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.
(Oh! Monster of the Week calls the GM the "Keeper". AW calls the GM the "MC". I mixed them up in my post. Hopefully you can sort that out! MC = GM = Keeper.)
Now we're getting into some specifics of Monster of the Week, and I've never read or played it, so someone else will have to respond to you. (From the way you're describing some of the game, it sounds to me like bad design. But, without having the text in front of me, I can't say whether that's the game or if you're misreading it in some way. For example, I have the 'basic moves' in front of me here - they're available online for free - and the "manipulate" move doesn't say anything about a miss condition.)
Well, interesting! I'm seeing a bunch of different things in your responses now, and it might clear up the mess if we dig to the bottom of it.Yeah, there's definitely a big disconnect going on here! :)
First of all, I stand by the assertion that PbtA games just aren't *that* different from other games you've played... for the most part. If you and/or your group have some specific problems which have been holding you back, and the game you're playing addresses those problems, then playing a well-designed PbtA game can really feel nothing short of magical. But it depends on what comes naturally and easily to your group and what doesn't. Some people play and they go "Oh, wow!", whereas others go, "Hey, how is this different from what I've doing all along?"
Not too surprisingly, it depends a great deal on how you've been playing "all along". The rules certainly do "do some things for you"; if you're not seeing that, you're either playing it "wrong", or they are things you and your group already have been doing without trouble.
Second, I'm not familiar with Monster of the Week in particular, so it's possible there are some poorly designed moves or some badly written text or some assumptions of play which are tripping you up. It sounds like the game is fairly well-liked, so I'll assume that's not the case, but it's entirely possible.
Finally, it DOES seem to me that you're having some kind of disconnect with the philosophical approach to playing with these rules, and addressing that might be the root of the problem. Your description of things feeling overly limiting in some places and far too wide-open may be a personal preference... or it may mean that you're interpreting something entirely wrong (or at least differently).
Now, your comments about things being limited - particularly, in your example, "why can't a monster capture someone"? This makes no sense to me. I've never seen a PbtA game really limit your options in this kind of sense. I can't imagine that MotW does, either. Where did you get the idea that a monster can't capture someone?The rules are very much written as restrictions; though I'm gathering people don't seem to play them that way!
Are there lists of things that a monster *might* do, which you've interpreted as the *only* things a monster *can* do at all?
I've seen a few situations where a move demanding a specific outcome which didn't fit the fiction. Generally, this means that you shouldn't have used that move in the first place, or, occasionally, that it's a badly designed move. Look over the game's "advice text" on how and when to apply the moves: sometimes there are some counterintuitive bits in there, and learning when best to use the moves is a big part of getting that to work for you. (It's the main "system mastery" involved in learning the game.)Its possible we're using the PC moves when its inappropriate, but we're barely using them as is! And I think the situation generally fits.
However, I don't think you should ever feel like you have creative ideas you can't use. Can you give some examples? I find it hard to imagine. (Again, it's possible that, for example, MotW's list of MC moves is terrible.)As mentioned, some of the moves have very specific results, which would then block up anything that isn't that specific result. So, for example, as we've been discussing, a failed Manipulate Someone roll leads to a very specific result - "you offend or anger the target" - but there are a ton of other things that could happen instead of that!
I'm not sure what you mean by the last bit about monster escape - is there actually a rule or move like that in the text? Most PbtA games don't have such things, but perhaps MotW does for a specific reason, and understanding it in context might be helpful.Yep. There is a monster move that is literally "Escape, no matter how well contained it is".
Many player moves allow the characters a specific chance of succeeding at certain tasks. Furthermore, since there are no "modifiers" or "difficulty numbers", the MC can't adjust the rolls so those outcomes are impossible. This means that, as long as you play by the rules, you - the MC - can't prevent certain outcomes to "preserve" a plot.Well, in most RPGs, if an attack did enough damage to take down a target, short of obvious cheating the GM couldn't just keep the target up anyway. :)
For example, let's say I set up a trap for a monster (maybe a vampire who we have established will die if exposed to sunlight, and I've made a hole in the ceiling, so a beam of light comes through onto the floor), and then I go into a fight with it. We will probably roll "Kick Some Ass", right? Well, on a 10+, I can choose "You force them where you want them", and push the vampire into the beam of light.
Short of really obvious cheating, you, the MC, cannot hedge the game so that the vampire isn't pushed into that beam of light and destroyed.
The game guarantees me a chance of success.But if you, for example, plan that, say, there are journals detailing past encounters with the monster, then when the PCs investigate and everyone is going "umm, hmm, I don't know how we get that info from here" instead of joining in the "I have no clue", you say "well, one of the books you discovered..."
Similarly so for many other moves - especially consider how the investigation and "read a situation" moves allow players guaranteed access to certain pieces of information.
Now, here, again, you've lost me. Aren't we talking about the Manipulate move? (I could have lost track, of course...)Yep, the manipulate move Miss is "your approach is completely wrong and you anger or offend the target".
If so, how does it specify that a failure is someone getting mad or upset at you? That sounds very odd. (I certainly wouldn't want it to! That sounds rather boring.)
You know, I'm not sure what you mean by "game" in this context. AW isn't that different, in this respect, from a lot of mainstream roleplaying games.Yeah, I guess I just had unreasonable expectations. So many people talked about PbtA games being radically different from other RPGs, and the rules producing such 'magical' (their literal word, on more than one occasion) experiences, and the rules are written in such a strangely rigid way, it seemed like they ought to DO things for you. To provide mechanics that actually drive the game, and help with uncertain situations or pacing, or, well, anything that might hang up a GM during a normal game.
You're absolutely right in that trying to plot specific encounters in specific locations (especially in a specific order) is an exercise in folly. PbtA games will not only not help you in this regard, they almost actively fight you.Um...I never said that, so I'm certainly not right about it. :)
No, it's not "try again" or "try harder" - it's "try something different." The 7-9 clause on manipulate stipulates that the person you're trying to manipulate wants something from you first. It makes success conditional or costly, and in that regard is almost exactly like the 7-9 result on act under pressure.It very much reads to me as a "try harder"; "do something know to show them you mean it" to me definitely means you are still using the same approach. When I can even make sense of it; honestly, it doesn't make much sense to me in most situations.
Also, hilariously, many of your "success complications" are the kinds of things I'd actually apply to straight-up misses. Like, "yeah, OK, you missed the roll - but the reporter gives you the film anyway. But she does so by giving you a link to where she's published it on her Facebook page; it looks like that shit's already gone viral." So sure, you get what you asked for - which is sort of like a success - but upon further reflection it wasn't really what you wanted. In AW parlance, that's called "putting your bloody fingerprints all over something" and is one of the best parts of the game.Technically, they wouldn't be allowed as failures either, since a fail is just specifically that they get mad or upset at you. :)
OK, I think I see one difference in our discussion here - MotW locations don't have moves associated with them. There's nothing but a "motivation" and a brief description of what that "motivation" means.Yeah, it tells you not to, then it tells you to decide in advance what is going to happen at each location. Sorta. Like "this place is a crossroads, so you are going to meet someone there". Which seems like a lot of "plot" to me. Kinda. I'm really confused about the whole thing.Oh, oh, hang on - I think I see the issue here; you don't have to make this decision about a particular move in the place in advance. If the PCs are in a location that you have decided is a Crossroads (let's say the local cop bar), then if you're struggling to decide what happens next, you take a quick look at the moves that go along with that location, pick one, and start building a scene around it.
"You wander around the tunnels for over an hour, but after just a short time, things all start to look sort of the same. At some point, you realize you're right back where you started, probably arguing about who screwed up and how you got turned around. What do you do?"Is exactly what I said seems more useful; coming up with concrete things to happen that give the feeling of the place. :)
Yeah, it absolutely leads to a failure, and that's OK. It should be harder to bluff someone with a fake gun.
But here's one of the most important things to understand about PbtA games: failure is OK. Failure more often than not drives the story forward. Failure (or partial success) provides the complications that make the characters' lives interesting. It provides the dramatic tension. If the PCs always succeed, the game really loses something.But the loss situation you are describing doesn't really move the game forward; it just amounts to "try again" or "try a bit harder". And there are so many potentially interesting results for "manipulate someone". Maybe the person you are threatening does what you want, but then has a heart attack from fear and now you need to help them. Maybe the person you casually seduce goes along with it, but then becomes obsessed with you. The reporter you are trying to get the film from hands it over, but decides to also post it on the internet, letting some enemies know about you - none of which are permitted results as written!
StormKnight, you're right to point out that MotW asks for substantially more preparation than vanilla AW.I wasn't comparing to AW, which I never played. Just to "traditional" RPGs. Though stating out enemies is way, way easier in MotW! :D
However, MotW does *not* ask you to prepare a plot.Yeah, it tells you not to, then it tells you to decide in advance what is going to happen at each location. Sorta. Like "this place is a crossroads, so you are going to meet someone there". Which seems like a lot of "plot" to me. Kinda. I'm really confused about the whole thing.
Getting into that locked room is a perfect example of an inconsequential roll; don't do that.Right. Totally. But what I was trying to figure out was whether people would insist on making a Keeper move in response to that. To me, I'd just be inclined to say much what you said - you get it open, doesn't look important, you guess he was just confused. Though, I guess one could say that the move is 'make them investigate' since they need to keep looking.
Where the monster moves versus minion moves are important is in shaping the scenes. So attack with stealth and calculation describes how the monster makes its approach - but minions don't attack that way because they aren't smart enough.I really don't think that's intended; monster and minion just define the role of the character within the story, as made very clear in the sample story where there's a minion that is INCREDIBLE clever, powerful and smart. You could easily have a bunch of ninja assassins as minions who pretty much "attack with stealth and calculation" by default.
But don't you see? Seduction is "I'll give you seX if you give me Y." ;) An emotional appeal is "You'll make me happy if you do Y." A bluff is faking that you have a gun and saying "Do Y and I won't shoot you." A bribe is straight-up "I'll give you X if you do Y." Blackmail is "Do Y or I'll e-mail these photos to your wife." These are all cases of an "exchange," and manipulate someone is the appropriate move for all of them. You just need to be more open-minded about what you're treating as the "currency" used to make that exchange.I really disagree with your assessment, though had a good laugh at your pun. :p
What do you have to unlearn? The main thing might be just trusting the rules. In many "trad RPGs", the GM applies rules flexibly, to achieve their agenda, particularly when they have a specific plot in mind. (For example, consider "fudging".)Isn't PbtA all about "applying rules flexibly"? I mean, very little is defined to any mechanical extent; most of the game is based on GM fiat. Like, in a traditional RPG, the GM might "fudge" to let a villain escape (likely an example of "bad" fudging). In MotW, they rules tell the keeper 'sure, have a monster escape no matter how well contained it is'. Its a move. I can't think of much that you'd "fudge" to do in traditional RPG that you can't just do by the rules in MotW.
If you come with a "prepared plot" in mind, the rules will fight you.I've seen a lot of comments like this and am still confused by it. The MotW rules actually recommend a lot more preparation that I often do for games! You are figuring out what will happen in each place, what the role of each NPC is, how the monster will be defeated...lots of stuff that I wouldn't normally plan in advance!
In practice, I think you *could* skip some opportunities to make moves, but, generally speaking, it's a good idea not to.So, if a "move" is basically "say something"...what would "skipping" a move look like?
In terms of what moves are appropriate for minions or monsters, your basic Keeper moves are always appropriate. It's totally cool to have the minion stab a PC with a syringe full of sedatives - that's you inflicting harm as established, one of your basic MC moves.Wouldn't 'harm' be the game keyword? I figured that was for doing damage with weapons, per the comments about how to handle things if one party in a fight isn't fighting back.
This move is all about using leverage to get someone to do what you want. The important part here is the leverage...From what I've heard, 'leverage' is used in other PbtA games, but it isn't mentioned in MotW. The 'manipulate someone' move seems to be all about 'I'll give you X if you do Y'. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Its just that, when I was talking with my wife whose been playing RPGs with me for about 20 years about this, neither of us could remember a single occasional in an RPG where "I'll give you X for Y" happened in a game. This doesn't mean its never happened for us, just that it was never memorable or interesting. Whereas occasions where a character has tricked someone, bluffed someone, seduced someone, made an emotional appeal to someone...that's like pretty much every session!
* Read a Bad Situation: This is a move you use when shit's about to get real and you need to form an exit strategy. It's for when things are tense you're looking for any small advantage to help you get out the other side of it. That's why acting on this information gives you +1 forward - forewarned is forearmed, so to speak. So for instance, your conversation with the cultists is getting tense, but by reading a bad situation you suss out that they all look to Professor Calder for leadership ("who's really in charge here?")."Who's really in charge here" isn't a question in MotW. :)
* Weapon Tags: Most of these are relatively self-explanatory, but where they really come into play is in helping to work with the fiction to either describe what can happen or what has happened (prescriptive versus descriptive). So if you have a weapon that has a tag of "hand," but your enemy isn't within arm's reach, you can't use that weapon to hurt them (prescriptive).Yeah, but as you mentioned, there's no definitive timing or location. So "I dash across the room to stab them" isn't "harder' in any sense than "I reach out my arm and stab him".
MotivationsHmm. I feel like I'm struggling to fit places into these odd terms that don't really mean anything or tell me anything useful. It just isn't a concept that makes sense to me.
These are chiefly for you, the Keeper. Isn't that nice?