A comparative analysis of Trad Games and AW/DW

rgalex · August 16, 2019, 08:43:16 AM

Quote from: Zalman;1099497Sorry, I'm still not buying the distinction between "pre-existing" and "one through play". Maybe you do it differently, but personally I don't create a brand new world for every game session, nor do I create a brand new world for every new group, campaign, or joining player. The game world we use was started by me, the DM, and then evolved though player actions. It's been alive for years, and when a new player joins the group, or a new campaign begins, it starts with the world as built primarily through game play.

Do you think it's more popular to use a brand new fresh game world for every session? Every campaign? That certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. As others have pointed out, 1e's "pre-existing" (according to you) game world is chock-full of spells, locales, and personas created by players, during the game. So is my game world. So is every other game world I've ever played in. I am very skeptical that creating new worlds for each new group of players is "more popular".

In all my years of gaming, I've seen just the opposite. I can count on one hand, and have fingers left over, the number of GMs/groups I've run into that have a living world that they just keep adding to.

Every time I start a new campaign it's a new world. New map with new locations and new NPCs. The only thing you may be able to rely on being the same is anything that comes directly from the core book. Even that isn't a guarantee.

estar · August 16, 2019, 09:22:42 AM

Quote from: rgalex;1099625In all my years of gaming, I've seen just the opposite. I can count on one hand, and have fingers left over, the number of GMs/groups I've run into that have a living world that they just keep adding to.

Every time I start a new campaign it's a new world. New map with new locations and new NPCs. The only thing you may be able to rely on being the same is anything that comes directly from the core book. Even that isn't a guarantee.

I agree your situation is more common than referees who run living worlds. However have you ever answered in a positive way when the players said "Wouldn't it makes sense that X would be here?" or "Wouldn't it be neat if Y was as here as well?" With X and Y being a number of things ranging from small scale stuff like items in a room to things with larger scope like NPC organizations or perhaps a whole country.

Zalman · August 16, 2019, 10:47:41 AM

Quote from: CRKrueger;1099541More like born of the difference between In-Character and Out of Character.

I agree that the real distinction being made is one between in-character play and out-of-character play. I don't agree this makes a world "shared" or "unshared": in both cases players are contributing to the ongoing milieu that is experienced by every other player in the future. In my opinion, conclusions drawn from the notion of the world being "shared" or not on this basis are unfounded.

Itachi · August 16, 2019, 12:04:30 PM

Just stumbled with this blog post from 2004 by the Apocaylpse World author. It explains a big part of the philosophy behind PbtA:

(taken from http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html )

Spoiler

A Small Thing About Suspense

I have no criticism cred to back this up. Just amatuer observations. So kick my butt if you gotta.

Suspense doesn't come from uncertain outcomes.

I have no doubt, not one shread of measly doubt, that Babe the pig is going to wow the sheepdog trial audience. Neither do you. But we're on the edge of our seats! What's up with that?

Suspense comes from putting off the inevitable.

What's up with that is, we know that Babe is going to win, but we don't know what it will cost.

Everybody with me still? If you're not, give it a try: watch a movie. Notice how the movie builds suspense: by putting complications between the protagonist and what we all know is coming. The protagonist has to buy victory, it's as straightforward as that. That's why the payoff at the end of the suspense is satisfying, after all, too: we're like ah, finally.

What about RPGs?

Yes, it can be suspenseful to not know whether your character will succeed or fail. I'm not going to dispute that. But what I absolutely do dispute is that that's the only or best way to get suspense in your gaming. In fact, and check this out, when GMs fudge die rolls in order to preserve or create suspense, it shows that suspense and uncertain outcomes are, in those circumstances, incompatible.

So here's a better way to get suspense in gaming: put off the inevitable.

Acknowledge up front that the PCs are going to win, and never sweat it. Then use the dice to escalate, escalate, escalate. We all know the PCs are going to win. But what will it cost them?

My game Chalk Outlines was a stab at this, and Otherkind was a better stab, but where it's really coming home is in Dogs in the Vineyard and the Good Knights.

3-22-04

Of course, this was made way before Apocalypse World was written. I guess nowadays his best "stab" at this philosophy is Apocalypse World.

Azraele · August 16, 2019, 12:32:56 PM

Quote from: Itachi;1099638"Acknowledge up front that the PCs are going to win, and never sweat it."

There's a lot of chatter in this thread that talks past this point: there are exactly two final camps. Those who agree with the above sentence, and those who disagree.

I disagree.

And that's really all I can say on the matter. What's everything else but pontification?

Itachi · August 16, 2019, 12:59:53 PM

Yep, not everyone will agree with that. But it helps to understand PbtA and the divide between it and more traditional games.

Azraele · August 16, 2019, 01:54:47 PM

Quote from: Itachi;1099644Yep, not everyone will agree with that. But it helps to understand PbtA and the divide between it and more traditional games.

Yes, it absolutely clarifies things.

And don't get me backwards; I am in no way condemning that style of play.

But I object to it at my table. And a vehemently object to confusing it as "what we're all doing, anyway", which is what I routinely see when it crops up online.

estar · August 16, 2019, 04:28:25 PM

I am not seeing how that idea works in a practical sense. To much of what happens in a campaign is anything but inevitable. Movies and other scripted/written entertainment can use the technique because the author or team know the end point they trying to reach. They can play with various elements, like pacing to achieve the desired emotional response like suspense.

But in a tabletop RPG campaign you have each player having their own goal and motivations. Since time scrying is not a real things there is just no way to predict or influence the actions of each players in the way scripted/written entertainment.

That post is describing something that doesn't work in reality. Instead it describes a style of play focused on wish fulfillment.

Omega · August 16, 2019, 05:49:02 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat;1099075THIS is the major difference between RPGs and storygames.

THIS is what separates them as different game genres.

LARPS are not RPGs, even though you're playing a character in both and both are games with rules. Nobody is demanding we call LARPS RPGs.

Depends on the LARP? Quite a few have defined rules and even GMs to moderate or explain what the players may be seeing when its not actually represented by a prop. So yes. Some LARPS are RPGs. Others are barely LARPs and more like stage plays or some weird experimental group play.

Omega · August 16, 2019, 06:25:07 PM

Quote from: estar;1099280Looking at this list, I see several kinds of RPG in regards to setting. One that don't specify any, ones that have a setting but it is an example, historical/legendary RPG (some narrow, some broad), and ones that have a specific setting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_tabletop_role-playing_games

It not as typical as you are asserting. Nor it is different compared to the situation today.

Keep in mind that a few years ago storygamers/forge cultists/swine were caught editing the wikipedia pages on RPGs to better suit their "narrative" of what an RPG is.

Alexander Kalinowski · August 17, 2019, 03:23:32 AM

Quote from: Azraele;1099641There's a lot of chatter in this thread that talks past this point: there are exactly two final camps. Those who agree with the above sentence, and those who disagree.

I disagree.

And that's really all I can say on the matter. What's everything else but pontification?

It's more complicated than that. Even among the "The PCs MAY not win" crowd, there's a huge variety - what does not-winning even mean? The PCs can't die but they may not beat the scenario? Or: the PCs can die but the likelihood is so close to 0, that is almost impossible to distinguish? Or: the PCs may die, but only in certain situations (like boss battles), whereas they are largely invulnerable, due to plot armor, during the run of the scenario. And there's of course gamers (OR GAMES), where TPKs are an omnipresent potential threat. Anyway, I believe the PCs can always die when the players just dick around enough with the GM.

Quote from: estar;1099671I am not seeing how that idea works in a practical sense. To much of what happens in a campaign is anything but inevitable. Movies and other scripted/written entertainment can use the technique because the author or team know the end point they trying to reach. They can play with various elements, like pacing to achieve the desired emotional response like suspense.

But in a tabletop RPG campaign you have each player having their own goal and motivations. Since time scrying is not a real things there is just no way to predict or influence the actions of each players in the way scripted/written entertainment.

That post is describing something that doesn't work in reality. Instead it describes a style of play focused on wish fulfillment.

I happen to disagree. First of all, I have been in too many trad games where they PCs couldn't die - because it was quite apparent that the GM was fudging dice behind the screen. Secondly, Vincent Baker is a smart guy and he's not completely wrong here: when you watch an Indiana Jones movie, you never feel for even a moment that Indy could die. Not even once. Still, the first three movies are suspenseful. This is clear indication that human beings can be thrilled by stories in which they know the protagonist's life isn't under threat. (Nor the ultimate success of the mission.)

Omega · August 17, 2019, 08:24:27 AM

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099398That is not what I was referring to though. If you look further up in the thread you will find that I affirmed that as part of background generation, players might make up, for example, a rival PC in a trad game. It's a background element that the PC would already know.

What is more unusual, though, is shared world creation that you find in story games, where the GM elicits setting elements that the PCs may have not encountered yet or have no knowledge of, especially whole regions (which in a lot of trad games would be defined by the built-in setting anyway, compare "How is this land that you came from? Where is it on the map? Tell us some quirks of it's people?" further above).

1a: That is relatively common in D&D and some other traditional RPGs.

1b: BX and Thunder Rift were pretty much made for that as was Gamma World and Star Frontiers. You had a map and a few place names. And that was about it. The DM could flesh it out themselves, or develop lands based on player input and/or backgrounds. Varying degrees of shared world creation. I am pretty sure there are even one or two articles in Dragon touching on the subject and various ways to approach it.

And D20 Gamma World had player created base towns that the players statted out, chose skills for, and managed. The town was essentially a shared creation. There are probably others like that. 4e D&D GW allowed players to pretty much make up their own races and equipment during chargen. They even give an example where the PC could instead of being a swarm of rats that cluster into a humanoid shape, instead its a swarm of kittens. Your medium ranged weapon could be a crossbow, a lazer gun, a bee shooter, whatever. Mekton may be another example as it is very freeform during geargen. YMMV on that. But there are some other freeform/toolbox RPGs that allow players to customize a little or alot.

Omega · August 17, 2019, 08:33:03 AM

Quote from: Zalman;1099410That said, even early versions of D&D stressed the creation of "territories" by the PCs, with Gygax noting in the DMG:
Of course, if your objection here is that a "territory" is smaller than a "country", or that it doesn't have a "king" or whatever, then the line you're drawing is even more arbitrary than I thought.

Of course, Gygax also stressed the characters' development as being integral to the game world:

I recall something similar. Not sure if it was in Dragon or what. But the concept was each player created a region and the DM wove these together to form the land the players would adventure in?

Azraele · August 17, 2019, 08:53:00 AM

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099732It's more complicated than that. Even among the "The PCs MAY not win" crowd, there's a huge variety - what does not-winning even mean? The PCs can't die but they may not beat the scenario? Or: the PCs can die but the likelihood is so close to 0, that is almost impossible to distinguish? Or: the PCs may die, but only in certain situations (like boss battles), whereas they are largely invulnerable, due to plot armor, during the run of the scenario. And there's of course gamers (OR GAMES), where TPKs are an omnipresent potential threat. Anyway, I believe the PCs can always die when the players just dick around enough with the GM.

I'll grant this wrinkle, but note that the topic has shifted from system to style.

I feel like before we untangle the Gordian knot of comparative game system analysis, we have to address the root philosophical divergence we've uncovered here.

And yes, "Rocks fall, everyone dies" is an inarguable bedrock truth of all RPGs since their birth.

Alexander Kalinowski · August 17, 2019, 01:09:24 PM

Quote from: Azraele;1099756I'll grant this wrinkle, but note that the topic has shifted from system to style.

I feel like before we untangle the Gordian knot of comparative game system analysis, we have to address the root philosophical divergence we've uncovered here.

Valid points. I'm having a few questions here though:

Is this really a clear-cut trad versus PbtA thing? Or even trad versus narrativist thing?
If the same mentality has existed in a fair number of trad games behind the scenes - is Vincent Baker's approach just more honest? Making it explicit? And does he bring more suspense into it, since now there is a cost attached to failure other than the GM having to fudge die rolls again (which is kinda just a price the GM has to pay)? We could say that retrieving the grail was never really in doubt for Indy - only the survival of his father and of Elsa, perhaps.
What are the different game styles that different people are prefering anyway? Does it relate to genre and if so - how?
Can we address this issue without even taking a wider look at risk management in RPGs (trad or otherwise)?