Quote from: Skywalker;669346Well said. I agree with this.

As I mentioned above, I think there needs to be more examination of the modern design ethic of RPGs more broadly and not just in terms of the narrative rules. In many ways, the same criticisms laid against D&D4e's modern design approach to its tactical rules is the same as Dungeon World's modern design approach to its narrative rules.

As in, that 4e's design was heavily influenced by some of its creators having utterly bought into Edwards' GNS theory and the bullshit notion that all previous editions were "incoherent" brain-damage-inducing games and that all D&D should be good for is "Gamist" play?  And that said approach then caused D&D to lose 2/3rds of its market share, precisely as I predicted?

Yeah, I wonder why anyone would criticize that?

Well, I can see how the Story Swine wouldn't criticize it, what with them being in a win-win situation from the moment they got fellow travelers in charge of D&D; in the miraculous event of 4e having been a success, they could have taken all the ideological credit, and in the more likely event (indeed, as it turned out) of this move crippling D&D's success and popularity because crippling D&D was one of their goals from the start.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TristramEvans;669347As for your last point about removing the moves but it being a different game, this seems to contradict pundit's definition of story games as applied to Fate.

Can you completely remove all Moves from DW without having to create some other mechanic to take its place?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669416Can you completely remove all Moves from DW without having to create some other mechanic to take its place?

RPGPundit

Yes, it's called World of Dungeons.

Quote from: jhkim;669390Collaborative storytelling in traditional RPGs is based on a few simple principles:

1) The personalities, goals, and actions of the main characters are the key and center of every story.  

2) The players set up their personalities, goals, and actions.  

3) The GM responds to what the players give her by creating events and NPCs tailored to those.  

4) The players respond by how their characters grow and change.  

5) The GM changes plans based on what the players do.

All of these things are in Doug Niles' tips on designing adventures, plot hooks and the like in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.
I know some hated those but I thought they were great mainly because I had never seen that sort of thing before. I am sure there were Dragon articles that referenced similar themes previously but where I lived Dragon magazines were rarer than hen's teeth in the mid 80s.

Quote from: Kanye Westeros;669417Yes, it's called World of Dungeons.

I have heard the title but know very little about it.  I understand its some kind of DW mod; but wouldn't that imply it does have some sort of substitute mechanic to replace the absence of moves?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;669425I have heard the title but know very little about it.  I understand its some kind of DW mod; but wouldn't that imply it does have some sort of substitute mechanic to replace the absence of moves?

RPGPundit

No. Moves are completely removed from the game. I'm not sure if you would say this is a replacement but it does have class benefits i.e Tough (+2 amour) for fighters.

It does also have a random table stand in called the Die of Fate where you roll 1d6 when you're not sure which direction to go. I use it for wandering monsters, weather obstacles etc when I run it.

I don't like moves, which means it's perfect for me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;669416Can you completely remove all Moves from DW without having to create some other mechanic to take its place?

If Moves allowed you to do everything you could do as a GM of an RPG, with the same amount of discretion and flexibility, would you still object to the those "Moves"?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669410On the second part: there could be ideas from a player used, but they're only in subject to GM agreement so the world is his entirely. A PCs' background even is to an extent subject to GM veto, and is likely to have been influenced by the GM's world; the expression of it in the campaign is wholly up to the GM (e.g. NPCs from a characters background may or may not appear). I suppose likewise whether a character's decisions have any effect is ultimately up to the GM.

Sure.  As I said, the world outside the main characters is the province of the GM.  However, I was talking about story, not world.  The players have direct control over their character's personality, dialogue, and decisions - which is the core of story.  

As a simple exercise - take any story, and then for the 3-4 lead characters, black out every line of dialogue, every thought narration, every description of attempted action.  You can leave in the effects of their actions, parts of their backstory external to them, and so forth.  

What remains is vastly less than what you started with, and is not a story at all.  The stuff that remains is generally important (unless it is My Dinner With Andre, certain romances, or a few others), but it is far from the whole of the story.

Quote from: jhkim;669433Sure.  As I said, the world outside the main characters is the province of the GM.  However, I was talking about story, not world.  The players have direct control over their character's personality, dialogue, and decisions - which is the core of story.  

As a simple exercise - take any story, and then for the 3-4 lead characters, black out every line of dialogue, every thought narration, every description of attempted action.  You can leave in the effects of their actions, parts of their backstory external to them, and so forth.  

What remains is vastly less than what you started with, and is not a story at all.  The stuff that remains is generally important (unless it is My Dinner With Andre, certain romances, or a few others), but it is far from the whole of the story.

Wandering into domains now of which I mostly don't care to grapple with (very confusing) but I would say that a novel or whatever has to have some sort of people in it. A more applicable test is to take out the characters that are there, rewrite it with different characters, and see how much changes. A bit like how an adventure module would change if you put different adventurers though it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;669392In the 80s we used to call railroading GMs "Thatchers". This sometimes extended to modules, for example I knew alot of my friends into AD&D considered the Dragonlance modules 'Thatcher campaigns'.

A little Thatcherist railroading is nothing compared to DSA's sightseeing tours of the moving diorama of Aventuria.

Quote from: RPGPundit;669416Can you completely remove all Moves from DW without having to create some other mechanic to take its place?

Yes, you can. If you stripped all the player moves from DW, you would be left with the core dice mechanic of roll 2d6 + Attribute; 10+ success, 7-9 success with cost, 6- failure. The player moves just provide concrete mechanical effects for the dice roll in different circumstances (just like in D&D). GM moves could easily just become "the GM does stuff", as that is in effect what they are now. It is a functional and recognisable, if very light, RPG as World of Dungeon shows.

As a comparison, this is the same as removing all the rules from D&D3e except roll 1d20 + Attribute v DC; success if greater than or equal DC, failure if less than DC. This includes removing rules for levelling up, class abilities, healing, skills, spells, magic items. You still have an RPG, but one which relies on rulings.

Taking a less extreme example, you could remove the concept of Moves, replace them more familiar sounding like class abilities, levelling up, spells, combat, skills for the most part, and GM moves could just become "the GM does stuff". You would end up with something undeniable an RPG.

The use of the Moves approach is not a story-gaming element. They are a product of modern RPG design, in that they have a high level of OOC engagement by trying to make the players' interaction with the rules themselves fun (though not necessarily granting narrative power). This is said so in DW's tag line. That may be a source of criticism or preference in its own regard, but treating DW as a story-game and not an RPG on that basis is causing the inconsistency complained of.

The player narrative elements in DW that might be argued as making it a story-game are very light, almost non-existent. CRK used the example of the abtraction of ammo as a possible example. However, on the whole, players have less narrative power (as distinct from OOC engagement resulting from its modern design) in DW than in a game such as Fate, and IME it is not far from almost that they have in D&D.

QuoteCRK used the example of the abtraction of ammo as a possible example.

We were citing abstract money systems in rpgs just the other day, and it was seen as a perfectly normal (aka non storygame) feat. I cant see how ammo abstraction is any different from that.

Quote from: silva;669539We were citing abstract money systems in rpgs just the other day, and it was seen as a perfectly normal (aka non storygame) feat. I cant see how ammo abstraction is any different from that.

Yep, this was exactly my thought.

Quote from: silva;669539We were citing abstract money systems in rpgs just the other day, and it was seen as a perfectly normal (aka non storygame) feat. I cant see how ammo abstraction is any different from that.

I agree. It is definitely an OOC mechanic but there are arguments for it also having some form of "narrative power" based around the choice inside the abstraction.

FWIW I think abstraction itself necessitates OOC interaction, and is one reason why I say that OOC engagement has been around since the inception of RPGs. But that may be better for another thread

I agree with you there, Sky. I think its impossible not to have OOC interaction/engagement on a "lets pretend" game, be it videogames, boardgames or whatever.