If you're anything like me, you've been listening to The Adventure Zone for some time now. It's a fun show. The McElroy family are good at this podcasting thing, and Griffin the DM does a fine job running a D&D adventure that does all the things I like about D&D and only a few of the things I don't like about it. But in the most recent arc (and yeah, there will be spoilers here if you care about such things), he's shifted from D&D into a different game. The game, like the arc, is called "The Stolen Century" although to limit the confusion here I'm just going to refer to it as Griffin's Game.
I like The Stolen Century, but I know (from my ample time trawling the The Adventure Zone subreddit and other fandom watering holes) that lots of people are having problems with it, which is fine. It’s not going to appeal to everyone, it represents a significant genre-shift for the podcast, and, of course, it’s New and Different and there are people who don’t take kindly to that sort of thing. But also… I think it’s got some problems on a game level. And I’d like to talk about the problems I see, because this is what I do… I write and edit RPGs professionally, and I’m between projects at the moment, which is why I’m spending my free time doing the same thing I’d be doing if I weren’t between projects. Such is my madness.
Now before I get off on a rant, let me say that I like Griffin’s game on the whole. It works for what it’s trying to do with the story, but I think beyond that it’s a cool idea by itself… a highly narrative account of people who arrive on a fantastic planet, explore it for a bit, and then hop off on another adventure. It’s got cool Star Trek vibes, and lets the players run though a number of weird and interesting setpieces that might be hard to make like a full campaign around, but are fun to interact with briefly, like a planet of just animals, or a planet at war with giant fungus, and so on. I get that some listeners aren’t a fan of it, because it’s so distinct from D&D. It’s a different kind of RPG with different goals, and that’s setting some folks off, but I love the idea. And I think, with some work, it could be a really cool game, one that could stand on its own and be playable and enjoyable for people who’ve never even heard of TAZ.
Issue 1: Resources that don't need to be managed.
Now, the obvious problem with talking about Griffin’s game is that all the rules haven’t been explained to us just yet… specifically, players can gain XP, bonds, and assets, and we don’t know how those resources are going to come into play when the grand finale comes along. But I would argue that this is part of the problem, because as far as I can tell, none of the players know how these things are going to shape out either. And that has a negative impact on gameplay.
Take, for instance, assets and bonds.
Getting an asset is cool, because an asset will help you on a future task. And I like the asset abstraction as well... you don't have to track particular things, but you do have to pull in a little creativity to use those assets, and that's good for storytelling. Having assets is great. Spending assets is great. Assets are great.
Bonds... add up. And for now, that’s all they do. Maybe it will be cool in another couple episodes, but right now, it's just a point or two that don't have any purpose. Having personal interaction that leads to bonds is fun but it’s strictly better to try and get an asset if the option is available. If we had a clearer idea what bonds were FOR, that would make bonds more exciting. Heck, we don't even need to know their ultimate purpose... if there were just a situation in which we could USE them, knowing that we want to save them down the line but having an immediate benefit to their use, that would make them feel more interesting.
What could bonds do? Well, Davenport said that the ship's engine essentially runs on bonds in some metaphysical fashion, and I assume that's going to tie into their ultimate importance. In the short term maybe spending a bond could empower the ship in some fashion. The first thing that occurs to me is allowing bonds to influence what world the Star-Blaster lands on. Say, the players can choose from a small selection in which one is clearly more unpleasant than the others. "You see a world, flickering between three states... now it's blue and green, a seemingly-pristine eden. Now its covered in grey clouds and shimmering lights, obviously highly industrialized. Now... it's an ashy husk, criss-crossed with lines of bright orange lava. The ship is between planes right now, about to emerge into one of these realities where you will be stranded for the next year. You have limited control over the Star-Blaster at a time like this, but the ship's engines are powered, in part, by your bonds. By giving up a bond, you can influence where the ship emerges." I don't know how exactly that influence might play out mechanically or even if this is the best idea, but it is, at least, something to give bonds immediate import.
Same thing applies to XP. Maybe the players have more information than we listeners, but right now there's no clear indication of what gaining XP actually means. Will there be leveling up, will XP turn into points to buy or upgrade skills, can XP be spent on something, or is it just another meter to track for the final encounter? Gaining XP in a traditional RPG is nice because it gets a character concretely closer to something beneficial.
The fact that bonds and XP aren’t exciting is especially disappointing because they’re one of the few ways in which player decisions have ongoing impact.
Issue 2: Immortality can be boring.
Making it so that the characters can't die or be maimed is necessary for a flashback, I get that. And it’s also useful on its own: it encourages them to do interesting experimentation and take risks and stay behind and do all sorts of things that the risk of death or other long-term ramification would complicate. But... it also means that getting killed or severely wounded is pretty meaningless. This is especially true when the characters only do one thing per cycle. Getting killed won't take you out of the action, because you’re naturally out of the action while another character is in the spotlight. Getting killed won’t complicate things for your allies, because practically speaking there’s nothing you can do to help your allies after you’ve already taken your turn.
In D&D, a bad decision now will have an impact later... I get hit, I'm low on HP, the next fight is all the more tense. Or I'm missing equipment so my rolls are lower. Or I'm in a bad position so I have disadvantage. Or whatever... D&D is has a number of systems working together to give character decisions extra weight. In Griffin’s game, decisions can impact the narrative by revealing new information that another player uses, but it’s entirely divorced from the mechanics of the game. Adding some sort of mechanical hook will give decisions more in-game impact. Imagine, if someone dies, everyone else gets -1 to any rolls for this cycle, because morale is shot. Suddenly there’s a reason to think twice about getting yourself killed. Or a success might translate into a +1 bonus to a particular sort of action… for instance, Taako learning the language of the animals means the others get +1 if their action centers around communicating with them. I get that bonuses are inherently more powerful with 2d6 than with 1d20, but that doesn’t mean it’s not feasible. Apocalypse World comes with many instances of +1 bonuses, and there are derivatives which use -1 penalties, and it all works fine.
It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that, and it would do a lot to make the events that happen during a year feel like they are linked together; there have been folks commenting on how this arc feels like it lacks momentum and bemoaning how disconnected the different vignettes seem. But if one player’s action gives a bonus to the next player (or even if it could have given a bonus but didn’t because they failed), their actions will feel more solidly linked to one another.
Issue 3: Weak-ass penalties.
Another issue I’ve noticed is that the 7-9 mixed success has been, well, a mixed success. I know Griffin's been getting pushback for having mixed successes that aren't very mixed, but that's because he's put himself in a pretty hard position. What price can a character pay when death is meaningless, and the value of resources is unclear? One of the reasons Apocalypse World’s mixed success mechanic works as well as it does is that Apocalypse World is pretty specific about what its moves do, and that means that takes a lot of the effort off of the GM’s shoulders. There’s built-in guidance for what is a significant creative challenge. I feel that Griffin is struggling here, and some of his mixed successes are pretty milquetoast. “Oh, you get what you want but you sense that they’re hiding something from you” doesn’t bring a lot of trouble to the table. I think one of the problems is that Griffin likes the characters and wants them to succeed… he’s a good DM, which means he’s a fan of the PCs.
My general tweak for mixed success would be to do as AW does and prescribe what “mixed success” can and must mean. That is to say, come up with a list of possible effects of a mixed success, and when the moment comes, pick one of them and stick with it. For the best effect, make sure the effects on the list are things with lingering effects, to make this decision more impactful.
An example of an option with a lingering effect would be “Make the player make a hard choice.” For instance: "Okay, Magnus, you can find the light... but you have to push the people helping you very hard and very far to do it. It takes you a long time to find the light, but you do. And when you do, you realize there's no time to get back to ship. Well, no time to get everyone back to the ship... you're faster and stronger than everyone who's been raised on this world, so you could, if you wanted, abandon them in the mushrooms and take back off on your own. You'll need to take the map and some extra rations for energy. You'll be abandoning them with no way of getting home, most likely to die in the fungus. But you can make it. Do you do it?" That’s a hard choice! It’s hard in a way that “do you die to achieve your goals” can’t be… Magnus doesn’t care if he kicks it, but having to leave innocents to die in order to save other people? That’s a character decision that will stay with him.
Another example: “Have the player get into a fight with a crewmate.” After all, while their bodies reset, their social interactions are ongoing. Griffin has control over four major NPCs, and being on the outs with any of them would suck for one of THB. If Davenport doesn’t trust you because of a decision you made, he can make the next year very unpleasant indeed. What if the result of Taako’s roll was that he got what he wanted but Lup wasn’t speaking to him anymore because of how it went down? I imagine he’d be pretty tempted to blow an asset to avoid that.
And even “Put an ongoing -1 to a certain type of task.” It’s a more minor option, sure, one that will only last for the remainder of the cycle, but it still lends impact to the outcome.
I’m sure there other ways in which a mixed success can have a lingering effect which aren’t coming to mind right now. And things like starting a fight or getting a penalty would, of course, be combined with whatever narrative effects are appropriate. I don’t suggest this as a way to shackle Griffin’s storytelling… I suggest it as a way to force Griffin to keep the characters in the crosshairs, so to speak. Statistically, mixed success is the most likely thing to happen on any given roll, so it should always be an interesting option.
Issue 4: A bad bad guy.
The other ongoing issue I’ve noticed is something that Griffin seems to have picked up on already, which is that the interaction between the IPRE, the light of creation, and the Hunger isn’t particularly interesting. The Hunger is an existential threat to a plane, it cannot be reasoned with, and the only feasible way to save the world is to get the light of creation, which means that the players are never NOT going to spend one of their actions trying to do just that. At least one. And that’s not exciting. He’s already started using GM fiat to declare that the light is either unobtainable or absolutely obtainable, and that’s great, because that means all three players get to use their limited actions to do what they want to do. “How do you busy yourself on a doomed planet?” is an interesting question. “What do you do on the beach for a year?” is obviously lower-stakes, but it’s still interesting. “Do you seek out the light of creation?” isn’t interesting, because the answer is “yes.”
Since the nature of the Hunger isn’t likely to change, I would encourage Griffin continue pulling the focus away from the light of creation, or take other methods to make “getting the light of creation” a more nuanced and interesting effort than stomping through the forest and hoping to stumble across it. Maybe they need to take the light away from someone who’s seized it. Maybe there’s a hard choice built in, because some people are now relying on the light to live. Maybe a crew-member has a massive disagreement about whether they should take the light. Maybe the world would be better off destroyed. There are ways to make the choice interesting… but if the choice isn’t interesting, it’s not worth making, so most planets should just have their fate essentially sealed, and the IPRE be left to figure out what to do with themselves on a world that they know to be doomed or safe.