Powered by the apocaylpse general /pbta/

Maybe I should rephrase it to "Nobody takes the bait", but I'd say that falls under "Thread stays on topic"

>Where can I find the extra playbooks mentioned in the core rulebook?

These?

dropbox.com/sh/u3e34s7n3kep3ye/AACIuFlXkM9c08n6w4F-moF1a?dl=0

Not my link, got it in the thread yesterday.

I only took a fast glance at it.
Generally it seems to be better than Worlds in Peril, but sadly it's lacking my favorite part of Worlds in Peril, which is the absolute freedom in powers.

People who play these systems a lot tend to say that Dungeon World is one of the weaker PbtA games for a bunch of different reasons, but it manages to be probably the most successful game of the bunch in terms of players and popularity. Why do you think this is?

speaking of bait

>Baiting

When you try and bait a response from a thread, roll +Troll. On a 10+ a decent portion of the responses are now arguing with you, on a 7-9 that still happens, but people see though your attempt, take a -1 ongoing to attempts to Argue Your Point.

It was marketed as 'oldschool DnD using PbtA' which appealed to a lot of people who have touble getting their groups out of just playing DnD but really like the PbtA engine. This helped it gain a ton of publicity relative to other hacks which cemented it as one of the first PbtA games people mention when discussing the engine.

Well, I would agree it's not the best use of the Apocalypse Engine, that doesn't mean it's shit or unplayable or bad. It's a solid game that does what it says on the tin, and does a pretty good job of it IMO.
Fa/tg/uys love them some exaggeration though, so some mechanics that don't work that great = "it's utter shite never play this hot garbage"

Still, it's successful because it manages to fill a niche for fast, narrative-heavy, low prep pick-up-and-play dungeon crawling, and its problems are not significant enough to turn most people off. And because most people don't listen to autists on Veeky Forums and their "game design" criticism.

Plus it's managed to get the kind of critical mass that leads to a vibrant ecosystem of third party content. There's a ton of people doing interesting shit with the engine, but you don't see it here on Veeky Forums because we can't really have a discussion about Dungeon World anymore without it being derailed.

No, the Brain, Harbinger, and the such.

The third party market helps a lot. The core playbooks are pretty bad.

>pretty bad

Nah, I'd say the core playbooks are decent, but not great. And I judge that by comparing them with the mountain of third party playbooks out there -- some of those really are pretty bad, and some are total garbage. Grading on a curve, the core playbooks should probably get a C-. They work okay and aren't horridly broken or flavorless number dispensers like all those straight-up F classes, but they aren't the A+ stars either.

Vancian casting feels weird in a PbtA game, although I actually love the DW Paladin and am going to try and include something similar to its quest mechanic in a classical mythology hack I'm currently brainstorming stuff for

So, here are some stats for a hypothetical Veeky Forums PbtA game.

>Lurk: observation, knowledge of board culture
>Troll: goading responses, twisting other's words around
>[tbd]: presenting your case, debating, refitting counterpoint with knowledge and logic
>Name: recognizability, distinct posting style, reputation.

Basic fantasy adventures are popular. Who would have guessed.

Also, I think it's popularity means it can't be the weakest of PbtA games. The great amount of players, means there is lots of supplementary material for the game.
Fan made playbooks. Adjustments and hacks of rules. And lots of general advice on how to use the game.
And that's not probably even all.

Like, I don't have interest for D&D style fantasy dungeon crawls, but I still kinda want to play or run Dungeon World, at some point.

I feel like you could add
>Old: knowledge of board history and collection of images/screencaps and the like

That's an nice one, but right now there's a bit too much overlap with Lurk. I like Old, so Lurk will need a different definition. I don't have an idea what else it could be like, though.

you could have if be like the sharp/weird distinction

Lurk lets you find out stuff about the current thread, Old gives you more knowledge of the board in general

>Request

When you make a request of information or resources from the board roll +[tbd], on a 10+ you get it with minimal difficulty and shitposting, on a 7-9 choose two of the following
>you get exactly what you wanted
>an argument doesn't start
>you get it reasonably quickly

Which would be those A+ stars then?

And that link is in the OP btw

Anyone who has played monster hearts, is it any good?

You forgot
>You don't have to get past the panda

Seriously, it's not that hard, but I see people bitch about it enough that it should be included

Because autists can't deal with doing new shit Guess what happens if it is some (mild) "decide it with your group" shit.

Seriously: it's not BY FAR one of the worst PBTA out there. Check out tremulus for that.
And yes, I do realize the bonds are weak, blah blah.

It does what it says on the tin, which no DND (even the decent editions) do.

Honestly, it was probably the best RPG campaing of my life.

Mind story timing? I would like to hear about your campaign.

Rolled 4, 4 + 1 = 9 (2d6 + 1)

Bumping

Monstehearts is currently my group's favorite system and has resulted in the longest campaign we've ever run.

I love the social mechanics and they work great, the skins are also really well designed

That looks like potentially cool game to play if you have right group, with right players willing to take the right mindset.

Something I currently lack.

I wouldn't be so sure until you try it, my group had never played anything like MH until we did, and it went great, you never know how these things will go until you try them

I was thinking of taking the core concept of the apocalypse systerm and applying it to the storyteller dice pool systerm.

So if the highest die comes up 10 it's a full success. If nothings rolls over 9 you succeeded but at a cost.

If nothing rolled 6 is a failure.

Thoughts?

seems completely doable, Vincent Baker has listed a bunch of things he sees as 'accidents' of the system (i.e. things which aren't essential to the PbtA engine but are there anyway) and the 2d6+stat rolling method is one of them.

>you never know how these things will go until you try them

Oh Veeky Forums knows exactly how it will go without ever having played it!

Of course they're wrong, but hey

2d6+stat might not be essential, but it's pretty fitting.
With 2d6 you get lots of 7s, which is the which is the line between fail and weak success, which means that characters are not always awesome, but succeed most of the time.

which is what VB was saying, it's a common feature of PbtA games (and for a reason) it's just not one that defines whether or not a game is PbtA or not.

In case anyone's wondering the other 'accidents' he mentioned were:
>Hx
>Harm clocks
>GM never rolls
>there's a GM
>character moves
>playbooks
>threats and types
>stat highlights
>marking xp

2d6+stat isn't essential to PbtA so you can do without it. However, the core of the system is that players are constantly confronted with mutually exclusive, mechanically backed choices, with no obvious right answer. Do you choose Good Thing A, B or C? You want all of them, and you must choose one at the exclusion of all others. Same for preventing Bad Things.

One PbtA game that does this without the 2d6 roll is Undying, which uses a currency pool to power moves. I basically bring it up every PbtA thread. Can't upload it right now, I'm on my phone, and I don't have the file on here.

Undying is a great example of a system which is still PbtA while using very different mechanics to almost every other PbtA game

I feel like future /pbta/s should include this in the OP:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1whsN3C5e31CZfo8hqlJbiKTPBX9kkCDSEG_An9FlP5s/edit

it's a massive list of PbtA games with links to websites and places to download them

Thanks man, I loaded all that I had on a dropbox.

I really have to try undying out. I've always had a soft spot for diceless systems.

Out of interest, what does VB consider to defines the apocalypse engine?

it seems to be the basic idea of tying the fiction very closely the the mechanics. Basically that ply structure of
>my character does a thing
>the rules tell you what to do
>you use that to decide what happens in game
>you react to the new situation

specifically the events the rules trigger and actions they trigger on should directly relate to the conventions of the genre the game is emulating

There are no full successes in AW until you advance the basic moves.

That seems to counter the guy on a previous /pbta/ who argued that Dungeon World wasn't using the Apocalypse engine correctly -- it does all that you said pretty strongly.
Makes sense though, I kind got the impression at the time that it was really just that he didn't like the co-op dungeon crawling theme.

Oh do you mean the 'fiction first' mantra?

I never really understood what that meant to be honest.

>You don't successes in AW until you advance the basic moves.

Not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

By 'full success' I mean 'not a partial success', just to be clear.

If it's the same going thinking of it was more trying to bolt on the D20 mechanics onto the apocalypse system.

I'll have to call bullshit on that.
What you describe is just how RPGs are generally supposed to function. That can't be defining aspect of AW.

You never just get what you want out of a 10+.
If you go aggro, the target can still force your hand.
If you seize by force, there is still one option you don't get to choose.
If you seduce or manipulate, you still have to make a promise.
If you read a sitch or a person, you don't just get to ask the questions you want.
If you open your brain, you get an impression, not an answer.
Doing something under fire is the only exception, but if you have to roll that move, you're already in a situation that leaves you wanting anyway.

That is probably because what Baker created in AW goes beyond its (still undefined) core concept.
AW defines approaches, details consequences and provides incentives. DW fails to do any of that.

What is your thought processes for figuring out what to do when your players hit that 7-9 on their "Act Under Fire"/"Defy Danger" equivalent?

It's usually pretty easy to figure out what happens when a character succeeds at what they want, and I usually know the stakes of outright failure when they roll the 6 minus, but when "a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an
ugly choice" is necessary I find myself getting caught up a lot.

You never just get what you want out of a 10+.

True, you should keep with the role if it's interesting guideline, but I think constantly adding complications is pretty self defeating.

If you get +10 sometimes it's okay to say to say 'you did it' and move on.

AW is a sandbox game. Complications are its very lifeblood.
The only time it's okay to say "you did it" and move on is when it's not okay to roll in the first place.

>The only time it's okay to say "you did it" and move on is when it's not okay to roll in the first place.

But that's wrong.

You roll the dice when *failing* can an interesting complication.

If the player try to sneak past the guard and rolls 7-9 *then* it's an appropriate time to add a complication.

If they rolled at 10+, they succeeded.

So you're just ignoring moves altogether?

I prefer to give the player in question a choice between "what they wanted but they have to pay for it big time" and "kinda what they wanted but they'll have to iron out the many kinks later"

basically "pay now" or "pay later" or sometimes "make someone I care about pay hard instead"

I really like forcing the player to make the actual choice, not only because I think it gets them more involved in the way their character's story plays out, but also because it just feels fucking MEAN, like when my mum used to make me pick out the stick she'd thrash me with

The rules explicitly state if the player rolls a 10+ then they succeeded. You add a complication on a 7 to 9.

That is how moves are supposed to work.

I just went through the entire rulebook with the search function and that is never stated anywhere. It is nothing more than a commonly quoted incorrect oversimplification with no real basis in the actual rules.

>The rules explicitly state if the player rolls a 10+ then they succeeded. You add a complication on a 7 to 9.
Actually, the rules explicitly state that rules trigger when you do whatever action is stated to trigger them. That's the only hard consistent thing all moves have in common. Some moves don't even have rolls.

During rolls, you succeed on a 7+. 10+ gives you better conditions to your success. Complications often arise no matter what. The only requirement is that moves act as a springboard for more shit to happen. They snowball, as the book puts it.

>I never really understood what that meant to be honest.
It means that the story is the first reference when deciding what can and can't happen.

A common example is a man with his arm torn off. It does not matter if his playbook says he can hold a shield in his offhand. He doesn't have an offhand, anymore. That there are no rules for this situation does not matter... what matters is what the story says exists. Always rely on that first and foremost.

Never heard of it before, but it looks pretty damn cool.

For those unaware, it's a modern fantasy game set in a noir city where people become reincarnations of myths and legends, and are trying to figure out why.

Interesting, so what does define PbtA, if not some of these?

Playbook and Character Moves I considered core - though I have not actually played PbtA yet, starting my first AW2e game in 2 weeks. I'd love to get a better idea of what defines the engine.

Hah, it seems the question was answered immediately below. My bad.

>Name

>not Trip

Change it.

This better?
>Lurk: observation, knowledge of current thread, apropos responses.
>Troll: goading responses, twisting other's words around, intentionally provocative images
>[tbd]: presenting your case, debating, refuting counterpoint with knowledge and logic
>Trip: recognizability, distinct posting style, reputation.
>Old: knowledge of board history, screencaps, in-jokes, appropriate reaction images

These stats are surprisingly good at capturing the AW approach, in that they're both qualities and approaches

>presenting your case, debating, refuting counterpoint with knowledge and logic

That's some normie shit right there

Rolled 4, 4 + 1 = 9 (2d6 + 1)

>Lurk: observation, knowledge of current thread, apropos responses.
>Troll: goading responses, twisting other's words around, intentionally provocative images
>Normie: presenting your case, debating, refuting counterpoint with knowledge and logic
>Trip: recognizability, distinct posting style, reputation.
>Old: knowledge of board history, screencaps, in-jokes, appropriate reaction images

Also, rolling for Bump again.

Rolled 6, 4 + 1 = 11 (2d6 + 1)

Final Bump