Quote from: CRKrueger;1133997Exactly.

That said, if you just employ the simple house rule of letting the GM decide all those elements (i.e. what the cost is in "success with cost" or what things you actually get from the carouse check) it'd fall more into traditional RPG fare.

Alternatively, you add enough mechanics; say adding a random table to the carousing or a specific consequence for only partially succeeding on a jump check; ex. on a 7-9 you're "off-balance" (had to catch yourself because you were just short, fell over on landing, etc.) and have to spend some movement righting yourself before you can act normally.

Basically, DW trades page count/rules complexity for more storytelling fiat and then, rather than leaving all the work of deciding that fiat to the GM, they instead decided to offload it onto the players at the expense of yanking them out of character to resolve things.

It's not "wrong" in the sense that you can make it function; but it's design choice based on the developer not wanting to deal with more complicated mechanics.

Personally, I lean more rules heavy in my systems... but given some of the shit mechanics design work I've seen people with history and Lit degrees produce, well, some people probably are better off with leaving most of the resolution to GM fiat and just focusing on writing up their interesting setting.

Quote from: Altheus;1134006The distinction isn't worth making, we all roll dice and pretend to do things.

Regarding dungeon world, what is wrong with the player having to choose the consequences of a "success at a cost result" rather than the gm choosing it? You do have to be on the ball to come up with sensible or interesting things but i like it.

I think the distinction isn't a clear cut as some people will say (as in, a lot of games are blends to some degree, not just fully one or the other), but I do think there are distinctions worth making. Not to say what is better or worse, but so people can play the games that appeal to them.

There is nothing universally right or wrong about having a player choosing the consequences of their own "success at a cost" result. It comes down to where your enjoyment in playing these games lies. If a player wants to play a character and see how the world reacts to that character's actions, that desire is undermined when the player themselves gets to choose the consequence out in the world of the game. It's like wrapping your own present and putting it under the tree, hoping to be excited by it on Christmas morning. If a player likes improvising a story on the fly, adding details to the world outside of their character's purview, and that rings their bell such that their enjoyment from that outweighs the loss of the surprise due to lack of control of the world outside the character's agency... then these kinds of rules may be for them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134000So it's a storytelling game and not a roleplaying game.

I wouldn't say it's a Storytelling Game instead of a Roleplaying Game.

It's closer to say it's a Storytelling Game inside of a Roleplaying Game.

You Roleplay as your character until the point where you have to stop Roleplaying, step outside the character and do some Storytelling as a player. Then step right back into Roleplaying.  It's integrated better than many Narrative RPGs.

It is possible to have all the Out of Character choices decided by random roll or GM Fiat, thus preventing the player from being forced out of character.  At that point, however, you're kind of defeating the purpose of the game.  Also, the Success with Cost results are not the only Narrative Control mechanic in the PbtA games.

It’s better to just realize it’s a hybrid and not pretend it’s just like any other RPG, which some people, for whatever agenda seem to be driven to claim.

Quote from: Altheus;1134006The distinction isn't worth making, we all roll dice and pretend to do things.

I disagree. As a GM advocate, this kind of gaming *will* keep GM's from being better GM's. Part of GMing is making the world your PC's are engaging is "come alive" as you envision it. The problem with letting too much random-table adjudication *directly* in play that dictate or mitigate potential opportunities of actual roleplaying, effectively limits the capacity of GMs, and for the GM's engaged in those kinds of systems weakens their ability to engage in their own capacity to improvise.

Yes there are degrees to which system impacts this GM-dumbing-down more. Yes not all Storygames are horrifying, but most aren't doing any GM wanting deeper roleplaying any service in learning how to GM at that level.

The degree to which SJW's extoll the virtues of Storygaming is commensurate with their ideological need to "fight authority". I don't care Storygames exist. A better GM can easily re-cobble Storygame mechanics into something more useful than some new GM that leans so heavy on those mechanics they're barely actually GMing.

Quote from: tenbones;1134015I disagree. As a GM advocate, this kind of gaming *will* keep GM's from being better GM's.

It's more a matter of playstyles. GMing Dungeon World requires a slightly different skillset than, say, D&D. But that's a good thing, as it improves the chances of putting a satisfying session for players interested in that style.

The more playstyles the better, IMO.

Quote from: Itachi;1134021It's more a matter of playstyles. GMing Dungeon World requires a slightly different skillset than, say, D&D. But that's a good thing, as it improves the chances of putting a satisfying session for players interested in that style.

The more playstyles the better, IMO.

By this analogy, it would be like saying Little-League Baseball is every bit as good of a game to enjoy as Major League Baseball. Same game. Same positions. Slightly different skillset required to play each. But so we're clear - they're *not* the same thing.

An MLB-level GM will elevate a Little-League game. But you have to learn to run MLB-games to become an MLB-GM. You won't become an MLB-GM playing only Little League Games. The problem here is people that sit in the Little League believe their games are MLB.

They're not.

Edit: I should add: system-mastery does not equate to being a GOOD GM. Being a good GM that learns the nuances of a system will run that game *far* better than someone who relies on system-mastery as their crutch for GMing.

I don't know the differences between baseball leagues so I can't say. But you seem to imply there's an absolute best style of play. I don't believe in that. I think there are clusters of games that, while sharing a common skill set to run, also requires slightly different ones: investigative games, combat-focused games, sandbox games, GM plot-driven games, player-driven games, PvP games, troupe games, improv-heavy games etc, etc. A GM gets good in styles he is interested at and provides more satisfying sessions in it. I can't see how that is detrimental to the hobby.

Quote from: Itachi;1134029I don't know the differences between baseball leagues so I can't say. But you seem to imply there's an absolute best style of play. I don't believe in that. I think there are clusters of games that, while sharing a common skill set to run, also requires slightly different ones: investigative games, combat-focused games, sandbox games, GM plot-driven games, player-driven games, PvP games, troupe games, improv-heavy games etc, etc. A GM gets good in styles he is interested at and provides more satisfying sessions in it. I can't see how that is detrimental to the hobby.

Pointing out two things are different is implying that one of them is best? Since when?

Quote from: tenbones;1134015I disagree. As a GM advocate, this kind of gaming *will* keep GM's from being better GM's. Part of GMing is making the world your PC's are engaging is "come alive" as you envision it. The problem with letting too much random-table adjudication *directly* in play that dictate or mitigate potential opportunities of actual roleplaying, effectively limits the capacity of GMs, and for the GM's engaged in those kinds of systems weakens their ability to engage in their own capacity to improvise.

Yes there are degrees to which system impacts this GM-dumbing-down more. Yes not all Storygames are horrifying, but most aren't doing any GM wanting deeper roleplaying any service in learning how to GM at that level.

The degree to which SJW's extoll the virtues of Storygaming is commensurate with their ideological need to "fight authority". I don't care Storygames exist. A better GM can easily re-cobble Storygame mechanics into something more useful than some new GM that leans so heavy on those mechanics they're barely actually GMing.

Interesting point you make, and I think you're right, if I were putting together a plan to develop a gm, dungeon world would be toward the end of the list of things to go through. Then you know enough to dip in and out rather than take its rules as anything more than advice and guidelines.

Quote from: Itachi;1134029I don't know the differences between baseball leagues so I can't say. But you seem to imply there's an absolute best style of play. I don't believe in that. I think there are clusters of games that, while sharing a common skill set to run, also requires slightly different ones: investigative games, combat-focused games, sandbox games, GM plot-driven games, player-driven games, PvP games, troupe games, improv-heavy games etc, etc. A GM gets good in styles he is interested at and provides more satisfying sessions in it. I can't see how that is detrimental to the hobby.

  I agree with this.   A GM that like a game/style/rules he/she likes can vary the style and experience a good bit.   That said, the story type games are not my taste, but I would play just about anything.  I find system preference more a bugaboo when I am running a game than when I am playing.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134125I agree with this.   A GM that like a game/style/rules he/she likes can vary the style and experience a good bit.   That said, the story type games are not my taste, but I would play just about anything.  I find system preference more a bugaboo when I am running a game than when I am playing.

If I know the group is super fun I'm okay playing in styles I'm not a big fan of. But I had a lot of bad experiences where I wish I was doing something else entirely, so I usually avoid it.

Quote from: GeekyBuglePointing out two things are different is implying that one of them is best? Since when?

Sorry, I must have mistaken the analogy then. As I said, I don't know baseball well. My point was that there are lot of playstyles out there and one should stick to what he/she finds fun. That's it. If you like association football then just play it, and don't care for what the futsal players will think.

If it was D&D all the attribute scores would be 10s because everybody is equal!
Oops I forgot to quote, I was replying to someone talking about the contributions of left wing RPG game designers.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1134536If it was D&D all the attribute scores would be 10s because everybody is equal!
Oops I forgot to quote, I was replying to someone talking about the contributions of left wing RPG game designers.

I wouldn't mind each PC starting out with all 10s; and then having maybe 10 or 15 extra points to distribute as desired, with no stat over 18.  Reason being that 10 is average.  The average person on the street is probably a 10, so why not the PC too?

I'm also fine with rolling your own stats, or stat arrays.

Well, let's see, everyone gets 1d10 / level hit points, attacks at +level to hit, can cast spell levels equal to their level per day and know a number of spells equal to their level, saves at their level and gets one special ability that they can never use because that would be unfair to everyone who can't do it.  You only get experience for having sex with characters that are of your sex or not of your species.  Armor doesn't make you harder to hit it makes you a target for social attacks because you're clearly expecting to solve problems with violence and looking for trouble.  Combat is replaced by shrieking and initiative determines the moral high ground.  All attacks do 1d4 social damage.  When a targed runs out of hit points the skulk away and hide under a rock.

Quote from: oggsmash;1134125I agree with this.   A GM that like a game/style/rules he/she likes can vary the style and experience a good bit.   That said, the story type games are not my taste, but I would play just about anything.  I find system preference more a bugaboo when I am running a game than when I am playing.

Same. I've played tons of things over the years, from the extremely traditional(a couple different editions of D&D, GURPS, Savage Worlds for the most part, etc.) to the extremely bizarre(Microscope, a few versions of Cortex Plus, Fiasco, etc.). And as different as they can be, for me they all usually scratch the same itch. I'm guessing the thing that draws me to them is where they overlap, so the differences are largely unimportant to me. As long as I get to be my fictional character of the moment, I don't care what aspect of them is numerically important - skills, attributes, emotions, relationships, whatever. But that's largely unimportant to me. I totally get why differences I might not even notice unless I was looking for them might be a big deal to someone else.