Did Apocalypse World invent the playbook?/tg/ seems to have a low opinion of them, is there a game you think does them best? Or least bad? Conversely, is there a "worst playbooks I ever saw" game?
>>98842394Sort of. They were strongly inspired by the white wolf vtm era example characters as ways to work with key themes and genre archetypes and trying to do that well instead of what forgites saw ww as doing. A lot of when people get messed up about playbooks is when they don't realize pbta is specifically about emulating genre fiction so working within specific confines instead of the very broad >ttrpg characters can be anything I want! Its like trying to get a freeform poetry fag to work with any writing structure, its not going to work. Beyond the Wall is probably one of my favourite implementations of playbooks. A very clever integration of group setting and character building. That being said, there's a lot of bad pbta/fitd, its like the d20 explosion in the 2000s. Mostly shit that was just a default 'use this to publish your ideas' that was easy to slap on and had a premade audience. Flying Circus's are ones that stick out as being overly fiddly and having too much shit going on with key words and missing the useful simplicity of pbta, but most if not all blades in the dark I've seen does this too.
i haven't actually played any pbta yet, but i've had Brindlewood Bay sitting on my shelf for months swearing i'll run it, and its approach looks really nice. it feels like a pbta-lite where everyone just shares 2-3 basic moves and then relies on their specific character specials (1 or 2).the early 2000s indie era was super weird. you had 90s games like vtm pushing storytelling and psychodrama with zero mechanics to actually back it up, holding up to that label by sheer bullshit and player pretense. pbta was developed directly inside that bubble, stepping up the dogma to such an extreme that i honestly don't believe a lot of it would survive today's scrutiny on objective grounds.
>>98845541>Hasn't played it >Already fucking up player engagement with moves as buttons >Other bad opinions follow lol
>>98845690>response with zero actual rebuttals Typical PbtAfag
>>98845690hey, that's my take. i do really like the Carved from Brindlewood stuff, and Blades in the Dark probably isn't bad either. actually have Starforged and played it solo. it's kinda pbta, but it feels more like a standard system with hard/weak successes where the mechanics are just codified as moves, instead of having separate procedures for wilderness exploration and picking blueberries. didn't even think i should mention it, but it's not bad. also read Stonetop, not bad either, just so fucking bloated.
>>98845732>can't into conversation but just reply offended >>98845774>Doubles down on hot opinions and has never played and was not part of the scene for lmao even
>>98845841ok, thanks for the contribution to the discussion
>>98842394>Did it invent playbooksI doubt it, but it is definitely the most popular system that uses them. >/tg/ seems to have a low opinion of them.Failing forward being the most common outcome for a lot players is kind of shit for a lot of play styles and if you move outside your specific character archetype that is going to be what happens most of the time.>Is there a game that does it best?Monster of the Week. Episodic, trope heavy bullshit with forward failing results fits that kind of game great. Anything trying for a campaign style game with an overarching plot across a bunch of adventures tends to fall flat on its ass though. That's most games to most TTRPG players.>Worst playbooksDungeon World is up there. It actively prevents other characters from even attempting to perform actions. Not "You aren't good at it, so you will probably fail" but just straight up "You don't have lift gates in your playbook, so you will never lift that gate even you have magic, a lever to help, or anything else ". Dungeon World's GM advice and World Building section is still pretty stellar for newbie GMs in most RPGs those, so the book isn't a total wash.
>>98845541> haven't actually played any pbta yet, but i've had Brindlewood Bay sitting on my shelf for monthsTomorrow is my 5th session of the Brindlewood Bay campaign (it is my first PbtA game). I got the book as a birthday present at the end of August. At first, the game felt off, but then I threw the moves and most of the premises out the window, and the players started to really enjoy it (yep, there is almost no game left).Once again, I am convinced that TTRPGs are kind of a scam, despite being my favorite hobby—a good GM can make improv with 2d6 far more entertaining than the majority of games played RAW.But to be more concrete, here are some takeaways.Tonally, the game is very demanding. It states that the GM has to preserve the balance between cozy and spooky while simultaneously keeping things serious. It sounds equally absurd to me as when the D&D 5.5e DMG tells you that it is your responsibility as a GM to make the game fun, over and over, in the first 20 pages. The premise of a bunch of Jessica Fletchers investigating murders in a small US town on a daily basis is kind of cartoonish to begin with. If anything, the players find the idea of roleplaying a granny hilarious, rather than seeing it as some kind of exploration of the human condition. For example, I am trying my best, but honestly, nobody cares about properly roleplaying scenes in the cozy place to heal conditions.(1/3)
>>98846242Players really need to be fans of detective stories like Miss Marple and Murder, She Wrote to get the investigation moving. Spoiler: they are not. They are modern normie nerds, allergic to anything contemporary. So basically, they fail at the game miserably. Only one girl out of six players (well, the one who gifted me the book in the first place) actually managed to tie the clues together into a case for the final roll. The rest needed to be heavily pushed and railroaded into figuring out possible motives and alibis for NPCs and connecting them to the clues.Ultimately, they would rather invent their own fantastical story to explain the clues and the murder than properly interact with clues and NPCs. It's as if the final roll is there to give them creative freedom over the plot of the session, rather than serve as the culmination of their investigation. So, being a good friend, I obviously just rewired the game into a paranormal investigation that works like an escape room. And then everybody finally got engaged. Public Access *cought* *cought*Brindlewood has little to no rules, and they're still confusing. For example, there's an important game mechanic involving "items in your cozy place," aka your inventory. The rules state that only certain items should be placed in the inventory so they can later be used to gain advantages. There's even a special level-up move that unlocks all the items you've already used. But in practice, it's unclear how regular items that you could realistically have should work when there's also a separate category of special items. And what makes an item special? Should you, as a GM, keep an eye on that? It makes verisimilitude very confusing, as if you can't just have a car, a cat, or some tool because otherwise the special items and the items granted by your Maven Moves would be outclassed by things you could realistically have anyway. It looks like an idea that wasn't properly thought through.(2/3)
>>98846254There are like five basic moves, but that's already enough to cause confusion. When gathering a clue is dangerous, is it the Day/Night move or the Meddling move? Is it both, in order? Who knows. And the fact that players themselves propose possible scenarios for failure and partial success seemingly slows down the game, making it less dramatic and less tense. Only when I started winging it did the players begin to use crowns consistently.So far:1st session: Based on the movie Blue Velvet.2nd session: Based on the book's adventure The Great Brindlewood Bay Bake-Off. I just made the NPCs and events more evocative.3rd session: Based on the movie The Lighthouse and the book's adventure A Murder Most Mucky. Agent Dale Cooper and Bob were added as recurring NPCs.4th session: Based on the TV series Dark and Twin Peaks. There is time travel and there are Red Room scenes. A mysterious stranger in a huge fisherman's hat appears and acts as a constant threat.5th session: Presumably, the player who skipped the session will investigate the disappearance of her friends, while they send her clues from the past to the future. More Lovecraftian things will appear.
>>98846261>the fact that players themselves propose possible scenarios for failure and partial success seemingly slows down the game, making it less dramatic and less tense.love the "describe the scene" mechanics, it's super scary for GMs to let go, but at the same time, it gets players immediately hooked.
>>98846374Not sure what do you mean by hooked.It’s like asking players to describe a fantasy tavern themselves. It robs them of the feeling of exploration. I don’t think making up what bad things can happen to your PC builds Hitchcockian tension, since you just roll the dice the next moment. But it definitely makes you somewhat more prepared for what’s to come.This mechanic is also not foolproof: a player can simply choose not to come up with anything dangerous, and, well, the book addresses that by saying that the GM still needs to make something up in such cases.Depending on the player’s mood and attitude, the moves can also vary wildly, ranging from something stock to something borderline mischievous.
>>98846468you get that cross eyed 1000 yard stare where you're mentally dropping into the simulation to look around and see what could actually go wrong. you're actually there instead of being at a table. idk how to describe it, it just makes you insert yourself into the scene way harder, like your brain has to actually render the situation from the inside to answer the question, while it isn't substantial enough to mess with the GM's plot
>>98845851>Telling people who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about in relation to the actual game they're talking about is bad because it makes me feel bad!I accept your concession.
>>98846242It's not very demanding at all, but it IS more tonally complex than your usual dnd or indeed COC.That being said:>For example, I am trying my best, but honestly, nobody cares about properly roleplaying scenes in the cozy place to heal conditions.Your players don't buy the premise. Not the game for your group. As you say, they are not fans of the idea and in the end you played something totally different.>But in practice, it's unclear how regular items that you could realistically have should work when there's also a separate category of special items.Pretty simple, actually. Barring moves and special fictional circumstances, you get them at character creation.Think of them as something 30% to get more dice and 70% to get more character colour.So, not a generic car. What about an old but well mantained corvette that she can still drive like she was 20 yo? They tend to be cozier, mind you, but this is to give you an idea. Think about your Maven's hobbies first.>When gathering a clue is dangerous, is it the Day/Night move or the Meddling move?The book is clear about this: it mostly depends on the light in the scene, really. If not, it depends if the scene looks dangerous or not. Jessica Fletcher herself in the first mistery has an interesting scene that I think explains it, the bus one. It (arguably) starts as a Day environment but ends up as a Night one.
>>98842394It did, if by playbook we are using the idea of a sheet that has everything the character will have to his name, right before starting the game.It's not a small part of PBTAs success, mind you.>>98845541>VTM being indieReally now?
>>98846656both PbtA and VtM authors strike me as actual sex-havers so i'll just sit here and seethe, thank you very much.
>>98846783> Your players don't buy the premise.Duh. The game is so specific in tone, genre, premise, characters, and approach to role-playing that the ideal group isn't necessarily one that ticks every box, but one that enjoys exploring TTRPG concepts. The game isn't tailored to a specific audience or demand. If a group can organically buy into its premise fully, its members are probably real-life mavens. Realistically, people opt in because one feature interests them, and that feature is the Theorize move.> So, not a generic car. What about an old but well-maintained Corvette she can still drive like she's 20?There's an actual feat in the book that gives you a car with unlimited advantages. It seems you haven't fully understood my point. RAW, a player can have binoculars in her Cozy Place because you agreed during Session Zero that they fit her nosy maven personality. But they can only grant an advantage once; afterward, they're just binoculars.Fine, let's say an item related to a maven's hobby becomes important later. But when we filter items by vibes, it's harder to figure out how they help with an investigation than it is with a regular tool.And here's the elephant in the room: if a maven can act like a real person, she can simply buy tools suited to investigations. She can have a car, 'cause it's America. What limits this beyond a gentlemen's agreement about the number and types of items she can have?What's the difference, apart from a couple of advantages? Not much. The rules have one dedicated paragraph on inventory, and that's it. Everything else is left to interpretation and RAI.> The book is clear about this.I don't get it. I have a physical copy. Please quote the relevant passage. Where is this clarified in the Moves section?
>>98846641Eh, you kind of describing how it should work in an ideal scenario. I mean, when you engaged so much, it is cool, you are a good player I guess. But it’s not a merit of the rule, but rather of your willingness to engage with it. This way even D&D 5e combat would be nice.
>>98846825I don't think he's saying vtm was indie, I think he's saying that the indie scene was reacting against vtm
