@BESW From what I know of ponies (mostly from you), simulating specialization/obsession with a topic would be quite simple in AWE. May not even need a unique move for different cutie marks.
@BrianBallsun-Stanton It's not the banhamer that worries me. It's the fact that you can easily strangle me tomorrow when you wake up at OhGodsWhy o'clock.
the point of AW is that the apocalypse is .. ill defined, it's absolutely a function of player input. And the system is remarkably flexible to narrative control.
I find post-apocalyptic narratives, generally, interesting from an intellectual "nature of allegory in narrative" perspective. But not interesting as a story.
The sole survivor of a destroyed civilization struggling to cope with the mental and social requirements of being thrust into an entirely unfamiliar reality?
@BrianBallsun-Stanton I could argue that, especially in the context that many more typically-accepted PA narratives are framed around the building of a civilization.
When the novels take Dent back to pre-boom Earth, he is surrounded by the rubble he knows will come. He largely fails to build anything, but the sense that he should be is palpable.
@BrianBallsun-Stanton But look at the end result. You got rid of, er, 4 or so lords of madness. Your character is about to be a god. The world is definitely better than at the start of the game.
@BESW well, yes, there was some debate whether a universe with different rules of physics, notably no concept of time, which used to be contained in Annulus (and where all things glomped by it went), could be counted as one.
They "defeated" it by preventing the Annulus from getting broken in the first place. Seeing as there was no time around that moment, and the no-time was spreading both spatially and chronologically, in all directions.
Which meant that at 157 years from that moment, they could also visit the preceding 157 years of history to try and affect it.
Apropos of nothing, concept: A class system in which multiple elements/subsystem of a character are each controlled by a different player, all working in tandem. For example, a D&D 3.5 druid might have three characters: physical, shapeshifting, and spellcasting.
What does a group of epic PCs do when given a chance to rewrite history via its key moments? They don't bother with saving a king or preventing a curse. They dress up as illithids and troll everyone. To raise awareness of the Illithid Issue, naturally.
@BrianBallsun-Stanton My group would not be direct. I guarantee you that.
@Pureferret It was sparked by considering the dilemma of subsystems, embodied by 3.5's chronic inability to add them without rendering obsolete characters without access to them.
Which led to thinking about how often casters are made physically weaker to compensate, but that doesn't work. So what about making each system a discrete unit?
Build a system where each unit is roughly equal in balance, and sufficiently interesting/complex for a player to engage with.
Now if your character has more than one unit (spells AND fighting?) then he's run by two players.
So if I wanted to have a no-holds-barred it's-not-cheating-if-you're-not-caught footrace through a forest, could it be just as crunchy and engaged at the same level of depth as trying to flee a hydra through a swamp, negotiating with a dragon, or fighting a horde of shape-changing minions?
@BESW so long as we don't say "crunchy" as objective...
(I'm reading through, making sure I'm not... )
a player has moves specific to themsleves as well as moves common to the world
so the footrace is a series of defy danger rolls, as modified by players custom moves
so: On a 10+, you do what you set out to, the threat doesn’t come to bear. On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.
for flee a hydra, yes, same level, it's application of moves to construction of narrative.
horde of shape changing minions may make motions in the direction of HP, but basically same abstraction
so each roll means something, and is a direct and immediate expression of player intent
also, do not forget spout lore
"When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. On a 10+ the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. On a 7–9 the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now. "
and that's really the game in a nutshell
I mean, it doesn't have the elegant as all insanity harm clock of AW proper, but it does approximate it well
It's not "crunchy" by any means.
The impelled narrative contributions are clearly one of its best points.
At its very core, the mechanics are: roll 2d6+stat (0-3). 10+, success. 7-9: mixed success. 6-: something happens. Every codified move is simply there to ease the cognitive load on GMs and players as to what "success" and "mixed success" mean.
> When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex. On a 10+ you have a clear shot—deal your damage. On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage): You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger of the GM’s choice You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one.
> Fate Core Commercial Breaks: The game to interrupt the game you’re supposed to be playing at ten minute intervals.
> For years we’ve had games based on successful TV dramas. Now we get the chance to roleplay the commercials too! Covers all the annoying stereotypes, and comes with a CD filled with irritating jingles.
"Okay, so it sounds like the foundational engine can be turned to drastically different kinds of games in terms of experience as well as setting?"
Does "No stats, Heads or Tails resolution" lead to longer slabs of narrative between resolutions, than, Red Book D&D. Compare Wiki on Poetic Meter: Each of these types of feet has a certain "feel," whether alone or in combination with other feet. The iamb, for example, is the most natural form of rhythm in the English language, and generally produces a subtle but stable verse.
The presence of a diversity of scope of use of poetics, doesn't change their impulse to produce a particular effect in a particular language. Meterless pseudo-iambic can produce a vapid high school induction speech just as well as it can produce stream of consciousness babble; but it suits the prosaic and everyday.
Admittedly literary criticism has 4000 years of analysis on us, and an Aristotle to do the hard basic yards.
