|
I'm increasingly thinking what this all really boils down to is
The answer to these questions is A) don't and B) that's not really a problem for you, and if it's a problem for them, they can either deal with it gracefully and with kindness and undersanding and appreciation for their GM, or they can gently caress off. Being a confident improviser takes practice, but no improviser can or should try to make every detail of what gets improvised over a multi-hour session be 100% consistent, creating a whole that will withstand the intense scrutiny of an IRS audit after the fact. It would also be helpful to stop reading rules terms like "best" as being commitments to such an impossible standard. That's not mere pedantry, because even a pedant should accept that words with multiple meanings in the dictionary could mean any of those meanings, and also check out the play examples etc. to see what was meant by the author. It rises above pedantry to become intentional self-destruction: how can I read each rule to make it as impossible for me to follow as I can? Player: "What's the best way out" GM: "Uhh.... the front door" Player: "Please sign this contract certifying the door is and always will have been the best way out, in accordance with the International Standards of Exit Ease Board's published Exit Rules of 2014, As Amended 2019, taking into account every word you say from now till the end of time that could potentially describe some other exit and the ease of that exit per ISEEB (AA19.)" or maybe Player: "What's the best way out" GM: "Uhh... the front door" Player: "OK cool we make for the front door" <much much later> GM: "You return to the manor at night, and through your night goggles you see a fire escape on the backside that leads up to the roof." Player: "WAIT A GODDAMN MINUTE, two months ago you clearly stated in response to a single die roll of mine that the front door was the best exit, but NOW we see there's a loving FIRE ESCAPE FROM THE ROOF? I demand you explain yourself!" GM: "Are you insane? Stop that. This is a narrative game, we're telling a story, at the time you were in there the front door was the best option, and there's no reason to litigate that situation now. You see the fire escape, and the front door. What do you do now?"
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Hell, hyphz, watch Middleditch and Schwartz on Netflix. They are a pair of professional, highly-trained improv actors, and halfway through the first episode they completely forget characters' names and basic relationships. They admit it, and because it's a comedy skits play it for laughs, but ultimately they do exactly what we're suggesting: they go "okay, the sister's name is Sally now, we're just going to roll with it." Again, these are professional improvisers being paid probably large sums of money, doing a show on a platform where hundreds of millions of people could potentially see it, and they make the exact mistakes that you are terrified of making in a tabletop game that you are running, for free, for 3 to 6 friends. Don't worry about it. if your players are good friends, they will recognize that you are a human being and not a perfect story dispensing robot. And if they don't, if they give you poo poo about it or try to use it against you, they are assholes and you should find another group to play with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Well, not really, they're just thinking about it (it seems a bit unreasonable to say that a PC can't know any of this stuff unless they read it out loud as Spout Lore applies if taken literally) and that doesn't really take time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:or you say "gently caress, I dunno man, the horizon was clear 5 minutes ago but now Eorsome's here, do you wanna try and figure out how he did it or do you wanna focus on not getting your face chainsaws off?" Then you make a note to yourself: "how did Eorsome get to the fortress?" And you answer it later. Underground highway? Weird as gently caress portal through the Psychic Maelston? Who knows, that's something the PCs can try to figure out! The ol' classic of "You're right, that is weird isn't it that they got here so fast? You should ask an NPC about that later"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
EthanSteele posted:The ol' classic of "You're right, that is weird isn't it that they got here so fast? You should ask an NPC about that later" Sometimes, disclaim decision making.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Or perhaps even better, have a PC roll and ask them how the monsters got here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:B) that's not really a problem for you, and if it's a problem for them, they can either deal with it gracefully and with kindness and undersanding and appreciation for their GM, or they can gently caress off. I'd like to emphasise this bit here, too. Some of what hyphz is saying makes me suspect he fears his players calling him out for not being perfect, and that fear might well be justified if he's dealing with a genuinely toxic group. The kind of hangups he's describing remind me of past encounters with toxic nerds who get furious if their understanding of the game world (in which they win all the time) is contradicted or compromised, or just angry shouty ones who think the game is negotiable if you yell loudly enough. hyphz, if it gets that bad - or even if you fear it might - never be afraid to leave. They can't hold you at gunpoint and force you to play with them. Better no game than a bad game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Loxbourne posted:I'd like to emphasise this bit here, too. Some of what hyphz is saying makes me suspect he fears his players calling him out for not being perfect, and that fear might well be justified if he's dealing with a genuinely toxic group. The kind of hangups he's describing remind me of past encounters with toxic nerds who get furious if their understanding of the game world (in which they win all the time) is contradicted or compromised, or just angry shouty ones who think the game is negotiable if you yell loudly enough. Actually that's the reverse - if I'd tried to recruit players online I'd fear them calling me out for not being perfect because unlike the regular group they are a) strangers and b) probably more experienced with these games than me. Serf posted:i've been running games by the seat of my pants for over a decade now and this has never once been a concern for me. because the best way out is the one you come up with. you don't need to worry about coming up with 12 escape routes and analzying each one for its best and worst points to find the absolute best one. and why are you so concerned with the opposition or obstacles that could have been avoided with other ways out? those ways don't exist Bear in mind that when you say "this has never been a concern for me" I don't know if you're saying: a) I've never worried about this when it's happened; b) I'm so awesomely talented that it's never happened for me; c) both a) and b), but maybe I'm not aware of b) because a). And I'm concerned with them because effectively answering that move's question creates a promise. If there's two doors, and they ask if the left or the right door is the best way out, then I say "the left door" and they run into Eorsome or whoever, I'm promising that there was no better choice they could have made; in other words that something worse than Eorsome was through the right door. Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I'm promising that there was no better choice they could have made; in other words that something worse than Eorsome was through the right door. Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move. I mean this is pretty much exactly correct, even if something worse in this particular reading is as simple as a dead end or barricade that will leave them trapped and having to fight past Eorsome and his goons with their backs to the wall instead of freedom just beyond him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Actually that's the reverse - if I'd tried to recruit players online I'd fear them calling me out for not being perfect because unlike the regular group they are a) strangers and b) probably more experienced with these games than me. Dude. Stop. Decent people, good players, will not call you out for being less than perfec, especially if you're upfront about your experience level and your nervousness. Multiple people in this thread have offered to game with you to prove that. People who will call you out for not being perfect? Are jerks and bad players. Everything you've told us about your regular group makes them sound like bad, jerky players. Other groups are not like that! I promise that if you expand your horizons a little bit beyond your regular players/local gaming scene, you'll find a group that will support you and let you make mistakes and learn and improve without calling you out or trying to "win." hyphz posted:Bear in mind that when you say "this has never been a concern for me" I don't know if you're saying: Nah, dude, the answer is d) Serf's group isn't a bunch of hypercompetitive, manipulative jackasses so it quote literally doesn't come up. hyphz posted:And I'm concerned with them because effectively answering that move's question creates a promise. If there's two doors, and they ask if the left or the right door is the best way out, then I say "the left door" and they run into Eorsome or whoever, I'm promising that there was no better choice they could have made; in other words that something worse than Eorsome was through the right door. Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move. ...yes. You have grasped how the move works. If you decide in the moment that the Eorsome door is the best option, then it is the best option. And if, later on, someone else tries another way out of the scene, it should be worse than the Eorsome Door. Keep in mind "worse" doesn't necessarily mean "harder" or "more dangerous!" Another way out could be worse because it puts you well out of the way of where you want to be, or it will leave you stranded with a long track on foot through the desert versus being able to grab a car, or any number of other things that make one way less advantageous or desirable. There's lots of room to interpret and explore the space! GimpInBlack fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
If the players want to pick between two doors, and you say door A is the easier way out, that does not oblige you to even invent what was behind door 2, nor do you have to give an explanation if the players demand one of what was behind door 2. hyphz posted:Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move. Nah, not you. The game's mechanics. The move, when used to find "the easiest way out," presumes that you know the answer to that question, but you're not obliged to know that in advance and you shouldn't have to sit there and invent multiple ways out and obstacles for all of them, just to guarantee the "bestness" of the one you answer with. You're not damaging the value of that move; the move itself has limited value, due to the nature of this kind of game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Actually that's the reverse - if I'd tried to recruit players online I'd fear them calling me out for not being perfect because unlike the regular group they are a) strangers and b) probably more experienced with these games than me. i promise you, 100% to the max here that people do not behave like this. i am far from a perfect gm and when i get stuff wrong people correct me on it, and then we just move on because no one makes a big deal out of it. if you do encounter someone who acts like an rear end in a top hat, kick them from the group and find someone else hyphz posted:Bear in mind that when you say "this has never been a concern for me" I don't know if you're saying: d) i don't play games with people who would have the concerns you're bringing up no one has ever been like "that wasn't actually the best way out, was it? you wanted us to mess up" because there is, again, a mutual trust that we've developed as a group (and its not a consistent group, i've played with tons of people). they trust that the information i'm giving them is the "best" it can be because i am following the principle "be a fan of the characters" which is something i was doing long before i ever set eyes on apocalypse world, but it was so useful to have that style of play validated and explicitly spelled out. the gm is the referee and the advocate, which can be a tricky role to fill but you get better at it the more you do it. but of course you'll never improve if your group is waiting for you to make one wrong move so they can turn on you like a shark feeding frenzy hyphz posted:And I'm concerned with them because effectively answering that move's question creates a promise. If there's two doors, and they ask if the left or the right door is the best way out, then I say "the left door" and they run into Eorsome or whoever, I'm promising that there was no better choice they could have made; in other words that something worse than Eorsome was through the right door. Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move. you're skipping a vital step: why did eorsome enter the scene through the left door? was it because they rolled a 6- even with the +1 they got for acting on the information? okay well that's just how the move works, so there's your disclaimer right there. why was the other door not the best choice? maybe there was a claymore mine set up just around the corner. maybe the floor was weak and would collapse into the basement full of radioactive armadillos. none of that matters because its not the door they chose, and those things might as well not exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
hyphz posted:And I'm concerned with them because effectively answering that move's question creates a promise. If there's two doors, and they ask if the left or the right door is the best way out, then I say "the left door" and they run into Eorsome or whoever, I'm promising that there was no better choice they could have made; in other words that something worse than Eorsome was through the right door. Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move. "Best" is a contextual term. What does the "best" route mean? Is it the fastest? Is it the least risky? Is it the least complicated? Is it the one with the greatest chance of discovering loot? And most importantly, is it the best for the person who's asking, or best for everyone? Because what's best for the Gunlugger might not be best for the Skinner. Why are you so focused on the word "best" that you forgot the word "my"? And regardless of your answer, you only have to know that if they don't take the offered route, then you're going to go harder on them than you otherwise would have. In the game's parlance, you are offering an opportunity, with or without a cost. If they take it, great, play to find out what that looks like. If they don't, you tell them the consequences then ask, and then you play to find out what that looks like. So if the Battlebabe reads a sitch and asks "where's my best way out?". Sussing out from context that she's trying not to get killed, the MC says, "You're pretty fast, so breaking from cover and hauling rear end for the front gate, probably in a zig-zag so as to not get completely shot up." We all know that that's going to be doing something under fire, which is +Cool and thus the Battlebabe is going to be rolling +3 (and if she acts on the information gets a further +1 forward). But the Gunlugger is only Cool 0, so the Battlebabe says, "poo poo, Dremmer is pinned down and I can't leave him behind. I think I'm going to lay down some suppressive fire to cover his retreat instead." So the MC says "OK, but doing so is going to draw lots of attention your way. You still want to do it?" The clear sub-text here is that stand-and-fight is going to be more dangerous for the Battlebabe than cut-and-run, as it is not the "best" way out. And just to be clear, the Battlebabe may still actually make it out, but everybody knows going in that the challenge she is facing is more dire than had she just fled for the gate. And even if the Battlebabe did decide to cut-and-run, there's no guarantee she'd have escaped unscathed, as there is still risk involved. "Best" doesn't have to mean "easy." tl;dr - get out of your own head and quit overthinking it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
hyphz posted:And I'm concerned with them because effectively answering that move's question creates a promise. If there's two doors, and they ask if the left or the right door is the best way out, then I say "the left door" and they run into Eorsome or whoever, I'm promising that there was no better choice they could have made; in other words that something worse than Eorsome was through the right door. Otherwise, I've damaged the value of that move. I just want to mention how much being willing to improv incidental details lets you strengthen this sort of improvised situation. If you say "the left door is safer" and Eorsome's behind it, it might be a bit annoying. If you say "you can tell they've stuck some tripwires to the right door, it's probably rigged to blow, go for the left door" and Eorsome's there, it's fine because Eorsome is safer than getting instantly blown up. If you say "the right door leads to Eorsome's throne room, the left door is safer", then there's still a good logic for why the left door was safer and now you can start asking why Eorsome was on this side of his fortress in the first place. If there's a good reason, the fiction will hold even when bad things happen after someone makes the best choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Hell, hyphz, watch Middleditch and Schwartz on Netflix. They are a pair of professional, highly-trained improv actors, and halfway through the first episode they completely forget characters' names and basic relationships. They admit it, and because it's a comedy skits play it for laughs, but ultimately they do exactly what we're suggesting: they go "okay, the sister's name is Sally now, we're just going to roll with it." Nobody has ever had a problem with this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:I'm amused but not surprised that a discussion of the philosophy of roleplaying games turns to Just War Theory. It's probably inevitable.  However I do think this gets centered by that exact fact, because most of what you have rules to "do" in D&D is roll initative and start casting magic missile/sleep/fist. This is part of why my pet favorite system is Call of Cthulhu, since in that game the main driver of what you can do in the rules is a relatively simple skill check mechanism. Violence and horror are certainly on the table but will be grim exclamations on the paragraph of life, not "every single fricking letter"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:...yes. You have grasped how the move works. If you decide in the moment that the Eorsome door is the best option, then it is the best option. And if, later on, someone else tries another way out of the scene, it should be worse than the Eorsome Door. I wouldn't even worry about this. If someone rolls the same move later on, and you give them a different answer, it's because the answer has changed. Maybe that's because the situation is different. Maybe it's because different characters read the same situation differently. It doesn't matter, just keep playing. That's doubly true because Hyphz's interpretation of "best" is just wrong. You might get a 10+ to read the situation, take the best way out, and then roll a 2 to act under fire and discover that the best way out is still terrible. You might blow your read a situation roll, take what you-the-player know is definitely not even a good way out, but then hit the next roll on a 12 and discover that even a bad way out can work just fine if you get lucky and put a 9mm round through the eye socket of the first bad guy who shoots at you, causing the rest to duck. There is no status quo and the future is promised to no one, so just keep playing and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:On multiple occasions I have responded to players asking me what a throwaway NPC's name is by publicly rolling it on a random name generator, then determined their entire backstory based around the first imteresting question the PCs ask them. I did a game that opened with possibly lsupernatural happenings on an archaeological dig site during the cold war. Group I'd never played with before. One of the characters leaned on their background to consult an expert in the field. I had forgotten to prep any of that kind of thing and for whatever reason, probably nervousness I froze. "Doctorrrrrrr... ... ..." I said, as they all looked at me funny. My brain was just going fuckfuckfuck I hosed it up in the first 15 minutes and not helping at all. "Jones." I finished lamely. "Holy poo poo!" goes the player. "That Doctor Jones?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I did a game that opened with possibly lsupernatural happenings on an archaeological dig site during the cold war. Group I'd never played with before. This is wonderful and I hope you leaned into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:This is wonderful and I hope you leaned into it. Yes, of course it's that Dr. Jones. They'll never meet him in person since they're in russia about to head to a mountain pass that they won't leave for the duration, and he's in an office in the usa. Doesn't matter, that character's mentor was that Dr. Jones. Because I hosed up and froze because I used to be even worse at improv than I am now. Normal players want cool things to happen and will accept it when they do. Good players will actively contribute to that. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
Dr. Jones would be a real lovely mentor anyway. If you're lucky he'll just avoid you and rubber stamp your dumb paperwork. Bad luck he'll get you killed in an unethical dig. Worst luck he'll seduce you, then get you killed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Good excuse not to just have him able and willing to accurately answer all questions forever though, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Good excuse not to just have him able and willing to accurately answer all questions forever though, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:"Holy poo poo!" goes the player. "That Doctor Jones?" "Well, now it is."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Mr. Prokosch posted:Dr. Jones would be a real lovely mentor anyway. If you're lucky he'll just avoid you and rubber stamp your dumb paperwork. Bad luck he'll get you killed in an unethical dig. Worst luck he'll seduce you, then get you killed. Still sound better than my PhD advisor. Ilor posted:No, you haven't. Not that I disagree with any of this, it's great advice, but I want to overtly add what it's saying covertly that it's perfectly okay to ask a player what they mean by "best". Safest? Most profitable? Least harmful to others? Most flamboyant? Just ask : the whole back-bone of the game is about honest dialogue between everyone. And, hyphz, seriously come and play with us. I disagree with people asking you about your neurotypical status, even if I understand that they were just trying to get where you're coming from, cause it's gross to ask people that information. It's just not kosher. I'll volunteer that I'm like 190 pounds of depression and anxiety to the point where basic tasks are really difficult, and I can still do this by trusting in friends and just going with them, knowing they don't want to make me feel bad (sometimes even when my brain is screaming at me to not trust!). Usually, it's in fact the opposite and they want to make me feel good and have fun. Your friends aren't interested in making a good game. Please, sincerely, I want you to come game with us and have a good time. It's the internet so I'm limited, but I'll send pictures of a very cute cat instead of snacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 05:16
|
|
|
I only read the first couple of pages of this thread and hen skipped to the end to see if it was still stuck on the same point, so I don't know if anyone's said this before but... Hyphz: you seem to think the GM has to come up with a list of story paths and help the players navigate through their favourite one, like a choose-your-own-adventure book. Have you considered that you don't actually need to do that? You give the players a goal (eg. steal the gold from the goblin cave), put some obstacles in front of them (eg. the cave is full of goblins who would prefer to keep their gold if at all possible) and then let them come up with solutions. You hear their proposal, you decide how difficult it is, then they roll dice. The only time you actually flat-out tell them that their plan doesn't work is if it contradicts the rules of the game or the setting. If they want to get a load of TNT to blow the cave to rubble then you only tell them "no" if the game world doesn't have explosives in it. Getting the TNT could be another problem for which they will have to devise another solution, but again, you set the difficulty and let them roll. And in most cases, you try to come up with a way to alter the situation if they fail. Like, if they're asking around about someone to buy explosives from and fail their dice roll then maybe they come to the attention of law enforcement and now they have get out of town without being caught or find somewhere to hide or pay off a judge or something - whatever they decide the solution is. Helpful tips:
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
You can just. Not use the moves. Sex is not actually that front or center in the game despite what people on the internet have worked themselves into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Woah, this thread's been a trip. As far as I know, mostly because sex is one of those things storygames keep looking at and wondering what they could do with it which lead to Baker thinking about the narrative role of sex for the archetypes he was making playbooks for and making some minor mechanics for it, which led to them getting an oversized focus in discussion about Apocalypse World because of course they did, talking about sex in your average RPG group feels really weird. On the plus side, Burned Over exists now so at least there's a version without all the bits you wouldn't want to discuss in general company now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:You can just. Not use the moves. Sex is not actually that front or center in the game despite what people on the internet have worked themselves into. I mean it's literally printed front and center on every single playbook so I think you're being disingenuous right here, and I don't think you need to act like this about people being uncomfortable with this being a core feature of a game they would otherwise be interested in is a valid criticism. Edit: GimpInBlack posted:More than anything else, IMHO, apocalypse world is about relationships between people. From the history questions you asked and answered during character creation to all of the rules about how to build threats to the GM's principal to give everyone a name and create PC-NPC-PC triangles, the whole game is about exploring relationships and the dynamics thereof. Sex being a pretty significant factor in a lot of adult human relationships, it seems pretty in keeping to have riles that say "when your character has sex with another character, here's how that relationship changes." And this is definitely true but I feel like it's a very limiting factor in a game to be this up front with a feature of human relationships that not everyone is comfortable talking about in an open and frank way with an entire table of their friends. Glagha fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Apr 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
More than anything else, IMHO, apocalypse world is about relationships between people. From the history questions you asked and answered during character creation to all of the rules about how to build threats to the GM's principal to give everyone a name and create PC-NPC-PC triangles, the whole game is about exploring relationships and the dynamics thereof. Sex being a pretty significant factor in a lot of adult human relationships, it seems pretty in keeping to have riles that say "when your character has sex with another character, here's how that relationship changes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
e: nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
I just don’t see how saying “yeah, there’s a section of the sheet with rules we’re not going to use because I don’t think it’s appropriate for our group” is that much of a terrible violation of the social contract? Saying it’s Front and Center of every character sheet like the game falls apart mechanically if every character isn’t dtf is also pretty disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There's no reason to be defensive. I was literally watching an actual play with the creator and it seemed out of place, and I'd not seen a single place talk about sex moves when talking about PbtA before. Then you haven't read when this topic comes up in one of the PBTA threads every few months and everyone goes through the same exact conversation about a minor mechanic again. We're all just so tired of this discussion and you're very lucky, is the point. Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic for this thread, but good luck with your game anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:At the level of "I am going to make significant character creation choices based on what happens when I have sex with someone", though? Is it common for people to sleep around with a significant number of the people they're involved with professionally? In a game whose genre and aesthetic is "what if HBO made a character-driven ensemble series that was set in the post apocalypse?" Yeah, I'd say it's an assumed feature of the genre (see for example Deadwood, Game of Thrones, Westworld, etc)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Also, because I really am not trying to be an rear end about this, could you be so kind as to link the actual play you’re referring to? It’s weird that they apparently have major mechanical creation choices linked to the special moves because mechanically they really exist by themselves. No other moves make reference to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:At the level of "I am going to make significant character creation choices based on what happens when I have sex with someone", though? Is it common for people to sleep around with a significant number of the people they're involved with professionally? i don't think professional relationships exist in the post-apocalyptic hellscape i ran one game of apoc world and the sex moves never came up. not because we forbid it or anything, but because the characters just never developed in that direction. other people get use out of them and that's cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:In a game whose genre and aesthetic is "what if HBO made a character-driven ensemble series that was set in the post apocalypse?" Yeah, I'd say it's an assumed feature of the genre (see for example Deadwood, Game of Thrones, Westworld, etc) To put it mildly, sexuality-via-HBO is not at the forefront of positive or progressive depictions of sex. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:I just don’t see how saying “yeah, there’s a section of the sheet with rules we’re not going to use because I don’t think it’s appropriate for our group” is that much of a terrible violation of the social contract? Saying it’s Front and Center of every character sheet like the game falls apart mechanically if every character isn’t dtf is also pretty disingenuous. No one said the game falls apart if it's not included. The fact that it's printed on every character sheet means that if I want to introduce my friends to this game I have to have the conversation where I explain the rules, setting, and themes of the game and then hand them a sheet and say "oh right and there's this thing about what happens when our characters gently caress but we're not doing that and I swear it's not important". I take it this doesn't bother you at all but when I'm introducing a new game to people and I have to show them the part where the game definitely cares about our characters loving, it's going to color their perceptions of the game. This might be more of a personal problem, but frankly, I'd be straight up too embarrassed to try to explain that to someone and that means I'll probably never play this game and that's too bad. Considering this conversation come sup a lot so I won't belabor the point too much, I'm clearly not alone in that there are lots of people who are not comfortable with bringing this up in their circles of friends, and I think it was a lovely decision to print that on their playbooks. I don't even care that it's in the book, I think it makes perfect sense that sexual relationships are a part of the game sure, but the fact that it's on the sheet and not in a sidebar or something means I have to have this conversation if I ever want to play it, and I don't want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2020 18:50
|
|