Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - 2097

Pages: [1]
1
roleplaying theory, hardcore / Saving throws as analogy for moves
« on: June 08, 2016, 10:12:11 AM »
Has this observation already been done?

Another cross post from another forum but I thought it was interesting to hear you gearheads' take on it:

[In Apocalypse World and Dungeon World] every single action is like how saving throws work in D&D.
In D&D, you're talking along, describing what you're doing, how you're walking down the dungeon corridor etc, conversation style, everything's dandy... then whoops, you step in some sort of poison hole, there might be some trouble involved with that, make a saving throw and that'll tell us all the consequences.

In Dungeon World (and AW), every single thing is like this. You're talking describing how you're fighting the monster, chopping along, having fun fighting this horrible giant ogre but whoops, you put yourself in danger in the fight, make a "Hack&Slash" check to see whether you are hurt.

It's All Saving Throws, All The Time. My friend Trix described it as a "consequences system" rather than a "task resolution system" (and rather than a "conflict resolution system" that The Shadow of Yesterday uses), but I think of it as ASTATT.

It works because the action economy is built around it. Monsters deal damage when they deal damage. If you say "I go stand in front of the ogre and look at it intently in the eyes", well, you might get smashed straight up. Similar to how there is no saving throw in D&D if you just go jump off a cliff deliberately. But if you go "I go stand in front of the ogre and then I bring up my dagger and try to cut its fingers off before it can smash me [whoops, that got a little graphic, I apologize]", well, you've got to make a roll and the consequences of failing that roll might be that you get smashed because you weren't fast enough or good enough with the dagger.


2
Apocalypse World / Fudge version of PbtA
« on: May 22, 2016, 03:50:29 AM »
Cross post from S-G:

You can change Apocalypse World to not be so numbers-focused like this:
First of all, get fudge dice, you know the ones that have an equal number of pluses, minuses and blanks. Also known as fate dice.

Then change the playbooks and basic move sheets as follows:

When I refer to "the ladder" below, I'm talking about this list:
Unflinchingly
Intensely
Very
Kind of
A little bit
Not really that
Far from
The least

Unbeknownst to the players, but known to you, the converter, this scale is:
Unflinchingly: +4
Intensely: +3
Very: +2
Kind of: +1
A little bit: 0
Not really that: -1
Far from: -2
The least: -3

Do not show those numbers  to your players. I'm not kidding; do not let them start taking about +3 and -2 and stuff.


Then make new playbooks such that:

Choose one set:
• Cool+1 Hard=0 Hot+1 Sharp+2 Weird-1
• Cool+1 Hard+1 Hot=0 Sharp+2 Weird-1
• Cool-1 Hard+1 Hot=0 Sharp+2 Weird+1
• Cool+2 Hard=0 Hot-1 Sharp+2 Weird-1

Becomes this:

Choose one set:
• Kind of cool, a little bit hard, kind of hot, very sharp, not really that weird.
• Kind of cool, kind of hard, a little bit hot, very sharp, not really that weird.
• Not really that cool, kind of hard, a little bit hot, very sharp, kind of weird.
• Very cool, a little bit hard, not really that hot, very sharp, not really that weird.

Teach your players how to roll like this (I'm serious, follow this procedure, it'll become fast after a while and you'll use the scale in your head after a while, but be careful about shortcutting it in the beginning):
Let's say you have to roll to act coolly and that you are a little bit cool.
Put your finger "A little bit". Roll four of the dice. Remove any + - pair because they cancel out. Then for each remaining +, move your finger up once, and for each -, move your finger down once.
Let's say you rolled ++_-. The minus and the + cancel out, leaving +. Move your finger up once on the scale for the remaining +. It ends on "Kind of" You acted kind of coolly.

Before you teach them that (but I wanted to explain it to you, the converter, first), change the moves so that this:

DO SOMETHING UNDER FIRE
When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire,
roll+cool. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7–9, you flinch, hesitate, or
stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or
an ugly choice.

becomes:

DO SOMETHING UNDER FIRE
When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll to
act coolly. If you act very coolly or cooler, you can do it. If you
act kind of, or a little bit cool, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the
MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.

(Uh, maybe that phrasing needs a little work.)
Anyway, the point is to change all 7-9 results to "Kind of" and "A little bit", all 6- results to "Not really that" and lower, and all 10+ results to "Very" and higher.
It's a lot of work converting or redoing all the playbooks but once that's done, your players won't see any numbers any more and you'll be happily in "word land".

Put that ladder right on every playbook near the stats, or on laminated cards. Use the version that does <em>not</em> have the numbers. I'm serious. Do not show it.

I've worked on the probabilities and they match pretty well from the start and across the advancements. You'll get pretty close to the same percentages of successes, misses, and 7-9:s.


----
I'm not saying "Do this" or that it's a particularly good idea to do it for all groups. It's just an option for some who hate adding small numbers together, to make those numbers even smaller and less numberlike.

3
roleplaying theory, hardcore / Post-Big-Model RPG theory
« on: July 17, 2015, 04:25:58 PM »
Vincent, I think I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of it actually. I've read the Dice & Clouds series and the Object series and I believe myself to understand them well enough to not have any questions (although I might be kidding myself). Anything else big beside those two?
+ of course that AW itself is teaching by example, especially illuminated by D&C.

Pages: [1]