Ironsworn RPG Session 0 Report

 So anyway, I am in a Facebook group called I'm Begging You To Play Another RPG. Basically, it is for people with 5E or general D&D fatigue, spurred on by the difficulty of finding groups to play indie or other games, as well as the despair of seeing 5E versions of IPs not really suited for it. If you feel the same at times, give it a look.

One of the other Beggars offered to get an online group of Ironsworn up and running. Ironsworn is a Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) game inspired by Norse myths, where the PCs are either wardens or other travelers adventuring in the Ironlands, trying to fulfill various oaths they have sworn. There is a defined progression and endgame, and how well characters fulfill their promises determines how they live out their days, in honor or ignominy.

The pre-session our GM ran on ZOOM and Roll20 involved world building by choosing the different of the setting, then starting character generation. 

I have never had more fun in my life in a pre-game session.

We decided the following about our version of the Ironlands:

1) THE TRUTH - Strange metal pillars litter the land

2) BEASTS - Monsters stalk the wastelands

3) COMMUNITIES - The Havens is a central hub, connected by caravan trails to smaller settlements

4) DEFENSE - Wardens range the countryside slaying beasts and saving folk

5) CREATURES - The ancient firstborn races live in isolation, protecting their lands fiercely

6) HORRORS - Undead stalk the night

7) LEADERS - The chiefs of the Havens squabble incessantly, factions vying for control

8) LEGACIES - Antediluvian ruins pepper the land

9) MYSTICISM - Rare and dangerous, magic is wielded by a gifted few at great cost

10) RELIGION - Prayers to gods old and new comfort the folk

11) OLD WORLD - A sickness drove us from there

As someone who HATES canon and dreads the droning info dump of most pre-sessions, the convivial atmosphere of cooperation, where we all discussed and decided on the outlines of the imaginary world we would share, was a great relief and loads of fun. Each choice also came with story hooks which we could hang our PCs' hats on.

We only dipped out toes in character generation before calling it a day, but so far we have the following characters sketched out:

A skald (bard) searching for a lost city!

His companion, a merchant always looking for trinkets!

A monster hunter searching for his disappeared mentor!

A warden haunted by dreams of apocalypse, looking to find the truth behind her nightmares!

In short, the mechanics lead to evocative characters, while the choice of Assets (basically gear or talents) is both rich and devilishly difficult.

I can't wait to see what we all bring to the table next session.

Also, as Beggars with a shared desire to try new game systems, everyone was very open and supportive of each other. The GM was patient, knowledgeable, and flexible, all of which bodes well for the campaign.

The only downside is that I have a new rule set to read just as the new semester and funding application season starts.

Sigh. I guess change is as good as a rest and I'll sleep when I'm dead.

The game is available as a free download HERE. There is also a dungeon-exploration variant called DELVE. If you're looking for an alternative to D&D with emergent world building and character generation, give it some love.

What Constitutes A Move?

So I read this post about hating story games because Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) uses playbooks and moves HERE. I gotta say, although I don't know PbtA well, I think there is a lot to unpack in this post and the argument it makes.

Basically, the OP was appalled that a PbtA gamemaster defused a player's stated intent to 'Kick Ass' by making them choose between fighting a monster OR getting to their vehicle. The cited problematic exchange is as follows:


Alan, the Keeper: “The flayed one is racing you to the car,and it looks like it’s going to get to you before you can close the door. So Mark, what do you do now?”Mary, playing her hunter Mark: “I kick some ass*!”Alan: “What are you doing?”Mary: “I’m going to smash it out the way with my baseballbat so I can get in the car.”Alan: “That sounds like you’re not really getting into afight: what’s most important? Killing the flayed one or gettingto the car?”Mary: “Oh, yeah, killing it I guess. I’ll stop running andjust start smashing it on the head.”

To me, 'Kick Ass' just means attack, and I wouldn't have asked 'What are you doing?,' which prompts the player to split their intent between 'smashing' the monster and 'get into the car'. 

The OP states their problem with the exchange as follows:

"Why can't the PC try to bash the monster out of his way and get into the car? Is their some in-story reason for this? Doesn't sound like it - it just sounds like the game master is forcing the player into an action to keep to the structure of the rules. This is what I mean when I refer to structure getting in the way of story."

A few things here.

First, the very idea of 'moves' in RPGs is problematic. On the one hand, the use of conjunctions by the player (smash SO I can get to my car) and the OP (bash the monster AND get to their car) imply that TWO moves are happening here, so the GM's response by making the player choose has its own logic. On the other hand, as a person who did karate in Japan for years, there is no such thing as 'clean' one for one moves in combat. Fighting for your life is messy, and you can end up on the winning (or losing) side and have little recollection of the flurry of moments that got you there.


Second, I don't see much difference between PbtA's moves and D&D Feats. Both use pseudo-narrative set moves to simulate and create a vibe at the expense of player choice.  

The OP continues, "So, in the name of abiding by the simplification of player action down to a set of "moves" (as they're called in Powered by the Apocalypse games) the rules - through the above text, if nowhere else - advise the game master to force a player to change his character's action?"

I dunno, this sounds exactly like 3e on D&D Feats in the few 4e games I played, which were a limited selection of 'kewl powers' that did the same amount of damage as everyone else's powers, but stifled how I could use my character. This stood in big contrast to the D&D and CoC games I played in the 80's and 90's, where the sky was the limit for action choice, but you had to abide by how much you could reasonably do in a round, and also accept the chance of failure if your intended action was complex.

This difference implies that the way a game system structures combat shows different ways of managing a move, a difference reflected in the OP's suggested solution to the problem, which is as follows:

"In Call of Cthulhu for example, the Keeper could just tell the player: "You'll have to make an attack with the baseball bat - if it hits, it won't do any damage but the path to get into your car will be clear. If not, you'll be stopped and stuck fighting the creature." The decisions are all up to the player at this point - instead of forcing her into a situation where she had to revise her action to stick to the structure of the rules, the game (by way of the Keeper) has given her the options and let her decide on the course of action."

This solution simply exchanges the unfavored choice (fight OR get to car) their own favored choice (hit to escape OR failing that have to fight), but doesn't do away for the logical necessity for choice. The fact that the OP has switched to a system (CoC) that has neither moves like PbtA or Feats like D&D also implies that system is not the problem.

This brings us to the real issue here: the different way games are designed to handle action, and how this impacts on player and GM expectations for combat.
This difference in expectation (as inculcated by the system you're used to) was brought to my attention when I GMed Swords of the Serpentine, a Gumshoe fantasy RPG and story game last year. One player was an inveterate D&D DM, and had made a bog standard D&D thief in a game that doesn't reward that type of character (ie there is no money in the system, or link between XP and gold). The PC was hanging over the side of a boat sneaking up on pirates,when the player stated "I want to swing up, land on deck, throw a few shrikes, draw my sword and jump into battle."

"Ummm, no" I replied. Half the players were incensed I was blocking the player's (very D&D) kewl moves in a supposedly empowering story game, while the other (older) half were on my side that the chain of actions was preposterous considering the situation.

First, we have the 'Pathetic aesthetic' of old school games vs the rule of cool of newer games. When I played OD&D back in the 80's and 90's, it was one move a round, a very literary way to represent action, and understandable considering the literary inspiration (Tolkien, Moorcock, etc) most of us based our imaginings on.

Later D&D editions switched to cinematic mode of action, with multiple actions and feats, which I surmise reflected the growing popularity of and exposure to video games. My little 4e experience was like playing a CRPG on paper, and as frustrating for a grognard like me as it was fun for the twenty somethings sitting at the table with me.

So just as both story games like PbtA and traditional RPGs like D&D can have shorthand moves or feats that limit choice, both new and old games can either allow multiple cool actions or limit to one based on whether they are emulating modern sources such as video games, or older inspirations such as pulp fantasy novels.

Regardless of system, players and GMs need to agree on the mode of action (literary or cinematic) and either choose systems to match this or tweak their system to do what they feel is right.