Quote from: Opaopajr;667866Portents is basically a subroutine scheduler for NPCs. However their loose structure with bullet points is quite clean and grokable. I've been doing something like this for ages, just with more chronological structure and less linear threat progression, but this is quite stealable for just about any new GM. If one could incorporate Moves degree of success structure into divergent threat progressions for Portents, you might get something really special for GM world building. I already do similar, but I wonder if it will be easier to transmit to new GMs.

I'd love to hear more about this idea, start a new thread?

Quote from: Opaopajr;667866Well, I just finished the whole DW Guide.

Yeah, I ended up reading it as well...and I've come to the conclusion that DW is closer to a regular RPG than I first thought, but it's written in such a way to make you think otherwise.

"We're creating interactive fiction, not just bashing in the skulls of orcs!"

Even though that's exactly what you're doing. Several posters in this thread have said it plays like a conventional RPG...since I have never played DW, I will accept this statement. This means either:

1) DW is just a pretentious RPG that tries to differentiate itself from D&D in an effort to appear more valuable (value in this case being the "shared narrative" aspect)

OR

2) DW is poorly written, and fails to express its motives properly

Quote from: Brad;667921Yeah, I ended up reading it as well...and I've come to the conclusion that DW is closer to a regular RPG than I first thought, but it's written in such a way to make you think otherwise.

"We're creating interactive fiction, not just bashing in the skulls of orcs!"

Even though that's exactly what you're doing. Several posters in this thread have said it plays like a conventional RPG...since I have never played DW, I will accept this statement. This means either:

1) DW is just a pretentious RPG that tries to differentiate itself from D&D in an effort to appear more valuable (value in this case being the "shared narrative" aspect)

OR

2) DW is poorly written, and fails to express its motives properly

Brad, what is your take on the mechanics themselves, when viewed seperately from the presentation? Just in terms of how well you think the game functions and what strengths and weaknesses it may have.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667930Brad, what is your take on the mechanics themselves, when viewed seperately from the presentation? Just in terms of how well you think the game functions and what strengths and weaknesses it may have.

I think the mechanics are fine; I already stated there are some good things contained within the rules. Abstracted combat, for instance, and the lack of set attributes. It reminds me somewhat of Over The Edge in that characters are described by broad concepts, not specifics. Honestly, this is what I tend to do in my games, anyway. In fact, OD&D itself does this, so it's not a new concept by any stretch...DW simply codifies it.

Quote from: fuseboy;667900I'd love to hear more about this idea, start a new thread?

I guess, but it's a rather simple concept.

Basically my favorite one I currently use works on a "click" structure, thus more chronological even as its "timer" clock is still fungible. The routine can work off of regular fixed time, or sped up through added NPC effort, stored, reversed, etc. A goal would require X clicks out of Y to trigger as a basic piece.

It has the added advantage that it immediately works as stackable (linear progression to ultimate outcome) or alternate goals, or even whole new simultaneous goals. There's an added bonus of running backwards if PCs or other NPCs intervene. Also, NPC can store extra ticks and cash them in later. Further, any extra NPC effort outside of routine can speed things up, which makes them extra nasty opponents.

Add a routine scheduler for NPC and you're good to go!

e.g. BBEG has goals (don't get hung up on the ratios, it's just an example):
1. Find artifacts that open demon portal, reusable (0/10) > Hideout for circle of summoning (edit: reusable) (0/1) > Supplies for circle ritual (0/3) > Move to Open Portal for demon summoning and negotiations.

2. Collect sacrifice to negotiate demon contract (0/30) > Contract 3 demons (0/3) > Move to City Conquest: Phase II

3. Stir up a psychopath on the loose (0/5) > Deflect attention hook

4. Instigate trade house war (0/20) > either add 10 Collect Sacrifice or 3 Deflect attention hooks

5. Groom protege to continue plans (0/24) > Evil Plan lives on! (possible resurrection)

Routines:
Weekly - Instigate trade war, circle ritual supplies, collect sacrifice, stir up a psychopath
Monthly - Artifact robbers, spare hideout prospect, groom protege

It's more detailed and requires bookkeeping. But it produces additional functions and paths outside of a basic outline. Thankfully its still a loose sketch, just like Portents, so I am not tied to specific details. But it's far more flexible, grounded, and modular for me.

Quote from: Opaopajr;667937e.g. BBEG has goals (don't get hung up on the ratios, it's just an example):
1. Find artifacts that open demon portal, reusable (0/10) > Hideout for circle of summoning (0/1) > Supplies for circle ritual (0/3) > Move to Open Portal for demon summoning and negotiations.

Neato. The ratios are how far they have progressed toward each goal?  (So, at a later point in the game, you might have the NPC at 6/10 for finding artifacts that open demon portal?)

Quote from: Piestrio;667837That's a truly awesome label and I believe I'll steal it

It's a label that's much easier to use IMHO than "storygame", "other game" or the misused "indie game", no matter how RPG-like a game may arguably be. Hipster games in a nutshell:

Quote from: Opaopajr;667827(...) complications to the point of convolution.
(...) I've noticed a lot of these new games with aspect/traits/moves can't explain things without lengthy exegesis (...)

Often convoluted. Always pretentious.

Quote from: Brad;6679211) DW is just a pretentious RPG that tries to differentiate itself from D&D in an effort to appear more valuable (value in this case being the "shared narrative" aspect)

Usually elitary.

Quote from: Opaopajr;667860So when the DW Guide says, "When the rules say 'make a move', what they're really doing is telling you something happens, something besides just failure. Instead of being a dead end, player's failure leads to consequences: the situation gets worse or they have to pay a price," it doesn't mean what it says?

How do I get just plain old failure? Like, nothing interesting happens, no complications, no loss (except time) failure?

For example, picking a hard lock on a rather mundane treasure chest in your own distant and safe hideout: isolated, relatively safe, and you with a set of sturdy lock picks, and plenty more lock picks nearby. How do I get just plain failure. No extra consequences: no destroyed lock picks, no jambed lock with broken lock picks inside, no suddenly appearing guard, no imminent threat or lost supplies, just "it's too hard, you fail."

Do I have to engage these soft and hard moves if I don't want to?

edit: The DW Guide implicitly answers this as that is core to the point of the system. It's resolution system is there to determine the price of failure; but there's so far no fourth option of plain, uncomplicated failure. So, unless the rulebook says explicitly so, so far my answer seems to be there's no such thing as mundane failure. I'll rely on others who own the book to answer this.

I haven't read DW but this is a common question with stakes-based games.

If there's no consequence to failure, and there's no time limit or other restriction to stop the player from doing it and doing it, you might as well say it's an automatic success. Right? Because it's just a question of time.

If it's simply impossible, eg the player has no lockpicks and no thoughts on a plan B, then we would say it is an automatic failure. No dice roll, just 'no'.

The idea of a stakes based game is that win or lose each roll changes something. So 'nothing happens, do you want to try again?' wouldn't be a valid result because why wouldn't you just make that an automatic success in the first place. 'Guards come', 'You're running out of time', and 'Your lockpicks break' are all good failure stakes for that kind of situation, but there is another one that would seem to fit the example situation even better: 'Your lockpicks/skills aren't up to the task and it is impossible for you to open the chest using this method'.

Again I haven't read DW but that would seem to be a perfectly valid complication of failure.

Quote from: Opaopajr;667860So when the DW Guide says, "When the rules say 'make a move', what they're really doing is telling you something happens, something besides just failure.

No. A GM Move can be 'just failure'.

Quote from: Opaopajr;667860For example, picking a hard lock on a rather mundane treasure chest in your own distant and safe hideout: isolated, relatively safe, and you with a set of sturdy lock picks, and plenty more lock picks nearby. How do I get just plain failure.

'Using up their resources' is a GM Move. In this case, it could be just the time taken to try and pick the lock.  

Or better yet "Tell them the requirements and ask" i.e. "You can't open it but you could if you had the key. Searching for the key is likely to be a risky venture and take time. Do you want to do that? Or you could have a replacement key made by the Guildmaster, but he often asks for favours in return for favours. Do you want to do that instead?"

This is probably a good example of how DW's GM Moves don't change your normal process of GMing, but they may inspire ideas that can help to focus that process.

Quote from: Brad;667921Yeah, I ended up reading it as well...and I've come to the conclusion that DW is closer to a regular RPG than I first thought, but it's written in such a way to make you think otherwise.

This is a common reaction to DW and one I had myself to begin with The game play of DW is what most RPGers have always done, just with a different presentation. If you don't find any value in the different presentation, then that's totally cool. But it really works for some people, especially some newbie GMs, who we want to see more of in the RPGing hobby.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;667984It's a label that's much easier to use IMHO than "storygame", "other game" or the misused "indie game", no matter how RPG-like a game may arguably be. Hipster games in a nutshell:

Often convoluted. Always pretentious.

Usually elitary.

Right. So a key example of a "hipster game" would be the 1st edition of AD&D?

Quote from: Skywalker;668023No. A GM Move can be 'just failure'.



'Using up their resources' is a GM Move. In this case, it could be just the time taken to try and pick the lock.  

Or better yet "Tell them the requirements and ask" i.e. "You can't open it but you could if you had the key. Searching for the key is likely to be a risky venture and take time. Do you want to do that? Or you could have a replacement key made by the Guildmaster, but he often asks for favours in return for favours. Do you want to do that instead?"

This is probably a good example of how DW's GM Moves don't change your normal process of GMing, but they may inspire ideas that can help to focus that process.

OK, so I can have just failure. Good. I don't have to engage the system at every dice roll.

And though the latter is interesting, and I've used it before, I now rather avoid feeding such lines to PCs until they ask. I still slip into it, but I've actually had players ask me to stop doing the above because it feels like I'm playing the game for them. They'd rather ask such setting questions themselves and hash out solutions on their own. So of the above I'd say, "it's beyond your skill to pick. (implied: you need the key)"

It's a playstyle thing I've had to adapt to.

Quote from: Opaopajr;668029And though the latter is interesting, and I've used it before, I now rather avoid feeding such lines to PCs until they ask. I still slip into it, but I've actually had players ask me to stop doing the above because it feels like I'm playing the game for them. They'd rather ask such setting questions themselves and hash out solutions on their own. So of the above I'd say, "it's beyond your skill to pick. (implied: you need the key)"

There is no reason why "Tell requirements and ask" couldn't be done exactly as you say, with the ask being implied. I have found that there is a lot of room in DW's GM moves to pretty much adopt your own style, and for the most part I don't even refer or think of what I am doing in that framework.

But as said, if you are new GM (or just a uninspired experienced GM), then some of these ideas are helpful. Its certainly a lot more explicit as to what the GM should be doing than as presented in most RPGs.

Quote from: fuseboy;667943Neato. The ratios are how far they have progressed toward each goal?  (So, at a later point in the game, you might have the NPC at 6/10 for finding artifacts that open demon portal?)

Yes, exactly. And you can go over and store them. And certain ticks may have special accounting. And special NPC effort can increase tick aggregation, with likewise antagonist effort undoing ticks.

So of the above summoning circle example, it can be thus:

Portal Artifacts, reusable (11/10) > Hideout for circle ritual, reusable (5/1) > Circle ritual supplies (8/3)

So there's a spare portal artifact, in case PCs/NPCs steal or destroy one. There's four extra hideouts to retire to. These are reusable until destroyed (exposed). Thankfully there is spare supplies, just in case. Circle ritual supplies allow for two summoning circles, one quite soon after the other.

PCs may attempt to harass by exposing hideouts, stealing or destroying artifacts and ritual materials, or speculating on ritual materials to complicate access. And you as GM have a quick accounting method on how much of a setback any of those efforts are. Just be sure to not let players know exactly the accounting behind the screen, in case they metagame unconsciously.

It's just a method to quickly show NPC goals, alternate goals, progress, reserves, setbacks, and future focus. Like a schemer's stat line with its own attack routine.

That's very cool, Opaopajr.  What are the roots of this, or is it something you concocted?

It vaguely reminds me of Apocalypse World clocks and Burning Empires infection disposition, but those are player-visible counters (and in the latter case, there are explicit OOC mechanics for players to interact with it).

Normally, my NPC actions and turns of events are planned in a fairly 'just in time' sense, but I find one shortcoming of this is that a certain verisimilitude can be lacking when you're invisibly retconning behind the screen.  NPC actions behind the scenes tend to throw off evidence of one sort or another, which can make it pretty satisfying when players finally figure out wtf is going on.