|
hyphz posted:Ok, you're right, "sitting at the table" wasn't really a good phrase. But there's a difference between playing poker as efficiently as you can in order to achieve winning as much money as possible, and your motivation for turning up to play poker being purely to win money (rather than, say, because you just like playing poker). You can do one without the other or both or neither.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Ilor posted:Yeah, but... none of that is what "play to find out" actually means. Your exercise in semantics is completely orthogonal to the intended meaning of the phrase. But relevant to the original tweet, which was about whether or not that "punchy" phrase sufficed to communicate Vincent's intention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
That’s not actually what that tweet was about, it was part of a larger thread that was taken a bit out of context because Covok thought it was a sick burn for unknowable reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Hyphz, have you actually read AW? Like the book. The parts that are being referenced. I'm not meaning to be lovely but you're discussing poo poo that is literally addressed right there on the page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Hyphz, have you actually read AW? Like the book. The parts that are being referenced. I have read it, but it was a while back and a bit disconnected; grim post apoc isn’t so much my thing. But certainly the meaning of the phrase has drifted since then. See; Vincent Baker’s blog on player goals posted:(b) Your job as a player is to have your character pursue her goal, having her act with integrity to her personality as it develops, and play to find out what happens to her. Urban Shadows posted:Playing Urban Shadows requires.. a commitment to the moment at hand.. trust that you’re going somewhere interesting. Play to find out what happens. .. and a dozen PbtA forums that have all directed that phrase at the players. Sadly, these days where a misunderstanding can create a 10 page forum thread that will be searchable for ever, you have to defend your catchphrases or lose them. That more or less killed the meaning of GNS, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
I don't think you understood what you read then. The point is explicitly that no one has a pre-fabricated end goal and that everyone, you know, plays to find out what happens. It's in the phrase. I honestly don't know how to say it more clearly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I don't think you understood what you read then. The point is explicitly that no one has a pre-fabricated end goal and that everyone, you know, plays to find out what happens. As I mentioned, it can be read three ways: a) play with a strategy intended to yield a discovery of what happens. b) play with your motivation for playing being to find what happens. c) find out what happens by the mechanism of playing, as opposed to other mechanisms. C) is unusual advice for the GM, but in the case of players, c) is true for every game. Even if the game is a railroad the players don’t necessarily know what is at the end. Unless you’re saying that the players shouldn’t read the adventure module, players will always find out what happens by playing. Ditto, b) can be true for every game for players - I try to win the D&D combat so that my character lives and I get to hear the next part of the story. Given to players therefore it can only be a), requiring a play attitude similar to that described in Vincent’s blog entry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Ditto, b) can be true for every game for players - I try to win the D&D combat so that my character lives and I get to hear the next part of the story. not really worth engaging with the rest of this trash post, but your character's survival does not mean you get to hear the next part of the story, nor does their death mean you don't get to hear it either. that just ain't how rpgs work
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Serf posted:not really worth engaging with the rest of this trash post, but your character's survival does not mean you get to hear the next part of the story, nor does their death mean you don't get to hear it either. that just ain't how rpgs work Not by definition, but it’s not uncommon, especially in public or online games based on modules. We play Curse of Strahd, the players get TPKed, the campaign is over and dissolves and you don’t get to see what comes next with Irina. It’s a cheap way to get player investment but it works and makes mysteries a popular plot. I am also like 99% sure it’s not what Vincent meant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Serf posted:not really worth engaging with the rest of this trash post, but your character's survival does not mean you get to hear the next part of the story, nor does their death mean you don't get to hear it either. that just ain't how rpgs work 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Not by definition, but it’s not uncommon, especially in public or online games based on modules. We play Curse of Strahd, the players get TPKed, the campaign is over and dissolves and you don’t get to see what comes next with Irina. It’s a cheap way to get player investment but it works and makes mysteries a popular plot. I am also like 99% sure it’s not what Vincent meant. first of all, your original proposition here is singular secondly "welp guys y'all died so campaign over, game over, never speak to me again" is not really something that happens
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
hyphz posted:As I mentioned, it can be read three ways: I literally have taken graduate classes in semantics and can't tell what the difference is between these readings. They all have identical truth conditions. You're playing the game. The goal of the game is to make a story. You play in order to find out the story. You're playing in order to find out what happens. Everyone is. Cause it's a collaborative story. In a game. What are you not following?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
I haven't run into a tpk in a game since I was a bad dm in highschool. Fudge dice rolls if you want it to seem close and make the party feel like they're about to die and everything is at risk. Have them all go down but surprise now they're imprisoned by the bad guys and now have to run a jail break. There's so many ways to get around killing everyone I don't understand why it has to be game over get out when they die. Unless it's a con game and you're playing for four hours and then never seeing those people again
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
To be honest, I’m not entirely on board with the philosophy of “play to see what happens” but that’s because I like it when the GM has a story in mind. It doesn’t have to follow it exactly, but the intention of telling a satisfying story is important to me when I play. I’ve also been burned by a GM who really leans into the “play to see what happens” mindset who then doesn’t plan on making any satisfying plot hooks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:To be honest, I’m not entirely on board with the philosophy of “play to see what happens” but that’s because I like it when the GM has a story in mind. It doesn’t have to follow it exactly, but the intention of telling a satisfying story is important to me when I play. Yeah, said playstyle requires a lot of buy-in from all parties and isn't for every group or story style.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:To be honest, I’m not entirely on board with the philosophy of “play to see what happens” but that’s because I like it when the GM has a story in mind. It doesn’t have to follow it exactly, but the intention of telling a satisfying story is important to me when I play. I'd argue that 1) that dude is just a lovely GM ; obviously you have loving plot hooks what are you even doing, and 2) you can have (some amount of) a story and still play to find out what happens. You just have to read the table and be willing to adapt. You know, like a good GM. Not like the D&D 5e "A Good DM Will Fix It" thing, but no, like, literally that's part of what you do as a GM. You should improvise and adapt to your players. Because you're, say it with me, playing to find out what happens. I'm not trying to stan for *World games or whatever. I like them, but they're not perfect. But all of this poo poo is in the books! It's right there! Read it with your human eyes!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
I mean, “play to see what happens” doesn’t mean “don’t do any prep work” it just means not to plot out every story beat ahead of time. It’s vital, and important, to do the work in establishing threats and how they interact with the world so that there are sufficient hooks for the players to work from.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
i've been running games for a long time now and i've yet to see a group that wouldn't destroy any sort of pre-planned storyline inside of thirty minutes. i say "destroy" in the most affectionate way possible here, i love it
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Serf posted:first of all, your original proposition here is singular No, but “Barovia claims another round of victims. That’s that guys, see you next week, we can do board games or I might get a new adventure in a month or so unless anyone else wants to run” is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
^^^^^^^?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? It is???????????!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? Serf posted:i've been running games for a long time now and i've yet to see a group that wouldn't destroy any sort of pre-planned storyline inside of thirty minutes. i say "destroy" in the most affectionate way possible here, i love it I've been running games for like 20 years and my planning, after being an idiot for a bit because I was literally a small child, has always been, "O hey this is a list of cool things that might come up, a vague agenda for any antagonists that might exist, and if it's a crunchy system, needed stats. O and a list of thematically appropriate names in case I choke." Boom. That's it. I pride myself on the fact that whenever I've run the same "game" (i.e. set of half-assed prepared notes) for different players, the game winds up going in entirely different places and often genres. I actually like adapting the story to suit my players because they're my friends and I want them to have fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
hyphz posted:No, but “Barovia claims another round of victims. That’s that guys, see you next week, we can do board games or I might get a new adventure in a month or so unless anyone else wants to run” is. i'm very sorry that you live in this skull island evolutionary arms race land of lovely rpg players, but this is not how well-adjusted human beings behave Xiahou Dun posted:^^^^^^^?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? exactly. a few plot hooks, some possible antagonists with strong motivations, and a semi-developed world is the way to go. players will immediately upend any sort of attempts to corral them into a course of action, and rather than fight that just run with it. i've been making up poo poo off the top of my head forever regardless of system and it works pretty well
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I literally have taken graduate classes in semantics and can't tell what the difference is between these readings. They all have identical truth conditions. Example: I am playing a railroad-with-combats game. I make a character who is a murderhobo with no story interest that is not related to combat strength. I am doing this so that he/she triumphs in combat and gets to survive for the whole story. I am following b and c but not a.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Yes but are you either frictionless or perfectly spherical?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Example: Also you assume that you exist in a void and the rest of the players aren't going to interact with your mobile death unit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Example: did you dumpstat WIS irl too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Example: I tell you to stop and play like a normal person, Todd. We're all here to have fun, what the gently caress is wrong with you. Your name is Todd now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
I always read "play to see what happens" as an extension of "create situations, not plot points." When you do prep it should be in the mindset of "what will the players do when they see there's an ancient evil vampire living beneath the city that wants to be a respectable member of high society" not " the players will kill the vampire and then..." The players are controlling the most important characters in the story, so you cannot pre define the story, but that's part of the joy of roleplaying games. You don't know what will happen so you get to discover it with the players in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Example: I have to admit, I am legitimately curious what you think the end point of this conversation is. You've been given a clear explanation that "Play to find out what happens" is not directed to the players in Apocalypse World, as it is a very pointed rejection of writing a plot as the MC. To be clear, that means that you, as the MC in Apocalypse World, are supposed to come up with (in collaboration with the players) Non-Player Characters, Locations, and Threats. These should all be firmly defined. If the players don't mess with Chopper, he's gonna keep on running moonshine in defiance of the Hardholder's rules, because his Impulse is "Defy Authority." You make the Salt Flats location where the Speed Cult lives and is obsessed with making the fastest cars as an expression of the divine. The Devouring Storm threat is going to destroy the only clean well in fifty miles, because that's what's on the countdown clock. You, as the MC, have to do prep work to give yourself the tools to keep the game moving. However, you, as the MC, don't know IF the players are going to just kill Chopper in the second scene of the session. Maybe the Hardholder is going to pay the Gunlugger to kill the rear end in a top hat who's breaking his rules after he finds his guards drunk on duty. Maybe the Brainer is going to have him die on the table when he's trying to implant his latest weird psychic gizmo in a test subject. The point is that you, the MC, DO NOT KNOW what is going to happen. And you are going to run the game and play with your friends to find out. And that is really the only thing that Vincent Baker, the author from Apocalypse World original tweet, can speak to. He thinks he could have made it clearer exactly what things Apocalypse World wants to find out at the table. If you have some PbtA game that has another interpretation of it, then by all means, point it out. I'd love to dissect some unique designs, but I'm not really following your current thrust that "Play To Find Out What Happens" is for the players, too, as they don't have the narrative power to try and railroad the game to a predefined endpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Mr. Prokosch posted:I always read "play to see what happens" as an extension of "create situations, not plot points." When you do prep it should be in the mindset of "what will the players do when they see there's an ancient evil vampire living beneath the city that wants to be a respectable member of high society" not " the players will kill the vampire and then..." The players are controlling the most important characters in the story, so you cannot pre define the story, but that's part of the joy of roleplaying games. You don't know what will happen so you get to discover it with the players in the moment. And that's how that's elaborated on in the actual game book. And all *World to my knowledge* do the same. I have no idea what we're even arguing about here except if hyphz read the rules he did it shortly after a traumatic brain injury or something I don't know. It says all this very explicitly. It goes out of its way to do so. There, in words that you can read. Many times. *No I don't have a flawless knowledge of all of them, but I've read a bunch. Pointing to one with lovely GM instructions in no way obviates this obvious and simple point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I tell you to stop and play like a normal person, Todd. We're all here to have fun, what the gently caress is wrong with you. Who says that can’t be fun? There’s a DnD group tied to a local wargaming club (I’m not in that group) that does exactly that. Spec to be badass, every fight is on a full grid with the GM playing tactical to the hilt, and the story just connects the fights and lays mysteries so that their solutions serve as additional rewards for winning. Granted 5e is not the best system for it (yea they really should be sold on 4e, Strike or Fragged but there are definite grogs in there) but they’re having a blast. And yes they did do Strahd and yes, once they were into the latter sections of the adventure the GM did say that dead PCs wouldn’t be replaced and if they lost all the PCs the campaign is over because they are fighting Strahd and Strahd can win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
juggalo baby coffin posted:did you dumpstat WIS irl too? Hyphz has these periodic moments where we get a glimpse into his life and see that he plays games with unpleasant people who exist solely to be the most toxic embodiment of "munchkin" possible and it's evidently warped his understanding of human behavior in all social settings, but particularly within the context of games with lighter/abstracted rulesets like PbtA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Who says that can’t be fun? There’s a DnD group tied to a local wargaming club (I’m not in that group) that does exactly that. Spec to be badass, every fight is on a full grid with the GM playing tactical to the hilt, and the story just connects the fights and lays mysteries so that their solutions serve as additional rewards for winning. Granted 5e is not the best system for it (yea they really should be sold on 4e, Strike or Fragged but there are definite grogs in there) but they’re having a blast. And yes they did do Strahd and yes, once they were into the latter sections of the adventure the GM did say that dead PCs wouldn’t be replaced and if they lost all the PCs the campaign is over because they are fighting Strahd and Strahd can win. Sure. Fine. But that is very explicitly not what any *World game is doing and they make that very prominent. And say it many, many times. Like the only difference is how often they repeat it. This is like coming to a soccer/football match and wondering why they aren't play curling. It's right there in the description of the rules. You seem to be a human being who can understand the English language. What is missing here. Why yes my assumptions from playing Starcraft would not translate well into poker. How is this a shock. Some things are different from others and you have to behave differently. Are you eating razor blades thinking they're eclairs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
My point is that “play to find out what happens” has been represented in Vincent’s own writing, in Urban Shadows, and any number of PbtA advice fora and criticisms, as being addressed to the players. And having the meaning of “do not try to prevent PC failure or death, because it is just what you are finding out happens”. If that’s wrong there’s some damage control to be done. At least it should change to “RUN to find out what happens”.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
hyphz posted:My point is that “play to find out what happens” has been represented in Vincent’s own writing, in Urban Shadows, and any number of PbtA advice fora and criticisms, as being addressed to the players. And having the meaning of “do not try to prevent PC failure or death, because it is just what you are finding out happens”. If that’s wrong there’s some damage control to be done. At least it should change to “RUN to find out what happens”. the gm is also a player. you don't have a point
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Is it really time for the monthly "hyphz doesn't understand Apocalypse World, RPGs, or normal social interaction" round-table already? Man, the time just flies by.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
hyphz posted:My point is that “play to find out what happens” has been represented in Vincent’s own writing, in Urban Shadows, and any number of PbtA advice fora and criticisms, as being addressed to the players. And having the meaning of “do not try to prevent PC failure or death, because it is just what you are finding out happens”. If that’s wrong there’s some damage control to be done. At least it should change to “RUN to find out what happens”. Citation motherfucking needed. What? It's a GM principle! It's in the name. In as much as you could even try to argue this, it's towards the group as a whole, but definitely not individual players. You're just straight up wrong here. No. Basta.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Sure. Fine. The tweet referred only to that particular phrase, not the entire text of AW or any other game. The shift probably occurred as a result of it being used very commonly in response to the most common problem traditional gamers have with PbtA which is “why is there no way I can mitigate or reduce the risk of a Weak Hit making things go wrong or costing me stuff?”
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The tweet referred only to that particular phrase, not the entire text of AW or any other game. it is fun to see the goalposts shift in real time
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The tweet referred only to that particular phrase, not the entire text of AW or any other game. ...? What the gently caress are you talking about? What "shift"? "Weak Hit" isn't a thing in the game. If you mean a 7-9 that's literally part of the game's core mechanic and you just suck at reading. You're just making poo poo up at this point. And if you mean that, yeah, there is. It's called stats and the aid rules. Seriously. Did you loving read the rules? There is no way they could be more explicit. They address all of these "concerns". Go read the rules. It's really not hard! I have literally played some of these games with very small children.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:What are you not following? A coherent train of thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 04:23
|
|
