Quote from: Benoist;675313The Rules Cyclopedia is based on Mentzer's D&D, not Gygax's.

In this particular instance, the distinction does matter.

It also matters in that it was written back when "story" in an RPG book was just meant to mean "plot", and had not yet been hijacked into either "we're making high art!" (WW) or "the whole point of the game is to engage in a narrative exercise addressing a theme, the actual world or immersion doesn't matter" (storygames).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RandallS;674729Side Note: The whole "moves" thing strikes me as an extra layer of busywork for the GM and players. Instead of just saying what they want to try to do, they have to figure out which "move" it falls under.

It's really no different than determining what skill check a given action requires or if a particular attack should use the grapple rules or not. The moves are the mechanics of the game: When you need to resolve something with the mechanics, you figure out what mechanic you should be using and then you use it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;674748From a volley 7-9, 1 ammo represents several arrows though.

I'm fascinated by the number of people on this site who simply cannot grok abstract bookkeeping mechanics.

Quote from: RandallS;674777This is where one of the places where the game and I disconnect. The "fiction" doesn't dictate anything in my games.

Really? We're having this moronic discussion again? I can't wait to see how many people crawl out of the woodwork to tell us about all the nonfictional dragons in their fantasy campaigns this time.

Quote from: sage;675132I'm not sure we have any zeal to "breakthrough" to anybody. Like I've said a few times, DW was first a game we wanted to play. It only went to other people because there was demand.

Remember: You're talking to a guy with tinfoil on his head. The more you deny it, the more you're only confirming your plans to stage a bloody revolution at GenCon. He literally thinks there's a conspiracy of storygamers whose primary concern is not creating games they enjoy playing, but rather to engineer the destruction of roleplaying games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675179Let's cut the bullshit here, the reason the word "fiction" was used was because...

... "fiction first" is alliterative.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;675347I'm fascinated by the number of people on this site who simply cannot grok abstract bookkeeping mechanics.

Fuck you. You don't seem to get it so I'll say it again: if one unit of ammo represents several arrows, and a miss can expend one unit or not depending on what the GM feels like, then the GM is picking how many arrows the player is firing.
Explain again how this isn't an in-character decision being made by the GM instead. And spare me the passive-aggressive 'I'm so smart' bullshit, asshole.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675349Fuck you. You don't seem to get it so I'll say it again: if one unit of ammo represents several arrows, and a miss can expend one unit or not depending on what the GM feels like, then the GM is picking how many arrows the player is firing.
Explain again how this isn't an in-character decision being made by the GM instead. And spare me the passive-aggressive 'I'm so smart' bullshit, asshole.

One unit of arrows doesn't represent several arrows. It represents one unit of arrows. That might be one arrow, or several, or all your arrows if you only have one unit. Since you can keep shooting as long as you have at least one unit, it really just represents the amount of times you can lose units before you can't fire any more.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675349Fuck you. You don't seem to get it so
Explain again how this isn't an in-character decision being made by the GM instead.

QuoteVolley
When you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex. ✴On a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage. ✴On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage):
   

• You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM
•    You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
•    You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one

Because the GM doesn't choose, the player does. The first option could be worded better, but the player gets to choose between a danger, less damage, or to use extra ammo.

I'm not aware of any edition of D&D where a basic melee attack represents exactly one blow according to RAW. Assuming each bow shot is exactly one arrow strikes me as an odd assumption, either in or about the rules.

Quote from: mllaneza;675352Because the GM doesn't choose, the player does. The first option could be worded better, but the player gets to choose between a danger, less damage, or to use extra ammo.

I'm not aware of any edition of D&D where a basic melee attack represents exactly one blow according to RAW. Assuming each bow shot is exactly one arrow strikes me as an odd assumption, either in or about the rules.

I'm not talking about the case on a hit with complications, I'm talking about the case on a miss; where the player has rolled a total of 6 or less. In this instance the GM has the right to deduct an ammo unit as a consequence using their own moves, or not, as I think Skywalker pointed out upthread.

EDIT to Add:

Quote from: Noclue;675351One unit of arrows doesn't represent several arrows. It represents one unit of arrows. That might be one arrow, or several, or all your arrows if you only have one unit. Since you can keep shooting as long as you have at least one unit, it really just represents the amount of times you can lose units before you can't fire any more.

And this still boils down to, 'you run out of arrows when the GM feels like it.'

Quote from: RPGPundit;675316Exactly. And ironic, because DW doesn't actually have narrative mechanics.  Seriously, its an RPG in storygame-drag; and while I'm sure the point was to try to bring the RPG gamers into storygames, it seems like what its more likely to accomplish is to fool storygamers into thinking that they're playing a storygame when they play DW, and that DW is a really successful "storygame" (and thus proof they're winning) when actually its a mildly-successful RPG (and thus proof they're done).

So, these storygamers can't read?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675354I'm not talking about the case on a hit with complications, I'm talking about the case on a miss; where the player has rolled a total of 6 or less. In this instance the GM has the right to deduct an ammo unit as a consequence using their own moves, or not, as I think Skywalker pointed out upthread.

EDIT to Add:

And this still boils down to, 'you run out of arrows when the GM feels like it.'

Sure. The GM has a move "Take away their stuff." He can take your entire quiver away with that if he wants. He isn't limited to just one unit. The GM in Dungeon World has quite a bit of power when it comes to gear. He can break your armor, dull your swords, take your arrows, steal your gold.

Not sure where this is going. He's still not making your choices for you.

Edit: That's actually the Apocalypse World wording above. In DW it's "Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment."

Quote from: Noclue;675357Sure. The GM has a move "Take away their stuff." He can take your entire quiver away with that if he wants. He isn't limited to just one unit. The GM in Dungeon World has quite a bit of power when it comes to gear. He can break your armor, dull your swords, take your arrows, steal your gold.

Not sure where this is going. He's still not making your choices for you.

And any GM that can make rocks fall can arbitrarily empty anyone's quiver. My advice to the players is, don't miss. if you do, take your XP and hope for mercy.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;675349

QuoteI'm fascinated by the number of people on this site who simply cannot grok abstract bookkeeping mechanics.

Fuck you. You don't seem to get it so I'll say it again: if one unit of ammo represents several arrows...

Stop there. You are still insisting on treating the abstract ammo mechanic as if it were a concrete one. You think that if you had to shoot a half dozen times over here to make the ammo counter tick down one notch, then each notch must equal a half dozen arrows.

And that's a fundamental misunderstanding of a mechanic which exists solely for the purpose of NOT doing what you're trying to do.

Sorry if that upsets you, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Dungeon World: More Abstract Than Pollock.

Let's see, ammo, rations, and encumbrance are all much more abstract than D&D. HP, damage, armor, and weapons are about even. World building is abstract, but present in some very useful ways for running a living world.

http://book.dwgazetteer.com/the_world.html

I don't know if it's to Pollack levels, but it is definitely modern and rules-light.

It would be interesting to see what Pundit makes of Apocalypse World.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675316Exactly. And ironic, because DW doesn't actually have narrative mechanics.  Seriously, its an RPG in storygame-drag; and while I'm sure the point was to try to bring the RPG gamers into storygames, it seems like what its more likely to accomplish is to fool storygamers into thinking that they're playing a storygame when they play DW, and that DW is a really successful "storygame" (and thus proof they're winning) when actually its a mildly-successful RPG (and thus proof they're done).

I don't know if anyone is being fooled, but I agree with you that DW doesn't have narrative mechanics.  (I had incompletely argued earlier that, say, choosing to fire several arrows to hit is neither out-of-character nor narrative.)  

More importantly - when you say that DW is actually an RPG - do you think that discussion of it should be in the RPG forum instead of the Other Games forum?

Quote from: jhkim;675509More importantly - when you say that DW is actually an RPG - do you think that discussion of it should be in the RPG forum instead of the Other Games forum?

He's already said so in this thread, mate. There's zero point in moving this one over given the baggage it contains.