I’ve spent a lot of time running what I’d say were generally ok but not particularly inspired TTRPG sessions. This blog is essentially a lot of thoughts on what did and didn’t work for me, and what kind of roleplaying system I actually enjoyed. Ultimately, what mode of roleplaying do I want to use to run a game? There aren't really design thoughts here, just an exploration of play and realizations I’ve had over years. Also, it’s long.
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @nic's post:
So, a lot of what you're describing with tilting the odds and working in the fiction as long as possible is a mode that I am pretty familiar with from a pretty wide swathe of OSR stuff - it's the mindset i bring to those, though whether a given text foregrounds that is hit or miss across the board. I think Mausritter has some pretty good stuff on that point, where it leverages both its lack of roll-to-hit and the fiction of Being A Mouse Sized Mouse to remind you that you should always be fighting dirty if at all. You may also find The Nightmares Underneath's framework helpful:
"When you undertake some kind of task that requires skill, or is dangerous and risky, the GM may ask you to make a save to accomplish it (thus saving yourself from the jaws of failure).
-If you are skilled and you have the proper tools at hand, you must save against the relevant attribute’s full score in order to get the job done.
-If you are skilled but have only the minimum necessary in terms of equipment or tools to get the job done, you must save against half the relevant attributes score, rounded down, to be successful.
-Likewise, if you are unskilled, but have a good set of tools to use, you must save against half the relevant attributes score, rounded down, to succeed.
-If you have neither the skills to complete the task nor the proper equipment, you cannot succeed at your task."
Implicit to all of this being that the circumstances described by the given difficulties are clear steps to take in improving your lot in attempting the task!
Awesome! Yeah that totally makes sense. I think there is a throughline from OSR type stuff to Mothership, and while I've dipped into DCC I'm not really well versed in it at all. I'll definitely check those out.
I like that method of "you will fail, here's what you need to claw back into a success", just that it gives a framework for the player and sets the expectations. Thank you!
yeah i think an interesting thing about MoSh (and mausritter for that matter) is that it's explaining the idea in more detail because it expects to be a lot of people's first game in that tradition - whereas a lot o other folks lightweight osr games are being written first and foremost for people alrady onboarded.
your issues with AW definitely reflect my (admittedly limited) experience trying out PBTA stuff, at least from a player perspective. it often feels like those sorts of games are the ones that get most recommended to people to play to break away from d20 stuff, and at least for the type of person i am it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. it feels like the reason it gets specifically recommended so much is because it's pretty far on the other end of the simplicity/complexity scale.
I think AW/Pbta is a good recommendation for D&D folk because it has a breadth of content and setting adaptations at this point that people can probably find what they like and make it work. But it can’t work for everyone!
First, I want to say I really appreciated this post and I enjoyed reading it.
I really like the resolution mechanic of PBtA games, but I'm not a big fan of "moves" anymore. The big appeal when I started playing Dungeon World was the idea of being engaged with the other players and the shared fiction instead of the minutia of your character sheet. Once everyone has four or so moves, the attention slowly shifts back to the paper. The playbooks and moves do a great job of grounding a game in a genre, but I often feel weighed down by them - I'm a fan of "all rolls should be defy danger."
Otherwise, to echo what Moose wrote in their comment there's a lot of OSR here:
Essentially I want to roll dice as little as possible, but for each roll to have a high impact on the game.
I've seen lots of hyper-lethal OSR systems treat combat (or at least rolling dice in combat) as tantamount to a fail-state. If what Moose said about Mausritter interested you, you should check out Knave, the system on which it is based. I'm also really vibing with Cairn right now, but there's more mechanical bits going on there. Anyways, I'm rambling; great chost!
Oh awesome, I'll definitely take a look at Knave (ironically I almost made a card game recently called Knave). In hindsight (with help from Moose pointing it out) I will be looking into a lot more OSR stuff here soon. I think following the current of PbTA has developed a blind spot for that area of design. Thank you!
This was really interesting to read because it's very alien to how I tend to play and run TTRPGs. I tend to dislike roleplaying at the table or speaking in character, it just always feels a little bit uncomfortable, or boring, or cliched, and I'm never satisfied with a scene after I do it. I prefer the distance of a third person 'director' kind of position where I can talk in the abstract about the what my character does or tries to do.
The thing I like about games like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark is that the mechanics are there, but they're also lightweight enough that you can ignore them or add on to them further if a scene calls for it. And, having that aspect of mechanical pressure or friction helps add a little distance from the narrative and keep the conversation at the table in a space where it's more flexible and collaborative.
Definitely giving me vibes for Trophy Dark where every roll represents a new potential level of corruption for the PCs, and otherwise rolls are kept to a minimum. It's also a cool game if you haven't tried it just on the basis that the party is doomed from the start and everyone just gets to explore that storytelling space.
in reply to @austin's post:
this does remind me of something i've noticed about what i think are the best PBTA moves: they are really good about adding dice only after you significantly alter a conversation from its normal flow. the sprawl's play hardball and fast talk demand violence-as-leverage or deception before dice are invoked, but you just play conversation as conversation. i feel like i've seen various other PBTA games explicitly say "state what your leverage is" before you roll dice, which i think is a really smart move -- you don't really roll dice if you're just wheedling at someone. arguably FITD might be weaker in this sphere? or at least you need a GM that's very On It wrt to effect factors and how they do and don't change a roll's viability