Does anyone else share the opinion of "I like PbtA's noncombat mechanics, but absolutely revile its (lack of) combat rules"? What PbtA games actually have good, fair combat?
PbtA's noncombat rules are perfectly fine by me. In fact, the homebrew projects I have created and contributed to have invariably used some variant of PbtA's trinary resolution system with 10+, 7-9 (often with a difficult choice), 6-, and fail forward results. It is very clean and natural.
Some PbtA versions have truly novel noncombat mechanics, like Worlds in Peril's incredible method of handling superhero clichés via unlocking new playbooks. The bonds system works well for most PbtA games depending on what they are aiming for, although Dungeon World's implementation of them is indeed rather shabby.
On the other hand, the combat is essentially a farce. No, it is not about the oft-touted "in Dungeon World, a goblin is as easy to hit as an apocalypse dragon." While that is true, the apocalypse dragon has both a mechanical 5 Armor and a narrative "inch-thick metal hide" quality, so it is not that great an issue.
Instead, what I find to be the problem with PbtA is that the action economy is decided purely by the GM's whims. In the vast majority of RPGs (yes, even "narrative" RPGs and games wherein players make all the rolls), it is fully possible to have a "fair and square" battle wherein:
1. The GM's units take actions only when they are supposed to under the game's initiative mechanics.
2. The GM can pull no punches and play enemies to the best of their hard-coded abilities.
3. The players can feel proud for winning a battle against difficult yet fairly-controlled opponents.
In Apocalypse World, when does the GM get to make a move in general? For the life of me, I truly do not know; the GM rules are very ambiguously written. This might be feasible outside of combat, but in a fight, it means enemies get to do something PC-life-threatening whenever the GM well pleases.
(Continued.)
That means that there is no such thing as a "fair and square" fight; you win only because the GM lets you win, and because the GM softballed the enemies' action economy.
In Dungeon World, when does the GM get to make a move through a monster, like "deal damage" (hard move) or "show signs of an approaching threat" (soft move, probably being followed up into "deal damage")?
1. When the players roll a 6-, usually a hard move. Okay, this is fair. It is part of the natural trinary resolution mechanics of PbtA.
2. When everyone looks to the GM to find out what happens, usually a soft move. This is fair in a sense, if you consider it a mild slap on the wrist for the entire party hesitating during a combat situation and being unable to declare any actions.
3. When the players give the GM a golden opportunity, usually a hard move. This is where things go wrong. The rules basically give no guidelines on what constitutes a "golden opportunity." It is a blank check for the GM to have the monsters act whenever something could be construed as an opportunity for them to do so.
Is a PC closing in towards multiple opponents? That could be a golden opportunity to be ganged up on, so the GM could make a soft move or a hard move.
Is a PC approaching a monster spinning around a spiked chain? Potentially a golden opportunity. (This exact example is given in the unofficial Dungeon World guide.)
Is a PC trying to cast a spell while vaguely near a monster? That might be a golden opportunity too.
Just about anything could be a "golden opportunity," and therefore the GM can activate monster moves whenever they like. The action economy is decided on purely by the GM. It is not as though the "golden opportunity" rule can be ignored either, because without it, the monsters would never get to act without players rolling 6-s or looking to the GM in unison. It is a necessary rule.
What PbtA games have more well-coded combat mechanics that can help produce "fair and square" battles?
Addendum: There is no action economy between players either.
Suppose we have two players in Dungeon World. One is playing a bard, and the other has a cleric.
The bard's player, when asked, "What do you do?" during a combat situation, declares that their character nocks their bow and looses at an enemy in range. That simply triggers the Volley move.
The cleric's player, when asked what they do, declares that they petition their deity to bless their weapon (triggers Cast a Spell: Magic Weapon), charges forward, and takes a swing at an enemy (triggers Hack and Slash).
If the GM allows both sets of actions, did the cleric not just effectively take several actions consecutively, while the bard simply was not ambitious enough?
OP your problem is you're trying to treat this like a combat game when these games aren't about "fair and square."
It's easier to backport a non-binary skill resolution intoD&D 4orGURPSthan build a combat system from scratch.
Just saying.
>>46765115
>What PbtA games have more well-coded combat mechanics that can help produce "fair and square" battles?
None of them. PbtA is not designed for this.
This article might be of interest to you:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles
>>46765652
But I like thehomebrewplaybooks of Dungeon World.
>>46766387
As far as I see it, combat in Dungeon World is *neither* combat as sport nor combat as war. The action economy and even something as basic as "who gets to act first" are decided on purely by GM fiat, so for all intents and purposes, it is "combat at the GM's narrative wins."
The PCs act when the GM wants them to act, and the monsters act also when the GM wants them to act.
>>46766465
That's not quite true.
Players always have the initiative unless they do not take it.
Players act, the GM reacts. The GM acts when the players do not.
The problem with Dungeon World is that it had enough D&Disms stapled on that you expect combat as sport to be possible when any other PbtA game has combat as war as the default assumption. If you get into a "fair and square" fight in AW, that's a failure state.
>>46766465
I'm pretty sure that's a girl, bruh
>>46766577
>Players always have the initiative unless they do not take it.
Or unless they have (unwittingly) given the GM a "golden opportunity," whatever that means, since the game's GM section dissects and clarifies even the most basic of topics, yet fails to define this rather important trigger for GM moves.
>you expect combat as sport to be possible when any other PbtA game has combat as war as the default assumption
Worlds in Peril, as a superhero game, gravitates towards combat as sport, at least in theory, but it suffers from the same GM-fiated action economy.
Simple World is also neutral on the sport/war axis.
>>46766778
I already wrote "the GM reacts". Reacting to a golden opportunity is not the same as having the initiative.
And a golden opportunity is just that. You see a golden opportunity to follow the GM principles with a move, you do it. There is no need to codify it.
Frankly, it should not be that hard to understand unless you're wilfully trying not to understand it.
You could just port in combat mechanics. Everyone has 1 action in a round on his turn, and 1 action a round as a "reaction" on somebody else's turn. Probably have it so that you can only do 1 hard move/turn in total.
>>46766465
Isn't playbook just a bundled set of game mechanics options? Nothing stops you from taking a class or a set of powers and presenting them in a playbook format.
>>46765543
Yeah, this is one reason Dungeon World fails, imo.
Try Fellowship, much better fantasy game.
>>46766998
Dungeon World fails in many ways, but "does not do something it is not intended to do" is not one of them.
>>46766998
PDF when?
>>46766778
>>46766902
If your PC does something that makes you go "Uh, you sure?" beforehand, it's probably a golden opportunity. PC sticks his hand in a suspicious hole, runs at a guy pointing a gun straight at him who isn't distracted, walks into a room that's covered by a warning sign /and/ has a corpse in view of the door, etc.
>>46767023
The thing is, DW does present itself as a game for stand-up D&D fights. The worked example with the rogue is all about trying to marry initiative and freeform turn structure. The two things don't go very well together, though. Fellowship has a more structured "turn" mechanic.
>>46767064
Give a PDF of Fellowship then.
>>46767064
What example with the rogue?
>>46766998
>Swing the Spotlight: Once the stakes are set, it is time to take action, and the Spotlight swings around the table. The Spotlight is the turn order of Fellowship, but this turn order is not rigid or fixed. The Spotlight is flexible, and it goes where it needs to go, as follows:
>When someone is in Danger, they get the Spotlight to tell us how they deal with that.
>When someone hasn't done something in a while, they get the Spotlight to tell us what they were up to.
>When someone has an idea, leaps into action, speaks for the group, or does something noteworthy, they get the Spotlight to do their thing.
>When someone's own actions put them directly into danger, they lose the Spotlightq leaving their moment on a cliffhanger.
>When a player has the Spotlight, they will describe what they are doing, and the Overlord will describe how the world reacts to their actions, and may require them to make a Move. The Spotlight is a dialogue, going back and forth until something has happened.
>When their moment has been long enough, or when the danger shifts elsewhere, or when another player has something to do, or when it would be a good cliffhanger, swing the Spotlight.
>Don't let anyone keep the Spotlight for too long. Share the Spotlight often, and share the Spotlight with everyone. Most of the game will be played while the Spotlight is swinging, so manage the Spotlight well.
Considering how vague "has an idea, leaps into action, speaks for the group, or does something noteworthy" is, I cannot help but think this is just as wishy-washy as Dungeon World is as far as "initiative" (or lack thereof) is concerned.
The game does seem to be a step up from Dungeon World for bright fantasy overall, however.
>>46768945
That is just an elaboration on freeform turn structure, i.e. initiativelessness.
>>46766902
>Frankly, it should not be that hard to understand unless you're wilfully trying not to understand it.
Anon, this is Touhoufag. He's so autistic, he would fail the Turing test.
>>46769095
But there's not a single Touhou image in sight.
>>46769120
Sorry. This is the individual formerly known as touhoufag.
>>46769049
The poster here >>46767064 was implying that Fellowship's "turn" mechanic is more structured, although in practice, it does not seem all that structured to me when anyone *without* the Spotlight can abruptly grab the Spotlight by butting in and going "My character does X!"
>>46769137
And you're identifying that individual based on what?
>>46769163
>He's intensely autistic
>He posts gay shota fuccbois
>He's intensely autistic
>He has no idea how to function outside a very rigid system
>He's intensely autistic
>>46769150
My words exactly. It is exactly the way Dungeon World works, except spelled out more explicitly.
>>46769191
This list of characteristics applies to several indiviuals.
>>46769223
Touhoufag, if you think we cannot recognize you, you're either giving too much credit to yourself or too little credit for literally all /tg/.
Honestly, getting a trip at this point would actually make you LESS recognizeable.
>>46769204
What is the point of a "Spotlight" mechanic in the first place if anyone can simply grab it just for performing one of the following trivial actions?
>When someone has an idea, leaps into action, speaks for the group, or does something noteworthy, they get the Spotlight to do their thing.
As written, this can interrupt anyone else's Spotlight, which seems rather chaotic.
>>46769242
Amusing, but I am not OP.
>>46769255
As written, there isn't.
It's a attempt to explain what the GM is expected to do anyway.
>>46769300
>what the GM is expected to do
Let anyone have the spotlight just because they shout they want to do something?
>>46771442
No, moderate the session so everybody gets roughly the same amount of spotlight.
Common sense, y'know.
>>46765084
>>46765115
>>46766387
>>46766465
Dungeon World is one of the most hands-down useless PbtA hacks. I have no idea why people even care about it. Is it just because it's a Fantasy game and they can't imagine playing another genre?
>>46773792
No, it's because it's supposed to be the D&D hack of PbtA.
