Quote from: CRKrueger;668447Also, what move is the player using to pin the Goblin and put a blade to his throat?

Defy Danger - Strength.

You are right about the 8 on the previous Defy Danger. It would have looked something like this:

QuoteDM: A goblin lunges out of a shadowy corner howling bloody murder!

Player: I'll sidestep the goblin and try and get behind it. I roll Defy Danger Dex. I got an 8.

DM: OK, you can dodge but escaping the dagger blow will cause you to collide with the goblin and fall to the ground.

Player: Fine. Once on the ground, I'll wrestle the dagger away from the goblin and then hold it to his throat. Strength check?

DM: Yeah, Defy Danger Str...

Quote from: Skywalker;668450Defy Danger - Strength.

You are right about the 8 on the previous Defy Danger. It would have looked something like this:

Yup. Skywalker's got it. Of course, the player has a choice and could now say, "Fuck that noise. I don't dodge then. I just bury my sword in him." In which case the GM probably has them take damage and then roll Hack n Slash.

Not very crazy on the narrative mechanic scale.

@zachary, DW has a very powerful initiative system. It's called GM fiat.

Quote from: Skywalker;668163Yeah, I understand the counter position.

The issue becomes if you use the term "traditional" as the point of seperation then it becomes difficult to excise ideas that have been around for almost as long as the tradition itself started*. By preventing the term RPG from being redefined by excising these concepts, it's easy to see how it can be seen as just doing exactly the same in reverse for a lot of other RPGers. Especially when you add inflammatory statements like "not an RPG", which I think is something you wisely avoid.

*I think it's this that makes parallels between the distinction between wargames and RPGs inaccurate as the two didn't develop together like the concepts we see here.

I must say, this post is a magnificent example of rhetorical manipulation of language. You throw in, very craftily, some lies that in the way you write forces any responder to treat as assumptions of fact. Namely, the unspoken assumption that storygame-ideas were part of the fabric of RPGs from the start, allowing you to then craft the further lie that storygames and RPGs have a parallel history and thus can't be fairly compared to RPGs and Wargames. All of this would demand the then false conclusion that RPGs therefore have no right to their own landmarks, and that we can't expect Storygames to go and be its own hobby living or dying on its own merits the way we split off from wargames; and instead RPGs must accept the Storygamers coming along and parasitically sucking its lifeblood dry forever.

Too bad you don't fool me, huh?

Quote from: Skywalker;668170The design movement is just the tip of the iceberg though. Leaving aside formalisation of pure OOC mechanics, a lot of the concepts we see now (many of the being used in DW) were being used in RPGs by RPGers before then. Its how some RPGers saw best to approach playing RPGs and, arguably, its an approach you can validly take with the game (not just the rules) as written.

No. That's bullshit, and you know it.

Pointing pathetically to a couple of mechanics or moments that might look like storygaming if you looked at them in complete isolation and squinted hard enough really only shows off the poverty of your line of argument.

You have failed. Storygaming has been forcibly defined as something OUTSIDE the RPG hobby, which means I've won, and you will never get that genie into the box again. If both hobbies exist for another thousand years, people will still be recognizing that Storygames and RPGs are two different things.

Sleep well tonight...

RPGPundit

Quote from: tzunder;668240You know, I must be a storytelling swine.

Quite possibly.

QuoteEven when I played C&S I didn't mind when my pious priest died defending the group against impossible odds, or my evil sorceror went to the dark side and had to disappear into NPC-dom. I can enjoy a game where we don't succeed, I enjoy the story of failure just as much.

Sure. The point is I think Brad isn't making a good job of explaining things. In Storygames, you die IN ORDER TO make an interesting story. Its the only point of a PC dying.

In RPGs, PCs do not die for a "point".  They die because of real circumstances that happen in the real (virtual) world that they exist in.

If you want to talk about the difference between RPGs and storygames: -any game where a PC can't be meaninglessly killed in an utterly random encounter is not an RPG.
-any game where the GM can't kill off a player WITHOUT the player's permission or consent is not an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: tzunder;668243Well club me to death with a sausage! Have you actually played in a game of D&D where that happened? Or any rpg where that happened?

Yes, of course.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;668307Okay, I'll bite. What exactly do you see in this fake description of play that you would consider "not an RPG"?

DM: A goblin lunges out of a shadowy corner howling bloody murder!

Player: I'll sidestep the goblin and try and get behind it. I roll Dodge. I got an 8.

DM: You dodge, but not fast enough. You escape the dagger blow, collide with the goblin and fall to the ground.

Player: I'll wrestle the dagger away from the goblin and then hold it to his throat. Strength check?

DM: Yeah, but since you're not trying to hurt him we'll ignore any damage you would do and instead say you get him into the position you want.

Player: Okay, I got a 10. I tear the dagger out of the goblin's hand and press it against his neck, hard enough to push him down into the dirt. A bead of blood glistens along the blade.

Player: "Who the hell are you and why did you attack me?"

Typically my players don't get quite so flowery with their action descriptions. But other than that you could transplant that dialogue to any of a dozen rule systems and it could easily be a transcript from my table.

How are you playing D&D or Earthdawn that it looks so radically different to your eyes? Please be exact.

Except that's not what a Dungeon World dialogue would look like.  You missed the part where the GM has no choice but to offer the Player the options of what might happen based on his in-between dodge roll.

Also, the part I highlighted, where suddenly the Player, and not the GM, is describing what has happened to the goblin.

So yes, I suppose that if you LIE, then a Dungeon World actual-play looks kind-of almost like a D&D actual play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Zachary The First;668448I think at the time I remarked it was akin to a recipe for chocolate cake by a person who had heard of, but never quite tasted, chocolate cake.

An nearly perfect description.

The more accurate one would be "a recipe for chocolate cake by a person who had looked at chocolate cake, never actually tasted it, but decided beforehand that he would not like it."

RPGPundit

Quote from: Noclue;668532@zachary, DW has a very powerful initiative system. It's called GM fiat.

There is no "fiat" involved if a GM is FORCED by the rules to give initiative to the person who says something first.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;668559

• any game where a PC can't be meaninglessly killed in an utterly random encounter is not an RPG.
• any game where the GM can't kill off a player WITHOUT the player's permission or consent is not an RPG.

So Teenagers From Outer Space, Toon and Ghostbusters are now Not RPGs According to the Pundit.

Well, makes about as much sense as any of your other megalomanical diktats.

I realize "the RPGPundit" is just a made-up personality, but to be provocative you have to at least be believable.  You're hip-deep in self-parody now.

Quote from: daniel_ream;668572So Teenagers From Outer Space, Toon and Ghostbusters are now Not RPGs According to the Pundit.

All of those are games where the risk of death doesn't actually exist in the "physics" of the world being emulated.  They're also all comedy games.
And really, if that's the very best you could muster, if that's your vanguard charge, you're fucked.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;668557Storygaming has been forcibly defined as something OUTSIDE the RPG hobby, which means I've won

On the site that you own and nowhere else

Quote from: RPGPundit;668568There is no "fiat" involved if a GM is FORCED by the rules to give initiative to the person who says something first.

Rules in a book can't force anyone to do anything. What force exactly would physically prevent a GM or group unhappy with that outcome from changing it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;668566An nearly perfect description.

The more accurate one would be "a recipe for chocolate cake by a person who had looked at chocolate cake, never actually tasted it, but decided beforehand that he would not like it."

If you want to say that the hardcore storygames.com people are out of touch with what traditional D&D style roleplaying is all about, I'd probably agree with you.

But I think that most of the people who actually play games like DW also play games like D&D on other nights and know perfectly well what chocolate cake tastes like. They just happen to enjoy different recipes is all.

Quote from: soviet;668583On the site that you own and nowhere else

No. Everywhere.  The term "storygames" means we all now understand it to be something different than RPGs.  The rest is all details. Ron Edwards was very careful NOT to do that, not to create any kind of separate terms and instead say "this is roleplaying" precisely because he knew what would happen otherwise.  His goal was for his games to pass undetected, like a tick under fur, so the blood could be safely sucked.
Creating the title storygames (something the Swine were forced to do in response to repeated counterattacks against their scheming) effectively surrendered that opportunity for subterfuge.

RPGPundit