Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell"

Breaking news ! PbtA invented critical failures !

Another fine example of shit design and barely understood modeling principles: you can either succeed (10+), succeed with something random happening (7+) or fail horribly. Whoever came up with something so fucked up and illogical was clearly smoking something very good, and I want some.

Quote from: Itachi on February 15, 2023, 05:11:59 PM
Yep, and that's fine. Apples and oranges and all that. At least you seemed to give a honest chance to it and formed a founded opinion. Instead of, you know pulling shit out of your ass to justify some hate like other people do.

And still this bs continues. Actually trying to play the game doesn't count as an "honest chance" because if you arrive at the conclusion is sucks, you are clearly playing it wrong.

QuoteThey are one of the few games you can play " wrong".

I wish this was a parody, but it's not. The crackpipe of Dungeon World and similar games is very appealing to the right kind of weak-minded individual, I suppose.

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AMFor me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.

I agree. If the GM doesn't go hard on players on 6-/failures the game fizzles. I had some difficulties with this myself at first, seeing as I'm a historically "goodie" GM.

Quote from: Vestragor on February 16, 2023, 02:30:08 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell"

Breaking news ! PbtA invented critical failures !

Another fine example of shit design and barely understood modeling principles: you can either succeed (10+), succeed with something random happening (7+) or fail horribly. Whoever came up with something so fucked up and illogical was clearly smoking something very good, and I want some.

That's close, but a roll in PbtA isn't just PC action. It's also rolling for enemy action and/or random encounters. So a failure isn't necessarily the PC doing poorly at the task. Since the GM never rolls, this folds together a GM roll and a player roll.

To take an example, consider traditional combat. In a traditional RPG, there are four typical results of a combat round:

1) Enemy misses, PC misses. i.e. "double-whiff"
2) Enemy hits, PC misses.
3) Enemy hits, PC hits.
4) Enemy misses, PC hits.

In PbtA, #1 never happens. The same sort of thing will happen in the fiction, but in game mechanics, we skip over that part, because it is of no consequence. Instead, the roll decides among results #2 to #4, and the GM might describe "The combatants circle first as they try each other out, then move in for real." - representing the same thing as double-whiffs.

Similarly, if the PCs are trying to sneak into the fortress. In a traditional RPG, the GM might roll multiple times on the random encounter table for patrols every ten minutes to see if the PCs encounter anything. Then they'd roll for the patrol perception skill and the players would roll on their stealth skill. Eventually, the PCs get in without being detected, or they'd be spotted and confronted, or perhaps they have a choice.

This would be just one roll in PbtA.

Note that the players rolling 6- doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs did poorly in attempting stealth. It could be that they got unlucky with patrols and the patrols did particularly well with their perception.

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
PbtA isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd comment on success rate and risk.

In traditional RPGs, a failed player roll means nothing happens. In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell" (for "Act Under Pressure" in MotW) or similar. That makes the risk of a roll very real. If the GM doesn't follow through with that, then it can be lame - but that's true for any game. If the GM goes easy then it isn't threatening.

For me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.

Rather in D&D, where the player is in complete control of all those circumstances by just allowing him to decide how to react to successes and failures. In PbtA, the system tells you that there has to be a reaction that is always more than "nothing." The need to have the system enforce the story on the PC's, and the PC's over the GM, actually limits PC agency to continue the session. You're not thinking tactically anymore, you're thinking conveniently. You don't really learn anything.

So there's no real reason to layer degrees of success and failure on the dice rolls. In D&D, if you hit, you can immediately pivot into an intimidation check against a nearby opponent, if you want. If you miss, you can just roleplay your character becoming so shocked that he trips on something, falling right prone. Not that you'd really want to do that, but that's the advantage of having a plain pass/fail mechanism. The action is in your hands because it's not restricted to the game rules. And once you've noticed that there are no moves for "retreat" or "ambush" it's clear that the PbtA system is only ever good at railroading its players towards the great climax that they wanted anyway.

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 11:09:28 AM

Quote from: Vestragor on February 16, 2023, 02:30:08 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell"

Breaking news ! PbtA invented critical failures !

Another fine example of shit design and barely understood modeling principles: you can either succeed (10+), succeed with something random happening (7+) or fail horribly. Whoever came up with something so fucked up and illogical was clearly smoking something very good, and I want some.

That's close, but a roll in PbtA isn't just PC action. It's also rolling for enemy action and/or random encounters. So a failure isn't necessarily the PC doing poorly at the task. Since the GM never rolls, this folds together a GM roll and a player roll.

To take an example, consider traditional combat. In a traditional RPG, there are four typical results of a combat round:

1) Enemy misses, PC misses. i.e. "double-whiff"
2) Enemy hits, PC misses.
3) Enemy hits, PC hits.
4) Enemy misses, PC hits.

In PbtA, #1 never happens. The same sort of thing will happen in the fiction, but in game mechanics, we skip over that part, because it is of no consequence. Instead, the roll decides among results #2 to #4, and the GM might describe "The combatants circle first as they try each other out, then move in for real." - representing the same thing as double-whiffs.

Similarly, if the PCs are trying to sneak into the fortress. In a traditional RPG, the GM might roll multiple times on the random encounter table for patrols every ten minutes to see if the PCs encounter anything. Then they'd roll for the patrol perception skill and the players would roll on their stealth skill. Eventually, the PCs get in without being detected, or they'd be spotted and confronted, or perhaps they have a choice.

This would be just one roll in PbtA.

Note that the players rolling 6- doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs did poorly in attempting stealth. It could be that they got unlucky with patrols and the patrols did particularly well with their perception.

The fact that you can't have #1 in PbtA is is something that's not really helping your case. When two fighters miss each other in D&D, there's an opening for them both to laugh it off, and a parlay can begin. There's no room for de-escalation otherwise in PbtA unless you've put the enemy into a spotlight of humiliation by hitting him first, or getting hit and begging for mercy. Otherwise, there's no chance to assess your enemy's strengths by failing to meet the target AC.

Also, if it's not insane to pre-roll initiative orders before the D&D session starts, it's not insane to pre-roll the routine of the fortress patrols if you can estimate the number of rounds it takes for the PCs to scale the walls. This winds up being a strawman for GM's that haven't realized that they haven't prepped enough. The spot checks are something you can do once the PCs have poked their heads above the walls and started moving through the hallways.

There's more tension built up by expanding on this problem solving process with one-off checks that help the player reassess his progress. And, the next time you scale a different set of walls, the scenario is entirely different, and you can use different tactics to accomplish this similar situation in a new place, and you'll never be guaranteed the same outcome in every instance of bypassing patrols. This has a metagame effect of sharpening the player's wits to better play his characters. Putting that entire process of sneaking into a fortress onto a single die roll is akin to presenting a logical puzzle in-game but letting the players roll with character skills to solve it, like a button masher in a SF/MK game.

If the guards did well with their perception, the PCs didn't do well-enough with their stealth. That's the pass-fail paradigm folded into opposing rolls already doing exactly what you're hoping to do.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 12:08:28 AM
PbtA isn't to everyone's taste, but I'd comment on success rate and risk.

In traditional RPGs, a failed player roll means nothing happens. In PbtA, a failed roll means "things go to hell" (for "Act Under Pressure" in MotW) or similar. That makes the risk of a roll very real. If the GM doesn't follow through with that, then it can be lame - but that's true for any game. If the GM goes easy then it isn't threatening.

For me me, the whole point of PbtA is that full successes (10+) should be major strides forward, and failures (6-) are devastating. It's what differentiates the game from traditional delay. In combat failure, you don't just miss - the enemy hits you. If you're scouting, then an enemy surprises you. etc.

Rather in D&D, where the player is in complete control of all those circumstances by just allowing him to decide how to react to successes and failures. In PbtA, the system tells you that there has to be a reaction that is always more than "nothing." The need to have the system enforce the story on the PC's, and the PC's over the GM, actually limits PC agency to continue the session. You're not thinking tactically anymore, you're thinking conveniently. You don't really learn anything.

I'm confused by the shift of topic. From what I understood previously, you were saying that PbtA enabled Marty Stus with only an illusion of risk. Do you still think that? I can't tell what you're saying about risk.

In general, it seems like you're trying to bash PbtA. My point wasn't to advocate for it, but to explain the difference in approach. I enjoy traditional RPGs, and they're the most common sort of RPGs I run. I'm GMing a D&D campaign currently. Still, I also enjoy PbtA from time to time. If you don't like it, that's fine - but we can at least discuss specifics of how it runs, even if our tastes differ.

As far as player agency, I'm not sure how far we disagree. I would agree that PbtA has more granularity than D&D, so it is less tactical. There are fewer rounds and rolls in a typical combat, and thus fewer choices. However, combat also resolves faster, so players can go on to make other choices. In wargames, this is the spectrum of tactical vs strategic. I don't think there's a right choice here - there are pros and cons of each. As you put it,

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 11:09:28 AM
That's close, but a roll in PbtA isn't just PC action. It's also rolling for enemy action and/or random encounters. So a failure isn't necessarily the PC doing poorly at the task. Since the GM never rolls, this folds together a GM roll and a player roll.

The fact that you can't have #1 in PbtA is is something that's not really helping your case. When two fighters miss each other in D&D, there's an opening for them both to laugh it off, and a parlay can begin. There's no room for de-escalation otherwise in PbtA unless you've put the enemy into a spotlight of humiliation by hitting him first, or getting hit and begging for mercy. Otherwise, there's no chance to assess your enemy's strengths by failing to meet the target AC.

Right. There are fewer decision points in PbtA since there are fewer rolls in a combat. In D&D, you might have a round at the start where nothing happens -- leaving more time to change moment to moment. There's less of that in PbtA. Among more traditional RPGs, it has parallels to Tunnels & Trolls, which has a more abstracted and fast-resolving combat.

On the other hand, there are some systems like GURPS that are more granular than D&D. In GURPS, you make new decisions every second -- as opposed to six seconds in D&D. In D&D, you can rush forward and attack in the same turn. In a system like Phoenix Command, there are decisions at smaller than a second.

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 06:54:12 PM
On the other hand, there are some systems like GURPS that are more granular than D&D. In GURPS, you make new decisions every second -- as opposed to six seconds in D&D. In D&D, you can rush forward and attack in the same turn. In a system like Phoenix Command, there are decisions at smaller than a second.

Wait, have you actually seen somebody playing Phoenix Command?  I have never met anyone with enough of a maths brain to go through a section of PC combat and not get lost midway...

Quote from: jhkim on February 16, 2023, 06:54:12 PM
I'm confused by the shift of topic. From what I understood previously, you were saying that PbtA enabled Marty Stus with only an illusion of risk. Do you still think that? I can't tell what you're saying about risk.

In general, it seems like you're trying to bash PbtA. My point wasn't to advocate for it, but to explain the difference in approach. I enjoy traditional RPGs, and they're the most common sort of RPGs I run. I'm GMing a D&D campaign currently. Still, I also enjoy PbtA from time to time. If you don't like it, that's fine - but we can at least discuss specifics of how it runs, even if our tastes differ.

Fair, I won't accuse you of trying to push it on anyone yourself. My bashing it at all would have to be the result of the license taken with "subjective taste," and now any D&D-style games get unduly bashed from the from the other side. I don't think that any storygamers are really confident that they could handle what they criticize. They just lean on a prepackaged style of play, and they've gotten smug about the brevity of these rules, mistaking that for any depth of character, game, story, or world.

Quote
As far as player agency, I'm not sure how far we disagree. I would agree that PbtA has more granularity than D&D, so it is less tactical. There are fewer rounds and rolls in a typical combat, and thus fewer choices. However, combat also resolves faster, so players can go on to make other choices. In wargames, this is the spectrum of tactical vs strategic. I don't think there's a right choice here - there are pros and cons of each. As you put it,

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM
The fact that you can't have #1 in PbtA is is something that's not really helping your case. When two fighters miss each other in D&D, there's an opening for them both to laugh it off, and a parlay can begin. There's no room for de-escalation otherwise in PbtA unless you've put the enemy into a spotlight of humiliation by hitting him first, or getting hit and begging for mercy. Otherwise, there's no chance to assess your enemy's strengths by failing to meet the target AC.

Right. There are fewer decision points in PbtA since there are fewer rolls in a combat. In D&D, you might have a round at the start where nothing happens -- leaving more time to change moment to moment. There's less of that in PbtA. Among more traditional RPGs, it has parallels to Tunnels & Trolls, which has a more abstracted and fast-resolving combat.

On the other hand, there are some systems like GURPS that are more granular than D&D. In GURPS, you make new decisions every second -- as opposed to six seconds in D&D. In D&D, you can rush forward and attack in the same turn. In a system like Phoenix Command, there are decisions at smaller than a second.

Again, this doesn't address my concern, and GURPS is a higher granularity of pacing, totally different from PbtA's granularity of framing and complications. A newbie player in old school D&Ds can make choices from a limited pool with what he is most immediately familiar, but he draws those choices from what has been described about the environment around his character. He comes up with them himself, and this pool grows over time as a player, and the lack of attachment to granularity provides that freedom within the game. But these storygamers will never confront this reality, because the battle lines have already been drawn as far as they care. I'm not really confident that I'm getting anywhere with you in this discussion as it is.

Quote from: ClusterFlusterFair, I won't accuse you of trying to push it on anyone yourself. My bashing it at all would have to be the result of the license taken with "subjective taste," and now any D&D-style games get unduly bashed from the from the other side. I don't think that any storygamers are really confident that they could handle what they criticize.

This statement sounds weird to me because, again, I don't see any players bashing D&D in the circles I meander. On the contrary, the groups I know or participate play all kinds of games, from D&D to storygames to boardgames to videogames, and while we have our own preferences ("John dislikes Blades, Tina dislikes 3E D&D and Mike dislikes Overwatch") we never take that as judgements of value about those games, same way we would never say horror movies are objectively inferior to action movies, or karate is objectivelly inferior to jiujitsu. We understand these games differ in form and style and that's it, some people will prefer one or the other and fun will be had when tastes meet.

Quote from: Itachi on February 17, 2023, 12:36:37 PM

Quote from: ClusterFlusterFair, I won't accuse you of trying to push it on anyone yourself. My bashing it at all would have to be the result of the license taken with "subjective taste," and now any D&D-style games get unduly bashed from the from the other side. I don't think that any storygamers are really confident that they could handle what they criticize.

This statement sounds weird to me because, again, I don't see any players bashing D&D in the circles I meander. On the contrary, the groups I know or participate play all kinds of games, from D&D to storygames to boardgames to videogames, and while we have our own preferences ("John dislikes Blades, Tina dislikes 3E D&D and Mike dislikes Overwatch") we never take that as judgements of value about those games, same way we would never say horror movies are objectively inferior to action movies, or karate is objectivelly inferior to jiujitsu. We understand these games differ in form and style and that's it, some people will prefer one or the other and fun will be had when tastes meet.

I've talked to a number of One-True-Way-ist storygamers, who disparage all traditional RPGs. Then again, I've been gaming since long before The Forge and the story games crowd. In discussions back in the 1990s, I also encountered many One-True-Way-ists who would disparage D&D in favor of their preferred game. These days, you can just play the wrong edition of D&D and you can get disparaged for playing D&D the wrong way.

Still, I think most gamers are happy to try a different game and even if they don't like it, they just accept that it's not their cup of tea.

To ClusterFluster,

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 10:45:13 PM
A newbie player in old school D&Ds can make choices from a limited pool with what he is most immediately familiar, but he draws those choices from what has been described about the environment around his character. He comes up with them himself, and this pool grows over time as a player, and the lack of attachment to granularity provides that freedom within the game. But these storygamers will never confront this reality, because the battle lines have already been drawn as far as they care. I'm not really confident that I'm getting anywhere with you in this discussion as it is.

OK. It's your thread. What are you looking for? From the original post, I thought you were interested in discussion about how to play PbtA. Do you still want discussion of complications and handling rolls from people who play PbtA?

Not anymore, at this point I'm just going to drop it.

I've played PbtA and Dungeon World and consider the systems to be hot garbage, specifically from how much they lean into putting too much into the hands of GM fiat.  Given that 7-9, the largest probability chunk of a 2d6 roll, boils down to 'tee hee the GM makes something up about how you didn't really succeed', even what should be an extremely competent character with a +2 modifier has a high likelihood of getting that result on any check: in fact +2 has the same probability of that result, there's just diminished probability of outright failure and increased probability of outright success.

Mind, I don't consider 'success with a setback' or 'failure with an advantage' to be inherently bad.  Arguably my favorite system is Genesys, which has both of those outcomes.  The difference is that the system is not tilted in a way to make those outcomes the most likely outcome of any check regardless of other modifiers.  If something goes awry, it should have gone awry for a better reason than the game having stacked the deck for that to happen.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 16, 2023, 12:46:04 PM
And once you've noticed that there are no moves for "retreat" or "ambush" it's clear that the PbtA system is only ever good at railroading its players towards the great climax that they wanted anyway.

Both of those would fall under Defy Danger.

...or Act under Fire, in AW.

QuoteExcept it was? PbtA and it's progeny (Blades in the Dark included) in fact solved the problem of GM fiat and railroading, as anyone who actually played these games can attest.

I played and I'm gonna deeply disagree. While sure railroading is against rules (though it was always faux paus even in trad games), and storygame RPGs are understandable reaction to all abominable trends of 90's and early 2000's that people her kinda ignore. However GM fiat is... very strong in those. Establishing risk and results for instance and applying them to descriptive not numerative PC's competences hang mostly on GM bias. Way more than in games when you have specific skills and specific difficulty levels for specific tasks IMHO. (Not to mention deciding what those limited or enhanced results even will be - that's all on GM. Massive responsibility.)

I'd say advantage of SG is that they force GM to constantly improvise and no rely on prep so they train specifically this muscle - but this improvisation in classic PBTA/FITD game hangs heavily on GM's fiat.

And I generally agree with others skepticism in terms of railroading - GM who wanna railroad will just ignore those rules that forbid him to do it, and houserule to do his own shit.
Just like they always did. However of course how game present rules have influence over people learning them - so while 90s - 2000s very linear adventure design trend common in many popular system was promoting railroading, well this may discourage it. (I mean it could - but what I see of 5e those fuckers are really into rails and narrative bits from cheapest drama, and 5e eats all SG movement in one bite). Which means people was not wrong to kinda mock your SOLVED assesement - it was way to strong.

QuoteAdam Koebel was canceled over a fairly infamous robot scene. PbtA games solving GM railroading sort of falls apart before it gets off the ground.

Now however Far Verona campaign as I checked was run on Stars Without Numbers not PBTA. SO IT'S OSR FAULT!

QuoteI've played PbtA and Dungeon World and consider the systems to be hot garbage, specifically from how much they lean into putting too much into the hands of GM fiat.  Given that 7-9, the largest probability chunk of a 2d6 roll, boils down to 'tee hee the GM makes something up about how you didn't really succeed', even what should be an extremely competent character with a +2 modifier has a high likelihood of getting that result on any check: in fact +2 has the same probability of that result, there's just diminished probability of outright failure and increased probability of outright success.

Mind, I don't consider 'success with a setback' or 'failure with an advantage' to be inherently bad.  Arguably my favorite system is Genesys, which has both of those outcomes.  The difference is that the system is not tilted in a way to make those outcomes the most likely outcome of any check regardless of other modifiers.  If something goes awry, it should have gone awry for a better reason than the game having stacked the deck for that to happen.

I'd say in this way GM is kinda breaking contract of game. Because 7-9 definitely means you succeeded in declared action.
Consequence that negates success is kinda against the rules.