Gotcha.

I see what you mean. Apocalypse World is not on the side of brutally hard or the side of trivially easy; it sits in the middle, in “yes, but”. Some games make certain things impossible (“No, you can’t jump to the moon”). Other games make things trivial (“Sure, use your ‘ultra high jump’ ability”). In other games, the difference between “you can’t” and “sure” is just your character’s level.

This means that, no matter how weak or strong your character is, you can try anything. This does not mean, however, that all characters in Apocalypse World are equally competent. In Apocalypse World, an incompetent character usually has a -2 stat, while a very competent character has a +3 stat. The difference between -2 and +3 is quite massive, even if it doesn’t seem at first.

You can be sure of it by checking out this graph that Vincent Baker, the creator of Apocalypse World, made:

Notice that your odds of a strong hit go from 5% to 55%. Your odds of at least a weak hit go from 30% to 90%. If a teacher saw their student go from 30% to 90%, they’d think the student changed, grew, became more competent.

Well, but aren’t other games more dramatic in their character stat growth? Aren’t other games in the extremes of brutally hard or trivially easy? Probably, but I’m not sure that this is a bug. To me, it’s a feature.

My players can try anything. They want to burn the whole realm in a single Move? They do it. And I get to think about how that changes the world. I get to think about how the fire destroyed their own home. I get to think about what new societies arise from the ashes. I get to think about how the players’ NPC friends are now plotting against them. In other words, the fact that players can try anything at all makes the game very interesting to me and to my friends. I never tell them “nope, you can’t”. I also never tell them “obviously you can”. Instead, they can always genuinely try. And the world constantly adapts. There is no status quo. That’s the feature, not the bug.

If players can try anything, how come their character sheets are so over-constrained? This is a good point. I agree with you. If you dislike the character sheets in Apocalypse World, it’s kind of a bummer. However, the way that Apocalypse World does characters is decidedly not how all PbtA games do characters. Vincent Baker himself has said that his character playbooks are a sort of historical accident and that other PbtA games could be entirely different (1). And, indeed, there are PbtA games that are entirely different.

Take Ironsworn or Starforged. Both of those games are Powered by the Apocalypse and have an explosion of options for character creation. During character creation, you’re given a deck of cards, and you get to pick three of them for your character. Each card represents a special feat, ability, companion, tool, magic, vehicle, or other options. In Ironsworn there are 75 assets, which gives you 405,150 different combinations for your character. In Starforged there are 87 assets, which gives you 635,970 different combinations for your character.

How does Daggerheart fare in this regard? Does it over-constrain characters? In short, it’s nowhere close to Apocalypse World. Yes, it doesn’t have Ironsworn and Starforged’s explosion of options. However, they do have a card system in which you can choose your character’s ancestry and community. You also choose different cards every time you level up, cards that are specific to your class. This is definitely not an over-constraining game.

So, to recap, the difference between a competent Apocalypse World character and an incompetent one is great. However, players can still always succeed or always fail, which I think is not a bug, but a feature; the world is always adapting to what players do! Finally, Daggerheart is nowhere close to Apocalypse World in terms of over-constraining characters.

(1) Here Vincent Baker shows that Playbooks are even optional to the Apocalypse World model.

Totally valid. I assume you like combat simulators like Dungeons and Dragons. Is that the case? If not, what do you dislike about PbtA?

Huh. Thanks for sharing. I’m totally up for critically evaluating Critical Role and Daggerheart.

I do agree that Critical Role’s play style was a bit like a square peg in a round hole. Other games could’ve been more appropriate for them. Arguably a more appropriate game for them is Daggerheart.

As to not letting your personal feelings about Critical Role cloud my judgement, thanks for caring about not biasing me. At the same time, I’m sure you have good reasons to be critical of Daggerheart. Understanding why we say what we say sounds like a good plan, and I’m curious to hear what you think:

What is it about Daggerheart that makes you think it’s nothing more than a platform to continue their failing brand?

EDIT: Oh… I just realized you asked how it DIVERGES from PbtA, not how it is similar to PbtA. lol my bad. I’ll come back with a more informed response later!

So far I can confidently tell you that the Player Principles in Daggerheart are very much like the Principles of Apocalypse World:

• Be a fan of the character
• Address the characters
• Look through crosshairs
• Play to find out what happens

In other words, it gives clear guidance on what it means to be an MC/GM. It’s explicit about not railroading. It’s explicit about not pulling the rug underneath your players (“Oops! You didn’t check for traps! That’s 999999 bludgeoning damage coming your way!”). I like when games are this explicit; it’s easier to have a conversation about what good and bad GMing looks like.

I also know that it doesn’t just have success and failure (and critical successes and failures). Instead, it has successes and failures that aren’t as extreme, so small complications pop up more often.

The character progression checklist also looks straight up from an Apocalypse World character sheet (in a good way!). [Edit 2: I learned that the checklist might be similar to Apocalypse World, but there’s this whole card system where each level involves choosing new feats or abilities or things like that, all related to your class]

Fair enough. PbtA is not for everyone. In fact, sometimes PbtA is not for me; sometimes I just want to hack and slash and strategize with strict rules instead of creating dramatic stories.

Have you checked out the PbtA grandpa, Apocalypse World?

This post tickles a fond memory of mine. I was talking to a right-wing libertarian, and he said there should be no research done ever if it couldn’t prove beforehand its practical applications. I laughed out loud because I knew how ignorant and ridiculous that statement was. He clearly had never picked up a book on the history of science, on the history of these things:

• quantum mechanics. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have semiconductors in his phone, or if he didn’t have access to lasers for his LASIK surgery (which he actually did have), both of which are technologies built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind.
• electromagnetism. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian was having his LASIK surgery and the power went out without there being a generator, a technology built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind.
• X-rays. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have x-rays to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind.
• superconductivity. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have superconductors for an MRI to check the inside of his body in case something went wrong, a technology built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind.
• radio waves. It would be a shame if the poor libertarian didn’t have radio waves for his phone and computer’s wifi and bluetooth to run his digital business, technologies built by basic research that didn’t have practical applications in mind.

Ah that makes sense. Maybe it’s a European/US difference, but it could be just a Time Timer thing. My air fryer is from an American company and it has the same timer as you (wind it up clockwise, then the hand moves counter-clockwise).

I wonder if both types of timers (wind up clockwise and wind up counter-clockwise) seek to distinguish themselves from normal clocks in different ways:

• Wind up clockwise timers (like your stove and my airfryer) let you know it’s not a normal clock by flowing counter-clockwise.
• Clockwise timers (like a Time Timer) let you know it’s not a normal clock by having a red disk slowly become smaller.

Earplugs come in different sizes. Maybe it’s a matter of experimenting?

Ah. To set up the timer, you do pull the hand counter clockwise, as if you were pulling a spring-loaded car backwards for it to move forward on its own. After you release the Time Timer, its hand will move forward on its own, normally, clockwise.

It is a bit unusual, but the point of the timer is to see how much time you’ve got left. It’s like a battery charge percentage. You know that when the battery reaches zero, you’ve got to charge it up again.

I hope the explanation helps. If not, feel free to ask or to check out the videos in the Time Timer website. After all, it is a strange product.

A Time Timer.

They’re not cheap, especially for a timer that’s bare bones (~20 USD).

But it has changed my work life.

1. People who want to interrupt me while I’m working can now see how long until I have my next break. So I am interrupted less.
2. Now I self-regulate a bit better, so I’m able to work longer without destroying myself in the process. I take breaks that help me with repetitive strain injuries and with feeling like I’m a human being and not just a machine.
3. Now I remember to actually start timers when I start working. I know this is a bit silly, but I was having trouble creating a habit of stopping for breaks. I tried to solve this by setting timers on my phone, but I constantly forgot doing it. Now I’m reminded to start a timer by something that I see on my desk.

This. A single falsehood in a chain of propositions makes the whole chain false.

Huh. That’s an interesting idea. It’s an extra step to the trash can. And that’s good!

I suppose having this extra step helps with our loss-averse instinct. We have an impulse to hoard, but the Noday/Never list helps us know what we can safely throw away.

I’d say the fight against entropy is an attempt to retain specific expressions of energy in the system. The expressions of energy are assemblages that have created order. And yes, as you said, the creation of order has a cost: greater global entropy.

In case you’re interested, this way of looking at entropy and life comes from Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

After reading what I have posted, it’s totally fair to believe that I do not find beauty or inspiration in nature. However, I can give you some reassurance.

How? Well, I actually I find the battle against entropy amazing and inspiring. A while ago I was sipping tea while my dog nestled next to me, and I was moved thinking about how we make each other so happy. I am also moved by people, people who look beyond their belly button, people who are kind, people who are good at what they do.

It’s not just that we’re doomed to accept brutality and appreciate tiny slivers of beauty. There’s actually steps that we can take to support life. For example, we can become a part of an assemblage that we like. Sometimes that assemblage is a group of friends, a political group, or an organization. You know you’re in the right place when your incentives align with that of the group. There’s an alignment around shared values, shared goals. Your atoms are keeping your structural integrity. Your cells are keeping you alive. Your thoughts are aiding you in problem solving and connecting with others. And your friends are connecting with you.

There’s quite a bit more to this, so if you’re interested in this way of understanding the world, you can check out Prosocial by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and psychologists Paul W. B. Atkins and Steven C. Hayes.

How so?

Cordyceps fungus

Holy crap. This gave me the creeps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis This opened the door to the broader category of parasitoids https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid

Prion diseases

Truly scary stuff. I vaguely knew that genetic problems are a thing, but I didn’t know the specifics. Thanks for sharing this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

I agree that there’s a layer of human subjectivity in this whole discussion. Within that layer, I think it’s okay to get a gut sense that nature is brutal and grotesque. My goal is to avoid romanticizing nature.

Once we’re able to avoid our human bias of romanticizing nature, we can take the discussion to another layer, a layer that could be called more objective.

For example, we could talk about entropy and evolution’s attempts to fight against it. We could talk about evolution occurring at multiple scales and dimensions simultaneously, such as atomic structures, cells, and multicellular organisms. These are examples of assemblages, and they expand the possible behaviors of the parts. In other words, assemblages make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

So, how does entropy, evolution, and assemblages connect with our discussion? Well, brutality and grotesqueness can usually be translated into the language of entropy and assemblages. Killing someone destroys an assemblage and increases entropy. Torture and trauma reduce the probability of an organism exhibiting variation in their behaviors. They reduce the emergent properties of the assemblage.

Is it always better to choose the language of entropy and assemblages over brutality and grotesqueness? No. Context matters. Again, if the goal is merely to avoid the romanticization of nature, the brutality and grotesqueness layer is appropriate.

Ouch. Looked it up. Its brutal. https://enviroliteracy.org/do-lions-eat-their-prey-alive/

TIL lions eat some prey alive because it saves the lions energy. They avoid spending too much energy killing a prey that is difficult to kill. Instead, they incapacitate (but not kill) a prey and start eating right away.

I agree. The boundary can easily become diffuse or even silly.

However, there’s a reason I asked what I asked. My ultimate purpose is to show that existence is not perfectly designed, that sometimes it is brutal and grotesque. Unfortunately, people often retort saying nature is brutal and grotesque because of humans. So, by focusing on non-human nature, I’m sidestepping the retort.

Pinecones are indeed beautiful. However, they are decidedly not one of the greatest arguments for the existence of an intelligent higher power. In fact, the whole claim about pinecones having the Fibonacci sequence is false https://youtu.be/1Jj-sJ78O6M

Additionally, I wouldn’t think that cones having nice shapes are an example of nature being brutal and grotesque. But I suppose you wanted to make the opposite argument: that nature is perfect and beautiful.