New player wants to try rpgs

Dungeon World is pleb-tier trash. For the real deal, start with Apocalypse World 2e.

Is 2e the latest version? I don't follow.

Isn't Masks supposed to be pretty good too?

I think monster of the week does what its supposed to decently well as well.

D&D is best known so it's what people have heard of.

They want to roll that Natural 20 and become Dungeon Master.

I'd add MonsterHearts to the list of actually good PbtA games as well

Cause PBTA is just as shit as D&D
Just play an easier d20 system. Or hell, something d6 based even.

How does the PBTA engine work?

Your samefaggotry is showing.

I played Apoc World for the first time 3 weeks ago, had an absolute blast.
Long-story-short the Moves system and prompting the players for input fits perfectly with the way I was already running D&D, but the mechanics of Apoc World were more geared toward streamlined narrativist approach.

New player is a fucking moron

The basic ideas of the system are
>Roll 2d6, if 7+ that's a mixed success, if 10+ that's a full success
>Things you do in-game that are in-genre are codified into discrete moves like

>SEIZE BY FORCE
When you try to seize something by force, or to secure your hold
on something, roll+hard. On a hit, choose options. On a 10+, choose
3. On a 7–9, choose 2:
● you take definite hold of it
● you suffer little harm
● you inflict terrible harm
● you impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy

This makes it so the results of the move can be kept in-genre, and people's expectations of what should happen don't clash. The one problem with this idea is that you need to know how to GM it, because if you try to play this like a bunch of skill checks, you're not going to get anywhere.

Masks is really good. I'd add Sprawl to the list as well.

Dungeon World falls apart because it tries to be everything fantasy RPG and ends up not really anything (As well as dragging in some D&Disms that don't handle well).

On the other hand Masks mostly succeeds because it laser focuses what it wants to be. It wants to be a superhero game based around the idea of figuring out your own identity (Generally with teens).

>doesn't understandd 5e character creation
I just made a character with a girl who had no idea about rpgs (other than 'my boyfriend plays them sometimes, with his friends'). 100% clueless. She didn't know that it's about playing a character, she didn't know what dice are involved or that you state your intentions and so on.

Took half an hour, but she was very hooked by character creation 'Uuh, you say a halfling is like a hobbit?' 'Barbarian sounds cool! I can be tough!' 'Outlander sounds neat, I'm a traveller'.

Moved on to equipment, gave her a backpack and a few trinkets related to her skills (she picked harp proficiency, animal handling -> a wolf, hand crossbows and short swords).
>anyways
If your player doesn't understand 5e, either you are completely incapable as a DM (or communication in general) or the player is completely retarded.

>can't just do a sweet move
But you can. Descriptive actions are a thing. You can even have it do various effects.

>Dungeon World falls apart because it tries to be everything fantasy RPG and ends up not really anything (As well as dragging in some D&Disms that don't handle well).

I feel like DW is kind of the vinaigrette salad dressing of RPGs. It takes two things that absolutely don't mix and then whisks them together really hard and tells you to eat it quick because if you sit there thinking about it for too long it'll separate.

>But you can. Descriptive actions are a thing.
The rules for how to handle skill checks overwhelms the little reminder that you describe things.
Buried somewhere in the intro chapters is the recommendation to describe what you are doing, but ultimately when you have your character sheet chock full of skill check numbers, the natural psychological effect is to roll a skill check. This could possible be offset by constant RP coaching from other players, but otherwise it's not obvious.

Every time I've tried running PbtA my players revolted, I've yet to actually find a group that wants to play a game using this system.

Most players tend to describe their actions, in my experience. If you're a DM and allow players to just roll a skill, you're a bad DM.
>okay, what does it look like?
>cool, describe it for me
>that's a good idea, elaborate on it

That's exactly what I'm saying, encouraging of RP descriptions by the GM and other players is needed offset the pure gamism presented by the character sheet and other materials.
Compare

That'll be $1.25 for the buzzword jar, please

alright, i don't like like D&D particularly but if a player doesn't understand this and gives up, then he's a moron who isn't cut out for this hobby anyway. there is no reason we need to simplify things so that we can pander to retards like OP.

>Tell me why we aren't recommending the far superior PbtA games instead of DnD for new players?
because narrative games are pure mindwank.

Hey, give the man his reciept or he gets his buzzwords free.

one of my friends didn't even finish highschool. we have been gaming for years successfully, even fucking rolemaster, with him. he completely understood the rolemaster rules without a problem (it was by no means his first RPG though). he even ran an arcane game like RIFTS for a while. the best part? english isn't even our native language.

long story short: if your friends are baffled by D&D mechanics (and I think you're making this up because is right), they probably made their degree in one of the soft "sciences". aka they are utter morons.
just like you.

>they are baffled by ability checks, stats, advantage/disadvantage and modifiers (especially modifiers)
>They just want to bazinga it up to show they have nerd cred.
they don't.

apocalypse world may be better but it's not good. it still is merely an elaborate negotiation about story between GM and players. it completely disregards the world simulation component that RPGs have for the sake of story.

that's why pbta keeps approacking calvinball terriroty.

yeah, OP is an obvious shill. are pbta publishers really that desperate?

This is why The Nerd Crew is so damn funny

I directly reject everything you said.

>it still is merely an elaborate negotiation about story between GM and players.
That's all RPGs, and Apoc World isn't any more meta than D&D could be. The players say what their character does and then if it counts as a move then it's resolved by strict rules. They have direct control over the "story" from their character's standpoint, same as D&D adventure party.
The DM is encouraged to ask the players prompts or questions where they can contribute tot he setting, you could be doing that in D&D too..
There is an option to invent specific moves to cover specific scenarios but that's not any different from D&D.

>it completely disregards the world simulation
1. Simulationism is not inherantly valuable in the first place, it's practically impossible anyway.
2. Apoc World does track the overall world through the Threat map.

>pbta keeps approacking calvinball terriroty.
The resolution of moves is very discrete, it's not any more random than rolling a skill check and the DM says the result.

>it completely disregards the world simulation component that RPGs have for the sake of story.

You are stupid

So what are the few good PbtA games, since so many of them are apparently shit? I've consistently heard The Sprawl (cyberpunk) is one of them.

2e is the latest version, yes. It's a refinement of ideas of the original with a few more additional rules.

I've heard good things about Masks, but playing "coming of age superheroic drama" is not very interesting to me.

>trannyfuck: the genderqueering
No.

>Dungeon World falls apart because it tries to be everything fantasy RPG and ends up not really anything (As well as dragging in some D&Disms that don't handle well).
The reason that DW is shitty is because it shoehorns the D&D genre (at this point, D&D is its own subset of fantasy) and has a bunch of poorly constructed basic moves. Spout Lore and Discern Realities are basically retarded, and Volley is really stupid. Hack 'n' Slash is barely passable as a combat move, but PbtA's trinary resolution system does not play well with D&D's "roll to attack" gameplay. The whole basic moveset needs a massive overhaul, and the classes themselves require some serious tinkering. The fighter is still boring, the druid sucks, the bard is ridiculous, etc.

>I feel like DW is kind of the vinaigrette salad dressing of RPGs. It takes two things that absolutely don't mix and then whisks them together really hard and tells you to eat it quick because if you sit there thinking about it for too long it'll separate.
Basically, yes. Dungeon World:Apocalypse World is 5e:1e. One of those is a system dedicated to doing something and doing it well, while the other tries to blend everything together into a palatable normie-friendly mash. It tastes good at first, but once you've eaten it a few times, you realize that it's bland and unappetizing.

>it still is merely an elaborate negotiation about story between GM and players. it completely disregards the world simulation component that RPGs have for the sake of story.
This is not anything different than traditional RPGs, it merely pushes the game into a story-oriented direction.

What are the bad habits of pathfinder?

t. dnd baby

There are many BAD PBTA, actually. Ruma and tremulus come to mind but honestly they're really few.
There are some not that awesome ones or a little better (dungeon world) that generally do their own shit anyway, you mileage may vary regarding how much this is the state of the games but to me it's pretty clear that even meh games here are better than basically any DND.

Some that seem pretty amazing are and would consider to be kinda "universally interesting" are:
Blades in the Dark
Bluebeard's Bride
Fellowship
Night Witches
Undying
The Veil

... but personally at this point I just sugget to say what you are interested to (maybe 3 genres/ideas) and let's see what is there. I mean, I'm the kind of guy that instead of another grimndark fantasy is more attracted to The Warren or No Country for Old Kobolds, but it depends.

>also check out the big list of WIP: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1whsN3C5e31CZfo8hqlJbiKTPBX9kkCDSEG_An9FlP5s/edit#gid=0

Rules-lawyering, character building, modifier stacking, rolling a skill check for every. fucking. thing.

Numbers before fiction. And histerically overcomplicated numbers, at that.

>>it still is merely an elaborate negotiation about story between GM and players.
>That's all RPGs
no, that's precisely not what RPGs are. in RPGs, GM and players (implicitly!) agree in advance that some events are outside of their combined agency to change. it is deliberately placed outside of convenience of story. it needs to be worked around, if anything. for example, when you fall down, you take, let's say, 1d6 damage per 3 meters of fall. and it will be the same way if someone else falls 3 sessions later, providing non-negotiable consistency. in the same manner, the classic turn structure provides the same consistency in what a character can do within a given amount of time - it is not subject to story-telling convenience.

>Simulationism is not inherantly valuable in the first place
true but it is the preferred mode of play for some of us.

>Apoc World does track the overall world through the Threat map.
grouping threats by theme, thus providing more evidence that pbta simulates stories not worlds

>The resolution of moves is very discrete, it's not any more random than rolling a skill check and the DM says the result.
so you're saying what a character can do within 10 seconds in-game time isn't arbitrary? and the order in which characters act isn't arbitrary?

>You are stupid
no, im entirely correct. pbta, a narrativist RPG, simulates stories, not worlds - who would have thought?

Wait, you aren't really saying that simlationist games are supposed to have always the same physical effects, right?

I mean, fucking Lovecraftesque is a simulationist game.

... or is it?

>Numbers before fiction
t. narrativist
this exactly confirms my claim that pbta simulates stories, not worlds. we classic roleplayers don't want everything to be subjugated to story. we want a consistent world in which stories take place. and we ensure consistency by having resolution mechanics for ingame world events ahead of time.

not having rules (including modifiers) that ensure a semi-consistent world means a game marches towards calvinball

>Lovecraftesque
first time i hear of it.

I actually agree with the first part user. I mean, I think it's a sad thing, but I agree, that's how grognards think (not that they achieve it).

The second part, considering PBTAs have modifiers, is objectively retarded.

It's the only RPG that does Lovecraft stories coherently.

You are stupid.

>Muh consistency.
PbtA games specifically place consistency above other concerns in the GM section. You haven't read a single one.

>Muh simulationism
The game does simulate a world, you abject retard. It couldn't not, as an RPG. It's just the mechanical moves on your character sheet simulate your actions in a way that keeps things in-genre.

>Muh realism
Threats are used to simulate shit happening in the background, or out of view. You don't know what they are because you haven't read a single PbtA manual with them in it.

>Muh DnDisms
PbtA mechanics don't track actions outside of moves, so you can still keep your actions small. You can take turns if you prefer it that way, nothing's telling you not to. Single-track Initiative is retarded and doesn't simulate anything.

>Muh worlds vs stories
DnD doesn't simulate a world either. Most systems don't. When's the last time a system put stats on a location? DnD simulates the protagonists of a story, just like PbtA.

Another user. You probably should learn what "simulationist" stands for, as it doesn't mean what you think it means.

The other user switched meanings three times in his post. I used it broadly just like he did. I know full well it means a game with a focus on simulating cause-and-effect, but PbtA is not utterly lacking in those traits. If the fiction says you should get hurt, you mechanically do.

English is my third language you idiot; I'm from Scandinavia. Why would I lie on Veeky Forums? I just told you a normal story about uninterested players who over-dramatize how complicated something is simply because they have no interest in learning. How does that make me a moron? Stop trying so hard to fit in with le ebin hackerman culture.

When will you people realize that DnD and PbtA are both awful?
There is one solution to all your problems*:
GUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRPPS

*unless you are running a superhero game

How many games in PbtA systems have you actually played? What were they?

3
Dungeon World, Monster Hearts and Monster of the Week.

Seconding masks and also the wrestling rpg. Same deal: laser focussed on what it does (wrestling and wrestling tropes), like masks it's all about inter-party interaction (in the form of wrestling feuds etc), but if you're not interested in wrestling you'll never enjoy it bc the best mechanics in the world won't suddenly make it interesting for you.

>that's how grognards think
actually that's how the RPG mainstream has been thinking and continues to think. only the narrativist niche disagrees.

>(not that they achieve it).
turn structure is a decent enough mechanism towards ensuring consistent, plausible combat resolution. narrativist games dispose of it at times because it gets in the way of freeform story-telling.

>The second part, considering PBTAs have modifiers, is objectively retarded.
what's the difference between shooting
a running
a walking
a standing
target, user?

t. never played final revelation for trail of cthulhu

>You are stupid.
nothing you have shown so far demonstrates that you're capable of making that judgement.

>PbtA games specifically place consistency above other concerns in the GM section.
you realize that we're talking about enforcing consistency through rules, right? no, you don't.

>The game does simulate a world, you abject retard. It couldn't not, as an RPG
no, it doesn't. when in doubt, it puts story-telling needs first. world simulation is only an after-thought, in so far as any storyteller cares about a somewhat plausible, consistent world. what you're not understanding, because you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, is that GNS is about PRIORITIES. pbta's are clearly on the narrativist side. this is no secret that i am spilling here.

>Threats are used to simulate shit happening in the background
from a storytelling perspective. right. but that's beside the point. any RPG has story-telling, game and simulation aspects. GNS is about priorities.

>You can take turns if you prefer it that way, nothing's telling you not to.
sure, i can homebrew. that doesn't change one iota about the system design and its priorities.

>DnD doesn't simulate a world either. Most systems don't.
you don't even understand the basics of gamism, simulationism, narrativism. catch up on it while I "read the GM section", lel.

The Veil is, imo, better than The Sprawl at cyberpunk, but has much less publicity.

I find the idea of a simulationist like yourself criticizing narrativism to be reprehensible.
The idea that all these abstracted statistics for "Hit Points" and damage dice could model some real world is inherently impossible.
I'll take a compelling narrative over a abstracted lookup-table activity any day.
Ironically this attitude doesn't "ensure consistency" at all, it ensures randomness which leads to pointless activity that no one participating in the game intended, quite literally wasting everyone's time for no-one's benefit.
Finally you would be better served trying to defend GAMISM, which is what these combat mechanics are intended to facilitate. So you essentially don't even know what you are talking about at all.

Then on top of your warped ideology, you don't seem to have an understanding of this PbtA world that you (in your mind) have set up as this great Satan. I've pointed out how Apoc World has just as many mechanics to resolve conflicts, but you retort with absurdly specific D&D mechanics for fall damage and initiative. I can tell you are pickled by your stunted experiences that you seemly lash out at any game without these exact mechanics.

>The other user switched meanings three times in his post.
you wouldn't just make up stories on the internet, would you?

>I know full well it means a game with a focus on simulating cause-and-effect, but PbtA is not utterly lacking in those traits.
that's where you wrong. it's about where the priorities of a game lie.

so tell us about the difference between firing at a running versus a standing target in pbta, fuckface. make your move, we're listening.

... it doesn't. It means that you want to simulate a genre.
Case in point: Vampire doesn't simulate anything that isn't directly caused by the PCs.

Simulationism DOES call for "always the same result", or at least it should, but it's definetily not the same thing.

I think the vast majority of gamers don't take pause to think about it.

I wasn't talking about turn structure at all. And you can't probably have freeform with narrativism.

You talked about generic "modifiers". Anyway, it's pretty simple, and if you can't see how it could work differently in, say, AW, you probably shouldn't discuss PBTAs at all.

I tried Trail, actually.
The idea of a Lovecraft RPG being an investigation with multiple protagonists is preposterous. I do enjoy Cthulhu Grey, but I don't call it faithful to HPL.

you now realize that simulationism isn't necessarily about simulating reality. genre simulation falls under simulationism, not narrativism.

>The idea that all these abstracted statistics for "Hit Points" and damage dice could model some real world is inherently impossible.
of course they do. the only question is how accurately they model reality (or fictional reality).

>I'll take a compelling narrative over a abstracted lookup-table activity any day.
compelling narratives have been had before the birth of the first narrativist RPG. as for looking up tables, there is varying degree of abstraction and complexity in games out there. but, yeah, looking up tables is part of the hobby to some degree.
>Ironically this attitude doesn't "ensure consistency" at all,
attitude doesn't ensure consistency, mechanics do. the modifier in shooting while running stays the same in shadowrun.

>Finally you would be better served trying to defend GAMISM, which is what these combat mechanics are intended to facilitate. So you essentially don't even know what you are talking about at all.
the modifiers for automatic fire in shadowrun are rather simulationist than gamist though.

> this PbtA world that you (in your mind) have set up as this great Satan.
nah, i would play pbta just as i have played D&D before. it just doesn't tickle me as much. i played FATE and ran purist trail of cthulhu after all. me being a simulationist doesn't mean that i don't play other RPGs, it just means that i have observed where my preferences lie and why.

>I can tell you are pickled by your stunted experiences that you seemly lash out at any game without these exact mechanics.
no, these are just examples that crystalize what i feel pbta is lacking and why i can't enjoy narrativist games as much. i want characters whose stats have been tailored to accurately reflect their concept and i want rules that reflect these predefined capabilities in gameplay.

>It's about having a focus on something
>Nuh-uh it's about prioritizing something

How stupid are you, really? AW 2e has different combat moves for different scenarios. There are in fact rules for when you're chasing someone who's running Vs when you're fighting them evenly Vs when you're catching them unaware, etc. You just don't know them.

>Ensuring consistent, plausible combat resolution
You mean probability-based, not-always-consistent combat resolution. You just spew forth words without knowing what they mean. DnD is specifically built to be entertaining, with unpredictable outcomes, that's why it has critical success and failure and uses dice. try a diceless system if you want consistency, grognard.

You are stupid.

>You can't show that I'm stupid
I don't need to, you do it all by yourself

>Let me move my goal post
Rules in PbtA games are consistent, too. You just don't know them. Moves apply consistently and have random results just like in most RPGs.

>When in doubt, it's evil!
No, faggot. Pic related. The priorities are in that order.

>That's homebrew!
No, it's not. The game says you take whatever approach you think is best, it just doesn't have a clear initiative track because those are retarded anyway, and the lack of action economy is balanced in other ways, like making you take damage when you try to deal it.

>You don't understand GNS
You're a retard.

>I want characters whose stats have been tailored to accurately reflect their concept

I'd like an example, if possible. I can't even imagine something like this, honestly.

>It means that you want to simulate a genre.
you can have HEMA-inspired games to simulate real life, for example.

a clarification for the benefit of debate in this thread: the three creative agendas (GNS) are about which aspect takes precedence. for example, armor in D&D is gamist because heavier armor is made to restrict movement unrealistically - to make lighter armor viable, thus providing an enjoyable trade-off for players. it chooses gamism over simulationism. that doesn't mean that there are no simulation aspects to armor at all.

it's a matter of PRIORITY.

and pbta sets priority on story-telling. it discards turn structure and action economy because those can get in the way of story-telling. and when in doubt, pbta will always give preference to story-telling. that's why it is narrativist.

for a simulationist this is not an enticing proposition. simulationists want to develop a story (you see story is still there but it's not top priority) within the contraints of a game world that has been (partially) defined by the mechanics. how long is a turn? what can you do in a turn? how hard is it to hit the enemy's head?

>Anyway, it's pretty simple, and if you can't see how it could work differently in, say, AW, you probably shouldn't discuss PBTAs at all.
what did he mean by this

even seen a RPG where they statted a movie or comic book character? i want the same except it's for a character that only exists in my head.
the simulation aspect then comes in during gameplay when I want the stats to reflect what I have been promised during character generation. if my character concept calls for a fit and fairly stong character, I want rules that keep him from bashing doors like he's Conan on the one hand and rules that don't stipulate he can't carry more than 10kg in equipment on the other. i want rules that ensure he performs in gameplay exactly the way he has been designed minus dice luck/bad luck.

Your argument doesn't line up with your stance the way you think it does.
If you are such a "simulationist", why are you complaining about the lack of "turns" and "actions"? Those are pure gamism.

>"turns" and "actions"? Those are pure gamism.
I don't even have a dog in this fight but they're also kind of a necessity. The systems that attempt to get around it (e.g. Hackmaster) tend to get bogged down to shit, counting up every single second of action in sequence.

>If you are such a "simulationist", why are you complaining about the lack of "turns" and "actions"? Those are pure gamism.
Not really. They're meant to simulate time in a way that's actually workable.

I've seen some games try initiative ticks and 'rolling initiative' to make things smoother, but they just end up slowing down the game.
Turns and actions are the best compromise.

>so tell us about the difference between firing at a running versus a standing target in pbta
Assume that the scene is straightforward with no other complications, you are facing a dude with your gun at some distance.
If he's standing there, you just shoot him. Inflict harm straight up, no roll.
If your enemy has a chance to counterattack it would be Exchange Harm.
If he's running, you could use "Lay Down Fire (Take an opportune shot)", or, you could use "Act Under Fire (Your target is getting away)" first, then follow up with inflict harm.
After some thought, That's how I would do it.

>There are in fact rules for when you're chasing someone who's running Vs when you're fighting them evenly Vs when you're catching them unaware, etc. You just don't know them.
so what are modifiers for shooting at a running versus a standing target?

>You mean probability-based, not-always-consistent combat resolution.
nobody expects 100% perfection, asshat. but, yeah, some of us prefer those over your free-floating story-telling.

> DnD
>critical success and failure
topkek.

>You are stupid.
opinion duly taken note of and discarded.

>I don't need to, you do it all by yourself
prove it.

>Rules in PbtA games are consistent, too.
no my original claim was that the rules don't enforce a consistent world. and it's true. keep bitching all you want, you're not going to change that.

>Pic related. The priorities are in that order.
that is just GM advice, not system-related. it's like how D&D says that HP are a mix of health, experience and luck and then healing potions heal you fully in gameplay regardless. we're judging the game by its rules here and it lacks mechanics that traditional, non-narrativist games have. pbta sacrifices these rules for the sake of story. and it has to implore the GM to provide consistency in narration because it knows that its ruleset does not.

>it just doesn't have a clear initiative track because those are retarded anyway, and the lack of action economy is balanced in other ways, like making you take damage when you try to deal it.
of course it's houseruling, quite obviously so even. anyway, again the GM is implored to provide through narration or fiat the consistency that the rules themselves do not ensure.

>You're a retard.
good, i like you thinking so, you deserve it.

user, GNS doesn't work like that.

>For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

So... basically you can't really say "this thing is gamist" (armor, fucking sheets, dice). It's a modal thing, you play that way (or not); an aesthic priority.

I agree that PBTAs are narrativist but "story-telling" is a buzzword. Narrativism is the game in which the premise (the big ethical question or the bunch of big ethical questions) is addressed, and how.
>well, more or less, I do have some doubts that The Warren doesn't simulate Watership Down as well

As it is a buzzword, simulationism doesn't "develop" a story more than Agon (gamist) does.

Finally, I repat. If you can't see how AW might address the "running man shot" thing, you don't know how this shit works, and you should stay silent on the topic.

It's impossible to define a character by numbers, that's what I meant.

Are you serious, user? There's a fuckton of ways to do initiative that are more simulationist that literally taking turns. Two-track initiative, for example, where the person with the quickest reaction actually goes last so they get to react to what everyone else declared, and then the actual events are resolved in order based on their rolls. Taking turns after rolling random initiative is 100% about playing a game, there's no simulation of reality to it.

He's right though, you do actually come across as retarded and your attempt to deflect it is cute but telling.

Mouse Guard does it pretty nicely with same-time actions, actually. I guess Burning Wheel does that too.

>if it didn't have all the edgy sex language in it. I play TTRPGs to tell stories, not to get off. I've never seen a novel be better for having explicit sex in it.
The fuck is in there?

You are so godawfully stupid it's pointless yo even respond to your bait. It's honestly depressing. At least I can take solace in knowing you've demonstrated your ignorance so thoroughly that anyone who has ever read a PbtA game's manual can tell you don't have a leg to stand on.

Shadowrun 5e's tickdown initiative system is pretty damn good. It means people can actually be consistently faster than others - take MORE actions because they're hopped up on drugs or have wires through their nervous system or magic is literally making them act faster.

Turns and actions are shit compared to that stuff.

He got triggered because of the sex moves.

I mean, it's not like AW is a game of horrible violence, with actual play examples of people diying eviscerated, right? One would be pretty dense in that case to be triggered by the sex and not all the actual horrible things in the game. Instead, it's a flowery dream on par with Golden Sky Stories!

>preposterous greentext anecdote
>esl level typo
>intentionally inflammatory closing remark

>thread full of posters engaging it at face value

He's talking about "sex moves", a mechanic in some of the games. Basically whenever you lie naked with another character (though sometimes only with PCs) you trigger some kind of mechanic based on your playbook. This is a thing in Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts, at least, but not every PbtA game has them.

In AW there's also paragraphs talking about how you want your game to be about blood and sex, and how your character should be sexy and badass, and sexy a couple more times, etc. It's got an R rating on the cover.

Would you have preferred we stuck to the OP's tone. I think this is a better thread than OP wanted, and that's the best way to stick it to them.

>>start creating character
>>new player gets bored and doesn't understand
>>roll to hit against AC
>>roll to do damage
>>modifiers
>>advantage
>>new player wonders why they can't just do a sweet move
>>gets frustrated and quite

Ah, I mean personally that wouldn't interest me but I don't get why it's an issue if theres a mechanic for it in some books. We're not talking FATAL here are we?

It serves as the in-game mechanic to facilitate that in a rough and desperate Apocalypse World, human beings still seek intimacy with each other, that can have consequences.
Honestly just think of it like how a TV show or movie would handle it: as graphic or as sentimental as you would expect.

Personally I have a problem with sex moves in AW, because none of the sources I would consider fundamental for the genre feature sex in a prominent role. You could ignore them, but the way forgite games are made, if the author put rules for something in the game, that thing is important, so it would be a clunky workaround. On the other hand, I have no problem with monsterhearts and find that sex moves are a perfect fit for that game.

The author states in the book that he himself thinks it's embarrassing and would never RP a sex scene. He just fades to black.

Problem is, that's well deep enough in the book that most players will never read it.

>If you are such a "simulationist", why are you complaining about the lack of "turns" and "actions"? Those are pure gamism.
no, not really. gamism is about challenge and competition. gamism is NOT making compromises for ease of play. every abstraction by natrure dumbs down things. simulation is about dumbing down in the right manner to maintain the essence of what you want to simulate.
so round structure per se is fine, if what it contains reflects what is to be simulated accurately enough.

well, this is fine. for narrativism. but a simulationist doesn't want to hit just because the target isn't running. for a running target, it also wouldn't do that you just add any kind of complication on top of it. your priority is the story and just roughly reflecting the action in the mechanics. my priority is in having the story develop under the constraints of semi-plausible game world physics. as defined for example, by the modifier for shooting at a running target.

contrary to what some others in this thread might believe, i am not really judging narrativist gamers for their preferences, there is no accounting for taste after all.

>A simulationist doesn't want to hit just because the target isn't running.
What?

>i am not really judging narrativist gamers for their preferences, there is no accounting for taste after all.
That sounds pretty judgemental right there!

He's saying if you shoot at a stationery target
five feet in front of you not dodging there's a chance you'll miss the target, and you should roll dice to see if you roll a 1 and miss or not.

The reality is shit like AC and HP in games like the ones you seem to like so much are more story-telling oriented than you'd be able to gauge with your half-developed brain. If you don't deal damage because your enemy's AC was too high, what do you do? You make up an excuse: "They dodged", "they absorbed the hit", "you missed. PbtA moves actually come with predefined answers and are, at least in that way, less "free floating story-telling" than DnD.

> constraints of semi-plausible game world physics. as defined for example, by the modifier for shooting at a running target.
the fact that you think the only possible acceptable way to "simulate" is to have some specific codified "modifier" to a discrete attack roll, really just nails the coffin shut

yikes

A simulation is not a story user.
Please stop throwing around jargon at random.

And that's simulationist? No, I'm pretty sure nobody who actually liked simulationism would agree with him on that. Only someone who likes simulationism because they think DnD is simulationist would actually think that.

>five feet in front of you not dodging there's a chance you'll miss the target
according to...?
The failure probability of the dice roll of the discrete shooting action according to whatever rules of whatever specific game you are playing?

>Dungeon-World-with-Fellowship-Combat-and-3rd-party-classes
Haven't read Fellowship, what's so different about its combat?

Wow, it's like you didn't even read my post.
I literally said 'it's not the most realistic way, but it is the quickest way', and you tell me I'm wrong because it's not the most realistic way and there are other ways that are slower.

Good job.

Shadowrun's system is alright in a world where some people have cybernetics out the ass and are dodging bullets like the matrix. In a game with normal people, actions work just about fine.
I even tend to go as barebones as possible and just alternate between the players' turn and the enemys'. Which is actually not even that far from Dungeon World.
Some people will probably say that's not 'simulationist' because it isn't hyper-detailed, but I'd dispute that definition of simulationist.