Is there a PbtA Monster Manual? How do we compare PCs to monsters?

This thread would have benefited enormously from you knowing anything about traditional RPGs.

Some reading material prior to your next disaster:
Some basic pointers and tips
A foundation of old school thinking (Just keep reading)

Read and learn. Maybe run a few hexcrawls. Then come on back and make some game theory posts.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098242This is a choice between having the GM add complications on his own and having the GM add complications only when a random roll occurs.

That's exactly what I said. The complication is the event and the random roll is the "dice-generated" part. From purely a game perspective, the latter is stronger as it is rules-mandated, not GM-mandated.
There's other aspects to evaluate it from, such as pacing issues you mentioned, but I suppose people who like PbtA want the dice to dictate the pacing.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098242Except trad games give the GM the authority to do so when the event fits into the pacing of the currently situation.

In practice, I have seen Trad Game GMs roll d12 to determine the direction of the fall and it had nothing to do with controlling pacing - it was purely simulationist.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098242Other than some meaningless narration, I don't see a difference here.

You don't see a difference between not making the jump and being forced to struggle for your life versus completing the jump and picking up the chase immediately?

Quote from: Azraele;1098269This thread would have benefited enormously from you knowing anything about traditional RPGs.

The OSR is merely a subset of Trad Games. It also includes the more simulationist New School (tm) of the 90s.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1098287That's exactly what I said. The complication is the event and the random roll is the "dice-generated" part. From purely a game perspective, the latter is stronger as it is rules-mandated, not GM-mandated.
There's other aspects to evaluate it from, such as pacing issues you mentioned, but I suppose people who like PbtA want the dice to dictate the pacing.

My main issue with the dice-generated nature of complications in DW (and in the similar rule in FFG's SW games) is that the probability of those added complications is based on the character's probability of success.

Consider a DW party with two fighters, one with a +2 STR and one with a +1 STR, that encounters a monster that needs to be defeated. The character with a +2 STR will be more likely to damage the monster, less likely to take damage (and, thus, use up heals), and less likely to generate a complication which might hinder the entire party. In this case, the optimal Move for the +1 STR character is to do nothing. For the player of that character to sit quietly so as to not generate any Moves. Just let the +2 character take as many Moves as needed to defeat the monster. All the +1 character accomplishes by using the H&S Move is to increase the overall damage done to the party.

And this is true for the entire game. It is a game where only the most highly optimized character for each situation should be acting. Everyone else should be watching from the sidelines.

In a Trad game, the monster would only attack once per round, so there is no downside for the less proficient character to be participating in the action; the monster doesn't do any extra damage and nothing bad will happen from a failure. DW is a game designed to punish players for taking risky actions or for playing characters that are sub-optimal. Which is the exact opposite of what it should be doing (at least IMO).

QuoteYou don't see a difference between not making the jump and being forced to struggle for your life versus completing the jump and picking up the chase immediately?

The character in the DW example didn't really "struggle for his life", the GM simply added some partial success narration. The end result, both players alive on the other side of the chasm, was the same in each case. This is the downside of dice-generated narration.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1098287The OSR is merely a subset of Trad Games. It also includes the more simulationist New School (tm) of the 90s.

Two things about this:
1) I've yet to see a consistent definition of "simulationist" and as far as I can tell, it's gibberish. I'd really appreciate a definition of what you mean when you say it
2) "Two things that aren't alike are the same!" I'm sorry, what? You can't start with the premise of 90's hyper-realistic games and old-school games being radically different, then lump them together under the same umbrella. You need to define your terms man, I want to tell you you're wrong properly

Quote from: HedgehobbitIn a Trad game, the monster would only attack once per round, so there is no downside for the less proficient character to be participating in the action; the monster doesn't do any extra damage and nothing bad will happen from a failure.

...which also leads to a problem: no matter how bad a teammate is at fighting, he never hinders the team. Realistically, someone non-proficient in a proficient team leads to complications. Ever had a trained rock band or basketball team or something and tried letting someone untrained participate? Trad games are bad at depicting this because they are notoriously forgivable with failures.

So yeah, PbtA exaggerates on the complications aspect, but Trad games exaggerates in it's forgiveness for non-proficiency. Pick your poison.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098308The character in the DW example didn't really "struggle for his life", the GM simply added some partial success narration. The end result, both players alive on the other side of the chasm, was the same in each case. This is the downside of dice-generated narration.

I am no PbtA expert by any means but I think it depends on how the GM runs it. In both cases (2 PCs vs monster, partial success jump), the GM may call for a Defy Danger move (of the PCs/the PC).

Quote from: Azraele;1098314I want to tell you you're wrong properly

Which makes me doubt more than a little that you're asking in good faith. I am not sure I have time for this.

Quote from: Itachi;1098341...which also leads to a problem: no matter how bad a teammate is at fighting, he never hinders the team.

How coordinated are fantasy parties though? If we look at fiction - aren't plenty of them "everybody for themselves" for the most part?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1098357How coordinated are fantasy parties though? If we look at fiction - aren't plenty of them "everybody for themselves" for the most part?  

Depends on the game/premise. Shadowrun/Cyberpunk assumes trained teams. Don't know about dungeon crawlers.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1098357Which makes me doubt more than a little that you're asking in good faith. I am not sure I have time for this.

Hey man, you're wrong whether or not I mock you for it. But, if you actually want to share with the class what you're talking about, you may learn something from that mockery.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098308My main issue with the dice-generated nature of complications in DW (and in the similar rule in FFG's SW games) is that the probability of those added complications is based on the character's probability of success.
...

And this is true for the entire game. It is a game where only the most highly optimized character for each situation should be acting. Everyone else should be watching from the sidelines.
....

This is true. (having played in several AW based campaigns).

My impression that I get from reading various rules-sets, and some of various authors comments online, is that players should not be so precious about their characters. But in actual play I have found that most players try to optimize very fast.

This is due to the built in: Failed roll=Consequences! default GM action. Because the GM never rolls dice.

This is an artifact IMHO of the lengths that the game goes to for rules light/low prep play.

In a more traditional-rules game, a player with low combat scores can give something a try because they can mitigate the potential consequences of a failure if they pick their shot.

In DW/AW style games... Roll a miss? Fuck you. Consequences!

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098308The character in the DW example didn't really "struggle for his life", the GM simply added some partial success narration. The end result, both players alive on the other side of the chasm, was the same in each case. This is the downside of dice-generated narration.

The difference is that the non-DW player knew exactly how far he could jump, his PC's ability and the distance to be jumped was something explicitly quantified in the game system. If the distance to jump was too great for his PC, he would not even have bothered to try the jump. And generally in more traditional-rules game the rolls are pass/fail. with no option for the complication in the DW example.

In  DW/AW -such things like how far a PC can jump at any given point and time are are all basically GM fiat. Now the AW style games try to codify how the GM fiat should work so that it is done consistently. But at it's core it replaces a lot of what other games would explicitly quantify with a kind of Codified / Descriptive GM fiat.

I don't view the AW style games as narrative - The word I would use would be Descriptive. They are hyper focused rules light genre emulators with exception based mechanics. Where you pick the mechanic/result that best describes what you are doing/done.

What Jaeger said.

Also: from experience, the GM going hard on 6- rolls is necessary otherwise shit gets too easy. In PbtA players by default have more power over the fiction (including NPCs lives) than in Trad games. See the Battlebabe's Visions of Death for e.g..

Quote from: Itachi;1098341...which also leads to a problem: no matter how bad a teammate is at fighting, he never hinders the team. Realistically, someone non-proficient in a proficient team leads to complications. Ever had a trained rock band or basketball team or something and tried letting someone untrained participate? Trad games are bad at depicting this because they are notoriously forgivable with failures.

So yeah, PbtA exaggerates on the complications aspect, but Trad games exaggerates in it's forgiveness for non-proficiency. Pick your poison.

Not really.  If everyone needs to make a stealth roll to pass a guard, who cares if the stealth masters make it, the klutz ruins it for everyone.  Someone who isn't a good fighter in a traditional game usually isn't very good at dealing or avoiding damage.  That person stands to the front of the line straight ahead of the ogre, they're getting pasted.  They should try and position themselves to get a better chance to hit and hopefully not be attacked directly.  DW makes that non-fighter a total liability to everyone if they ever roll.

"Forgiveness" is a really weird thing to hear someone claim about traditional games.  Usually people are wailing and gnashing their teeth about how brutal they can be.

But that's the whole point.  Even DW is written from the same perspective as most PbtA, from roleplaying within and narrating a story, with a big emphasis on generating dramatic events.

What's the likely outcome of Mr. Nonfighter fighting?  He might contribute to the monster's defeat if he hangs around the edges.  If he's a caster or an archer he might have an opening to do something really effective.

That, however, isn't Dramatically Interesting, so the player has his character "follow the fiction" and attack, which is Dramatically Interesting and since he sucks at it, will create more Dramatically Interesting problems due to Complications, rinse repeat until they win or the Consequence Spiral gets everyone killed.

Baker wasn't interested in creating a World in Motion for people to game in, he was interested in creating a game system for people who play with an eye towards Story and Narration that wouldn't drown them in obscure meta-mechanics that have nothing to do with what's happening.

All the narrative control is baked into the Moves, which only occur based on character action.  That's the brilliance of the design, but is still quite different from a traditional game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1098537That, however, isn't Dramatically Interesting, so the player has his character "follow the fiction" and attack, which is Dramatically Interesting and since he sucks at it, will create more Dramatically Interesting problems due to Complications, rinse repeat until they win or the Consequence Spiral gets everyone killed...

In actual play I have found that most players, myself included, tend to err on the side of survival over: Fiction Now!

Because: fuck consequences, if at all possible.

Most AW players learn early on that you can consequence spiral yourself to death real quick if you try to do much beyond your niche early in the game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1098537All the narrative control is baked into the Moves, which only occur based on character action.  That's the brilliance of the design, but is still quite different from a traditional game.

I don't see how you can call the design brilliant when, by your own admission, the game mechanics actively discourage the players from doing what the game expects them to do.

This is where I see a similarity between DW and storygames, in that there is an assumption that the players are not supposed to be trying to have their characters succeed in whatever goals they have assigned their characters. That, along with the idea that characters failing is automatically more interesting than character succeeding.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1098547I don't see how you can call the design brilliant when, by your own admission, the game mechanics actively discourage the players from doing what the game expects them to do..

Only in DW. In AW, Monsterhearts, Masks, etc. playbooks moves are so powerflul that complications feel like a fair tradeoff, so players don't get intimidated to try stuff.

Regardless, what Jaeger said above still applies (even for DW): it's a philosophy that assumes players taking risks is good and desirable because it makes stories exciting. If you don't agree to that premise, don't play the games.