Why I don't like PbtA

[TristramEvans]

People turning into such silly gooses when someone doesn't want to argue with them today

 

[Lofgeornost]

You are not getting it. When something specific happens in a GURPS Girl Genius the GURPS mechanics cover it. I am talking about something like the player deciding their character puts together a Whatchabob device to handle the situation. The player can use the GURPS rules to figure out the effects which follows how things work in Girl Genius.

No, I understand this quite well. You can model the Girl Genius world or setting in GURPS; it's been done. But I think system matters, as they say, and I'd prefer a system that is closer to the spirit of the source material. For instance, I'd say that one of the basic design principles of a Girl Genius game should be something like 'if a player's action is funny, it has a better chance to succeed.' I guess there might be a way to operationalize that in GURPS, but it's not the basic design philosophy, so to speak.

That is not an objective statement rather it is your point of view as to what you need from an RPG to run a campaign for a setting such as Girl Genius or Toon. From the point of view of the GURPS fans of Discworld and Girl Genius, GURPS does a better job by handling the things they want it to handle and staying out of the way of the things they have covered.

Furthermore, you are not considering that GURPS has a lite mode that is fully integrated into the system. Where most of the resolution is handled by the contest of skills.

And your statement is your point of view. Which is fine. I'm not looking for objective truth here. It's just a question of what system a given group would prefer for a particular setting. You have your preferences, I have mine.

It doesn't, though, seem particularly controversial to say that a generic system can do anything, but it can't do everything equally well. YMMV, etc.

 

[ffilz]

Yep, almost every PbtA game I've ever read has made it explicit that the game is intended to be played like in the like, 8-15 session range.

Oh, I guess another reason for me to not like PbtA...

These days my interests run to games that can sustain a long running campaign. I'm not suggesting every campaign lasts, but I want at least the thought that it COULD last.

Play by post may be a space for shorter games because probably most play by post games I've played or ran at best maybe accomplished a session or two worth of play in a year of posting. Maybe it isn't actually that bad, but still, play by post is SLOW...

 

[chuckdee]

Honestly this continual back-and-forth from you two is kind of boring and annoying.

I just fast forward through those parts. Isn't that what the scroll wheel is for?

 

[robertsconley]

No, I understand this quite well. You can model the Girl Genius world or setting in GURPS; it's been done. But I think system matters, as they say, and I'd prefer a system that is closer to the spirit of the source material. For instance, I'd say that one of the basic design principles of a Girl Genius game should be something like 'if a player's action is funny, it has a better chance to succeed.' I guess there might be a way to operationalize that in GURPS, but it's not the basic design philosophy, so to speak.

As far as I understand how SJ Games goes about it, the logic is that something succeeds because it succeeds due to Girl Genius Logic. Whether it is funny is incidentally because that is a subjective measure that has nothing to do with answering what happens when one does X in the world of Girl Genius.

Girl Genius is funny because that is how the Folgios write it. A Girl Genius campaign is funny because the referee and players do funny things with how things work in the Girl Genius setting. The reward isn't some mechanical bennie, the reward is the laughter that is created.

And your statement is your point of view. Which is fine. I'm not looking for objective truth here. It's just a question of what system a given group would prefer for a particular setting. You have your preferences, I have mine.

It doesn't, though, seem particularly controversial to say that a generic system can do anything, but it can't do everything equally well. YMMV, etc.

Yet you are surprised that GURPS can handle Girl Genius, IOU, Goblins, and all the other silly places that SJ Games took GURPS. So rather than using inaccurate labels crafted 20 years ago, you would be better off asking why GURPS has been able to do this for so long.

Then afterwards you may find you don't need gimmicky mechanics to run the settings you are interested in. Just something to cover the basics with the group handling the rest.

 

[FlagrantOpossum]

As far as I understand how SJ Games goes about it, the logic is that something succeeds because it succeeds due to Girl Genius Logic. Whether it is funny is incidentally because that is a subjective measure that has nothing to do with answering what happens when one does X in the world of Girl Genius.

Girl Genius is funny because that is how the Folgios write it. A Girl Genius campaign is funny because the referee and players do funny things with how things work in the Girl Genius setting. The reward isn't some mechanical bennie, the reward is the laughter that is created.



Yet you are surprised that GURPS can handle Girl Genius, IOU, Goblins, and all the other silly places that SJ Games took GURPS. So rather than using inaccurate labels crafted 20 years ago, you would be better off asking why GURPS has been able to do this for so long.

Then afterwards you may find you don't need gimmicky mechanics to run the settings you are interested in. Just something to cover the basics with the group handling the rest.

You know what really works? Bob says. Whenever there's a question about what happens in play, ask Bob. Bob will tell you. This can handle anything you ever want to do. And it's been around forever! I mean, I think once you consider this that afterwards you may find you don't need gimmicky mechanics to run the settings you're interested in, just ask Bob.

 

[ffilz]

You know what really works? Bob says. Whenever there's a question about what happens in play, ask Bob. Bob will tell you. This can handle anything you ever want to do. And it's been around forever! I mean, I think once you consider this that afterwards you may find you don't need gimmicky mechanics to run the settings you're interested in, just ask Bob.

Rob shares what works for him. I happen to be a fan of Rob because he has been articulate about what works for him and how he does it and his ideas mesh with what I want to do. Rob is not all knowing or perfect, but his ideas work for me. I'm happy he shares.

I haven't played GURPS enough to see how it handles different kinds of settings, but I know Rob has used GURPS a lot and I trust his evaluation.

But different people have different experiences, and different expectations for an RPG.

 

[FlagrantOpossum]

Rob shares what works for him. I happen to be a fan of Rob because he has been articulate about what works for him and how he does it and his ideas mesh with what I want to do. Rob is not all knowing or perfect, but his ideas work for me. I'm happy he shares.

I haven't played GURPS enough to see how it handles different kinds of settings, but I know Rob has used GURPS a lot and I trust his evaluation.

But different people have different experiences, and different expectations for an RPG.

If he had stuck to talking about what he likes, sure, but he made a claim that if you considered that GURPS does a thing, any thing really, that this should be sufficient for you to realize that you don't need "gimmick" mechanics to do that thing. That other systems are a waste of time because GURPS does it GURPS' way and that should be good enough for anyone.

This fantastically misses the point of having different systems. Having a way to get at something doesn't mean it's a universally good way. If you don't like my idea of "Bob says" and think there are better ways to do what you want because it gives you a better experience, then that's dead contrary to the kind of point Rob was making. It means that system does matter.

 

[Fenris-77]

I wouldn't agree that that was what Rob was saying. I think he was just focusing on what GURPS does well, not so much giving it primacy of place. Just my two cents of course.

 

[FlagrantOpossum]

I think this one is true, but I also think that 5e Stealth's "no rules" is vastly superior to 4e Stealth, where the rules were so infamously obtuse that the Rules of the Hidden Club post became the de-facto FAQ for Stealth (this was copied from the WotC boards). I'll also point out that "use common sense and GM judgment" is literally how Stealth works in most TTRPGs, including AD&D and B/X. You roll your % skill, and if you succeed, you're hiding or moving silently until the DM says you're not.

I don't really think Pathfinder 2e's SRD particularly makes being stealthy easier or less subject to DM judgment, either. It adds a bunch of keywords and terminology and die rolls -- because of course it does it's Pathfinder 2e -- but it doesn't actually remove GM adjudication in any way. It's the illusion of a system, but in reality it's not actually any more robust. "Cease to have cover or greater cover against [a creature] or [cease to be] concealed" is pure GM adjudication, and that's going to come up all the time.

I genuinely don't know what people want from a stealth mechanic. It needs to be simple enough to use all the time and quickly, but it also needs to perfectly model reality, including realities where vision, light and darkness don't necessarily obey real-world physical laws? And it should be resistant to PC metagaming? And it can't be overpowered? Good luck. I prefer getting generalities to getting a system that breaks combat or a system that results in staying hidden while creatures are staring right at you.



I don't see this as an issue at all. Firstly, it's advice to the DM, not rules. Second, the section isn't wrong. Like all the section says is (a) you might roll for everything, and here's when and why you might want to do that; (b) you might want to roll hardly at all, and here's why you might want to do that; or (c) you might do some of both.

I just don't find it credible to read this section of the DMG and arrive at any conclusion other than, "choosing how to use the dice is part of developing your own GM style," which I think is both valuable advice for new DMs in D&D and a universal truth in TTRPGs. Deciding when you should use dice and not is a skill, and 5e D&D is set up to let DMs just experiment and see what works for them. I think it's ridiculous to fault the game for doing that when we all know that D&D is the first game for many if not most GMs. Encouraging new DMs to try and figure out what their play style is is a good thing.



I would agree that they could give better or more clear advice here, but I also don't think what they have given is bad advice when it was written.

I certainly don't think the idea of only making checks when failure and success were meaningful was a mainstream idea in TTRPGs in 2014. Both D&D 4e and Pathfinder 1e were still heavily into shoelacing in their skill systems, including routine checks where nothing happens. I absolutely don't think D&D was the kind of game in 2014 where they could tell players to stop calling for any checks except when the result is dramatic success or dramatic failure, or to stop letting anyone re-roll skill checks. Certainly not if they were trying to get Pathfinder players back. Like, come on, 3e just told people to let people roll retries endlessly. They even got rid of Take 20 in 4e! They were moving in the opposite direction!

Like I understand being frustrated with 5e D&D, but I really don't understand being critical of the game being maximally flexible when they know they have the lion's share of new DMs and new players. They know they have to onboard almost everyone to not just their game, but to the TTRPG hobby as a whole. Even if they weren't trying to make D&D "the everything game" to capture the broadest segment of the market, making the game be flexible to completely different styles is important to getting GMs willing to be GMs and thinking about game design and what the purpose of the rules is.

Okay, let's sum up. 5e requires you to do your own game design for Stealth. Check. 5e also requires you to do your own game design for how you fundamentally want the game to operate. When you do checks, how you do them, and what they mean is hugely impactful to how the game plays and even how the other rules provided interact and are used in play. This is, really, THE fundamental part of RPG design. And you agree 5e makes you do this design yourself. Check.

Most of the rest of this is arguing that you find that this is an issue (you can or not, doesn't change anything), or what other systems do (not germane to my point), or speculating about how I feel about the game. 5e's just fine, I think it's a brilliant piece of design (via not designing), and I'd run it again (since I've already made my design decisions). My points do not hinge on whether or not I like 5e or not. And you seem to fundamentally agree with my points.

As for checks and successes being meaningful, the designers of the game were aware of games like AW, had played them, and had discussed them online. You might not have been aware, but they were, and clearly put it into the game via some advice (wishwashy advice, but still).

 

[FlagrantOpossum]

I wouldn't agree that that was what Rob was saying. I think he was just focusing on what GURPS does well, not so much giving it primacy of place. Just my two cents of course.

The bit about not needing gimmicky mechanics to run settings GURPS has already done seems very much to be doing that. The thrust of his point is that you don't need to work on a Girl Genus game with mechanics designed to evoke things because GURPS already did a Girl Genius game with mechanics that don't do that evocation but rather some other evocation, but should be good enough for anyone.

 

[ffilz]

I see Rob's point about gimmick mechanics is that sometimes what's special about a setting or genre doesn't need to be codified in rules. Actually, in one sense, maybe he's even hinting at the same thing Vincent Baker hinted at with the Fruitful Void. The idea that what's REALLY important about an RPG experience isn't actually directly targeted by the rules, but rather the rules support that core thing.

And I know Rob doesn't mean other systems are a waste of time. I'm not sure how much he even runs GURPS these days. He just mentioned the other day to me (in private messaging) that he's setting up a 5e campaign. His publication efforts are utilizing his Majestic Fantasy RPG.

But GURPS has proven an ability to work with a wide range of settings. People don't write those supplements because they don't believe in GURPS. So if there's a GURPS supplement, it's because the author is invested in using GURPS in that setting or genre.

Now for me personally, GURPS does NOT work for all settings and genres. I enjoyed the GURPS Supers campaign I played in, but it was clearly inferior for the task compared to Champions. We had fun until the challenges of the system started to show. This was also the first edition of GURPS Supers, before GURPS Wildcards even. I think maybe some things have been fixed, and Wildcards suggested a super hero setting that was gritty and maybe more suited to GURPS.

I do firmly believe that there is no universal system, but I do also believe that systems CAN be more versatile than one might thing. And I do believe that sometimes a setting or genre DOES need a targeted mechanic. Much of the time that may be when the setting or genre has conventions that don't quite match a core mechanic. Cold Iron Samurai Adventures required me to consider how to handle some of the specialty Japanese weapons. On the other hand, my goal was to utilize mechanics that were already in Cold Iron rather than coming up with totally new mechanics as much as possible. In fact, I think that's a solid example that supports Rob's contention that you don't need gimicky mechanics. Sure, I DID come up with a new mechanic to handle dual wielding, but I referenced the original mechanics as much as possible. But yea, the mechanic is a bit of a gimick. And it totally makes a dual wielding samurai the best fighter. So what, cool samurai are the best fighters in genre. The mechanic doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. And shield use in medieval Japan was not a think (at least not in melee), so the fact that my mechanic isn't balanced against shield is fine. And this mechanic requires a specialization to use. There is also a base dual wielding mechanic that actually balances against shield just fine (it basically let's a character use a parrying weapon as a shield, that isn't even as good as a buckler, and it doesn't give two attacks or anything like that). The bonus a character gets is they can use a pretty large sword in one hand, and a dagger in the other. If they get grappled, they can drop the large sword and keep the dagger while the 2-handed sword or sword and shield guy need to drop their gear and try and draw a dagger while being grappled, which may not be easy.

 

[Fenris-77]

The bit about not needing gimmicky mechanics to run settings GURPS has already done seems very much to be doing that. The thrust of his point is that you don't need to work on a Girl Genus game with mechanics designed to evoke things because GURPS already did a Girl Genius game with mechanics that don't do that evocation but rather some other evocation, but should be good enough for anyone.

I suppose, but there are games with gimmicky mechanics designed to do just that though. I didn't think he was taking a veiled dig at anyone.

 

[FlagrantOpossum]

I see Rob's point about gimmick mechanics is that sometimes what's special about a setting or genre doesn't need to be codified in rules. Actually, in one sense, maybe he's even hinting at the same thing Vincent Baker hinted at with the Fruitful Void. The idea that what's REALLY important about an RPG experience isn't actually directly targeted by the rules, but rather the rules support that core thing.

And I know Rob doesn't mean other systems are a waste of time. I'm not sure how much he even runs GURPS these days. He just mentioned the other day to me (in private messaging) that he's setting up a 5e campaign. His publication efforts are utilizing his Majestic Fantasy RPG.

But GURPS has proven an ability to work with a wide range of settings. People don't write those supplements because they don't believe in GURPS. So if there's a GURPS supplement, it's because the author is invested in using GURPS in that setting or genre.

Now for me personally, GURPS does NOT work for all settings and genres. I enjoyed the GURPS Supers campaign I played in, but it was clearly inferior for the task compared to Champions. We had fun until the challenges of the system started to show. This was also the first edition of GURPS Supers, before GURPS Wildcards even. I think maybe some things have been fixed, and Wildcards suggested a super hero setting that was gritty and maybe more suited to GURPS.

I do firmly believe that there is no universal system, but I do also believe that systems CAN be more versatile than one might thing. And I do believe that sometimes a setting or genre DOES need a targeted mechanic. Much of the time that may be when the setting or genre has conventions that don't quite match a core mechanic. Cold Iron Samurai Adventures required me to consider how to handle some of the specialty Japanese weapons. On the other hand, my goal was to utilize mechanics that were already in Cold Iron rather than coming up with totally new mechanics as much as possible. In fact, I think that's a solid example that supports Rob's contention that you don't need gimicky mechanics. Sure, I DID come up with a new mechanic to handle dual wielding, but I referenced the original mechanics as much as possible. But yea, the mechanic is a bit of a gimick. And it totally makes a dual wielding samurai the best fighter. So what, cool samurai are the best fighters in genre. The mechanic doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. And shield use in medieval Japan was not a think (at least not in melee), so the fact that my mechanic isn't balanced against shield is fine. And this mechanic requires a specialization to use. There is also a base dual wielding mechanic that actually balances against shield just fine (it basically let's a character use a parrying weapon as a shield, that isn't even as good as a buckler, and it doesn't give two attacks or anything like that). The bonus a character gets is they can use a pretty large sword in one hand, and a dagger in the other. If they get grappled, they can drop the large sword and keep the dagger while the 2-handed sword or sword and shield guy need to drop their gear and try and draw a dagger while being grappled, which may not be easy.

I'd argue that the topic under discussion -- how things happen in a Girl Genius game, specifically if there's a mechanic that encourages leaning into the humor of the setting versus a mechanic that does not -- is not peripheral but core.

And 'works' is doing a lot of... er, work in your sentence about GURPS working for a lot of settings. GURPS has those settings, but it's still GURPS. If what you want from playing that setting is what GURPS delivers, then you're good for 'works.' If it isn't, then it's not really 'working' even if it exists.

We violently agree that there's no universal system, and I'd expand that to include explicit statements about approach. Rob's sandbox approach is not valid for quite a lot of play, for instance. It does what it does.

 

[chuckdee]

I wouldn't agree that that was what Rob was saying. I think he was just focusing on what GURPS does well, not so much giving it primacy of place. Just my two cents of course.

Agreed. And saying so just seems a reductive argument.

 

[FlagrantOpossum]

Agreed. And saying so just seems a reductive argument.

I suppose, but there are games with gimmicky mechanics designed to do just that though. I didn't think he was taking a veiled dig at anyone.

"Gimmick" in reference to a mechanic that differs from what GURPS does (by Rob's description) along with the reference to 20 year old terminology (I mean, Forge reference anyone) is pretty damn clear he was dismissive of the idea presented.

Do you guys get your horses from the same place, or do you just coordinate ahead of time and show up with them?

 

[ffilz]

I'd argue that the topic under discussion -- how things happen in a Girl Genius game, specifically if there's a mechanic that encourages leaning into the humor of the setting versus a mechanic that does not -- is not peripheral but core.

It's not peripheral, but what I got from Vincent Baker's Fruitful Void is that core doesn't mean it needs direct expression in the mechanics.

Plenty of RPGs actually depend on certain aspects of genre, especially tone, to not be mechanical, but be part of the tone at the table and the reasoning behind rulings. "This works because that makes sense for the genre" rather than "if you do X that is supposed to be in genre, you get +5 to overcome some -5 penalty the mechanics normally apply." But that way of handling things means you need to be comfortable with rulings not rules...

And 'works' is doing a lot of... er, work in your sentence about GURPS working for a lot of settings. GURPS has those settings, but it's still GURPS. If what you want from playing that setting is what GURPS delivers, then you're good for 'works.' If it isn't, then it's not really 'working' even if it exists.

Sure, you may not like GURPS for most of it's settings, or at all. I don't like GURPS at all, so it's not like I'm defending my favorite game system (on the other hand Cold Iron can do everything :-) ).

We violently agree that there's no universal system, and I'd expand that to include explicit statements about approach. Rob's sandbox approach is not valid for quite a lot of play, for instance. It does what it does.

Yea, Rob's sandbox approach isn't for everyone, not necessarily even every sandbox, but if you want to run a sandbox, you can't go wrong by reading Rob's writings on the subject and then making informed decisions for your own campaign.

 

[Fenris-77]

"Gimmick" in reference to a mechanic that differs from what GURPS does (by Rob's description) along with the reference to 20 year old terminology (I mean, Forge reference anyone) is pretty damn clear he was dismissive of the idea presented.

Do you guys get your horses from the same place, or do you just coordinate ahead of time and show up with them?

I think your persecution complex may be showing. I think you're looking too hard for insults here.for what that's worth. Rob is pretty low key on that score.

 

[TristramEvans]

A person has to work pretty hard to get offended by Rob of all people.

 

[Ladybird]

Girl Genius is funny because that is how the Folgios write it. A Girl Genius campaign is funny because the referee and players do funny things with how things work in the Girl Genius setting. The reward isn't some mechanical bennie, the reward is the laughter that is created.

TBH this is always how I've felt about "comedy" RPG's.

Writing an RPG for it to be comedy doesn't work, because what you get is just the author's best jokes and that gets tiring fast. If the book insists that folk try and say funny things, then the result is forced comedy, which is about as funny as a sober night out in Croydon (INSERT CANNED LAUGHTER).

Setting up situations and letting the table find it's own humour does work, because they'll know what they find funny better than anyone else would. And it doesn't matter if it makes anyone who isn't there laugh, because they aren't there.

With the right players, Call of Cthulhu can be the funniest comedy RPG.

 

[Bunch]

This thread is generating more issues for mods than pretty much anything in quite a while. I'm locking the thread for a cool down while I discuss with the other mods.