Quote from: RPGPundit;669179Really? The GAME MASTER can just kill a player, not a die roll or a bad "move"?  The GM can just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies", without having to roll dice, do a "move" or anything else? He, and NOT THE DICE and NOT THE RULES is the ultimate arbiter of life and death?
Please, show me where it says that. Because it sure sounds like you're lying again.

It's an extreme example, but yes the GM can. Probably more easily than an older RPG TBH.

More specifically, if a GM in DW says that a rock is falling and the characters does not get out of the way, the the GM can do whatever consequence arises from that. Its called a Golden Opportunity and the GM can choose to make a Hard Move as a result, such as take 10000d10 damage. Admittedly, this is more commonly seen in an example where the PC does something like ignore a sword blow, but the same principle applies.

Quote from: RPGPundit;669179Really? The DW rulebook doesn't list every possible result of any "move" (the fundamental mechanic of the game) and state the results explicitly in such a way that, while sometimes involving PLAYER choice of a number of possible reality-manipulating options, gives the GM no choice about it?

No. DW contains moves for certain actions and provides the success/failure results based on the dice. Anything not covered by moves (a PC wants to craft a sword, for example) is left to the GM's discretion to adjudicate. Its no different from any RPG I own I that respect.

The GM can choose to create custom moves as suits the adventure but need not do so. There is even a section in the book on it.

As for GM Moves, they are so inherently flexible that they cover every possible GM action that I am aware of.

So, GM has no choice? No. In many ways, I find there is is greater flexibility and discretion for the GM in DW.

Quote from: soviet;669017You realise that just about every single game designer, indie or otherwise, is primarily a GM? That they wrote their games with the intention of then running them for their group?

You can't seriously believe that the Forge Swine have been conspiring against themselves?

In my experience, the Forge Swine identify themselves as "Game designers" over and above "dungeon masters".  There's no conflict when they're running things of course, because then they're just the double-billed "star"; of course "game designer" still takes precedence even there.

The problem they have is that they're quite convinced that while THEY know how to run games properly, they have no faith whatsoever that the "unwashed masses" of GMs and groups out there will actually be able to run their own affairs effectively. The entire Forge movement is based on the fundamental idea that almost all gamers have been brain damaged, and engaged in "incoherent" play of something that they don't actually enjoy, for decades. They are like any group of would-be intellectual elites, they have no faith whatsoever in anyone's capacity to govern themselves, and think that they and only they know what's best for everyone. The GM being the absolute authority in regular RPGs, its natural that the Storygames movement is thus obsessed with creating a new hobby (misappropriating the term "RPG" for it, of course) where the GM is utterly emasculated and reduced as much as possible to something akin to a monopoly-banker, with no actual power or control over the game (or at the very least, certainly not more than any other participant).  And since players aren't that hot either (and are only more "empowered" in Storygames as a means to disempower the GM), what they really want is to create an atmosphere where the Rules As Written cannot be questioned, ever; where it is implicit in the culture that the Game Designer, via the rules he has written which are perfect and "coherent" for the type of game in question with the type of specific "narrative themes" he wants to make people "address", will retain control of his vision, even if he personally doesn't know anyone involved.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669179No, the embarrassment is the way that Swine consistently try to undermine that dividing line, which is in fact quite clear, by trying to play at things that seem similar but aren't, or at crying foul over marginal cases. Or lying, again, like you just did above.
For example, I've frequently admitted that FATE has narrative control elements. What I've said (the Truth, as usual) is that these elements are non-essential to the core mechanic of the game. You can take them out and the game is still fully playable, meaning that FATE is an RPG with a few Story-swine elements thrown in, rather than a Storygame that has some facets reminiscent of an rpg (the way Dungeon World is).

I agree in regards to Fate, (though I still find it way too meta-gamey for my taste, the problem being that you are extending exceptional leeway to a game you like and playing a 'by the book game with games you admit to not having read, let alone played. DW does offer a lot of rules for GMs, even if one allows that these are merely a codidfication of what a G M would do typically. It is no more likely that a GM learning the ropes from playing Holmes Basic is going to come to the inevitable conclusion that all they really have to do is 'make crap up in an entertaining manner, and system choice is more aestheticthan anything. Nor do I find it likely that anyone who'd does GM long term won't seek out other rpgs and check out and compare how the systems work. This is part and parcel with being 'into rpgs enough to put all the work into being a GM. How many devoted gms do you know that own or have read only one game?Thus I don't perceive how DW's gming style is going to brainwash anyone into believing there are no other ways to approach GMing and the person will be stuck playing"wrong" for the rest of their lives.
And beyond that I can't see why providing a codified variation of what any typical traditional RPG of the last 30 years would just present as a bunch of charts and tables in almost any GM section is really that limiting. Unless you think the few things the. Rules don't cover is a loss of freedom...

QuoteReally? The GAME MASTER can just kill a player, not a die roll or a bad "move"?  The GM can just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies", without having to roll dice, do a "move" or anything else? He, and NOT THE DICE and NOT THE RULES is the ultimate arbiter of life and death?
Please, show me where it says that. Because it sure sounds like you're lying again.

...like that. You're arguing that the system doesn't expressedly support the GM arbitrarily killing off PC's on a whim? Frell, if the GM was that kind of person, I doubt following the intentions of the Rulebook is really going to ever be an issue. "Its not real street hockey if this here manual says I'm not allowed to wack people on the head with my stick"

But as pointed out above this actually is covered by the rules, so another reason that perhaps reading the game before making assertions about it might at the very least save some time. But more on that later...

QuoteReally? The DW rulebook doesn't list every possible result of any "move" (the fundamental mechanic of the game) and state the results explicitly in such a way that, while sometimes involving PLAYER choice of a number of possible reality-manipulating options, gives the GM no choice about it?
Because again, that contradicts everything I've read about Dungeon World, and that other people, including many of its fiercest fans and proponents, have been saying about it.
Are they all lying? Or are you?

Its unlikely anyone's lying. It may simply be that either they didn't understand the game or failed to convey that understanding to you.

QuoteTechnically, I didn't say that. I challenge the Swine to send me a review copy and I will review it (a challenge they will no doubt refuse to accept because they know, shit, we ALL know, what the truth is about DW!).  
But in fact yes, I've never physically held a copy of DW in my hand (I very much doubt there is a copy of it anywhere in this country).
So what?

I have read the Bhagavad Gita in the original sanskrit, but I know a lot of people who haven't and are still very well-versed in it; and I know plenty more who've never read it translated or otherwise, but have read enough about Hinduism to know what it is and what it isn't.
Neither I nor anyone alive has read the "Gospel of Q", but we can infer it existed and what it was generally about with a fair amount of certainty.
As it happens, I watched The Empire Strikes Back; but even someone who hasn't, were they to read over and over again from countless sources the pivotal plot event of that movie, from experts of all stripes and people who were both fans and detractors of Science Fiction or George Lucas or movies in general, they would pretty safely be able to say they know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, much less that the movie is a Sci-fi movie and not a historical drama. Only a complete moron would lack the wherewithal to claim that the only possible way someone could know these things would be if they sat in front of the screen and watched it themselves.

You see, there are a few of us in this human race who have the distinct advantage of something called Reason, by which we're capable of all kinds of wonders that defy your apparent primitivist limitations.

I'm afraid I find none of those arguments especially convincing. Not reading a work 'in its native language is a hell ofa lot different than "never physically seen a copy". And you're not talking about reasoning so much as inferènce. Its not that I doubt your intelligence per se, but when you're accusing posters of 'lying' to you, about a book they've read or a game they've played, that seems o me like an emotional response rather th,an one rooted in logic and that calls into question how much of your ability to simply infer from heresaywas impaired by your obvious hostility. Probably there from the foreknowledge you had of Apocalypse World, written as it were by one of the people you percieve of as your 'enemies'

QuoteThe magical-thinking idea you're expressing here that somehow because I haven't kissed your fucking holy book it means I can't possibly know enough about it from hundreds of fucking pages of threads like this one, threads on storygames and G+ and RPG.net, reviews, articles written for or against it; voluminous quotes directly from the book and examples of play. Fuck, at this point I could probably write a reasonable clone-simulacrum of the rulebook reverse engineered from the evidence.

I would absolutely love to see that, and if the rules werent available for free online in an ogl, I'd be impressed even.

Quote from: soviet;669025Thanks, yeah. I like storygames as well as traditional games and when I run a storygame for my traditional-roleplaying group they enjoy it a lot. They don't see it as a different hobby at all. That thought wouldn't even occur to them. They haven't read about GNS, they don't go on RPG discussion forums, they haven't been brainwashed or drunk any Kool-Aid. They're just regular 30-something gamers who enjoy a variety of different roleplaying games.

And of course, the vast majority of these will never play a Storygame. Unless, that is, Storygames utterly infiltrate the mainstream of the RPG hobby... like, say, by trying to pretend that Storygaming was the real Old-School style of play all along?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Skywalker;669181It's an extreme example, but yes the GM can. Probably more easily than an older RPG TBH.

More specifically, if a GM in DW says that a rock is falling and the characters does not get out of the way, the the GM can do whatever consequence arises from that. Its called a Golden Opportunity and the GM can choose to make a Hard Move as a result, such as take 10000d10 damage. Admittedly, this is more commonly seen in an example where the PC does something like ignore a sword blow, but the same principle applies.

No, that's not the same. What you're saying is that the GM can tell the player "if you don't choose to get out of the way, then a rock will fall on you".  Well and good, perhaps a greater degree of GM autonomy than in many other Storygames; but its not the same as a GM being able to say "a rock fell on you, and now you're dead".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669197No, that's not the same. What you're saying is that the GM can tell the player "if you don't choose to get out of the way, then a rock will fall on you".  Well and good, perhaps a greater degree of GM autonomy than in many other Storygames; but its not the same as a GM being able to say "a rock fell on you, and now you're dead".

I finding these counter arguments to be getting pretty bizarre TBH. More so as they seem to be great endorsements for DW

But, yes, in DW, the GM can say "a rock falls on you, take 100d10". It's suggested that such event should follow causation, but it's not enforced mechanically, just like it isn't in an RPG.

Also, a GM doing this dick move would face the same issues in an RPG as in DW.

The problem with this line of arging is that its tangential to the fact that players in DW don't actually play 'authors' to their characters in #ny way. Regardless as to how he DMs the game, the players are role-playing all the time. The rules don't interrupt this anymore than the average game of D&D, maybe less so. So if its a super-secret story game in stealth mode, what at some point the GM is supposed to get up and announce 'ha ha!You thought you were playing an old school RPG but really you were playing a storygame without knowing it!And now you're hooked! Baaahaaahaa! Score one for the destruction of traditional rpgs!" Is that the supr secret Move the author emails you once you gather enough GM XP?

Quote from: RPGPundit;668559. 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

Ah you mean in a story game you can ONLY die as a narrative device?

But I can enjoy having a *rpg* game where my PC has no goals, doesn't aim for success nor seeks to outcompete anyone else?

Is that right?

Quote from: RPGPundit;669194And of course, the vast majority of these will never play a Storygame. Unless, that is, Storygames utterly infiltrate the mainstream of the RPG hobby... like, say, by trying to pretend that Storygaming was the real Old-School style of play all along?

RPGPundit

I am not at all sure about any of this frankly.

I have read DW, I have read the guide to DW, I have played DW and I have run DW and the player states his intention, rolls the dice, the GM interprets it, and sometimes the GM then states what the opposition do, if not then the player states his intention.. and so on. As a ref I still have some choice in how to interpret the players's statement of intent, and as ref I have more choices in how to interpret the result of the player dice roll. As a ref I develop a 'dungeon' and stock it with opponents. The players have no narrative control or authorial voice other than "I try and do this.."

So whilst I am not at all sure about this whole rpg versus story game thing as a hard and fast divide, DW feels very much like my Traveller game in actual play.

But we'll probably not agree.

The difference is that the Pundit is saying the GM in a trad RPG is explicitly above the rules and can override them on the spot, declaring "you're dead", whereas in DW you are explicitly told the GM SHOULD use a move. It is not innocuous, but one the main mantras of "GMing" in DW: "Follow the Rules."

And your counter-argument is... to show a move the "GM" can use to do massive damage. *shakes head*

Quote from: Benoist;669256The difference is that the Pundit is saying the GM in a trad RPG is explicitly above the rules and can override them on the spot, declaring "you're dead", whereas in DW you are explicitly told the GM SHOULD use a move. It is not innocuous, but one the main mantras of "GMing" in DW: "Follow the Rules."

And your counter-argument is... to show a move the "GM" can use to do massive damage. *shakes head*

Not to mention that in the descriptions of how the moves work (usually two or three) most of the time one of the descriptions of the moves has the player correct the GM pointing out that he can't do that move.

Yet this is supposedly more flexible and gives more freedom then saying the GM is the final and ultimate arbiter of the rules.  

It was bullshit when JKim tried to offer up the restraints of a Living Campaign tournament module vs. the freedom of a convention one-shot as "proof" that DW gave the GM more power and flexibility and it's bullshit here.

AW and DW are not "anything goes" games.  The whole purpose of the moves is FOCUS.  Focus on the themes and tropes of the medium in order to create a collaborative fiction(remember RPGs creates fiction and story) while removing focus on the "stakes and raises" minigame of Conflict Resolution.  The constraint of the moves gives narrative control to the players while trying to not impede IC immersion as much as other games do.

In other words, it's specifically trying NOT to be the type of Story-Game, where the game is literally about who controls the Story.

At the same time, it's specifically trying NOT to be a immersive RPG, because it gives the players mechanics to narratively control their character as a player.  That narrative layer is omnipresent and fundamental to the rules and the design.

That the game works for narrative players, and works for roleplayers who don't mind narrative control is testament to the design.  That genre-based focus works.

However, despite the fact that you like it or love it, despite the fact that the narrative aspects don't bother you, despite the fact that you are capable of roleplaying and having fun with the game - it does indeed contain player-facing narrative control mechanics that allow decisions outside the character.

Does that make it a Storygame? Sorry Pundit, but No.  Your definition of Storygame is outdated.

Does that make it not an RPG?  Obviously depends upon your definition, but for me, No, it is a type of RPG, with RPG in this case having as broad a definition as "Motion Picture" or "Automobile".

So what is it?  A Narrative RPG. A Hybrid RPG. It's really something new.  It's definitely not a traditional RPG by any definition that isn't deliberately misapplied.  It's totally Modern design, with the focus on seeing roleplaying as a way to interactively storytell.

It's what WW said they were doing, but provided no real mechanical support for.  It's interactive storytelling through roleplaying.

I agree that since we're fundamentally speaking of a spectrum people will identify different components of games to categorize them. Personally, I consider the primary purpose of the game to be a critical component helping me to understand what the game is designed to achieve.

A game like O/AD&D is specifically designed in order to emulate a functioning campaign milieu which then the players' characters will explore. James Bond 007 is specifically designed to emulate the world of the James Bond. A game like RuneQuest is designed to emulate a world where magic and myth are part of its multiple cultural fabrics. A game like Warhammer has a purpose to emulate a world, its own universe made of Skaven and Chaos worshippers and pseudo-late-Middle-Ages Europe trappings. A game like Call of Cthulhu emulates a world where the Mythos exists and is a positive force moving behind the scenes. Vampire runs its mouth with "storytelling", but what its rules and game components actually accomplish is emulating a world where vampires actually exist, and emulate the City by Night thereof (this is this schizophrenic design Ron Edwards was confronting when he talked about people playing WW games being brain-damaged). All these are role playing games.

Dungeon World has a purpose to build a collaborative narrative. There is no actual world that is being emulated at all, its components only existing as narrative devices to serve the primary purpose of the game: to tell an entertaining story, "find out what happens next", to use the jargon of the game. The dungeon for instance does not positively exist in an emulated world, since vast areas are purposefully left blank in order to serve the narrative first, to be able to fill in those blanks in the most entertaining and drama-oriented manner possible. The purpose of "Fronts" is contained in the name: to serve as fronts, as antagonists in the narrative being opposed against the protagonists and producing drama; and only matter to the game as such. These elements have a sole purpose to serve as decor, as color, as tools serving and being supplanted by the overriding needs of the narrative. Building a story/narrative together is the primary purpose of the game. Hence, not a role playing game, to me.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;669107Quote from AD&D1:

"[The assassin] can then use poisons at full normal effect and have the following options as well:
- choose to assassinate by an instantaneous poison
- elect to use a slow acting poison which will not begin to affect the
- elect to use a poison which gradually builds up after repeated doses
victim for 1-4 hours after ingestion and kills 1-lodaysofter the final dose"

Fuck. Looks like AD&D is a story game.

Dungeon master: "The hobgoblin is thirty feet away."
Player running a fighter: "I could fire my crossbow or throw my hand axe at it, or draw my sword and charge . . . "
Justin: "Story game!"

:duh:

Quote from: Black Vulmea;669286Dungeon master: "The hobgoblin is thirty feet away."
Player running a fighter: "I could fire my crossbow or throw my hand axe at it, or draw my sword and charge . . . "
Justin: "Story game!"

:duh:

Yeah I know, he's in rare form this week.