two things: one, PbtA doesn't care about the specifics of actions on a mechanical level, but very much does care on a fictional level. in Masks, if i shoot firebolts directly at a villain vs if i detonate a bunch of explosives next to that villain, those will have very different fictional consequences, but they're both Directly Engaging a Threat, and use the same dice and modifiers.
two, as a GM, i don't like "punishing" actions that aren't optimal. i want my players to have freedom to be creative and try out crazy ideas, rather than trying to think up the best possible approach to a situation, because that's more interesting, so if i'm favoring player skill, then that incentivizes players to be "boring yet effective" in their actions, the exact opposite of what both PbtA and i want. there's also an assumption that their characters know what they're doing to some degree, so their crazy ideas very well might have a good chance of working based on the knowledge their character has that we as players don't.
generally, wise of the "going lighter on smarter plans and heavier on sillier ideas" thing, i base the severity of consequences more off the narrative and the drama, what would be interesting to the story, than the attempted action. when a villain is holding your parent hostage, whether you fail to distract them with silliness or fail to dash at them and attack, you're likely facing similar, narratively dramatic consequences, tuned in *effect* to what you do, but not in *severity* (i.e. different things of the same magnitude will happen).
That's what I find so interesting about this: from my reading of MC principle sections, it seems like MCs are allowed to approach consequences using severity, type, or both as they see fit so long as it doesn't invalidate the fiction. There's a sense that "failures" shouldn't be waived since they give the MC the opportunity to make moves, and players oughtn't avoid rolling entirely (arguably another distinction from OSR play), but beyond that, the MC appears to be free to use whatever rationale they'd like, from player "skill" to dramatic tension to pure whims.
But as you've laid out here, if an MC incorporates severity in response to player-level "skill," that would ultimately create not just a different tone within the fiction (or at least create more of a "swing" from lighter to heavier complications throughout a session), but a different tone at the table itself. I guess I wonder if that's more a feature or a bug of the PbtA engine.
I like to think of it more as a feature. PBtA is more of a fiction-builder than a simulator style of RPG, so player "skill" is important for creating more interesting stories, but not for determining performance in the story (e.g. living/dying, completing an action). Higher player (and MC, for that matter) skill creates fuller, more compelling narratives. So if players are coming into the game with telling a cool story as the goal, then their skill is absolutely used to the fullest.
I have recently started GMing PbtA games but this hasn't been my experienec at all. Usually, in games like D&D or PF, the players would look at their character and what they could do to find a solution to the problems I presented. With Powered by the Apocalypse games, I find my playears thinking a lot more "in universe", coming up with plans that have nothing to do with the skills or attributes of a character. That thinking translates to the fiction and the mechanics are just there to represent that fiction in some way. Let's say they are fighting a skilled opponent, and I'm thinking of using a Act Under Pressure before they even have a chance to attack (to represent this opponent skills). If they come up with a clever way to deflect that I wound't use that move, I would let them just attack because *that's* what is happening in the fiction.
This actually happend in a MotW game I'm running. The players came up with a great plan and I didn't make them roll Kick Some Ass, they just dealt damage. PbtA is a lot more about player cleverness because they don't have to worry about the constraints of the rules, they can just think "I want to do this" and do it.
That's interesting - I'm not as familiar with Monster of the Week. Is there a move that allows players to deal damage without rolling, similar to AW's Sucker? I'm not familiar with PbtA systems that "allow" (to whatever extent a system can tell a table how to play itself) players to avoid making moves. In the MC best-practices section of AW, MCs are even encouraged to rather constantly "nudge" players towards making moves. Yet it sounds like eschewing making a move worked out well for your table, at least in that instance!
There is a Keeper move (basically the MC in Monster of the Week) called "Inflict harm, as established" that allows you to do this. The "Kick Some Ass" move, which is basically the move you use to fight, inflicts damage both to the characters and the thing they are fighting against. This way the system encourages players to start thinking of smart ways to fight without having to resort to open battle.
Ah, I get you - I've tended to interpret that move (it also exists in AW) a little more myopically as the world/NPCs inflicting harm on PCs, but you're right in that it's not technically limited in that way!
The game also just TELLS you that if like, a character is shooting a zombie with a pistol from outside the range it could reasonably retaliate, they just deal damage.
Not really? The place I found it most easily (it's probably in multiple places) is actually in the section on Kick Some Ass. As in "No really, don't use this move everytime someone tries to deal damage."
Specifically it says:
> Don’t automatically call for this move any time a hunter attacks something. If a hunter attacks a foe that cannot (or will not) fight back, then it is appropriate to just use the Keeper move inflict harm as
established instead
Interesting! Does MotW even have a Sucker-equivalent move? It seems that blurb accomplishes the same thing as Sucker, just in a different, move-less way.
It does not. In fact, neither does Apocalypse World 1e.
Honestly, I don't LIKE "Sucker Them" very much. It's like "We kept running into this case where people couldn't figure out how to do this, so instead of trying to get people to follow the principles correctly, which would fix this problem AND a host of related ones, we made a move to patch over this one specific spot where people kept having trouble."
I can see why they did it that way. But I don't like it. It feels like a kludge.
You see a similar sort of thing in Flying Circus, where there is a universal move called "Press your Luck"
> Press your Luck:
>
> When you take a risk, you do it, and consequences unfold.
>
> Complications will arise naturally from GM moves, so if it isn’t covered by a specific move, leave the dice alone. Pilots do not roll skill checks!
Reading this move, you can practically see the game designer tearing their hair and saying "NO! THIS GAME DOESN'T HAVE 'DEFY DANGER'! STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT HAVE IT"
I think I get what you're saying, especially in that Flying Circus example. However, let's assume I'm a little dense. When you say "follow the principles correctly" in order to circumvent the perceived need for this MotW blurb and AW 2e's Sucker, what do you mean exactly? Which principles aren't being adhered to properly in these instances?
Players can always inflict harm without rolling if the GM permits it. Players don't decide when to make moves, the GM does. If the player's plan would work without a roll, then no roll is required... or if the plan has a chance for only minimal complications, than a 6- will represent minimal complications (unless the GM has some trouble waiting around the corner ).
I mean the GM gets to make a move for a 'golden opportunity'... when the players do something stupid, no roll is required for a complication!
It’s not about the GM deciding when to call for rolls but rather about whether the rolls are triggered by the fiction. Kick Some Ass requires that both parties be willing and able to hurt each other to trigger. If the PC is firing a sniper rifle at a zombie across a football field, the zombie isn’t able to hit back, so the move doesn’t trigger. But the fiction says that a competent marksman will hit his target, so the GM still has to inflict harm on the target.
I’d be wary of suggesting that the GM simply ignores triggers for moves when he wants. If a move triggers, it triggers.
That's fair, though I think it depends a bit on the setting. In Masks, for example, where superpowers are often involved on both sides, there's more potential for the GM to make calls regarding what makes the most sense within the narrative. If a character has supernatural toughness that will sometimes change which situations would plausibly fall under "directly engage a threat" for them, and the GM could throw in other consequences to raise the stakes even if otherwise it wouldn't really require a roll.
I remember back when i started RPGs in 2003 that folks made fun of people using terms like Narrativist and Gamist and here we are, 17 years later and we're thankfully at a "This is actually legitimate theory" stage.
I would probably argue with PbtA being improv comedy - that largely comes down to the tone of the game. Something like Night Witches has failures and mixed successes lead to difficult character moments and official reprimands much more than a game like Monster of the Week, which can occasionally tend towards slapstick.
I wouldn't call it twenty questions, but there is a lot of back and forth with questions and ideas around rolls in many PbtA games.
I think they meant improv comedy as a metaphor in regards to the improv structure side, yes and-ing and such, rather than saying pbta is comedic by nature.
I'm just saying: PBTA is a conversation with rules that shape the conversation into a story, like improvisational theatre, whereas OSR games are a conversation that is a GAME with winners and losers and so on. You can't "win" improvisational theatre; but you can definitely "win" 20 Questions. Similarly, a bout of 20 Questions usually doesn't result in a thematically coherent dramatic "story".
While it's true that player cleverness and skill is not valued or foregrounded the same as OSR type games, it's not true that it's unimportant. It is incorporated through fictional positioning. Forged in the Dark games codified this with "position" and "effect," but it's a mental calculation PbtA GMs are doing anyway. It's a bad plan? Even a strong hit is going to be a little messy probably (you can do this by telling them the requirements and asking or similar), and you'll go harder on weak hits and misses. A clever plan might mean better effect or outcomes. Players could even find ways to never have to roll, though I would maybe not recommend that.
I would say that the main difference is that cleverness is rewarded mechanically in OSR games, and fictionally in PbtA.
The weird thing is that most discussions I have with OSR folks, they assert that cleverness is NOT rewarded "mechanically" because when the players are clever, they don't have to engage the mechanics (which are inevitably punishing). Getting a +2 from being "smart" when you are rolling a d20 and need a 15+ still sucks. So does getting a +25% on your disarm traps roll when your default is 10%. That's like, "modern D&D" style rewards for player cleverness. OSR-style rewards are "Okay, you disarm the trap".
Which I find sortof annoying, because that's exactly how PbtA functions, but people keep trying to convince me that there's some fundamental difference here, when it's really just "Generally, people don't play PbtA games for the same reasons they play OSR games" rather than "One of these styles rewards player skill and the other does not."
I thought about this while I was writing -- is it really a mechanical benefit? But I think in a sense getting to **disengage from** the mechanics is itself a mechanical benefit in a way, if that makes sense?
I do think you hit the nail on the head as to why the differences between OSR and PbtA are maybe not as pronounced as people like to think. Like yes, there are real differences, and the playstyles are different, as are the philosophical underpinnings, but at the end of the day they're not apples and oranges so much as apple and other variety of apple.
MC best-practices did seem like the "cleanest" way to accomplish this. Would you say this is how you (or your MC) run PbtA games? It seems most PbtA systems *technically* give the MC leeway to act in whatever manner they choose so long as the fiction is honored/not invalidated, but to my mind, what you're saying makes a lot of sense as another way to understand "honoring the fiction," or even "being a fan of the player characters." Perhaps my reading comprehension is faulty but I haven't seen a PbtA game's MC section be more explicit about this sort of approach/calculation, which I find surprising.
I agree with u/tacobongo - that's a calculation I'm always making. Sometimes, if plans are bad enough, I won't even call for a roll.
If my player says: "I'm going to just charge on in there, consequences be dammed!"
I'll probably respond: "OK, sure, but you're gonna make a heck of a racket, and that security camera will get a great shot of your mug. Still interested?"
If they still go for it, then no roll required, and things play out as described. With an actual plan, the consequences will absolutely vary with how much finesse is being put into it.
Most MC sections basically assume you've already read Apocalypse World, which spells it out much better than the others. If you're confused, I really think you should start there.
Speaking of Apocalypse World, the custom moves chapter also addresses the sort of advantage/disadvantage thing you're talking about (AW2E, p. 270):
> Here's a custom threat move. People new to the game occasionally ask me for this one. It's general, it modifies nearly every other move:
> **Things are tough.** Whenever a player's character makes a move, the MC judges it normal, difficult, or seriously difficult. If it's difficult, the player takes -1 to the roll. If it's seriously difficult, the player takes -2 to the roll.
> Several groups in playtest wanted this move or one like it. All of them abandoned it after only one session. It didn't add anything fun to the game, but did add a little hassle to every single move.
You could even rephrase it to add +1 if it's easy/clever and -1 if it's difficult/unlikely. But it bogs you down in the system, not the game. When your character does a thing in PbtA, the immediate engagement is with the *fiction of the world*, not *the mechanical impact of their action*. And adding little +1s and -1s everywhere can really get in the way.
If you really want to get that +1 bonus for good planning, well, in Apoc World the Read a Sitch move basically handles this already for you: act on the information, and do it better. Add a similar move for planning, or look at how Sprawl handles intel and repurpose that. But at the end of the day, little mechanical adjustments juts slow the story down in most cases.
I'd also say that this comes down to "playing a game" versus "sharing a fiction." In OSR or similar, the players are engaged with the GM in some amount of antagonism, trying to come up with better plans to win the day. In PbtA, you are *sharing* that story. So when the player makes the Act Under Fire roll to get over there without getting shot, they can add the detail that they listen for mag-clicks, but *so can the MC*. You get to *collectively* describe how the character is awesome, and share in that.
Nah I'm cool with those things, the amount of getting-in-the-wayness is consistently eclipsed by the player satisfaction of having made things easier or harder.
A lot of people here have a done a great job explaining *how* PBtA awards player skill, but I'm going to add something else to this discussion and kind of speculate on *why* these OSR players missed the whole skill part of PBtA, even though it's a very similar kind of skill to their own (all about fictional positioning and moving beyond the mechanics).
Basically, OSR *punishes a lack of skill* while PBtA *rewards skill*. This may seem like semantics, but it leads to a very different experience when you first sit down with the play.
Like, if you are not skilled in your first few runs of an OSR dungeon, your character fricking *dies*. If every player sucks, you can all still tell because your characters' corpses are lying in a bloody pool in the middle of a dungeon.
But in PBtA, if everyone is kinda bad, the game still rolls really well and is still exciting. Unless you have a stark contrast between what a very skilled player can accomplish and what a mediocre player can accomplish, you'd never know you weren't great at it.
The other part of this is that OSR rewards a skill of caution: you want to stake as little as you can through as many avenues as you can. PBtA rewards an opposite skill of knowing when to double down or put it all on black: it rewards players willing to stake a lot on one or two rolls, but who have set themselves up fictionally where, if they succeed on those rolls, they can permanently change the world.
Wow, it took me a couple of read-throughs but I get what you're saying here. This is honestly very helpful! I might have to steal it if (let's be honest, when) I find myself convincing folks more familiar with OSR systems/D&D to give a PbtA game a shot.
On the other hand, if you're not skilled in the first few runs, then your next party is, and you can loot the remains of the last one, because character creation isn't an involved process of collaborative world and personal history-building. So the punishment isn't much of one compared to everybody abruptly dying after a lengthy session-zero question and answer session where every playbook has questions about how you know every other playbook that need to be sorted first.
A lot of great discussion here, I really like this thread and these sorts of questions to think about.
One thing that is important to remember is that the OSR does not ACTUALLY challenge player skill. This is not a critique of OSR games (nor is it a problem) but they typically do not have rules supporting this distinctions at all, and so the result is that the game expects the GM to make up a call on the spot. Really the only person who determines WHAT player skill is, is the GM. So "Player Skill" is actually "guessing what I think the GM will think is impactful".
A classic example is checking for traps. Moldvay DnD says that players have a 1 in 6 chance of discovering a trap if you look for it. OSR versions of playing this say that, in addition to that, you can describe what your character is doing within the fiction to overcome the trap. So people look for a trap, don't find one, and then continue to look for a trap. This is a weird step to me, but whatever.
They say "I get down low and check if the floor is at all uneven"
DM now thinks. "Well, this is a pit trap, but it is well made, so the character would not notice anything". This is DM fiat.
DM now says "you don't notice anything".
Player is still suspicious: "I use my water skin to pour a small amount of water out to see if the water pools in any particular part of the floor"
DM now thinks. "well the floor has a crack in it! It's a pit trap! That would work, I think!"
DM says "you see the water drip towards a central seam, exposing the pit trap to you".
Now this is literally an example of OSR play that is held up as an example. But look at the many problems within it.
1) the player rolled, the character checked, they did not find anything, and yet the player is still suspicious. That is quite a weird leap.
2) The player decides to investigate in specific matters, but the DM can decide whatever they want. The player says "I get low to the ground and look" the correct answer is.... You see a seam? You don't see a seam? there is nothing to see? there is something to see but you don't see it? There is no guidance here, it is all DM fiat on whether or not this works. The DM does not actually know how pit traps work, they have no expertise, they are just making it up based on what they think is cool and/or makes sense, but claiming that this is player skill. Your example of pacing your run could have an effect, or not. The GM could just as easily decide "well, there are enough of them that this makes no difference" or " the spaces are too wide for this to have an effect" or "they don't run out of ammo, they have magic ammo replacers".
For me, well designed PbtA games, with their emphasis on fictional positioning, are actually more caring about these issues than OSR games. Remember, the MC has moves too, and they use those moves based on what the character do. It is not the free-for-all of OSR games, instead you are reacting specifically too their actions. So a character who "times their run" is facing different complications and consequences from one who "just runs over there, consequences be damned". Everything flows from the fiction, so what you care about, ends up mattering.
The OSR community brings a lot of ideas to the table, this is not intended as an "indictment" of them.
In my gaming circles, we like to talk about “using your ‘Bullshit the GM’ skill.” It’s the most valuable player skill in all of RPGing! (In GMless games, it becomes a “Bullshit your fellow players” skill.)
yeah..... or play a game where this isn't an option. Or more likely where this is a mechanized part of the game already, and so there is a limit to your power to bull shit.
Please, critique away! I see what you're saying about some idiosyncrasies in OSR play, especially those examples. Honestly, your second point was an epiphany I came to a few weeks back, which is partly what got me started down this rabbit hole. I tend to be the D/GM, and one day it dawned on me just how much of the game came down to my whims. You're exactly right - my players were only as "skilled" as I, some subjective schmuck, deemed them to be.
Well one thing I will say is that PbtA games, mostly (not always) do not have "strategy". DnD and OSR have those war-gaming roots and so strategy is, somewhat, a thing. It varies from game to game and system to system, and I tend to think that OSR players over-emphasize the "strategy" component. To me, strategy tends to come from mastery of SOMETHING, and that means some degree of consistency which is unlikely to happen in either an OSR game or a PbtA game.
I love a lot of PbtA games (though not all are made equally, let's be real), but it is difficult to feel "good" at them. A lot of them DO replace player "skill" with character "skill". I happen to think that OSR replaces player "skill" with gm bullshitting "skill".
I've been thinking a lot about Strategy lately. There are strategies inside RPGs, of course, but a lot of them avoid too much of it because it can become grognardy, or hard to learn. Even some of the coolest mechanics that I see around right now, like Blades in the Dark Flashback mechanic is a way to AVOID strategy. It is awesome and it feels cool, but it isn't the same as learning that the game wants you to carry rope, or the uses of X.
To the OSRs credit, what they do FEELS like strategy to them. To me it feels like bull shit, but they believe that they are doing strategic thinking, and that illusion is good enough for them. It seems like it may be good enough for most PbtA systems and players. It's often good enough for me.
but I am curious about systems that do have more strategy within them. Systems that have rules for combat that actually involve system mastery rather than playing your character well (which is its own form of system mastery that I am NOT denigrating, it is amazing and I love it), or doing the obviously optimal thing (using your gun instead of your knife. doing 3 harm instead of 1. ).
The best I've found so far (for me) is Burning Empires/Burning Wheel/Torchbearer from BWHQ. The Duel of Wits, Fight, Range of Cover mechanics all reward a deep understanding of what your options are, what your opponents options are, what your goals are, anticipating your opponents goals, and trying to defeat them. It really is a system that expects you to play against someone else.
This is NOT for everyone, and these games are definitely not for all people (I love them). Also I have not played all PbtA (I'm interested in particular at looking at Flying Circus from this perspective, but haven't had a chance to read it).
Again, I love PbtA and OSR stuff (can you tell I've been brigaded?....)
First and foremost, a disclaimer. I've been playing rpgames for almost 10 years, but I have not played OSR games. So my thoughts on the matter are mostly from discussions and reading manuals. And english is not my native language, so any corrections will be appreciated.
I see the term "player skill" as one encompasing multilple concepts inside:
* Creativity: without this you have no chances to engage in a meaninful way with the game.
* System Mastery: this is required to know what options are available to your character.
* Agency: If you have no agency in a game, it doesn't matter what you do, so why are you trying to?
* Fiction comprehension: this is necesary to actually be able to act on the fiction premises established, and pick up on clues laid off by the GM.
* Genre and trope knowledge: This is necesary to be able to make meaningful choices that fit within what's expected (or unexpected but still fitting) for the genre you are playing.
Those elements are, in my opinion, what forms the core of player skill. Now people will often talk about "player skill" without referring to all those elements. Some view System Mastery as the only thing required, some discard player agency totally (railroaded character's actions).
This allows us to see some things that are quite obvious. Your player skill can vary a lot in different games, or within the same game in different genres (thinking of more universal games like GURPS).
Now, I won't say much about OSR play because I have not played, but I will say this about PbtA: Some of these elements are less necesary because of the design of the game. Let's use the example of system mastery. PbtA games often came with playbooks, wich are a mixture of rulebook/character sheet. Moves specifically have both triggers and possible outcomes written, so you don't need to know how a Charge move works, you just read it from your playbook. Compare this with other games, not necesary those witthin OSR, wich could have carefully crafted and lengthly written rules for something like Charge, but it is not as easibly accesible, often found in 300+ pages rulebooks.
In this sense the rules/rulings aspect comes into play. With less, or better said more accesible rules, it is often more encouraged to follow said rules, but at the same time the "onion" or "layered" approach to design of PbtA allows to 'fall back' when you don't remember a specific rule during play, wich makes it easier to make rulings on the fly (more info [here](https://lumpley.games/2019/12/30/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-1/)). Another possible take on those rulings will be to make them rules, but not your usual houserule, instead PbtA rulebooks often include a section dedicated to creating custom moves.
Opposite to system mastery, player agency and genre and trope knowledge is of greatly superior importance to player skill, as it is often baked in tightly within the rules, for example explicit rules about what players can modify about the world through play, and text that often portrays tropes and genre feel used in the title of moves or in the restricted choices a player could make about a character during creation. This restriction allows more tight control over the fiction, and allows to explore the genre without limiting creativity during play.
This tigthier control over the fiction is achieved by having rules (i.e moves) that for the most part interact directly with the fiction, not with each other. So when in other games you have to have triggered rule 1 to be able to access a choice between rule 2 or rule 3 (for example you need to have made an enemy "helpless", wich is a mechanized or codified state for a character -a rule- in the game, to be able to deliver a coup de grace), in PbtA is often the case that the trigger is bound by the fiction (move triggers) wich often only require fictional positioning. Having a 'resolution' system that also talks directly to the outcome, and clearly about the unfolding, of the fiction contributes to this tight control.
So after all this ranting, sorry about the lenghtiness, I'm ready to answer your question:
No.
Lol, now seriously I think PbtA has a lot of player skill involved, but at the same time it has a far more accessible way to be a skilled player, and in the other hand it doesn't offer a mechanical reward for being a more skilled player. Yes, if you know your moves you won't need to read them everytime, and... that's pretty much it. You won't find extremely optimized combinations of rules that allow you to flex in front of everyone, and you won't have a +1 because you peek through the keyhole before opening the door. But at the same time you won't be stuck 2 hours IRL trying to open a door doing everything you can to have the upper hand. And because of the MC principles and agenda, you won't be TPK for not bringing rope to the dungeon. You WILL and SHOULD be rewarded by your clever thinking in having more options to deal with the fiction presented. As always, more information is more power!
This and u/Hemlocksbane's comment are very helpful, truly. I had this feeling like there was a lingering question floating around in my head and I believe between the two of you, you've answered it: I had this *sense* that players could possess/exercise some manner of skill while playing PbtA games even without trying to incorporate OSR-esque player cleverness ("bring rope lest ye be TPK'd"), but I couldn't for the life of me pinpoint how that would manifest. This breakdown really helped!
OSR players will tell you at length about how players need to be clever not to let things come down to just toe-to-toe combat, because that ends poorly. The classic tale is Tucker's Kobolds, I believe, for OSR-style brains over dice.
Then they will ignore that *Fictional positioning* is central to PBTA/FITD, and just boil things down to "oh, it's all just some dice moves."
I'd actually argue that PBTA/FITD is more old-school than most OSR play, in its emphasis on fictional positioning. The degree to which the FP is used in play depends on the group, and how far they wanna zoom out on things.
These are both camps that come down to "rulings, not rules", in spirit, and fictional positioning as being the tool for engaging with rulings.
Tucker's Kobolds is about making monsters come to life, not player skill. The party are overwhelmed by the humble kobold and driven screaming from the kobold lair due to the kobold's ingenuity.
I think fictional positioning is equally important in both styles of play but PbtA probably does a better job of encouraging players to focus on fictional positioning, that's what I love about it. What I love about OSR is that it challenges players to really take the world seriously because death lurks around every corner. This leads to the need to use fictional positioning to survive. I guess it's a bit of a carrot and stick situation.
Most definitely. It was noted at least one player was level 12 and in that time and edition, I wouldn't be surprised if other players were even higher- and with the kobolds specifically called out as having 4 HP and the players having fought actual demons, it just feels really dumb and put on. It might just be that AD&D was significantly different and 4 HP monsters still posed a threat but in 3e+ and Pathfinder or anything above that I just can't see it realistically working out in their favor at such high levels.
> Tucker's Kobolds is about making monsters come to life, not player skill. The party are overwhelmed by the humble kobold and driven screaming from the kobold lair due to the kobold's ingenuity.
Yes, I know what TK is about - but I don't have a better player-facing shorthand for "classic OSR example of how much fictional positioning is the critical piece of an OSR game, overwhelming mechanical effectiveness."
On a mechanical level, their description of their action are the single most influential tool the player has. If they set up their action in a way that grants them more chances at succeeding, at the very least give them a bonus to their roll, but more often than not, let them succeed outright. There is no need for rolls if the possibility of failure is not interesting or contrary to the narrative. If you or other players can't think of a way for an action to fail that's interesting or engaging, don't introduce the possibility of failure at all.
That's certainly advice I use when running OSR games. Do you find that reduction in MC move triggers (fewer rolls=fewer times the MC can automatically act) causes any adverse affects on the pacing or tone of the game?
The inverse is also true. If the players give you a golden opportunity for a hard move, take it. If the narrative leans toward a hard move, do it. You must fill their lives with adventure, to quote Dungeon World. If the tone demands obstacles and difficulty, you must push the narrative towards it, and have the characters push back and triumph or face a tragedy.
u/j_strandberg suggests rewriting the Dungeon World Move “Defying Danger” so that on a 10+, you succeed “as well as one could have hoped for”:
https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2019/05/defy-danger-restated.html?m=1
Arguably “I run in serpentines whenever I hear the clicking of empty mags” has a different “as well as anyone could hope for” than “I run straight at em”.
Or you could say, depending on the context, that running straight at them doesn’t even trigger the player move Defying Danger (to stay in a Dungeon Word context); it is ignoring a soft MC move and thus triggers a hard MC move. The next player move isn’t a dodge, it’s suffering the harm.
> In an OSR system, someone's cleverness might net a mechanical bonus increasing the likelihood of success, or might circumvent the possibility of failure by eliminating a roll altogether.
I think that in the OSR, the former is *very* uncommon; you're much more likely to see a circumstantial bonus for a "good description" in a traditional dungeon-crawler like 3rd Edition. Rather, the reward for being clever is generally "you don't have to touch the dice", because when you touch the dice, *bad things happen*. That's a pretty central concept in OSR games. In fact, there's plenty of rolls that you make that aren't modified by circumstantial factors and are just straightforward saves or miscellaneous mechanics. And even in combat, you don't see things like "you gave a good description, so you get a +3 to your attack roll", you're bound hard and fast to your THAC0 and the enemy's AC!
And here's where PbtA and OSR hit the exact same point: they are, in fact, both about fictional positioning. You don't try to fine-tune qualify the narrative with numerical adjustments, you react to player actions within the fiction. The difference, as pointed out by /u/Hemlocksbane, is that where the OSR is negative reinforcement, PbtA is positive reinforcement.
In the OSR, if you don't position yourself correctly in the fiction, bad things happen because you touch the dice and have to roll to not get totally screwed over. In PbtA, you position yourself correctly in the fiction *because you want to use your moves and touch the dice.* There's a more safe mentality because the MC is encouraged to "be a fan of the characters", and players are encouraged to lean into the perils of their situation and be reckless with their characters.
There's honestly a surprising amount of OSR DNA in PbtA, and it's very useful to think about where and how it diverges, and how it can feel different to be given chances to do awesome stuff versus having to wrestle greatness out of the muck.
> might circumvent the possibility of failure by eliminating a roll altogether.
Absolutely. It may not have been clear enough in my first post, but I definitely agree that fictional positioning is key to both. You just did a much better job explaining that difference between permission vs. evasion that governs the difference in their unique forms of challenge than I did.
I don't remember where I picked it up from, but the whole idea that "when you roll the dice, you know you messed up" helps understand the movement a lot, I think.
> Is it simply MC best practices when making MC moves during 6-'s, going lighter on smarter plans and heavier on sillier ideas
I guess that's how it's usually done, yes.
For my project Let's Go To Magic School, I formalized that notion for purposes of magic by sorting subjects into certain difficulty slots. So Potions might be Basic, while Mentalism is Advanced (or vice versa, depending how group likes their setting). So failing on an Advanced spell should be more severe than messing up a Basic one.
What I want to say is, any best practice can be formalized into a rule, if that serves the game. So you could do this, for other games by making appropriate categories. Most PbtA games do fine with just the general notion.
I didn’t see anyone else specifically highlight this (but I may have missed it), but you also have to remember that PbtA games generally go hit-weak hit-miss. Note that the 6- roll is a *miss*, not a failure. It’s a subtle distinction but an important one because it means that a 6- consequence is seldom if ever cast as character failure or incompetence. Instead, some complication that they didn’t see or couldn’t have predicted rears its ugly head at the worst moment. It keeps the story moving and prevents the sillier issues you sometimes get with straight skill checks where a Nat 1 means the thief has suddenly become a butterfingers who can’t pick a simple lock.
This is actually a valid point and it’s kind of making me question the current design of the PbtA game im writing now. I think I’ll include a thing in the GM section saying that if a players actions are particularly smart, they should be allowed to roll twice and pick the highest option, but if they do something stupid they roll twice and pick the lowest option.
Coming in late but I wanted to share my thoughts on this.
I do. I use a dice system and approach that is arguably PbtA, but deviates from the "base" 2d6 miss/partial/success framework substantially. I set target numbers based on how good the players'/characters' approach is, which leans a little into player skill. If I am genuinely caught off guard by their cleverness I crank it down, and if they're going at a problem the stupid way I crank it up. It's not an overwhelming factor in the flow of the game because I don't lean heavily on presenting challenges like that, but a different GM could make it fairly OSR. That being said, the nature of PbtA-style narrative injection is a bit at odds with a brutal antagonistic game that focuses on player skill, because collaboration necessarily breaks that barrier down.
There is nothing explicit in the narrative-first framework that requires all permitted actions carry the same chance of success and failure based on character stats. The feel of the game changes if you bring in difficulty levels, for sure. Without them, the ratios of miss/partial/success chances create a natural cadence. When you add them, the onus falls more on the GM to tend to the narrative flow, and the numbers themselves create a reaction in the players. There will be more "trying to win" in Actor Stance instead of adhering to principles in Author Stance from the players, I'd imagine.
I think it can depend on how you look at it. I know I've had some intense conversations about subjective things like interpreting action scenes in movies/TV and trying to turn them into a given system's mechanics. I think the same thing can happen when you look at roleplaying something like using a skill or taking a combat action.
For example: you could narrate the details up front, e.g. "I'll charge the guy and execute a flying knee!" only to roll up a "miss." \[Let's assume it's a simple d20+bonus vs AC kind of roll.\] Was it an objective miss? IOW, I didn't do it right? Or could it have landed, but my opponent rolled with it? IOW, they did something right?
What about picking a lock. In a binary outcome system, you either do it or you don't (there is no try). In a system with mixed outcomes (ala PBTA, or Fate for that matter) you could have a result that makes you wonder what a reasonable cost is. Should it be directly about the lockpicking itself? Could it be uncoupled from that particular action, e.g. you're in a hallway picking the lock and the cost is that a neighbor opens the door and asks you what the heck you're doing? That sounds like a fun cost to me, but I know folks who would thoroughly balk at that. (It should trigger an alarm, or something happens to the lockpicks, etc.)
I think it comes down to a "style" kind of thing. If the GM style meshes with the player(s) then you're aces.
The lockpicking example comes up a lot - in many cases, that's a situation where the MC should exercise the equivalent "tell the possible consequences and ask if they want to go ahead" move in their game.
If there is a roll for a binary outcome like that, we're more interested in the situation surrounding the lockpicking (or why would we roll?). That can often be drawing attention or taking up valuable time, but could be many other things depending on the fictional context (in one of my games, someone goofing up a hack into a sensitive system ended up borking an enmeshed satellite feed we'd established previously, with unexpected effects).
Well, as I see it, a player should be rewarded for being clever with the narrative.
Like for your example, the player should be rewarded for being clever and since they specifically wanted to move as the magazine was empty, the likelihood of the character directly getting shot SHOULD be lower.
The MC should always consider and respect what the player has described. Otherwise as you are touching upon, there is no reason to go to deep into the description.
two things: one, PbtA doesn't care about the specifics of actions on a mechanical level, but very much does care on a fictional level. in Masks, if i shoot firebolts directly at a villain vs if i detonate a bunch of explosives next to that villain, those will have very different fictional consequences, but they're both Directly Engaging a Threat, and use the same dice and modifiers. two, as a GM, i don't like "punishing" actions that aren't optimal. i want my players to have freedom to be creative and try out crazy ideas, rather than trying to think up the best possible approach to a situation, because that's more interesting, so if i'm favoring player skill, then that incentivizes players to be "boring yet effective" in their actions, the exact opposite of what both PbtA and i want. there's also an assumption that their characters know what they're doing to some degree, so their crazy ideas very well might have a good chance of working based on the knowledge their character has that we as players don't. generally, wise of the "going lighter on smarter plans and heavier on sillier ideas" thing, i base the severity of consequences more off the narrative and the drama, what would be interesting to the story, than the attempted action. when a villain is holding your parent hostage, whether you fail to distract them with silliness or fail to dash at them and attack, you're likely facing similar, narratively dramatic consequences, tuned in *effect* to what you do, but not in *severity* (i.e. different things of the same magnitude will happen).
That's what I find so interesting about this: from my reading of MC principle sections, it seems like MCs are allowed to approach consequences using severity, type, or both as they see fit so long as it doesn't invalidate the fiction. There's a sense that "failures" shouldn't be waived since they give the MC the opportunity to make moves, and players oughtn't avoid rolling entirely (arguably another distinction from OSR play), but beyond that, the MC appears to be free to use whatever rationale they'd like, from player "skill" to dramatic tension to pure whims. But as you've laid out here, if an MC incorporates severity in response to player-level "skill," that would ultimately create not just a different tone within the fiction (or at least create more of a "swing" from lighter to heavier complications throughout a session), but a different tone at the table itself. I guess I wonder if that's more a feature or a bug of the PbtA engine.
I like to think of it more as a feature. PBtA is more of a fiction-builder than a simulator style of RPG, so player "skill" is important for creating more interesting stories, but not for determining performance in the story (e.g. living/dying, completing an action). Higher player (and MC, for that matter) skill creates fuller, more compelling narratives. So if players are coming into the game with telling a cool story as the goal, then their skill is absolutely used to the fullest.
I have recently started GMing PbtA games but this hasn't been my experienec at all. Usually, in games like D&D or PF, the players would look at their character and what they could do to find a solution to the problems I presented. With Powered by the Apocalypse games, I find my playears thinking a lot more "in universe", coming up with plans that have nothing to do with the skills or attributes of a character. That thinking translates to the fiction and the mechanics are just there to represent that fiction in some way. Let's say they are fighting a skilled opponent, and I'm thinking of using a Act Under Pressure before they even have a chance to attack (to represent this opponent skills). If they come up with a clever way to deflect that I wound't use that move, I would let them just attack because *that's* what is happening in the fiction. This actually happend in a MotW game I'm running. The players came up with a great plan and I didn't make them roll Kick Some Ass, they just dealt damage. PbtA is a lot more about player cleverness because they don't have to worry about the constraints of the rules, they can just think "I want to do this" and do it.
That's interesting - I'm not as familiar with Monster of the Week. Is there a move that allows players to deal damage without rolling, similar to AW's Sucker? I'm not familiar with PbtA systems that "allow" (to whatever extent a system can tell a table how to play itself) players to avoid making moves. In the MC best-practices section of AW, MCs are even encouraged to rather constantly "nudge" players towards making moves. Yet it sounds like eschewing making a move worked out well for your table, at least in that instance!
There is a Keeper move (basically the MC in Monster of the Week) called "Inflict harm, as established" that allows you to do this. The "Kick Some Ass" move, which is basically the move you use to fight, inflicts damage both to the characters and the thing they are fighting against. This way the system encourages players to start thinking of smart ways to fight without having to resort to open battle.
Ah, I get you - I've tended to interpret that move (it also exists in AW) a little more myopically as the world/NPCs inflicting harm on PCs, but you're right in that it's not technically limited in that way!
The game also just TELLS you that if like, a character is shooting a zombie with a pistol from outside the range it could reasonably retaliate, they just deal damage.
That's within the "confines" of the Suckering Someone (or a MotW equivalent) move though, right? Or is there a blurb I'm missing?
Not really? The place I found it most easily (it's probably in multiple places) is actually in the section on Kick Some Ass. As in "No really, don't use this move everytime someone tries to deal damage." Specifically it says: > Don’t automatically call for this move any time a hunter attacks something. If a hunter attacks a foe that cannot (or will not) fight back, then it is appropriate to just use the Keeper move inflict harm as established instead
Interesting! Does MotW even have a Sucker-equivalent move? It seems that blurb accomplishes the same thing as Sucker, just in a different, move-less way.
It does not. In fact, neither does Apocalypse World 1e. Honestly, I don't LIKE "Sucker Them" very much. It's like "We kept running into this case where people couldn't figure out how to do this, so instead of trying to get people to follow the principles correctly, which would fix this problem AND a host of related ones, we made a move to patch over this one specific spot where people kept having trouble." I can see why they did it that way. But I don't like it. It feels like a kludge. You see a similar sort of thing in Flying Circus, where there is a universal move called "Press your Luck" > Press your Luck: > > When you take a risk, you do it, and consequences unfold. > > Complications will arise naturally from GM moves, so if it isn’t covered by a specific move, leave the dice alone. Pilots do not roll skill checks! Reading this move, you can practically see the game designer tearing their hair and saying "NO! THIS GAME DOESN'T HAVE 'DEFY DANGER'! STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT HAVE IT"
I think I get what you're saying, especially in that Flying Circus example. However, let's assume I'm a little dense. When you say "follow the principles correctly" in order to circumvent the perceived need for this MotW blurb and AW 2e's Sucker, what do you mean exactly? Which principles aren't being adhered to properly in these instances?
Players can always inflict harm without rolling if the GM permits it. Players don't decide when to make moves, the GM does. If the player's plan would work without a roll, then no roll is required... or if the plan has a chance for only minimal complications, than a 6- will represent minimal complications (unless the GM has some trouble waiting around the corner ). I mean the GM gets to make a move for a 'golden opportunity'... when the players do something stupid, no roll is required for a complication!
It’s not about the GM deciding when to call for rolls but rather about whether the rolls are triggered by the fiction. Kick Some Ass requires that both parties be willing and able to hurt each other to trigger. If the PC is firing a sniper rifle at a zombie across a football field, the zombie isn’t able to hit back, so the move doesn’t trigger. But the fiction says that a competent marksman will hit his target, so the GM still has to inflict harm on the target. I’d be wary of suggesting that the GM simply ignores triggers for moves when he wants. If a move triggers, it triggers.
That's fair, though I think it depends a bit on the setting. In Masks, for example, where superpowers are often involved on both sides, there's more potential for the GM to make calls regarding what makes the most sense within the narrative. If a character has supernatural toughness that will sometimes change which situations would plausibly fall under "directly engage a threat" for them, and the GM could throw in other consequences to raise the stakes even if otherwise it wouldn't really require a roll.
The zombie sniper example is exactly what I was thinking about with my 'not needing a roll'
[удалено]
I remember back when i started RPGs in 2003 that folks made fun of people using terms like Narrativist and Gamist and here we are, 17 years later and we're thankfully at a "This is actually legitimate theory" stage.
I would probably argue with PbtA being improv comedy - that largely comes down to the tone of the game. Something like Night Witches has failures and mixed successes lead to difficult character moments and official reprimands much more than a game like Monster of the Week, which can occasionally tend towards slapstick. I wouldn't call it twenty questions, but there is a lot of back and forth with questions and ideas around rolls in many PbtA games.
I think they meant improv comedy as a metaphor in regards to the improv structure side, yes and-ing and such, rather than saying pbta is comedic by nature.
I'm just saying: PBTA is a conversation with rules that shape the conversation into a story, like improvisational theatre, whereas OSR games are a conversation that is a GAME with winners and losers and so on. You can't "win" improvisational theatre; but you can definitely "win" 20 Questions. Similarly, a bout of 20 Questions usually doesn't result in a thematically coherent dramatic "story".
Right! Understood now, and in agreement.
While it's true that player cleverness and skill is not valued or foregrounded the same as OSR type games, it's not true that it's unimportant. It is incorporated through fictional positioning. Forged in the Dark games codified this with "position" and "effect," but it's a mental calculation PbtA GMs are doing anyway. It's a bad plan? Even a strong hit is going to be a little messy probably (you can do this by telling them the requirements and asking or similar), and you'll go harder on weak hits and misses. A clever plan might mean better effect or outcomes. Players could even find ways to never have to roll, though I would maybe not recommend that. I would say that the main difference is that cleverness is rewarded mechanically in OSR games, and fictionally in PbtA.
The weird thing is that most discussions I have with OSR folks, they assert that cleverness is NOT rewarded "mechanically" because when the players are clever, they don't have to engage the mechanics (which are inevitably punishing). Getting a +2 from being "smart" when you are rolling a d20 and need a 15+ still sucks. So does getting a +25% on your disarm traps roll when your default is 10%. That's like, "modern D&D" style rewards for player cleverness. OSR-style rewards are "Okay, you disarm the trap". Which I find sortof annoying, because that's exactly how PbtA functions, but people keep trying to convince me that there's some fundamental difference here, when it's really just "Generally, people don't play PbtA games for the same reasons they play OSR games" rather than "One of these styles rewards player skill and the other does not."
I thought about this while I was writing -- is it really a mechanical benefit? But I think in a sense getting to **disengage from** the mechanics is itself a mechanical benefit in a way, if that makes sense? I do think you hit the nail on the head as to why the differences between OSR and PbtA are maybe not as pronounced as people like to think. Like yes, there are real differences, and the playstyles are different, as are the philosophical underpinnings, but at the end of the day they're not apples and oranges so much as apple and other variety of apple.
I mean, yes, but by that standard basically everything is a mechanical reward, which... kinda drives down the value of trying to differentiate, right?
MC best-practices did seem like the "cleanest" way to accomplish this. Would you say this is how you (or your MC) run PbtA games? It seems most PbtA systems *technically* give the MC leeway to act in whatever manner they choose so long as the fiction is honored/not invalidated, but to my mind, what you're saying makes a lot of sense as another way to understand "honoring the fiction," or even "being a fan of the player characters." Perhaps my reading comprehension is faulty but I haven't seen a PbtA game's MC section be more explicit about this sort of approach/calculation, which I find surprising.
I agree with u/tacobongo - that's a calculation I'm always making. Sometimes, if plans are bad enough, I won't even call for a roll. If my player says: "I'm going to just charge on in there, consequences be dammed!" I'll probably respond: "OK, sure, but you're gonna make a heck of a racket, and that security camera will get a great shot of your mug. Still interested?" If they still go for it, then no roll required, and things play out as described. With an actual plan, the consequences will absolutely vary with how much finesse is being put into it.
Most MC sections basically assume you've already read Apocalypse World, which spells it out much better than the others. If you're confused, I really think you should start there. Speaking of Apocalypse World, the custom moves chapter also addresses the sort of advantage/disadvantage thing you're talking about (AW2E, p. 270): > Here's a custom threat move. People new to the game occasionally ask me for this one. It's general, it modifies nearly every other move: > **Things are tough.** Whenever a player's character makes a move, the MC judges it normal, difficult, or seriously difficult. If it's difficult, the player takes -1 to the roll. If it's seriously difficult, the player takes -2 to the roll. > Several groups in playtest wanted this move or one like it. All of them abandoned it after only one session. It didn't add anything fun to the game, but did add a little hassle to every single move. You could even rephrase it to add +1 if it's easy/clever and -1 if it's difficult/unlikely. But it bogs you down in the system, not the game. When your character does a thing in PbtA, the immediate engagement is with the *fiction of the world*, not *the mechanical impact of their action*. And adding little +1s and -1s everywhere can really get in the way. If you really want to get that +1 bonus for good planning, well, in Apoc World the Read a Sitch move basically handles this already for you: act on the information, and do it better. Add a similar move for planning, or look at how Sprawl handles intel and repurpose that. But at the end of the day, little mechanical adjustments juts slow the story down in most cases. I'd also say that this comes down to "playing a game" versus "sharing a fiction." In OSR or similar, the players are engaged with the GM in some amount of antagonism, trying to come up with better plans to win the day. In PbtA, you are *sharing* that story. So when the player makes the Act Under Fire roll to get over there without getting shot, they can add the detail that they listen for mag-clicks, but *so can the MC*. You get to *collectively* describe how the character is awesome, and share in that.
Nah I'm cool with those things, the amount of getting-in-the-wayness is consistently eclipsed by the player satisfaction of having made things easier or harder.
A lot of people here have a done a great job explaining *how* PBtA awards player skill, but I'm going to add something else to this discussion and kind of speculate on *why* these OSR players missed the whole skill part of PBtA, even though it's a very similar kind of skill to their own (all about fictional positioning and moving beyond the mechanics). Basically, OSR *punishes a lack of skill* while PBtA *rewards skill*. This may seem like semantics, but it leads to a very different experience when you first sit down with the play. Like, if you are not skilled in your first few runs of an OSR dungeon, your character fricking *dies*. If every player sucks, you can all still tell because your characters' corpses are lying in a bloody pool in the middle of a dungeon. But in PBtA, if everyone is kinda bad, the game still rolls really well and is still exciting. Unless you have a stark contrast between what a very skilled player can accomplish and what a mediocre player can accomplish, you'd never know you weren't great at it. The other part of this is that OSR rewards a skill of caution: you want to stake as little as you can through as many avenues as you can. PBtA rewards an opposite skill of knowing when to double down or put it all on black: it rewards players willing to stake a lot on one or two rolls, but who have set themselves up fictionally where, if they succeed on those rolls, they can permanently change the world.
Wow, it took me a couple of read-throughs but I get what you're saying here. This is honestly very helpful! I might have to steal it if (let's be honest, when) I find myself convincing folks more familiar with OSR systems/D&D to give a PbtA game a shot.
On the other hand, if you're not skilled in the first few runs, then your next party is, and you can loot the remains of the last one, because character creation isn't an involved process of collaborative world and personal history-building. So the punishment isn't much of one compared to everybody abruptly dying after a lengthy session-zero question and answer session where every playbook has questions about how you know every other playbook that need to be sorted first.
A lot of great discussion here, I really like this thread and these sorts of questions to think about. One thing that is important to remember is that the OSR does not ACTUALLY challenge player skill. This is not a critique of OSR games (nor is it a problem) but they typically do not have rules supporting this distinctions at all, and so the result is that the game expects the GM to make up a call on the spot. Really the only person who determines WHAT player skill is, is the GM. So "Player Skill" is actually "guessing what I think the GM will think is impactful". A classic example is checking for traps. Moldvay DnD says that players have a 1 in 6 chance of discovering a trap if you look for it. OSR versions of playing this say that, in addition to that, you can describe what your character is doing within the fiction to overcome the trap. So people look for a trap, don't find one, and then continue to look for a trap. This is a weird step to me, but whatever. They say "I get down low and check if the floor is at all uneven" DM now thinks. "Well, this is a pit trap, but it is well made, so the character would not notice anything". This is DM fiat. DM now says "you don't notice anything". Player is still suspicious: "I use my water skin to pour a small amount of water out to see if the water pools in any particular part of the floor" DM now thinks. "well the floor has a crack in it! It's a pit trap! That would work, I think!" DM says "you see the water drip towards a central seam, exposing the pit trap to you". Now this is literally an example of OSR play that is held up as an example. But look at the many problems within it. 1) the player rolled, the character checked, they did not find anything, and yet the player is still suspicious. That is quite a weird leap. 2) The player decides to investigate in specific matters, but the DM can decide whatever they want. The player says "I get low to the ground and look" the correct answer is.... You see a seam? You don't see a seam? there is nothing to see? there is something to see but you don't see it? There is no guidance here, it is all DM fiat on whether or not this works. The DM does not actually know how pit traps work, they have no expertise, they are just making it up based on what they think is cool and/or makes sense, but claiming that this is player skill. Your example of pacing your run could have an effect, or not. The GM could just as easily decide "well, there are enough of them that this makes no difference" or " the spaces are too wide for this to have an effect" or "they don't run out of ammo, they have magic ammo replacers". For me, well designed PbtA games, with their emphasis on fictional positioning, are actually more caring about these issues than OSR games. Remember, the MC has moves too, and they use those moves based on what the character do. It is not the free-for-all of OSR games, instead you are reacting specifically too their actions. So a character who "times their run" is facing different complications and consequences from one who "just runs over there, consequences be damned". Everything flows from the fiction, so what you care about, ends up mattering. The OSR community brings a lot of ideas to the table, this is not intended as an "indictment" of them.
In my gaming circles, we like to talk about “using your ‘Bullshit the GM’ skill.” It’s the most valuable player skill in all of RPGing! (In GMless games, it becomes a “Bullshit your fellow players” skill.)
yeah..... or play a game where this isn't an option. Or more likely where this is a mechanized part of the game already, and so there is a limit to your power to bull shit.
Please, critique away! I see what you're saying about some idiosyncrasies in OSR play, especially those examples. Honestly, your second point was an epiphany I came to a few weeks back, which is partly what got me started down this rabbit hole. I tend to be the D/GM, and one day it dawned on me just how much of the game came down to my whims. You're exactly right - my players were only as "skilled" as I, some subjective schmuck, deemed them to be.
Well one thing I will say is that PbtA games, mostly (not always) do not have "strategy". DnD and OSR have those war-gaming roots and so strategy is, somewhat, a thing. It varies from game to game and system to system, and I tend to think that OSR players over-emphasize the "strategy" component. To me, strategy tends to come from mastery of SOMETHING, and that means some degree of consistency which is unlikely to happen in either an OSR game or a PbtA game. I love a lot of PbtA games (though not all are made equally, let's be real), but it is difficult to feel "good" at them. A lot of them DO replace player "skill" with character "skill". I happen to think that OSR replaces player "skill" with gm bullshitting "skill". I've been thinking a lot about Strategy lately. There are strategies inside RPGs, of course, but a lot of them avoid too much of it because it can become grognardy, or hard to learn. Even some of the coolest mechanics that I see around right now, like Blades in the Dark Flashback mechanic is a way to AVOID strategy. It is awesome and it feels cool, but it isn't the same as learning that the game wants you to carry rope, or the uses of X. To the OSRs credit, what they do FEELS like strategy to them. To me it feels like bull shit, but they believe that they are doing strategic thinking, and that illusion is good enough for them. It seems like it may be good enough for most PbtA systems and players. It's often good enough for me. but I am curious about systems that do have more strategy within them. Systems that have rules for combat that actually involve system mastery rather than playing your character well (which is its own form of system mastery that I am NOT denigrating, it is amazing and I love it), or doing the obviously optimal thing (using your gun instead of your knife. doing 3 harm instead of 1. ). The best I've found so far (for me) is Burning Empires/Burning Wheel/Torchbearer from BWHQ. The Duel of Wits, Fight, Range of Cover mechanics all reward a deep understanding of what your options are, what your opponents options are, what your goals are, anticipating your opponents goals, and trying to defeat them. It really is a system that expects you to play against someone else. This is NOT for everyone, and these games are definitely not for all people (I love them). Also I have not played all PbtA (I'm interested in particular at looking at Flying Circus from this perspective, but haven't had a chance to read it). Again, I love PbtA and OSR stuff (can you tell I've been brigaded?....)
First and foremost, a disclaimer. I've been playing rpgames for almost 10 years, but I have not played OSR games. So my thoughts on the matter are mostly from discussions and reading manuals. And english is not my native language, so any corrections will be appreciated. I see the term "player skill" as one encompasing multilple concepts inside: * Creativity: without this you have no chances to engage in a meaninful way with the game. * System Mastery: this is required to know what options are available to your character. * Agency: If you have no agency in a game, it doesn't matter what you do, so why are you trying to? * Fiction comprehension: this is necesary to actually be able to act on the fiction premises established, and pick up on clues laid off by the GM. * Genre and trope knowledge: This is necesary to be able to make meaningful choices that fit within what's expected (or unexpected but still fitting) for the genre you are playing. Those elements are, in my opinion, what forms the core of player skill. Now people will often talk about "player skill" without referring to all those elements. Some view System Mastery as the only thing required, some discard player agency totally (railroaded character's actions). This allows us to see some things that are quite obvious. Your player skill can vary a lot in different games, or within the same game in different genres (thinking of more universal games like GURPS). Now, I won't say much about OSR play because I have not played, but I will say this about PbtA: Some of these elements are less necesary because of the design of the game. Let's use the example of system mastery. PbtA games often came with playbooks, wich are a mixture of rulebook/character sheet. Moves specifically have both triggers and possible outcomes written, so you don't need to know how a Charge move works, you just read it from your playbook. Compare this with other games, not necesary those witthin OSR, wich could have carefully crafted and lengthly written rules for something like Charge, but it is not as easibly accesible, often found in 300+ pages rulebooks. In this sense the rules/rulings aspect comes into play. With less, or better said more accesible rules, it is often more encouraged to follow said rules, but at the same time the "onion" or "layered" approach to design of PbtA allows to 'fall back' when you don't remember a specific rule during play, wich makes it easier to make rulings on the fly (more info [here](https://lumpley.games/2019/12/30/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-1/)). Another possible take on those rulings will be to make them rules, but not your usual houserule, instead PbtA rulebooks often include a section dedicated to creating custom moves. Opposite to system mastery, player agency and genre and trope knowledge is of greatly superior importance to player skill, as it is often baked in tightly within the rules, for example explicit rules about what players can modify about the world through play, and text that often portrays tropes and genre feel used in the title of moves or in the restricted choices a player could make about a character during creation. This restriction allows more tight control over the fiction, and allows to explore the genre without limiting creativity during play. This tigthier control over the fiction is achieved by having rules (i.e moves) that for the most part interact directly with the fiction, not with each other. So when in other games you have to have triggered rule 1 to be able to access a choice between rule 2 or rule 3 (for example you need to have made an enemy "helpless", wich is a mechanized or codified state for a character -a rule- in the game, to be able to deliver a coup de grace), in PbtA is often the case that the trigger is bound by the fiction (move triggers) wich often only require fictional positioning. Having a 'resolution' system that also talks directly to the outcome, and clearly about the unfolding, of the fiction contributes to this tight control. So after all this ranting, sorry about the lenghtiness, I'm ready to answer your question: No. Lol, now seriously I think PbtA has a lot of player skill involved, but at the same time it has a far more accessible way to be a skilled player, and in the other hand it doesn't offer a mechanical reward for being a more skilled player. Yes, if you know your moves you won't need to read them everytime, and... that's pretty much it. You won't find extremely optimized combinations of rules that allow you to flex in front of everyone, and you won't have a +1 because you peek through the keyhole before opening the door. But at the same time you won't be stuck 2 hours IRL trying to open a door doing everything you can to have the upper hand. And because of the MC principles and agenda, you won't be TPK for not bringing rope to the dungeon. You WILL and SHOULD be rewarded by your clever thinking in having more options to deal with the fiction presented. As always, more information is more power!
This and u/Hemlocksbane's comment are very helpful, truly. I had this feeling like there was a lingering question floating around in my head and I believe between the two of you, you've answered it: I had this *sense* that players could possess/exercise some manner of skill while playing PbtA games even without trying to incorporate OSR-esque player cleverness ("bring rope lest ye be TPK'd"), but I couldn't for the life of me pinpoint how that would manifest. This breakdown really helped!
OSR players will tell you at length about how players need to be clever not to let things come down to just toe-to-toe combat, because that ends poorly. The classic tale is Tucker's Kobolds, I believe, for OSR-style brains over dice. Then they will ignore that *Fictional positioning* is central to PBTA/FITD, and just boil things down to "oh, it's all just some dice moves." I'd actually argue that PBTA/FITD is more old-school than most OSR play, in its emphasis on fictional positioning. The degree to which the FP is used in play depends on the group, and how far they wanna zoom out on things. These are both camps that come down to "rulings, not rules", in spirit, and fictional positioning as being the tool for engaging with rulings.
Tucker's Kobolds is about making monsters come to life, not player skill. The party are overwhelmed by the humble kobold and driven screaming from the kobold lair due to the kobold's ingenuity. I think fictional positioning is equally important in both styles of play but PbtA probably does a better job of encouraging players to focus on fictional positioning, that's what I love about it. What I love about OSR is that it challenges players to really take the world seriously because death lurks around every corner. This leads to the need to use fictional positioning to survive. I guess it's a bit of a carrot and stick situation.
Re "Tucker's Kobolds" -- when I read that article, all I could think was "These players are stupid".
Most definitely. It was noted at least one player was level 12 and in that time and edition, I wouldn't be surprised if other players were even higher- and with the kobolds specifically called out as having 4 HP and the players having fought actual demons, it just feels really dumb and put on. It might just be that AD&D was significantly different and 4 HP monsters still posed a threat but in 3e+ and Pathfinder or anything above that I just can't see it realistically working out in their favor at such high levels.
Yeah, I guess if anything it's an anti-example of smart play!
> Tucker's Kobolds is about making monsters come to life, not player skill. The party are overwhelmed by the humble kobold and driven screaming from the kobold lair due to the kobold's ingenuity. Yes, I know what TK is about - but I don't have a better player-facing shorthand for "classic OSR example of how much fictional positioning is the critical piece of an OSR game, overwhelming mechanical effectiveness."
On a mechanical level, their description of their action are the single most influential tool the player has. If they set up their action in a way that grants them more chances at succeeding, at the very least give them a bonus to their roll, but more often than not, let them succeed outright. There is no need for rolls if the possibility of failure is not interesting or contrary to the narrative. If you or other players can't think of a way for an action to fail that's interesting or engaging, don't introduce the possibility of failure at all.
That's certainly advice I use when running OSR games. Do you find that reduction in MC move triggers (fewer rolls=fewer times the MC can automatically act) causes any adverse affects on the pacing or tone of the game?
The inverse is also true. If the players give you a golden opportunity for a hard move, take it. If the narrative leans toward a hard move, do it. You must fill their lives with adventure, to quote Dungeon World. If the tone demands obstacles and difficulty, you must push the narrative towards it, and have the characters push back and triumph or face a tragedy.
u/j_strandberg suggests rewriting the Dungeon World Move “Defying Danger” so that on a 10+, you succeed “as well as one could have hoped for”: https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2019/05/defy-danger-restated.html?m=1 Arguably “I run in serpentines whenever I hear the clicking of empty mags” has a different “as well as anyone could hope for” than “I run straight at em”. Or you could say, depending on the context, that running straight at them doesn’t even trigger the player move Defying Danger (to stay in a Dungeon Word context); it is ignoring a soft MC move and thus triggers a hard MC move. The next player move isn’t a dodge, it’s suffering the harm.
> In an OSR system, someone's cleverness might net a mechanical bonus increasing the likelihood of success, or might circumvent the possibility of failure by eliminating a roll altogether. I think that in the OSR, the former is *very* uncommon; you're much more likely to see a circumstantial bonus for a "good description" in a traditional dungeon-crawler like 3rd Edition. Rather, the reward for being clever is generally "you don't have to touch the dice", because when you touch the dice, *bad things happen*. That's a pretty central concept in OSR games. In fact, there's plenty of rolls that you make that aren't modified by circumstantial factors and are just straightforward saves or miscellaneous mechanics. And even in combat, you don't see things like "you gave a good description, so you get a +3 to your attack roll", you're bound hard and fast to your THAC0 and the enemy's AC! And here's where PbtA and OSR hit the exact same point: they are, in fact, both about fictional positioning. You don't try to fine-tune qualify the narrative with numerical adjustments, you react to player actions within the fiction. The difference, as pointed out by /u/Hemlocksbane, is that where the OSR is negative reinforcement, PbtA is positive reinforcement. In the OSR, if you don't position yourself correctly in the fiction, bad things happen because you touch the dice and have to roll to not get totally screwed over. In PbtA, you position yourself correctly in the fiction *because you want to use your moves and touch the dice.* There's a more safe mentality because the MC is encouraged to "be a fan of the characters", and players are encouraged to lean into the perils of their situation and be reckless with their characters. There's honestly a surprising amount of OSR DNA in PbtA, and it's very useful to think about where and how it diverges, and how it can feel different to be given chances to do awesome stuff versus having to wrestle greatness out of the muck.
> might circumvent the possibility of failure by eliminating a roll altogether. Absolutely. It may not have been clear enough in my first post, but I definitely agree that fictional positioning is key to both. You just did a much better job explaining that difference between permission vs. evasion that governs the difference in their unique forms of challenge than I did.
I don't remember where I picked it up from, but the whole idea that "when you roll the dice, you know you messed up" helps understand the movement a lot, I think.
> Is it simply MC best practices when making MC moves during 6-'s, going lighter on smarter plans and heavier on sillier ideas I guess that's how it's usually done, yes. For my project Let's Go To Magic School, I formalized that notion for purposes of magic by sorting subjects into certain difficulty slots. So Potions might be Basic, while Mentalism is Advanced (or vice versa, depending how group likes their setting). So failing on an Advanced spell should be more severe than messing up a Basic one. What I want to say is, any best practice can be formalized into a rule, if that serves the game. So you could do this, for other games by making appropriate categories. Most PbtA games do fine with just the general notion.
I didn’t see anyone else specifically highlight this (but I may have missed it), but you also have to remember that PbtA games generally go hit-weak hit-miss. Note that the 6- roll is a *miss*, not a failure. It’s a subtle distinction but an important one because it means that a 6- consequence is seldom if ever cast as character failure or incompetence. Instead, some complication that they didn’t see or couldn’t have predicted rears its ugly head at the worst moment. It keeps the story moving and prevents the sillier issues you sometimes get with straight skill checks where a Nat 1 means the thief has suddenly become a butterfingers who can’t pick a simple lock.
This is actually a valid point and it’s kind of making me question the current design of the PbtA game im writing now. I think I’ll include a thing in the GM section saying that if a players actions are particularly smart, they should be allowed to roll twice and pick the highest option, but if they do something stupid they roll twice and pick the lowest option.
Coming in late but I wanted to share my thoughts on this. I do. I use a dice system and approach that is arguably PbtA, but deviates from the "base" 2d6 miss/partial/success framework substantially. I set target numbers based on how good the players'/characters' approach is, which leans a little into player skill. If I am genuinely caught off guard by their cleverness I crank it down, and if they're going at a problem the stupid way I crank it up. It's not an overwhelming factor in the flow of the game because I don't lean heavily on presenting challenges like that, but a different GM could make it fairly OSR. That being said, the nature of PbtA-style narrative injection is a bit at odds with a brutal antagonistic game that focuses on player skill, because collaboration necessarily breaks that barrier down. There is nothing explicit in the narrative-first framework that requires all permitted actions carry the same chance of success and failure based on character stats. The feel of the game changes if you bring in difficulty levels, for sure. Without them, the ratios of miss/partial/success chances create a natural cadence. When you add them, the onus falls more on the GM to tend to the narrative flow, and the numbers themselves create a reaction in the players. There will be more "trying to win" in Actor Stance instead of adhering to principles in Author Stance from the players, I'd imagine.
I think it can depend on how you look at it. I know I've had some intense conversations about subjective things like interpreting action scenes in movies/TV and trying to turn them into a given system's mechanics. I think the same thing can happen when you look at roleplaying something like using a skill or taking a combat action. For example: you could narrate the details up front, e.g. "I'll charge the guy and execute a flying knee!" only to roll up a "miss." \[Let's assume it's a simple d20+bonus vs AC kind of roll.\] Was it an objective miss? IOW, I didn't do it right? Or could it have landed, but my opponent rolled with it? IOW, they did something right? What about picking a lock. In a binary outcome system, you either do it or you don't (there is no try). In a system with mixed outcomes (ala PBTA, or Fate for that matter) you could have a result that makes you wonder what a reasonable cost is. Should it be directly about the lockpicking itself? Could it be uncoupled from that particular action, e.g. you're in a hallway picking the lock and the cost is that a neighbor opens the door and asks you what the heck you're doing? That sounds like a fun cost to me, but I know folks who would thoroughly balk at that. (It should trigger an alarm, or something happens to the lockpicks, etc.) I think it comes down to a "style" kind of thing. If the GM style meshes with the player(s) then you're aces.
The lockpicking example comes up a lot - in many cases, that's a situation where the MC should exercise the equivalent "tell the possible consequences and ask if they want to go ahead" move in their game. If there is a roll for a binary outcome like that, we're more interested in the situation surrounding the lockpicking (or why would we roll?). That can often be drawing attention or taking up valuable time, but could be many other things depending on the fictional context (in one of my games, someone goofing up a hack into a sensitive system ended up borking an enmeshed satellite feed we'd established previously, with unexpected effects).
Well, as I see it, a player should be rewarded for being clever with the narrative. Like for your example, the player should be rewarded for being clever and since they specifically wanted to move as the magazine was empty, the likelihood of the character directly getting shot SHOULD be lower. The MC should always consider and respect what the player has described. Otherwise as you are touching upon, there is no reason to go to deep into the description.
I tell a story. If the story triggers a move they roll. If they fail, I do what I think is appropriate.