Quote from: soviet;624351Hang on. I haven't read or played Dungeon World, so I may be missing something, but how are these not in character decisions? Your archer is trying to shoot at the orc. You haven't got a very clear line of sight to him. You can either move closer in to improve your LOS, just take a punt and see what happens, or pepper the area with multiple arrows to improve your chances. Isn't that exactly the kind of decision a real life archer might face?

Yes, they are, but a real archer would make that decision first, and that would effect the probabilities of the shot.  Task resolution.  Also if I had to fire three times to actually hit, then it would take the amount of time it took to fire three arrows, or it would take the amount of time to maneuver into a better position.

Real Archer, presented with decision affecting difficulty, chooses the difficulty before the shot, and it may not take one action to resolve, but several.

DW Archer, shoots, then is presented with a decision determining how he retroactively is going to surpass the difficulty, somehow able to get more movement or more attacks out of a span of time if necessary.  Conflict Resolution, except I'm not setting the stakes and outcomes first, I'm doing them second, after I roll.  The OOC negotiation is still taking place, it's just less freeform and subject to mechanics.

As presented in DW, this is not an IC choice.

Remember, the goal of the XWorld system is genre emulation.  The whole purpose of the playbooks is to constrain choice so as to make meaningful decisions that end up feeling like proper emulation of the genre, whether that genre is Post-Apocalyptic adventure, or Dungeon Crawling.  However, the genre emulation rules function as a layer between the setting and the character, it's a type of 4th wall middleware, self-aware of the genre it's emulating, to go back to the discussion Tristam and I were having.

QuoteThese are decisions made either
1. In retrospect, I'm kind of rewinding and changing what happens
2. From the POV of conflict resolution, where we're contending to see whether what I wanted to have happen happens, or if the GM makes it happen some other way.

In either case, this is not a decision my character can make, it's OOC.

It looks to me as if the decisions are entirely in character -- they're just not at the level of detail you want.

Lots of people found the abstraction of combat in the original D&D game unsatisfying, and produced more "realistic simulations." Then many people found those too lacking.

Eventually, we got things such as the Tri Tac hit locations charts and the Phoenix Command system. (Either might have more appeal with a computer doing the drudgery.)

This seems to me a very unhelpful basis for defining 'RPG'.

HQ: Archer Delta, status?
AD: No clean kill. Redeployment route to optimum position interdicted. Permission for rapid fire?
HQ: Archer Delta, negative; take the shot now.

The potential problem I see is that the particular situation might come up too often. That's a constraint on the game world, though, not on role-playing.

If there's not much more variety in the default, then I expect that many people will end up hacking it!

Quote from: Phillip;624356It looks to me as if the decisions are entirely in character -- they're just not at the level of detail you want.

Actually that's incorrect, it's got nothing to do with detail of the action, in fact there a lot more detail then just "roll to hit you need a 13. you hit, roll damage".

It's the fact that the possibilities are presented in a Conflict Resolution framework that does not reflect how I would be doing it IC.  It has detail, it's just that the detail specifically moves away from the normal way such decisions would be made IC.  Which, btw, is something I would expect from a game focused on specific metagame to reflect genre emulation.

It's not the lack of detail, I don't need Phoenix Command: The Archery Expansion.  But Dungeon World specifically increases and adds detail, but detail in choosing complications (a form of setting stakes) and narrating the outcome.

It has much more detail than OD&D or BD&D when it comes to bow firing, but that detail has nothing to do with the IC process of firing a bow, not as specifically presented.

Quote from: Phillip;624356This seems to me a very unhelpful basis for defining 'RPG'.

If there is a core definition to be found in a RPG, whether or not I can engage the core resolution systems while IC or the systems force me OOC for some other purpose then roleplaying seems practically a required element of a definition, doesn't it?

What could you possibly base the proper use of the term roleplaying on other then the ability to actually roleplay?

Quote from: Phillip;624361HQ: Archer Delta, status?
AD: No clean kill. Redeployment route to optimum position interdicted. Permission for rapid fire?
HQ: Archer Delta, negative; take the shot now.

The potential problem I see is that the particular situation might come up too often. That's a constraint on the game world, though, not on role-playing.

If there's not much more variety in the default, then I expect that many people will end up hacking it!

And how many seconds did that take?  In DW it takes no longer then just firing once.  In DW it also plays out exactly like you just did, with a negotiation/narration going on between GM and PC.

Actually you're spot on about coming up too often and the playbook being too limited.  That's a common complaint I've seen from people who otherwise like the game - after all the available moves are used once or twice, the game becomes less interesting, one quote was "the game practically runs itself after a while".

Quote from: CRKrueger;624363Actually that's incorrect, it's got nothing to do with detail of the action...

I regret that, based on the information provided so far, I cannot see that.

The matter puts me in mind of GDW's En Garde!.

That did not stand out as so novel in 1975, when the whole RPG field was one experiment after another. In the decades since, however, it has become thoroughly normative to treat just about everything on a minute-by-minute (if not second-by-second) scale, with a rules set similar to that of a close-tactical wargame.

That does not strike me as inherently implied in the concept of "role-playing," any more than it is in the concept of "wargaming." It looks like a case of a narrow subset of the broader genre becoming identified with the whole -- as if Rise and Decline of the Third Reich were considered illegitimate because it so little resembles Sniper.

Quote from: Phillip;624367I regret that, based on the information provided so far, I cannot see that.

Hmm.  Ok, what's the genre being emulated here?  Old school Dungeon Crawling.  OD&D, Basic D&D, AD&D1 the oldest probably.

People still play these games, there are people out there who are just fine with a "low-sim" environment.  DW is not meant to emulate Harnmaster, Hackmaster, Rolemaster, GURPS, HERO, Chivalry and Sorcery or any FGU game.

It's emulating the genre of the old school games, so why would I be looking for Advanced Squad Leader level of rules?  That does not compute.

However, even going back to the earliest games, there were certain things you could do in a round, however long that round was.  You couldn't do one action in one round and 4 actions in the next without some significant, IC, reason (like a haste spell or something).

It's not that DW isn't Harnmaster 4 which is discordant, it's that they specifically increased (not decreased) the rules detail above an old Dungeon Crawler, and did it specifically to provide for a measure of narrative control of the fiction (and yeah pretty sure it does say that in there, have to find it).

I understand some people have difficulty seeing the difference between a fuzzy, abstract IC rule and an OOC one, but I identified that difference WRT D&D4e within 10 minutes of cracking the cover, and have been keeping that position for 5 years now.  I'm not mistaking one for the other.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624368It's emulating the genre of the old school games, so why would I be looking for Advanced Squad Leader level of rules?

That's not what I mean by level of detail in this context.

QuoteHowever, even going back to the earliest games, there were certain things you could do in a round, however long that round was.  You couldn't do one action in one round and 4 actions in the next without some significant, IC, reason (like a haste spell or something).

That is a different level of detail than has become fashionable. It is very far from a new thing in RPGs, or the wargames from which they spun off.

Not exactly the same, but reflecting the broader point: In the original D&D game at a given real time, one player-character might have game-weekly moves (in town), another daily or so (in the wilderness), a third by the minute or ten minutes (in the dungeons).

I just wrote a new generator for GM's running Traveller today. What's going on with the starship you just picked up on scan....

Sample Output

Generation Genics Corp - Searching for Raw Materials
The Imperial Survey Service - Resupplying a Storage Facility
Cold Defenders Mercenary Vanguard - Conducting Repairs
Refuge News Service - Relaying
Roboworld Club - Landing
Bluestar Trade - Decelerating Towards You
19th High Mercenary Cohort - Looting a Captured Vessel
Underworld Guild - at Anchor
University of Bishel Foundation - Servicing another vessel
Mile News Service - Investigating
Great Dragons Mercenary Combat Command - Conducting Gunnery Practice
Uralta Corsairs - at Anchor
University of Chi'kara Foundation - Accelerating Towards a Starport
Local Marines - Docking
The Society of Spindrift - Trade Organization - Accelerating Towards You
Mines Fund - Decelerating Towards another Vessel
Splendid Swift Tigers Mercenary Division - Receiving tools
Imperial Diplomatic Corps - Drafting
The Imperial Space Patrol - Requesting Docking Permission
23rd Mercenary Battalion - Servicing another vessel
977 Mercenary Army - Docking
The Imperial Space Patrol - Requesting Docking Permission
Exetel Foundation - Trade Organization - Inspecting Personnel
The Foundation of Trade - Inspecting Planet

Quote from: jhkim;624211I would say yes, because role-playing games don't have to be 100% in-character. As I understand it, you already agree that most players are not 100% in-character anyway. In my experience,
 
1) It's true that in the Dungeon World games I played, sometimes the rules forced me to make an out-of-character decision.
 
2) Despite this, I felt that the overall percentage of the players being in-character was roughly the same as traditional RPGs such as Pathfinder or Vampire: The Masquerade.
 
I would say that we should label games based on what typical play is like, not based on the theoretical ideal of what play by the rare case of an extreme simulationist who is trying for 100% in-character play.
 
If a typical Pathfinder game has, say, 50% pure in-character play - and a typical Dungeon World game has, say, 50% pure in-character play, then these two should have the same label.

Only a certain percentage of playing time is going to be pure roleplaying, of course.
 
What I think the question is (and where I think Phillip is driving at with Phoenix Command?) is where the 'game' part of the RPG sits with respect to immersion - rules, dice rolls and so on.
From one standpoint certainly any time the player is checking charts or rolling dice, they're not 'in character' so from a certain perspective, its not role playing time. I would argue however that in a traditional RPG, rules are meant to support the roleplaying aspect - the rules provide a framework for character decisions (and appropriate rewards/penalties) so that a character will act in-character better.For instance characters will take cover more often if firearm damage is potentially lethal and bullets can't be dodged - a realistic behaviour - so the rules are helping players connect to their characters.
Any mechanics that match up with 'realism' help characters act believably.

Quote from: jeff37923;624342Could you provide a link to the source of this?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/01/24/tech-dna-data-encoding-shakespeare.html

Quote from: CRKrueger;624364And how many seconds did that take?  In DW it takes no longer then just firing once.  In DW it also plays out exactly like you just did, with a negotiation/narration going on between GM and PC.

Actually you're spot on about coming up too often and the playbook being too limited.  That's a common complaint I've seen from people who otherwise like the game - after all the available moves are used once or twice, the game becomes less interesting, one quote was "the game practically runs itself after a while".

D&D abstracted 1 minute combat rounds in which you don't just trade blows and yout hits don't do actual physical damage rather you jocky for position taking opportinities where they present themselves in that one minute round. And you string those together slowly wearing away you opponent's luck, skill and stamina until you can line him up for the final coup de grace?

Quote from: jeff37923;624305Semaphore. Binary. Pheromones. Morse code.

You can say that they can communicate a story, but it would have to be a story so reduced in capability that it would be unrecognizable as such.

In the case of pheromones it would be a mild stretch to call that a medium of communication but, fair enough, you can't tell stories if you only communicate with pheromones. This is interesting but not germane to the discussion unless someone has actually written a fart-based RPG out there.

In the other mediums you cite literally the only problem is the speed at which communication takes place. Morse and semaphore are slow, but you can still communicate a story with them - it'd just take a long time. Binary can be fast - damn fast. In fact, on a certain level we're communicating in binary through these handy-dandy electronic decoder machines right now.

I will refine my point to "any medium of communication sufficiently nuanced to convey language can be used to tell a story", but would also point out that a) language is critical to the tabletop RPG format and b) almost all communication mediums fall under that category aside from stuff like pheromones which are so limited that you couldn't run an RPG with them anyway.

Quote from: jibbajibba;624391D&D abstracted 1 minute combat rounds in which you don't just trade blows and yout hits don't do actual physical damage rather you jocky for position taking opportinities where they present themselves in that one minute round. And you string those together slowly wearing away you opponent's luck, skill and stamina until you can line him up for the final coup de grace?

Slow down there cool breeze, context.  Before you seize this opportunity to deny distinction...
1. My actions in the D&D round don't go from 1 to 3 or 4 depending what option I choose to narrate how I "hit with complications".
2. So far the argument that Volley is IC choice is based on there being no difference between firing a bow, and contacting HQ and receiving options and orders to fire a bow, when there is no HQ and no IC communication.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624520Slow down there cool breeze, context.  Before you seize this opportunity to deny distinction...
1. My actions in the D&D round don't go from 1 to 3 or 4 depending what option I choose to narrate how I "hit with complications".
2. So far the argument that Volley is IC choice is based on there being no difference between firing a bow, and contacting HQ and receiving options and orders to fire a bow, when there is no HQ and no IC communication.

Not saying no distinction and I can see your argument but D&D has an abstracted combat system as well. Just differently abstracted.
As for number of actions ... hmm... well take fighters attacking creatures with less than 1HD (a rule I hate by the by)  if a 10th level fighter fights orcs they fient and jockey for position etc etc ... if he fights goblins he mows through them like threshing wheat, getting twice the number of attacks per round) basically as a way to emulate heroic stories where the hero can mow through the ranks of oponets before toe to toeing it with the Evil Champion.

Take Bow combat... why can't my fighter just say well rather than 2 aimed shots this round I am going to fire a 12 arrow volley. If he could so the numbers of arrows I shot depended on a rules call would that be a problme or okay becuase it was an IC decision to shoot more arrows?