for the traditional setting-based, long-term campaign crowd.
He was writing Apocalypse World for the storygaming/Forge crowd, the "genre/theme/addressing premise/Story Now" folks.
Look at some of the earliest interviews with him before xworld became the new hotness. To paraphrase, he had found the Storygames were disappearing up their own ass in meta-mechanics of setting stakes, raising, conflict resolution, etc. These mechanics were so omni-present and, again to paraphrase "dissociated", that people were getting further and further away from the story they were supposed to be creating.

So the whole point of Apocalypse World was to eliminate the over-arching meta, and get back to the story. Of course, the most unobtrusive way to have a storytelling game without a ton of meta-mechanics about who tells the story is to actually just have a roleplaying game where the players are also storytelling and making various levels of OOC decisions.

If you think of Apocalypse world as less of a Narrative Roleplaying game and more of a Roleplay Storytelling game, then all the little niggling things that bother you suddenly make a lot more sense. Take the horseshoe and bend it into a ring.

 

[CRKrueger]

Anytime you judge a designer, I think you should do so on how well they executed their intent, not whether you like the product. For at least two of Baker's games, Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World, he downright nailed it.

 

[Simlasa]

Anytime you judge a designer, I think you should do so on how well they executed their intent, not whether you like the product.

That was Roger Ebert's famous outlook on critiquing movies as well... judging it against what it was trying to be, rather than comparing everything to your ideal of 'The Best Film EVER!'.

 

[Voros]

That is a truism of critical writing and a good one that many people seem to forget or ignore.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Honestly it fits also into what I consider the most damning criticism of any piece of work: Not knowing what it wants to be.

You can have a dumb idea but if you execute that dumb idea well it can still be good. But its hard to execute anything well if you don't even know what you are trying to make first.

 

[Muchacho]

Well, there's a reason traditional roleplayers frequently see the whole "training wheels" thing...you're not the actual audience.

Vince Baker was not writing Apocalypse World for the traditional setting-based, long-term campaign crowd.
He was writing Apocalypse World for the storygaming/Forge crowd, the "genre/theme/addressing premise/Story Now" folks.
Look at some of the earliest interviews with him before xworld became the new hotness. To paraphrase, he had found the Storygames were disappearing up their own ass in meta-mechanics of setting stakes, raising, conflict resolution, etc. These mechanics were so omni-present and, again to paraphrase "dissociated", that people were getting further and further away from the story they were supposed to be creating.

I follow you so far...

So the whole point of Apocalypse World was to eliminate the over-arching meta, and get back to the story. Of course, the most unobtrusive way to have a storytelling game without a ton of meta-mechanics about who tells the story is to actually just have a roleplaying game where the players are also storytelling and making various levels of OOC decisions.

...but not anymore. Narrativist/Story Now never had anything to do with "who tells the story" or "out-of-character decisions" in first place. It's just a playstyle where the group sits down to address human-relevant issues like survival, scarcity or "as a Vampire, how do you deal with having to feed from innocents and even loved ones?", etc by means of (players) answering to moral and/or ethical dilemmas and thus driving play. There's nothing inherent in the style that asks for OOC decisions or the need for telling/narrating stories. So I think your conclusion may be off base here. Indeed, I've played lots of PbtA games so far and don't remember taking any OOC decisions (apart of the so called "first session" where the group flashes out the world in collaboration, or course).


Edit: here, found the original article on the concept: www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html

 

[TristramEvans]

...but not anymore. AFAIK Narrativist/Story Now play has nothing to do with "who tells the story" or "out-of-character decisions". It's just a playstyle where the group sits down to address human-relevant issues like survival, scarcity, "how far you go to have what you want?" or "as a Vampire, how do you deal with having to feed from innocents and even former loved ones?", etc. There's nothing inherent in the style that asks for OOC decisions or the need for telling/narrating stories. In fact, PCs (or GMs) narrating stories actually goes against the concept, since it would deprive the players of the on-the-moment, moral and/or ethical decisions that drive it. So I think your conclusion may be slightly off base. Indeed, I've played lots of PbtA games so far and don't remember taking any OOC decisions, apart of the so called "first session" where the group flashes out the world in collaboration, or course.


Edit: here, found the original article on the concept: www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html

I can guarantee you that no one using the word "storygame" is using the definition of Narrativism from Forge theory.

 

[Muchacho]

Right, thanks for telling me my whole group was just playing the game wrong. Nothing wrong with the game, it's always the group

But you were playing it wrong. See, no one will bother if you hate D&D for it's reliance on classes. But hating on it for, say, just allowing adventures inside dungeons will, because that's not true.

 

[Vargold]

Is anyone familiar with Uncharted Worlds? I've heard good things about it, and it looks like something that would work nicely for a Mass Effect style game. I could even handle playbooks / classes / whatever, if I thought about it in that spirit.

It's my favorite PbtA game precisely because it gives me a rules-light approach to SF games without the heavy, heavy thematization of Apocalypse World. It doesn't really have playbooks: characters are just two careers and an origin mixed together.

 

[TheophilusCarter]

It's my favorite PbtA game precisely because it gives me a rules-light approach to SF games without the heavy, heavy thematization of Apocalypse World. It doesn't really have playbooks: characters are just two careers and an origin mixed together.

Hmm, that sounds pretty good. I may have to take a look at that ...

 

[Muchacho]

I can guarantee you that no one using the word "storygame" is using the definition of Narrativism from Forge theory.

I'm sure of that, Tristram, and it's not my intention to drift the discussion. But the post I answered to brought up the term (Narrativizm/Story Now) attachin to it inaccurate meaning. I just clarified.

 

[CRKrueger]

There's nothing inherent in the style that asks for OOC decisions or the need for telling/narrating stories. So I think your conclusion may be off base here.

Have I read the essay, Jesus Wept, have you?
Let's take a look...

[Begin Ron Edwards] this denotes my emphasis

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

[End Ron Edwards]

Story Now is all about players (not all the time) consciously thinking about creating the Story their characters are inhabiting. In other words, specifically NOT just roleplaying their characters and generating a series of imaginary events that later could be use to create a story. If you're doing this, by definition, you're OOC when you're doing this. If there are game mechanics that help you do this, then they are OOC mechanics.

Why people, mistakenly, throw out the "PbtA is 100% traditional" fallacy, is because Baker wanted the "addressing of story" to happen as organically as possible, with little tools here and there to focus you just enough, to minimize the meta.

Indeed, I've played lots of PbtA games so far and don't remember taking any OOC decisions (apart of the so called "first session" where the group flashes out the world in collaboration, or course).

I find that frankly impossible to believe, but I'm also sure your definition of OOC is different then mine. Tell me a PbtA game you recently played and the playbook.

 

[Muchacho]

Have I read the essay, Jesus Wept, have you?
Let's take a look...

[Begin Ron Edwards] this denotes my emphasis

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

[End Ron Edwards]

Story Now is all about players (not all the time) consciously thinking about creating the Story their characters are inhabiting. In other words, specifically NOT just roleplaying their characters and generating a series of imaginary events that later could be use to create a story. If you're doing this, by definition, you're OOC when you're doing this. If there are game mechanics that help you do this, then they are OOC mechanics.

That applies only to decisions you take for your character, and nothing else. That does not means editing or controlling things in the world (aka OOC mechanics), nor editing "the story" (competing for "who tells the story", in your own words). This is clear in the other paragraphs you omited, like these:

[Ron Edwards]
- There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s)

- Narrativist play doesn't force a "separation" from the imaginative commitment to the role-playing. As the whole medium of Creative Agenda is Exploration, you don't have to diminish Exploration at all during Narrativist play.

- Author Stance may be considered the default for Narrativist play only in the sense that it needs to be in there somewhere. Narrativist play doesn't have to be exclusively in this Stance, nor does it even have to be employed more often than the others.
[/Ron Edwards]

The last paragraph is of particular relevance here. It's okay to reflect on "what would be cool for my char to do at this moment" and go from there (thats what Author Stance is). Its NOT okay to somehow edit the story or the world external to it to make that theme/premise happen.

I find that frankly impossible to believe, but I'm also sure your definition of OOC is different then mine

Hmmm perhaps you're right? Thinking now, you seem to be equaling OOC to Author Stance (thinking like an author about your own character). While I'm assuming you meant Director Stance (editing the world and "story" outside my character). Is that it?

Tell me a PbtA game you recently played and the playbook.

Sprawl and Sagas of the Icelanders. Hacker and Godi respectively.

 

[EmperorNorton]

The argument that one person can attack over and over again while everyone else does nothing and there is nothing to stop this reminds me of one of my favorite articles on the discussion of RPGs online: "Killjoy Cooking with the Dungeons & Dragons Crowd"

(To be specific it reminded me of INFINITE OREGANO!)

 

[Dumarest]

I'd rather see threads about games people enjoy. Proselytize for your favorites.

 

[TristramEvans]

I'd rather see threads about games people enjoy. Proselytize for your favorites.

Yeah, my favourite threads are those deep explorations/"Let's read"s like your one on Flashing Blades or Endless's DCH retrospective. I have one planned for FASERIP myself. In general, even if its not a game I'm personally interested in, I enjoy the enjoyment of the people who love the games and the passion they bring to them.

 

[Dumarest]

"Killjoy Cooking with the Dungeons & Dragons Crowd"

...is hilarious.

 

[Muchacho]

CRKrueger , what do you think of Pendragon? Because it has a strong Narrativist/Story Now bias in my book, with it's virtues and traits that often make you take an "Author Stance" and reflect on "what would be better to my character to do now?"

Edit: I see I'm drifting away from the thread. Ceasing now.

 

[The Butcher]

I have no idea what this means in regards to how the game is supposed to play or what we were doing wrong.

That much is evident.

Moves do not resolve discrete actions (tasks); they resolve the outcome of a whole course of action (conflicts). A single “Seize By Force” roll can resolve a lot more than a six second combat round. (Assuming it’s combat, of course; Seize By Force also covers intimidation.)

If you failed and sustained damage, it means you got your ass kicked, over the course of as much time as the MC and you deem appropriate. Trying again against the same opponent(s) at your next turn means you’re dusting off and jumping back in.

This is the mindset that took me some getting used to. Once you shift into gear, though, it’s no more immersion-breaking than taking a bird’s-eye view of a combat grid or searching your spell list for the right spell.

Right, thanks for telling me my whole group was just playing the game wrong. Nothing wrong with the game, it's always the group.

You’re not playing the game RAW. Which is entirely your prerogative, but— by your own admission — seems not to be working for you; those pointing this out seek to help, no more. No need to blow us off so lightly.

I have taken my own misgivings with Savage Worlds and FATE (to name a couple) to forums in the past and had my own misunderstandings corrected by fellow gamers, to great effect at my gaming table. At the risk of sounding trite — it’s only a game.