PbtA elements in ICRPG

pbta
#1

About three years ago, I was introduced into the current state of TTRPGs through Dungeon World. The focus on collaborative fiction was the key to engaging my wife and her family (who prefer to use the game as a stage for their characters as opposed to crafting carefully-tuned teams). As someone who is on the opposite end of the spectrum player-wise (Challenge, Exploration, and Social are my top with Expression dead last [Eight Kinds of Fun]), this was a huge change for me, but one I really grew into. DMing meant I got a front seat to the crazy happening at the table, and I got to present the structure which facilitated it.

ICRPG is where I now make my home, but the lessons of PbtA have foundationally affected how I narrate results and think of the game, in general: Dungeon World, along with Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, City of Mist, Fellowship, and even Space Wurm vs Moonicorn have left some pretty deep impressions.

There are two elements I want to introduce into my games: Results and Moves (dependent on Results).

RESULTS
With a single Target, it seems like it would be a lot easier to apply the single, consistent result “table”:

= Target is a success,
1-2 below Target is success with complications,
3+ below Target is a failure

Thanks to ICRPG’s streamlined panel of dials and toggles, it’s a simpler process to fairly adjust the mechanical results to meaninfully reflect how things didn’t quite go as planned. It’s also a way of taking the sting out of getting just under Target.

I’m planning on doing this next week with a kids’ game (sixth graders) I’m running, but was wondering if any of y’all had done this yet and could report how it worked out.

MOVES
This wouldn’t be much different than other “Moves as LOOT” ideas, but the way PbtA moves are written makes them more open for interpretation, with a focus more on facilitating creative solutions than what might be functionally plausible.

Take Alex, a stereotypical Chinese kid who’s a mix of Short Round from IJ2 and Richard Wang from The Goonies. He’s got moxy and a mind for inventions, somehow finding ways to store a kajillion of them on his person. They might not always work and can fail fantastically, but they are clutch when they work.

One way that we could render this concept is through a handful of LOOT cards with different inventions. This would work, but to me it limits the creativeness of the solution in the moment to the forethought of the player, which likely isn’t on the same plane of existence as Alex (nor should it be; Alex is a prodigy whiz kid). It also works against the narrative whimsy that occurs as a result of inspiration in the heat of a conflict and the “what the heck a spring-released boxing glove?”

A way that gives this creative license to the player (while providing a proportionate amount of risk) is making a PbtA move, such as:

“When you use a mechanical gizmo as part of an unconventional solution, roll +INT. Tell the table about the gizmo, where you were keeping it, and what you want to accomplish.
=> TARGET means your genius comes through yet again!
1-2 under TARGET means your invention worked!.. kind of. The GM will say in what comical way things didn’t work quite how you’d hoped.
3+ under TARGET means that in your moment of need, your invention failed. The GM will say how your solution went completely sideways.”

So! My questions to you:

  • Has anyone integrated PbtA-type elements into ICRPG? How did it go?
  • How does the idea sound? Any concerns about impacting balance, making it too fiddly, or going against the design spirit/aesthetic of ICRPG?
#2

While for not ICRPG (still haven’t bought the book) I have been applying what I know of ICRPG (from lurking here) and my experience with Dungeon & Apocalypse world (I own both) to my really really old and falling apart D&D Basic boxed set. It surprises me how flexible old school D&D was, especially since I used what I thought was a inflexibility in the system back then as a reason why our group should switch to 3rd edition (big mistake lol).

Funny how things look once you get experience under your belt, wish I knew where my old DM was so I could apologize lol! I found by changing a few things here and there and adding hankerins god-level logic, made the system really enjoyable for me. Might be how he came up with ICRPG, throwing out the useless and reinforcing the useful.

#3

I have not integrated PbtA elements into ICRPG. I have played Dungeon World twice and had a lot of fun, but it just wasn’t for me.

That said, I think it sounds like a great idea for three reasons:

  1. I think Dungeon World had a big influence on Hank when creating ICRPG.
  2. Balance shmalance! Hank has never really seemed big on game balance. “Balance…the false god of the selfish.”
  3. I definitely DO NOT think it goes against the spirit of ICRPG which is “whatever works at your table!” If you and your players enjoy it, do it. ICRPG is designed to be hacked and home-brewed by it’s very nature.
#4

I think this is a great idea. The only rules you should try and keep is if the concept can fit in its entirety on an index card in a legible manner. If it takes more to explain a mechanic it’s too bloated. For the most part ICRPG follows this.

That’s not to say, when thinking about it, you can’t take up reams of paper…but you need to dilute it to its essence. ICRPG does 1/2 pages with 3/4 text at about 20 pt font. If writing on a lined index card with a ball point pen you’d fit the page in, except the roll tables.

So if you can get moves and results to that length you fit it into ICRPG. In that endeavor you might come up with something that fits your goals more.

Thinking ideas with no limitations is great, but refine them to a mirror finish with artificial limits. In this case the length to explain an addition to a game.

For the most part, results are pretty easy to grasp. Moves as loot, I think you should think on more. How many moves will someone have? Will it ever be more than 10 equipped and 10 carried? Does it need to be?

Perhaps your loot just needs to be more abstract and open to interpretation to allow for character exploration.
Does it have to be Mud Caster +2 int, +1 Magic dam, Near?

Can’t it be Mud Caster …you describe what it is and what your doing with it.

Alex as described above could have Inventor, cloak of many pockets and Johnny on the spot. As loot in your game. He makes things, he carries a crap load of random things, and he always seems to have the right idea, skill or item to give it a try.

In ICRPG you would have a target for the room, say 14. Your in a large chamber with angry orcs coming at you. There is a lever 15 feet above you and it is currently tilted up.

Alex takes out his telescoping rod and attaches a basket to it, extending it to 10 feet and with the basket it should be 12, Alex is over 5 feet so he just hooks the basket and pulls the lever.

GM asks alex to roll even, nothing complex for him, but he does have orcs wanting to take off his head. He rolls a 12.
In icrpg that’s that. He failed, but next attempt would be an easy roll, needing an 11.

In PbtA he succeeded but an orc would swing into him cause he left himself wide open to attack.

I’m not seeing a huge difference, it just might be you are only using the examples of loot in the game, and that’s hard core testosterone driven, beer chugging, monster truck loving mayhem.

It might be a small adjustment to the rules, and a big adjustment to loot, or your concept of loot.

Or keep it as you described, cause your group is more comfortable with that wording.

As to balance…if anything is OP and distracting from the enjoyment of others, steal it, or destroy it.

Alex makes a repeating crossbow of poisonous bolts and shoots into the orcs.
GM asks “what?”
Alexes player responds with, “ it takes less fine crafting than the telescoping rod”
GM “ok give me a hard roll, cause you had to make that thing, add the poison to the bolts and load it”

Alex scores an 18, killing all 3 orcs. With weapon damage and magic damage from the poison.

The GMs new task on the todo is eliminate the cloak. As the player is beginning to abuse the flexibility and the GM doesn’t like saying no.

I would then give a speech once gaming is done about staying in concept, and letting everyone shine.

It’s all a question of mature role players vs power gamers. And allowing for both in your game as long as they don’t cross the streams. You can’t pull the Death Star out of your cloak!!! But if everyone is cool with the style, rock on and enjoy the game!

In summary, check if there is a cleaner way to accomplish your goals. Try to understand your motivations. Verify it’s the best way in your thinking and then go with it. If it breaks, fix it or abandon it. No harm no foul.

Worst case your gaming group is annoyed for a session, apologize and give them whatever they love next session while you figure out how to do the thing you are trying to do.

#5

I appreciate your considered explanation of ICRPG’s design aesthetic, both from a “heart/theory” and a “mind/application” perspective, and exploring ideas for how to more effectively splice in narrative rules to ICRPG.

Ever since I read City of Mist, I’ve wanted to incorporate tags as a means of giving more narrative flavor and provide mechanical benefit (have been using them as +1 to Target checks), and was super excited when I saw how Hankerin executed the idea in Blood & Snow. My thoughts at the time was relegated more to the concept of relevant skills, but your ideas (Inventor/Cloak of Many Pockets/Johnny on the Spot) give me confidence in the feasiblity of tags in ICRPG being able to represent the full spectrum of concepts in City of Mist. I’m going to be able to see how these work in practice in a noir investigation one-shot I’m working on.

I also appreciate your bringing up the different motivations of players and your suggestion of making it a point to providing context for the increased narrative freedom.

Thanks for your considered response!

#6

After writing a bunch of DW content, I came to the conclusion that MOVES are very very fun to write and horribly cumbersome to PLAY. The specifics are so cool when imagined, and so annoying to reference in the heat of battle.

As for RESULTS, I found there was too much chin scratching at the table for what those mixed results could be. It’s hard enough for me to provide cool binary descriptions, much less invent new variables every other turn.

All that said, DW is a brilliant read and case study in innovative thinking, and I think all RPG designers should give it a go-through.

#7

Oh, thinking on it more…I forgot ICRPG is also about effort. Giving an invention a few heart of effort, can also balance risk reward. There is a lot going on in the players head with that.

Effort is central.

My only experience with narrative play has been one shots. With few and far between. So I really don’t know the flow the game has with a practiced group.

Thank you very much for the kind words. Go forth and have fun!!!

#8

Yeah the million different playbook moves thing and so many triggers to be alert to activating them is one of the reasons I’ve never been in a rush to try to play DW though I greatly respect the accomplishment and have mined it and the stuff made for it often. (Perilous Almanac is a goldmine for rolling up specific details on the fly.)

I mean ultimately the basic moves would be fine-ish if held consistent across all characters, but that loses all the narrative engine that is PBTA strongest selling point. But I kind of prefer the more traditional Moves where the PC goes “I swing my Axe” and that triggers the GM to say “Roll STR against Target 12.”

I will say though that Fronts blew my brain open just a lil bit. But even there I realized they yanked the landing by recommending the Grim Portents be planned out all the way to the Impending Doom. Improv Fronts where you make the next badness up as you go… so much more workable and fun IMHO.

#9

FWIW, the mixed success component of PbTA has roots going way back in RP. If it helps here’s a d20 version from 2001’s 4th edition of Talislantia:

img_0181
img_0181.jpg607x638 119 KB

#10

I feel soooo old now. Way back is now 2000 for gaming;-p :rofl:

I played one shots of a game called critters that mechanic by having dice with only certain numbers colored in. That was late 80’s or 90s. Whatever year magic the gathering came out.
To think that a card game would turn the RPG world on it’s head (mostly for the better) is still mind boggling to me.

#11

I should have qualified my statement a bit (I’ve also been playing since the late 80s and have seen mixed success tables going back that far in solo wargaming.) - RP hasn’t been around that long in the scheme of creative gaming stuff though and this table was the first d20 one I could dig up in a jiffy :slight_smile:

#12

I’ve reread the OP a couple of times but am not seeing what PbtA actually means. Someone mind helping a brother out?

#13

Powered by the Apocalypse

#14

Ah, ok. I’ve heard that name but not enough to know it by acronym alone. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the quick reply. I’ll make a point to look into it when I get a chance.

#15

http://apocalypse-world.com/

#16

Thanks @Ezzerharden!

I gave it the once over and it doesn’t look like my bag (ICRPG has absolutely spoiled me in offering so much with so little complexity). But I’m sure it has some good elements to pick up on. I’ll investigate MOVES & RESULTS a bit more.

Either way reading over the class descriptions tells me the author(s) has some writing chops!

#17

Extremely late to the party. I’m working on a mashup (hack) that combines what I love about ICRPG and Monster of the Week.

  • I’m keeping the prompts from the playbooks. They are essentially narrative TAGs that create the backstory of
    the character and their team. I’d have to work individually with players when TAGs include actual mechanics.
    The results of the prompts would go into the Story section of a modified character sheet (see below).

  • I’m keeping the D20 with 6 Stats and Weapon Effort.

  • I’m dumping Room Target and using a modified version of the tiered success mechanic:
    1-10 Fail
    11-15 Partial success
    16-20 Full success

  • I’m replacing Luck with Mojo using a descending D8. The D8 functions as a Surge die with the following
    caveats:
    It can be used indefinitely
    If you roll a one on the Mojo roll, your roll fails and your following rolls start at the next lower die. Thematically,
    this would reflect you losing your Mojo. The regression would go D8 - D6 - D4 - Coin toss - out of Mojo.

  • Leveling up/Milestones/Mastery - With the tiered success mechanic, I’m using failures to tick off the Mastery
    boxes. Each playbook has Improvements and Advanced Improvements. Improvements would happen after ticking off the 20 boxes. After 5 Improvements, options from Advanced Improvements are available.

Following is a modified character sheet first draft:

image
image.png961x539 190 KB

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

#18

Version 2, based on first bit of feedback. This is to clarify damage taken.

image
image.jpg959x541 147 KB

#19

Very cool! Although it is obvious, it should be said you are keeping the moves. Do the ICRPG characteristics perfectly map to those of MotW? I never played it so wouldn’t know.

Did you already play with your mashup?

Now I’m thinking of an ICRPG-Ironsworn mashup :wink:

#20

I’ve tried to do some Ironsworn mashup. I used 2d20 for the challenge dice and a d12 for the action die.