So I just got this today (along with Delving Deeper), and I have to ask: this this an RPG? Reading through it, almost seems like an exercise in self-psychoanalysis. Not trying to be disparaging here, but I cannot figure out WTF is going on with this thing.
Short answer yes, with the caveat that it alters the DM's role or the system basically places training wheels on the DM so that instead of using their creativity & judgement to run a game they're basically reduced to the system's custodian
Here on the rpg site however, Pundit has declared it 'not an rpg' , though I've gotten the impression that it's because it's derived from another game that was written by someone who is friends with one of the pundit's arch-foes & he's never actually read/ played the game.
I thought there were enough good ideas there that I'll be using many of them if I ever run D&D again, but I consider myself a competent enough GM that I wouldn't need the system's straight jacket
Quote from: Brad;667330So I just got this today (along with Delving Deeper), and I have to ask: this this an RPG? Reading through it, almost seems like an exercise in self-psychoanalysis. Not trying to be disparaging here, but I cannot figure out WTF is going on with this thing.
What do you mean by "an exercise in self-psychoanalysis"? Do you have quotes to share?
Quote from: Benoist;667333What do you mean by "an exercise in self-psychoanalysis"? Do you have quotes to share?
"There is no quicker way to ruin the consistency of Dungeon World than to tell the players what you're making. Your moves are prompts to you, not things you say directly."
Seriously? That sounds like an undergraduate psychology textbook. It's an overly complicated, and essentially meaningless way, to tell the GM something they should already know. I figured I was wasting my money on this thing, but at least I'm not going to hate it without reason.
Dungeon World gives explicit advice on a lot of stuff that an experienced GM has learnt. You will find yourself slapping your head and saying: "of course, I always do that" quite a bit.
I have seen a number of old hat GMs being offended by this approach, but any GM worth their salt will find it just as easy to read the advice appropriately, as Tristam Evans says. On the positive side, this approach makes it an excellent RPG for new GMs IME.
Quote from: TristramEvans;667331Short answer yes..
Here on the rpg site however, Pundit has declared it 'not an rpg' , though I've gotten the impression that it's because it's derived from another game that was written by someone who is friends with one of the pundit's arch-foes & he's never actually read/ played the game.
This.
Yeah, after reading about half the book, I can safely say it's not an RPG, at least not how I typically understand one to be. In the first thirty pages, "the fiction" must appear at least twice per paragraph. This is an exercise in collaborative story telling, not really a game. Some of the ideas are actually pretty good (abstracting combat, how skills are handled), but the GM seems neutered to the point that they're nothing more than an adversarial player of sorts, and without a true referee I can't consider this an RPG. It's only a game in the loosest sense, considering the goal is not to overcome obstacles, but only to have obstacles out in front of the characters and see what happens. Failure is just as valuable as success if it brings about something interesting. Again, that's a fine goal for a novel, but pretty awful for a game.
I might steal some of the mechanics, so at least it's not a total waste of money.
Quote from: Brad;667352"There is no quicker way to ruin the consistency of Dungeon World than to tell the players what you're making. Your moves are prompts to you, not things you say directly."
Seriously? That sounds like an undergraduate psychology textbook.
I'm fairly certain you don't actually know what the word "psychology" actually means.
I am completely certain that you're a troll.
And it is laughably certain that claiming a game that says "don't tell your players that you're rolling on a random monster table, just have the orcs show up" is therefore not a roleplaying game is the most ludicrous thing I've read this month.
Justin, when you run AW/DW do you try to use the MC moves strictly as suggested by the book ? Or you take it only as loose GMing advice ?
I ask because when I began running AW I took it as loose advice, but now Im trying to follow it strictly. Im finding it difficult, but rewarding in a interesting way - its almost as the MC is playing his own little game in paralell to the players.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;667413I'm fairly certain you don't actually know what the word "psychology" actually means.
I am completely certain that you're a troll.
And it is laughably certain that claiming a game that says "don't tell your players that you're rolling on a random monster table, just have the orcs show up" is therefore not a roleplaying game is the most ludicrous thing I've read this month.
You forgot to link to your blog where you explain what the term psychology means.
Quote from: Brad;667407Yeah, after reading about half the book, I can safely say it's not an RPG, at least not how I typically understand one to be. In the first thirty pages, "the fiction" must appear at least twice per paragraph. This is an exercise in collaborative story telling, not really a game. Some of the ideas are actually pretty good (abstracting combat, how skills are handled), but the GM seems neutered to the point that they're nothing more than an adversarial player of sorts, and without a true referee I can't consider this an RPG. It's only a game in the loosest sense, considering the goal is not to overcome obstacles, but only to have obstacles out in front of the characters and see what happens. Failure is just as valuable as success if it brings about something interesting. Again, that's a fine goal for a novel, but pretty awful for a game.
I might steal some of the mechanics, so at least it's not a total waste of money.
Indeed.
Unfortunately the latest tactic of SG fans is to then respond by pointing to the handful of bits that still actually do look like a traditional game or at least have the chrome of one, and screech about how dare you suggest it is anything but, accuse you of some nebulous charge of partisanship, and go round and round with circular logic for 10 and a half pages of thread.
Then someone gets banned, a thread gets locked, the SG fans stage a martyrdom in the admin forum, start making Godwins left and right or getting indignant that no one else thinks child rape is funny or something, that gets locked too, and then another thread like this gets started once more.
Welcome to the circle of suck.
Quote from: Rincewind1;667463You forgot to link to your blog where you explain what the term psychology means.
:rotfl:
Quote from: Rincewind1;667463You forgot to link to your blog where you explain what the term psychology means.
Now THAT was funny.
:hatsoff:
Quote from: Justin Alexander;667413I'm fairly certain you don't actually know what the word "psychology" actually means.
I am completely certain that you're a troll.
And it is laughably certain that claiming a game that says "don't tell your players that you're rolling on a random monster table, just have the orcs show up" is therefore not a roleplaying game is the most ludicrous thing I've read this month.
I didn't make such a claim. I'm laughably certain you are illiterate and overreacting due to my calling Dungeon World a non-RPG. Thanks!
The Internet: Where everyone reads that they cannot read.
Brad, do you realize that, by your arguments, Vampire and, in fact, any other WoD game should not be considered RPGs, don't you ? Vampire even has a system called "storyteller" in place.
Quote from: silva;667548Brad, do you realize that, by your arguments, Vampire and, in fact, any other WoD game should not be considered RPGs, don’t you ? Vampire even has a system called “storyteller” in place.
Vampire isn't a storyteller game in the same sense as Dungeon World because there exists a GM who isn't collaborating with the players and instead acts as a referee. Just like Ars Magica has a "troupe method" of play, yet retains a ref to adjudicate conflict.
Still, if you want to say Vampire isn't an RPG using my definition, that's fine. There's a good argument that it's not. What's your point? Axis & Allies isn't an RPG and I played the shit out of that because it was fun. Some people think Vampire is fun, some people think Dungeon World is fun. But that doesn't mean Dungeon World is an RPG. Again, does it matter?
It DOES matter when you're trying to categorize games, of course. And my analysis leads me to believe Dungeon World isn't even a real game, but an exercise in collaborative narration. Which is FINE, if you like that sort of thing. It is an activity, a pastime, an activity to share between a group of friends, but if you're creating "the fiction", you are really not playing a game in the conventional sense.
To use a more concrete example, when watching an improv group, there's a story that unfolds, typically with input from the audience. The goal is to create an interesting scenario for entertainment purposes. There might even be a moderator. It is not an RPG, though, nor is it a game. It is improv theatre. Dungeon World is exactly like an improv group because the goal is not to overcome obstacles, but to arrive at a story, shared and produced mutually.
Why is calling Dungeon World a non-RPG such a horrid thing? Because you like it? You can like improv, that doesn't mean you're an actor if you sit in the audience. Just like engaging in a Dungeon World "game" doesn't mean you're playing an RPG. Ultimately, if you're entertained, Dungeon World succeeds. But to reiterate, it's not an RPG.
Brad, having not read entirely, nor played, Dungeon World, I cant argue about it. But having played and read (in its entirety) Apocalypse World, I can guarantee you that every criteria you chose for rpgs - GM as a referee, players "playing a game", etc - are pretty much there. So, Apocalypse World is an rpg by your very criteria.
And the irony is that it produces a kind of player-driven gameplay that makes the vast majority of other rpgs out there look like (GM)story-oriented games. In other words, one can call "story-game" a rpg where the GM pre-plans a story and guides the players by the nose from point A to point B to C.
Or, 90% of the gaming modules out there. Shoulnt we call those the real "storygames" ? ;)
Quote from: Brad;667551Vampire isn't a storyteller game in the same sense as Dungeon World because there exists a GM who isn't collaborating with the players and instead acts as a referee. Just like Ars Magica has a "troupe method" of play, yet retains a ref to adjudicate conflict.
Well... Especially the nWoD does stress the collaborative aspect fairly heavily. For example:
"Everyone involved in the game participates in telling a group story -- the players create and act out the roles of their characters, and the Storyteller creates and reveals the plot, introducing allies and antagonists with which the players' characters interact. The players' choices throughout the course of the Storytelling experience alter the plot. The Storyteller's job isn't to defend his story from any attempt to change it, but to help create the story as events unfold, reacting to the players' choices and weaving them into a greater whole, introducing secondary characters and exotic settings." (From
The World of Darkness, page 22.)
"Storytelling isn't about standing before an audience and reciting memorized lines. It's a shared experience in which every player is involved in creating the story as it unfolds. Unlike interactive computer games, there is no prewritten script -- players don't just stumble along triggering occasional video playbacks. They create events as they go, in competitive cooperation with the Storyteller. The only limit is your imagination. This has been said many times before about many different media, but roleplaying is the truest example of it. Since Storytelling takes place in a collaborative imagined space, uninhibited by the limits of screen pixel count or broadband connection speed, anything can happen as long as it's agreed upon by the players and Storyteller. There are certainly some rules, but they're intended to aid consistency and believability. They can always be thrown out if the Storyteller thinks they impede the actual story." (From
The World of Darkness, page 189.)
Well put, Yann.
So I think its fair that, from now on, we call Vampire a storygame too. ;)
Quote from: silva;667556Brad, having not read entirely, nor played, Dungeon World, I cant argue about it. But having played and read (in its entirety) Apocalypse World, I can guarantee you that every criteria you chose for rpgs - GM as a referee, players "playing a game", etc - are pretty much there. So, Apocalypse World is an rpg by your very criteria.
And the irony is that it produces a kind of player-driven gameplay that makes the vast majority of other rpgs out there look like (GM)story-oriented games. In other words, one can call "story-game" a rpg where the GM pre-plans a story and guides the players by the nose from point A to point B to C.
Or, 90% of the gaming modules out there. Shoulnt we call those the real "storygames" ? ;)
I completely understand the desire to not have games you like caregorized as non-rpgs, i dont find arguments that these games are not or cannot be rpgs, all that compelling personally. But when you blatantly try to inverse the disussion into narrative rpgs being the real rpgs and traditional rpgs bing the real story games, it is very hard to take you seriously as a poster.
Quote from: silva;667574Well put, Yann.
So I think its fair that, from now on, we call Vampire a storygame too. ;)
I'm cool with that. If those quotes are legit then the intended purpose of the game per the designers is creating collaborative fiction.
Storygame works great for that.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;667587I'm cool with that. If those quotes are legit then the intended purpose of the game per the designers is creating collaborative fiction.
Storygame works great for that.
Yes, the quote is legit. In fact, people have been playing RPGs for a lot of goals different than "overcoming obstacles" basically since RPGs first appeared. For example, Glenn Blacow in 1980 wrote about how games could be divided up into four aspects: power gaming, war gaming, roleplaying, and storytelling. He defined the "role-playing" aspect as being interested in one's character personality and life, not necessarily in trying to overcome obstacles.
Whatever the exact terminology, though, the point is that people play RPGs for different reasons - and always have. Story has often been one of those reasons from early on. James Bond 007, Star Wars D6, and others also emphasize story in their text about what playing an RPG is about.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;667587I'm cool with that. If those quotes are legit then the intended purpose of the game per the designers is creating collaborative fiction.
Storygame works great for that.
That's why WW games are such shitty story games, and why Ron Edwards talked about WW gamers as brain-damaged because they couldn't understand "story", and that there was a need for games that *actually* did story "well", according to his own criteria. Which spawned a new type of game, not role playing games, but story games.
So in fact, Ron's problem with WW games is that there are traditional RPGs pretending to have an aim at "storytelling" and do it piss poorly, because they are, in fact, traditional RPGs. Like Vampire. Or Star Wars d6. Or James Bond 007.
QED.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;667587If those quotes are legit then the intended purpose of the game per the designers is creating collaborative fiction.
That's essentially the same attitude which the White Wolf games have always taken, at least as far as the GM advice from the books goes. However, it hasn't made them fundamentally different from, say,
D&D as far as the actual mechanics are concerned.
Note, though, that the latest rules update (published in
The God-Machine Chronicle earlier this year but also available as a free PDF download) phrases for instance character advancement in a slightly different fashion than before:
"Throughout the game, Aspirations, Conditions, and certain other criteria allow you to 'take a Beat.' A Beat, in dramatic terms, is time enough for the audience to recognize a plot point or a change for a character. For our purposes, think of it as a unit of drama. Once you've taken five Beats, you gain an Experience."Aspirations are in-character goals which award Beats when achieved, and Conditions are mostly temporary status effects which award Beats once resolved. But another way of earning those Beats is choosing to turn your PC's regular failure in some action into a dramatic failure.
Quote from: jhkim;667596James Bond 007, Star Wars D6, and others also emphasize story in their text about what playing an RPG is about.
James Bond and Star Wars are still RPGs. I know this for a fact as I own both games, and have played both plenty of times. Using your logic, MERP is a story game because it's about stuff that happens in Middle Earth. Base D&D is a story game because it concerns things that happen in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.
Let's not get ridiculous and try to divorce the setting from an RPG; that doesn't even fly for most wargames. SW d6 is firmly an RPG because the goal of the game is to beat the Empire. If the goal was to "see what happens to Rebels when put into strange and dangerous situations", with no emphasis on success, it'd be a story game. At least from how I understand the differentiation.
RE: all this nWoD stuff, I have no experience with it as all the WW games I own are older; Vampire Dark Ages and Changeling. Changeling itself could be called a story game, I suppose. I'm still not entirely sure about it.
Quote from: Brad;667551Vampire isn't a storyteller game in the same sense as Dungeon World because there exists a GM who isn't collaborating with the players and instead acts as a referee. Just like Ars Magica has a "troupe method" of play, yet retains a ref to adjudicate conflict.
What led you to the belief DW doesnt have a GM?
Quote from: TristramEvans;667605What led you to the belief DW doesnt have a GM?
"isn't collaborating" is the key phrase in that sentence.
To clarify yet again, Dungeon World's GM isn't as distinct as a GM in a conventional RPG.
Quote from: Brad;667602James Bond and Star Wars are still RPGs. I know this for a fact as I own both games, and have played both plenty of times. Using your logic, MERP is a story game because it's about stuff that happens in Middle Earth. Base D&D is a story game because it concerns things that happen in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.
Let's not get ridiculous and try to divorce the setting from an RPG; that doesn't even fly for most wargames. SW d6 is firmly an RPG because the goal of the game is to beat the Empire. If the goal was to "see what happens to Rebels when put into strange and dangerous situations", with no emphasis on success, it'd be a story game. At least from how I understand the differentiation.
I don't have quotes on hand, but if you read the manuals for James Bond 007 or Star Wars, the material about story comes across very clearly. (See below for quotes from GURPS and Hero.)
Regarding the Star Wars setting, I don't see how that differentiates. Within a Star Wars story game - the game will most likely still be about the characters struggling against the Empire and possibly winning or not. That tension is one of the things that makes for an interesting story.
The emphasis on story is in a whole lot of RPGs across the spectrum. For example, below are some quotes from GURPS (3rd ed) and Hero System (5th ed).
Quote from: GURPSThus, good roleplaying teaches cooperation among the players, and broadens their viewpoints. But it's not purely educational. It's also one of the most creative possible entertainments. The major difference between roleplaying and other types of entertainment is this: Most entertainment is passive. The audience just sits and watches, without taking part in the creative process.
But in roleplaying, the "audience" joins in the creation. While the GM is the chief storyteller, the players are responsible for creating their own characters. And if they want something to happen in the story, they make it happen, because they're in the story.
So, while other types of media are mass-produced to please the widest possible audience, each roleplaying adventure is an individual gem, crafted by the people who take part in it. The GM (or the original adventure author) provides the raw material . . . but the final polish comes from the players themselves.
Quote from: Hero SystemRoleplaying games are about interactive storytelling: the GM and the players work together to create their own story, rather than reading or watching one created by someone else. Therefore a good GM will learn about the literary devices that make stories work, and use them.
Quote from: jhkim;667609Regarding the Star Wars setting, I don't see how that differentiates. Within a Star Wars story game - the game will most likely still be about the characters struggling against the Empire and possibly winning or not. That tension is one of the things that makes for an interesting story.
The story is what you talk about when the game is over; when you're playing the actual game, there is no story. Unlike Dungeon World.
That's the distinction, I think.
So, in a nutshell, how does this game work? Just to get *some* idea without having to buy or even read it, which I'd really rather not.
I'm surprised, my take on it was that the GM has a more powerful role than in, say, D&D 3e. Dungeon World strikes me as a bit like a freeform role-playing game where the GM decides when to use the mechanics, and which ones.
For example, when an ogre swings its axe at you, there's no one mechanic that resolves this; it depends on how the player(s) react, and then the GM makes a judgement call about what mechanic to use. Maybe "Defy Danger", maybe something else. The GM might decide that the player's attempt to dodge succeeds automatically, because ogres are slow; the GM might decide that the player has already granted a "golden opportunity" for a hard move, by deciding to get within club range can arbitrarily inflict damage.
Quote from: Brad;667407Yeah, after reading about half the book, I can safely say it's not an RPG, at least not how I typically understand one to be. In the first thirty pages, "the fiction" must appear at least twice per paragraph.
I thought they were using that term just to refer to the 'stuff going on in (fictional) game world'.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;667617So, in a nutshell, how does this game work? Just to get *some* idea without having to buy or even read it, which I'd really rather not.
I'd say the PDF (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/108028/Dungeon-World) is worth $10, honestly. There are some good ideas applicable to RPGs within. Having never engaged in a session, though, I cannot tell you how it works at the table. From the text, it appears that the GM writes up Moves (the book's concept for "things you can do") and poses them as challenges to the players. The players respond with their own Moves, and roll dice appropriately. A low roll means the GM decides what happens, a middling roll means the Move was successful but with possible side-effects, and a high roll results in the player dictating the action.
This last part is where I take issue with DW being called an RPG: the GM is not the final authority regarding how successes are interpreted. That is not a conventional GM, and instead it's a more collaborative effort. This isn't to say RPGs don't use similar mechanics (at least in appearance), but ultimately the GM can make arbitrary choices as he is the referee. In DW, the referee is a nebulous concept, due to shared authority.
Quote from: Brad;667608"isn't collaborating" is the key phrase in that sentence.
To clarify yet again, Dungeon World's GM isn't as distinct as a GM in a conventional RPG.
I didnt find that to be the case in play àt all. Maybe we were doing it wrong, but the GM/player dynamic seemed exactly the same as playing D&D
Quote from: TristramEvans;667633I didnt find that to be the case in play àt all. Maybe we were doing it wrong, but the GM/player dynamic seemed exactly the same as playing D&D
Interdasting.
So it doesn't play like it reads?
Quote from: Brad;667613The story is what you talk about when the game is over; when you're playing the actual game, there is no story. Unlike Dungeon World.
That's the distinction, I think.
Theres no collaborative storytelling going on in DW though. Im not sure where you are deriving that from. The players play their characters and are not called upon to metagame by the rules to any extent beyong any trad rpg.
Quote from: Brad;667637Interdasting.
So it doesn't play like it reads?
Im not certain, in that I read the game mainly as advice to steer a new GM in a certain direction. I never saw an onus on the players to engage in gm activities once play began. I had a niggle or two (we dropped the 'players only roll' caveat early on as it felt disassociative to roll damage against our own characters) but beyond that it didnt, from a player perspective, operate much differently than a streamlined basic d&d game. Our gm for that campaign, who is a pretty fervent simulationist, based every event on random rolls, and we just played our characters.
Quote from: Brad;667632I'd say the PDF (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/108028/Dungeon-World) is worth $10, honestly. There are some good ideas applicable to RPGs within. Having never engaged in a session, though, I cannot tell you how it works at the table. From the text, it appears that the GM writes up Moves (the book's concept for "things you can do") and poses them as challenges to the players. The players respond with their own Moves, and roll dice appropriately. A low roll means the GM decides what happens, a middling roll means the Move was successful but with possible side-effects, and a high roll results in the player dictating the action.
This is totally off. First of all, if you're curious, most of the rules are available free via the Creative Commons release. Go to the website below and browse the menus on the top for the options.
http://book.dwgazetteer.com/
The main difference from standard RPGs is that only the players roll. In combat, just the player rolls - failure is the PC takes damage, limited success both take damage, full success only the opponent is damaged. A similar principle applies to most other actions (called Moves). Instead of the monster taking an action and rolling attack, the GM describes the monster attacking. If the player fights it, he rolls the Hack-and-Slash move. If he runs away, he rolls the Defy Danger move. (If he does nothing, there is no move and the GM just does damage to him.)
There is nothing about players narrating their successes. I suppose you could play it that way, but there is nothing in the rules that specifies that.
Dungeon World is on the loose, rules-light, lots of latitude side of systems - but most things work roughly the same way as traditional RPGs. There are opponents to fight, you go fight them and roll dice to see who wins. You get rewards and treasure as a result.
Quote from: jhkim;667643This is totally off.
Is it now? So I just read a book that explains to players how Moves work, and I interpret it to mean exactly what I said, yet it's "totally off"?
QuoteThere is nothing about players narrating their successes. I suppose you could play it that way, but there is nothing in the rules that specifies that.
Again, what? The players are inherently narrating after a success. They're creating a collaborative story, per the rules, so I have no idea WTF else you'd call it.
Maybe you're another DW apologist; I get it. But from actually READING THE RULES, everything I stated is accurate, at least according to how it's written. If there's some other interpretation diametrically opposed to my conclusions, perhaps the book is poorly written and ambiguous.
Anyway, I'm done talking about Dungeon World. It doesn't appeal to me as an RPG, and thus fails. If other people want to play it, have fun, just don't try to convince me I'm am idiot because I prefer traditional RPGs.
Quote from: Brad;667637So it doesn't play like it reads?
Or perhaps you are just misreading it? The presentation in DW is reasonably novel if you haven't read anything like it, so that's understandable.
FWIW I have run DW quite a lot this year and my experiences mirror Tristam Evans. DW plays pretty much as how I played AD&D1e back in early 80s. The DM has just as much power and discretion (possibly more so, given the high chance of consequences on any roll) and the gameplay sees the PCs having to overcome a series of dangers.
I am not sure where you have got the concept of collaboration from, other than its common usage in RPGs since the mid 80s in Star Wars WEG and WW, as other have already pointed out.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667582I completely understand the desire to not have games you like caregorized as non-rpgs, i dont find arguments that these games are not or cannot be rpgs, all that compelling personally. But when you blatantly try to inverse the disussion into narrative rpgs being the real rpgs and traditional rpgs bing the real story games, it is very hard to take you seriously as a poster.
Careful. Your (considerable) bias is showing.
Quote from: Brad;667646If there's some other interpretation diametrically opposed to my conclusions, perhaps the book is poorly written and ambiguous.
I just found a HUGE PDF (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ypk10uede2sgri6) explaining how to read the poorly written and ambiguous rules.
Quote from: jadrax;667658I just found a HUGE PDF (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ypk10uede2sgri6) explaining how to read the poorly written and ambiguous rules.
The DW Guide is a great read. I am pretty sure there is a fault of logic to assume that this means that DW is somehow poorly written and ambiguous rules, but that topic seems like a bit of a threadjack.
Quote from: Skywalker;667649Careful. Your (considerable) bias is showing.
Dude, he's the nice one.
Quote from: Skywalker;667649Careful. Your (considerable) bias is showing.
I am not sure I see the bias. I basically agreed that DW sounds like an rpg, but disagree with his attempts to turn the argument on its head and try to argue that traditional rpgs are the real story games (he did something similar with sandboxes a while back as well, and I disagreed in a similar manner then). These are just linguistic tricks, not serious arguments. There are plenty of posters on his side of the fence I take seriously, including you. But my feeling is his arguments lately are just there to create confusion and stir things up. And since this comes fresh on the heels of his defense of rape fantasy argument, I just have a very hard time taking him seriously as a poster when he does this stuff.
Quote from: jadrax;667658I just found a HUGE PDF (http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ypk10uede2sgri6) explaining how to read the poorly written and ambiguous rules.
59 pages? Christ...I read the first 20 pages, but that's enough.
"But when I started poking around various online forums, I discovered that a lot of beginning players have trouble with the rules. They see some good stuff in there, they're excited to try the game, but the mechanics are just so different from what they know. It can be confusing, especially if you aren't experienced with Apocalypse World, which Dungeon World is based on. I think that's because you might need to unlearn some things about gaming before approaching Dungeon World."
Unlearn things about gaming? What? I've been playing games my whole life; what an asinine statement. See, when I was learning how to play Magic Realm, I did in fact read a PDF called "The Least You Need To Know To Play Magic Realm". It explained how the rules worked in certain circumstances, basic strategy, etc. MR is an extremely complex game, hence explanations of the rules were in order. But MR is, again, an extremely complex game. I would expect MR to take a long time to understand due to the enormity of the rules. However, Dungeon World is supposed to be an easy to learn game with light rules. It's supposed to be a D&D-like dungeon crawling game with a narrative aspect. If you need 59 additional pages to explain how to play the game when you already had 408 to do so, perhaps you need to revise the rules. It's not the fault of the reader. Fuck, Mentzer Basic explains how to play D&D in 20 pages, complete with a one-player dungeon. If you've never played an RPG before, trying to understand D&D is pretty difficult, so perhaps you might need to UNLEARN some things about gaming. Nahh, I figured it out just fine when I was a kid.
I stand by my original statements about sounding like a psych textbook. Over complicating things that should be easy is either pretentiousness or poor writing.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667666And since this comes fresh on the heels of his defense of rape fantasy argument, I just have a very hard time taking him seriously as a poster when he does this stuff.
In my defence, I started pretending that thread didn't exist straight after becoming aware of its existence :)
Quote from: Brad;667670I stand by my original statements about sounding like a psych textbook. Over complicating things that should be easy is either pretentiousness or poor writing.
FWIW IME new players have picked up DW's rules faster than most other RPGs, including B/X D&D. It is a remarkably simple RPG in play.
The complication you complain of is an attempt to make a lot of the unsaid parts of the esoteric task of roleplaying as explicit as possible (that is not saying that it removes the usual discretion that RPGing involves).
As said before, the main hurdle I have seen people experience with DW is a sense of outrage at being talked down to, usually ignited by a wealth of entrenched RPGing experience. I personally think this is a shame. If you are confident in your RPGing abilities, then you won't think that DW is somehow going to come into your house and erase or change anything that you don't want it to.
My advice is to play it or move on.
Quote from: Skywalker;667673My advice is to play it or move on.
Well, I did spend $30 on it, so I'm allowed to bitch.
Quote from: Brad;66767059 pages? Christ...I read the first 20 pages, but that's enough.
"But when I started poking around various online forums, I discovered that a lot of beginning players have trouble with the rules. They see some good stuff in there, they're excited to try the game, but the mechanics are just so different from what they know. It can be confusing, especially if you aren't experienced with Apocalypse World, which Dungeon World is based on. I think that's because you might need to unlearn some things about gaming before approaching Dungeon World."
Unlearn things about gaming? What? I've been playing games my whole life; what an asinine statement. See, when I was learning how to play Magic Realm, I did in fact read a PDF called "The Least You Need To Know To Play Magic Realm". It explained how the rules worked in certain circumstances, basic strategy, etc. MR is an extremely complex game, hence explanations of the rules were in order. But MR is, again, an extremely complex game. I would expect MR to take a long time to understand due to the enormity of the rules. However, Dungeon World is supposed to be an easy to learn game with light rules. It's supposed to be a D&D-like dungeon crawling game with a narrative aspect. If you need 59 additional pages to explain how to play the game when you already had 408 to do so, perhaps you need to revise the rules. It's not the fault of the reader. Fuck, Mentzer Basic explains how to play D&D in 20 pages, complete with a one-player dungeon. If you've never played an RPG before, trying to understand D&D is pretty difficult, so perhaps you might need to UNLEARN some things about gaming. Nahh, I figured it out just fine when I was a kid.
I stand by my original statements about sounding like a psych textbook. Over complicating things that should be easy is either pretentiousness or poor writing.
Well, for one I didnt find the suggestion that a modern gamer might need to 'unlearn' a few assumptions any moreradical in DW than I did in the Old School Primer. The assumption that a player might be influenced by such games as d&d 3rd or 4th edition or Pathfinder isnt that big a stretch. If anything DW chose to use a new terminology with the assumption that the player is not going to by default be familiar with old school style play, which should not irk a grognard simply becausetheyve been roleplaying longer or posses a widerrange of experience than the average gamer.
But regardless of whether you find it pretentious, thats not an argument for it not being an rpg.
Quote from: Brad;667677Well, I did spend $30 on it, so I'm allowed to bitch.
You certainly are. I think what you stumbled on here is the hot button topic of certain RPGs being segregated from the rest on shaky grounds.
Quote from: Skywalker;667686You certainly are. I think what you stumbled on here is the hot button topic of certain RPGs being segregated from the rest on shaky grounds.
Not on shaky grounds. On grounds you disapprove of, and don't want to recognize.
Plus, "segregated," really? What kind of over-the-top RPGnet rhetoric is this? :rolleyes:
You can talk about the story games you like all you want. In the right forum.
You guys really need to get a sense of proportion. Seriously.
Quote from: Benoist;667690Plus, "segregated," really? What kind of RPGnet rhetoric is this?
Whatever. I am happy to use 'separation', if that gets a less outraged reaction.
FWIW I haven't seen the word used on RPGnet in relation to this issue or TheRPGSite.
Quote from: Benoist;667690Not on shaky grounds. On grounds you disapprove of, and don't want to recognize.
I think 'shaky grounds' here means its very debateable as no one's made an authoratative or convincing argument. Heck I think its easier and more consistent to recognize who/what Pundit refers to as swine thàn it is to guess what one person or another considers a 'real' rpg. And no one's really made a convincing case for either a universal definition of what constitutes a storygame, let alone why certain games like DW fit into that category.
For my part I certainly dont trust the opoinion of anyone who hasnt actuallly played a game as to whether that game is a storygame, especially when their expressed opinion runs contrary to my own experiences playing.
Quote from: Skywalker;667695I am happy to use 'separation', if that gets a less mouth frothing reaction.
FWIW I haven't seen the word used on RPGnet in relation to this issue or TheRPGSite.
No, but this is over-the-top RPGnet-style bullshit. "Segregation", ghettos and the like are real life things that are totally misused when their meaning is stretched to extend to talking about games on a forum of the internet.
Get a sense of proportion, for fuck's sakes.
Well, it's not a traditional game so it belongs here. Ipso facto.
Quote from: jhkimThere is nothing about players narrating their successes. I suppose you could play it that way, but there is nothing in the rules that specifies that.
Quote from: Brad;667646Again, what? The players are inherently narrating after a success. They're creating a collaborative story, per the rules, so I have no idea WTF else you'd call it.
Maybe you're another DW apologist; I get it. But from actually READING THE RULES, everything I stated is accurate, at least according to how it's written. If there's some other interpretation diametrically opposed to my conclusions, perhaps the book is poorly written and ambiguous.
I guess you're ending your participation, but I don't see how you draw this conclusion. Linking to the "Playing the Game" rules on Creative Commons. From the introduction ( http://book.dwgazetteer.com/Introduction.html ), it says:
"
As you play, the players say what their characters say, think, and do. The GM describes everything else in the world."
and
"
It's a conversation between the players and the GM—the GM tells the players what they see and hear in the world around them and the players say what their characters are thinking, feeling, and doing. Sometimes those descriptions will trigger a move—something that'll cause everyone to stop and say "time to roll the dice to see what happens." For a moment everyone hangs on the edges of their seats as the dice clatter to a stop. Tension and excitement are always the result, no matter how the dice land."
In Playing the Game ( http://book.dwgazetteer.com/Playing_the_Game.html ), under the Effect of Moves, it says:
"
The effects of moves are always about the fictional world the characters inhabit. A 10+ on hack and slash doesn't just mean the mechanical effects, it means you successfully attacked something and did some type of harm to it.
Once you've figured out what the effects of the move are, apply them to the fiction and go back to the conversation. Always return to what's going on in the game.
Some moves have immediate mechanical effects, like dealing damage or giving someone a bonus to their next roll. These effects are always a reflection of the fictional world the characters are in; make sure to use the fiction when describing the effects of the move."
Now, on the one hand, it does not explicitly say that the GM narrates the results of the roll. On the other hand, it also doesn't say that the player narrates the results of the roll. I guess you're interpreting "apply them to the fiction" to mean that the player can narrate whatever they want after a roll. However, that is not how any of the games of it that I played worked, and it goes contrary to the principles from the introduction.
Quote from: TristramEvans;667697I think 'shaky grounds' here means its very debateable as no one's made an authoratative or convincing argument.
It's debatable TO YOU. Because you played Dungeon World without actually using its rules, read it in diagonal and actually played some RPG hybrid by saying "fuck it, I don't care for the moves" so that's it, "it's a trad RPG".
That's not how that works. Dungeon World is, among other things, predicated on the notion the GM applies moves in the same manner the players do. That's basically restricting the role of the GM as being bound by the rules in the same manner the players are, and that violates RPG Pundit's #6 landmark. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931)
Add the narrative stance implied by the mechanics, the half results bullshit and so on, and we're getting even further from the mark. Sure, the thing doesn't have sex moves, but damn, it's trying hard NOT to be a traditional RPG in trad dress.
Now you might have a problem with the way Pundit defines traditional gaming and so on, but that's basically what it boils down to. It's not nebulous or devoid of logic. It's just something you disagree with.
Quote from: One Horse Town;667699Well, it's not a traditional game so it belongs here. Ipso facto.
So, the criteria for separation is now "traditional" not how much the game uses "story-game" elements?
Quote from: TristramEvans;667697I think 'shaky grounds' here means its very debateable as no one's made an authoratative or convincing argument.
It's the Pundit's website. He decides what goes where. He'll listen to arguments, but the final decision is his.
That's as authoritative as it gets. If you're not convinced, too fucking bad - it's not your website. Either get the fuck over it, or move on.
Quote from: Skywalker;667704So, the criteria for separation is now "traditional" not how much the game uses "story-game" elements?
Have you ever looked at the headings for the sub-forums?
No? Go do it.
Yes? Then what the fuck are you on about.
Quote from: Benoist;667702That's not how that works. Dungeon World is, among other things, predicated on the notion the GM applies moves in the same manner the players do. That's basically restricting the role of the GM as being bound by the rules in the same manner the players are, and that violates RPG Pundit's #6 landmark. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931)
The GM in DW has an entirely different set of moves from the players, which are extremely broad in comparison to player moves. I challenge you to identify something a GM does in a traditional RPG that doesn't fall within the GM moves.
I also note that the GM in DW can make up new moves on the fly. This is the same process as rules calls in a traditional RPG under a different name.
As such, using this as a basis for separating two games, its complete crap.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667705It's the Pundit's website. He decides what goes where. He'll listen to arguments, but the final decision is his.
This I agree with. This doesn't mean that I don't think his grounds for separation are not shaky though.
Quote from: One Horse Town;667707Have you ever looked at the headings for the sub-forums?
No? Go do it.
Yes? Then what the fuck are you on about.
The point being that the word "traditional" seems to have no meaning other that what Pundit attributes to it to suit his arguments at the time. There are plenty of RPGs with non-traditional elements being discussed in the main forum, and plenty of RPGs with traditional elements being discussed in this forum.
Quote from: Skywalker;667709The GM in DW has an entirely different set of moves from the players, which are extremely broad in comparison to player moves. I challenge you to identify something a GM does in a traditional RPG that doesn't fall within the GM moves.
The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the moves have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.
The game redefines the role of the GM as a guy who just applies a set of prescripted moves otherwise it's "bad" and he "cheats". That's a game that's based on the notion the GM must be held by the balls by the rules, and in that, it's as far from traditional as you can get it. It's a hack on Apocalypse World which has been written by a guy who believes the traditional role of the GM is a problem that should be fixed, the worse thing that happened to RPGs, and that game is the direct fruit of that fucked up thinking.
Guys - that's mods & admins. We should really leave this thread, it's back to the circle of hell J Arcane described above.
Let Brad and the others debate why it's in this forum all day long. Our presence is just prolonging it and coming across as a bit heavy.
Over to you Brad & co.
Quote from: One Horse Town;667714Over to you Brad & co.
Fine by me.
Quote from: Benoist;667712The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the move have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.
No. There is hardly any restriction or usurpation of GMing power in DW. In fact, IME DW empowers the GM with greater discretion and flexibility than most RPGs, reminiscent of my own old school experiences where rulings were more prominent than rules.
The GM moves are an attempt to make the GM's role more explicit. In effect, they have little bearing on the actual role of GMing but help explain the expectations of that task. Given this is usually just implied in most RPGs, this can be an helpful tool for new GMs.
Nor are the GM moves such that the players are forced to think about their PCs from an authorial perspective.
In your benefit, there are RPGs out there that restrict the GM's discretion and flexibility, and some of those do so to the extent that empower the players to fill that void. I would agree that these are untraditional. Examples being PTA, Burning Empires, Polaris, and Theatrix.
However, lumping DW's approach in with those is nonsense, especially in light of Pundit's comments that this distinction is made primarily on his opinion of the authors and not any experience with the system. Claiming that DW's GM moves are a story-game element is just plain ridiculous.
Quote from: How to GM, Dungeon WorldWhen you sit down at the table as a GM you do these things:
• Describe the situation
• Follow the rules
• Make moves
• Exploit your prep
(...)
From the get-go make sure to follow the rules. This means your GM rules, sure, but also keep an eye on the players’ moves. It’s everyone’s responsibility to watch for when a move has been triggered, including you. Stop the players and ask if they mean to trigger the rules when it sounds like that’s what they’re doing.
Part of following the rules is making moves. Your moves are different than player moves and we’ll describe them in detail in a bit. Your moves are specific things you can do to change the flow of the game.
You lie.
As for the narrative stance, whether we're talking about agenda, drawing maps with holes that are left in a vacuum because what is being played is a narrative that gets filled bit by bit, not playing in a world that exists and is set apart of the game's action, the moves themselves, all these things are part of making Dungeon World NOT a traditional RPG.
And you guys keep lying about it. Why?
Fuck it. I said I would get out of the thread and I will.
After reading the rules, i would categorize DW as a STG and not a RPG. It's definitely not a traditional RPG and should not be labeled as such.
Quote from: Benoist;667723You lie.
No, I don't. The GM uses GM Moves in DW. These Moves attempt to codify everything that a GM does in a traditional RPG, and does so pretty well IMO given how broad and flexible those Moves are. In addition, the GM is explicitly allowed to create new GM Moves (on the fly even) to fill in any situation that the GM Moves don't cover.
You can hang your hat on those three words as being restrictive on the GM, but unless you look at how it is actually implemented through the rulebook, its just a kneejerk reaction to something that is new to you. Accordingly, it is a very shaky ground for separating this game from what you consider traditional RPGs.
On the positive side, new GMs may find this kind of explicit advice to provide them with a level of certainty and security which encourages them to GM more. However, despite the approach being different, a DW GM will be almost indistinguishable from a D&D GM once they gain their feet, and more GMs is a good thing IMO.
Quote from: Skywalker;667710This doesn't mean that I don't think his grounds for separation are not shaky though.
What you or I or anyone else not named RPG Pundit thinks is ultimately irrelevant. His basement, his rules.
Your incessant need to carp about it is boring and accomplishes nothing.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;667729What you or I or anyone else not named RPG Pundit thinks is ultimately irrelevant. His basement, his rules.
Your incessant need to carp about it is boring and accomplishes nothing.
I thought this thread was going nicely until the mods felt the need to defend their shaky grounds.
Quote from: Benoist;667712The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the moves have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.
The game redefines the role of the GM as a guy who just applies a set of prescripted moves otherwise it's "bad" and he "cheats". That's a game that's based on the notion the GM must be held by the balls by the rules, and in that, it's as far from traditional as you can get it.
You use "bad" and "cheats" in quotes, but that's not at all in the rules. The system presents a way to play. That doesn't inherently mean that it is claiming that a different way to play is bad.
In any case, this doesn't match my experience. The GM moves in Dungeon World are incredibly broad options like "Put someone in a spot" or "Reveal an unwelcome truth" - and the GM is free to extend them with custom moves. To put this into a practical experience, I might compare two real-world cases of play:
1) A GM running a Living Pathfinder module
2) A GM running a Dungeon World one-shot
From my experience, the DW GM was vastly
less bound and prescripted. He had a lot more latitude to come up with things, and in fact the system demands that he more freely come up with wide-ranging stuff. If we want to say that Living Pathfinder is not a traditional RPG, that would be consistent. However, I think that's kind of screwy since I've seen at least a few GMs running in that manner for decades.
EDITED TO ADD: I have no general beef with the moderation here - I was addressing characterization about how Dungeon World played. I think the current split is stupid, but not a big deal.
"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of therpgsite.com mods. The creatures outside looked from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod, and from RPG.net mod to therpgsite.com mod, and from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Quote from: Benoist;667702It's debatable TO YOU. Because you played Dungeon World without actually using its rules, read it in diagonal and actually played some RPG hybrid by saying "fuck it, I don't care for the moves" so that's it, "it's a trad RPG".
Thats not entirely accurate. I played DW. After 1 session we made one houserule, the GM rolled for damage instead of the player. To say I was then playing some hybrid game is hyperbolic nonsense, especially if the main comparison being made is to TSR D&D. We used moves, we just didnt refer to them as such, because frankly you could go through the entire bookand replace the term 'moves' with 'feats', 'rolls', 'charts', 'effects' or 'throws' and it woulnt make a lick of difference. And yes its debatable to me, but you,re not seriously feigning ignorance that its debatable to a shitload of people besides me. And even if that wasn't so, I'm enough. You don't seriously think that Im so insecure in my own opinionn that I find yoûrs or anyone else's statement of foregone conclusions convincing, let alone authorative? 'Because I say' is not a meaningful statement, and I could not think of responding in any way besides a rolling of the eyes.
QuoteThat's not how that works. Dungeon World is, among other things, predicated on the notion the GM applies moves in the same manner the players do.
The players described what their characters were doing and the gM narrated the results. Just like every rpg ever made' but yeah I addressed from the beginning the gm 'training wheels' which are the reason I wont be running the game. OTOH, I think these are a great idea for helping new gms, something they can easily ditch once they get more comfortable improvising in reaction to the players. It strikes me as sad that so many of thesame people worried about getting new people into the hobby are also so fervently intent ondeclaring DW 'not a real rpg' that they're essentially ostracizing one of the few games that makes an effort to deal with one of the major obstacles of trad rpging, as few are born with the talent for running an rpg without experience and practice. I honestly think the osr crowd inparticular should be pointing every new player they can to this game and saying 'okay, once youre comfortable running this, you'll be ready for some old school D&D, or at least just to wean them off the influence of WoTC D&D or actual storygames.
QuoteNow you might have a problem with the way Pundit defines traditional gaming and so on, but that's basically what it boils down to. It's not nebulous or devoid of logic. It's just something you disagree with.
Its nebulous in that i havent seen a convincing or consistent qualification for what point an rpg ceases to be an rpg.I disagree with the conclusions, if theres a logic behind them than I havent been made privy to it.
But Im not violating the site's policies towards posting in the 'correct forum' so I dontsee why anyone should be fussy about me stating my objections, if only for the benefit of any poor sod who stumbles on these forums and might in general be interested in the game. Not to mention that Id have no interest in this site if it turned into an echo chamber on any issue with rpgs, including that of storygames.
Quote from: jhkim;667746To put this into a practical experience, I might compare two real-world cases of play:
1) A GM running a Living Pathfinder module
2) A GM running a Dungeon World one-shot
Oh please, a Living Pathfinder module? You mean a module intended to be run all over the country if not the world as part of a shared experience within the Living Pathfinder Campaign system? Hey everybody,
organized tournament modules are more linear and restrictive then random one-shots, who knew? In other news, water's wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets.
Jesus man, I know you have to do your Distinction Denial thing, but you don't have to be such a disingenuous fuck about it every time, do you? When it comes to RPGs you're practically a respected scholar, don't you feel weird making a calculatedly misleading argument like that?
Quote from: daniel_ream;667747"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of therpgsite.com mods. The creatures outside looked from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod, and from RPG.net mod to therpgsite.com mod, and from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
I can tell the difference - on Big Purple, this post would get you a warning or a ban for cross-forum drama.
Quote from: CRKrueger;667760Oh please, a Living Pathfinder module? You mean a module intended to be run all over the country if not the world as part of a shared experience within the Living Pathfinder Campaign system? Hey everybody, organized tournament modules are more linear and restrictive then random one-shots, who knew? In other news, water's wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets.
Jesus man, I know you have to do your Distinction Denial thing, but you don't have to be such a disingenuous fuck about it every time, do you? When it comes to RPGs you're practically a respected scholar, don't you feel weird making a calculatedly misleading argument like that?
I don't think there's any deception going on here. Yes, I picked the example of a Living Pathfinder game because it is restrictive. Duh.
The point is that play within traditional RPGs can get a lot more restrictive than Dungeon World - which is counter to Benoist's point that the limited range of GM moves (which is extremely broad) makes Dungeon World wholly outside the range of RPGs.
Quote from: Bradafter reading about half the book, I can safely say it's not an RPG
Gnome Stew (http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/the-book-of-vincent-gming-apocalypse-world/) disagrees with you.
Quote from: silva;667781Gnome Stew (http://www.gnomestew.com/gming-advice/the-book-of-vincent-gming-apocalypse-world/) disagrees with you.
Okay..?
Also, I'm still not convinced Dungeon World is an RPG, but I'll hand it to jhkim for making a legitimate effort to explain why he believes it is.
Quote from: hamstertamer;667726After reading the rules, i would categorize DW as a STG and not a RPG. It's definitely not a traditional RPG and should not be labeled as such.
I'll just label it a hipster game.
So wait, after reading several pages of that "HUGE PDF," I'm trying to figure out if the GM has the laxity to ignore a Move when the dice repeatedly come up badly for the players. Sometimes a string of failed banal efforts is just that, plain ol' failure, and doesn't need complications to the point of convolution. How much of these Moves are ignorable? Or is it part of some sort of "fate pool economy" that dries up the game if not engaged?
Forgive me, as I have little interest in reading all of this DW Guide. I just want a Reader's Digest version. Preferably Cliff Notes with quick examples and bullet points, but I've noticed a lot of these new games with aspect/traits/moves can't explain things without lengthy exegesis, so my expectations are already lowered.
How is this different from other Degree of Success systems, and why would all those Moves be necessary? How ignorable is this DoS mechanic (besides rule zero. I mean ignorable on case by case task resolution basis)? Why the need for a Moves list for the GM at all?
Quote from: Opaopajr;667827So wait, after reading several pages of that "HUGE PDF," I'm trying to figure out if the GM has the laxity to ignore a Move when the dice repeatedly come up badly for the players. Sometimes a string of failed banal efforts is just that, plain ol' failure, and doesn't need complications to the point of convolution. How much of these Moves are ignorable? Or is it part of some sort of "fate pool economy" that dries up the game if not engaged?
Forgive me, as I have little interest in reading all of this DW Guide. I just want a Reader's Digest version. Preferably Cliff Notes with quick examples and bullet points, but I've noticed a lot of these new games with aspect/traits/moves can't explain things without lengthy exegesis, so my expectations are already lowered.
How is this different from other Degree of Success systems, and why would all those Moves be necessary? How ignorable is this DoS mechanic (besides rule zero. I mean ignorable on case by case task resolution basis)? Why the need for a Moves list for the GM at all?
Basically a 'move' issimplyany action in the game that interacts with the rules. So comparing it to d&d anytime a a DM would ask for a roll, or saving throw, or the player initiated an attack, these would all be 'moves'. Its basically just a compartmentalized method of presenting the system. For comparison, imagine a game like whfrp 3rd where the majority of rulesfor situations are put on cards for easyreference. Each card would be considered a 'move'. For the Gm these are very broad categories. As to why a moves list for the GM at all, well thats kind of like asking why the ad&d dmg included random encounter tables;itssimply an aid to the DM's task. For an experienced GM the moves are unnecessary, but as others ànd I have said before, they would be of great utility to a person newto GMing, or one trying to break the habits of crunchy 'optimization-based' modern systems.
Quote from: Opaopajr;667827So wait, after reading several pages of that "HUGE PDF," I'm trying to figure out if the GM has the laxity to ignore a Move when the dice repeatedly come up badly for the players. Sometimes a string of failed banal efforts is just that, plain ol' failure, and doesn't need complications to the point of convolution. How much of these Moves are ignorable? Or is it part of some sort of "fate pool economy" that dries up the game if not engaged?
I am not sure what you are asking here. Failure can just be failure in DW, like in any RPG. The GM moves are broad enough to encompass any form of failure I can think of. Is there a specific failure you think is not covered?
Or are you asking if a GM can ignore the results of a failed roll, once it's rolled? That's a source of endless debate in RPGs :)
Quote from: Opaopajr;667827How is this different from other Degree of Success systems, and why would all those Moves be necessary? How ignorable is this DoS mechanic (besides rule zero. I mean ignorable on case by case task resolution basis)? Why the need for a Moves list for the GM at all?
The Move list is just a summary of pretty much everything a GM will do in an RPG. It can serve as an inspiration for the GM and provides direction for a GM who isn't sure what to do next. What it doesn't do is restrict a GM from doing anything that they would do in any other RPG (as far as I can see).
The whole idea is about demystifying the GM's role, making the esoteric explicit.
In regard to the dice mechanic, it is no different to DoS other than being slightly biased towards producing success and also producing consequences/cost for success.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;667820I'll just label it a hipster game.
That's a truly awesome label and I believe I'll steal it :D
Also, just so it's clear, the DW Guide linked to is a fan made guide recording the advice of one fan after his experiences with DW. It is not necessary to run DW, though it is well written IMO.
I am struggling to see why people are suddenly equating the complexity of an RPG on the amount of fan discussion there is about it. If that's a new standard, I think DW would easilt prove to be one of the least complex RPGs out there :)
Quote from: Benoist;667712The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the moves have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.
Yup. I agree entirely. Which is obviously why OD&D is a story game.
You are talking about OD&D, right?
Quote from: Benoist;667723You lie.
Whoops. Sorry. Looks like you were actually talking about AD&D. I mean, you were just paraphrasing from pg. 9 of the 1st Edition DMG, right? The bit where Gygax talks about how the DM has to follow the rules and is only allowed to express his creativity when it's not "bounded by the parameters of the game system"?
...
When it comes to this topic, you're a hypocritical moron, Benoist.
So when the DW Guide says, "When the rules say 'make a move', what they're really doing is telling you something happens, something besides just failure. Instead of being a dead end, player's failure leads to consequences: the situation gets worse or they have to pay a price," it doesn't mean what it says?
How do I get just plain old failure? Like, nothing interesting happens, no complications, no loss (except time) failure?
For example, picking a hard lock on a rather mundane treasure chest in your own distant and safe hideout: isolated, relatively safe, and you with a set of sturdy lock picks, and plenty more lock picks nearby. How do I get just plain failure. No extra consequences: no destroyed lock picks, no jambed lock with broken lock picks inside, no suddenly appearing guard, no imminent threat or lost supplies, just "it's too hard, you fail."
Do I have to engage these soft and hard moves if I don't want to?
edit: The DW Guide implicitly answers this as that is core to the point of the system. It's resolution system is there to determine the price of failure; but there's so far no fourth option of plain, uncomplicated failure. So, unless the rulebook says explicitly so, so far my answer seems to be there's no such thing as mundane failure. I'll rely on others who own the book to answer this.
Well, I just finished the whole DW Guide.
I do appreciate that last comment that this is a game not interested on the difficulty of tasks, but on the price of completion/failure. It's a different way to look at things, and I can see where it can be fun.
I didn't really enjoy much of the in-play examples as there was a lot of player narration of results. Some of the flat-out world creation bugged, too, like the "rubies for magic circle powder" Wizard player justification blurb, but whatever. But if I got into that mindset, I guess it could be fun. Perhaps that was just the writer's method of engagement with the system.
The examples of Moves and Move creation (like the swashbuckling swing example, etc.) were interesting in a choose your own adventure manner. Not what I'd want, but maybe Moves have alternate structures available in the corebook. Perhaps these shaped Moves in general could be discarded for improvisational results, or corebook Moves show other ways to avoid pre-determined range of results. Otherwise an interesting take on text-based adventuring styles, now ready-made for TT RPGs.
The idea of Fronts, Dangers, and Portents is actually interesting. Fronts is just another word for hook/premise, so nothing new there. I don't know about the primacy of "adventure!" attitude, which I've had truck with on this site as well as a D&D assumption. But that's a playstyle thing.
Portents is basically a subroutine scheduler for NPCs. However their loose structure with bullet points is quite clean and grokable. I've been doing something like this for ages, just with more chronological structure and less linear threat progression, but this is quite stealable for just about any new GM. If one could incorporate Moves degree of success structure into divergent threat progressions for Portents, you might get something really special for GM world building. I already do similar, but I wonder if it will be easier to transmit to new GMs.
Quote from: Opaopajr;667866Portents is basically a subroutine scheduler for NPCs. However their loose structure with bullet points is quite clean and grokable. I've been doing something like this for ages, just with more chronological structure and less linear threat progression, but this is quite stealable for just about any new GM. If one could incorporate Moves degree of success structure into divergent threat progressions for Portents, you might get something really special for GM world building. I already do similar, but I wonder if it will be easier to transmit to new GMs.
I'd love to hear more about this idea, start a new thread?
Quote from: Opaopajr;667866Well, I just finished the whole DW Guide.
Yeah, I ended up reading it as well...and I've come to the conclusion that DW is closer to a regular RPG than I first thought, but it's written in such a way to make you think otherwise.
"We're creating interactive fiction, not just bashing in the skulls of orcs!"
Even though that's exactly what you're doing. Several posters in this thread have said it plays like a conventional RPG...since I have never played DW, I will accept this statement. This means either:
1) DW is just a pretentious RPG that tries to differentiate itself from D&D in an effort to appear more valuable (value in this case being the "shared narrative" aspect)
OR
2) DW is poorly written, and fails to express its motives properly
Quote from: Brad;667921Yeah, I ended up reading it as well...and I've come to the conclusion that DW is closer to a regular RPG than I first thought, but it's written in such a way to make you think otherwise.
"We're creating interactive fiction, not just bashing in the skulls of orcs!"
Even though that's exactly what you're doing. Several posters in this thread have said it plays like a conventional RPG...since I have never played DW, I will accept this statement. This means either:
1) DW is just a pretentious RPG that tries to differentiate itself from D&D in an effort to appear more valuable (value in this case being the "shared narrative" aspect)
OR
2) DW is poorly written, and fails to express its motives properly
Brad, what is your take on the mechanics themselves, when viewed seperately from the presentation? Just in terms of how well you think the game functions and what strengths and weaknesses it may have.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667930Brad, what is your take on the mechanics themselves, when viewed seperately from the presentation? Just in terms of how well you think the game functions and what strengths and weaknesses it may have.
I think the mechanics are fine; I already stated there are some good things contained within the rules. Abstracted combat, for instance, and the lack of set attributes. It reminds me somewhat of Over The Edge in that characters are described by broad concepts, not specifics. Honestly, this is what I tend to do in my games, anyway. In fact, OD&D itself does this, so it's not a new concept by any stretch...DW simply codifies it.
Quote from: fuseboy;667900I'd love to hear more about this idea, start a new thread?
I guess, but it's a rather simple concept.
Basically my favorite one I currently use works on a "click" structure, thus more chronological even as its "timer" clock is still fungible. The routine can work off of regular fixed time, or sped up through added NPC effort, stored, reversed, etc. A goal would require X clicks out of Y to trigger as a basic piece.
It has the added advantage that it immediately works as stackable (linear progression to ultimate outcome) or alternate goals, or even whole new simultaneous goals. There's an added bonus of running backwards if PCs or other NPCs intervene. Also, NPC can store extra ticks and cash them in later. Further, any extra NPC effort outside of routine can speed things up, which makes them extra nasty opponents.
Add a routine scheduler for NPC and you're good to go!
e.g. BBEG has goals (don't get hung up on the ratios, it's just an example):
1. Find artifacts that open demon portal, reusable (0/10) > Hideout for circle of summoning (edit: reusable) (0/1) > Supplies for circle ritual (0/3) > Move to Open Portal for demon summoning and negotiations.
2. Collect sacrifice to negotiate demon contract (0/30) > Contract 3 demons (0/3) > Move to City Conquest: Phase II
3. Stir up a psychopath on the loose (0/5) > Deflect attention hook
4. Instigate trade house war (0/20) > either add 10 Collect Sacrifice or 3 Deflect attention hooks
5. Groom protege to continue plans (0/24) > Evil Plan lives on! (possible resurrection)
Routines:
Weekly - Instigate trade war, circle ritual supplies, collect sacrifice, stir up a psychopath
Monthly - Artifact robbers, spare hideout prospect, groom protege
It's more detailed and requires bookkeeping. But it produces additional functions and paths outside of a basic outline. Thankfully its still a loose sketch, just like Portents, so I am not tied to specific details. But it's far more flexible, grounded, and modular for me.
Quote from: Opaopajr;667937e.g. BBEG has goals (don't get hung up on the ratios, it's just an example):
1. Find artifacts that open demon portal, reusable (0/10) > Hideout for circle of summoning (0/1) > Supplies for circle ritual (0/3) > Move to Open Portal for demon summoning and negotiations.
Neato. The ratios are how far they have progressed toward each goal? (So, at a later point in the game, you might have the NPC at 6/10 for finding artifacts that open demon portal?)
Quote from: Piestrio;667837That's a truly awesome label and I believe I'll steal it :D
It's a label that's much easier to use IMHO than "storygame", "other game" or the misused "indie game", no matter how RPG-like a game may arguably be. :D Hipster games in a nutshell:
Quote from: Opaopajr;667827(...) complications to the point of convolution.
(...) I've noticed a lot of these new games with aspect/traits/moves can't explain things without lengthy exegesis (...)
Often convoluted. Always pretentious.
Quote from: Brad;6679211) DW is just a pretentious RPG that tries to differentiate itself from D&D in an effort to appear more valuable (value in this case being the "shared narrative" aspect)
Usually elitary.
Quote from: Opaopajr;667860So when the DW Guide says, "When the rules say 'make a move', what they're really doing is telling you something happens, something besides just failure. Instead of being a dead end, player's failure leads to consequences: the situation gets worse or they have to pay a price," it doesn't mean what it says?
How do I get just plain old failure? Like, nothing interesting happens, no complications, no loss (except time) failure?
For example, picking a hard lock on a rather mundane treasure chest in your own distant and safe hideout: isolated, relatively safe, and you with a set of sturdy lock picks, and plenty more lock picks nearby. How do I get just plain failure. No extra consequences: no destroyed lock picks, no jambed lock with broken lock picks inside, no suddenly appearing guard, no imminent threat or lost supplies, just "it's too hard, you fail."
Do I have to engage these soft and hard moves if I don't want to?
edit: The DW Guide implicitly answers this as that is core to the point of the system. It's resolution system is there to determine the price of failure; but there's so far no fourth option of plain, uncomplicated failure. So, unless the rulebook says explicitly so, so far my answer seems to be there's no such thing as mundane failure. I'll rely on others who own the book to answer this.
I haven't read DW but this is a common question with stakes-based games.
If there's no consequence to failure, and there's no time limit or other restriction to stop the player from doing it and doing it, you might as well say it's an automatic success. Right? Because it's just a question of time.
If it's simply impossible, eg the player has no lockpicks and no thoughts on a plan B, then we would say it is an automatic failure. No dice roll, just 'no'.
The idea of a stakes based game is that win or lose each roll changes something. So 'nothing happens, do you want to try again?' wouldn't be a valid result because why wouldn't you just make that an automatic success in the first place. 'Guards come', 'You're running out of time', and 'Your lockpicks break' are all good failure stakes for that kind of situation, but there is another one that would seem to fit the example situation even better: 'Your lockpicks/skills aren't up to the task and it is impossible for you to open the chest using this method'.
Again I haven't read DW but that would seem to be a perfectly valid complication of failure.
Quote from: Opaopajr;667860So when the DW Guide says, "When the rules say 'make a move', what they're really doing is telling you something happens, something besides just failure.
No. A GM Move can be 'just failure'.
Quote from: Opaopajr;667860For example, picking a hard lock on a rather mundane treasure chest in your own distant and safe hideout: isolated, relatively safe, and you with a set of sturdy lock picks, and plenty more lock picks nearby. How do I get just plain failure.
'Using up their resources' is a GM Move. In this case, it could be just the time taken to try and pick the lock.
Or better yet "Tell them the requirements and ask" i.e. "You can't open it but you could if you had the key. Searching for the key is likely to be a risky venture and take time. Do you want to do that? Or you could have a replacement key made by the Guildmaster, but he often asks for favours in return for favours. Do you want to do that instead?"
This is probably a good example of how DW's GM Moves don't change your normal process of GMing, but they may inspire ideas that can help to focus that process.
Quote from: Brad;667921Yeah, I ended up reading it as well...and I've come to the conclusion that DW is closer to a regular RPG than I first thought, but it's written in such a way to make you think otherwise.
This is a common reaction to DW and one I had myself to begin with :) The game play of DW is what most RPGers have always done, just with a different presentation. If you don't find any value in the different presentation, then that's totally cool. But it really works for some people, especially some newbie GMs, who we want to see more of in the RPGing hobby.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;667984It's a label that's much easier to use IMHO than "storygame", "other game" or the misused "indie game", no matter how RPG-like a game may arguably be. :D Hipster games in a nutshell:
Often convoluted. Always pretentious.
Usually elitary.
Right. So a key example of a "hipster game" would be the 1st edition of AD&D?
Quote from: Skywalker;668023No. A GM Move can be 'just failure'.
'Using up their resources' is a GM Move. In this case, it could be just the time taken to try and pick the lock.
Or better yet "Tell them the requirements and ask" i.e. "You can't open it but you could if you had the key. Searching for the key is likely to be a risky venture and take time. Do you want to do that? Or you could have a replacement key made by the Guildmaster, but he often asks for favours in return for favours. Do you want to do that instead?"
This is probably a good example of how DW's GM Moves don't change your normal process of GMing, but they may inspire ideas that can help to focus that process.
OK, so I can have just failure. Good. I don't have to engage the system at every dice roll.
And though the latter is interesting, and I've used it before, I now rather avoid feeding such lines to PCs until they ask. I still slip into it, but I've actually had players ask me to stop doing the above because it feels like I'm playing the game for them. They'd rather ask such setting questions themselves and hash out solutions on their own. So of the above I'd say, "it's beyond your skill to pick. (implied: you need the key)"
It's a playstyle thing I've had to adapt to.
Quote from: Opaopajr;668029And though the latter is interesting, and I've used it before, I now rather avoid feeding such lines to PCs until they ask. I still slip into it, but I've actually had players ask me to stop doing the above because it feels like I'm playing the game for them. They'd rather ask such setting questions themselves and hash out solutions on their own. So of the above I'd say, "it's beyond your skill to pick. (implied: you need the key)"
There is no reason why "Tell requirements and ask" couldn't be done exactly as you say, with the ask being implied. I have found that there is a lot of room in DW's GM moves to pretty much adopt your own style, and for the most part I don't even refer or think of what I am doing in that framework.
But as said, if you are new GM (or just a uninspired experienced GM), then some of these ideas are helpful. Its certainly a lot more explicit as to what the GM should be doing than as presented in most RPGs.
Quote from: fuseboy;667943Neato. The ratios are how far they have progressed toward each goal? (So, at a later point in the game, you might have the NPC at 6/10 for finding artifacts that open demon portal?)
Yes, exactly. And you can go over and store them. And certain ticks may have special accounting. And special NPC effort can increase tick aggregation, with likewise antagonist effort undoing ticks.
So of the above summoning circle example, it can be thus:
Portal Artifacts, reusable (11/10) > Hideout for circle ritual, reusable (5/1) > Circle ritual supplies (8/3)
So there's a spare portal artifact, in case PCs/NPCs steal or destroy one. There's four extra hideouts to retire to. These are reusable until destroyed (exposed). Thankfully there is spare supplies, just in case. Circle ritual supplies allow for two summoning circles, one quite soon after the other.
PCs may attempt to harass by exposing hideouts, stealing or destroying artifacts and ritual materials, or speculating on ritual materials to complicate access. And you as GM have a quick accounting method on how much of a setback any of those efforts are. Just be sure to not let players know exactly the accounting behind the screen, in case they metagame unconsciously.
It's just a method to quickly show NPC goals, alternate goals, progress, reserves, setbacks, and future focus. Like a schemer's stat line with its own attack routine.
That's very cool, Opaopajr. What are the roots of this, or is it something you concocted?
It vaguely reminds me of Apocalypse World clocks and Burning Empires infection disposition, but those are player-visible counters (and in the latter case, there are explicit OOC mechanics for players to interact with it).
Normally, my NPC actions and turns of events are planned in a fairly 'just in time' sense, but I find one shortcoming of this is that a certain verisimilitude can be lacking when you're invisibly retconning behind the screen. NPC actions behind the scenes tend to throw off evidence of one sort or another, which can make it pretty satisfying when players finally figure out wtf is going on.
Quote from: Benoist;667712The game redefines the role of the GM as a guy who just applies a set of prescripted moves otherwise it's "bad" and he "cheats". That's a game that's based on the notion the GM must be held by the balls by the rules, and in that, it's as far from traditional as you can get it. It's a hack on Apocalypse World which has been written by a guy who believes the traditional role of the GM is a problem that should be fixed, the worse thing that happened to RPGs, and that game is the direct fruit of that fucked up thinking.
This is so not a game I want to look over. The more I hear about a game trying to call the DM a cheat, the more I know that game is bullshit with angst from the game designer because some mean DM touched him in the wrong place a decade ago. It's pathetic.
Quote from: Jason Coplen;668063This is so not a game I want to look over. The more I hear about a game trying to call the DM a cheat, the more I know that game is bullshit with angst from the game designer because some mean DM touched him in the wrong place a decade ago. It's pathetic.
The only people who have used the word "cheat" in relation to DW is Benoist and yourself. If that's the reason you don't want to look over the game, perhaps stop doing the thing you object to and ignore Benoist. You should be fine.
FWIW I can confirm that the word "cheat" in DW only appears in relating to "cheating death" with its death's door mechanic.
Quote from: Skywalker;668065The only people who have used the word "cheat" in relation to DW is Benoist and yourself. If that's the reason you don't want to look over the game, perhaps stop doing the thing you object to and ignore Benoist. You should be fine.
FWIW I can confirm that the word "cheat" in DW only appears in relating to "cheating death" with its death's door mechanic.
Okay. I can do that. I won't buy the game (lack of money), but I can look over some stuff online about it. I'll know better in a few days or weeks when I get around to it.
There's no silliness like FATE Aspects, is there? I like FATE, but Aspects smack me as weird. Maybe I'm too traditional of a DM.
Asking Benoist opinion on DW is like asking how good a shooting guard Kobe Bryant is to a guy who never saw a basketball game in his entire life.
Quote from: Jason Coplen;668068There's no silliness like FATE Aspects, is there? I like FATE, but Aspects smack me as weird. Maybe I'm too traditional of a DM.
There is nothing like FATE's aspects. And FWIW I actually dislike FATE aspects too for constantly positioning the player into an authorial position (oh, the irony) :)
About as close as you get to the player in DW having authorial control is:
- the player of the Cleric being able to choose their PC's deity's domain and precepts at character creation.
- sometimes, on a failure, the player may be given a choose of 1 of 2 bad options i.e. "you can make the jump over the chasm but to do so you either have to grab onto the far ledge with your fingers or have to land so carelessly that you take damage". From experience, all of this can be framed as choices for the PC though (which I think is the intention of the rules), and not the player.
FWIW you can download the PC sheets and moves sheets here: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3269630/dwdotcom/DungeonWorld_character_sheets.pdf. That is pretty much 90% of the rules, other than the fact that the players are the only ones to roll in the RPG and that you roll 2d6 and add a bonus from Attribute - 6- is a failure, 7-9 is a success with a cost, and 10+ is a success.
What you will see is pretty weird at first glance. DW takes a novel way about how to approach roleplaying. But its still roleplaying (and FWIW its totally legit to not like that approach).
Also, FWIW, there are RPGs out where I think it is a valid criticism for that you can call cheat on the GM, such as Burning Empires. DW is just not one of those RPGs.
No doubt, some raging mod will seek to correct me ;)
Quote from: fuseboy;668061That's very cool, Opaopajr. What are the roots of this, or is it something you concocted?
It vaguely reminds me of Apocalypse World clocks and Burning Empires infection disposition, but those are player-visible counters (and in the latter case, there are explicit OOC mechanics for players to interact with it).
Normally, my NPC actions and turns of events are planned in a fairly 'just in time' sense, but I find one shortcoming of this is that a certain verisimilitude can be lacking when you're invisibly retconning behind the screen. NPC actions behind the scenes tend to throw off evidence of one sort or another, which can make it pretty satisfying when players finally figure out wtf is going on.
Self-creation. I took Final Fantasy Tactics' tick counter initiative resolution and applied it as a programmable routine. It's a fungible way to manage time, and even go backwards in progress, while still running automatically. This was way back before, in 1999 or early '00s. And it was entirely hidden to avoid OOC metagaming.
It's just like a random table in a way; you program which encounters, at what quantity, at what frequency, at what terrain and then let the program run itself whenever the players interact with it. Here you program simultaneous goals, any compound goals, subroitines within goals, those with alternate results, and throw up a tabulating routine. Interestingly, if you have more than one NPC routine they can end up conflicting regardless of PC action. Great world in motion and rumor fodder!
It's basic delegation of GM tasks to an automated program.
Is it an RPG? It has roleplaying in it. If that's your only definition, not sure why you're bothering defining anything.
Dungeon World contains mechanics that can be engaged while IC.
Dungeon World contains mechanics that can't be engaged while IC.
Can you immerse under those conditions? Some can easily, some find it a little odd at times, others can't.
Basically the people that tell you DW is like any other RPG are simply people who have a high tolerance for narrative mechanics, prefer narrative mechanics, or can't tell the difference between a narrative and non-narrative mechanic.
Reading the rules makes it obvious that the author is of the "rpgs create a fictional construct" school of thought. As a result, he rarely, if ever, mentions "in character", but always mentions "in the fiction". If you want to know more about this view of RPGs, see here (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/under-microscope.html), where Black Vulmea examines a discussion from ConTessa about Collaborative World-Building.
DW is a hybrid game of 100% New School design, not a single thing traditional or old school about the mechanics, or the underlying foundation of what roleplaying means. The only thing traditional or old school about it is the tropes of dungeoneering.
Quote from: silva;668072Asking Benoist opinion on DW is like asking how good a shooting guard Kobe Bryant is to a guy who never saw a basketball game in his entire life.
This coming from the guy who admits he's never immersed once in any tabletop RPG as much as he has in computer games. Yeah, you're one to talk. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CKruegerDungeon World contains mechanics that can't be engaged while IC.
Just like D&D then ?
Or can you engage "Experience Points" and "Level ups" while in character ?
Quote from: CRKrueger;668122This coming from the guy who admits he's never immersed once in any tabletop RPG as much as he has in computer games. Yeah, you're one to talk. :rolleyes:
I'm curious, is immersion required for it to be an RPG? Is it required for it to be Old School?
Quote from: CRKrueger;668120DW is a hybrid game of 100% New School design, not a single thing traditional or old school about the mechanics, or the underlying foundation of what roleplaying means. The only thing traditional or old school about it is the tropes of dungeoneering.
Well, they billed on the Kickstarter as a game with modern rules and old-school style, so that sounds about right.
Quote from: Noclue;668124I'm curious, is immersion required for it to be an RPG? Is it required for it to be Old School?
I used immersion because the quote I was referring to used immersion. I'm not going to use the term again, because that term is a "going to the mattresses" definition for the Usual Suspects.
Instead I would say that playing a game from an In-Character perspective is the definition of roleplaying (it's hard to see how you're roleplaying if you are not playing a role). Now, obviously, you don't have to roleplay while playing a old school RPG, in fact Old Geezer will live forever through internet quotes as proof of that fact.
I would, however, say that games that require you at times, to engage core, fundamental mechanics while OOC, like FATE or like DW, deliberately reduce the roleplaying experience to add a more authorial (ie. narrative control) experience to the game.
Such games are a specific Hybrid of RPGs and STGs as they divide the gameplay between IC and OOC.
Quote from: Noclue;668124Well, they billed on the Kickstarter as a game with modern rules and old-school style, so that sounds about right.
Right, the author himself, Baker's forums, Storygames site, basically everywhere but awfulpurple and here recognize it's a new-school game. The idiots at awfulpurple are the ones who really started the "DW is a traditional old school game" meme and the guys here continue it, well because that's what they do here for some reason.
Quote from: CKruegerI would, however, say that games that require you at times, to engage core, fundamental mechanics while OOC.. deliberately reduce the roleplaying experience to add a more authorial (ie. narrative control) experience to the game.
In most traditional rpgs (D&D included) you must go OOC to engage with "experience points", "leveling up", "prestige classes", "playing dice", and the such.
Those games are not rpgs ? :)
Quote from: silva;668123Just like D&D then ?
Or can you engage "Experience Points" and "Level ups" while in character ?
Heh, don't try to be Justin, you don't have the chops. You don't really engage XP mechanics in any game.
You've never played AD&D, so you wouldn't know that "leveling up" in AD&D isn't like DW where you just play the Level Up move after having played the End Session move, but
your character actually has to seek out a trainer in-game, hire the trainer in-game, pay the trainer in-game and then spend in-game time training. You tell me, Rainman.
Oh, actually you would know because you've been told that about 50 times but you ignore it like anything else that doesn't fit Silva-view when you want to do a knucklehead me-too drive-by to try and score points.
BTW, DW's mechanics and playstyle are discussed elsewhere, to get an idea of what other people think and how they play, check out this Reddit discussion. (http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/18pahr/is_it_just_me_or_is_dungeon_world_overly/)
Don't worry about defining terms, just ask yourself if what they are describing is what scratches your RPG itch. If you're like some people here, it will, if you're like others here, it won't.
Quote from: CKRuegerYou've never played AD&D, so you wouldn't know that "leveling up" in AD&D isn't like DW where you just play the Level Up move after having played the End Session move, but your character actually has to seek out a trainer in-game, hire the trainer in-game, pay the trainer in-game and then spend in-game time training. You tell me, Rainman.
In Shadowrun (and a lot of other games) you dont need to seek nor pay trainers in-game to apply your experience points/Karma.
Isnt Shadowrun an rpg ? :eek:
Hey, CRK. FWIW I am jiving with what you are saying :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;668125Such games are a specific Hybrid of RPGs and STGs as they divide the gameplay between IC and OOC.
I have a question though about your quote above. Does OOC or mechanics you engage with OOC mean that they are story-game mechanics? I am not sure the two things equate. To give an example, in a tactical RPG, the tactics are often engaged with OOC (more than IC anyway) but aren't about giving the player any authorial power. They are about engaging and entertaining the player direct.
Bringing it back to a DW example you gave, does the fact that you level up at the end of a session rather than following IC description of training etc, make it a story-game mechanic? It's less of a roleplaying focus, yes, but is the spectrum really that binary, that less roleplaying means story-gaming?
Actually, this may be better as a seperate thread. :)
Quote from: silva;668133In Shadowrun (and a lot of other games) you dont need to seek nor pay trainers in-game to apply your experience points/Karma.
Isnt Shadowrun an rpg ? :eek:
There you go. At least think a little bit when you post.
Lots of games have "downtime phases" that are abstracted and not played IC and a lot of games have a "luck point" mechanism that probably, was the first OOC narrative control mechanic in RPGs.
However, when playing 1/2e Shadowrun or 1e WFRP, aside from the single "Luck Point" mechanic, the rest of the game mechanics are straight IC task resolution. (I would argue Shadowrun 3/4e oddly follow D&D in varying levels of OOC tactical and narrative elements added in, but that's a different thread).
So yeah, Shadowrun is an RPG, not a Narrative RPG. For example, in Shadowrun the player doesn't decide when he runs out of bullets. ;)
DW is a Narrative RPG, or Hybrid RPG if you prefer.
Quote from: Skywalker;668137Hey, CRK. FWIW I am jiving with what you are saying :)
I have a question though about your quote above. Does OOC or mechanics you engage with OOC mean that they are story-game mechanics? I am not sure the two things equate. To give an example, in a tactical RPG, the tactics are often engaged with OOC (more than IC anyway) but aren't about giving the player any authorial power.
Bringing it back to DW, does the fact that you level up at the end of a session rather than following IC description of training etc, make it a story-game mechanic? It's less of a roleplaying focus, yes, but is the spectrum really that binary, that less roleplaying means story-gaming?
Actually, this may be better as a seperate thread. :)
No, narrative control mechanics are just a sub-type of OOC mechanics. Tactical mechanics are another sub-type, that's why I advocate the sub-genres:
Tactical RPG - RPGs where players' decisions are frequently made OOC for the purposes of tactical challenge. (D&D4, WFRP3 is pushing it).
Narrative RPG - RPGs where players' decisions are frequently made OOC for the purposes of narrative control/authorship. (FATE, AW/DW, etc.)
Less roleplaying doesn't mean storygaming, less roleplaying means more OOC, that's all.
Cool. Thanks for the straight up answer.
Actually, I have another question/observation. What about RPG mechanics that engage both IC and OOC? For example, in regard to tactical combat systems, there is a very definite OOC engagement. But the tactics are normally based on IC actions and objectives i.e. win the fight through using certain combat actions.
To give another example from Double Cross, the relationship system is all explained and able to be engaged with from an IC perspective. Your PC knows that relationships hold back his decline into madness, and that breaking those relationships causes the Renegade virus to flourish for extra power. However, there is also a less obvious OOC engagement to encourage players to consider what's important to the PC, communicate that to the GM, and to then complicate his PC's life for added drama.
Looking at the DW example you gave, about the player deciding when his PC runs out of ammo, we get the same OOC/IC split. The rule can be engaged with IC. In order to get in a difficult shot, the PC has to decide whether to move out of position, fire extra arrows, or just take a weaker shot. But, as you say, there is an OOC element as well in balancing those options.
In DW, its possible to interact with nearly all the mechanics from an IC perspective if you want to do so. FWIW we have "neutral" testimony from Silverlion who says he never felt he approached DW from an OOC perspective more than most other traditional RPGs he has played. However, I also agree that DW does also have mechanics that are also designed to engage the player. That's possibly the "new school" element referred to in DW's tagline, but this player engagement doesn't necessarily mean a story-game focus.
I guess where a lot of confusion is happening is that many RPG mechanics engage on both an IC and OOC perspective to some extent and have always done so. I am sure some people play RPGs and try to immerse in their PCs as completely as they can, but I don't think any RPG has ever really supported total separation. In fact, LARPing would seem to get the closest to doing so.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668027Right. So a key example of a "hipster game" would be the 1st edition of AD&D?
I'm not very familiar with it, so I couldn't say.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150Actually, I have another question/observation. What about RPG mechanics that engage both IC and OOC?
A mechanic designed as pure "physics" can be engaged with IC or OOC, you engage with it however you want. Mechanics that add in other, specifically Player-driven agendas, cannot be engaged strictly IC. As such, they hamper roleplaying from an IC perspective, which is why games that contain such mechanics shouldn't generally be lumped in with RPGs that don't.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150For example, in regard to tactical combat systems, there is a very definite OOC engagement. But the tactics are normally based on IC actions and objectives i.e. win the fight through using certain combat actions.
But you have something like 4e, with it's famously dissociated mechanics, then it becomes really hard to engage from an IC perspective when it is clear that there really was not even the smallest attempt to design it as such.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150To give another example from Double Cross, the relationship system is all explained and able to be engaged with from an IC perspective. Your PC knows that relationships hold back his decline into madness, and that breaking those relationships causes the Renegade virus to flourish for extra power. However, there is also a less obvious OOC engagement to encourage players to consider what's important to the PC, communicate that to the GM, and to then complicate his PC's life for added drama.
Eh, I'd argue the classification of relationships as Lois or Titus, each one having specific mechanical "uses" is more then less obviously OOC, it's blatantly OOC. The idea that one sacrifices human contact as one chooses to become a monster is strongly an IC concept, unfortunately, from
descriptions I have read (I do not have the rules) the implementation is a typical player-focused narrative control mechanic.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150Looking at the DW example you gave, about the player deciding when his PC runs out of ammo, we get the same OOC/IC split. The rule can be engaged with IC. In order to get in a difficult shot, the PC has to decide whether to move out of position, fire extra arrows, or just take a weaker shot. But, as you say, there is an OOC element as well in balancing those options.
Right, except if
as a player, I never choose that option or roll low enough for the GM to use a "Hard Move" and lower resources, I can sit up on a hill overlooking Thermopylae and Volley the entire Persian Army to death, and don't tell me I can't according to the rules.
Also let's not get into the
"I don't have a good shot so get to shoot 4 times and hit, Fred doesn't have a good shot and so jumps down off a ledge to get off a shot and hit and you hit and get to to shoot once and not move in the exact same time frame based on player choice" time-warp problem that the Usual Suspects will cry isn't there.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150In DW, its possible to interact with nearly all the mechanics from an IC perspective if you want to do so.
I disagree, as we've been over quite a bit.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150FWIW we have "neutral" testimony from Silverlion who says he never felt he approached DW from an OOC perspective more than most other traditional RPGs he has played.
True, but Tim definitely prefers a narrative mix in the games he designs, I wouldn't expect him to get thrown off from the obvious narrative layer.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150However, I also agree that DW does also have a lot of mechanics that are also designed to engage the player. That's possibly the "new school" element referred to in DW's tagline, but player engagement doesn't necessarily mean a story-game focus.
No, OOC mechanics targeting player engagement do not necessarily mean a narrative focus as I said earlier. The author's constant referencing things in narrative terms using new school narrative language does that.
Quote from: Skywalker;668150I guess where a lot of confusion is happening is that many RPG mechanics engage on both an IC and OOC perspective to some extent and have always done so.
Again, a mechanic designed to be engaged IC can be engaged IC or OOC. A mechanic designed to be engaged OOC cannot be engaged IC. There's the difference. For people who regularly enjoy a hybrid of IC/OOC with a narrative stance, DW will feel no different from any other game, except maybe more satisfying which is why all the new school guys are trumpeting it's the "D&D that works for them".
Quote from: Skywalker;668150I am sure some people play RPGs so to immerse in their PCs as completely as they can, but I don't think any RPG has ever really supported that total separation. In fact, LARPing would seem to get the closest to doing so.
Any game with mechanics that are simple "physics engine" type task resolution 100% completely support roleplaying from an IC stance...or not as you choose.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668159Any game with mechanics that are simple "physics engine" type task resolution 100% completely support roleplaying from an IC stance...or not as you choose.
Enlightening response, CRK.
It's seems like the separation that is being attempted here is less about seperating out story-games from RPGs, and is more about creating a subset of "roleplaying games" as many people have experienced them since their inception. It kind of feels to me like an attempt to redefine what an RPG is based on a modern anti-OOC mechanics sentiment.
Please don't take that as a criticism. You have provided food for thought and explained your position and thoughts well.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668159Right, except if as a player, I never choose that option or roll low enough for the GM to use a "Hard Move" and lower resources, I can sit up on a hill overlooking Thermopylae and Volley the entire Persian Army to death, and don't tell me I can't according to the rules.
Specifically on this, of course, you are right. But the abstraction of ammo as a concept isn't a strong argument for this being an OOC only mechanic, or that it grants the player an authorial position.
Quote from: Skywalker;668160Enlightening response, CRK.
It's seems like the separation that is being attempted here is less about seperating out story-games from RPGs, and is more about creating a subset of "roleplaying games" as many people have experienced them since their inception. It kind of feels to me like an attempt to redefine what an RPG is based on a modern anti-OOC mechanics sentiment.
Please don't take that as a criticism. You have provided food for thought and explained your position and thoughts well.
Actually, I'd consider it an attempt to prevent the redefinition of what an RPG is based on new OOC player-driven agendas. Or, if you prefer, all the games under the RPG umbrella are getting too divergent and targeting too many different playstyles to have the simple term RPG be meaningful.
It's really no different from calling D&D a fantasy RPG, Traveller a sci-fi RPG, CoC a lovecraftian horror RPG, and A&8 a western RPG as I see it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668162Actually, I'd consider it an attempt to prevent the redefinition of what an RPG is based on new OOC player-driven agendas. Or, if you prefer, all the games under the RPG umbrella are getting too divergent and targeting too many different playstyles to have the simple term RPG be meaningful.
Yeah, 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.
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.
You have a point in that narrative control mechanics and theory about Story have been around for a long time and Greg Stafford and Robin Laws were doing narrative-focused design long before the Forge existed. I think however, as a design movement, narrativism is really coming into its own.
Did you read Black Vulmea's blog article about that ConTessa discussion? The idea of collaborative world building isn't new, but incorporating it fundamentally through mechanics is. That's the difference.
Old school games may have dealt with these concepts, but they were a single mechanic or two in many cases easily excised. New school games are codifying and incorporating things usually done between players and GM into the rules themselves. For people who always preferred to roleplay with the addition of authorship or narrative control and never had mechanical support, this must seem like a cultural revolution, in fact, to hear awfulpurple tell it, it is.
For me though, it just ain't what I call role-playing. I get it, I just don't like it much and would prefer if people stopped blowing smoke saying there is no difference between a RPG with no OOC mechanics and one designed with core OOC decisions in mind.
I enjoy world building, plot-designing and story-telling, it's why I GM, noy why I play. I play to roleplay my character as my character. Yank me out of role-playing too many times and I ask myself "Is this a RPG or something kinda different?"
Quote from: CRKrueger;668169You have a point in that narrative control mechanics and theory about Story have been around for a long time and Greg Stafford and Robin Laws were doing narrative-focused design long before the Forge existed. I think however, as a design movement, narrativism is really coming into its own.
The 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.
I understand it may not be RPGing to you and others, and I have some sympathy with your position as certain RPGs with entrenched OOC mechanics rub me up the wrong way too. There are lines to be crossed. But, for me and other RPGers, the way it's implemented here feels like the exact opposite.
In any case, I think we have understanding. Hopefully, Dale doesn't feel this thread has been derailed too far :)
FWIW, part of the reason I got into trying to define aspects of RPGs is due to all the hullabaloo and bad blood about D&D4 and WFRP3. Early criticism of both was similar "Not an RPG", "boardgame", "card game", "MMOGs on paper". These incorrect criticisms were part of the reason why the debate got so heated, although there were many other reasons. Ok, so someone thought 4e didn't feel like D&D, why? To his credit, JA came up with a good term for one of the main criticisms, dissociated mechanics.
So someone says DW isn't an RPG. That's an incorrect criticism, but why do they feel that way? What's happening that's making someone say it's not role-playing? Well, simply put, I think in many cases it's the core conflict resolution mechanic and the potentially OOC nature of many of the moves. It doesn't feel like a game where you pretend you are a character in a living breathing world, it feels like a game where you are controlling a character in a fictional story. The incessant use of the word fiction instead of setting or world, completely reinforces that view, as does all the advice on plot structure as opposed to world-building.
In essence, DW is a RPG, it's an RPG designed to facilitate collaborative storytelling. It's what WW games claimed they were but weren't.
Quote from: SkywalkerI guess where a lot of confusion is happening is that many RPG mechanics engage on both an IC and OOC perspective to some extent and have always done so. I am sure some people play RPGs and try to immerse in their PCs as completely as they can, but I don't think any RPG has ever really supported total separation. In fact, LARPing would seem to get the closest to doing so.
This.
By the time you roll the dice (or cards, or rock-paper-scissor, or any other props) here in real-life, youre already OOC.
By the time you engage with mechanical concepts that are divorced from the fiction - XP, Thac0s, Prestige Classes, Tactical options, etc youre already OOC.
By the time the game obligates you to consider that same fiction-abhorrent concepts here in real life, youre already OOC.
So, while I CRKrueger analysis is spot on - AW/DW is really a "new school" game that mixes a lot of concepts - I disagree with his conclusion that its "not an rpg", because every criteria he picked for separating the two, is already present in the old school rpgs. Even the OOC stances.
And here we go back to why
videogames immerse me more than tabletop rpgs - because the "man-fiction-interface" in a videogame is much more direct and instinctive than a tabletop game: in a videogame Im actually "seeing" and "hearing" the shared imagined space directly with my senses and Im moving myself with neural commands to my fingers, I dont need to "imagine" how a gunshot would hear, nor the way an npc express himself nor how it feels like to shoot a gun, nor do I need to "declare" that my character is walking towards the door - all this is directly in front of me; I dont need to re-compile/re-interpret system numbers into fiction and vice-versa everytime I must take an action or analyse a situation, nor do I need to go OOC and freeze time to take tactical considerations.
So, TL;DR:
All rpgs will have OOC stances, because its "man-fiction-interface" is poorly equiped to do otherwise. Videogames are a much better "man-fiction-interface" because it feeds your senses directly and make the interaction barrier much lower, so it facilitates immersion much more.
Is it worth looking further at how/why some mechanics are more of a problem for in-character roleplaying?
I hope this doesn't derail what seems to be a productive discussion for you guys but you can look at interference as occurring in a number of ways. E.g.:
*straight up time division: time you're spending rolling dice or computing numbers are time when the player is distracted from being in-character.
*strategic decision making: rules can have an impact on in-character decision making by generating incentives or disincentives that should be unknown to the character. A character might know that a called shot to the knee is difficult (-4 to hit) and that can be factored into their combat decision making in character, while knowing that they shouldn't pick up a club and keep using it because it costs plot points, can't be an in-character decision.
In part this is one of the ones that's more variable between players because some people are better at finding creative interpretations for how some random rules artifact can be justified (see every "4E dailies suck" power argument ever). On the other hand, some people are more judgmental about whether a rule generates sensible results (e.g. I'm particularly prickly about why if my 4W attack requires an 'opening' for use, I can't whack unconscious people with it), and there's probably subjectivity here as well as to how much interpreting a player wants to do vs. how much description they feel is the GMs prerogative.
Players also over time get used to certain rules which feel less jarring and just get accepted as 'rules of physics' after awhile.
This issue comes up with DW in reference to a lot of its decision mechanics because it being conflict-resolution, it seems there sometimes isn't an in-character decision at all, or it happens after the fact. You roll the dice and that tells you if you decided to jump down and shoot 17 arrows into them, instead of choosing the action first.
*in-character decision load: maybe someone can think of a better term, but how much the fiction around a situation needs to be described to arbitrate what occurs. DW is interesting here in that stuff has to be hashed out between the player and GM to determine what move applies (i.e. exact circumstances can determine whether an action is hack and slash, defy danger or auto-damage?). Its vagueness seems similar to how in D&D a player might get a better chance of doing something by describing exactly what they're doing. Some ruleset effectively insulate a player from dealing with things in-character by having lots of codified procedures that eliminate the need to consider such things (a player needing to think about their 10-ft-pole is more engaged that one rolling a Search check).
This one is tricky because its often gained as a flip side from complex combat rules and the like. So you lose time rolling hit locations for bullets, but the players also worry about wearing torso armour in a more in-character way :)
*tension: some players want danger, others don't. Luck point mechanics reduce the feeling of vulnerability to the player; they also directly generate a disconnection between the player's experience and the character's experience because the PC shouldn't be aware they have re-rolls available.
*control of stakes: something Vulmea's ConTessa post made me consider. From a pure min/max standpoint, why would I choose to do a lengthy campaign to destroy the Scarlet Brotherhood, when I could eliminate them by voting them down in the world-design stage?
Having a simpler shortcut makes the whole exercise seem pretty pointless.
(By the same token I feel that often even a 'seek vengeance on the slayers of your parents' type character background can lack pathos because its again a problem you chose for yourself. I think the storygamers have a term for this as well).
Down this line of thought, Apocalypse World is actually baffling me somewhat since its meant to exude doom and despair, while it actually seems to be giving the players a reasonable amount of freedom, albeit between hard choices.
Quote from: silva;668202And here we go back to why videogames immerse me more than tabletop rpgs - because the "man-fiction-interface" in a videogame is much more direct and instinctive than a tabletop game: in a videogame Im actually "seeing" and "hearing" the shared imagined space directly with my senses and Im moving myself with neural commands to my fingers, I dont need to "imagine" how a gunshot would hear, nor the way an npc express himself nor how it feels like to shoot a gun, nor do I need to "declare" that my character is walking towards the door - all this is directly in front of me; I dont need to re-compile/re-interpret system numbers into fiction and vice-versa everytime I must take an action or analyse a situation, nor do I need to go OOC and freeze time to take tactical considerations..
I think whether one finds video games more immerssive, versus rpgs, or movies more than books, is going to vary a lot from individual to individual. Saying one is objectively more immersive than the other seems like a flawed position to me. I am sure for you, and of some others, video games are more immersive. For me they are not immersive at all, because there are serious limits on what you can do and how you can interact. I have long found that the degree of immersion I get from table top rpgs is much more impactful and rich than any other medium I've experienced. My very first time playing an rpg, the thing that jumped out at me, was it felt like the real world vanished and I was on another world, assuming the identity of a cyborg travelling through a post apocalyptic landscape. Even movies never made me feel that way before.
Quote from: Brad;667551Vampire isn't a storyteller game in the same sense as Dungeon World because there exists a GM who isn't collaborating with the players and instead acts as a referee. Just like Ars Magica has a "troupe method" of play, yet retains a ref to adjudicate conflict.
.
Fuck me, do you really think that a GM/DM/ref is neutral and an adjudicator in an rpg? But let that lie for now!I'd say that DW is an rpg. There is a game, and the ref follows the flow of the dice rolls, in fact in some ways it is more of a 'game' than many trad games if you follow the process, the GM is presenting his box of tricks as and when the dice say so. The GM also has to do some some prep, have some idea of a dungeon, an opposing force (Front), and the monsters, traps and so on that are at hand to be deployed against the players in response to the dice.
But the proactive element is the player, the GM reactive, but the tools and outcomes are really very similar in play.
Skywalker, CRKrueger this exchange has been very interesting, and all the more for being cordial.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668171FWIW, part of the reason I got into trying to define aspects of RPGs is due to all the hullabaloo and bad blood about D&D4 and WFRP3. Early criticism of both was similar "Not an RPG", "boardgame", "card game", "MMOGs on paper". These incorrect criticisms were part of the reason why the debate got so heated, although there were many other reasons. Ok, so someone thought 4e didn't feel like D&D, why? To his credit, JA came up with a good term for one of the main criticisms, dissociated mechanics.
I think this way of looking at specific mechanics is very useful, because that can be used for future game designs.
Quote from: Brad;667602SW d6 is firmly an RPG because the goal of the game is to beat the Empire. If the goal was to "see what happens to Rebels when put into strange and dangerous situations", with no emphasis on success, it'd be a story game.
Well bloody hell. RPGs are about success? So the bit about there being no winners or losers in so many rpgs since the hobby started is all wrong bad fun?I take it you have never played a SW game where you were morally ambiguous scoundrels?
So, what is the goal of the Traveller rpg? Or is that not an rpg as well?
Quote from: fuseboy;668219Skywalker, CRKrueger this exchange has been very interesting, and all the more for being cordial.
.
I have to agree. The two of them have both been doing a great job having an actual conversation on the subject. I enjoyed reading both their responses to each other.
Quote from: tzunder;668221Well bloody hell. RPGs are about success? So the bit about there being no winners or losers in so many rpgs since the hobby started is all wrong bad fun?
I take it you have never played a SW game where you were morally ambiguous scoundrels?
So, what is the goal of the Traveller rpg? Or is that not an rpg as well?
Yes, RPGs are about success. The characters have goals and pursue them. Otherwise, you're just simulating real life and might as well play The Sims. All that "there are no winners or losers" crap has been taking out of context to a ridiculous extreme. There's no conventional winner in the sense that the players are trying to achieve a common goal (unlike poker, for instance), but if your character dies and doesn't fulfill his destiny, well, you lost. In a story telling game, this is obviously not the case because the narrative is what's important; do you "win" or "lose" when reading a novel..? I suppose you can for some weird interpretations of those words, but this is why I don't think story telling games are RPGs.
And, no, I have never played a Star Wars game where the characters were morally ambiguous; that's not part of the genre, and especially not part of SW. All the "scoundrel" types in SW ended up being firmly good or bad, and that's the way it should stay. You can certainly play a game in the SW universe that goes against genre, but if that were the case, I'd rather play Traveller, since you brought that up.
To address the last point...seriously? The goal of a Traveller game is whatever the characters decide it to be. If you're a merchant, making money. A mercenary, fighting wars and making money. The difference would be this: if I have a merchant character in Traveller and think either selling all my cargo for a profit or getting fleeced are both excellent as they push a narrative, I'm playing a story telling game. If I think getting fucked over when selling cargo is a terrible idea because it goes directly against my goals of trying to make money, I'm playing an RPG because the ROLE of a merchant is to make money, not get involved in "interesting situations". One is looking at the game from an overarching meta perspective, the other from the view of a specific character.
Quote from: Brad;668224Y All that "there are no winners or losers" crap has been taking out of context to a ridiculous extreme. There's no conventional winner in the sense that the players are trying to achieve a common goal (unlike poker, for instance), but if your character dies and doesn't fulfill his destiny, well, you lost. In a story telling game, this is obviously not the case because the narrative is what's important; do you "win" or "lose" when reading a novel..?
You know, I must be a storytelling swine. Even 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.
QuoteTo address the last point...seriously? The goal of a Traveller game is whatever the characters decide it to be. If you're a merchant, making money. A mercenary, fighting wars and making money.
A dilletante idly spending money and seeking new experiences? A wanderer who wishes to see, meet and enjoy new cultures? Are these story tellers or roleplayers?
Or a marine, defending an Imperial noble against rebel scum, knowing that they will have to lay down their lives for the cause? Swine or roleplayer?
Quote from: CRKrueger;668129but your character actually has to seek out a trainer in-game, hire the trainer in-game, pay the trainer in-game and then spend in-game time training. .
Well 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?
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?
I have. Back when I first started this is how we played. eventually it mostly got dropped by the groups I was in. I also saw lots of people ignore it completely. For myself I like there to at least be a nod toward this sort of thing by the player to explain new powers in any edition of D&D. So in 3E if someone takes a rank in a new class, I would expect there to be some in game event to explain it. If they gain a new power or skill, something like at least mentioning you practice woodwork or seek someone to teach you is expected. It isn't normally 100% and not something the GM would normally enforce as a rule, just something players in the group tend to do.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210Is it worth looking further at how/why some mechanics are more of a problem for in-character roleplaying?
Johnson, that's very interesting: yes, I think it's worthwhile.
As you wrote this, I was halfway through writing out a list for myself of different modes of awareness - just as a way of giving myself a way of plotting how various mechanics encourage certain types of experiences.
For example, thinking about what you want, as a player is a different mode from thinking the desires of your greedy, cowardly character. Both of these are different from thinking about what's happening socially, (e.g. "John seems to be pissed at the GM,") and so on.
So, your comment made me realize that different people are distracted by different things. I notice that - more than any mechanic - I'm much more likely to be distracted by something going on at the social level, whether as GM or player. I find it's really important for me to be able to differentiate whether Cyril the Bloody's anger is from the character, or whether John (who is playing Cyril) is actually pissed off.
Similarly, as GM, while world-simulating mechanics (e.g. the faction stuff in Stars Without Number) tickle me pink, when I'm running that way, I get this creeping sense of doubt that it's entertaining to the players, and so I find OOC comments about player enjoyment really useful.
So, perhaps oddly, I find "immersion-breaking" mechanics that deal with these concerns (e.g. player flags) play a role in helping me immerse, since now that my need is taken care of, I can let go of those other concerns and sink into the character.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210*straight up time division: time you're spending rolling dice or computing numbers are time when the player is distracted from being in-character.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210Players also over time get used to certain rules which feel less jarring and just get accepted as 'rules of physics' after awhile.
I think this is a big factor. An OOC 'story point' mechanic is potentially immersion-breaking because it puts you into an author frame of mind rather than that of your character. On the other hand, rolling to hit in Rolemaster is like doing your taxes, it's hilarious - there's nothing "in character" about it. (I will grant that it doesn't put you in anybody else's shoes.) Whether it's distracting or not depends IMO entirely on familiarity and enjoyment. If I like the procedure, I'm still having fun, and I can resume an in-character mode without upset.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210You roll the dice and that tells you if you decided to jump down and shoot 17 arrows into them, instead of choosing the action first.
Superficially, quantitative damage is a bit like this. When you take 9 hit points' damage, what's happened? Did the spear go through your armor? How far? Is there visible blood? The rules produce a number, and then you have to interpret that number.
I think it's less distracting for hit points because of a) familiarity, b) the fact that wound descriptions are non-authoritative. The wounded fighter might now look pale and dizzy, but that's just transient color - when I go to heal him, I'm going to use Cure Serious Wounds or Cure Light Wounds based on the numerical damage, not the description.
On the other hand, when you do this for larger-scale matters (like a short fight sequence) it does put you in a different frame of mind, because it involves talking about the success and failure of the actions of others as well (they failed to dodge your 17 arrows).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210*control of stakes: ... (By the same token I feel that often even a 'seek vengeance on the slayers of your parents' type character background can lack pathos because its again a problem you chose for yourself. I think the storygamers have a term for this as well).
I've heard this described as the Czege principle - it's unsatisfying to be responsible for both the problem and its resolution (or something like that).
The word I used to use was 'striving'. As a player, I like to strive for things, to try. Relating this to the previous point, when you're describing how you kicked ass in battle, you're no longer striving - which could feel weird, given the high stakes nature of conflict (conflict being when striving happens most).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668210*control of stakes: something Vulmea's ConTessa post made me consider. From a pure min/max standpoint, why would I choose to do a lengthy campaign to destroy the Scarlet Brotherhood, when I could eliminate them by voting them down in the world-design stage?
Cute! To me, this relates to different modes of thought (player prefernces vs. character preferences). As a player going into a game, I have preferences about who I play, and about the opposition I face. Sometimes they're intertwined, like if I suggest we play a band of vampire hunters. The player and character preferences are clearly different things when the game is being established, otherwise zombie survival RPGs wouldn't exist. :)
Players have different preferences for how far apart those two modes have to be. Some players prefer to have as little input as possible into the opposition, which I think is about immersing in the character as soon as possible. Other players don't mind being aware of and expressing their player preferences while the game is underway.
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?
Yep.
Hell, I've even played WFRP where the career changes had to be done in-game. Characters once planned a long complicated caper just to get one of their members to train with a Duelist so he could take the career.
I've been in a Warhammer campaign where this was an assumed rule (though there were careers that you did not need to do so, but you needed someone to teach you skills anyway), but also there was a notion that sometimes you could choose to change a career based on special circumstances - if you joined the mercenary company you could immediately switch to Mercenary career, for example, or there was a moment when an entire party had a chance to switch to a Spy career.
IABYK
Quote from: CRKrueger;668252Yep.
Hell, I've even played WFRP where the career changes had to be done in-game. Characters once planned a long complicated caper just to get one of their members to train with a Duelist so he could take the career.
That's how i think it should be done.
Quote from: One Horse Town;668279That's how i think it should be done.
I'd say it's an officially supported alternative playstyle - The Restless Dead (at least Polish edition) featured rules regarding training skills in WFRP. They might've been in White Dwarf normally.
Quote from: tzunder;668240You know, I must be a storytelling swine. Even 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.
You're combining two separate concepts, and even admitting success is the goal of the game without even realizing it. Most people do NOT enjoy failure as much as success when playing games; that's just basic human psychology. But they still can have fun in the process of playing a game, even if they lose. That holds true for every single game in existence, or else they would never be played in the first place.
I seriously don't understand your argument. My RPG characters regularly fail to achieve their goals, sometimes so poorly it's hilarious. This has nothing to do with their goals of succeeding. To use a real life analogy, there are funny stories you tell your buddies about striking out with a hot chick in a club, but at the time you definitely were trying to hook up with her. It is very rare people purposefully sabotage themselves simply because the end result is irrelevant to them.
Quote from: Brad;668297You're combining two separate concepts [...] To use a real life analogy, there are funny stories you tell your buddies about striking out with a hot chick in a club, but at the time you definitely were trying to hook up with her. It is very rare people purposefully sabotage themselves simply because the end result is irrelevant to them.
Two separate concepts, all right.
In the first case, the goal of the tale-teller is to entertain his friends with a funny, self-deprecating story. In the second case, the goal of the tale-teller is to score.
Some people feel that their goal as a player is to entertain their friends. Personally, I think that ought to trump whatever goals a character might have, lest we stray into "but I'm just playing my chaaaaracter" territory.
Quote from: CRKrueger;668130Don't worry about defining terms, just ask yourself if what they are describing is what scratches your RPG itch.
Okay, 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.
Quote from: daniel_ream;668305In the first case, the goal of the tale-teller is to entertain his friends with a funny, self-deprecating story. In the second case, the goal of the tale-teller is to score.
It's the same person. The story is only funny in retrospect, and during the event in question there was no "story" whatsoever, only actions and consequences.
Quote from: Rincewind1;668254I've been in a Warhammer campaign where this was an assumed rule.
I would actually say in my immediate circle its pretty common with every roleplaying game. Even vampire we spent a godly amount of time in the gym training (which arguably makes no god damn sense at all).
Quote from: CRKrueger;668171So someone says DW isn't an RPG. That's an incorrect criticism, but why do they feel that way? What's happening that's making someone say it's not role-playing? Well, simply put, I think in many cases it's the core conflict resolution mechanic and the potentially OOC nature of many of the moves. It doesn't feel like a game where you pretend you are a character in a living breathing world, it feels like a game where you are controlling a character in a fictional story. The incessant use of the word fiction instead of setting or world, completely reinforces that view, as does all the advice on plot structure as opposed to world-building.
Good stuff. My response to that is I don't find mechanics that include OOC engagement to be in and of itself antithetical to roleplaying, as the process inherently involves both the player and PC. In fact, my experiences suggest that there are benefits to roleplaying/IC engagement by engaging the player direct. As you will have noticed, I have a preference for and interest in mechanics that are IC in nature but engage the player OOC. Equally, I recognise that you can roleplay with very little OOC engagement. Its a matter of preference.
In DW, though I agree that OOC engagement is happening, it is possible (and easy) to maintain the perspectives that we associate with a traditional RPG experience. In DW, GMs have freedom and discretion to control the overall story and players focus on playing the role of their PCs. An example of this is GM Moves which speak to the GM direct for good effect, but the GM then undertakes his role in the usual RPGing manner.
I also agree that there are certainly games that usurp these perspectives and, FWIW, I dislike such attempts. Equally, I see lumping DW in with PTA is IMO inaccurate and equally unhelpful to this definition exercise.
Ultimately, I am just don't consider OOC engagement to be the dividing line for RPGing (traditional RPGs even). It can be a dividing line between narrative RPGs and simulation RPGs, sure, or other definitions which are accurate. I started RPGing in the early 80s and the trends and concepts here existed back then and were part and parcel of the RPGing experience. In the late 90s, there was an usurpation of the traditional RPG perspectives with story gaming and some of it was grounded on those earlier concepts. But now trying to rewrite history to excise these developments is where this exercise has lost traction for me. By trying to reduce the definition of RPGs (or traditional RPGs) to being just RPGs that have no OOC engagement (or simulation RPGs, if that's accurate), it feels like we are throwing out the baby out with the bath water and alienating RPGers. The battleline is established well in advance of where it needs to be.
Quote from: fuseboy;668250Johnson, that's very interesting: yes, I think it's worthwhile.
As you wrote this, I was halfway through writing out a list for myself of different modes of awareness - just as a way of giving myself a way of plotting how various mechanics encourage certain types of experiences.
For example, thinking about what you want, as a player is a different mode from thinking the desires of your greedy, cowardly character. Both of these are different from thinking about what's happening socially, (e.g. "John seems to be pissed at the GM,") and so on.
So, your comment made me realize that different people are distracted by different things. I notice that - more than any mechanic - I'm much more likely to be distracted by something going on at the social level, whether as GM or player. I find it's really important for me to be able to differentiate whether Cyril the Bloody's anger is from the character, or whether John (who is playing Cyril) is actually pissed off.
Similarly, as GM, while world-simulating mechanics (e.g. the faction stuff in Stars Without Number) tickle me pink, when I'm running that way, I get this creeping sense of doubt that it's entertaining to the players, and so I find OOC comments about player enjoyment really useful.
So, perhaps oddly, I find "immersion-breaking" mechanics that deal with these concerns (e.g. player flags) play a role in helping me immerse, since now that my need is taken care of, I can let go of those other concerns and sink into the character.
That's interesting. I've seen GMs confused by whether it was frustrated players or frustrated characters before, too - where it gets confusing is if the player is particularly identified with the character, they might actually be feeling angry, as the character (perhaps more accurately, the player is angry, but its a feeling which can be accepted as one of the character's feelings as well). Then again you might have someone who just portrays being angry without feeling it, depends on your friends.
QuoteSuperficially, quantitative damage is a bit like this. When you take 9 hit points' damage, what's happened? Did the spear go through your armor? How far? Is there visible blood? The rules produce a number, and then you have to interpret that number.
I think it's less distracting for hit points because of a) familiarity, b) the fact that wound descriptions are non-authoritative. The wounded fighter might now look pale and dizzy, but that's just transient color - when I go to heal him, I'm going to use Cure Serious Wounds or Cure Light Wounds based on the numerical damage, not the description.
On the other hand, when you do this for larger-scale matters (like a short fight sequence) it does put you in a different frame of mind, because it involves talking about the success and failure of the actions of others as well (they failed to dodge your 17 arrows).
I think more abstraction can make it harder for a player to engage a system, particularly if its unfamiliar its work to figure out what it means. If all the mechanics are grinding away producing a result without much fiction being required, there can be a tendency to just ignore it (roll to hit, roll damage, how many hit points does he have left, etc).
QuoteCute! To me, this relates to different modes of thought (player prefernces vs. character preferences). As a player going into a game, I have preferences about who I play, and about the opposition I face. Sometimes they're intertwined, like if I suggest we play a band of vampire hunters. The player and character preferences are clearly different things when the game is being established, otherwise zombie survival RPGs wouldn't exist. :)
Players have different preferences for how far apart those two modes have to be. Some players prefer to have as little input as possible into the opposition, which I think is about immersing in the character as soon as possible. Other players don't mind being aware of and expressing their player preferences while the game is underway.
A lot of zombie survival RPGs often seem designed more as comedies, but yeah I get your point that choices in play are still limited if the player's can only modify the initial worldbuilding. The vampire hunter example is interesting in that while it was a player choice of problem, it was something they couldn't have avoided adding to the world, while keeping that character, so there is no shortcut.
I'm pondering now how other aspects of character generation impact in-character goals, incidentally...I think having backgrounds like, say, Resources in White Wolf, may tend to discourage characters from being money-grubbing.
Having played butt loads of ODnD, ADnD and DW I don't find much difference in my ability to pretend to be a living character in a living world. There's IC stuff and OC stuff in about equal proportion. There is a little difference as to when the OC comes up. Often in DnD you go OC to decide between choices of action. In DW, a few of the moves offer choices among outcomes. That's about the biggest difference.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668359That's interesting. I've seen GMs confused by whether it was frustrated players or frustrated characters before, too - where it gets confusing is if the player is particularly identified with the character, they might actually be feeling angry, as the character (perhaps more accurately, the player is angry, but its a feeling which can be accepted as one of the character's feelings as well). Then again you might have someone who just portrays being angry without feeling it, depends on your friends.
In this vein I'm mostly watching for how a player's emotional state affects how they play their character. In particular emotional reactions to outside events (e.g. anger about a shitty day at work, some level of resentment or grudge against another player, etc.) I'm not interested in a game influenced by that baggage.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;668359I'm pondering now how other aspects of character generation impact in-character goals, incidentally...I think having backgrounds like, say, Resources in White Wolf, may tend to discourage characters from being money-grubbing.
Say more about that?
Quote from: fuseboy;668418Say more about that?
Oh well this is completely off topic, but similarly to the worldbuilding, why work hard for what you could get for free at chargen?. A world of darkness character could opt to start as a penniless murderhobo with resources zero or CEO of a multinational corporation with Resources ***** fairly easily, so to me at least it seems that building a character who wants to work their way up from hobohood to CEO would be a bad idea. Like climbing a mountain when there happens to be a chairlift going to the top.
I guess this could be just a thing unique to me rather to true of everyone, though. I'm not necessarily condemning Resources as a bad thing, either: there are, equally, lots of character concepts that can't be done without starting resources (from alchemists who own their own shops to Batman) so I guess its a matter of preference.
Quote from: Noclue;668368Having played butt loads of ODnD, ADnD and DW I don't find much difference in my ability to pretend to be a living character in a living world. There's IC stuff and OC stuff in about equal proportion. There is a little difference as to when the OC comes up. Often in DnD you go OC to decide between choices of action. In DW, a few of the moves offer choices among outcomes. That's about the biggest difference.
My experience, as well.
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.
Well, assuming you are talking about Dungeon World here, how about we be "exact" with your description first?
A player avoiding an attack is using what move in your example? If it's Defy Danger, then technically your response as GM is incorrect. With an 8 on Defy Danger, you should have offered the player either a Worse Outcome, Hard Bargain, or Ugly Choice. You told the player what happened, you did not give them the option of choosing. It's easy to say DW offers no narrative control when you purposely avoid it - playing the Defy RAW move I guess. If you did something else besides Defy Danger there, let me know.
Also, what move is the player using to pin the Goblin and put a blade to his throat?
Let's not forget no initiative system (which worked GREAT in actual play, let me tell you /sarcasm off), being unable to have two characters with the same class, and picking your character's name from a predefined list, along with a lot of very odd and very arbitrary rules, all tied up in a bunch of predefined actions/conditions to declare.
Whatever it is, I just didn't find it to be a very good game. I 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.
EDIT: I guess, bottom line, if the uninitiated are expecting some classic gaming experience, they should know it's a big departure from a lot of the conventions you might expect.
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
Quote from: soviet;668585Rules 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?
By that logic you could say that Hungry Hungry Hippos is also an RPG.
The point is, AS WRITTEN, it was claimed that DW's initiative rules gave the DM agency. When in fact, AS WRITTEN, it very much does NOT.
RPGPundit
Quote from: soviet;668591If 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.
Then why do they keep trying to pretend its the same recipe?
Its like the vegans who keep insisting, to everyone, that carob tastes exactly like chocolate; their whole goal being to get you to try a taste because they think carob is somehow "morally superior" food to chocolate; they know they're lying to get you to try it, either about it being just like chocolate (if they've ever eaten chocolate in their fucking lives) or about knowing what chocolate tastes like in the first place. Sometimes they're lying to themselves, granted, but the point is they're engaging in a deception, with the intention of fooling people for the sake of their own twisted ideology, and pretending that something is not what it is.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668599Then why do they keep trying to pretend its the same recipe?
Look I haven't read DW but it is still very clear to me that those people who have claimed that DW is a traditional/old school RPG are fucking wrong.
I agree these things are different recipes. But the argument on this site appears to be whether one of the two cakes is even food, which is ludicrous.
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.
RPGPundit
That's not an accurate representation of DW
Look, I'm not making claims that DW is the same as anything. But, the fact that one poster provided an example where a GM permitted the player to add some narrative color to his move, does not mean that there's a rule that says players have an ability to do that. Similarly, because one poster had an experience where the GM failed to control the flow of the game, does not mean that the game forces the GM to give initiative to the person who speaks first.
If you have limited experience with the game, why not just ask "hey, how does the GM control initiative in DW? I've heard some bad things..."
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.
That's untrue. In DW, the GM chooses who to give initiative to by addressing them with the question: "What do you do?" In practice, DW has greater flexibility than usual as they are forced by the rules to call for initiative and then forced to follow the order determined by the dice.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668565Except 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.
The GM has no choice but to grant success on a successful roll, a failure on a failed roll, and a success with consequences on a partial success. The system, like most RPGs, quantifies what these means in terms of the mechanics.
The player description of pushing the goblin is the result of the successful action the player initiated, and is just like any RPG. FWIW by the rules a player doesn't narrate the results of a successful dice roll anyway, and in effect the GM tends to provide the follow up narration following the operation of the mechanics, again just like any other RPG.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668580All 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.
So Fate points are a part of the "physics" of the Warhammer world?
Quote from: Skywalker;668655So Fate points are a part of the "physics" of the Warhammer world?
Actually funny you mention it because yes, yes they are. They are explicitly given by gods to people gods consider special to their plans. That's why Chaos champions (or "bad guys" in general) also may have Fate Points.
They are an abstraction of favour of the gods, in short.
Quote from: Rincewind1;668658Actually funny you mention it because yes, yes they are. They are explicitly given by gods to people gods consider special to their plans. That's why Chaos champions (or "bad guys" in general) also may have Fate Points.
Cool. Sounds like the criteria above needs to be qualified to include this "physics of the world" exception.
Quote from: soviet;668603Look I haven't read DW but it is still very clear to me that those people who have claimed that DW is a traditional/old school RPG are fucking wrong.
I agree these things are different recipes. But the argument on this site appears to be whether one of the two cakes is even food, which is ludicrous.
Nope; its about whether one of the two is chocolate.
Its like a carob-obsessed vegan going to a chocolate-lovers forum and demanding that carob be given equal tie on the main discussion page, claiming that such and such carob cookie should be considered chocolate because its disguised as a chip, or stating that chocolate-icing carrot cake should not be considered chocolate because "carrot" sounds like "carob".
That's what's ludicrous.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skywalker;668649That's untrue. In DW, the GM chooses who to give initiative to by addressing them with the question: "What do you do?" In practice, DW has greater flexibility than usual as they are forced by the rules to call for initiative and then forced to follow the order determined by the dice.
So you're trying to pretend that when player B who shouts out "I want to stop player A from doing x", the GM can just say "NO, you can't do that its not your turn"?
He's not required to allow player B his story-proganism and "Say yes or roll the dice" to borrow another Swine phrase? Or what are the DW Swine calling it? "To do it, do it"?
Or that when Player C says "I fire at the ork" and then player D says "No, I fire at the orc first" the GM can just unilaterally decide that player D gets to go first even though player C called it first?
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skywalker;668654The GM has no choice but to grant success on a successful roll, a failure on a failed roll, and a success with consequences on a partial success. The system, like most RPGs, quantifies what these means in terms of the mechanics.
And unlike most RPGS, the GM has no power whatsoever to interpret these successes or failures or consequences. He must bow completely to the rule of the players, who in turn must bow completely to the will of the wiser Swine-Game-Designer who knows what's best for everyone.
So much so, to the point that the GM in DW isn't allowed to roll dice, lest he end up "cheating" by imagining that the guy who was once the designer of worlds is now more than a mere monopoly-banker, and try to fudge a roll behind a screen like they did in the dark days before the Peoples' Revolution (note: "people" as usual being represented by, controlled by, and governed by a tiny group of "revolutionaries" who are the only ones capable of really ruling over the unwashed masses that don't know what's best for themselves).
QuoteThe player description of pushing the goblin is the result of the successful action the player initiated, and is just like any RPG.
No. In an RPG, its the GAME MASTER who describes what happens, not the player. The player says what he would like to do.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skywalker;668655So Fate points are a part of the "physics" of the Warhammer world?
Yes, in a game of sword-and-sorcery narrow escapes. Note that in WFRP, the GM can just decide that none of your fate points can save you,
because it makes sense in terms of what's happening in the WORLD.
Also, in this case, by "physics" i meant that all the comedy RPGs mentioned are ones which are not about life or death; the chance of dying is not part of the genre being emulated. Ergo, raising them as counterargument is particularly weak and pathetic rhetoric.
It shows off how weak your side is at this argument; you feel like you need to bring up WFRP Fate points as if that will somehow prove something, as if that will somehow make DW an RPG when it very clearly isn't; again, its like arguing that Carob should be considered chocolate because the carob comes in chip format just like chocolate chips. Its fundamental misdirection, and let us always remember, being done by someone who despises and wants to destroy and replace the hobby they seek to invade.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668676No. In an RPG, its the GAME MASTER who describes what happens, not the player. The player says what he would like to do.
So now neither FATE nor James Bond 007 are RPGs, now? Bollocks, I can't keep up.
The GM doesn't roll dice because the GM doesn't have to. The GM just says "the Orc attacks, I think you'd best pick up some dice and make with the dodging." There's enough real restrictions on the GM in DW that there really isn't any need to invent windmills to tilt at.
And if someone calls out "I attack the Orc! The GM is well within their rights to tell the offending player to stop interrupting, that he was addressing the Dwarf at the moment, but he'll be swinging around to them in a moment."
Unless of course, the GM did something stupid like just described a bunch of orcs and threw it out to the party with collective "what is everybody doing?" In which case, they've proper fucked themselves.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668668Nope; its about whether one of the two is chocolate.
Its like a carob-obsessed vegan going to a chocolate-lovers forum and demanding that carob be given equal tie on the main discussion page, claiming that such and such carob cookie should be considered chocolate because its disguised as a chip, or stating that chocolate-icing carrot cake should not be considered chocolate because "carrot" sounds like "carob".
That's what's ludicrous.
RPGPundit
No, it's like one chocolate-lovers forum insisting that dark chocolate is the only legitimate kind of chocolate and anything made out of milk chocolate is some bullshit story food that can fuck off back to the carrots forum.
Anyway this analogy is getting pretty strange
Quote from: RPGPundit;668674So you're trying to pretend that when player B who shouts out "I want to stop player A from doing x", the GM can just say "NO, you can't do that its not your turn"?
Not pretending. The GM can do just that.
Quote from: daniel_ream;668680So now neither FATE nor James Bond 007 are RPGs, now? Bollocks, I can't keep up.
Again, more nonsense and nitpicking, in the former case by making shit up, in the latter by choosing some of the most obscure peripheral cases, that again are notable for their marginality and oddness, and then trying to present these as central cases.
Did you know that Mormons launch "archeological" expeditions to central america, trying to find "proof" of ancient israelite civilizations among the native americans. The "proofs" they find look about as convincing as your current attempts of evidence.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668676And unlike most RPGS, the GM has no power whatsoever to interpret these successes or failures or consequences.
Nonsense. The dice results are determined by the rules like in an RPG. Unless you are advocating that a GM in an RPG should ignore dice results?
Quote from: RPGPundit;668676So much so, to the point that the GM in DW isn't allowed to roll dice, lest he end up "cheating" by imagining that the guy who was once the designer of worlds is now more than a mere monopoly-banker, and try to fudge a roll behind a screen like they did in the dark days before the Peoples' Revolution.
So, the GM not being called to roll dice by the rules is story-gaming now?
Quote from: RPGPundit;668676No. In an RPG, its the GAME MASTER who describes what happens, not the player. The player says what he would like to do.
In this case, the players said what he would like to do, rolled the dice and got a success. The result was a foregone conclusion and it would not be remarkable in any RPG I know of for the player to describe their next action in this manner.
FWIW players doesn't have the authority to describe success in DW. The rules determine what happens, just like in an RPG, and then play continues. DW is actually silent on how it continues specifically, assuming the group doesn't need guidance at that point (which is also like most RPGs as written IME).
Quote from: Skywalker;668691Nonsense. The dice results are determined by the rules like in an RPG. Unless you are advocating that a GM in an RPG should ignore dice results?
The GM has authority over and above any specific rule or result, yes.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668692The GM has authority over and above any specific rule or result, yes.
But it is a widely agreed principle of RPGing that a GM shouldn't generally ignore dice results or the rules, right? I even have RPGs that say that in the GM section.
Are you guys seriously discussing with Pundti ?
The guy has never actually read nor played the thing and is just talking out of his ass.
Quote from: silva;668699Are you guys seriously discussing with Pundti ?
Well, despite saying that he doesn't visit this forum, he changed his mind and posted numerous posts in multiple threads here, making it hard to continue the original discussions.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668674So you're trying to pretend that when player B who shouts out "I want to stop player A from doing x", the GM can just say "NO, you can't do that its not your turn"?
He's not required to allow player B his story-proganism and "Say yes or roll the dice" to borrow another Swine phrase? Or what are the DW Swine calling it? "To do it, do it"?
Or that when Player C says "I fire at the ork" and then player D says "No, I fire at the orc first" the GM can just unilaterally decide that player D gets to go first even though player C called it first?
RPGPundit
Yes, the GM can do exactly that.
Morever, "say yes or roll" is a role playing concept that originated over a decade before the term ' storygame' came into existence and as an innocuous bit of gaming advice it has zero to do with story gaming.
Quote from: Skywalker;668698But it is a widely agreed principle of RPGing that a GM shouldn't generally ignore dice results or the rules, right? I even have RPGs that say that in the GM section.
As a general custom? Sure. But its understood that the GM has the authority to do so.
In roleplaying games, that is. One of the big differences in storygames is that the latter seek to completely control the GM, limiting his activity as much as possible and making him beholden to both rules and players; with people like Luke Crane and Vince Baker having gone on record as to how they feel that GMs are dangerous, and likewise that they peskily ruin the "vision" of the sage "intellectual" game designer, and therefore cannot be trusted.
So in Storygames, like Dungeon World, both the rule and the custom is that the GM is NOT permitted to ignore dice results or the rules.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668703As a general custom? Sure. But its understood that the GM has the authority to do so.
In roleplaying games, that is. One of the big differences in storygames is that the latter seek to completely control the GM, limiting his activity as much as possible and making him beholden to both rules and players; with people like Luke Crane and Vince Baker having gone on record as to how they feel that GMs are dangerous, and likewise that they peskily ruin the "vision" of the sage "intellectual" game designer, and therefore cannot be trusted.
So in Storygames, like Dungeon World, both the rule and the custom is that the GM is NOT permitted to ignore dice results or the rules.
RPGPundit
Why then do these GMs decide to run these games? Are they held prisoner by their groups or forced into it by peer pressure? Do they desperately want to fudge dice results if only their players/captors/designer-tyrants would let them?
Quote from: soviet;668704Why then do these GMs decide to run these games? Are they held prisoner by their groups or forced into it by peer pressure? Do they desperately want to fudge dice results if only their players/captors/designer-tyrants would let them?
I honestly don't know. I'd certainly never run a game like that.
If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.
Its probably one of the reasons why storygames are (in)famous for not being playable or used for long campaigns. That, and that the games are really being played to mark how trendsetting one is. And of course, that they're not that fun.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Skywalker;668700Well, despite saying that he doesn't visit this forum, he changed his mind and posted numerous posts in multiple threads here, making it hard to continue the original discussions.
You can thank Rum Cove for that.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668703As a general custom? Sure. But its understood that the GM has the authority to do so.
In roleplaying games, that is. One of the big differences in storygames is that the latter seek to completely control the GM, limiting his activity as much as possible and making him beholden to both rules and players; with people like Luke Crane and Vince Baker having gone on record as to how they feel that GMs are dangerous, and likewise that they peskily ruin the "vision" of the sage "intellectual" game designer, and therefore cannot be trusted.
So who or what was Gygax yelling at in those early days when he said critical hits where offensive or that DMs who did such things were unethical and should be held in contempt?
This is not a "storygamer" thing.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668710So who or what was Gygax yelling at in those early days when he said critical hits where offensive or that DMs who did such things were unethical and should be held in contempt?
This is not a "storygamer" thing.
Even the devil can quote Gygax. He said a lot of things, and none of the because he thought Storygaming was the model to follow.
Quote from: Kanye Westeros;668710So who or what was Gygax yelling at in those early days when he said critical hits where offensive or that DMs who did such things were unethical and should be held in contempt?
This is not a "storygamer" thing.
The critical hits/houseruling thing (Dragon #16, Benoist posted it up at one point but the links to the large images aren't working anymore) was mainly directed at Arduin, I think.
That was Gary telling people not to buy sourcebooks from the competitors that weren't TSR-approved, basically.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668707I honestly don't know. I'd certainly never run a game like that.
If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.
Its probably one of the reasons why storygames are (in)famous for not being playable or used for long campaigns. That, and that the games are really being played to mark how trendsetting one is. And of course, that they're not that fun.
Hmm, where have I seen this line of argument before? Oh yes
Quote from: Ron EdwardsMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much.
The circle is complete.
There are a few differences. First, I'm not saying they don't enjoy it. They do, just not for the same reasons an RPG gamer enjoys RPGs; they enjoy storygames because of how it makes them feel about themselves (that they're "intellectuals" doing something "deep", "trendsetters", etc.), and possibly due to the whole creating-a-story thing.
Second, there are far less people playing Storygames than RPGs. Edwards was claiming that RPG gamers, due to ignorance, are engaged in the millions in a hobby they don't actually enjoy.
I'm saying there's a few hundred to a couple-of-thousand storygamers out there, who mostly know why they're doing it.
RPGPundit
All I know is that I play traditional RPGs and I play storygames. I find that they are different flavours of the same core experience. I enjoy both equally. I don't play storygames to feel good about myself for being an intellectual (seriously?) or too look cool (again, seriously?). I play them because they're fun.
Oh and I'm not sure what the threshold for a long campaign is, but my current Other Worlds campaign has now gone on for something like 20, 25 sessions and we're still having a lot of fun. And we've played it for three campaigns before, each lasting about 15 sessions. These aren't long campaigns perhaps, but they're not exactly short ones either.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668703As a general custom? Sure. But its understood that the GM has the authority to do so.
In roleplaying games, that is. One of the big differences in storygames is that the latter seek to completely control the GM, limiting his activity as much as possible and making him beholden to both rules and players; with people like Luke Crane and Vince Baker having gone on record as to how they feel that GMs are dangerous, and likewise that they peskily ruin the "vision" of the sage "intellectual" game designer, and therefore cannot be trusted.
So in Storygames, like Dungeon World, both the rule and the custom is that the GM is NOT permitted to ignore dice results or the rules.
This is where we disagree. Before explaining, let me make it clear that there are some games where the "GM" is restricted in order for the game to operate and I agree that this suggests that a game is no longer an RPG, such as PTA. It's not necessarily a story-game, as the restriction can also be used to create tactical gameplay, such as Burning Empires.
In regard to DW, it has already been demonstrated above that the GM moves are an exercise in making the GM's task explicit but don't actually reduce the GM's flexibility from that in an RPG in practice.
It's also recognised in DW that the GM can make custom moves, at his discretion, just like a GM in an RPG making a ruling.
This just leaves the 'player moves' which are for the most common activities in DW, such as combat and what would be skill use in an RPG. These rules provide well understood concrete results for dice rolls, such attacking. The GM should follow these results, but there is nothing that would destroy or unbalance the game play of DW if the GM exercised their discretion to ignore these well established rules. This would not be the case in PTA or Burning Empires (or a wargame or board game).
If the GM did so, then the only issues that arise are the same that would arise in an RPG i.e. a potential breach of player trust through a lack of impartiality. These issues are commonly unsaid and unaddressed, but they are well known and understood.
Equally, if a GM ignored one of these rules for good reason, then the group will be just fine with it and, as said, the game doesn't break or become unbalanced. If anything DW increases the GM's flexibility and power of discretion to make such blatant ignoring of the rules less likely. Rather than hard results from rolls, the results include a much higher dose of GM discretion.
In my opinion, this is not an attempt to create a story-game by limiting GM control to give players greater narrative control. It's an attempt to make the RPGing experience more explicit and to address what is a common RPG issue over things like "should a GM ignore dice results" that have been argued endlessly since the inception of RPGs, including on this forum.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668707I honestly don't know. I'd certainly never run a game like that.
If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.
Its probably one of the reasons why storygames are (in)famous for not being playable or used for long campaigns. That, and that the games are really being played to mark how trendsetting one is. And of course, that they're not that fun.
In any event, this exchange started when you said that storygames were written to force the GM into a particular playstyle, and that storygames prevented those GMs from doing what they wanted to do.
None of the reasons you provide support that position. In fact they suggest that the GMs are actively embracing this kind of play, albeit for reasons of pretentiousness or self-delusion. They're not being FORCED to do anything.
Quote from: soviet;668738In any event, this exchange started when you said that storygames were written to force the GM into a particular playstyle, and that storygames prevented those GMs from doing what they wanted to do.
None of the reasons you provide support that position. In fact they suggest that the GMs are actively embracing this kind of play, albeit for reasons of pretentiousness or self-delusion. They're not being FORCED to do anything.
FWIW, I play and run them because I enjoy them.
Quote from: soviet;668735Oh and I'm not sure what the threshold for a long campaign is, but my current Other Worlds campaign has now gone on for something like 20, 25 sessions and we're still having a lot of fun. And we've played it for three campaigns before, each lasting about 15 sessions. These aren't long campaigns perhaps, but they're not exactly short ones either.
By RPG standards that would be decent though by no means exceptional.
By Storygame standards they'd be something like 10 to 20 times the typical number of sessions played, from what I've seen.
Storygames threads and forums are full of storygamers admitting that their games are for 1 or 2 sessions, with anything else being a significant exception to that trend. Some even take pride in this as though that's better than playing the same RPG for years at a time.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is not more typical of Storygames than your own experience with Other Worlds?
RPGPundit
Our BW game ran for a year or so, and our last FATE game ran for 6 sessions or so, but I admit to being guilty of playing short games.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668742Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is not more typical of Storygames than your own experience with Other Worlds?
No I accept that it is more typical of storygames than traditional RPGs. But you're trying to present it as a defining characteristic of storygames and I don't think that's the case. Dogs, Sorcerer, and Burning Wheel are all meant to be played as campaigns lasting for several sessions, with BW I think intended for campaign lengths at least as long as I've been using Other Worlds for.
I also want to note that storygames.com does not represent 'storygamers' as a whole. The way they play and think is not the way I play and think, and I don't imagine that I am exactly alone in this regard.
Quote from: soviet;668738In any event, this exchange started when you said that storygames were written to force the GM into a particular playstyle, and that storygames prevented those GMs from doing what they wanted to do.
None of the reasons you provide support that position. In fact they suggest that the GMs are actively embracing this kind of play, albeit for reasons of pretentiousness or self-delusion. They're not being FORCED to do anything.
Storygames may not prevent "storygame gms" from doing what they accept to be their role. What I'm saying is that they very clearly do prevent GMs of actual RPGs from being able to assume their proper power and responsibilities as per regular RPG standards. In your example above, the GM might be able to make "custom moves" in DW but he clearly can't just make a ruling, he's still beholden to the rules themselves; rules written by people who hate GMs and have dedicated an entire hobby (and made an effort to subvert another) just to disempowering them.
At the end of the day, there are only two possibilities: either you know that Dungeon World is a storygame by the landmark standards, and you're just full of shit; or you really truly honestly believe that its an RPG that has been erroneously mislabeled as a storygame because I haven't looked at it in sufficient depth and/or have received false reports about it, and that if I were just to look at the rules with an open mind, I would actually have to conceded that it is an RPG at least, if not an OSR game as some of its proponents try to claim (though again, its authors have stated it isn't, though they certainly don't seem too upset by fans mislabeling it as such for marketing purposes).
If its the former, then this is all a rhetorical game on your part, and serves no purpose.
If its really the latter, then you and the others making these claims should put your money where your mouth is; send me a copy of dungeon world to review.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;668714Even the devil can quote Gygax. He said a lot of things, and none of the because he thought Storygaming was the model to follow.
No, he thought his way was the only model to follow. Who does that remind you of...As I said, it's not unique to 'storygamers'.
Quote from: soviet;668704Why then do these GMs decide to run these games? Are they held prisoner by their groups or forced into it by peer pressure? Do they desperately want to fudge dice results if only their players/captors/designer-tyrants would let them?
More likely they are new to gaming, unconfident in their ability to improvise, and find the role of GM daunting so really appreciate rules and guidance.
At least that seems more likely to me than vengeonce-filled anti-rpg terrorists.
"The secret we should never let gamemasters know is that they don't need rules"
- Gygax
Yes, I suppose it is also possible they might be doing it because they're gullible newbies being tricked into doing it wrong. That is, after all, one of the Forge Swine's goals. Its why they keep trying to market themselves as RPGs, and as specific types of RPGs they aren't even similar to, in order to trick people, especially newbies, into playing their games instead of Regular RPGs.
RPGPundit
Quote from: TristramEvans;668873"The secret we should never let gamemasters know is that they don't need rules"
- Gygax
Its funny, because Gygax of course meant this as a liberating concept; the Forge Swine on the other hand seem to take this as a literal statement, that GMs should be as oppressed and strictly controlled as possible or else they might actually end up doing their job and running the world, and then where would the Glorious Player's Revolution be?!
RPGPundit
Well, i was agreeing with the sentiment of the post and that one slipped me by.
I can't speak for the Pundit, but i think there won't be a list - that way lies RPGnet types of accumulation of rules and by default rules-lawyering.
Post a thread where you truly think it belongs on this site, not where you think in your own stick it to the man ideology, it belongs.
Let's face it, if it comes from a Forge/storygames writer, you most likely know where it should go.
If you start putting stuff like WFRP in here because, you know, Fate Points! then you're being a silly arse looking for a fight. You know, we know it.
Those that fall in the cracks - well Pundit can deal with those as and when he feels like it IMO.
Quote from: soviet;668704Why then do these GMs decide to run these games? Are they (...) forced into it by peer pressure? (...)
Quote from: RPGPundit;668707(...) If I had to guess, its because they drank the kool-aid and think they're participating in some great (pseudo-)intellectual exercise; in other words, their reward is that they get to feel hip and pretentious.
(...)
Yes,
at least in the cases I have encountered it was a kind of peer pressure. These were groups of people repeatedly claiming that "traditional" RPGs (for lack of a better term) represented a lesser way of gaming. There certainly seemed to be peer pressure at play: to be counted among the open-minded, intellectual and hip initiates you *had* to play these hipster games. Mind you, I'm only speaking about the cases I encountered, I really don't know how common this attitude was or is nowadays. I just know that it annoyed the heck out of me back then, as did the hijacking of the term "indie game".
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;668915Yes, at least in the cases I have encountered it was a kind of peer pressure. These were groups of people repeatedly claiming that "traditional" RPGs (for lack of a better term) represented a lesser way of gaming. There certainly seemed to be peer pressure at play: to be counted among the open-minded, intellectual and hip initiates you *had* to play these hipster games. Mind you, I'm only speaking about the cases I encountered, I really don't know how common this attitude was or is nowadays. I just know that it annoyed the heck out of me back then, as did the hijacking of the term "indie game".
I've certainly seen the same attitude myself in RL, from good friends of mine. The people who used to be all smug about how RuneQuest was more realistic than D&D and how Vampire was just deeper and "more mature" are the same guys I know now are playing narrative games of one stripe or another, and the same basic hipster smugness is still very much a part of their gaming DNA.
The Forge basically took all this spite and bundled it saying "NO, these story telling games suck and if you think they can actually produce story you are brain-damaged! Don't be like these unwashed masses of rape victims! Here are our elite games for the avant-garde of the gaming revolution! Be a member of the Party, buy a card - $19.95, please - , and help us change the nature of gaming forever!" It's a very Bolshevik type of rhetoric when you think about it. I don't mean it in terms of left or right - that's got fuck all to do with politics - I mean in terms of thinking you can brainwash people into becoming different by rejecting capitalism, going to socialist reeducation camps for a generation or three, to finally come out in the Red era of a better, more prosperous, purer society tomorrow.
Hell. Just look at IPR's website. (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/xcart/) If that's not hipster neo-communist marketing, like listening to your iPod, playing XBOX in your mom's basement with a poster of the Che taped on the wall because it's just "cool" and "rebellious", I don't know what is.
Quote from: Benoist;668917I've certainly seen the same attitude myself in RL, from good friends of mine. The people who used to be all smug about how RuneQuest was more realistic than D&D and how Vampire was just deeper and "more mature" are the same guys I know now are playing narrative games of one stripe or another, and the same basic hipster smugness is still very much a part of their gaming DNA.
(...)
Of course, on the other side of the spectrum we had the DSA* railroading mob; these guys were basically just sitting there while their "GM" read the adventure to them and showed them which buttons to push. These people were not *that* annoying though, because there was generally less smugness involved, except for a small group of extremist fanatics constantly going on about how this was the most professionally produced, most elaborate and fantastic game ever.
*
Das Schwarze Auge: a successful German RPG partly translated into English as
The Dark Eye, its player culture was discussed in detail elsewhere on these forums
Holy crap, I love that communist chic font!
And I just checked out Ribbon Drive, the game of road trips and mix tapes. It's almost as delightfully ridiculous as Welfare Queens, except it might actually take itself seriously. I totally need to run this as a mashup with Caddilacs and Dinosaurs.
We'll all play self-absorbed hipster victims arguing over whose mix tape is more obscure than thou while T-Rex carnage picks off our numbers one by one. Instead of Jenga resolution we'll use Kerplunk or Pretty, Pretty Princess. He who plays Sigur Ros first is going to be sooo quaint!
Quote from: CRKrueger;668447Well, assuming you are talking about Dungeon World here, how about we be "exact" with your description first?
So let's sum this up:
(1) You tell us to go look at an example of play.
(2) We use that example.
(3) You get angry that we're using the example you told us to go look at.
For some reason I have difficulty believing that you're actually participating in this discussion in good faith.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668676No. In an RPG, its the GAME MASTER who describes what happens, not the player. The player says what he would like to do.
Interesting. So if we boil that conversation down it looks like this:
Player: I want to do X.
GM: You succeed. Describe how you do X.
Player: I do it like this.
According to you, this sort of thing -- where the player describes what their success looks like at the specific prompting of the GM -- indicates that a story game is being played, not a roleplaying game.
Are you sure about that?
Are you really, really, really sure?
Okay. Fine. In that case, I've got another story game for you: It's called
Amber. You may have heard of it. Here's the Example of Play straight from the rulebook:
Cindy: I'll proceed with the duel.
GM: The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you. (...) What injury do you wish to leave her with?
Cindy: I want to wear her down to exhaustion, then put a small cut on her nose.
Well, fuck, Cindy. You've just convinced Pundie that
Amber is a story game.
(It would probably be best if no one told Pundie about how that "swine" Wujcik wrote a lengthy section of the rulebook specifically forbidding the GM from breaking the rules of engagement. It would probably give him an aneurysm.)
I love how neither Benoist nor Pundie is capable of participating in these discussions without defining their favorites RPGs as story games.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668557You 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.
Ironically, Pundie, you're currently one of the biggest impediments to people taking the division between STGs and RPGs seriously. Your definition is vague and variable. You apply it with either ignorance or in a biased attempt to post hoc your opinion (or both). You attempt to enforce it with the fervor of a religious zealot selectively reading passages from the Old Testament.
The problem is that when you use your podium to declare that games which are RPGs are actually STGs while simultaneously doing things like claiming that FATE doesn't have any narrative control mechanics in it, you create the impression that the very real dividing line between RPGs and STGs doesn't exist and is just the raving of a crazy person who can't keep his intellectual house in order.
For those of us who actually do believe that it can be valuable to understand the dividing line between RPGs and STGs, you are an ignorant, confusing embarrassment.
For example...
Quote from: RPGPundit;668559If 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.
These things can trivially happen in
Dungeon World.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668676And unlike most RPGS, the GM has no power whatsoever to interpret these successes or failures or consequences.
The rulebook says the exact opposite of that.
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.
The rulebook says the exact opposite of that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668749If its really the latter, then you and the others making these claims should put your money where your mouth is; send me a copy of dungeon world to review.
Everyone else should take note here: The guy who has just spent several pages of this thread confidently telling people who own the game, have read the game, and who have played the game that they're lying about what the rulebook says has just admitted that he has never even
touched the rulebook.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668565So yes, I suppose that if you LIE, then a Dungeon World actual-play looks kind-of almost like a D&D actual play.
The problem here is that you're the liar. Every time you presume to make these definitive claims about a game you've never even seen you are lying.
The only question is whether you're just lying to us, or if you're also lying to yourself.
Soviet, for what it's worth, my groups experience with so-called 'storygames' is similar to your own. As far as we are concerned, they are rpgs that use some innovative new game mechanics. And, while we would like to think of ourselves as young hipsters that are new to this role-playing lark, the truth is sadly the opposite.
(As an aside, my twenty-year old son recently stopped me from buying a pair of mirrored shades. "They're for hipsters, Dad," he said, "It's just not you." He was so authorative on the subject, I gave in and put them back on the rack. I'm still regretting not buying them...)
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961So let's sum this up:
Okay. Fine. In that case, I've got another story game for you: It's called Amber. You may have heard of it. Here's the Example of Play straight from the rulebook:
Cindy: I'll proceed with the duel.
GM: The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you. (...) What injury do you wish to leave her with?
Cindy: I want to wear her down to exhaustion, then put a small cut on her nose.
Well, fuck, Cindy. You've just convinced Pundie that Amber is a story game.
(It would probably be best if no one told Pundie about how that "swine" Wujcik wrote a lengthy section of the rulebook specifically forbidding the GM from breaking the rules of engagement. It would probably give him an aneurysm.)
I love how neither Benoist nor Pundie is capable of participating in these discussions without defining their favorites RPGs as story games.
That was the exact impression I got when I read the game. I guess that any RPG can be construed as a storygame if you describe things in a certain manner instead of another.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668962Everyone else should take note here: The guy who has just spent several pages of this thread confidently telling people who own the game, have read the game, and who have played the game that they're lying about what the rulebook says has just admitted that he has never even touched the rulebook.
This is not something new. I have pointed similar things with other games, years ago. I just gave up.
Quote from: Glazer;668970Soviet, for what it's worth, my groups experience with so-called 'storygames' is similar to your own. As far as we are concerned, they are rpgs that use some innovative new game mechanics. And, while we would like to think of ourselves as young hipsters that are new to this role-playing lark, the truth is sadly the opposite.
My experience, exactly. My players will play AW or BW or Donjon and treat them as RPGs with slightly different mechanics.
Quote from: Glazer;668970(As an aside, my twenty-year old son recently stopped me from buying a pair of mirrored shades. "They're for hipsters, Dad," he said, "It's just not you." He was so authorative on the subject, I gave in and put them back on the rack. I'm still regretting not buying them...)
You had a golden opportunity to come back with, "Hold up, son. These be my stunna shades for when I get all thizz faced. Ya dada meen? 's gon' get hyphie up 'n heah!"
Likely mortified within an inch of his life, he would never again question your shopping decisions in public.
:p
Quote from: Opaopajr;668978Likely mortified within an inch of his life, he would never again question your shopping decisions in public.
:p
Sage advice, Opaopajr, but sadly there is very little that I can do to make any of my kids stop questioning my shopping (or other!) decisions in public ;)
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961For some reason I have difficulty believing that you're actually participating in this discussion in good faith.
You've rarely participated in any discussion here in good faith this year. Skywalker validadated the example was incorrect.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961Player: I want to do X.
GM: You succeed. Describe how you do X.
Player: I do it like this.
And here is you being disingenuous AGAIN. The problem with DW is when is goes like this.
Player: I want to do X. Rolls dice and gets the "Choice" result.
GM: You can do A and achieve this partial result plus complications, B and achieve this partial result plus complication, or C simply fail or do a substandard success.
It's ok to like narrative OOC mechanics when you roleplay Justin, you don't have to embarrass yourself by going out of your way to avoid the narrative parts when you discuss the game.
Except that every weak-sucess option can be taken In-Character.
And. You. Know. That.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668877Its funny, because Gygax of course meant this as a liberating concept; the Forge Swine on the other hand seem to take this as a literal statement, that GMs should be as oppressed and strictly controlled as possible or else they might actually end up doing their job and running the world, and then where would the Glorious Player's Revolution be?!
You 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?
Quote from: Opaopajr;668939And I just checked out Ribbon Drive, the game of road trips and mix tapes. It's almost as delightfully ridiculous as Welfare Queens, except it might actually take itself seriously. I totally need to run this as a mashup with Caddilacs and Dinosaurs.
"A game about road trips, music, and self-discovery."
What
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668962[...] you create the impression that the very real dividing line between RPGs and STGs doesn't exist and is just the raving of a crazy person who can't keep his intellectual house in order.
How do you mean "the
impression"?
I always thought that "the RPGPundit" was just a made-up persona used by He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named for the purposes of trolling games/gamers he didn't like, mostly for the lulz. It's one thing to see forum posters accidentally taking the persona at face value, but even the persona seems to have gotten a little off the rails. I suppose this could be some epic meta-level of trolling where the persona of RPGPundit gets completely ripped one night, forgets the forum has a multi-quote function, and completely shreds his own credibility in a spectacular self-immolation, but that seems counter-productive - the verisimilitude of the persona is key to its effectiveness.
The best discussions seem to happen despite Benoist and Pundit's participation of late. I should write up a greasemonkey script that allows them to be ignore-listed.
Quote from: RPGPundit;668749Storygames may not prevent "storygame gms" from doing what they accept to be their role. What I'm saying is that they very clearly do prevent GMs of actual RPGs from being able to assume their proper power and responsibilities as per regular RPG standards. In your example above, the GM might be able to make "custom moves" in DW but he clearly can't just make a ruling, he's still beholden to the rules themselves; rules written by people who hate GMs and have dedicated an entire hobby (and made an effort to subvert another) just to disempowering them.
At the end of the day, there are only two possibilities: either you know that Dungeon World is a storygame by the landmark standards, and you're just full of shit; or you really truly honestly believe that its an RPG that has been erroneously mislabeled as a storygame because I haven't looked at it in sufficient depth and/or have received false reports about it, and that if I were just to look at the rules with an open mind, I would actually have to conceded that it is an RPG at least, if not an OSR game as some of its proponents try to claim (though again, its authors have stated it isn't, though they certainly don't seem too upset by fans mislabeling it as such for marketing purposes).
If its the former, then this is all a rhetorical game on your part, and serves no purpose.
If its really the latter, then you and the others making these claims should put your money where your mouth is; send me a copy of dungeon world to review.
RPGPundit
I should either confess to being part of a site-disrupting conspiracy or give you some free stuff? Yeah, nice try.
Like you I haven't read DW. I've already stated this fact at least once in the thread. I was responding to your more general points about storygames and GM roles. For what it's worth my impression of DW is that it's a storygame, but I don't define storygames as not RPGs, so I also think it is an RPG. It is clearly not an old school RPG.
Storygames tend to feature a different kind of GM role, sure. But either our hypothetical GM is interested in trying this kind of GM role, or he isn't. If he is, he's not being forced into anything. If he isn't, why the fuck would he be GMing it in the first place? That doesn't make any sense. You might as well say that D&D is disempowering because it forces you to play in a fantasy millieu with classes and levels when you really hate that kind of stuff.
Quote from: Glazer;668970Soviet, for what it's worth, my groups experience with so-called 'storygames' is similar to your own. As far as we are concerned, they are rpgs that use some innovative new game mechanics. And, while we would like to think of ourselves as young hipsters that are new to this role-playing lark, the truth is sadly the opposite.
Thanks, 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.
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 this comprehends the vast majority of roleplayers out there really. We forum-monkeys with our little word-games and One-true-wayisms are the minority.
I would be surprised if we comprehended 20% of the worlds roleplaying pizza.
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.
Well at least you admit they are different (based on your words), and that's the whole point. Story-games are different then role-playing games, you said it yourself, other wise your statement makes no sense, consider what you meant to say, "I like role-playing games as well as traditional games" and " I run a role-playing game for my
traditional-roleplaying group." You see that wouldn't make any sense. It's like saying 'role-playing games are role-playing games.' I believe your intent was to say that story-games are role-playing games. And to clarify what you mean ...
Role-playing games are role-playing games, there no such such thing as a storytelling game. There is only a role-playing game. It's all the same hobby.If this is not you position, please correct. Otherwise, it seems established that role-playing games and story-telling games are different things by your own words.
Quote from: hamstertamer;669035Well at least you admit they are different (based on your words), and that's the whole point. Story-games are different then role-playing games, you said it yourself, other wise your statement makes no sense, consider what you meant to say, "I like role-playing games as well as traditional games" and " I run a role-playing game for my traditional-roleplaying group." You see that wouldn't make any sense. It's like saying 'role-playing games are role-playing games.' I believe your intent was to say that story-games are role-playing games. And to clarify what you mean ...
Role-playing games are role-playing games, there no such such thing as a storytelling game. There is only a role-playing game. It's all the same hobby.
If this is not you position, please correct. Otherwise, it seems established that role-playing games and story-telling games are different things by your own words.
What the fuck
Storygames are a type of RPG. So are traditional RPGs. Within traditional RPGs there are also subdivisions like 'old school D&D', 'rules-heavy tactical D&D', 'white wolf games', and so on. If my earlier post confuses you just replace all instances of 'storygame' with 'storygame-style RPG'.
Quote from: Brad;669020"A game about road trips, music, and self-discovery."
What
You know you want to. He who starts Lambchop's "The Song That Never Ends" as a singalong finds Nirvana. There's only so much self-discovery out there, and that's like the highest Poker hand there is!
Lambchop's "The Song That Never Ends" (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHNTxr2NJHa0)
Quote from: Brad;669020"A game about road trips, music, and self-discovery."
What
:rotfl:
Quote from: CRKrueger;669002You've rarely participated in any discussion here in good faith this year. Skywalker validadated the example was incorrect.
Thank you for admitting that the example of play that YOU wanted us to talk about is incorrect. Do you have anything actually relevant to discuss? Or are you just going to keep trying to blame other people for your mistakes?
QuoteAnd here is you being disingenuous AGAIN. The problem with DW is when is goes like this.
Player: I want to do X. Rolls dice and gets the "Choice" result.
GM: You can do A and achieve this partial result plus complications, B and achieve this partial result plus complication, or C simply fail or do a substandard success.
Quote 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. I can't believe that "swine" Gygax would claim that it's an RPG and then try to swindle us all by giving choices to the players after they've achieved a success.
Your continued insistence that no RPG can possess a two-step resolution mechanic is absurd.
Quote from: soviet;669040Storygames are a type of RPG.
You see the problems you create, Pundie? This is the type of nonsense that your nonsensical bullshit and ignorance creates.
@Soviet: Let's take a pure STG like
Once Upon a Time. What definition of "RPG" are you using, precisely, that allows you classify
Once Upon a Time as an RPG?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;669108You see the problems you create, Pundie? This is the type of nonsense that your nonsensical bullshit and ignorance creates.
@Soviet: Let's take a pure STG like Once Upon a Time. What definition of "RPG" are you using, precisely, that allows you classify Once Upon a Time as an RPG?
Sigh. Who exactly is claiming that Once Upon a Time is a storygame or an RPG? You're going to start mumbling about Dark Future and computer games next.
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. I can't believe that "swine" Gygax would claim that it's an RPG and then try to swindle us all by giving choices to the players after they've achieved a success.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668961Interesting. So if we boil that conversation down it looks like this:
Player: I want to do X.
GM: You succeed. Describe how you do X.
Player: I do it like this.
According to you, this sort of thing -- where the player describes what their success looks like at the specific prompting of the GM -- indicates that a story game is being played, not a roleplaying game.
That's one of many factors that involve the differences between a storygame and an RPG, sure.
In an RPG, it works like this:
Player: I want to do X
GM: Explain what you would like X to look like, and what you are doing to attempt this?
Player: "like this..."
GM: Ok, you succeed. (or fail, or some third condition thereof)
You'll note that the Player doesn't get to control reality AFTER the fact of his successful roll; he's not rolling to "be in control of the story". Nor does he obviously get to control reality before either; rather, in an RPG (as opposed to a storygame) the player is not at any point expressing what actually HAPPENS (only the GM may do that), he's rather expressing what he would like to ATTEMPT.
QuoteAre you sure about that?
Are you really, really, really sure?
Yes, really really sure.
QuoteOkay. Fine. In that case, I've got another story game for you: It's called Amber. You may have heard of it. Here's the Example of Play straight from the rulebook:
Cindy: I'll proceed with the duel.
GM: The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you. (...) What injury do you wish to leave her with?
Cindy: I want to wear her down to exhaustion, then put a small cut on her nose.
Well, fuck, Cindy. You've just convinced Pundie that Amber is a story game.
No, you ridiculous cunt, the above proves how Amber is an RPG and not a storygame.
Let's look at it again, shall we? And I'll try to go slow so you can keep up.
First, go back and read again what I explained above, about how RPGs differ from Storygames in terms of the GM/player exchange we're talking about.
Done?
Fine; now read it again. Because I'm not convinced a second reading is enough for you; and try to get all the shit out of your skull while doing so.
You'll probably fail anyways, but here we go nevertheless:
In the exchange above, the GM continues being the one in control of the world, the player is in control of their character's actions.
The player (Cindy) said "I want to do X" when she says "I'll proceed with the duel".
The GM, not Cindy, or Erick Wujcik, Ron Edwards or anyone else, the fucking GM who is supreme in his authority at the gaming table, is the one who says "Ok, you succeed", which here he says it as "The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you."
The rest of what's going on there is NOT Cindy's player getting to decide what happens in the world, its Cindy's PLAYER CHARACTER getting to do what the GM precisely allowed; her CHARACTER, not the player, is so utterly superior to the person she's dueling (probably because, as an Amberite, she's a demigod and the other person a mere mortal) that she has complete control of the fight.
In other words, the little DW exchange and the little Amber exchange are completely different, and in fact demonstrates what's different between an RPG and storygame. They only look even vaguely similar because you take the Amber quote completely out of the context of setting (but of course, Story Swine don't give a shit about "setting", its just a shallow facade meant to act as a vehicle for addressing "narrative theme"), wherein the PC in question is a Demi-god.
Quote(It would probably be best if no one told Pundie about how that "swine" Wujcik wrote a lengthy section of the rulebook specifically forbidding the GM from breaking the rules of engagement. It would probably give him an aneurysm.)
It would probably be best that no one analyze your fever-dream delusions of thinking whatever the fuck you're talking about here in any way relates to Storygames. Dude, this is pathetic and weak. I knew Erick Wujcik and spoke to him voluminously, his dislike for storygames (or to be more accurate, things like "narrativism", or the pretentiousness of the Forge) is something he said to me in his own words.
Do you perhaps not see the stupidity, even purely from a rhetorical standpoint of scoring in the debate, of trying to argue with me about a dead friend and mentor I actually personally knew, and his game that I've been playing and engaging with almost constantly for decades since even before it went into print, and about which I'm maybe one of the handful of most eminent living experts?
In what universe do you live in where this doesn't make you look like just a pathetic desperate shitbag hopelessly mudslinging by using weaselly manipulation of words completely out of context?
QuoteI love how neither Benoist nor Pundie is capable of participating in these discussions without defining their favorites RPGs as story games.
And I love how apparently not one of the Swine on this thread (or any I've seen thus far about DW) can actually try to hold up their argument about the game being an RPG without having to result to out-of-context shellgames of meaningless sophistry or just plain outright-lies about either DW or RPGs.
RPGPundit
Well, there you go. Can't argue with crazy. Maybe this is like watching Colbert for people who don't "get it".
Quote from: Justin Alexander;668962Ironically, Pundie, you're currently one of the biggest impediments to people taking the division between STGs and RPGs seriously. Your definition is vague and variable. You apply it with either ignorance or in a biased attempt to post hoc your opinion (or both). You attempt to enforce it with the fervor of a religious zealot selectively reading passages from the Old Testament.
The problem is that when you use your podium to declare that games which are RPGs are actually STGs while simultaneously doing things like claiming that FATE doesn't have any narrative control mechanics in it, you create the impression that the very real dividing line between RPGs and STGs doesn't exist and is just the raving of a crazy person who can't keep his intellectual house in order.
For those of us who actually do believe that it can be valuable to understand the dividing line between RPGs and STGs, you are an ignorant, confusing embarrassment.
No, 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).
QuoteThese things can trivially happen in Dungeon World.
Really? 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.
QuoteThe rulebook says the exact opposite of that.
Really? 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?
QuoteEveryone else should take note here: The guy who has just spent several pages of this thread confidently telling people who own the game, have read the game, and who have played the game that they're lying about what the rulebook says has just admitted that he has never even touched the rulebook.
Technically, 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.
The 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.
Really, dude, you aren't very good at this.
RPGPundit
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.
Quote from: Benoist;669281I 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.
I can definitely see where you are coming from, and FWIW, I agree that by the author's intentions (both Baker and Sage) the narrative aspect is king and is the focus, however, authorship is meant to happen from a character-focused perspective. As Baker himself agreed with Zak, the player creates things outside the character yet about the character. It's world-editing no doubt, especially in AW, but it is character-focused and limited, which is why it passes muster for Ramon, Tim, Tristam, people who don't really play Storygames.
I agree that if your criteria are Traditional RPGs and Other, then DW is without a doubt an other, there is no question since if the focus is storytelling and the roleplaying is simply the vehicle to storytelling, then while it obviously has to contain roleplaying, that's not the focus.
For that same reason, I would put D&D4e tip-toeing right on that line. By design, the tactical wargame of the combat is king, the primary design goal, to the point of not even bothering to associate many of the powers in the game world (as has been discussed to death). A computer and console 4e tactical game that you could have played against other people and had Clans for, etc, WotC would have had a crazy hit that would have raised even Hasbro's eyebrows. As a RPG, well, we all know how that went.
I agree that D&D4 is definitely tipping towards the line of the hybrid, much like other, similar games like Cadwallon.
Now, just like you can put in the "story first" and narrativism into a role playing game on your own without any support from the rules, and in essence play a story game using RPG mechanics, just like you can use a MB HeroQuest board and minis and rules and bring in characterization and immersion ex nihilo to in essence play an RPG with this board game, or play Squad Leader and pretend you're the leader of the squad in that blue tank chit and do the same, you can use OD&D rules to in essence play a modern story game, or use Dungeon World, bring in world emulation ex nihilo, ignore much of the GM's rules and pillars of play, including "make moves", "follow the rules", "find out what happens next" and so on, consider moves as "optional" and play a role playing game using Dungeon World, a story game. But that's not what the game is primarily built to achieve.
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 three 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*
Well, what is so bad about following the rules? Genuine question, here.
I mean, I am running SW D6 (my write-up of the last session is due, I know) and I follow the rulres to the letter. I don't change them and I do not fudge rolls. Of course, I may have to adjudicate a rule on the spot because something is not covered, but then I write it down on my master doc of the rules and it becomes a rule.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669293I can definitely see where you are coming from, and FWIW, I agree that by the author's intentions (both Baker and Sage) the narrative aspect is king and is the focus, however, authorship is meant to happen from a character-focused perspective. As Baker himself agreed with Zak, the player creates things outside the character yet about the character. It's world-editing no doubt, especially in AW, but it is character-focused and limited, which is why it passes muster for Ramon, Tim, Tristam, people who don't really play Storygames.
Yeah, that and the fact that, in actual play, it didn't feel that different from any other RPG. So my players will call it an RPG, even if they acknowledge that is not the exact same experience than playin CoC, for example. They can see it as a different type of RPG, but an RPG nonetheless.
Quote from: Imperator;669301Well, what is so bad about following the rules? Genuine question, here.
It's not a question of "good" or "bad". Can Dungeon World be an entertaining game to play? Sure, just like playing HeroQuest can be awesome. I actually found it very well designed for what it is, and I have no doubt I could have a good time playing it with a "GM" who knows what he's doing, following the rules, playing to find out what happens next, yaddi yadda.
It's about a fundamental difference between a role playing game with a primary purpose of emulating a world and putting the GM as the main emulating force behind the screen using the rules, changing them, discarding them in order to effectively concentrate on the substance of the game, which is the milieu and the characters living in it, versus creating a structure of play you have to follow to build a narrative and engage in collaborative story-building time, the confinement of these parameters of play being a primary reason for the game to exist in the first place.
These are two radically different activities we are talking about. It's not about "good" or "bad", though story games generally will make for piss poor RPGs and RPGs for piss poor story telling games as Ron Edwards himself noted in his famous "brain-damage" comment. Just like playing an RPG with say HeroQuest or Squad Leader might be functional at first glance, but suboptimal compared to say, using an actual role playing game to do so.
Quote from: Benoist;669281Vampire 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.
It's curious that for Vampire, you ignore the stated purpose of the rules and instead judge by what it accomplishes. However, for Dungeon World you talk only about what the purpose of the rules are - not what they accomplish. There are a lot of older RPGs that actively encourage improvising parts of the world and/or leaving blanks in the world design. It's not just Vampire and other White Wolf games - Over The Edge, Toon, Paranoia, Feng Shui, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and many others state this as their ideal quite clearly. Many official adventure modules for a variety of games have a storyline or sequence of scenes rather than just a set of maps to explore.
Yes, you can ignore the books and use, say, the Vampire mechanics to emulate a world without storytelling. You can do this with the Dungeon World mechanics too, though. This doesn't change that GMing in a storytelling style has been part of the RPG tradition for many decades.
Apocalypse World and its derived games have a few mechanical distinctions, but they are clearly within the spectrum of games played prior to 2000.
Quote from: jhkim;669324It's curious that for Vampire, you ignore the stated purpose of the rules and instead judge by what it accomplishes. However, for Dungeon World you talk only about what the purpose of the rules are - not what they accomplish.
Yes, because there is a difference between the stated purpose of the rules, and what the rules actually do. The difference in this case is that what Vampire says it's built for is not what its actual rules do (which again, is exactly what Ron had against WW games to begin with), whereas what Dungeon World says it's built for is actually what its rules do (which would make Ron very proud, because it's "coherent" design).
Quote from: Benoist;669326Yes, because there is a difference between the stated purpose of the rules, and what the rules actually do. The difference in this case is that what Vampire says it's built for is not what its actual rules do (which again, is exactly what Ron had against WW games to begin with), whereas what Dungeon World says it's built for is actually what its rules do (which would make Ron very proud, because it's "coherent" design).
I agree with the sentiment, but not with the evaluation of what the rules actually do. The rules don't give players the opportunity to 'take narrative control from the GM, they don't influence whether a player adopts an immersive or author stance, and they don't give any powers associated with being the GM to the players during the game. The only real change from an old school d&d rules hack is in regards to the DM.
Quote from: TristramEvans;669333I agree with the sentiment, but not with the evaluation of what the rules actually do. The rules don't give players the opportunity to 'take narrative control from the GM, they don't influence whether a player adopts an immersive or author stance, and they don't give any powers associated with being the GM to the players during the game. The only real change from an old school d&d rules hack is in regards to the DM.
The rules take control away from the GM because it is explicitly stated that the GM must follow the rules and manage the game using moves. The entire point of DW as a game is predicated on that notion, and the entire point of the game as a whole is to build a narrative and "find out what happens next". Everything, from partially blank maps to fronts to everything, is geared towards that single goal. Sure, you could ignore moves and consider them optional and whatnot, you could ignore the explicit advice of DW and grab a complete map and introduce some form of world emulation after the fact, ex nihilo, but then, you're not really playing DW, you're playing some other type of game (maybe an RPG, maybe not) using some of the mechanics of DW in the process, like you could conceivable play an RPG with say, HeroQuest, or Once Upon A Time, or Squad Leader.
Quote from: RPGPundit;669175That's one of many factors that involve the differences between a storygame and an RPG, sure.
In an RPG, it works like this:
Player: I want to do X
GM: Explain what you would like X to look like, and what you are doing to attempt this?
Player: "like this..."
GM: Ok, you succeed. (or fail, or some third condition thereof)
You'll note that the Player doesn't get to control reality AFTER the fact of his successful roll; he's not rolling to "be in control of the story". Nor does he obviously get to control reality before either; rather, in an RPG (as opposed to a storygame) the player is not at any point expressing what actually HAPPENS (only the GM may do that), he's rather expressing what he would like to ATTEMPT.
?
This is how lots of storygames work as well. For example, Other Worlds.
Quote from: RPGPundit;669179I 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!).
Exactly. People aren't giving you free stuff because they are AFRAID OF THE TRUTH
My own response is that there is actually multiple things going on here, and without unpacking them, the arguments only partially make sense whilst also partially causing disagreement.
Narrative RPGs
The first part is the use of OOC mechanics that allow the player to contribute direct on a narrative level.
I think that allowing players to contribute direct to the narrative has been a part of RPGs since their inception. Whether it be a GM who asks their players to create a part of the setting, a player writing a character backstory, or just players talking to their GM about what they wanted to see in the game. You didn't need to have it this to be RPGing, but doing so didn't suddenly stop it being RPGing.
As early as the early 1980s, this concept started to appear in actual mechanics. This created disagreement even way back when, with RPGers strongly having preferences one way or the other. On saying that, I didn't ever recall it culminating with an argument that players having mechanics granting them narrative power somehow wasn't RPGing as RPGs with such mechanics were still focussed on players playing characters, and the GM being the primary creator/driver of story.
Story-Games
The second part is the development of the story game in the late 1990s. These games introduced a new concept of making the story creation into an actual game itself. It necessarily required that the rules provide a level playing field so players could compete. This in turn necessitated a restriction on the GM's ultimate authority.
For whatever reason, possibly the change in play style or more likely the designers and fandom surrounding the new play style, a lot of RPGers did not like story gaming and some even felt offended by it. Leaving that aside, I think that this shift was significant enough that it became possible to distinguish a story-game (like My Life With Master or Baron Munchhausen) from RPGs, much like RPGs had from wargames in the 1970s. The desire to do so and the ability to do so, leads us to this exercise.
Modern Design
However, there is a third part. Story-game development did focus on the re-examination of the role of rules. This was necessary for story-gaming to achieve the player competition that that kind of game requires. However, this re-examination was also done in RPGs around the same time, which makes sense given that they are obviously related in terms of development.
TBH I don't know if this re-examination started in RPGs or story-games, but I don't think it matters. Designers of RPGs started looking more closely at ways of communicating and engaging more directly with players through the mechanics than ever before. This is seen in games such as D&D3e, D&D4e, WFRP3e, The One Ring and the *World, where OOC engagement is high on a number of fronts including both narrative and tactical.
Again, I think people have some valid issues with the approach of modern design. Can you improve roleplaying through mechanics has been an long discussed topic. However, again, I don't think that the modern design approach prevents an RPG from being an RPG.
Dungeon World
What does that mean for Dungeon World?
First, it does have mechanics that allow the player to make narrative contributions. As said, a group of RPGers doesn't think this distinguishes it from narrative RPGs that have been around in some form for three decades, and arguably longer.
Second, it is not a story-game as there is no contest between the players to create story. The players are focussed on playing their characters. The GM is the primary creator/driver of story. There is flexibility to shift the balance just like it is in any RPG, but as written it can play as an RPG.
Third, it does have a modern presentation of rules. The mechanics are written to engage the player direct. This is causing some people to have an adverse reaction as they see that language as necessarily leading to a player competitive story game style that limits the GM. This is not the case. It does make parts of the RPGing experience more explicit, but part of the *World's success in its design is that it does that without changing how many people have been RPGing (admittedly through narrative RPGs) for a long time.
Overall, I am not surprised that Dungeon World will be disliked by some RPGers, and the paranoid may even see it as some kind of story-game infiltrator. But I still object to the idea that Dungeon World is somehow not an RPG on the grounds being given.
Quote from: Benoist;669326Yes, because there is a difference between the stated purpose of the rules, and what the rules actually do. The difference in this case is that what Vampire says it's built for is not what its actual rules do (which again, is exactly what Ron had against WW games to begin with), whereas what Dungeon World says it's built for is actually what its rules do (which would make Ron very proud, because it's "coherent" design).
Quote from: Benoist;669334Sure, you could ignore moves and consider them optional and whatnot, you could ignore the explicit advice of DW and grab a complete map and introduce some form of world emulation after the fact, ex nihilo, but then, you're not really playing DW, you're playing some other type of game (maybe an RPG, maybe not) using some of the mechanics of DW in the process, like you could conceivable play an RPG with say, HeroQuest, or Once Upon A Time, or Squad Leader.
The latter is fine in itself - but you claim that the explicit advice of Vampire is irrelevant and doesn't matter. i.e. Vampire is still traditional even though all of the GM material is about chronicle and storytelling. And this is even more true for other earlier RPGs like Toon, Ghostbusters, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and many others - which explicitly advice the GM to make stuff up on the fly to enhance the story.
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*
So, if a Move embraces everything a GM could do in a traditional RPG and says that a GM should make Moves, your objection is based solely on the title given.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669271In 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.
Well 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.
Quote from: Benoist;669334The rules take control away from the GM because it is explicitly stated that the GM must follow the rules and manage the game using moves.
Indeed, several restrictions are placed on the GM insofar that the game codifies the mechanics of the game within the context of moves, one money represeting the method of task resolution for a variety of contexts. It does have those training wheels in place as written. But it doesn't in turn redistribute any of the GM's power to the players, which is what I think is the crucial distinction.
QuoteThe entire point of DW as a game is predicated on that notion, and the entire point of the game as a whole is to build a narrative and "find out what happens next". Everything, from partially blank maps to fronts to everything, is geared towards that single goal. Sure, you could ignore moves and consider them optional and whatnot, you could ignore the explicit advice of DW and grab a complete map and introduce some form of world emulation after the fact,
This part confuses me, as the phrase 'build a narrative' is quite similar to how I think of traditional rpgs rather than story games; the 'story' is being discovered during play, its how you describe everything that happens in the gameafter the fact. During the game there is no story, because your living in the 'present' as your role, making choices from the POV of your character. After the game you have a story (with the caveat that's is very unlikely to be a story anyone who didn't 'live thru it' will have any interest in whatsoever).
I have similar feelings about the phrase "find out what happens next", which again is a very good description of one of the distinctions I make between traditional rpgs and story games, in that I don't want to plan out what's going to happen ahead of time, I dont want to jump thru the hoops of a pre-plotted 'choose your own adventure', and I don't want to view my PC from an authorial perspective. I want to see what happens next. Heck, I'd say that's a good summary of the entire reason rpgs use dice.
As for the 'complete map and world emulation' comment, well on the one hand I'm empathetic in that I gravitate towards 'culture games'. I like world building nd what Tolkien called 'subcreation'. I want to be immersed in my character's culture and for our imaginary worlds to be heavy with a sense of history and feel that there's things taking place outside of the 'PC Spotlight'. But the minimalist approach where world details are filled in as the come up cannot be a way of distinguishing an RPG from a storygame, as that describes for the majority of players the standard experience of playing D&D. Sure, there were some lovely settings published...eventually...but that just sounds like, well, an atypical dungeoncrawl. Moreover it seems to mirror exactly the approach Arneson took to Blackmoor.
As 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.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341Narrative RPGs
The first part is the use of OOC mechanics that allow the player to contribute direct on a narrative level.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341Story-Games
The second part is the development of the story game in the late 1990s. These games introduced a new concept of making the story creation into an actual game itself. It necessarily required that the rules provide a level playing field so players could compete. This in turn necessitated a restriction on the GM's ultimate authority.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341Modern Design
However, there is a third part. Story-game development did focus on the re-examination of the role of rules. This was necessary for story-gaming to achieve the player competition that that kind of game requires. However, this re-examination was also done in RPGs around the same time, which makes sense given that they are obviously related in terms of development.
I don't think the breakdown here works, because storytelling in RPGs is
not tied to out-of-character mechanics. A great many RPGs embrace storytelling while still having a division of roles where the players strictly act out their character's dialogue and action, while the GM handles out-of-character stuff. This includes games like Toon, Ghostbusters, Feng Shui, Vampire (and others of the series), and many more. If the explicit advice of these games are followed, the player takes actions based on what would the character would do next in the story - while the GM narrates similarly based on the story.
This divide has been known about for ages. It was part of flamewars on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the early 90s and incorporated into the Threefold Model, but it dates far earlier - such that Glenn Blacow wrote about the distinction of the "Storytelling" aspect of RPGs in a 1980 article.
Yet people here seem to be ignoring this, and instead are talking as if story in RPGs was invented in the Forge around 2000 - and that no one could possibly value story without also having out-of-character mechanics. I think this gives vastly too much credit to The Forge, among other things.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341I think that allowing players to contribute direct to the narrative has been a part of RPGs since their inception.
For those players that wanted narrative control, yes, for those that did not. NO. and
not mechanically forced as part of fundamental mechanical resolution until
very recently.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341On saying that, I didn't ever recall it culminating with an argument that players having mechanics granting them narrative power somehow wasn't RPGing as RPGs with such mechanics were still focussed on players playing characters, and the GM being the primary creator/driver of story.
I do remember such games being referred to sometimes as "genre games" as the OOC mechanics in those days invariably centered
solely around emulating genre.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341This is causing some people to have an adverse reaction as they see that language as necessarily leading to a player competitive story game style that limits the GM.
NOPE. The adverse reaction is to
1. Enforced OOC narrative control mechanics.
2. The view that DW is a traditional oldschool RPG. You see for every Pundit who says it's a Storygame, there's a few dozen knuckleheads on awfulpurple and elsewhere that are calling it an old school traditional RPG, even an OSR game for Christ's sake. Even the people arguing here won't go that far.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341It does make parts of the RPGing experience more explicit
Yeah, the non-Roleplaying parts.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341but part of the *World's success in its design is that it does that without changing how many people have been RPGing (admittedly through narrative RPGs) for a long time.
admittedly through narrative RPGs being the key part of that sentence.
Quote from: Skywalker;669341But I still object to the idea that Dungeon World is somehow not an RPG on the grounds being given.
Show me a game that on this site would be labeled as an RPG that has the same level of OOC narrative mechanics in it and those mechanics are as fundamental to core resolution as they are in Xworld.
Quote from: jhkim;669349I don't think the breakdown here works, because storytelling in RPGs is not tied to out-of-character mechanics.
Cool. I am not sure where our disconnect is, as I pretty much agree with what you say. FWIW I wasn't attempting to categorise games as trying to recognise multiple influences on the arguments being made.
Quote from: jhkim;669349I don't think the breakdown here works, because storytelling in RPGs is not tied to out-of-character mechanics.
It is in games like DW that deliberately introduce OOC mechanics for the purpose of granting narrative control.
Quote from: jhkim;669349This divide has been known about for ages. It was part of flamewars on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the early 90s and incorporated into the Threefold Model, but it dates far earlier - such that Glenn Blacow wrote about the distinction of the "Storytelling" aspect of RPGs in a 1980 article.
and yet again, back then there was NO mechanical enforcement of storytelling aspects, no forced OOC stance for the purpose of narration.
Quote from: jhkim;669349Yet people here seem to be ignoring this, and instead are talking as if story in RPGs was invented in the Forge around 2000 - and that no one could possibly value story without also having out-of-character mechanics. I think this gives vastly too much credit to The Forge, among other things.
No the Forge didn't invent story in RPGs, and Edwards isn't even the Father of Storygames, that really goes to Robin Laws. What the Forge did was codify a design ethos of mechanical support and enforcement for desired play. System Matters.
What you seem to be ignoring is that without narrative-based rules, I can still play a game with story in mind. With forced OOC mechanics, I cannot by definition take an IC stance when engaging these mechanics. That ain't the 70's and 80's, that's new.
I'm not sure why you guys have to claim the Day 1 fallacy always, but let me know when you want to base a discussion on something other then false premises.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669350For those players that wanted narrative control, yes, for those that did not. NO. and not mechanically forced as part of fundamental mechanical resolution until very recently.
I said this in my post, though you did not quote it. I see your
very recently as much an exaggeration as you no doubt see my from
inception, though.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669350I do remember such games being referred to sometimes as "genre games" as the OOC mechanics in those days invariably centered solely around emulating genre.
Though genre was one driver for these, I don't think its the only motivator for OOC mechanics, even in 1980s.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669350NOPE. The adverse reaction is to
1. Enforced OOC narrative control mechanics.
2. The view that DW is a traditional oldschool RPG.
Cool. I am not claiming that DW is an OSR game
Quote from: CRKrueger;669350Show me a game that on this site would be labeled as an RPG that has the same level of OOC narrative mechanics in it and those mechanics are as fundamental to core resolution as they are in Xworld.
I would argue FATE, where IME the OOC narrative mechanics are much more influential, plentiful and intrusive than DW. I don't agree with the argument made that the narrative mechanics are not integral to FATE as written. However, if you want to argue that, I suggest we do so in a different thread though, as it will likely bury this one.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669350Show me a game that on this site would be labeled as an RPG that has the same level of OOC narrative mechanics in it and those mechanics are as fundamental to core resolution as they are in Xworld.
I have no Idea what games on this site would be labeled as an RPG, that's been one of my main bones of contention on the numerous SG threads recently.
But if you want an example of a game long accepted as an RPG but containing a comparitve number of oCc narrative mechanics to DW, then I would say Ars Magica
Quote from: Skywalker;669355Though genre was one driver for these, I don't think its the only motivator for OOC mechanics, even in 1980s.
For that one I would need examples to jog my memory.
Quote from: Skywalker;669355I would argue FATE, where IME the OOC narrative mechanics are much more influential, plentiful and intrusive than DW. I don't agree with the argument made that the narrative mechanics are not integral to FATE as written. However, if you want to argue that, I suggest we do so in a different thread though, as it will likely bury this one.
Yeah, probably would.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669353No the Forge didn't invent story in RPGs, and Edwards isn't even the Father of Storygames, that really goes to Robin Laws. What the Forge did was codify a design ethos of mechanical support and enforcement for desired play. System Matters.
What you seem to be ignoring is that without narrative-based rules, I can still play a game with story in mind. With forced OOC mechanics, I cannot by definition take an IC stance when engaging these mechanics. That ain't the 70's and 80's, that's new.
I'm not sure why you guys have to claim the Day 1 fallacy always, but let me know when you want to base a discussion on something other then false premises.
As far as I can see, you're saying the same thing as I am, then claiming that I'm ignoring it.
Let me try this again. Benoist claimed - in short - that Dungeon World was a story game because play was about story, and not about world. I disagreed, because many traditional RPGs are (1) explicitly state that their purpose is to create story; (2) have modules that are organized around story; (3) have many GMs and players who care about story in actual practice.
In short, playing for story is traditional. Specific mechanics for story may or may not be traditional, but simply having a focus on story is
not a sign of a non-traditional RPG.
Out-of-character mechanics are uncommon in traditional RPGs, but still present - like Whimsy Cards in Ars Magica, the Drama Deck in Torg, and Drama Points in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and other Cinematic Unisystem games) - which give the player some control over things outside of their character. However, Dungeon World has no mechanics like this. Everything a player does is a character action.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669367For that one I would need examples to jog my memory.
WFRP's Fate Points are an OOC mechanic that has little to do with genre.
Prince Valiant's Storyteller Certificates aren't genre based.
Quote from: jhkim;669368Let me try this again. Benoist claimed - in short - that Dungeon World was a story game because play was about story
No, it is not what I claimed, and you are building a strawman, like any person with eyes can check out reading my posts. I don't care about engaging people trying to twist what I'm saying and making dishonest arguments. I won't waste any more time repeating what I already said.
Quote from: Skywalker;669369WFRP's Fate Points are an OOC mechanic that has little to do with genre.
A setting-based mechanic that only is invoked to prevent character death isn't even really a decision. This is always been one of those "If that's the best you got, you got nothin" points.
Quote from: SkywalkerPrince Valiant's Storyteller Certificates aren't genre based.
True, but we were talking about RPGs, right. Valiant is labeled a Storytelling Game by its own author and is by your own earlier definition a Storygame.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669375True, but we were talking about RPGs, right. Valiant is labeled a Storytelling Game by its own author and is by your own earlier definition a Storygame.
Ha! To your credit, that is worth dissecting some more, but TBH I am rusty on my PV and would need to go back over my copy of it to do so.
FWIW from memory, Storyteller Certificates only appeared in the advance version of the game and were given as a reward either for GMing (if round robin GMing was used) or by the GM to a player for good play. The effects of the Certificate were also limited in nature. As such, I think the concept lacks the OOC competition element over story to be a story-game IMO. But your point is well made.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669375True, but we were talking about RPGs, right. Valiant is labeled a Storytelling Game by its own author and is by your own earlier definition a Storygame.
I definitely wouldn't call Prince Valiant a Story game. Its labelled a 'story telling game' in the same way as WoD, which probably got the term there, as white wolf's house system was basically PV's with dice pools instead of coins. But GM certificates, an optional rule at the back of the book intended for when playing the game with younger children, aside, PV is an RPG through-and-through. No limits on or redustribution of the G M's power, no narrative-based mechanics, and a mighty fine presentation as well with the single best example of play in any RPG core rulebook, ever.
Quote from: Benoist;669281I 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.
...
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.
Quote from: jhkim;669368Let me try this again. Benoist claimed - in short - that Dungeon World was a story game because play was about story, and not about world. I disagreed, because many traditional RPGs are (1) explicitly state that their purpose is to create story; (2) have modules that are organized around story; (3) have many GMs and players who care about story in actual practice.
In short, playing for story is traditional. Specific mechanics for story may or may not be traditional, but simply having a focus on story is not a sign of a non-traditional RPG.
Quote from: Benoist;669371No, it is not what I claimed, and you are building a strawman, like any person with eyes can check out reading my posts. I don't care about engaging people trying to twist what I'm saying and making dishonest arguments. I won't waste any more time repeating what I already said.
I'm including your actual words above. If you don't want to explain yourself, that's up to you. I am not intentionally misrepresenting you, however.
My statement is this: the primary purpose of many traditional RPGs like Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, Over the Edge, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ghostbusters, and many others is explicitly to create an entertaining story - as stated both by the game authors and by many game participants.
Therefore, there is no clear difference in primary purpose of play between these and Dungeon World. There are differences in mechanical implementations, but not in primary purpose.
It is possible for people to play any of these games while ignoring the game text and not playing for story. However, that is not the game as written.
Quote from: jhkim;669380My statement is this: the primary purpose of many traditional RPGs like Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, Over the Edge, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Ghostbusters, and many others is explicitly to create an entertaining story - as stated both by the game authors and by many game participants.
Therefore, there is no clear difference in primary purpose of play between these and Dungeon World. There are differences in mechanical implementations, but not in primary purpose.
It is possible for people to play any of these games while ignoring the game text and not playing for story. However, that is not the game as written.
Its possible to play from an IC perspective in a story - as long as the story is being constructed entirely by the dungeon master.
What's incompatible with IC is
collaborative storytelling.
A mention of 'story' pre-00s is largely just an endorsement of railroading. I think an actual 'story game' is generally distinguishable by being designed for collaborative storytelling.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669388Its possible to play from an IC perspective in a story - as long as the story is being constructed entirely by the dungeon master.
What's incompatible with IC is collaborative storytelling.
A mention of 'story' pre-00s is largely just an endorsement of railroading. I think an actual 'story game' is generally distinguishable by being designed for collaborative storytelling.
Ah, yes - the idea that Ars Magica, Vampire, etc. wer entirely railroading before the Forge came along and saved things - because there is no way that a traditional GM could possibly listen to players or respond to their actions.
In case you might have guess, I consider this utter nonsense. Railroading was and is a common trap because it simplifies GM prep. However, it was well known and debated long before the Forge came around. I had long discussions with people interested in drama in the early nineties. Moreover, it's not even particularly connected to story-oriented RPGs. Some of the most railroaded modules are actually tournament modules intended for competitive play, and some railroading even flows from world logic when there is a mission with clear steps.
Collaborative 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.
In 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'.
Quote from: Skywalker;669352Cool. I am not sure where our disconnect is, as I pretty much agree with what you say. FWIW I wasn't attempting to categorise games as trying to recognise multiple influences on the arguments being made.
Fair enough.
Quote from: jhkim;669390Ah, yes - the idea that Ars Magica, Vampire, etc. wer entirely railroading before the Forge came along and saved things - because there is no way that a traditional GM could possibly listen to players or respond to their actions.
In case you might have guess, I consider this utter nonsense. Railroading was and is a common trap because it simplifies GM prep. However, it was well known and debated long before the Forge came around. I had long discussions with people interested in drama in the early nineties. Moreover, it's not even particularly connected to story-oriented RPGs. Some of the most railroaded modules are actually tournament modules intended for competitive play, and some railroading even flows from world logic when there is a mission with clear steps.
Collaborative 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.
I wouldn't quite have put it that way, given that I don't want the GM to listen to me or respond to my actions (other than impartially).
None of the things you listed here are necessarily in contradiction with being in-character. Mind you, none of these are not as I put it 'constructed entirely by the dungeon master' either, even if we call them 'collaborative'.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669404I wouldn't quite have put it that way, given that I don't want the GM to listen to me or respond to my actions (other than impartially).
None of the things you listed here are necessarily in contradiction with being in-character. Mind you, none of these are not as I put it 'constructed entirely by the dungeon master' either, even if we call them 'collaborative'.
Well, quite possibly you're not interested in the story side of play at all, which is fine. The part I disagreed with was your claim that all story in RPGs was railroading until the Forge came along.
I don't get your latter statement, though. If I decide who my character is and what my character does (my #2 and #4) - how is that being constructed entirely by the game master?
Quote from: jhkim;669408Well, quite possibly you're not interested in the story side of play at all, which is fine. The part I disagreed with was your claim that all story in RPGs was railroading until the Forge came along.
I don't get your latter statement, though. If I decide who my character is and what my character does (my #2 and #4) - how is that being constructed entirely by the game master?
lol. Sorry.
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/Oh-I-offended-you-with-my-opinion_-You-should-hear-the-ones-I-keep-to-myself.jpg)[/URL]
On 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.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669271So 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.
Ok, as you're someone here who's disagreeing with me and yet clearly isn't one of the Story Swine, I would be quite interested to hear your judgment on this (whereas others here I know would only spew propaganda or lies or rhetoric to try to win the argument), so tell me: ultimately, which of the two is more fundamentally important in DW: that above all it be able to create a story? Or that it effectively emulate an immersive living world?
Because from what you wrote above, it sounds like DW may have some other priorities besides the former, but it certainly does consider the former paramount; whereas from your description above that the latter's importance is utterly peripheral at best. Would that be an accurate assessment, in your opinion?
RPGPundit
Quote from: Benoist;669281Dungeon 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.
See, that's exactly what CRKreuger's post just above yours here was saying to me. It sounds like however right he may be about DW being a game that "uses roleplaying (techniques) to interactively storytell", this total lack of interest in emulation makes it, at most, a firm Storygame with RPG components, as opposed to an RPG with some storygame components (the way FATE is).
RPGPundit
Quote from: soviet;669338Exactly. People aren't giving you free stuff because they are AFRAID OF THE TRUTH
So your theory is, seriously(?!), that all this is because I have an aching desire to own my own personal copy of Dungeon World?!
Really?
RPGPundit
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. ;)
Yes. But despite that being the case, the movement in RPGs to make the players have more fun interacting with the mechanics in and of itself (even though the activity itself has been around from year 0) is more prominent today that it was 14 years ago.
What ultimately is being objecting to, I think, is the attempt by game designer to make fun for the player on that principle that "make your own fun" is a necessary part of RPGs and core to their appeal (much more so than being fully immersed into a character). RPGs are the "incomplete games" that the Forge complained of, lacking in competition, certainity, balance and many other things that we associate with games. They need the players to "make their own fun" to even operate, with another player, the GM, as arbiter.
FWIW I have some sympathy with that position as the idea of you must "make your own fun" (and the lack of player competition that it implies) is a fundamental part of why RPG appeals to me :)
The question is that how complete can they be as games before they stop being RPGs? Is adding mechanics that add their own fun antithetical to RPGs? If any line can be drawn between RPGs and other games IMO it is where you can be totally reliant on the game itself to make fun for you, such as a board game, war game, computer game or story game (as I understand the term). You can play the game and have fun, at least mechanically, without really needing to roleplay. This is what I was trying to get at with the concept of player competition in my other thread.
The issue arising is that this essential element of RPGs is not absent in DW (or many other games claimed here to be other games), even if the game mechanics are engaging with players more. Though DW uses the nomenclature of a game that can be played competitively between players, in the absence of roleplaying having any mechanical effect, it just can't be played in that fashion no matter how hard you try. The same is even more true for TOR or TBZ, which are even more "RPG-like". You just can't play them without the exact same amount of "make your own fun" as any other RPG. The mechanics are adding fun but not replacing or restricting the players from making their own fun like they always have.
And yes "make fun" is not intended to be an exact 'scientifical' definition ;)
Yes. But despite that being the case, the movement in RPGs to make the players have more fun interacting with the mechanics in and of itself (even though the activity itself has been around from year 0) is more prominent today that it was 14 years ago.
What ultimately is being objecting to, I think, is the attempt by game designer to make fun for the player on that principle that "make your own fun" is a necessary part of RPGs and core to their appeal (much more so than being fully immersed into a character). RPGs are the "incomplete games" that the Forge complained of, lacking in competition, certainity, balance and many other things that we associate with games. They need the players to "make their own fun" to even operate, with another player, the GM, as arbiter.
FWIW I have some sympathy with that position as the idea of you must "make your own fun" (and the lack of player competition that it implies) is a fundamental part of why RPG appeals to me :)
The question is that how complete can they be as games before they stop being RPGs? Is adding mechanics that add their own fun antithetical to RPGs? If any line can be drawn between RPGs and other games IMO it is where you can be totally reliant on the game itself to make fun for you, such as a board game, war game, computer game or story game (as I understand the term). You can play the game and have fun, at least mechanically, without really needing to roleplay. This is what I was trying to get at with the concept of player competition in my other thread.
The issue arising is that this essential element of RPGs is not absent in DW (or many other games claimed here to be other games), even if the game mechanics are engaging with players more. Though DW uses the nomenclature of a game that can be played competitively between players, in the absence of roleplaying having any mechanical effect, it just can't be played in that fashion no matter how hard you try. The same is even more true for TOR or TBZ, which are even more "RPG-like". You just can't play them without the exact same amount of "make your own fun" as any other RPG. The mechanics are adding fun but not replacing or restricting the players from making their own fun like they always have.
And yes "make fun" is not intended to be an exact 'scientifical' definition ;)
Quote from: jhkimAs 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: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669440Wandering 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.
Both of these are just analogies, so they could both work. I feel like the rewriting analogy is fuzzy because it is undefined what the rewritten book would look like, and different people might picture very different things.
Still, I'm willing to run with that analogy. For example, would Hamlet be the same story if the protagonist was instead James Bond? That is, James Bond is in the lead role - and his choices and dialogue are as appropriate for his character - but the rest is manipulated so that the external effects of his actions are roughly the same as in the original plot. It seems to me that the story would be significantly different. If we put Sherlock Holmes in the lead, it would also be different from both the original story and the Bond story.
Going back to RPGs - If the question is "What does my character accomplish in the world?" - i.e. Does he beat the enemies in the adventure module? - then undoubtedly the GM is largely in control of that. However, that isn't what story is. For story, the main characters and the choices they make are a big part.
EDITED TO ADD: Not that anyone should necessarily care about story, but if we're going to talk about RPG with a focus on story (which has been a part of this thread), I think it's important to understand the place of character in stories.
Quote from: Skywalker;669566The question is that how complete can they be as games before they stop being RPGs?
I don't think there's a single answer to that question, but I look forward to playing all the great games that arise from testing that boundary.
Quote from: jhkim;669610Still, I'm willing to run with that analogy. For example, would Hamlet be the same story if the protagonist was instead James Bond? That is, James Bond is in the lead role - and his choices and dialogue are as appropriate for his character - but the rest is manipulated so that the external effects of his actions are roughly the same as in the original plot. It seems to me that the story would be significantly different. If we put Sherlock Holmes in the lead, it would also be different from both the original story and the Bond story.
OK - fine. Conceded. I'll admit players do have an input into the 'story' in traditional games, via their characters, if you must put it that way.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;669628OK - fine. Conceded. I'll admit players do have an input into the 'story' in traditional games, via their characters, if you must put it that way.
Fair enough. Thanks.
In turn, I agree that it is not at all necessary to put it in terms of story - and that many people play traditional RPGs with no concern for story, which works fine.
Quote from: Skywalker;669543I 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.
Gee ya think? At least you admit that freely, the Usual Suspects wouldn't even admit it was OOC.
Quote from: Skywalker;669543FWIW 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 :)
Probably better as a new thread, yeah, since you're near 100% wrong on that one. :D You did read where I said that Day 1 Fallacy bullshit wasn't gonna wash, right? :p
Quote from: RPGPundit;669411Ok, as you're someone here who's disagreeing with me and yet clearly isn't one of the Story Swine, I would be quite interested to hear your judgment on this (whereas others here I know would only spew propaganda or lies or rhetoric to try to win the argument), so tell me: ultimately, which of the two is more fundamentally important in DW: that above all it be able to create a story? Or that it effectively emulate an immersive living world?
That one's easy, the author clearly sees playing tabletop RPGs as creating fiction, and the game is designed to do that. The idea of an emulated world to immerse in as you, me, Ben, Vreeg et al would term it, isn't a design goal at all. The characters are there for two purposes - 1. to roleplay and more importantly 2. through that roleplay creating a story. That narrative layer is omnipresent and baked in, even if well hidden at times.
Quote from: RPGPundit;669411Because from what you wrote above, it sounds like DW may have some other priorities besides the former, but it certainly does consider the former paramount; whereas from your description above that the latter's importance is utterly peripheral at best. Would that be an accurate assessment, in your opinion?
RPGPundit
It's not a Storygame in the sense that the game itself is not about who tells the story. It's a storytelling game, whereby the players tell the story in large part through the roleplay of their characters, but also in large part through OOC narrative choices.
That's why I term it a true Hybrid, a Storytelling RPG. Based on forum criteria though, it's an Other Game by any possible definition that doesn't have a painfully obvious agenda.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669661Probably better as a new thread, yeah, since you're near 100% wrong on that one. :D
More likely talking past each other from what I have seen of the arguments over "immersion". I think you are talking about being able to make decisions from your character's perspective where, in that post, I was talking about the player being aware that they are playing a game. Abstraction only hurts the former if the abstraction fails to reflect what it is abstracting in a believable way (which is also be influenced by an individual's player knowledge and tolerance). Abstraction nearly always causes the later, almost by definition.
Either way, definitely a discussion for another thread.
Quote from: Skywalker;669788More likely talking past each other from what I have seen of the arguments over "immersion". I think you are talking about being able to make decisions from your character's perspective where, in that post, I was talking about the player being aware that they are playing a game. Abstraction only hurts the former if the abstraction fails to reflect what it is abstracting in a believable way (which is also be influenced by an individual's player knowledge and tolerance). Abstraction nearly always causes the later, almost by definition.
Either way, definitely a discussion for another thread.
Yeah, because what your line of reasoning leads to is...
1. Abstraction is impossible to avoid, all mechanics are abstract to some extent, even those in Phoenix Command.
2. Thus the player always knows they are playing a game, thus they are always engaged in an OOC manner.
3. Thus mechanics that specifically target OOC engagement and cannot be engaged with from an IC point of view are no different from the, as you would term it "OOC engagement of abstraction".
End Result: OD&D and DW = no difference really due to the Day 1 Fallacy line you and JKim have been pushing here.
You're awesome when we can have a straight up conversation, when you go all too clever by half with language stuff, not so much.
No. I agree that there are differences between OD&D and DW as I have said. I just don't see the shift in IC perspective for the players to be as significant difference, nor that this difference distinguishes DW as a story-game.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669791End Result: OD&D and DW = no difference really due to the Day 1 Fallacy line you and JKim have been pushing here.
You're awesome when we can have a straight up conversation, when you go all too clever by half with language stuff, not so much.
I don't recall saying anything in this thread about abstraction or IC/OOC difference.
I agree that there are real, significant differences between OD&D and DW. I do not agree that this difference is that DW is strictly out-of-character (like the Once Upon a Time storytelling card game) while OD&D is strictly in-character. In general, the DW choices are just about what your character does and is trying for. There are no mechanics for plot points or dramatic editing to control stuff outside your character. Regarding issues brought up:
1) Choosing after rolling: By the wording of the rules, a player is prompted choose their picks after seeing how well they succeed. This means the steps of resolution don't individually represent sequential bits of time. However, a number of mechanics have you do multiple steps before you resolve what is happening in the game world. For example, in D&D3, a fighter doesn't swing his sword again to get a critical hit even though he makes another attack roll.
If the timing bothers you, players can define a priority list of what they want on success before the roll instead of after. This doesn't change anything essential about the rules except using up more time in the case of failures.
2) Abstract ammo: This is unrealistic in that if the character conserves their ammo, they will never run out of shots. This is an artifact of the system - like jumping off a cliff with high hit points, or carrying without penalty with simplified encumbrance, or continuously buying cheap items with abstract wealth. I didn't particularly like it in practice, but being unrealistic isn't the same as being out-of-character.
Quote from: CRKrueger;669663That one's easy, the author clearly sees playing tabletop RPGs as creating fiction, and the game is designed to do that. The idea of an emulated world to immerse in as you, me, Ben, Vreeg et al would term it, isn't a design goal at all. The characters are there for two purposes - 1. to roleplay and more importantly 2. through that roleplay creating a story. That narrative layer is omnipresent and baked in, even if well hidden at times.
So there you have it. This is why its a storygame, and not an RPG. Most storygames have some kind of 'roleplaying activity' in them at least to some slight extent, but this doesn't make something a regular RPG.
A regular RPG depends on Emulation and Immersion, two things that Ron Edwards claimed where stupid and flawed (in the former case), and either impossible or a sign of mental illness (in the latter case). It is this that is the distinction between RPGs and Storygames. To the point that someone like Skywalker is desperately flailing around trying to claim the divide is about any number of other things (most recently, about 'creating fun'), because he's working out of the assumption right from the start that Emulation and Immersion are utterly irrelevant and non-desirable entities.
QuoteThat's why I term it a true Hybrid, a Storytelling RPG. Based on forum criteria though, it's an Other Game by any possible definition that doesn't have a painfully obvious agenda.
Fair enough. I don't care about judging it from within the Storygames spectrum, about whether storygamers would consider it an orthodox storygame or something peripheral or weird or what. The point is that it is clearly NOT within the landmarks of a Regular RPG.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;669912A regular RPG depends on Emulation and Immersion,
I guess that answers my question up thread. To be an RPG, roleplaying activity is not enough, it must have immersion. If you're not immersing, you're not roleplaying. Oh, and emulating. If you're not emulating you're not roleplaying. Even if your activity is a roleplaying activity.
What if you're emulating, but not immersing?
Quote from: soviet;669111Sigh. Who exactly is claiming that Once Upon a Time is a storygame or an RPG?
Well, the designer and publisher of
Once Upon a Time for starters. Are you claiming that you
don't consider it an STG? What definition of "storytelling game" are you using, exactly?
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!"
Actually, I don't think AD&D is a story game. That was CRK. Sorry if the sarcasm confused you.
With that being said, I'm giving CRK the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's still specifically talking about mechanics which gave players a choice of outcome after a success has been generated. The example you're using here is just a player making a choice. That's an absurd caricature of CRK's position.
Finally, CRK has actually reversed his position and is now completely agreeing with my statement that DW is a non-traditional RPG. So this whole discussion is actually moot.
Quote from: Benoist;669281Dungeon 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.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that, like Pundie, you've never actually looked at the rulebook for
Dungeon World.
Quote from: Benoist;669256It is not innocuous, but one the main mantras of "GMing" in DW: "Follow the Rules."
Just like AD&D and Amber.
You need a new schtick, Benoist. This whole "no RPG rulebook would ever tell the GM to follow the rules!" thing is absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: RPGPundit;669175The GM, not Cindy, or Erick Wujcik, Ron Edwards or anyone else, the fucking GM who is supreme in his authority at the gaming table, is the one who says "Ok, you succeed", which here he says it as "The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you." (...) In other words, the little DW exchange and the little Amber exchange are completely different, and in fact demonstrates what's different between an RPG and storygame.
Okay. This is great. We're really getting somewhere here. You've literally boiled the distinction you're drawing between RPGs and STGs to a single sentence spoken by the GM. Let's normalize the nouns and look at these side by side:
GM: The ex-wife turns out to be no great challenge to you. (...) What injury do you wish to leave her with?
GM: [If you succeed on a strength check], we'll ignore any damage you would do and instead say you get the ex-wife into the position you want.
Now, you'e claimed that in one of these scenarios the player gets to "control reality AFTER the fact of his success". Which one is that, exactly? The one where the player gets to choose which injury to inflict after success has been determined or the one where the player gets to choose which position to put her in after success has been determined?
You've also claimed that in one of these scenarios the "GM has no power whatsoever to interpret these successes or failures or consequences." Which one is that, exactly? The one where the GM follows the rules explicitly (i.e. Amber) or the one where the GM made a ruling by modifying an existing rule (i.e. DW)?
...
I think we're done here. You've chosen to build your Rubicon on claiming that "the mechanics say you succeed, so describe your success" is an RPG if Wujcik says it and an STG if some guy on reddit says it. Anyone with any integrity or intelligence can see that you're full of shit even
before you start whining again that people who have actually read and player
Dungeon World are "lying" about the contents of a rulebook you've admitted you've never even touched.
The only question remaining at this point is whether or not you've got the intellectual integrity necessary to admit when you've made a mistake.
And given that the general tenor of your participation in thee threads is that of a petulant child (or a paranoid lunatic), I seriously doubt that. (But I'd be overjoyed if you proved me wrong.)
Quote from: Justin Alexander;670534Well, the designer and publisher of Once Upon a Time for starters. Are you claiming that you don't consider it an STG? What definition of "storytelling game" are you using, exactly?
Do you understand that storygame and storytelling game are in fact different terms? I don't believe I've used the term 'storytelling games' at all. Please find me one single post where I have called once upon a time an RPG or a storygame. Or where anyone else has for that matter. Does it even say storygame or RPG on the box or in the advert? Are you simply blinded by the word 'story' and unable to process any given sentence further?
If I were to use the term storytelling game unprompted in a sentence, I would use it to refer to white wolf games as it is the name of their system. Do you consider once upon a time to take place in the world of darkness then? Is your view of language that simplistic? If I call my hat a shoe is it a hat or a shoe?
To be clear then, you think that this is also an RPG yes?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0wkEymkFB7I/UVqp9MKAsLI/AAAAAAAABZI/vkaOO30wsSw/s640/pic1066220_lg.jpg)
Quote from: soviet;670590To be clear then, you think that this is also an RPG yes?
A better question: what the fuck is that and how do I get it?
Quote from: Brad;670607A better question: what the fuck is that and how do I get it?
It's Dark Future, a Games Workshop boxed wargame from the late 80s. You have a mad max style autoduel between two gangs of plastic cars. The cars were the same scale as Matchbox cars so you could do a lot of really cool conversions, but AFAIR the game mechanics themselves were a bit overly detailed. It's coming up to 25 years out of print although until very recently you could get the PDF for free from the GW site.
There is a line of Dark Future novels by Kim Newman (writing as Jack Yeovill) which are also well worth reading.
Quote from: RPGPundit;669912So there you have it. This is why its a storygame, and not an RPG. Most storygames have some kind of 'roleplaying activity' in them at least to some slight extent, but this doesn't make something a regular RPG.
Except CRK is wrong. There's nothing in DW that has anything to do with a shared narrative.
QuoteA regular RPG depends on Emulation and Immersion, two things that Ron Edwards claimed where stupid and flawed (in the former case), and either impossible or a sign of mental illness (in the latter case). It is this that is the distinction between RPGs and Storygames.
RPGPundit
Where did he say that?
As for immersion as I said from the first, DW passes because it doesn't in any way interfere with immersion , any more than D&D does. As a player whose primary motivation is immersion, this is the paramount concern for me. Emulation on the other hand is up to any individual GM and certainly wasn't a priority for Arneson.
Quote from: TristramEvans;670666There's nothing in DW that has anything to do with a shared narrative.
I would love to see the response to this post over at Storygames or Apocalyptica.
Quote from: CRKrueger;670710I would love to see the response to this post over at Storygames or Apocalyptica.
Feel free, you can even post a link here so I can read the response. No opinion is worth having if I was afraid of it being challenged, but I don't personally post on those forums ( first I've heard of them actually).
Quote from: TristramEvans;670666Where did he say that?
In his GNS theory essays.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;670725In his GNS theory essays.
RPGPundit
Well, Googled it. Its not in a y of the gns essays, but from from a thread on the Forge entitled 'why group conflict is so confusing'.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18690.0
Here's the weird thing though; the comment was aimed at Narrativism. In other words story-gamers. It wasn't an attack on traditional role-players aka 'simulationism' at all.
Yes, its still an awful comment, and one he should feel bad about as an adult human being aware a reality exists beyond how he likes to play make believe, but its a criticism of the same people you refer to as 'Swine', notably 90s White Wolf players.
Which I have to say is very confusing.
Quote from: Ron Edwards...the routine human compacity for understanding, enjoying, and creating stories is damaged in this fashion by repeated "story telling role playing" as promulgated through many role playing games of a certain type
He specifically mentioned Vampire, so I'm reading this as "playing rpgs and thinking its the same as writing stories impedes the ability of the role-player to understand and write actual good stories", which is, granted, hyperbolic and presumptuous as can be, but not a statement I personally find all that controversial ( nor would, I think, anyone subjected to certain White Wolf GMs (excuse me...'storytellers') in the 90s). And not one! I would think, you'd have a problem with Pundit.
Quote from: jhkim;669868I don't recall saying anything in this thread about abstraction or IC/OOC difference.
I agree that there are real, significant differences between OD&D and DW. I do not agree that this difference is that DW is strictly out-of-character (like the Once Upon a Time storytelling card game) while OD&D is strictly in-character. In general, the DW choices are just about what your character does and is trying for. There are no mechanics for plot points or dramatic editing to control stuff outside your character. Regarding issues brought up:
1) Choosing after rolling: By the wording of the rules, a player is prompted choose their picks after seeing how well they succeed. This means the steps of resolution don't individually represent sequential bits of time. However, a number of mechanics have you do multiple steps before you resolve what is happening in the game world. For example, in D&D3, a fighter doesn't swing his sword again to get a critical hit even though he makes another attack roll.
If the timing bothers you, players can define a priority list of what they want on success before the roll instead of after. This doesn't change anything essential about the rules except using up more time in the case of failures.
2) Abstract ammo: This is unrealistic in that if the character conserves their ammo, they will never run out of shots. This is an artifact of the system - like jumping off a cliff with high hit points, or carrying without penalty with simplified encumbrance, or continuously buying cheap items with abstract wealth. I didn't particularly like it in practice, but being unrealistic isn't the same as being out-of-character.
2 I'd ignore or houserule, so I'll focus on 1, and I'll restate what I said in another thread.
Quote from: apparition13;643615How about thinking of it as a frozen moment in time? Let's say you are guarding an entrance against an orc in order to protect the children in the room. On a full success, you hit the orc, hold it off, and take no damage. On a partial, you choose one of the three. On a failure the orc gets by you, you do no damage, and get hit.
Roll 10+: full success.
Roll 6-: failure.
Roll 7-9: frozen moment. If you've done sports, or driven a car, you've had these moments. Whatever it was you were trying to do has just gone pearshaped, and you have a bad choice ahead. Hit the dog, or the parked car. Let the forward through on goal, or foul. That kind of thing. So the narration would be "you try to block off and attack the orc, but it has ducked under your blow and and drawn even with you. If you jump into the room, it won't be able to hit you, but you won't be able to hit it, and next round it will attack the children. If you step forward and slash backwards you will be able to hit it, but it also has a free shot at your ribs and will be able to attach the children next round (unless you kill it, but you would still take damage). If you throw your shoulder into it, you'll be able to stop it from getting into the room, but it has a free shot at your belly. Which do you choose to do? Option one, selfish choice, no risk to the PC, fail the mission. Option two, gambler's choice, risk to the PC, may fail the mission. Option 3, altruist's (hero's) choice, risk to the PC, succeed at the mission.
Player makes the choice, the round continues and is resolved.
Now personally, the thing I don't like is get all three, get one, or none, since sometimes there may only be one sensible outcome, and others there may be a dozen, but that's an implementation rather than conceptualization question.
Addendum: personally I would allow the player to pick more than 1 for partial success, at some cost. For example:
Do damage and avoid damage: I jump back and throw my axe at the orc, but the orc is in the room and can attack the children (if it survives the axe) AND you are disarmed next round;
Do damage and block the orc: I throw my dagger to pin the orc to the door, but the orc attacks you AND you are disarmed next round,
avoid damage and block the orc: I dive under the orc's weapon and tackle it to the floor, but you do no damage AND you are prone, carrying a penalty forward into the next round ("tripped").
Do all three, but after jamming your sword into the orc and tackling it to the ground, you are unarmed AND prone in the next round.
tl:dr, the choice is made
mid-action when you can tell what you were trying isn't going to come off as you intended, but while you still have time to react and adjust what you are doing and salvage what you (the PC, not the player, if immersing) think is most important.
From what I've read, it seems like a retreat somewhat toward the formalism of a board game, from the trend toward a looser mode in earlier development from GM'd miniatures games to RPGs.
That focus on a small set of significant possibilities is also a trend I've seen in some apparently Forge-influenced games, where the intent seems to be to zoom in on particular thematic issues. I'm not sure whether that's what DW does (or even attempts to do), but I'm not familiar with the text. What it puts me more in mind of is D&D 4E.
One thing that seems missing, compared with some other Forge-ish games, is the free negotiation of "stakes." A set menu seems almost the opposite of that.
Quote from: Phillip;670792One thing that seems missing, compared with some other Forge-ish games, is the free negotiation of "stakes." A set menu seems almost the opposite of that.
Yup, there is no such thing in AW/DW. Instead, the basic move structure already includes all the possible outcomes for the situation. Even if the "color" of each outcome will not always be stated and will be filled by the GM most of times (like in any trad rpg).
Quote from: TristramEvans;670727Well, Googled it. Its not in a y of the gns essays, but from from a thread on the Forge entitled 'why group conflict is so confusing'.
Um, no. That was apparently a reference to his "brain damage" comments. What I'm talking about was much much earlier, in his defining essays on GNS, where he minimalizes the importance of Emulation by shunting it away in the all-purpose "S" section of his bullshit theory, and later calls Immersion, the central goal of the player in RPGs, nothing more than an "impossible thing before breakfast". He suggests that you can't actually immerse (contrary to the experiences of any number of gamers and human beings in general in other capacities) and that if you could, it would be a kind of mental illness.
He had to try to wipe out Emulation and Immersion, because these are the main purposes of the GM and Player in standard RPGs. Only by getting them both out of the way could he change the foundational purposes of gaming so that his asinine theory could make any sense, and by marginalizing these two central features of all Regular RPG games could he subvert the hobby and redefine the entire game to serve "creating story" in the "narrativist" sense.
RPGPundit
Quote from: soviet;670590Do you understand that storygame and storytelling game are in fact different terms?
Ah. A retreat into mindless pedantry in an effort to dodge the question. Duly noted. Lemme know when you're willing to take part in an adult conversation.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;671512Ah. A retreat into mindless pedantry in an effort to dodge the question. Duly noted. Lemme know when you're willing to take part in an adult conversation.
You're conflating two entirely different terms to build a massive strawman you can argue with and
I'm the one playing wordgames when I point it out? What?
There are no adult conversations to be held on RPGsite, only BRUTAL FIGHTS AND BITTER TEARS FOR THE TEAR GOD.
Blood and Souls for my Lord Arioch?
Quote from: Bill;671981Blood and Souls for my Lord Arioch?
Watch it. :nono:
Quote from: RPGPundit;670893and later calls Immersion, the central goal of the player in RPGs, nothing more than an "impossible thing before breakfast". He suggests that you can't actually immerse (contrary to the experiences of any number of gamers and human beings in general in other capacities) and that if you could, it would be a kind of mental illness.
Can we at least tar and feather him with the horse he rode in on? The "Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" is the notion that the GM has absolute control of the Story and the Player has absolute control of their character.
I don't see any reference to immersion being mental illness on the googles, outside of your repeated accusations. But, I could be wrong there. The most I can find is his assertion that the term Immersion means different things to different people.
Yeah, I read through all the GMs essays and found none of the things Pundit claims are in there, but whatever it's his war Ill take his word for it. Either way I find GNS quite useless in regards to actually playing RPGs and Ive no desire to become an Edwards apologist
Quote from: Noclue;672579Can we at least tar and feather him with the horse he rode in on? The "Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" is the notion that the GM has absolute control of the Story and the Player has absolute control of their character.
I don't see any reference to immersion being mental illness on the googles, outside of your repeated accusations. But, I could be wrong there. The most I can find is his assertion that the term Immersion means different things to different people.
I might have remembered that wrong; it doesn't matter. He had clearly stated that Immersion was not possible, the Forge had a huge long history of intentionally opposing immersion as useless as best and evil at worst, and no one has ever disputed that until this thread. I'm not going to re-read the Complete Nauseating Works of Ron Edwards to show you the exact spot where he fucking said these things, I read it, and he did.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Noclue;672579Can we at least tar and feather him with the horse he rode in on? The "Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" is the notion that the GM has absolute control of the Story and the Player has absolute control of their character.
Those are just the code words used by the Story Game World Order to disguise their genocidal plans for all the RPG players.
In Dungeon World, you take on the role of a character. You adventure, slay dragons, level up, and find treasure, which seems like an RPG to me. Now, the mechanics in the game are not a traditional RPG by any stretch. The game is focused on action/adventure within a pseudo-D&D world, and many of the duties traditionally given to the GM are given over to players as choices.
That being said, it looks like a nifty game, but not something I'm really interested in. I like my games to be slightly more traditional.
Quote from: RPGPundit;672780I might have remembered that wrong; it doesn't matter. He had clearly stated that Immersion was not possible, the Forge had a huge long history of intentionally opposing immersion as useless as best and evil at worst, and no one has ever disputed that until this thread. I'm not going to re-read the Complete Nauseating Works of Ron Edwards to show you the exact spot where he fucking said these things, I read it, and he did.
RPGPundit
One of Wrong Edwards' posts was in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=4640) (reply #3). He wasn't so much saying that immersion was impossible as saying that it was a term without significant meaning or value ("
a synonym for whatever the speaker values during role-playing"), and adding the jibe that people who cared about it were driven by "defensive fear". His exhortation "
[v]ive la difference" is a call for the death of the term immersion - as if to say, "let's all use that term to mean whatever we each want to, and not try to pretend it might have some actual meaning". This is in a way worse than saying that someone's gaming fun is impossible - it denies them even the vocabulary to discuss the matter!
Elsewhere (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=3654.0;wap2) Wrong Edwards listed 4 separate definitions of immersion, one of which (#2) is fairly close to how most of us tend to use the term.
Ron Edwards sounds like a nutter.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;673405Wrong Edwards sounds like a nutter.
Fixed the spelling for you in that quote where bolded and underlined ;-)
The man is apparently an expert on bat penises.
Immersion is about as impossible as a decent realistic AND abstract RPG mechanic. So you should understand Edwards pretty well Pundit. You've both attempted to redefine a common and simple term to fit your agenda.
Quote from: Omnifray;673414Fixed the spelling for you in that quote where bolded and underlined ;-)
The man is apparently an expert on bat penises.
I read the links in your sig and must ask: WTF is going on here?
Quote from: Brad;673494I read the links in your sig and must ask: WTF is going on here?
In what sense?
You're asking about Wrong Edwards, about my personal views of and attitude towards Wrong Edwards or about my immersion-focused game-in-playtest Soul's Calling? Or just about the bizarreness of my psychology generally?
The Pundit asked me to come here and comment on this. I'd rather see the RPG hobby be about playing games we love than bickering between camps, so I've decided to follow through and post here. I may regret it.
I'm one of the authors of Dungeon World.
I think Dungeon World is not OSR.
I think Dungeon World is a roleplaying game.
In Dungeon World, you play a character in a fictional world. We talk about "the fictional world the characters inhabit" so much we shortened it to "the fiction." The rules are based on what's happening in the fictional world the characters inhabit.
Nobody in a game of Dungeon World is responsible for telling a story. The players say what their characters say, think, and do. In some cases, they get to add things to the world, just like writing up a character background. Most of these are through GM-invitation. The GM asks questions and uses the answers. Some GMs may have the players fill in entire nations, others may have them fill in the history of their village and people, or what written magic looks like, or whatever else.
The only "story" in Dungeon World is what occurs when the player characters are thrown into a dangerous situation and we find out what happens. It's explicitly not about planning a story, and nothing in the rules is there to make any kind of character arc or plotline or whatever happen. The rules are there to help the GM present a dangerous living world, and help the players interact with that world through their characters.
Some people won't like DW, and that's completely cool. We (my co-author and I) made the game because we were already playing D&D this way (with various editions) and we saw in AW a better way to talk about how we were playing. It was the right tool for playing the kind of D&D we were already playing (and yeah, there are plenty of other kinds of D&D too). It ended up being published because it turns out there are lots of other folks who like to play like this too.
We're not out to replace anyone. We made a game we love. Anything beyond that is pure icing on the cake. We're happy when we find that someone else gets something out of DW, but it could have just stayed on my hard drive and been all I ever wanted from it.
There are lots of wonderful RPGs out there. Some of them aim for story, some don't. DW is one of the ones that doesn't. I find the whole idea of "story games" a pointless divide between people who might otherwise like to play with each other, but that's not what I was asked to talk about.
The "old school style" in DW's Kickstarter tag line (which you'll note we don't use anymore) is about simplicity, open-endedness, and an emphasis on people making their own stuff. It's not intended as piggybacking on the OSR, and has unfortunately since become a pretty common marketing line. So we've worked out a way to more clearly say what DW is. I still think of it as influenced by older D&D, but that isn't always the same as OSR, I think.
Ultimately, you're welcome to call Dungeon World whatever you like. I don't think anything I said here is likely to change anyone's minds. For me, Dungeon World is a great ruleset for playing one particular style of D&D-ish fantasy adventure, and that's all I need it to be.
Welcome to the RPGSite, Sage. You will probably draw fire from some of the regulars (including me, maybe, if I reenter this clusterfuck of a thread at some point), but you got some balls to show up here, and I give you props for that. Have fun.
I've got a question about DungeonWorld, that I hope is not perceived as baiting, or any other nonsense.
A lot of what I've read about DW - from online sources and forums - seems to indicate that it can be great as an introductory Rpg. That its presentation and rules system might suit novice gamers. That the GM has a more guided, or focused (constrained?) role compared with other Rpg systems - serving to 'shape' a GM's skillset? There seems to be specific preset move mechanics that the GM interprets into game results. (Is this to take guess work out of the GM's hands?).
Does DW have more of a focus on the newb gamer? Getting newer gamers involved, and sent down the 'right' path at the start of their gaming career? Can it teach old gaming dogs new tricks? What does it offer an older gamer that has been there, and done that, and has seen what dozens of systems over the decades have had to offer?
I'm likely not the target market for this Rpg - because I just prefer d100 games better. :) But I find all the debate, and heartburn about this Rpg to be interesting.
Quote from: K Peterson;673839Does DW have more of a focus on the newb gamer? Getting newer gamers involved, and sent down the 'right' path at the start of their gaming career? Can it teach old gaming dogs new tricks? What does it offer an older gamer that has been there, and done that, and has seen what dozens of systems over the decades have had to offer?
DW takes those relatively esoteric pages of DMing guidance and turns them into clear tools that a DM can implement in play. As such, I think it provides an excellent introduction to DMing for a newbie.
I also note that these tools actually do very little to restrain a DM's flexibility as the tools are themselves flexible and require the DM's judgement to operate. For example, on first glance the DM making moves on only one of three situations seems incredibly limiting. On closer examination, the three situations are:
1. Cause and effect.
2. When a PC fails.
3. When the DM considers there to be a break in the gameplay.
In effect, they pretty much cover any situation where a DM would do something in a more traditional RPG, just in a clearer way, through the same use of DM's discretion.
As a DM of 30 years, I found that DW was very easy on me, and supported the free wheeling style of how I used to run AD&D1e. I don't know if it taught me new tricks but it certainly allowed me to do a bunch of things that I regularly do when running AD&D more easily.
I did find that some of the tools in DW also provided a fresh take on some ideas that I had long ceased thinking about. A good example is the focus on using the location based information in a more dynamic way when converting AD&D modules. This really helped sell me on some adventures that I would had previously bypassed.
Quote from: K Peterson;673839I've got a question about DungeonWorld, that I hope is not perceived as baiting, or any other nonsense.
A lot of what I've read about DW - from online sources and forums - seems to indicate that it can be great as an introductory Rpg. That its presentation and rules system might suit novice gamers. That the GM has a more guided, or focused (constrained?) role compared with other Rpg systems - serving to 'shape' a GM's skillset? There seems to be specific preset move mechanics that the GM interprets into game results. (Is this to take guess work out of the GM's hands?).
Does DW have more of a focus on the newb gamer? Getting newer gamers involved, and sent down the 'right' path at the start of their gaming career? Can it teach old gaming dogs new tricks? What does it offer an older gamer that has been there, and done that, and has seen what dozens of systems over the decades have had to offer?
I'm likely not the target market for this Rpg - because I just prefer d100 games better. :) But I find all the debate, and heartburn about this Rpg to be interesting.
DW lays out how to GM it in the clearest language we could manage because how the game is GM'ed is just as important as what the players do and it's usually left to vague "advice" or trial and error for the GM to figure out what works with any given game.
Tangent: this is another point where I personally take some inspiration from old-school D&D, because Moldvay has some of the rocking-est GMing stuff anywhere.
Anyway, we wanted to be as straightforward and clear about DW's GMing as we could be. So we spelled out what a DW GM should aim for, and how they get to it.
It's not meant to be constraining so much as showing the plethora of options the GM has at their fingertips at any given moment. If you're an experienced GM, everything you do is probably already a DW "GM move." They're hugely broad things, like "put someone in a spot."
We call them GM "rules" because playing DW a different way is as much of a change as messing with how much HP each class gets, or the XP to level. It's not wrong to do it, but we don't know how it'll turn out. The "rules" are the entire system of play, and switching from being a GM finding out what happens to adventurers in a dangerous situation to being a GM telling a story is a huge shift that shouldn't be made lightly. They're both probably awesome ways to play, we just want to be clear that how the GM approaches the game is as important to the system as anything else.
That might make it easier on newbie GMs, but that wasn't really our direct goal. I can say that it helps me switch between games. I ran some DCC recently and DW's GMing rules both helped me run the game and remember how to approach DCC differently than DW.
For reference, the list of GM moves are:
• Use a monster, danger, or location move
• Reveal an unwelcome truth
• Show signs of an approaching threat
• Deal damage
• Use up their resources
• Turn their move back on them
• Separate them
• Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
• Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment
• Offer an opportunity, with or without cost
• Put someone in a spot
• Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask
It's a GM inspiration list. When the players fail a roll, that means something went wrong. This list is a way for the GM to figure out what that is, if it's not immediately obvious.
The GM's job is to portray a fantastic world, find what's going on with the players in the way and push it, and play to find out what happens. (These are actually stated in the book.) The moves are a tool to do that.
Quote from: sage;673832The Pundit asked me to come here and comment on this. I'd rather see the RPG hobby be about playing games we love than bickering between camps, so I've decided to follow through and post here. I may regret it.
I'm one of the authors of Dungeon World.
I think Dungeon World is not OSR.
I think Dungeon World is a roleplaying game.
In Dungeon World, you play a character in a fictional world. We talk about "the fictional world the characters inhabit" so much we shortened it to "the fiction." The rules are based on what's happening in the fictional world the characters inhabit.
Nobody in a game of Dungeon World is responsible for telling a story. The players say what their characters say, think, and do. In some cases, they get to add things to the world, just like writing up a character background. Most of these are through GM-invitation. The GM asks questions and uses the answers. Some GMs may have the players fill in entire nations, others may have them fill in the history of their village and people, or what written magic looks like, or whatever else.
The only "story" in Dungeon World is what occurs when the player characters are thrown into a dangerous situation and we find out what happens. It's explicitly not about planning a story, and nothing in the rules is there to make any kind of character arc or plotline or whatever happen. The rules are there to help the GM present a dangerous living world, and help the players interact with that world through their characters.
Some people won't like DW, and that's completely cool. We (my co-author and I) made the game because we were already playing D&D this way (with various editions) and we saw in AW a better way to talk about how we were playing. It was the right tool for playing the kind of D&D we were already playing (and yeah, there are plenty of other kinds of D&D too). It ended up being published because it turns out there are lots of other folks who like to play like this too.
We're not out to replace anyone. We made a game we love. Anything beyond that is pure icing on the cake. We're happy when we find that someone else gets something out of DW, but it could have just stayed on my hard drive and been all I ever wanted from it.
There are lots of wonderful RPGs out there. Some of them aim for story, some don't. DW is one of the ones that doesn't. I find the whole idea of "story games" a pointless divide between people who might otherwise like to play with each other, but that's not what I was asked to talk about.
The "old school style" in DW's Kickstarter tag line (which you'll note we don't use anymore) is about simplicity, open-endedness, and an emphasis on people making their own stuff. It's not intended as piggybacking on the OSR, and has unfortunately since become a pretty common marketing line. So we've worked out a way to more clearly say what DW is. I still think of it as influenced by older D&D, but that isn't always the same as OSR, I think.
Ultimately, you're welcome to call Dungeon World whatever you like. I don't think anything I said here is likely to change anyone's minds. For me, Dungeon World is a great ruleset for playing one particular style of D&D-ish fantasy adventure, and that's all I need it to be.
If we are welcome to call Dungeon World whatever we want, then it's strange that you just posted on why we should only only call it a RPG. It seems to me that you do have a problem with people calling Dungeon World whatever they want, and that you really want to establish it as a RPG and only a RPG.
I would say if a person wants to play a D&D-ish type game they can just play D&D. The only point to Dungeon World is to play a game with the same
subject matter as D&D but without D&D rules and without standard RPG assumptions. It's a game for people who don't like classic RPGs basically. Therefore I don't think it's wrong to label it as something different then RPGs. I honestly believe properly labeling a product can help people find what they are looking for. The only reason to mislabel something is to deceive people.
Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering a vegetarian pizza, but the waiter brings a pizza covered with meat. Then when you criticize the order, the waiter tells you that there is a "pointless divide" between meat and vegetarian pizzas and it's just all pizza so get over it. Pretty asinine right?
Quote from: hamstertamer;673857If we are welcome to call Dungeon World whatever we want, then it's strange that you just posted on why we should only only call it a RPG. It seems to me that you do have a problem with people calling Dungeon World whatever they want, and that you really want to establish it as a RPG and only a RPG.
This has to be one of the most uncharitable interpretations I've read. He doesn't say that. He says why
he thinks it's an RPG. Nothing in that post you quoted says what you're paraphrasing him as saying.
And I have absolutely no dog in this fight.
Quote from: hamstertamer;673857I would say if a person wants to play a D&D-ish type game they can just play D&D. The only point to Dungeon World is to play a game with the same subject matter as D&D but without D&D rules and without standard RPG assumptions. It's a game for people who don't like classic RPGs basically.
The bolded bit is where you go off the deep end and into crazytown. What are 'standard RPG assumptions'? And why would you have to not like classic RPGs to play Dungeon World?
Quote from: hamstertamer;673857If we are welcome to call Dungeon World whatever we want, then it's strange that you just posted on why we should only only call it a RPG. It seems to me that you do have a problem with people calling Dungeon World whatever they want, and that you really want to establish it as a RPG and only a RPG.
I would say if a person wants to play a D&D-ish type game they can just play D&D. The only point to Dungeon World is to play a game with the same subject matter as D&D but without D&D rules and without standard RPG assumptions. It's a game for people who don't like classic RPGs basically. Therefore I don't think it's wrong to label it as something different then RPGs. I honestly believe properly labeling a product can help people find what they are looking for. The only reason to mislabel something is to deceive people.
Imagine going to a restaurant and ordering a vegetarian pizza, but the waiter brings a pizza covered with meat. Then when you criticize the order, the waiter tells you that there is a "pointless divide" between meat and vegetarian pizzas and it's just all pizza so get over it. Pretty asinine right?
You're welcome to call it what you want, and I was asked to post what I think it is. I'm presenting my opinion, not telling you what to think. I tried to make it clear that these were my thoughts, that I'm sharing, particularly because some people seem to think DW is OSR (or is trying to be).
I do play D&D. Often. Along with OSR and old-school-inspired games, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Our reason for making DW was to make a game that better suited a type of game that some people (apparently quite a few, based on the response we've gotten) have also gotten from D&D. We could keep doing that with various D&D rules, but we found that, for us, DW makes that particular flavor of D&D easier. That's just us, though. If your flavor of D&D isn't DW's flavor, or if you prefer any given D&D ruleset's tools to DW's, great! DW isn't for you, and that's no problem to me.
I know that myself, my co-author, and a lot of the people who have told us they like DW also like (or have claimed to like) DCC, Lamentations, Moldvay D&D, AD&D 1E, Red Box Hack, Rolemaster, Fiasco, 4th Edition, 3rd Edition, Stars Without Number, 13th Age, Amber, and a whole lot of other games. So, as far as I can tell, it is a product for (some) people who like classic RPGs. Our most common feedback from people who enjoyed the game (not everyone does) is that it reminds them of their first time playing D&D.
If, for you, DW is a meat pizza and you ordered veggie, that's a good reason not to play it. The reaction I've seen more often is that people think of DW as one pizza joint, and each edition of D&D as another, and that they hit some of the same spots and some different ones. It's like Papa Johns and Pizza Hut: some people prefer one all the time, some people like the deep dish from Pizza Hut, but the dipping sauce from Papa Johns, some people would rather have a burger.
Pretty much everyone here knows I'm part of the "grognard" crowd--preferring AD&D 1e over recent editions, and a fan of rulings over rules.
That all being said, I seriously don't get the hate for games like Dungeon World. But the broad definition, it is an rpg in every sense. Seems like a really silly hill to die on to me, to argue it isn't. And looking at sage, who entered the lion's den knowing it, put together two responses I feel are more than reasonable and not from someone wanting to irrationally defend his product. In fact, it makes me want to give DW a go. I've had several "old school" players approach me at the latest convention I went to who all had good things to say about it.
But ultimately, it comes down to, "if you don't like it, don't play it." I really don't understand the whole deal with the real rpg vs storygames war that goes on.
Shrug.
Quote from: sage;673864Our reason for making DW was to make a game that better suited a type of game that some people (apparently quite a few, based on the response we've gotten) have also gotten from D&D. We could keep doing that with various D&D rules, but we found that, for us, DW makes that particular flavor of D&D easier.
Which is pretty much the same reason everyone who puts out their "homebrew" or "fantasy heartbreaker" does, including me. Seriously, I don't know why you're getting so much hate. Us old schoolers all played "the game" differently, so there is no such thing as one-true-wayism in older D&D. There can't be, because everyone played it a bit differently, and it no one was objectively wrong, really.
Thanks for the responses, sage and Skywalker.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;673867Which is pretty much the same reason everyone who puts out their "homebrew" or "fantasy heartbreaker" does, including me. Seriously, I don't know why you're getting so much hate. Us old schoolers all played "the game" differently, so there is no such thing as one-true-wayism in older D&D. There can't be, because everyone played it a bit differently, and it no one was objectively wrong, really.
I don't think it's hate in most cases, just incredulity that in some quarters it's been marketed as an OSR game - mainly by fans, it must be said.
I don't hate it or Sage, it's like the ant i walked past earlier.
Well, I just bought the pdf. It seems to have an excellent review history, combined with what word of mouth I already heard, and $10 isn't that much to figure out what the hubbub is all about.
If it's not my cup of tea, I've spent more $ on things I didn't like more, so no biggie.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;673873Well, I just bought the pdf. It seems to have an excellent review history, combined with what word of mouth I already heard, and $10 isn't that much to figure out what the hubbub is all about.
If it's not my cup of tea, I've spent more $ on things I didn't like more, so no biggie.
Sorry I couldn't have saved you some money: the entire game is Creative Commons licensed and therefore freely and legally available from http://book.dwgazetteer.com/
That's the whole text of the game. The only thing not there is the art, nice layout, and some margin notes that vary from informative to just fun.
For anyone else unsure: feel free to read it yourself and see what you think.
We appreciate support, but our goal here is just to share something we made and feel is cool, hence the free version.
I am rather enjoying the Dungeon World game I'm in, it feels pretty much like most RPG's in play. (The group in question, we play Talislanta and Basic D&D, plus Dungeon World...so ;D)
Quote from: One Horse Town;673871I don't think it's hate in most cases, just incredulity that in some quarters it's been marketed as an OSR game - mainly by fans, it must be said.
This is my only problem with it. It's not an OSR game -- it's not even close. I wouldn't even consider it an old school game. At best, it's an old school setting played with new school "narrative RPG" rules. As a new school narrative RPG, it may be great -- I'm certainly not qualified to judge as it pushes most of my "this game is not for me" buttons.
I think most of the "hate" it gets isn't about the game, but the fact that OSR fans have quickly become tired of the recent "fad" of people pushing their "new school rules" games as "OSR games" apparently hoping to cash in on whatever popularity the OSR has.
Quote from: RandallS;673880This is my only problem with it. It's not an OSR game -- it's not even close. I wouldn't even consider it an old school game. At best, it's an old school setting played with new school "narrative RPG" rules.
I don't know what counts as narrative rules, but I'm not sure DW has them. With a very few exceptions, the players say what their characters do, the GM says what the world is (plus takes the player's input, as fits the world, on their terms), and there's nothing to enforce a story arc or plot line or any particular structure.
Practically, in my play, a lot of the events are of primary importance only because we played through them. We didn't save the world, or make some dramatic personal discoveries. We played a bunch of friends (sometimes "friends") who went into The Castle of the Flaming Skull (or whatever) and often died pretty miserably. In one case, while singing Pinball Wizard. (My character was, not me… it's a long story with a planar alignment and a movie theater from the real world and a bard with a keytar.)
Oh, and edited to add: I don't claim it's OSR either. If people are claiming that, I think they're wrong, but that's my opinion. I don't think it's an "old school game" but I'm not entirely sure what that means that a game that is literally old, which DW isn't. Our claim with DW is that we found a lot of inspiration in old-school games, and feel like DW is related to them, because we wouldn't have ended up with the game we have without playing and loving old school games.
Quote from: RandallS;673880(...) tired of the recent "fad" of people pushing their "new school rules" games as "OSR games" apparently hoping to cash in on whatever popularity the OSR has.
I can say pretty confidently that I have no interest in cashing in. We make the entire rules available for free, because out top priority is sharing our game with people. I personally would hate to design RPGs as a job. I love my day job, and love keeping RPGs as something where I can do what I want without worrying if I make a penny.
Quote from: RandallS;673880I think most of the "hate" it gets isn't about the game, but the fact that OSR fans have quickly become tired of the recent "fad" of people pushing their "new school rules" games as "OSR games" apparently hoping to cash in on whatever popularity the OSR has.
As a matter of interest, is this something that has happened here, on TBP or elsewhere in regard to DW? Without wanting to sound naiive, I haven't seen these claims being made and its not something that happened in this thread.
I have seen Myth and Magic using the term OSR pretty heavily though.
Quote from: sage;673875Sorry I couldn't have saved you some money: the entire game is Creative Commons licensed and therefore freely and legally available from http://book.dwgazetteer.com/
Did you seriously post this on GitHub formatted for InDesign?
Quote from: sage;673883I don't know what counts as narrative rules, but I'm not sure DW has them. With a very few exceptions, the players say what their characters do, the GM says what the world is (plus takes the player's input, as fits the world, on their terms), and there's nothing to enforce a story arc or plot line or any particular structure.
You are acquainted with Vincent Baker and the Forge (I could go and dig the tweets you got in with the lol-band when Vincent took some potshots at the RPG Site for a similar thread, claiming we got our greasy Cheetos-stained fingers on AW or some such, hence my user title).
Therefore, I think you know very well what you are doing here. You are equating people's talk of "story" here with "story telling", i.e. the enforcement of a "plotline" in a rigid (railroady) way from the time of White Wolf, when in fact your game is of the Vincent Baker/Ron Edwards' school of design, the school that taught that this take on "story telling" was "brain-damaged (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=4899)", and that what actually needed to happen was "Story Now (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html)".
Your game is very much a narrative game, because the world around the PCs actions and moves has in fact little substance before the overriding principle that drives the emergent narrative (Story Now): "Find out what happens next."
Everything else is secondary to that goal, as exemplified, for instance, by entire swaths of maps left blank to be able to fill them according to the emergent development of the narrative. The world serves the fiction, which is construed as such: what you are building with this game is a cooperative fiction, and the GM must "Follow The Rules" for the players to be able to participate meaningfully in the creation of this emergent narrative in which all participants have to be grabbing the edges of their seats wondering "what happens next." This is a story telling exercise. Not world emulation.
Quote from: StormBringer;673915Did you seriously post this on GitHub formatted for InDesign?
Yes: https://github.com/Sagelt/Dungeon-World
Early on we used svn, since I've contributed some code there, but man was it not the tool we needed. We moved to github somewhere later on.
The next move is to take the fan-generated HTML from http://book.dwgazetteer.com/ and make it the canonical version, since I think I'm the only person to ever make use of the xml bindings and we're not really touching the book at this point. Way more opportunity for people making their own cool HTML versions than a full InDesign relayout.
Quote from: Benoist;673917You are acquainted with Vincent Baker and the Forge (I could go and dig the tweets you got in with the lol-band when Vincent took some potshots at the RPG Site for this very thread).
Therefore, I think you know very well what you are doing here. You are equating people's talk of "story" here with "story telling", i.e. the enforcement of a "plotline" in a rigid (railroady) way from the time of White Wolf, when in fact your game is of the Vincent Baker/Ron Edwards' school of design, the school that taught that this take on "story telling" was "brain-damaged", and that what actually needed to happen was "Story Now (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html)".
Your game is very much a narrative game, because the world around the PCs actions and moves has in fact little substance before the overriding principle that drives the emergent narrative (Story Now): "Find out what happens next."
Everything else is secondary to that goal, as exemplified, for instance, by entire swaths of maps left blank to be able to fill them according to the emergent development of the narrative. The world serves the fiction, which is construed as such: what you are building with this game is a cooperative fiction, and the GM must "Follow The Rules" for the players to be able to participate meaningfully in the creation of this emergent narrative in which all participants have to be grabbing the edges of their seats wondering "what happens next." This is a story telling exercise. Not world emulation.
I'm not a theory-head at all. I honestly can't stand to read Ron's writing. Never finished a single essay.
I don't tend to use "fiction" and "world" in those ways, so it took me a while to get what you're getting at. To me, the "fiction" is the "world," i.e the fictional place the character inhabit.
You're leaving out the first part of the GM's agenda: portray a fantastic world.
That, in my opinion, is key. It's why it's first. "Play to find out what happens" is a way of precluding lame scripted adventures, in my mind. Vincent, who wrote AW, may have had other use for it there. In DW, it's about not scripting what will happen. Instead, you make a world in motion and see how it turns out.
I'm not sure about "entire swaths of maps left blank." From the DW text: "When you draw a map don't try to make it complete. Leave room for the unknown. As you play you'll get more ideas and the players will give you inspiration to work with. Let the maps expand and change."
For me, this is how I run just about everything, and have since I first played D&D (way before I ever encountered anything from the Forge). I draw a map with the important stuff, and then fill in more as it becomes needed/obvious.
I can see some ambiguity in "change" in the above quote, reading it as if it was written by somebody slightly crazy. The intended use of "change" is "oh, the players drove off the goblins, I guess the map should change. What might take advantage of the goblin warrens now?"
The world around the PCs is of utmost importance, because without it the rules literally cannot work. If I say, in a vacuum, "Gregor swings his sword" we have no idea if Hack and Slash might be triggered, or if damage is just dealt, or whatever else (class moves, maybe defend in some cases). The world of DW is key, and it has to be as fictionally "solid" as anything made up in a person's head can be, at least when it comes into contact with the players.
The areas that players don't get to, those can be filled in later. Those are the blanks. They're the "here be dragons" of the DW maps.
DW presumes a world where the player characters will be caught up in, in the way of, or working against interesting things. That's the bedrock assumption, and I guess that may be narrative in some way? I don't know the rules here. "You're at the entrance of a dungeon" is totally being caught up in something, by the way.
There's also the whole Fronts and World systems to help the GM manage the ever changing world around the characters. That's what the GM does.
So wait. You are using all the buzzwords, you are talking of Creative Agenda for the GM and players, you are talking about "Fronts" which really are "Antagonists" in a narrative sense, you are clearly with your co-author pushing the narrative-first angle where the actual depiction of a world, as exemplified by the map of the dungeon, is left blank to respond to what actually emerges from the narrative (and not "changed" in the sense of an emulative evolution of the game world at all), and you are trying to tell me you have NO IDEA what it is I am talking about?
OK. I got to tell you something. I think you are a smart guy. I think you created with Dungeon World a very finely tuned game, a good game, for what it is: a story game. So either you have no idea and are a totally blind follower joining in the lol-band on twitter when it comes to laugh at people like us, so you are basically a brain-dead moron who has no idea what he's laughing at in the first place, a loser, who just happened to come up with this really good Forge design by pure chance, OR you actually are disingenuous here and know exactly what I'm talking about, and actually came up with a really tight design knowing what you were doing.
I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here, and think the latter is much more probable.
Quote from: sage;673919Yes: https://github.com/Sagelt/Dungeon-World
Early on we used svn, since I've contributed some code there, but man was it not the tool we needed. We moved to github somewhere later on.
You do realize that is what PasteBin is for, not software versioning systems? Or, you know, since you have a hosted web site, you could always post plain text and/or pdfs there?
Here is more or less exactly what you just said: "We originally published the novel as a spreadsheet, but that didn't work, so we decided on MatLab instead". It's not that is simply doesn't make sense, it's that it intentionally doesn't make sense in the most complicated and difficult to use manner possible.
QuoteThe next move is to take the fan-generated HTML from http://book.dwgazetteer.com/ and make it the canonical version, since I think I'm the only person to ever make use of the xml bindings and we're not really touching the book at this point. Way more opportunity for people making their own cool HTML versions than a full InDesign relayout.
"Instead of releasing the Hittite we have been working on, we are going to let everyone make their own Latin version instead".
You seem way more interested in making a point or being edgy for its own sake than publishing a game, let alone a role-playing game. A text file of mixed html/xml on GitHub is not how to attract players, it's how to keep the development and distribution confined to a very small group of people; ie, those with a similar technical background that are highly unlikely to 'rock the boat' to any significant degree.
Quote from: sage;673883Oh, and edited to add: I don't claim it's OSR either. If people are claiming that, I think they're wrong, but that's my opinion.
I don't believe I've ever seen you or you co-author make this claim, but I've seen it quite a bit from fans of Dungeon World. They post in on threads asking about favorite OSR games or what OSR rules would be best for X with the "Dungeon World" and if someone says it isn't an OSR game they insist it is. It seems somewhat common on places like RPGNet. It extremely annoying. It's just like when 4e was relatively new and many of its fans were claiming it was really just like OD&D back in the 1970s. ::head desk:: I know you can't control your fans, but what they say affects others opinion of your game.
QuoteI don't think it's an "old school game" but I'm not entirely sure what that means that a game that is literally old, which DW isn't. Our claim with DW is that we found a lot of inspiration in old-school games, and feel like DW is related to them, because we wouldn't have ended up with the game we have without playing and loving old school games.
I guess it is related, but more by setting (dungeon-focus) than by rules or style of play. DW is very "new school" in its rules and really does not support the main OSR-supported styles of play. That's not a bad thing, but it is why most OSR fans don't think the game is remotely an OSR game -- even those OSR fans who enjoy playing DW (and there are some who do, not a lot as far as I can tell, but some) don't consider it an OSR game -- or even an old school game.
QuoteI can say pretty confidently that I have no interest in cashing in. We make the entire rules available for free, because out top priority is sharing our game with people. I personally would hate to design RPGs as a job. I love my day job, and love keeping RPGs as something where I can do what I want without worrying if I make a penny.
My apologies. I did not mean to imply that you were doing so. You don't seem to be from anything I've seen, but a lot of the publishers who are calling (or strongly implying) their new school games are part of the "OSR" really do seem to be trying to play off the OSR's supposed current popularity. This is why the pushback from those fans who are trying to get DW accepted as an OSR game is so strong. Some fans are strongly pushing DW as an OSR game and some publishers are trying to do so with their new school games, and it all gets conflated. That's probably not fair, but life seldom is. I think you are doing the right thing by trying to engage in a dialog with OSR fans -- convince them that the DW publishers are not trying to push DW under the OSR umbrella and things will die down.
Quote from: StormBringer;673938You do realize that is what PasteBin is for, not software versioning systems? Or, you know, since you have a hosted web site, you could always post plain text and/or pdfs there?
Here is more or less exactly what you just said: "We originally published the novel as a spreadsheet, but that didn't work, so we decided on MatLab instead". It's not that is simply doesn't make sense, it's that it intentionally doesn't make sense in the most complicated and difficult to use manner possible.
"Instead of releasing the Hittite we have been working on, we are going to let everyone make their own Latin version instead".
You seem way more interested in making a point or being edgy for its own sake than publishing a game, let alone a role-playing game. A text file of mixed html/xml on GitHub is not how to attract players, it's how to keep the development and distribution confined to a very small group of people; ie, those with a similar technical background that are highly unlikely to 'rock the boat' to any significant degree.
Wait, what? We also have a free PDF, free HTML version, and more.
For me, XML was the best way to work. I was able to easily version and create multiple layouts. InDesign's XML mapping is super cool, and was very useful to us.
I mean, I'll totally admit I'm a software nerd and love my tools, but writing in plaintext and then mapping to layout was awesome for the process. Instead of the normal write->layout flow, it was a loop. We could rewrite and update our layout independently. We could also maintain multiple layouts, epub, and mobi files.
I have no clue if it's of any use to anyone else, but it was the easiest way to make it open, by just sharing our development process.
Quote from: Benoist;673930So wait. You are using all the buzzwords, you are talking of Creative Agenda for the GM and players, you are talking about "Fronts" which really are "Antagonists" in a narrative sense, you are clearly with your co-author pushing the narrative-first angle where the actual depiction of a world, as exemplified by the map of the dungeon, is left blank to respond to what actually emerges from the narrative (and not "changed" in the sense of an emulative evolution of the game world at all), and you are trying to tell me you have NO IDEA what it is I am talking about?
Creative Agenda is some Ron term, right? That's not what DW's Agenda is, at least for me (again: using something someone else originally wrote, they may have different intentions).
I guess you could call Fronts antagonists. I think of them as "what shit is going down around the player characters."
Let me show you an actual DW dungeon map, as this may clear up some misconceptions:
Link to DW map that's too big and screws up layout if I leave it inline. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3269630/share/BloodstoneIdolMap.jpg)
The bits beyond 13 and 16? Those are blanks. They're the unknowns, that's it. They're unknown because as a GM (before I ran this, which was eventually published) I didn't think those areas that the players will likely go into, so I save some time and skip detailing them. If I need them, I fill them in. Or, if inspiration strikes. Or, if the players give you something you want to use.
This is a custom map made to order, not something we found. Those are the canonical examples of blanks.
If you don't like the idea of leaving blanks like that, cool! DW probably isn't the game for you. But they're not huge Schrodinger's Dungeons. They're the GM being economical with their prep. You don't have to know it all now.
They change as the world changes. I don't know where you got the impression that wasn't the case. The map reflects the world.
Quote from: Benoist;673930OK. I got to tell you something. I think you are a smart guy. I think you created with Dungeon World a very finely tuned game, a good game, for what it is: a story game. So either you have no idea and are a totally blind follower joining in the lol-band on twitter when it comes to laugh at people like us, so you are basically a brain-dead moron who has no idea what he's laughing at in the first place, a loser, who just happened to come up with this really good Forge design by pure chance, OR you actually are disingenuous here and know exactly what I'm talking about, and actually came up with a really tight design knowing what you were doing.
Can I choose none of the above?
I made a game. I don't give two shits about the theory other people ascribe to it, I wanted to make a functional thing.
As I said: based on a Vincent Baker design. From all my interactions with him he seems like a really nice guy, but I don't agree with him on plenty of things. So maybe there are all these crazy ideas I'm perpetuating, but the only reason DW exists is because it worked for me, in play.
Funny historical thing: I played DW before I ever designed/ran/wrote it. The original idea belongs to my friend Tony, and I played in his "Apocalypse D&D" game, and loved it, and he gave us his blessing to take over the project. (I think secretly he was laughing at how much work we'd just taken off his hands.)
I'm not laughing at anybody here. We've got some different views, but I think there's an actual opportunity to just hang out and play games (online, at cons, whatever) and failing that, at least talk about all the cool stuff going on in gaming.
As for twitter: I've probably laughed at this site there, sure. It's a coping mechanism for being accused of destroying all gaming. Probably not the best thing I've done as a person. These days my twitter feed is mostly comic panels.
Quote from: Benoist;673930I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here, and think the latter is much more probable.
Man, I don't know. I'm trying to approach this as openly as I can. I don't know what I can do to prove anything.
Quote from: RandallS;673945I don't believe I've ever seen you or you co-author make this claim, but I've seen it quite a bit from fans of Dungeon World. They post in on threads asking about favorite OSR games or what OSR rules would be best for X with the "Dungeon World" and if someone says it isn't an OSR game they insist it is.
This is a really hard one, because my connection to these people is basically business. DW has sold thousands of copies, and maybe a hundred or so of those are people I know as any thing more than a name, or maybe even just a transaction number in some places.
If anyone ever does this, feel free to quote me: "Hey! Glad you like DW, but I don't think it's OSR. There's lots of cool OSR games out there though, so definitely check them out."
Quote from: RandallS;673945My apologies.
No problem! Sorry to sound defensive, as someone noted up thread I feel a little "in the lions' den" here. Shouldn't have assumed that was about me!
Quote from: sage;673864You're welcome to call it what you want, and I was asked to post what I think it is. I'm presenting my opinion, not telling you what to think. I tried to make it clear that these were my thoughts, that I'm sharing, particularly because some people seem to think DW is OSR (or is trying to be).
I do play D&D. Often. Along with OSR and old-school-inspired games, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Our reason for making DW was to make a game that better suited a type of game that some people (apparently quite a few, based on the response we've gotten) have also gotten from D&D. We could keep doing that with various D&D rules, but we found that, for us, DW makes that particular flavor of D&D easier. That's just us, though. If your flavor of D&D isn't DW's flavor, or if you prefer any given D&D ruleset's tools to DW's, great! DW isn't for you, and that's no problem to me.
I know that myself, my co-author, and a lot of the people who have told us they like DW also like (or have claimed to like) DCC, Lamentations, Moldvay D&D, AD&D 1E, Red Box Hack, Rolemaster, Fiasco, 4th Edition, 3rd Edition, Stars Without Number, 13th Age, Amber, and a whole lot of other games. So, as far as I can tell, it is a product for (some) people who like classic RPGs. Our most common feedback from people who enjoyed the game (not everyone does) is that it reminds them of their first time playing D&D.
If, for you, DW is a meat pizza and you ordered veggie, that's a good reason not to play it. The reaction I've seen more often is that people think of DW as one pizza joint, and each edition of D&D as another, and that they hit some of the same spots and some different ones. It's like Papa Johns and Pizza Hut: some people prefer one all the time, some people like the deep dish from Pizza Hut, but the dipping sauce from Papa Johns, some people would rather have a burger.
A person can like a meat pizza and vegetarian one, and so what? The point is to categorize pizzas because there are different types of pizzas. A person might eat a different type of pizza every Friday, or a person could choose the same one every Friday, it's up to them, but the pizza providers need to have a menu so that someone can select what they really want without obscuration of what food they are really getting. Which requires categorizing them, perhaps even down to every last ingredient. In other words, saying that you know a person who likes to eat a meat pizza just as much as vegetarian one does not mean that you shouldn't categorize them differently.
Quote from: sage;673949Man, I don't know. I'm trying to approach this as openly as I can. I don't know what I can do to prove anything.
OK. I get it. You're going to play the innocent moron. "Huh WTF 'Forge' what's that?"
Good luck with it.
Quote from: Benoist;673960OK. I get it. You're going to play the innocent moron. "Huh WTF 'Forge' what's that?"
Good luck with it.
I know what the Forge is. Never posted there, though. Never read more than the first paragraph of a Ron Edwards essay. Never thought much of GNS or The Big Theory or whatever other stuff came out of it (based on the Wikipedia articles about them) except some games I like. I do count a lot of people who were on The Forge as my friends, but I can't say I had any interest in it myself.
I'm not playing at anything, but I'm not sure how to prove that. It seems like the only thing I can say that won't be treated as an act is "I know the one true way of gaming and you're all wrong and the future will destroy you" which isn't me.
Like I said: I made a game, because it worked for me. I don't have an agenda. People don't have to like my game. I think its an RPG, but others can disagree, that's cool. I'll try to offer up points from what I actually wrote, not some imagined agenda, when I can.
Quote from: hamstertamer;673957A person can like a meat pizza and vegetarian one, and so what? The point is to categorize pizzas because there are different types of pizzas. A person might eat a different type of pizza every Friday, or a person could choose the same one every Friday, it's up to them, but the pizza providers need to have a menu so that someone can select what they really want without obscuration of what food they are really getting. Which requires categorizing them, perhaps even down to every last ingredient. In other words, saying that you know a person who likes to eat a meat pizza just as much as vegetarian one does not mean that you shouldn't categorize them differently.
Yep, I totally agree. DW does some things differently from other RPGs for sure, and some of them might mean that DW is or isn't a game you want to play, no problem.
I tend to think of an RPG as about as specific a term as "pizza." Within that we can talk about meaty pizzas, and how the crust is made, and what oven its made in, or the sauce, or the toppings, or how its delivered, or any number of other things. That's great, the variety of pizzas are why they're awesome, even if I don't care for sliced tomatoes on mine.
I think some other people put "RPG" at a different level of specificity. I don't agree, but its cool to have other opinions. Maybe pizza is more like "games" and "RPGs" are more like meat pizzas: a fairly specific kind of thing.
Quote from: sage;673946Wait, what? We also have a free PDF, free HTML version, and more.
Where is this pdf?
Once more, for the record, however:
NO ONE WORKS IN HTML.Even if they did, you have each and every sub-section on a separate page, making it labour intensive and time consuming to even read, let alone collect in a single 'volume'.
Quote from: StormBringer;673988Where is this pdf?
Once more, for the record, however:
NO ONE WORKS IN HTML.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
QuoteEven if they did, you have each and every sub-section on a separate page, making it labour intensive and time consuming to even read, let alone collect in a single 'volume'.
Dude, of all the things you could criticize DW for, "they used the wrong tool to write it" and "I don't like one of the distribution methods they used" are pretty weak.
Which reminds me, I must write up yesterday's session, when I get home tonight.
Quote from: StormBringer;673988Where is this pdf?
It used to be available from http://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/132015/dungeon-world-srd, though I can't seem to find the link. That may just be RPGGeek's interface, though. I'll look into that today.
Quote from: StormBringer;673988Once more, for the record, however:
NO ONE WORKS IN HTML.
Even if they did, you have each and every sub-section on a separate page, making it labour intensive and time consuming to even read, let alone collect in a single 'volume'.
Hey, fair enough. HTML (well, XML that's 90% HTML) made a lot of sense for us to write in, but it may not be the best reading experience. I'd always thought having each section on its own page made it easier to read (instead of one long stream of text) but I've ever been able to read the HTML version as a first time reader. It sounds like it sucks for that, and we'll work to improve it. I'm also lucky enough to have a fast internet connection, so a move between HTML pages doesn't seem like much more than turning a PDF page, but I'm lucky in that regard.
It sounds like for first time readers it sucks, so we'll figure out some ways to make it better. I hadn't heard complaints about the free HTML version before, and since I can't read it like a first-time reader, I don't see how it falls down.
I feel like it's worth stating that nothing we did here—not the free HTML version, the XML->InDesign stuff, or the Creative Commons license—is new, revolutionary, or how anyone else should decide to make their game. I'm super happy with our process, because it worked for me. I'm happy with the free HTML version, because I use it all the time to reference the game. Other people may have better ideas though, and that's awesome. We're just making our game, with the tools that best suit us, and trying to make it available in the most convenient formats.
Quote from: sage;673832The Pundit asked me to come here and comment on this. I'd rather see the RPG hobby be about playing games we love than bickering between camps, so I've decided to follow through and post here. I may regret it.
I'm one of the authors of Dungeon World.
I think Dungeon World is not OSR.
I think Dungeon World is a roleplaying game.
In Dungeon World, you play a character in a fictional world. We talk about "the fictional world the characters inhabit" so much we shortened it to "the fiction." The rules are based on what's happening in the fictional world the characters inhabit.
Nobody in a game of Dungeon World is responsible for telling a story. The players say what their characters say, think, and do. In some cases, they get to add things to the world, just like writing up a character background. Most of these are through GM-invitation. The GM asks questions and uses the answers. Some GMs may have the players fill in entire nations, others may have them fill in the history of their village and people, or what written magic looks like, or whatever else.
The only "story" in Dungeon World is what occurs when the player characters are thrown into a dangerous situation and we find out what happens. It's explicitly not about planning a story, and nothing in the rules is there to make any kind of character arc or plotline or whatever happen. The rules are there to help the GM present a dangerous living world, and help the players interact with that world through their characters.
Some people won't like DW, and that's completely cool. We (my co-author and I) made the game because we were already playing D&D this way (with various editions) and we saw in AW a better way to talk about how we were playing. It was the right tool for playing the kind of D&D we were already playing (and yeah, there are plenty of other kinds of D&D too). It ended up being published because it turns out there are lots of other folks who like to play like this too.
We're not out to replace anyone. We made a game we love. Anything beyond that is pure icing on the cake. We're happy when we find that someone else gets something out of DW, but it could have just stayed on my hard drive and been all I ever wanted from it.
There are lots of wonderful RPGs out there. Some of them aim for story, some don't. DW is one of the ones that doesn't. I find the whole idea of "story games" a pointless divide between people who might otherwise like to play with each other, but that's not what I was asked to talk about.
The "old school style" in DW's Kickstarter tag line (which you'll note we don't use anymore) is about simplicity, open-endedness, and an emphasis on people making their own stuff. It's not intended as piggybacking on the OSR, and has unfortunately since become a pretty common marketing line. So we've worked out a way to more clearly say what DW is. I still think of it as influenced by older D&D, but that isn't always the same as OSR, I think.
Ultimately, you're welcome to call Dungeon World whatever you like. I don't think anything I said here is likely to change anyone's minds. For me, Dungeon World is a great ruleset for playing one particular style of D&D-ish fantasy adventure, and that's all I need it to be.
It speaks to your credit that you actually had the guts to take me up on coming here, and that you have the backbone to state explicitly that your game is neither old-school nor OSR.
Now, it seems to me from what I understand of the rules, that the player is not only "saying what he does", he is, AFTER rolling, on certain results getting to pick what retroactively
happens, from a list that the GM cannot alter and must present as-is.
How is that not 'controlling the story'? Granted that its the player + game designer in the form of rules that are creating story, but its still very clearly not the kind of Regular RPG play where the Player has to state pre-roll what he would like to see happen, and where the GM has the power of final arbitration. In DW, the GM is powerless. The Rules get to determine the progression of events, with the Player (but never the GM) occasionally allowed to interceded and make after-the-fact edits on what happened in the world.
It doesn't matter that these are little tiny edits and not big sweeping edits like you see in some other storygames where suddenly a player might be able to rewrite the whole world to suit "the fiction", its still an edit. Its still narrative manipulation of reality.
Or no?
RPGPundit
Taking the shameless opportunity to say "thanks," for Dungeon World while an author is available.
While I haven't had time to seriously sit down and read it through cover-to-cover, I do appreciate its design and the stuff I've seen so far.
Good luck and good fortune!
Quote from: K Peterson;673839I've got a question about DungeonWorld, that I hope is not perceived as baiting, or any other nonsense.
A lot of what I've read about DW - from online sources and forums - seems to indicate that it can be great as an introductory Rpg. That its presentation and rules system might suit novice gamers. That the GM has a more guided, or focused (constrained?) role compared with other Rpg systems - serving to 'shape' a GM's skillset? There seems to be specific preset move mechanics that the GM interprets into game results. (Is this to take guess work out of the GM's hands?).
This doesn't "Shape" a GM's skillset, it lobotomizes it. It makes the GM an impotent powerless monopoly-banker. The whole orientation of the AW/DW type of game is to re-train GMs into feeling like they have no right to be the authority in their own gaming groups. Even the fact that the GM never rolls dice is clearly a tactic to make the Gm feel like control isn't in his hands (if he can't roll the dice, he can't fudge dice results, don't you know?). The whole mentality is based on the idea that if a GM isn't stripped of all power he will most certainly become a tyrant and abusive, and no doubt this is based on experiences people like Luke Crane or Vince Baker had of being bad-touched by a GM in their past, so their solution is that the GM needs to be neutered.
Mind you, the real evolution in DW and other recent storygames is that the Story Swine seem to have decided that PLAYERS can't really be trusted anymore either. They aren't reliable to be true to the Game Designer's vision. Its really amazing, how a movement that started as a rebellion against the player-disempowering Metaplot-from-on-high White Wolf style, has now evolved into thinking that its probably best that the Game Designer be the one to control the Story, from afar, in the form of Rules that control almost all of the interaction, leaving players with a very limited and tightly-controlled scope of options, and GMs with none. Its because those gadawful human beings with their free will can't be allowed to ruin the Game Designer's vision of what their game is supposed to be about, and Game Designers (well, Forge-trained Storygame Designers, anyways) are a special elite that know what's best for everyone anyways.
So no. If you want a game that will train a GM to develop an awesome set of skills, go get Amber. Or Lords of Olympus, if you like!
RPGPundit
Quote from: sage;673851DW lays out how to GM it in the clearest language we could manage because how the game is GM'ed is just as important as what the players do and it's usually left to vague "advice" or trial and error for the GM to figure out what works with any given game.
Tangent: this is another point where I personally take some inspiration from old-school D&D, because Moldvay has some of the rocking-est GMing stuff anywhere.
Seriously?
QuoteAnyway, we wanted to be as straightforward and clear about DW's GMing as we could be. So we spelled out what a DW GM should aim for, and how they get to it.
It's not meant to be constraining so much as showing the plethora of options the GM has at their fingertips at any given moment. If you're an experienced GM, everything you do is probably already a DW "GM move." They're hugely broad things, like "put someone in a spot."
Emphasis mine. Ok, let's test this out, I'm game. do you believe that in DW the GM should be required to follow the Rules As Written explicitly and is not allowed to change them? (and presumably, that if a GM does so then they are not really playing DW anymore?)
If not, will you state publicly that you feel that in DW a GM should have the authority to change any rule as needed when he wishes without requiring consent from anyone?
RPGPundit
I am still fascinated by the mindset that a gm must obey RAW rules.
So if the rules say "The GM may override the rules" do heads explode?
I am not an advocate of gm's ignoring the rules. I like a sound rule system.
It just makes no sense at all to me to constrain the gm.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674135This doesn't "Shape" a GM's skillset, it lobotomizes it. It makes the GM an impotent powerless monopoly-banker. The whole orientation of the AW/DW type of game is to re-train GMs into feeling like they have no right to be the authority in their own gaming groups. Even the fact that the GM never rolls dice is clearly a tactic to make the Gm feel like control isn't in his hands (if he can't roll the dice, he can't fudge dice results, don't you know?). The whole mentality is based on the idea that if a GM isn't stripped of all power he will most certainly become a tyrant and abusive, and no doubt this is based on experiences people like Luke Crane or Vince Baker had of being bad-touched by a GM in their past, so their solution is that the GM needs to be neutered.
Mind you, the real evolution in DW and other recent storygames is that the Story Swine seem to have decided that PLAYERS can't really be trusted anymore either. They aren't reliable to be true to the Game Designer's vision. Its really amazing, how a movement that started as a rebellion against the player-disempowering Metaplot-from-on-high White Wolf style, has now evolved into thinking that its probably best that the Game Designer be the one to control the Story, from afar, in the form of Rules that control almost all of the interaction, leaving players with a very limited and tightly-controlled scope of options, and GMs with none. Its because those gadawful human beings with their free will can't be allowed to ruin the Game Designer's vision of what their game is supposed to be about, and Game Designers (well, Forge-trained Storygame Designers, anyways) are a special elite that know what's best for everyone anyways.
So no. If you want a game that will train a GM to develop an awesome set of skills, go get Amber. Or Lords of Olympus, if you like!
RPGPundit
If these games are so restricting and unfair to GMs, why do people buy them and run them? And if they are so restrictive and controlling of players as well, why do those players come back for another session the following week?
Are they all being brainwashed?
Quote from: soviet;674149Are they all being brainwashed?
Objection! Leading question m'lud.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674128It speaks to your credit that you actually had the guts to take me up on coming here, and that you have the backbone to state explicitly that your game is neither old-school nor OSR.
Now, it seems to me from what I understand of the rules, that the player is not only "saying what he does", he is, AFTER rolling, on certain results getting to pick what retroactively happens, from a list that the GM cannot alter and must present as-is.
I don't know where you're getting that. Here's an actual move (note, also, that moves don't limit what a character can do, they just provide mechanics for certain things):
When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str. On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy's attack. On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.
I guess the phrasing here might not be the most clear. Let's pick it apart:
On a 10+, you've got the edge. You can push it, or you can stay safe, but it's your call.
Gameplay:
Player: "I got an 11 on my Hack and Slash"
GM: "Cool, you've got the orc where you want him. You can push your luck and do some extra damage, or you can play it safe and guard yourself, what do you do?"
Player: "Screw it, I go for the extra damage. Do your worst, orc!"
On a 7–9, there's no particular choices to be made by the player. They roll some damage and the GM says what the orc does.
On a 6-, it's all the GM.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674128How is that not 'controlling the story'? Granted that its the player + game designer in the form of rules that are creating story, but its still very clearly not the kind of Regular RPG play where the Player has to state pre-roll what he would like to see happen, and where the GM has the power of final arbitration. In DW, the GM is powerless. The Rules get to determine the progression of events, with the Player (but never the GM) occasionally allowed to interceded and make after-the-fact edits on what happened in the world.
The player has stated what action their character is taking. There's a rule for that, so we use it. (Or we can change the game, there's an entire chapter on that. But rules-as-written, there's a rule for that.) The rule fills in how attacking a person can go: you can trade blows, you can have the upper hand and some control over what happens, or you can blow it and be at their mercy.
We may have different definitions of "Regular RPG play" which is fine, but this is the way I was playing when the only thing I had were the core D&D rules, some Dragon magazines, and a lot of Knights of the Dinner Table comics. It's not some crazy thing that I started doing after a friend ran Burning Wheel for me.
It's worth noting that one move, Defy Danger, is explicitly about the player stating pre-roll what their character is attempting to do and then the roll saying either "they do it," "they don't quite do it, the GM will come up with some way it goes wrong and give you a choice," "the GM will say how it goes all wrong."
The GM
always says what happens in the world. It's the GM's job in DW to say that. A few moves give the player/character choices, because their action results in an opportunity or tough decision. Those choices are about what the character does, not rewriting the world.
For example, when the wizard casts a spell, they may cast it no problem, or they may face a choice:
-Focus on casting the spell and let the GM do whatever they want as your character does whatever they have to to cast the spell
-Pour more power into the spell, taking -1 to further spell casting until you prepare spells again
-Just let the spell go and forget it after it's cast
Admittedly, the phrasing in the book focuses on the actual thing that will happen at the table, not how it looks to your character. These are presented as, for example, "-1 to cast a spell until you prepare spells," not "pour more power in (etc.)," because it's the GM's job to say what's actually happening. We're game designers, we're done before the game hits your table. We can't tell you what will happen to your wizard, Avon, when he fumbles a spell. We can provide some tools for dealing with it that you apply to the actual world your characters inhabit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674139Do you believe that in DW the GM should be required to follow the Rules As Written explicitly and is not allowed to change them? (and presumably, that if a GM does so then they are not really playing DW anymore?)
Nope, the GM can totally change the rules if they feel like it. There's an entire section of the rules on changing the GM-ing framework.
Rules, all rules, everywhere in DW (or any other RPG) are a framework. People should ignore them or change them if they feel like it. If a particular rule isn't helpful, trash it or replace it. If an entire system of rules isn't helpful, don't use them.
The GM rules are in DW because we found them useful, and we want to make it clear how we GM DW. Nobody needs our permission to change them, and if they ask for our permission, we'd give it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674139If not, will you state publicly that you feel that in DW a GM should have the authority to change any rule as needed when he wishes without requiring consent from anyone?
Uh, yeah? I don't see why this would be contentious, or something I'd ever say a GM shouldn't do.
As I said above: the rules are there because we found, in our play, they were a really useful framework for GMing. We also found that they were a really effective way to communicate to others how we GM.
"Authority" probably isn't the word I'd use, but everyone everywhere should ignore, change, replace, or otherwise hack any rule they care too. That's part of what's so awesome about RPGs.
Since it was asked about: Moldvay's "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art" on pages B60-B61 are wonderfully clear, cogent, useful statements of how to DM Moldvay. I love those pages to death.
Quote from: Bill;674143I am still fascinated by the mindset that a gm must obey RAW rules.
So am I! I don't know how this gets associated with DW. We tried to make this really clear by saying "These are rules, but you can change every rule, including these."
Quote from DW: "The GM’s agenda, principles, and moves are rules just like damage or stats or HP. You should take the same care in altering them or ignoring them that you would with any other rule."
That gets taken all kinds of ways, and some day if we do a second edition (I dread the thought) I'd probably rewrite it to be even clearer.
There's an entire chapter in the book on changing the rules. Changing DW is part of playing DW.
Quote from: sage;674155I don't know where you're getting that. Here's an actual move (note, also, that moves don't limit what a character can do, they just provide mechanics for certain things):
When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str. On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy's attack. On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.
I guess the phrasing here might not be the most clear. Let's pick it apart:
On a 10+, you've got the edge. You can push it, or you can stay safe, but it's your call.
Gameplay:
Player: "I got an 11 on my Hack and Slash"
GM: "Cool, you've got the orc where you want him. You can push your luck and do some extra damage, or you can play it safe and guard yourself, what do you do?"
Player: "Screw it, I go for the extra damage. Do your worst, orc!"
On a 7–9, there's no particular choices to be made by the player. They roll some damage and the GM says what the orc does.
On a 6-, it's all the GM.
That's not quite how I had read or heard it being described anywhere else up to now. So you'll have to pardon my confusion. I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that the standard format for most "moves" was:"
6-: you fail. The GM simply tells you the predetermined result (and note that the GM doesn't get to decide anything that isn't purely and totally descriptive).
7-9: you're somewhere in between, in some nebulous zone of uncertainty.. The GM must read to you two or three different options (*he has no choice what they are) and you get to pick which one you want, most of them let you do what you want but edit the result of what you attempted so that there was some 'downside' or 'complication' as well.
10+: you succeed at what you wanted.
From what I understood, at no point in any of those three processes does the GM really have any choice at all. The Player has a choice in terms of initiating the move in the first place, and if he gets a 7-9 result, in terms of choosing which option he wants (but again, I would presume only from the list the game designer provided for him).
Is that not an accurate depiction?
It seems from what you wrote above that the "choice" element for the player gets switched over to the 10+ result, rather than 7-9, and maybe in fact that's the norm in most moves, is it? Or did you choose a very common move (attack, which I assume would be very common) but one a bit different in format from most other moves?
In either case, it doesn't seem to make a huge difference.
QuoteThe GM always says what happens in the world. It's the GM's job in DW to say that.
I note that you keep saying "SAYS", not "DECIDES". That's very telling. The GM's job is to be the guy who relates the results, like a scorecard announcer or the girl at boxing matches who holds up the big card with the round number on it. But generally speaking, and again do try to present rebuttal if you think I'm wrong, the GM isn't really the one who gets to DECIDE what happens in the world, he just has to recite what the rules say happen, right?
QuoteFor example, when the wizard casts a spell, they may cast it no problem, or they may face a choice:
-Focus on casting the spell and let the GM do whatever they want as your character does whatever they have to to cast the spell
Again, does the GM get to "do whatever they want"? Or is it in fact that the GM has a single or limited-set of prewritten options of what he can do to the caster here? It might be easier to prove your point if you directly quoted the rules to us, so we could be sure what the language explicitly states.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;674135This doesn't "Shape" a GM's skillset, it lobotomizes it.
I know that's a frequent criticism levied against DW, and an opinion that you, and some others around here, hold. I haven't read DW - or any non-traditional games like it. I probably never will. Maybe if these 'swine' start modelling their games' experience after BRP/d100 systems/RuneQuest I'll start giving a crap. :)
I erred on the side of giving the game's creator a chance to explain the approach. And, I coached the question with kid glove's, certainly.
I also think he should be commended for jumping into the shark tank with a rotting tuna swimsuit. He's handled being accused of being a moron and disingenuous in stride.
Quote from: sage;674159Nope, the GM can totally change the rules if they feel like it. There's an entire section of the rules on changing the GM-ing framework.
Rules, all rules, everywhere in DW (or any other RPG) are a framework. People should ignore them or change them if they feel like it. If a particular rule isn't helpful, trash it or replace it. If an entire system of rules isn't helpful, don't use them
Fascinating. I wasn't expecting that.
QuoteUh, yeah? I don't see why this would be contentious, or something I'd ever say a GM shouldn't do.
Because your game is based on Apocalypse World, a Storygame, and it was written by someone who's part of a group of people that strongly believe that rules should not be changed by GMs in play.
You're almost getting me to believe this whole babe-in-the-woods thing, though I'm having some very serious difficultly processing the possibility that you might have done a clone/hack of a Storygame without actually knowing what that is, or any Storygame Theory, or being aware of much less part of the discussion and general culture of that movement. It seems like a pretty freaking amazing set of circumstances that would depend on either astounding levels of freak chance or very intense willful ignorance. It would be like if someone "invented" their own version of a french haute cuisine dish copied from a Cordon Bleu manual while at the same time claiming to have no idea whatsoever about "what France is".
So you didn't hang out on the Forge and do not now hang out on Storygames? Because you do realize that if you do, and you've written on there about narrativism or about the need to control the GM, or interacted in threads where others have done the same, it would be very easy for that to come to light?
RPGPundit
Are you now, or have you ever been, a communist sympathiser?
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174That's not quite how I had read or heard it being described anywhere else up to now. So you'll have to pardon my confusion. I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that the standard format for most "moves" was:"
6-: you fail. The GM simply tells you the predetermined result (and note that the GM doesn't get to decide anything that isn't purely and totally descriptive).
That's not the case. You fail, and what happens is entirely up to the GM. Maybe you fail to attack the ogre and it bashes you with its club (d12 damage sounds about right for that). Maybe you fail to pick the lock and the GM says "nope, sorry, it's beyond you, you'll need a key." (GM might add "A key like the one that guard had, the one you snuck by.") Maybe you fail to get through the crunching hallway, and the GM says "you manage to get out, just barely, but the shield on your back gets stuck between the walls as they slam together, even if you could get it out it's likely useless." (The GM could have just as easily dealt damage or killed them if the GM thought one of those fit better.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;6741747-9: you're somewhere in between, in some nebulous zone of uncertainty.. The GM must read to you two or three different options (*he has no choice what they are) and you get to pick which one you want, most of them let you do what you want but edit the result of what you attempted so that there was some 'downside' or 'complication' as well.
A 7–9 is a complication, yes. Sometimes that means something specific to the move, sometimes the GM just makes up whatever tough situation they please, depends on the move. Cast a spell, which I quoted above, is an example.
I don't think of them as "editing." To me, and the way I present them at the table, they're that frozen moment when you notice something's going wrong and have to make a choice. You're biking down the street and try to breeze past the grocer pulling out his cart, but don't quite make it. Do you still swerve as much as you can and wing the grocer, or save him but run into his cart?
If there's a choice on a 7–9 (or a 10+, or a 6-) it's part of the move, not an edit. A 7–9 doesn't mean a complete success happened, but we're going to go back and edit it. It means, as you do the thing you're rolling for, something happens, and you react to it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;67417410+: you succeed at what you wanted.
Yep.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174From what I understood, at no point in any of those three processes does the GM really have any choice at all.
On a 6- the GM says what goes wrong, changing the world, the character (their HP, maybe stats, gear, whatever else), and so on. There's a list of GM moves, but they are meant to be so broad as to inspire. The rules specifically mention that as a GM you may already have an idea of how it goes wrong, and that you should do that (it's probably a move anyway).
I quoted the list above, they're hugely vague, intended to give the GM ways to look for "how this goes wrong" in any given situation.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174The Player has a choice in terms of initiating the move in the first place, and if he gets a 7-9 result, in terms of choosing which option he wants (but again, I would presume only from the list the game designer provided for him).
The player may have a choice on a 7–9. They may have a choice on a 10+. They may even have a choice on a 6-, if the GM decides to give them one.
Sometimes those choices are listed by the move, because the move is specific enough that we attempt to spell out how it can turn out. Sometimes those choices are entirely up the to GM.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174It seems from what you wrote above that the "choice" element for the player gets switched over to the 10+ result, rather than 7-9, and maybe in fact that's the norm in most moves, is it? Or did you choose a very common move (attack, which I assume would be very common) but one a bit different in format from most other moves?
The only guide is that 10+ is get what you set out to do (or as close to it as possible), 7–9 is a partial success, and a 6- is something goes wrong. Some, none, or all of those may involve choices, either from the move itself or from the GM.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174I note that you keep saying "SAYS", not "DECIDES". That's very telling. The GM's job is to be the guy who relates the results, like a scorecard announcer or the girl at boxing matches who holds up the big card with the round number on it. But generally speaking, and again do try to present rebuttal if you think I'm wrong, the GM isn't really the one who gets to DECIDE what happens in the world, he just has to recite what the rules say happen, right?
Nope. I use "says" because that's the actual thing that happens at the table. The GM says something. They decide what happens in the world.
As I mentioned, I only designed the game. How the hell would I know what the GM should say at your table? I can give the GM some tools to help decide what happens, and some ways to say things at the table to help portray those, but I have no idea what your world is, your game is, or what you should decide to say.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174Again, does the GM get to "do whatever they want"? Or is it in fact that the GM has a single or limited-set of prewritten options of what he can do to the caster here? It might be easier to prove your point if you directly quoted the rules to us, so we could be sure what the language explicitly states.
Sure, the rules:
When you release a spell you've prepared, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the spell is successfully cast and you do not forget the spell—you may cast it again later. ✴On a 7-9, the spell is cast, but choose one:
-You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
-The spell disturbs the fabric of reality as it is cast—take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you Prepare Spells.
-After it is cast, the spell is forgotten. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.
As you can see, if the player says "whatever the GM wants," it really is whatever the GM wants. You may pick apart "The GM will tell you" and claim that somewhere else in the rules we tell the GM what to say, but that's not the case. This phrasing is because the person being addressed is the player, not the GM.
The other two options let the player have their character do things within their power to keep the spell under control. At my table at least, this is usually:
Player: I got a 7 to cast a spell.
GM: Well, how does Avon manage that? Shunt it onto the fabric of reality? Forget the spell? Or just go for it and take the consequences?
Player: I'll take the -1.
GM: So Avon casts his spell and, as it starts to get away from him he pulls on the fabric of reality itself to stabilize the spell. The fireball springs into the room, roll your damage.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674174That's not quite how I had read or heard it being described anywhere else up to now. So you'll have to pardon my confusion. I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that the standard format for most "moves" was:"
6-: you fail. The GM simply tells you the predetermined result (and note that the GM doesn't get to decide anything that isn't purely and totally descriptive).
7-9: you're somewhere in between, in some nebulous zone of uncertainty.. The GM must read to you two or three different options (*he has no choice what they are) and you get to pick which one you want, most of them let you do what you want but edit the result of what you attempted so that there was some 'downside' or 'complication' as well.
10+: you succeed at what you wanted.
As discussed above in some depth, the GM always has flexibility and discretion on a fail. Almost no rule/move in DW has a predetermined result on a fail.
In fact, as also discussed, the only time a GM's flexibility and discretion can be said to be restricted* is when a player has taken an action, been called to make a roll and succeeds. The GM should let the success stand. But that concept, not fudging the rolls, is considered by most to be good RPing.
*as restrictive as any rule in a game that explicitly acknowledges that the rules can be changed.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674179Your game is based on Apocalypse World, a Storygame, and it was written by someone who's part of a group of people that strongly believe that rules should not be changed by GMs in play.
Could have fooled me. There's a similar section in Apocalypse World on how to change the rules. One thing that people liked about the finished DW text (including Vincent, from what he told me) is that it includes in that section how to change the GM rules, which is an unfortunate (and accidental) omission from AW.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674179You're almost getting me to believe this whole babe-in-the-woods thing, though I'm having some very serious difficultly processing the possibility that you might have done a clone/hack of a Storygame without actually knowing what that is, or any Storygame Theory, or being aware of much less part of the discussion and general culture of that movement. It seems like a pretty freaking amazing set of circumstances that would depend on either astounding levels of freak chance or very intense willful ignorance. It would be like if someone "invented" their own version of a french haute cuisine dish copied from a Cordon Bleu manual while at the same time claiming to have no idea whatsoever about "what France is".
The alternative here is that "indie games"/"story games"/"the Forge" had moved passed this crap by the time I met anyone from it.
I'm relatively young. I think by the time I interacted with any Forge folks online, the Forge was already in the process of being shut down/archived.
The people who I know who like some things that appear to be considered "other games" around here also play plenty of things that appear to be "RPGs" and love talking about both.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674179So you didn't hang out on the Forge and do not now hang out on Storygames? Because you do realize that if you do, and you've written on there about narrativism or about the need to control the GM, or interacted in threads where others have done the same, it would be very easy for that to come to light?
I don't even have an account on the Forge. I've posted to Story Games. You can see every one of my story games posts here (http://www.story-games.com/forums/profile/comments/1723/sage).
I can't think of any time someone has ever talked there about how to take away GM power because it's bad wrong fun. I know this is an idea that supposedly some people have, but I can't recall anyone seriously saying that in my presence. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure you'll double check for me.
I'm not trying to be innocent here. I know that, supposedly, some people think that an unconstrained GM is going to be horrible and lead to the end of the world or something. I just don't think I've ever met those people. I have met some people that, on this site, have been portrayed that way, but they've never said something like that to me.
I don't think I'm all that different from a lot of the "Swine" I know. Nobody that I know of has plans to destroy another game, gaming, GMs, or whatever else. Most play a mix of D&D (skewing towards older editions or retroclones at the moment), stuff from outside our community (DCC, SWN and Zenobia are hot right now), and stuff that could be considered "other games."
It looks to me as though what's going on in DW is that the whole "rolling for stakes" thing that Storygames do (and that Baker exemplified if not invented in Dogs in the Vinyard) is just front-loaded here, from how Sage is describing things.
In essence, on a 6- the GM gets to decide what happens, on a 7+ the player gets to decide. Its just that DW takes the game designer into effect through having some of the options front-loaded in the actual mechanic itself instead of leaving it a free-for-all.
The real question then becomes "how different is that from an RPG?"
There is clearly a GM vs. Players mindset in DW's rules, which probably comes out of Forgist ideas about "Gamism", but that in and of itself doesn't make something not an RPG; 4e was designed with the exact same thing in mind due the exact same ideological influences, but it is still an RPG (an RPG that's barely one step above a tactical skirmish game, yet an RPG neverthelesss).
The question is the matter of "stakes". If the "stakes" are set in such a way as to make them nearly indistinguishable to regular RPG-rolls, then is it a Storygame doing an incredibly good job of masquerading as an RPG, or is it just an RPG with a huge amount of legacy-influence borrowed from the Storygames hobby?
Could Sage have possibly taken the rules of a storygame which was not his own (AW), combined it with his notions of what he would like D&D to play like, and ended up accidentally creating some kind of mutant freak-hybrid that is what an RPG would be like if it had evolved out of a storygame?
Damn it. Now I'm going to have to go read this fucking thing. There's just too much conflicting and contradictory statements and information being bandied about.
RPGPundit
Sage in Volley, your choices on a 7-9 are to...
Fire one arrow for low damage
Fire several arrows for normal damage
Move into a dangerous position and fire for normal damage
All of these options supposedly take the exact same time as each other and as a full success which hits for normal damage.
This method has been described as "the mechanics don't tell me what happens, they ask me what happens".
Now if the GM chose which of the three happened or the player rolled, then the character could be said to be dealing with the effects of the sub-par result. However, this move's choice in particular is very hard to rationalize as an In Character choice particularly in the time frame of a single move.
Can you see how this mechanic and others that give similar choices can be seen to be player-driven about the character and not character-driven by the character.
Secondly, if the moves are meant to be so free-wheeling, why, in most of the move examples is one of the three examples showing the player specifically correcting the GM and telling him he cannot play that move?
Quote from: RPGPundit;674220It looks to me as though what's going on in DW is that the whole "rolling for stakes" thing that Storygames do (and that Baker exemplified if not invented in Dogs in the Vinyard) is just front-loaded here, from how Sage is describing things.
I've played a lot of Dogs. I love Dogs. Somewhere there's film of me playing Dogs with Vincent. I don't think this is much like Dogs.
Some examples from the DW text that are pretty much transcriptions of actual play:
GM: Jarl, you're up to your not-inconsiderable belly in slavering goblins. They have you surrounded, knives bared. What do you do?
Jarl: I've had enough of this! I wallop the closest goblin with my hammer.
GM: Okay, then. This is definitely combat, you're using hack and slash. Roll+Str.
Jarl: I got an 11. It says here that I have a choice. Fear is for the weak, let those goblins come!
GM: You smash your hammer into the nearest goblin and are rewarded by the satisfying sound of the crunching of his bones. That and a knife wound as the goblin counterattacks. He deals 4 damage to you. What do you do?
GM: Emory, as you climb up the side of the ravine you spy a cultist on a ledge nearby who evokes a frost spell and covers the side of the cliff with ice! If you want to keep climbing, you need to defy danger or you'll fall.
Emory: No way, I am too tough. I grit my teeth and dig my nails into the wall, climbing one hand at a time. I'm using Con, okay? I got an 8, though...
GM: Hmm, well, I think the only way you can gain any traction, tough guy, is if you use your dagger to pull yourself up the last few feet. It's going to be lodged in there until you have some time to pull it loose and there's an angry spellcaster nearby.
Emory: I can always get a new dagger when I get home. Time to finish this climb and that cultist.
I think of those as RPG play. I also think of a lot of things you don't think of as RPG play as RPG play. I'll let you make your own decisions.
The thing that I feel is different from Dogs is that these stakes aren't generally negotiated. In Dogs it says "Establish what's at stake. Any player can make suggestions, and everybody should feel free to toss it around until you arrive at the right thing." That's not how DW works.
In DW, the GM might tell you what will happen if you don't make a roll (as in the example above: you'll be stuck on the ravine wall, an easy target). Actually what's happening here is the GM is telling you what
will happen if you don't do something about it, but whatever. You as the player can't say "no, I don't want that be what's at stake, what about X?" There's no negotiated stakes, really. The GM might sometimes flat out tell you that something just isn't possible ("I jump over the dragon to escape out the gate!" "Uh, no, that's not physically possible."), but it's not a negotiation. The GM says what's going on around you. You say what your character does. Maybe that triggers a move, maybe not. If it triggers the move, it's generally either a clear-cut outcome described by the move (you hit/you don't hit) or left to the GM, based on the circumstances.
On a 7+, in some cases, the player may get to say how their character deals with a complication. I don't know how many more times I can say that a 7+ doesn't shift the roles of GM and player. The GM is always responsible for the world outside the characters. The players are always responsible for the characters. (The GM can ask the players questions about the world to help fill it in, but the scope of those questions is left to the GM.)
Looking at the hack and slash move, there are three fundamental outcomes: the enemy hits you, you and the enemy hit each other, you hit the enemy. The fourth outcome is just a twist: you have such an advantage you can get in extra damage by opening your guard a little.
With the Moldvay melee attack rules, the fundamental outcomes
over your action and the action of the enemy, are: nobody hits anybody, the enemy hits you, you both hit each other, you hit the enemy.
They're not the same. They're similar though. We're not doing anything too crazy. We've collapsed two rolls into one, and eliminated the "nothing happens" option. Not because it's impossible for nothing to happen, but because if nothing happens we don't need to be spending time at the table rolling over and over for it. Our way isn't better. It's different. It can have fewer rolls, and tries to deal more with what the characters are doing in the world instead of naming an attack option, but those aren't better things, they're just differences (or maybe for some people, worse things).
I'm also not sure that this is all that far from AW, but again, your own conclusions.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674222Sage in Volley, your choices on a 7-9 are to...
Fire one arrow for low damage
Fire several arrows for normal damage
Move into a dangerous position and fire for normal damage
All of these options supposedly take the exact same time as each other and as a full success which hits for normal damage.
This method has been described as "the mechanics don't tell me what happens, they ask me what happens".
Now if the GM chose which of the three happened or the player rolled, then the character could be said to be dealing with the effects of the sub-par result. However, this move's choice in particular is very hard to rationalize as an In Character choice particularly in the time frame of a single move.
Can you see how this mechanic and others that give similar choices can be seen to be player-driven about the character and not character-driven by the character.
You're reading the move differently from me.
Those are the three options. How they play out at my table:
Player: I take a potshot at the goblin sorcerer to kill him before he can complete the ritual. Ouch, a 7.
GM: So you can't get the shot. You can either take several shots to find one that works (mark ammo), take the best you can find (less damage), or do whatever it takes to get the shot lined up and I'll say what happens. What do you do?
Player: I've got to get him good, and I'm already low on arrows. I'll do whatever it takes to get the shot, tell me what happens.
GM: To get the shot you wheel around the ritual circle, trying to figure out an angle where the cultists won't be in the way. You finally find it, take your shot, roll your damage. When you lower your bow you see you've gotten much closer to the dark waters than you meant to, and the tentacles are coming out at you.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674222Secondly, if the moves are meant to be so free-wheeling, why, in most of the move examples is one of the three examples showing the player specifically correcting the GM and telling him he cannot play that move?
The GM can always make any GM move. The examples are of the GM or players (it differs between examples) applying the player moves wrong, which is like the GM saying a hit on a goblin in d20 with a sword and no speical protection doesn't deal any damage, the goblin gets to make a Fort save first.
They're examples of not quite getting it right because:
-I make lots of mistakes, and I want to set that as a baseline. No GM has to be perfect.
-We're trying to explain this actual rule, not all the other ways you could do it.
As in the d20 example, a GM ignoring the rules or making up new ones is completely cool. We're just trying to explain in the actual text how it works if the GM plays by the rules as written. The GM doesn't have to do that. They can change it, ignore it, play another game. But to carefully explain the actual rules presented we wanted to show both how they work and how they don't.
FWIW, I think this is an equivalent mechanic to Volley:
When you make a ranged attack, compare the target's AC to your attack bonus. If the target's AC is less than your attack bonus, you hit them and deal your damage. If they can't do something about it (get out of the way, take cover, attack you back) and nothing keep you from attacking again, they're dead, the GM will say how long it takes.
If the target's AC is greater than your attack bonus + 10, you can't hit them. Better make another plan.
Otherwise, roll a d10 and add your attack bonus. If the result is greater than or qual to their AC+5, you have a clean hit, deal your damage. If the result is less than or equal to their AC-5, the GM says what happens. Otherwise, the shot is at the edge of your ability. You can take what you have now and deal half damage. You can take many shots to try and find a good angle, deal your damage and mark off some ammo. Or you can do whatever the GM says you have to do to get a shot, they'll say where you end up (you probably won't like it).
That's not exactly the same. The probabilties, for one thing. But the general model is the exact same: get a clear shot, have to work for it, or screw up.
Note that the roll only occurs when the middle result is possible. If its clear you will hit them, don't roll. If it's clear you can't hit them, don't roll. If you're somewhere in the middle, you may have to work for your shot.
Each option may take a different amount of time, which is part of why DW has no set rounds. That one roll might cover several seconds for the archer, then we'll deal with that same time for the fighter who's off doing something else. In that same time the fighter might trigger no moves, one move, or more moves.
Quote from: sage;674228The examples are of the GM or players (it differs between examples) applying the player moves wrong, which is like the GM saying a hit on a goblin in d20 with a sword and no speical protection doesn't deal any damage, the goblin gets to make a Fort save first.
Quote from: DWHalek: Kobolds and an ogre? Man, what's going on here? Well, if they're coming to get me, I might as well let my arrows say hello. I take a shot at the mob. I rolled an 8.
GM: Well, what'll it be? Danger? Ammo?
Halek: I'll take the danger.
GM: Well, the kobolds swarm you and you manage to hit one as they approach—he falls down but as the rest approach, you realize you've lost track of the ogre. He smashes you with his club and you take 12 damage!
Halek: 12 damage? That's the danger?
GM: You're right, that's not just danger. Okay, so you're not mush yet—the ogre is looming behind you and that club is flying down at your head! What do you do?
Quote from: DWOctavia: I've had enough of this ogre, I'm going to drop my shield and swing my hammer in both hands. Hack and slash, right?
GM: You drop your shield? That's a bad idea–now you have to defy danger because the ogre is going to bash you.
Octavia: Are you sure? Isn't that what hack and slash is? Trading blows and stuff?
GM: Yes, duh, of course. I need another cup of coffee–hack and slash it is, make your move!
Quote from: DWVitus: I got a 10 on my spout lore about this gilded skull. GM: You're pretty sure you recognize the metalwork of Dis, the living city.
Vitus: ...and? I did get a 10!
GM: Right, of course. Well, you recognize a few glyphs specifically. They're efreeti, marks of a fire spell, but they're different, a kind of transmutation magic. I bet if you cast a spell into the skull, it'll turn it into a fire spell.
Vitus: Magic missiles of fire—hurrah!
So, in your view, the fact that the GM cannot present an option outside what the rules say he can in response to a player move essentially makes the GM just another player, albeit one who has more than one character. Each player has complete and total control not only of their character's actions but also elements of the world about and around the character, while the GM has control of things only outside player control. Is that a fair assessment?
Players calling up the GM on the rules is something that happens in RPGs too, largely dependent on the group's dynamic in question. In DW, just like any RPG, the base expectation of the GM is to be an impartial arbiter of the rules. However, in DW, like any RPG, the GM may change those rules if he or she thinks it is best of the group, and this results in exactly the same issues and potential fallout that results in that act for both.
The nomenclature may differ slightly but the result in play is identical. In DW, like any RPG, there is no mechanical benefit in strict adherence to the rules. You don't win by cheating. As such, the rules set a common expectation that each group will apply and modify as suits their needs to achieve the best result for everyone at the table.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674270So, in your view, the fact that the GM cannot present an option outside what the rules say he can in response to a player move essentially makes the GM just another player, albeit one who has more than one character. Each player has complete and total control not only of their character's actions but also elements of the world about and around the character, while the GM has control of things only outside player control. Is that a fair assessment?
I'm not quite sure I follow here.
If we're playing 3E and a goblin attacks me, the GM says "he gets a 12, you take 3 damage." If my AC is actually 15, I'd normally say "what, no he doesn't, my AC is 15!"
If I trigger the Hack and Slash move, with the move
as written it includes the ogre's attack. If the GM says "oh no, you have to defy danger first" I feel like saying "what, really?" is the same as the 3E example above.
We use examples of it happening "wrong" because these are "mistakes" that people make. We assume that people reading the text want to learn to use the rules, and part of that is seeing how that particular rule
doesn't work.
These aren't examples of what the GM can't do. The GM can do whatever, ignore the rules, change the rules, etc. They're examples of, if the GM is using the rules that exist, how to use them correctly.
That said, the volley one isn't great. Might look at how to make it better.
Edited to add: I realized I forgot to also mention that these were intended as examples of "mistakes and corrections" (that's what we called them while writing them). In my mind, the GM in those samples thinks they made a mistake. If the GM thinks they're right (or if they just want to change/ignore the rules on the fly) that'd be a different example.
Quote from: Ladybird;674030http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
Which is a mature system that is used by a large number of gamers. You can rather more get away with that when you are Paizo, but not so much when you are trying to get people to notice your new game. The PFSRD isn't exactly intended to be used as a volume of rules, either, but a resource to keep handy when you need to find out if an Elf has low-light or darkvision, or how many feats a 5th level Human Fighter will have.
QuoteDude, of all the things you could criticize DW for, "they used the wrong tool to write it" and "I don't like one of the distribution methods they used" are pretty weak.
But that rather points to a general lack of awareness, which is my point. I am not demanding a slick, ultra-professional product, just a minimal understanding of the audience. In general, I think most people make the assumption that competence at one task or subject correlates to some level of competence in related fields. Not always accurate, of course, but a relatively safe assumption.
Hence, if the decisions on how to distribute or present the rules is wildly off from what the players need, the odds favour the rules themselves not exactly being what they say they are. Again, one doesn't stumble onto xml as a format and post it to GitHub by accident. It's as though the most intentionally difficult to use choices were made with zero justification. If the industry was predicated on InDesign formatted files, or it was the
de facto standard instead of pdfs, then hey, awesome. To me that speaks of a gross misunderstanding.
Quote from: StormBringer;674277Which is a mature system that is used by a large number of gamers. You can rather more get away with that when you are Paizo, but not so much when you are trying to get people to notice your new game. The PFSRD isn't exactly intended to be used as a volume of rules, either, but a resource to keep handy when you need to find out if an Elf has low-light or darkvision, or how many feats a 5th level Human Fighter will have.
You're assuming our goal is "to get people to notice" Dungeon World, which it's not. It's not advertising. It's a free version of the game for people who can't/won't/don't want to pay for it. It's also a quick reference for people like me that don't want to dig out the PDF every time.
Which, yeah, is quite a bit like the Pathfinder SRD. I didn't claim this was new or innovative.
We do sometimes promote DW in some way. We have DW stuff on twitter, G+, and Facebook, but those are mostly for announcements. We did submit Dungeon World for an Ennie, mostly out of curiosity. That's not really where the free open version comes in.
Quote from: StormBringer;674277Hence, if the decisions on how to distribute or present the rules is wildly off from what the players need, the odds favour the rules themselves not exactly being what they say they are. Again, one doesn't stumble onto xml as a format and post it to GitHub by accident. It's as though the most intentionally difficult to use choices were made with zero justification. If the industry was predicated on InDesign formatted files, or it was the de facto standard instead of pdfs, then hey, awesome. To me that speaks of a gross misunderstanding.
I think you're misunderstanding our intention here.
The github repo is my personal working copy. It's main purpose is so I have versioned backups. It's secondary purpose is so other people can help improve the text, or make their own version of the text. I'd never point someone at the git repo and say "here's a free version of the game!"
The HTML version(s) are fan projects. They're pretty neat, and more accessible than XML mapped to layout. My current plan is to make one of them the standard DW format instead of the XML, now that my work on the text is minimal (i.e. my working copy isn't important).
I'd also say that InDesign is a standard format, just not the one that most people distribute. With the exception of a very few people with Word, Quark, or an OpenSource alternative, every game book is made in InDesign. Most people just don't see it because you export to PDF.
PDF is a more common format for sure, and I think there's a good case that if we really want free DW to be all a person needs we should make a PDF version as well. I'll look at doing that sometime soon.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674222Sage in Volley, your choices on a 7-9 are to...
Fire one arrow for low damage
Fire several arrows for normal damage
Move into a dangerous position and fire for normal damage
All of these options supposedly take the exact same time as each other and as a full success which hits for normal damage.
This method has been described as "the mechanics don't tell me what happens, they ask me what happens".
This depends on interpreting the mechanic as "Once the player rolls, the result has already happened, and any further steps are going back in time and editing the world." That's not how a lot of other mechanics work, though, like rolling to confirm a critical.
In-game, what is happening is:
(1) The character picks a strategy - move as needed to get the shot, keep firing to get the shot, or play it safe. This is an in-character decision.
(2) The player rolls.
(3) If he gets a 7-9, the results depend on the character's strategy.
The choice of character strategy is not an out-of-character choice. What Dungeon World does is wait and only asks the player to specify the strategy if the strategy would make a difference to the outcome.
Quote from: jhkim;674284In-game, what is happening is:
(1) The character picks a strategy - move as needed to get the shot, keep firing to get the shot, or play it safe. This is an in-character decision.
(2) The player rolls.
(3) If he gets a 7-9, the results depend on the character's strategy.
No, that's not what's happening. The player rolls first, then is presented with a choice of strategy, his intent is to hit and do damage, if he rolls 10+, he succeeds with this strategy, if he does not succeed, then he is presented with a choice of additional strategies.
If the GM asked him what are you going to do, the player says "Shoot the orc" and the GM then asks what if you can't get a clear shot, what are you going to do, then the player rolls, it at least is in the proper chronology between player and character. You don't put roll before choice and then get to claim roll actually comes after choice and then get to say there's no time-warping, or you're IC, because if the player's chronology is different then the character's chronology then you're by definition OOC either using some kind of literary device like a flashback, or engaging the mechanics and making choices from a player's point of view, and then deciding what that means for the character after the fact, ie bog standard Conflict Resolution - determine winner of Conflict by player, narrate result for character.
Quote from: jhkim;674284The choice of character strategy is not an out-of-character choice. What Dungeon World does is wait and only asks the player to specify the strategy if the strategy would make a difference to the outcome.
It could have been written like some other moves that would make it an in-character choice, but in this case the misaligned chronologies between player and character make this move's choices OOC.
In addition, there is no sense of absolute time between characters and moves, each move is relative only to that character. One character does a move, another character at the same time does a move that would actually require 4x the time, then the first character is returned to to make up the time he lost. They have a term for that, it's called Speed of Plot.
As the characters play to find out what happens, the story unfolds and the spotlight is shifted from character to character as in a novel, not time segment by time segment as you would if you were simulating a real event.
This may be a roleplaying game in that roleplaying exists in it, but the roleplaying is the mechanism by which the storytelling occurs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674286As the characters play to find out what happens, the story unfolds and the spotlight is shifted from character to character as in a novel, not time segment by time segment as you would if you were simulating a real event.
This may be a tangent, but isn't turn based initiative more about shifting the spotlight from character to character as in a tactical game, like a war game or board game?
I don't think either approach really simulates real events except the sense of time moving forward in both. In fact, I could see an argument that the greater GM discretion in DW in shifting the spotlight could give a more realistic sense of timing if the GM so wanted as the GM can balance a lot more contextual information than the artificially enforced equality of turn based initiative allows.
Actually, now I think about it, this suggests to me that there is no story imperative behind the lack of turn based initiative in DW IMO. There is a much simpler and more obvious imperative, being the ease of use and flexibility for the GM.
Yeah cuz a real gamer knows roleplaying can only be achieved by a chart. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;673917(I could go and dig the tweets you got in with the lol-band when Vincent took some potshots at the RPG Site for a similar thread, claiming we got our greasy Cheetos-stained fingers on AW or some such, hence my user title).
The only way this could be true is if Vincent Baker is actually Luke Crane and AW stands for Torchbearer.
What is interesting to me in the example of how the rules are used, that it seems assumed that the default choices for a 'move' are always available and the fiction is narrated based on that. A traditional setup has choices as well, but effects equivalent to 'moves' appear emergently as a result of detailed rules effects. So 'can I move back away from the ogre and use Manyshot' appears in both DW and D&D (some versions) but what options a PC gets will depend on exact distances, move speeds, obstacles and perhaps Balance checks etc.
(I don't know if that has any bearing on the core questions of the debate here, but I thought it was interesting).
Dungeon World is further down the abstract scale compared to something like AD&D, that's for sure. It does make it easy to run, but I can understand why someone may not like the level of abstraction.
Quote from: Noclue;674293The only way this could be true is if Vincent Baker is actually Luke Crane and AW stands for Torchbearer.
My mistake. Sage LaTorra joined the Luke Crane Lol-band throwing up on us over Torchbearer, Luke Crane who is known to have been oh-so-sympathetic to the traditional role of the GM and never in a million years said it was actually toxic to the hobby, but Sage, despite being buddies with Luke and obviously Vincent Baker, has NO IDEA what Forge theory, Story Now, etc, are AT ALL, just, you know, "happened to be there", didn't understand a word of what was going on but laughed on cue, because, you know, to make a good impression and all, and came up with a totally sleek Apocalypse World hack using all the buzzwords and exemplifying Forge design by complete random chance. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight.
Quote from: Benoist;674334My mistage. Sage LaTorra joined the Luke Crane Lol-band throwing up on us over Torchbearer, Luke Crane who is known to have been oh-so-sympathetic to the traditional role of the GM and never in a million years said it was actually toxic to the hobby, but Sage, despite being buddies with Luke and obviously Vincent Baker, has NO IDEA what Forge theory, Story Now, etc, are AT ALL, just, you know, "happened to be there", didn't understand a word of what was going on but laughed on cue, because, you know, to make a good impression and all, and came up with a totally sleek Apocalypse World hack using all the buzzwords and exemplifying Forge design by complete random chance. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight.
Don't mention it.
As long as we're being all accurate and stuff. Sage didn't say he had no idea about Forge theory. He said he didn't think much of GNS and couldn't stand Ron's essays. The reason DW uses the word Agenda is because Apocalypse World uses the word Agenda. However, there's no mention of the three Creative Agendas from the big model in either game, which you would know if you took a moment to check.
And, when you say "uses ALL the buzzwords" what do you mean? I think we've shown that the book uses the nefarious word Agenda and the secret code word Fiction. What other buzzwords does it use?
Quote from: jhkim;674284This depends on interpreting the mechanic as "Once the player rolls, the result has already happened, and any further steps are going back in time and editing the world." That's not how a lot of other mechanics work, though, like rolling to confirm a critical.
In-game, what is happening is:
(1) The character picks a strategy - move as needed to get the shot, keep firing to get the shot, or play it safe. This is an in-character decision.
(2) The player rolls.
(3) If he gets a 7-9, the results depend on the character's strategy.
The choice of character strategy is not an out-of-character choice. What Dungeon World does is wait and only asks the player to specify the strategy if the strategy would make a difference to the outcome.
But that does make a huge difference. In D&D, for example, a PC archer can (maybe) choose to fire more than one shot but at a penalty, or get a bonus if they put themselves in a more visible position or advance, but they have to choose that BEFORE rolling. And that means that they have to decide to take a risk that sometimes would be an unnecessary risk; maybe staying behind cover firing just one arrow would have worked, but they don't get to play "takeback" and do it over that way. Likewise, if they play it safe and miss, they don't get to play "takeback" and choose the riskier move.
RPGPundit
It is worth noting that the Volley 7-9 result is unusual, even in DW. This is why CRKrueger focuses on it as his example, as it's the most obvious example of a rule arguably requiring a player perspective. However, it would be contrived to use this specific rule to make statement about DW's approach more broadly IMO
Hey sage, just wanted to pop in here for a minute and say thanks for taking time to respond to some of these items. I actually played in a session of DW, and unfortunately, it wasn't our thing. We found the lack of initiative problematic, and some of the design choices and assumptions (choosing a name off a predefined list, only having one of each class in a group) seemed a bit off to us. So I don't think it's my thing, but thanks for explaining a bit about where you're at w/ design and such.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674347But that does make a huge difference. In D&D, for example, a PC archer can (maybe) choose to fire more than one shot but at a penalty, or get a bonus if they put themselves in a more visible position or advance, but they have to choose that BEFORE rolling. And that means that they have to decide to take a risk that sometimes would be an unnecessary risk; maybe staying behind cover firing just one arrow would have worked, but they don't get to play "takeback" and do it over that way. Likewise, if they play it safe and miss, they don't get to play "takeback" and choose the riskier move.
Heyo. This is just a lowly player checking in. As far as my experience with the games at hand, I've run DW as a GM & player, played ApocalypseWorld a few times, and helped a buddy playtest an ApocalypseWorld hack of his own. I'm fairly young (27) and didn't pay much attention to how the indie game sausages gets made until the Forge was already in Archive-only mode. I've got a Story-Game.com account, but I think the only posts I used it for were for GameChef, if even that.
For other games, I've played D&D 3.5, 4e, & Rules Cyclopedia; d20 Modern; Star Wars d20; Star Wars: Edge of the Empire; Shadowrun 4th; Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard & Torchbearer; Fiasco; Microscope; Iron Kingdoms RPG; Dresden Files RPG; Call of Cthulhu; Mutants & Masterminds; Deadlands: Reloaded, & 50 Fathoms via Savage Worlds; etc., etc. Suffice to say, I like all games! I think I'm partial to indie games, even though I get to play them the least, so maybe that makes me one of these frightening swine you're all talking about. Which would be great, because I love bacon.
I can say from running DW as recently as last week, rewinding never happened, even with volley. Actually, I lied: we did rewind a couple times when we forgot about a hireling a few times, even though we made a giant index card standee for him proclaiming "ZIN'CHA IS A GUY" and put it in the center of the playmat. But not for volley.
Here's how volley actually goes, in use by me & my players, interpreting the rules from the book only without any gamedev knowledge, boiled down to bare basics. Ish. (For our purposes, let's say the players are fighting some giants and some Yuan-ti in an ancient subterranean temple--a structure dwarfed by the titanic cave system it sits in, the cave roof far above that of the temple. Lots of pillars, most still standing but tilting at crazy angles, and plenty of busted stonework around from the giants & players making a mess.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Player: I wanna shoot the guy from where I am.
GM: (decides if shooting guy is even an option) Yeah, go ahead and try to shoot the guy.
Player: (rolls a 5) Damn.
GM: Your shot is totally shitty and you miss completely. Your aim is so bad you actually catch your dwarven buddy in the back by accident (decides an appropriate damage die to roll, picks a d8). Roll of 6 damage to you, buddy.
Buddy Yow! Thanks a lot, pal. Good thing my armor reduces it a little.
GM: It gets worse. The momentary distraction from the impact let the giant your buddy was fighting get the advantage he needed to grab his dwarven prey! Let's shift focus to the dwarf, now: a giant is crushing you in his hand! It hurts like hell, and you can't breathe. What do you do?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Player: I wanna shoot the guy from where I am.
GM: (decides if shooting guy is even an option) Yeah, go ahead and try to shoot the guy.
Player: (rolls a 8) Mmm.
GM: The shot you line up from where you are isn't great, but you figure you might be able to salvage it if you just shoot a shit-ton of arrows or move position. Since it's a split-second decision, you won't be able to be on the lookout while you move, so you know you'll probably run into trouble.
Player: Hmm, I don't like trouble, so I shoot the shit-ton of arrows and don't move.
GM: Wise man. Roll your damage, and note the decrease in your ammo.
ALTERNATEPlayer: Hmm, I hate scrounging around for arrows, so I say to hell with it and move up.
GM: Alright. You find a better spot to let your arrow fly; roll your damage. As you step forward and release it, though, you feel the tell-tale ethereal *snap* of entering a magic circle. You see red sigils flash to life in the circular seal that was previously covered almost completely by dust, but you recognize what the symbols are doing just as a roiling plume of sulfur hits your nose... and a demon appears in the circle. You're so boned.
ALTERNATEPlayer: Hmm. My quiver is getting light, so I stay put and let fly. Plus, I don't want to take a risk right now; I got a bad feeling.
GM: There's only ever bad feelings in this place. So, since you're take what you can get: roll your damage, but minus 1d6 from the result.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Player: I wanna shoot the guy from where I am.
GM: (decides if shooting guy is even an option) Yeah, go ahead and try to shoot the guy.
Player: (rolls an 11) Nice.
GM: You manage to find just the right moment to let your shot fly, landing a solid hit. Roll your damage!
Player: I get a 9.
GM: Damn, that kills the Yuan-ti outright. Where did your shot land that it managed to kill him in one blow?
Player: You said this Yuan-ti had some of those alchemist's-fire flasks, right? The arrow punches right into one, and the explosion from it at point-blank range just turns him into a greenish-red mist.
GM Haha, awesome. It doesn't actually obliterate him though; the fireball just tears out a big enough chunk of viscera to kill him. Which is handy, because now you can still snag his fancy helm later.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Player: I wanna shoot the guy from where I am.
GM: (decides if shooting guy is even an option) The sight lines are totally blocked by the pillars and the destruction you guys have caused so far. You can't shoot the guy from where you are.
Player: Alright, I stash my bow, whip out my longsword, and dash over to try hitting that giant my buddy is keeping busy.
GM: Sure thing. As you start to move toward the giant over the floor that's now covered with busted ceiling tiles, you're making a god-awful racket. You'll need to do something to avoid pulling it's attention from your buddy as you get closer...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hah, less bare bones than I intended, but it's hard to not write like I'd actually run it at the table.
The piece where I turn it back to the player for how the Yuan-ti died: that's me just outsourcing some adjectives that will lead to a more-or-less-fixed end state, a lootable corpse. When my players manage to one-shot the baddies, I've always tended to let them describe their own kills as an added bonus. Even just running D&D, before I ever encountered DW, or any indie game really. It feels extra appropriate in DW, where there isn't really a critical hit; no standard move (that I know of) gives you a free max damage, or free double damage, etc. If it's just a killing blow, last of many only by luck of math, I keep death narrating for myself and often will try to have the death be a little grim & gruesome, just to remind everyone that hacking your enemies to bits isn't just a gay old time.
Now, as regards taking a risk that's an unnecessary risk: I see this all the time. More with Hack & Slash, since players just love that extra d6 of damage on a 10+, which lets me hurt them. And they do it a lot when the monster is one stiff breeze away from dying! But they don't know that, or think to try and get an idea of how hard they need to hit the guy they're hitting.
I see it with volley too, in a different way: a player moving up and giving me a free move, when even a damage result of 1 or 2 after the penalty, fired from cover, will off the guy. But they don't know, or don't think to find out.
I think a big part of the difference, between your volley examples and those in DW, is two-fold:
1. There is no "you whiff; next player up please" option for an attack roll. Ammo is mostly abstracted, so you don't have that steady trickle loss of arrows as a thing. Ammo mostly goes down when you fire extra shots, or when I take it away via a GM move (crushed by ogres, etc.) So, "hang back, shoot a bunch of shots, they all miss, nuts-to-you; who's next in initiative" isn't something DW is going to produce.
2. Situational bonuses and penalties, math-wise and not, pop up slightly differently than in typical D&D. Now, your situation (high ground, low ground, cover, etc.) will of course restrict your options in the fiction, but it's not going to give a +2 or -2 or whatever. That's not how the math works in DW. Here's how it does work:
--
You have a situational advantage to attack that makes sense. No need to roll an attack; you have enough advantage to hit, so roll your damage.
--
You have a disadvantage that gets in your way. The attack you want do is not going to land, unless you manage to change things. What do you do?
Those are just a few of many possibilities, of course.
The times I do see mathematical penalties come up, it's in the form of a -1 a wizard or cleric has ongoing from an upkept spell, or messing up reality/annoying their god; a debility like Sick, Weak, Confused, etc. (one flavored for each ability score; if you got it, it's -1 on any roll with that stat); or a low ability score or 8 of something making your mod -1 to begin with.
Most of the math bonuses are generated from hold, like in the Defend move; acting on answers from something like Discern Realities; or using a special move/item that grants a bonus as part of its effect.
That's a lot of words! Apologies if I've got mistakes in there; it's like 4 AM here.
Quote from: _nthdegree;6743681. There is no "you whiff; next player up please" option for an attack roll. Ammo is mostly abstracted, so you don't have that steady trickle loss of arrows as a thing. Ammo mostly goes down when you fire extra shots, or when I take it away via a GM move (crushed by ogres, etc.) So, "hang back, shoot a bunch of shots, they all miss, nuts-to-you; who's next in initiative" isn't something DW is going to produce.
Any tabletop RPG (except for a few designed to emulate certain types of action-adventure movies) that does not allow a character to simply miss in combat (without any other effect like hitting the wrong target) is not going to be a game I would play without house ruling the basic miss back in. The same for ammo, having a weapon that never runs out of ammo (unless it a magic or super-high tech power that lets it create its own ammo with no effort on the user's part) only belongs in the above mentioned action-adventures movies. House rules would be needed here as well.
Quote from: RandallS;674374Any tabletop RPG (except for a few designed to emulate certain types of action-adventure movies) that does not allow a character to simply miss in combat (without any other effect like hitting the wrong target) is not going to be a game I would play without house ruling the basic miss back in. The same for ammo, having a weapon that never runs out of ammo (unless it a magic or super-high tech power that lets it create its own ammo with no effort on the user's part) only belongs in the above mentioned action-adventures movies. House rules would be needed here as well.
Dungeon World does feel a bit to me like an D&D action-adventure movie game in spirit, at least at my table. But I can see how the issues could chafe if the desire is higher verisimilitude; ammo especially.
It's all about where you calibrate your level of interestingness. If the simple miss with no other downside is interesting to you, bring it in. If tracking the arrows bolt-by-bolt is interesting, it can be there.
The workaround for a "pure miss" would need to address that the "pure miss" option effectively gives the GM less "turns", though, if this were a more traditional game. The players' misses are a fusion of their turn and mine as GM: they whiff, I exploit said whiffage. The 7-9 "soft success" band is much the same: you succeed, but at the cost of me having a turn to use against you. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's kinda close. Depending on how successful the players are or aren't, I get more or less "turns" to complicate their lives. Which feels right, in my experience.
And believe me, DW bows are far from never running out of ammo, or feeling like magic. As GM I could burn through one whole bundle of arrows with every move I get, smashing this, burning that, oops you dropped some on that Defy Danger, and probably toast a player's entire stash in three passes. And that's before factoring in when players elect to spend that ammo on a 7-9 to avoid a damage penalty. For me, the DW ammo system actually makes tracking ammo feel tense & exciting, as opposed to balancing a ledger. But to each their own!
Quote from: CRKrueger;674286If the GM asked him what are you going to do, the player says "Shoot the orc" and the GM then asks what if you can't get a clear shot, what are you going to do, then the player rolls, it at least is in the proper chronology between player and character. You don't put roll before choice and then get to claim roll actually comes after choice and then get to say there's no time-warping, or you're IC, because if the player's chronology is different then the character's chronology then you're by definition OOC either using some kind of literary device like a flashback, or engaging the mechanics and making choices from a player's point of view, and then deciding what that means for the character after the fact, ie bog standard Conflict Resolution - determine winner of Conflict by player, narrate result for character.
You've got a really good point here: the trigger for Volley does not line up with it's effects. That's the biggest mistake I've found in the book yet. Thanks!
Looking at how to fix it, I have a simple idea and a complex idea. I liked the complex idea, but when I talked it over with some other people last night (who agreed this is something that isn't quite right as-is) it wasn't really a hit. The simple version is to change the trigger to "when you try to find a clear shot." That's a very small change but it has some huge implications to how the game plays. Thus far I think those changes are all good, actually, but they're not trivial. I may try printing a few modified move sheets at GenCon and see how they play.
Then again, this may not be that big of a change, because we're effectively already playing this way. As my example above shows, we've been really only triggering off the first part of the current trigger (the aim bit).
Quote from: Zachary The First;674360Hey sage, just wanted to pop in here for a minute and say thanks for taking time to respond to some of these items. I actually played in a session of DW, and unfortunately, it wasn't our thing. We found the lack of initiative problematic, and some of the design choices and assumptions (choosing a name off a predefined list, only having one of each class in a group) seemed a bit off to us. So I don't think it's my thing, but thanks for explaining a bit about where you're at w/ design and such.
Thanks for giving it a fair shot! It's not a game for everyone. It does a thing we like well, but we also like a lot of other things it doesn't do well. For some people, the thing we like in DW won't be what they like, and that's not only fine, it's awesome. If every game looked like DW gaming would be boring. I love DW to death, but even I don't want to play it all the time. Some people will want to play it none of the time, and that's cool.
Quote from: _nthdegree;674368Heyo. This is just a lowly player checking in. As far as my experience with the games at hand, I've run DW as a GM & player, played ApocalypseWorld a few times, and helped a buddy playtest an ApocalypseWorld hack of his own. I'm fairly young (27) and didn't pay much attention to how the indie game sausages gets made until the Forge was already in Archive-only mode.
I'm the same age, and became "Swine" about the same time. I kind of wonder if most gamers these days just don't give a damn about this? I mean, we're a sample size of two, but...
Quote from: Skywalker;674349It is worth noting that the Volley 7-9 result is unusual, even in DW. This is why CRKrueger focuses on it as his example, as it's the most obvious example of a rule arguably requiring a player perspective. However, it would be contrived to use this specific rule to make statement about DW's approach more broadly IMO
Actually, it was used for two reasons.
First it's one of two fundamental moves for combat, melee and ranged.
Second, as it is not as well designed as say Hack and Slash is, the "storytelling about the character as opposed to doing things as the character" aspect of the game is not as transparent as in other Moves.
Ideally in DW you could play it with or without the narrative layer and the game would be as open as say TSR D&D is with regards to playstyles. However, if you really want me to go elsewhere besides Volley, we can talk about Bonds, Experience, Leveling Up, etc... if you'd like different OOC options to speak of.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674286No, that's not what's happening. The player rolls first, then is presented with a choice of strategy, his intent is to hit and do damage, if he rolls 10+, he succeeds with this strategy, if he does not succeed, then he is presented with a choice of additional strategies.
You're correct. Kim screwed this up.
QuoteIf the GM asked him what are you going to do, the player says "Shoot the orc" and the GM then asks what if you can't get a clear shot, what are you going to do, then the player rolls, it at least is in the proper chronology between player and character.
This is incorrect. Let's look at all three possible resolution sequences for Volley in DW and compare the player and character chronologies.
SCENARIO A - ROLLING 10+Player's perspective:
(1) Player decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy.
(2) They roll 10+, indicating they have a clear shot.
(3) They take and make the shot.
This is identical to the resolution in a traditional RPG, so we shouldn't be surprised to discover that the character's perspective is directly associated:
(1) Character decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy
(2) They discover they have a clear shot
(3) They take and make the shot
SCENARIO B - ROLLING 7-9Player's perspective:
(1) Player decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy.
(2) They roll 7-9 and discover they don't have a clear shot.
(3) They decide whether to move, take an obstructed shot (which might end up missing due to damage reduction), or take several shots to compensate (which will mean they run out ammunition sooner).
(4) They execute whatever strategy they chose.
Character's decision:
(1) Character decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy.
(2) Fuck! He just moved behind that giant mushroom!
(3) They decide how to respond to the giant mushroom (moving, taking the obstructed shot, or firing multiple times).
(4) They execute whichever strategy they chose.
You'll notice that, once again, we're seeing a perfect association between player decisions and character decisions.
SCENARIO C - ROLLING 6 or LOWERPlayer's decision:
Player's perspective:
(1) Player decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy.
(2) They roll 6 or lower and they miss.
Character's perspective:
(1) Character decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy.
(2) They miss.
You keep insisting there's some sort of time warp going on here, but there's not. It's no different than a player saying they want to walk to the other side of the room and then the GM rolling to see if they trigger the trap in the middle of the room. If the trap triggers, that doesn't mean that there's a "time warp" where the character teleports backwards from the far side of the room and suddenly has to deal with a trap that wasn't there before: It means that the character wants to cross the room and then the dice told you you that they ran into a complication before they could complete that action.
Quote from: CRKrueger;674482Ideally in DW you could play it with or without the narrative layer and the game would be as open as say TSR D&D is with regards to playstyles.
What do you mean by "narrative layer" here? The game's "fiction first" mentality, i.e., you describe your proposed method of action & goal and you either do it, or use a defined move, and then narrate how the result manifests?
Quote from: CRKrueger;674482However, if you really want me to go elsewhere besides Volley, we can talk about Bonds, Experience, Leveling Up, etc... if you'd like different OOC options to speak of.
Wouldn't methods of Experience and Leveling Up be out of character in pretty much all versions of D&D?
What about Bonds makes it seem OOC to you? The assigning of them at the start of a one-shot/campaign? Because this too seems like one of the standard "player can determine their pre-campaign background freely/with GM approval" character creation assumptions for a D&D-esque experience.
These aren't hostile questions, BTW, just always curious to understand the different perspectives of others.
Quote from: _nthdegree;674548Wouldn't methods of Experience and Leveling Up be out of character in pretty much all versions of D&D?
That would be my comment as well.
Quote from: RandallS;674374Any tabletop RPG (except for a few designed to emulate certain types of action-adventure movies) that does not allow a character to simply miss in combat (without any other effect like hitting the wrong target) is not going to be a game I would play without house ruling the basic miss back in. The same for ammo, having a weapon that never runs out of ammo (unless it a magic or super-high tech power that lets it create its own ammo with no effort on the user's part) only belongs in the above mentioned action-adventures movies. House rules would be needed here as well.
You can just miss in DW if the GM chooses that. DW does encourage the GM to think about what's next to provide a dynamic flow in combat, but a "just miss" is a possibility.
Equally, ammo is lost, though it is true that each individual arrow is not accounted for.
Quote from: sage;674456I'm the same age, and became "Swine" about the same time. I kind of wonder if most gamers these days just don't give a damn about this? I mean, we're a sample size of two, but...
Well, to keep the anecdotal train rolling, of my two other game-design-inclined friends, one is:
A 29 year old dude, former user of the Forge in its winding-down phase, though almost entirely to solicit playtesters, feedback etc. for a couple games. Avid consumer of podcasts that traffic in theory, Ron Edwards' essays, actual plays & the like. Played a little bit of Star Wars d6, but really got into the hobby when the release of D&D 4e brought a pretty reliable group of folk together that have kept on gaming through dozens of systems in the last 4 or 5 years. Loves gamist games the most, like maybe of anyone ever. The power-gamer/trouble-maker part of him runs deep.
The other:
30, life-long RPG devotee, lots of classic D&D editions beloved in his childhood, crazy well-read with the library to prove it, a lot of traditional RPG play experience. Had a grudge against Ron Edwards & GNS for a while, deeming the conflict mostly pointless & being centered on which way was "best", but came around to seeing the labels as at least valuable for description & discussion. Talks a lot about designing games, seems to enjoy crafting intricate house-rules & sub-games for established games best. Doesn't fit neatly into a GNS type, as his first draw seems always to be the setting & fiction of an RPG (to the point where we had to figure out how to ask "but what is the game about?" in like 9 ways before it made sense what we meant). Probably the biggest into simulationist games of us all.
And for myself, I really love all sorts of games, but narrativist is where lots of my favorites lie; FATE, Polaris, etc.
There you go! A classic id/ego/superego, Kirk/Spock/McCoy-esque three-way split.
Quote from: sage;674456I'm the same age, and became "Swine" about the same time. I kind of wonder if most gamers these days just don't give a damn about this? I mean, we're a sample size of two, but…
This is the best place to learn about the Forge these days, as it insists on keeping the corpse alive so as to have someone to fight and scare the children with :)
Quote(1) Character decides to take aim and shoot at an enemy.
(2) They miss.
You're missing one key aspect to this. On a 6-, the character misses, and the GM gets to use one of his moves. Some examples:
QuoteUse a monster, danger, or location move (the rotten wood floor gives way beneath your feet)
Reveal an unwelcome truth (a goblin has sneaked behind you and is about to attack)
Show signs of an approaching threat (a storm is gathering near your ship)
Deal damage (the troll lumbers toward you and attacks)
Use up their resources (you lose one ammunition)
Turn their move back on them (as you shoot, the wizard causes your arrow to burst into flame)
Separate them (too late you've realized you've moved way off to the side and isolated yourself)
Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities (Ranger, your arrow misses, but you catch your opponent off-guard and your wolf moves in to bite him)
Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment (as a halfling, you're too small to get a clear shot with all these tall soldiers fighting)
Offer an opportunity, with or without cost (the troll turns his back to you; you could get a clear shot at his head if you got into position past those orcs)
Put someone in a spot (the giant lunges at you and grips you in one fist)
Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask (the arrow sails past your target and hits a bystander, who lies on the floor bleeding; what do you do?)
Bold are examples of my own making.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;674708Use up their resources (you lose one ammunition)
Which is also the miss result that RandallS was looking for.
Quote from: Skywalker;674719Which is also the miss result that RandallS was looking for.
No, its not really the miss result I'm looking for. I want a miss that is just a miss. Misses should not require any "moves" by the GM. To me, that is just silly. When someone misses, I want to go on to the next PC, NPC, or monster for their action. 99 times out of 100, that's all that is going to happen (other than using up ammo, if the attack expended any). If something else needs to happen, I can handle it without trying to figure out which "move" from a list best describes what happens.
Side 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. Even if the players just say what they want to do, the GM is supposed to assign it a move (at least as I read the rules) and then resolve it, instead of just resolving it and not caring what move the action falls under. In the grand scheme of things, of course, this probably doesn't mean anything beyond the obvious, Dungeon World is not the game for me.
Quote from: RandallS;674729No, its not really the miss result I'm looking for. I want a miss that is just a miss. Misses should not require any "moves" by the GM. To me, that is just silly. When someone misses, I want to go on to the next PC, NPC, or monster for their action. 99 times out of 100, that's all that is going to happen (other than using up ammo, if the attack expended any). If something else needs to happen, I can handle it without trying to figure out which "move" from a list best describes what happens.
As a GM, you can choose miss and lose 1 ammo, 99 times out of 100. Obviously the game then moves on.
The use of the word "Move" is just unfamiliar nonclementure for a person to do something now (in this case the GM). As such, you are adding weight from the use of a term where there is none. What is actually going on is the same as before and IME in running DW this aspect of play pretty much becomes invisible very quickly.
That is unless you are advocating that the GM shouldn't be able to do stuff and adjudicate the rules at all, which just seems odd to me as that is a fundamental aspect of RPGing.
Quote from: Skywalker;674735As a GM, you can choose miss and lose 1 ammo, 99 times out of 100. Obviously the game then moves on.
The use of the word "Move" is just unfamiliar nonclementure for a person to do something now (in this case the GM). As such, you are adding weight from the use of a term where there is none. What is actually going on is the same as before and IME in running DW this aspect of play pretty much becomes invisible very quickly.
That is unless you are advocating that the GM shouldn't be able to do stuff and adjudicate the rules at all, which just seems odd to me as that is a fundamental aspect of RPGing.
From a volley 7-9, 1 ammo represents several arrows though.
What struck me as actually being missing in the standard volley scenario is that on a 7-9, you can shoot several arrows and you're guaranteed a hit (rather than a reroll, say).
If the GM can get rid of ammo on a failed roll of 6-, that could represent a player shooting several arrows and missing - but that would mean the low roll is giving the GM control of the character to declare they make several shots. The player might not have picked 'cross off ammo' if they'd rolled a 7 rather than a 6.
(freedom for the GM to adjudicate is fine, controlling the PC - not so much).
Quote from: RandallS;674729No, its not really the miss result I'm looking for. I want a miss that is just a miss. Misses should not require any "moves" by the GM. To me, that is just silly. When someone misses, I want to go on to the next PC, NPC, or monster for their action. 99 times out of 100, that's all that is going to happen (other than using up ammo, if the attack expended any). If something else needs to happen, I can handle it without trying to figure out which "move" from a list best describes what happens.
Emphasis added. In the case of NPC or monster, this
is what happens as a result of a miss. One of the possible suggested GM moves (which are meant to be inspirational, not limiting) is to deal damage, or use a monster move. That's a monster turn. The primary way the GM's monsters get turns is through misses and sometimes from the middle "soft success" 7-9 band.
If you move from a player's miss narrating no more than the whiff, end their turn, switch to a monster for its turn and have it attack or do something fitting (use a long paralyzing tongue, breathe fire, disappear, etc.), congrats. That's how DW's RAW for a miss
work, or at least one possible way, since your GM moves are very broad. Monster moves are equally so, here's some: Burrow through the ground. Bite off a limb. Raise an undead servant. Hide behind stronger allies. Harass from the sky.
A monster usually has between 1-3 of these such moves, in addition to some other stats, that when it uses them, simply happen. Or if you're feeling generous, maybe you allow the target PC a Defy Danger roll (saving throw) first.
One last thing. You can totally have something very close to the whiff, nothing happens, move on result in RAW, or at least, Text-As-Written -- in at least two ways I can think of.
If you use the "show signs of impending doom" move, AKA the DW version of the "announce off-screen badness" MC move from ApocalypseWorld, you can do something as simple as, "After you whiff, the ground rumbles. Somewhere below you, the pit lord has decided this fight will need his attention. Moving along the the next player..."
Another way is a hack that building on the advice from the hacks chapter, which I've seen applied to many *World games that want to be more judicious with their Bad Stuff, save it up to drop in a big pile. I believe Tremulus, the Lovecraftian hack, does this: Note somehow that you as GM have acquired a point of GM hold, if you want to keep on moving with no bad stuff as consequences
right now. Feel free to keep piling up hold, and then unleash it all in a shower of GM moves upon the hapless PCs at the moment of your choosing.
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. Even if the players just say what they want to do, the GM is supposed to assign it a move (at least as I read the rules) and then resolve it, instead of just resolving it and not caring what move the action falls under. In the grand scheme of things, of course, this probably doesn't mean anything beyond the obvious, Dungeon World is not the game for me.
What Skywalker said is true. For players, many of the "basic moves" are the standard actions of any D&D game. You wanna hit a guy, here's how (in d20, the basic move just takes the form of BAB + mods + roll vs. defense). You wanna avoid something dangerous, here's how (d20 basic moves: make a saving throw, or appropriate skill check vs. target number). And any action is thought of as a "move", even if there's nothing written for the situation. These moves are like 65% of the game, you do the move, it happens like you described. No roll, no assigned move by the GM other than to say yes, it happens (or just let the players' narration of their own actions continue until you interrupt "I do this next..." with a metaphorical "No you fucking don't!").
"Action" and "Move" are in fact almost synonymous. Some actions simply happen to be codified, as in almost any RPG. The written moves (codified actions) are the ones with the fictional triggers, that in RAW
must be used if the trigger fits. Obviously, this must is up to you to use or not use, as the hacks chapter suggests. In most d20 combats, if the fighter wants to hit the saber-ratting orc looking him dead in the eye, he's not suddenly going to say "I just hit him, it happens" or "I roll Use Rope and then I deal my sword damage."
As a GM, I have not even looked at the GM move sheet for the last 4 sessions we've played (because I literally gave it away to someone from a group I demo'ed for on Free RPG Day). In part, I know my options pretty well. In other part, the GM moves come close to describing at least 90% of everything you'd ever want to do as a GM. Here's the big winners, paraphrased:
Break their shit
Hit them with a monster
The monster does worse than just hit them
Hit them with something else
Split the party
It backfires
Make them wilt as they realize something horrible
More guys show up
Something bad happens to a PC right now
The PCs realize something bad is going to happen soon
Put someone between a rock & a hard place
They really should be thought of that broadly & flexibility. It's a source for inspiration, and to suggest the kind of Bad Things that are the hallmark over everything going wrong for players in Dungeon World.
Now, after all that:
it's totally fine if you hate Dungeon World, people should hate it. Others should love it. Others should have no strong feelings either way. Monolithic adoration would be boring. I just don't like to see people version of Dungeon World that I think doesn't exist.
Quote from: _nthdegree;674751In the case of NPC or monster, this is what happens as a result of a miss.
Yep. FWIW its understandable for people to react to doing something that they have done for 30 years when its given a different name. But that reaction shouldn't confuse the change with something more significant.
Also, if it was just a change of name and nothing else (like the many thousand of GM variant we have), then that would be a ground for criticism too. But I think there is some potential value in the nomenclature changes made in DW for some RPGers.
Also, so it doesn't sound that I am being disingenuous, I am not saying here that DW doesn't have new approaches to old ideas in it. The underlying discussion of this thread is ultimately whether these changes are such that DW is no longer an RPG, and I think "GM Moves" are clearly not such changes.
QuoteNo, its not really the miss result I'm looking for. I want a miss that is just a miss. Misses should not require any "moves" by the GM. To me, that is just silly. When someone misses, I want to go on to the next PC, NPC, or monster for their action. 99 times out of 100, that's all that is going to happen (other than using up ammo, if the attack expended any).
You're not "getting" Dungeon World. The mantra of the game is "fiction first." If the fiction dictates that the archer misses, expends an arrow, and then it's the wizard's turn, then that's what happens. If, on the other hand, the fiction dictates that something else happens, then something else happens.
Example with a simple miss:
QuoteMark: I hang back from the rest of the party and fire at the monster. *rolls* Darn, I rolled a 3.
GM: The arrow sails overhead of the troll. Bob, what are you doing?
Bob: I'm going to charge up to the troll and attack!
Example with the GM using a more elaborate move:
QuoteMark: I am going to try and fire a shot while the troll is distracted with Bob. *rolls* Darn, I rolled a 3.
GM: Uh-oh, your shot doesn't quite land where you want it to. In the confusion of the melee, it misses the troll and hits Bob! Roll damage.
Mark: Six! Sorry, Bob!
GM: Bob, you feel a sudden pain in your back as an arrow thunks into it. What do you do?
Bob: I'm going to try and power through the pain and take off the troll's head!
Is it really that different than D&D?
Sidenote: I just talked myself into wanting to play some Dungeon World. I'm hoping there will be some tables at Gencon.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;674755Is it really that different than D&D?
Yes. Right here:
GM: Uh-oh, your shot doesn't quite land where you want it to. In the confusion of the melee, it misses the troll and hits Bob! Roll damage.
Do you remember typing that in, and how it was more than your original example of "you miss, who's next"? Randall wants a simple "you miss, who's next?". Assuming "fiction first" is really the goal, then the DM would be remiss in skipping their 'turn', according to the description of the rules.
Going strictly by the DMs Guide (pg 63),
all missiles have a chance to hit just about anyone in melee, not just the misses. Still different than D&D. I will grant that most groups probably didn't adhere to that, but that doesn't change the fact that only misses have complications is different than (A)D&D.
Quote from: _nthdegree;674751One last thing. You can totally have something very close to the whiff, nothing happens, move on result in RAW, or at least, Text-As-Written -- in at least two ways I can think of.
If you use the "show signs of impending doom" move, AKA the DW version of the "announce off-screen badness" MC move from ApocalypseWorld, you can do something as simple as, "After you whiff, the ground rumbles. Somewhere below you, the pit lord has decided this fight will need his attention. Moving along the the next player..."
Let's see. I have nine players in my game, each has a PC (we'll ignore their hirelings, except to say they are more likely to miss than the PCs). As we just started playtesting Microlite81, the PCs are 1st and 2nd level. They miss maybe 40% of the time. Low level monsters miss a lot too. If I had to come up with some "off-screen badness" for each miss, not only would I run out of ideas before I ran out of misses, but why would all these off-screen beings/forces/etc care enough about a group of low-level adventurers to do things like make the ground rumble when they miss? In I the campaign were set my Arn setting (which is an extremely high entropy setting: powerful entities who actively interfere in the world), that level of caring from off-screen badasses would be unbelievable.
QuoteAnother way is a hack that building on the advice from the hacks chapter, which I've seen applied to many *World games that want to be more judicious with their Bad Stuff, save it up to drop in a big pile.
Every time a character misses, bad stuff builds up against them for the future? Again, why? How does missing a sword attack cause this in the world? But ignoring that, I have no interesting in tracking the number of misses for future use? I try to minimize record-keeping.
I just don't see why "missing" seems to require something game event other than the character missing.
Squire Ralph and The Knife are fighting an orc. Or more correctly the orc is attacking. The Knife and Ralph is attacking the orc from the rear. Ralph misses. The orc doesn't even know he's there so the orc is not going to do anything. Ralph just missed. The orc and The Knife will attack each other in their turn. Dungeon World seems to make it hard for things like this to happen. They happen a lot in my games.
What Skywalker said is true. For players, many of the "basic moves" are the standard actions of any D&D game. You wanna hit a guy, here's how (in d20, the basic move just takes the form of BAB + mods + roll vs. defense). You wanna avoid something dangerous, here's how (d20 basic moves: make a saving throw, or appropriate skill check vs. target number). And any action is thought of as a "move", even if there's nothing written for the situation. These moves are like 65% of the game, you do the move, it happens like you described. No roll, no assigned move by the GM other than to say yes, it happens (or just let the players' narration of their own actions continue until you interrupt "I do this next..." with a metaphorical "No you fucking don't!").
Quote"Action" and "Move" are in fact almost synonymous.
The difference I see is that characters acting in my games don't come with the baggage (forced GM actions) that DW Moves seem to have.
QuoteBreak their shit
Hit them with a monster
The monster does worse than just hit them
Hit them with something else
Split the party
It backfires
Make them wilt as they realize something horrible
More guys show up
Something bad happens to a PC right now
The PCs realize something bad is going to happen soon
Put someone between a rock & a hard place
Most of these would seldom make sense in my games as the result of most things players have their characters attempt to do.
QuoteNow, after all that: it's totally fine if you hate Dungeon World, people should hate it. Others should love it. Others should have no strong feelings either way. Monolithic adoration would be boring. I just don't like to see people version of Dungeon World that I think doesn't exist.
I don't hate Dungeon World. It's never done anything to me. The rule book did not even bite me when I skimmed through it. :) I just don't get the game or why is it so popular with its fans. I can't see any reason I'd want to run a campaign under the Dungeon World system. As I've said before, that doesn't mean Dungeon World is a bad game, just that it is a game that is not for me.
Quote from: RandallS;674775Most of these would seldom make sense in my games as the result of most things players have their characters attempt to do.
IME 9 times out of 10 as a DW GM I do whatever instinctively makes sense on a miss, just like I would running D&D. Given the breadth of GM Moves, I have never come across a situation where what I did didn't fall into them.
As said, the nomenclature differs by calling what the GM does GM Moves, but you aren't supposed to look down the list, consider each one and then make a selection each time like you would in a board game or computer game.
For the remaining 1 time out of 10 is where I want to do something more and I can't think of anything. A quick scan over the list usually inspires what I do. IMO this is one value that DW adds by using the concept of GM Moves, mostly for new GMs but also for an old hat like me.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;674755You're not "getting" Dungeon World. The mantra of the game is "fiction first." If the fiction dictates that the archer misses, expends an arrow, and then it's the wizard's turn, then that's what happens. If, on the other hand, the fiction dictates that something else happens, then something else happens.
This is where one of the places where the game and I disconnect. The "fiction" doesn't dictate anything in my games. I run sandbox campaigns, whatever happens becomes the fiction. But even that statement is stretching things because My RPG Sessions Do Not Generate Fiction (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2013/06/my-rpg-sessions-do-not-generate-fiction.html) -- at least not for any normal definition of "fiction."
This "Fiction First" attitude is one of the reasons I personally classify Dungeon World as a Narrative RPG.
Quote from: StormBringer;674761Yes. Right here:
GM: Uh-oh, your shot doesn't quite land where you want it to. In the confusion of the melee, it misses the troll and hits Bob! Roll damage.
Do you remember typing that in, and how it was more than your original example of "you miss, who's next"? Randall wants a simple "you miss, who's next?".
He can do a "you miss, who's next" if he really wants to. There's nothing preventing him from doing that. Dungeon World merely offers a handful of tools for GMs to do more than that if they so desire.
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. I run sandbox campaigns, whatever happens becomes the fiction. But even that statement is stretching things because My RPG Sessions Do Not Generate Fiction (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2013/06/my-rpg-sessions-do-not-generate-fiction.html) -- at least not for any normal definition of "fiction."
This "Fiction First" attitude is one of the reasons I personally classify Dungeon World as a Narrative RPG.
You're missing the concept. "Fiction first" means taking into consideration what is happening in the game while the character is acting. In the example I gave, the fiction is that Bob is in melee combat with the monster and thus there is a chance that Mark shoots him. If Bob is not in melee range of the monster or Mark has a clear shot, there is not a chance for Mark's arrow to hit Bob.
In a traditional game, the GM might say, "Mark, you take a -5 penalty to your attack roll because you're shooting into melee, roll vs. Armor Class. If you miss by five or less, the attack will hit Bob." (My DM did this in a Star Wars game I was playing.)
In Dungeon World, the GM says, "Bob is locked in melee combat with the troll. Mark, if you shoot, there's a chance you're going to hit him. Roll 2d6 + Dex to see if you can get a clear shot."
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. I run sandbox campaigns, whatever happens becomes the fiction. But even that statement is stretching things because My RPG Sessions Do Not Generate Fiction (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2013/06/my-rpg-sessions-do-not-generate-fiction.html) -- at least not for any normal definition of "fiction."
This "Fiction First" attitude is one of the reasons I personally classify Dungeon World as a Narrative RPG.
This will be the last of my back-&-forthy missives for you, since I think we've probably come as close to any common understanding of the game as we can, and because I think this last topic is important.
"Fiction first" does NOT mean "
consider the needs of the fictional tale we are collaboratively generating first," as the phrase might suggest, and as might be true of a narrative game or story-game.
The "fiction" mentioned is the
in-game fiction of the world, the fiction that it is real, that it exists, that it has rules and obeys them. "The fiction" is shorthand for "the artificial construct in which we place the actions of this game" to get all fancy about it.
"Fiction first" means to have the specified rules of that shared artificial construct in the forefront of our minds for every proposed action (god, even I hate writing it out this way like a half-assed college paper).
I.E., suppose in the fiction we are sharing, it is expected and allowable that a man armed with a dagger can kill another man who is fast asleep with little or no difficulty, even if the dagger-wielding man is relatively unskilled. Thus, if we propose this action, instead of looking to a codified move like Hack & Slash (which doesn't really fit the trigger anyway) we use "fiction first," and since it fits our rules the action occurs successfully. (As "successful" as slitting a man's throat in the dead of night can be considered, anyway.) Whether or not the action does fit the fiction of the world is a decision largely in the hands of the GM, as you might expect, though players could certainly chip in with established rules & assumptions that might have been absentmindedly forgotten.
Each group's fiction will be a little different--or a lot different, as between the shared fiction of a game you would likely run, and the shared fiction of the kind of game I would. So your expectations for DW aren't wrong
per se; the fiction you are consulting for your own "fiction first" imperative just differs greatly I think from that the game's creators had in mind themselves.
"Fiction first" is kind of the game's rule zero. It's an assumption present in many, probably even most RPGs by default; this is just how DW expresses it. It's really nothing groundbreaking or pretentious at all.
The very use of the term, however (as opposed to "game world" or "in character") has a kind of alienating effect. One hears "fiction" and it instantly creates a barrier to Immersion, you are viewing your character not as a living virtual person, but as a piece of fiction. It seems to me that its very purpose is to remind you that "its not real" or something like that, to intentionally alienating you from immersing in your character or in the setting.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;674804The very use of the term, however (as opposed to "game world" or "in character") has a kind of alienating effect. One hears "fiction" and it instantly creates a barrier to Immersion, you are viewing your character not as a living virtual person, but as a piece of fiction. It seems to me that its very purpose is to remind you that "its not real" or something like that, to intentionally alienating you from immersing in your character or in the setting.
RPGPundit
I get that. I just know for myself, I am reminded that my character is not real when I see his name written on a character sheet, or move a miniature pewter version of him around on the table, or cast dice, or any of a hundred other things. I'm fine with this, but I can certainly appreciate other people's tolerance being lower.
I must admit though, "living virtual person" does strike me as a bit of a funny oxymoron. (Only just.)
And let's not ignore either the "game" in game world, or the "character" of in-character. Both words with fairly strong ties to unreal-ness, play-acting, etc. I think "fiction" just chafes more because it's unfamiliar.
In DW, a "just a miss" would be the GM move "use up their resources" (time is a resource, often a very important one). Its a pretty soft move, I tend to be meaner on a miss.
"game world" gets a little complex in a game called Dungeon World. Which is a good argument for calling the game something else, but the way we developed the game (pitting everything out there as we went) meant there wasn't much turning back. We also have an entire section on "the world," which is GM tools for realm management basically.
"in character" is a tough one to write for, since it can also mean "talking as your character." "Moves trigger based on what's happening in-character" doesn't seem as clear to me.
Not claiming "fiction" is perfect, just that we didn't find anything better. It's"purpose" isn't to remind anyone of anything. Its to refer, in one word, to the place all the characters are in which doesn't actually exist.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;674781He can do a "you miss, who's next" if he really wants to. There's nothing preventing him from doing that. Dungeon World merely offers a handful of tools for GMs to do more than that if they so desire.
TSR era AD&D offered more than a handful.
Quote from: Archangel Fascist;674708Bold are examples of my own making.
Yeah, I see that as something that in typical rpgs might be written up as a list of suggestions or a random chart for "fumbles" ( easily the most common house rule I've encountered, meaning every role playing group across five states and 3 provinces I've talked to or played with interpret a roll of 1 or 01 as 'especially bad'. Unless a rule called for rolling low, 1 generally meant 'the GM isn't going to pull any punches, Gawd I hope he's not feeling "creative" '.).
In other words I can't see those as the constraints on GM's ability to GM any more than I would the random encounters charts in the DMG. I really don't think its a story game, it just approached writing an RPG with the (I can only presume) intention of completely discarding the hobby's long-standing approach to explaining games in a a mixture of lingo and jargon established by gygax, and pretty much universally adopted except for those rpgs that tried to be novels.
And Nobilis. But we don't talk about Nobilis. 'Hollyhock Gods' indeed B to M. The first, IMO, story game that identified as an RPG, Baron M_, lampooned this rather amusingly.
Instead, Dw ( possibly Aw? I've never read it), created its own jargon and assumed a new audience (or tried to emphasize or portray certain ideas obscured in the classic approach?). But I think a) that's perfectly valid, because b) all the new terms are easily identifiable with their concepts in plain English and standard board game language.
All that said, I maintain that the amount of guidance for gms codified is what I would call 'GM training wheels' and you could effectively present the game with every rule for the GM ommited, and just a chapter ( or more if you've had bad karma or you like crunch) of general advice. And yes, I acknowledge that the unfortunate attempted indoctrination of roleplayers by the industry to only understanding RAW-play and to disbelieve that gms can be trusted could lead to a 4venger or two dozen throwing a for during a game that the GM 'isn't playing by the ruuuuuuules!'. But I don't think that's DWs fault, anymore than I blame d&d because it attracted a gaggle of neckbearders that the public currently identifies our hobby by.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674804The very use of the term, however (as opposed to "game world" or "in character") has a kind of alienating effect. One hears "fiction" and it instantly creates a barrier to Immersion, you are viewing your character not as a living virtual person, but as a piece of fiction. It seems to me that its very purpose is to remind you that "its not real" or something like that, to intentionally alienating you from immersing in your character or in the setting.
RPGPundit
Yeah, again, I think that's only because your viewing it through the lens of classic RPG terminology. I think that if you replaced the words like "fiction" or "moves" with "game world/setting/icc" and "rolls/system/chart", you'd find the underlying concepts pretty much no different than the rules of any classic RPG.
Quote from: TristramEvans;674822In other words I can't see those as the constraints on GM's ability to GM any more than I would the random encounters charts in the DMG.
All that said, I maintain that the amount of guidance for gms codified is what I would call 'GM training wheels' and you could effectively present the game with every rule for the GM ommited, and just a chapter ( or more if you've had bad karma or you like crunch) of general advice. And yes, I acknowledge that the unfortunate attempted indoctrination of roleplayers by the industry to only understanding RAW-play and to disbelieve that gms can be trusted could lead to a 4venger or two dozen throwing a for during a game that the GM 'isn't playing by the ruuuuuuules!'. But I don't think that's DWs fault, anymore than I blame d&d because it attracted a gaggle of neckbearders that the public currently identifies our hobby by.
Codified or structured is exactly how I see the DW or AW GM's section. The rules given for the GM to follow, as has been said before, are mostly just codification of good GM practice or things GMs already do. For the new or inexperienced GM they're very handy; I hadn't run a game in decades before I ran a few sessions of my AW hack for my local group. Having some structure for what you say when everyone is looking at you is a big confidence boost. Likewise, the Fronts mechanic is very useful GM tool. If you've done your Fronts right, any time you want to advance your plot ("Always say what your prep demands", AW PDF pp109, yes you can do prep and have a plot in mind) you just pull off the next portent and make it happen in the fiction. If you're already a good GM, most or all of this will already be second nature.
What I find interesting about the * World games is that the player has less structure, but the GM has more than in traditional games. If you look at a PC for a lot of popular systems, they feature lists of special abilities, spells, powers, feats, and actions that they can do on any given round. Too often players will look at their power list, pick one, and that's their turn. DW removes that crutch. Even if you want to use a specific power that is represented by a class move, you still have to say how you're doing it instead of just saying "I use $POWER, I roll damage..." [sic] The player is encouraged by the rule not to just invoke a move but to find a creative application of their abilities. As a player in this sort of system this frees me up to be more involved in play than if I were just going through the tactical minutia of many other systems.
Conversely, the GM has a list of moves to choose from. Even if you never say "I'll Portent Danger, storm clouds start crowding the sky, and they're an ugly color..." there is a list to choose from. In addition to the standard GM moves there are also dungeon moves and monster moves to use. Fronts are another handy source of things to say that fit the GM moves. Oddly, all this structure makes me feel freer as a DM. I have so many things I could do that picking the one that stands out as fitting the already established fiction best is easy.
Freeing players by removing the menu of choices while freeing GMs by providing one is weird but in a good way. That it works is a strong sign that the GM rules in AW and DW are just guides towards good GMing and not an abhorrent restriction on the power of the GM. I'll go so far as to say that they're one of the few sets of rules that I think could teach a new GM the ropes from just the core book.
Can I mention again I'm having fun with Dungeon World?
You can say it isn't an RPG, it has no feelings to hurt :D
Quote from: TristramEvans;674822Instead, Dw ( possibly Aw? I've never read it), created its own jargon and assumed a new audience (or tried to emphasize or portray certain ideas obscured in the classic approach?). But I think a) that's perfectly valid, because b) all the new terms are easily identifiable with their concepts in plain English and standard board game language.
I can say that from my own perspective & play experience, ApocalypseWorld sits much closer to feeling like a sandbox storygame. Dunno if I'd say it fits entirely in that circle, but there's overlap at least.
Part of the labeling issue I have is that I tend to think of "storygame" as just a more precise subset of "RPG", not something wholly separate. The label I'd put on a lot of the canonical RPGs on this forum is just "traditional RPG". But anyway: I haven't run AW, only played, but the GM/MC advice it gives seems much more directed toward the interests/agenda of a storygame. DW moves back along the spectrum a ways toward the trad end of things; a lot of its language is much more familiar & universal than AW, which is full of quirks meant to evoke/suggest its setting.
Quote from: TristramEvans;674822All that said, I maintain that the amount of guidance for gms codified is what I would call 'GM training wheels' and you could effectively present the game with every rule for the GM ommited, and just a chapter ( or more if you've had bad karma or you like crunch) of general advice. And yes, I acknowledge that the unfortunate attempted indoctrination of roleplayers by the industry to only understanding RAW-play and to disbelieve that gms can be trusted could lead to a 4venger or two dozen throwing a for during a game that the GM 'isn't playing by the ruuuuuuules!'. But I don't think that's DWs fault, anymore than I blame d&d because it attracted a gaggle of neckbearders that the public currently identifies our hobby by.
So when it comes to RAW play, I know I push myself to stick inside the game rules as GM in order to see what happens when I do. Sometimes, the rules are guiding me toward a different experience than I assumed they would, that I might have missed otherwise. Sometimes they're just rules. But even then I like them sometimes, because as someone said early in this thread (Silva I think), this just creates a little subgame I get to play while GMing.
I'm a big fan of Magic: the Gathering & like reading about how that game gets made. One of the things the lead creative designer is always saying about game design is that "Restrictions breed creativity," and I've found it to be really true in RPGs, too. It might annoy others, but I
like the challenge of seeing what will fit between the bars on a window, testing how far the bars will bend, twisting them into new shapes, finding out how big of a thing I can squeeze through before shit starts breaking, etc. I mean, I could totally just tear out the bars completely and move my hands around in total freedom, but where's the sport in that? :D
Speaking of sport, there's something I feel I'm missing when I go through some of the earlier posts in this thread. When I read quotes like this...
Quote from: Brad;667407It's only a game in the loosest sense, considering the goal is not to overcome obstacles, but only to have obstacles out in front of the characters and see what happens. Failure is just as valuable as success if it brings about something interesting. Again, that's a fine goal for a novel, but pretty awful for a game.
Quote from: Brad;667551To use a more concrete example, when watching an improv group, there's a story that unfolds, typically with input from the audience. The goal is to create an interesting scenario for entertainment purposes. There might even be a moderator. It is not an RPG, though, nor is it a game. It is improv theatre. Dungeon World is exactly like an improv group because the goal is not to overcome obstacles, but to arrive at a story, shared and produced mutually.
(Emphasis mine) ...these arguments sounds strange to me. What it sounds like to me is something that's still a game, but with differing Agendas for each role. Instead of improv, let's use the example of football in the NFL. Because we can also say of football, "when watching a game, there's a story that unfolds." But as Brad himself mentioned:
Quote from: Brad;667613The story is what you talk about when the game is over; when you're playing the actual game, there is no story.
(which, interestingly, matches almost exactly to something I heard the big bad
persona non grata himself Luke Crane say about "storytelling" in RPGs in a panel at PAX)
This isn't the case to an audience, though. Football is pretty explicitly a game, yet to an unbiased spectator, the aphorism that "
failure is just as valuable as success if it brings about something interesting" is totally true. Unless you're rooting for one team in particular, your Agenda in the audience is probably to be entertained. Which is more interesting? An offsides foul that stops the action before it starts, or the QB fumbling a live ball that leads to a turnover? A dropped pass that's ruled incomplete, or the QB throwing a pick to the fastest player on the other team? And to tie this back to RPGs for a moment, there are lots of situations where a GM is like an "unbiased spectator" as well, making this equally true for that role,
sometimes.
Now to the players on the field, obviously the "interestingness" is totally besides the point for the purposes of their primary Agenda, and the offsides penalties and dropped passes have pretty close to equal gameplay value as the turnovers & interceptions, even if they're not as flashy. Because the Player Agenda is totally different: win. Win above all, overcome all obstacles, and stop the other side from gaining any ground.
But if you changed football so that offsides penalties didn't exist, and dropped balls were always live, it'd still be a game, right? People could & would argue over if it was still football, but it's definitely still a game. A rules body, like the NFL, decides it wants to create a "more interesting" game. It has an Agenda to produce a worthwhile game, but one to create entertaining events, too. For the sake of this analogy, we'll call this game Football Lite. The game's rules have been artificially changed to (hopefully) increase interesting outcomes, but it's still a game.
And when you consider a referee who moves from football to Football Lite, their Referee Agenda hasn't changed much if at all between games. The biggest piece is still "Enforce the rules & make rulings/judgment calls on the field". The rules of Football Lite itself just preclude some game situations from ever needing addressing.
The GM of an RPG tends to manage a lot of Agendas at once, so the analogy is muddier here, I'll admit. (Plus, in a some RPGs the GM is often both Referee and Audience, which can go for the Players too. Or the GM is Referee in-game, players are Players, and everyone is Audience after.) Now, to get back to DW, "Create a more interesting game" is an implicit Agenda due to the GM principles & whatnot ("Fill the characters' life with adventure" fits the bill more explicitly), but the game rules themselves for triggering GM moves on a player's miss, etc., are what are really doing most of the heavy lifting.
As for the argument that "
Dungeon World is exactly like an improv group because the goal is not to overcome obstacles, but to arrive at a story, shared and produced mutually," I think that's mixing up some Agendas & roles. I can say from watching it happen, that the Agenda of the players as Players is absolutely to overcome obstacles, and they fight tooth & nail to do it.
It's true that in the players' other capacity as Audience, they can appreciate the drama of the Big Fail that they just created & that the GM picked up & smashed them with. But the same is true for football players, too: their goal is still to overcome those obstacles, but it doesn't mean they can't appreciate an impressive turn of events for what it is as a kind of Audience member, too. Either in-game or after it. Neither of these situations stops football (or Football Lite, or Dungeon World) from being a game.
Quote from: _nthdegree;674797"Fiction first" does NOT mean "consider the needs of the fictional tale we are collaboratively generating first," as the phrase might suggest, and as might be true of a narrative game or story-game.
The "fiction" mentioned is the in-game fiction of the world, the fiction that it is real, that it exists, that it has rules and obeys them. "The fiction" is shorthand for "the artificial construct in which we place the actions of this game" to get all fancy about it.
There's already a commonly used term for this (strange to me) use of the term "fiction": "the setting": the artificial world created by the GM (or by some purchased setting pack in combination with the GM) where the events of the campaign take place. "Setting" has been used for this in tabletop RPGs for many years -- since the late 1970s. Unlike "the fiction," "the setting" isn't likely to make people hearing the term think one is talking about "the story". I do not see any reason to replace a clear term like "the setting" with one that you seem to admit is likely to confuse people about what the term is actually referring to.
Quote"Fiction first" means to have the specified rules of that shared artificial construct in the forefront of our minds for every proposed action (god, even I hate writing it out this way like a half-assed college paper).
I've never used the phrase "setting first" and I don't think I ever would as I think "not being fun for GM/players" trumps setting. However, since the days when "corporate Gary" was writing those silly columns in The Dragon magazine where he tried to convince people that using anything but "official TSR" rules and products would ruin your game, I've said "Setting trumps Rules" -- shorthand for "the needs of the GM's campaign setting always override any rules requirements/issues if there is a conflict." So, in my world if something is not fun for the players and the GM in the setting or in the rules, change the setting and/or the rules as needed -- and if some in the setting violates the rules of the game, change the rules to match the setting.
However, there is seldom a need for anyone but the GM to think about how the setting works in my games. The players only need to think about playing their character "right" in the setting -- keeping the setting "right" is the GM's worry. OOC concerns like setting and rules are kept to the GM as much as possible.
Quote from: RandallS;675003There's already a commonly used term for this (strange to me) use of the term "fiction": "the setting": the artificial world created by the GM (or by some purchased setting pack in combination with the GM) where the events of the campaign take place. "Setting" has been used for this in tabletop RPGs for many years -- since the late 1970s. Unlike "the fiction," "the setting" isn't likely to make people hearing the term think one is talking about "the story". I do not see any reason to replace a clear term like "the setting" with one that you seem to admit is likely to confuse people about what the term is actually referring to.
Yeah, but there are many settings. If I started talking about "what's happening in the setting" that wouldn't be much like current usage, I think. There's the setting, which is this place that the GM came up with (or learned about), but at least the way I'm used to talking about it "the setting" is a place, not the current state of an entire world.
We didn't just pull something out of the air, we thought about this, and felt like "fiction" was our best option. Dragons are often referred to as "fictional beasts." A fiction is something that doesn't actually exist, and that's what we're talking about.
Quote from: RandallS;675003I've said "Setting trumps Rules" -- shorthand for "the needs of the GM's campaign setting always override any rules requirements/issues if there is a conflict." So, in my world if something is not fun for the players and the GM in the setting or in the rules, change the setting and/or the rules as needed -- and if some in the setting violates the rules of the game, change the rules to match the setting.
However, there is seldom a need for anyone but the GM to think about how the setting works in my games. The players only need to think about playing their character "right" in the setting -- keeping the setting "right" is the GM's worry. OOC concerns like setting and rules are kept to the GM as much as possible.
This is usually my approach too. And it's why there are various DW-based setting/hacks that change rules to fit a specific setting, and lots of people doing that day to day at their tables, and an entire section of the book on it. That section is aimed squarely at the GM.
Ok. I've now read Dungeon World, and am ready to come to a final ruling.
There's no question whatsoever that DW is up to its arse in Storygaming pretentiousness: it borrows their jargon in many places and their style of creating jargon in others. The verbiage it uses is undoubtedly inspired by the Forge, not regular RPGs. But how pretentious you sound doesn't affect whether or not you're an RPG, or else Vampire and Nobilis wouldn't be RPGs, but they are. So what matters is how those terms are applied.
The only thing that matters is whether this setting falls within or outside the Landmarks of regular RPG play. I think it is very tricky, because its very clearly an intentional attempt to really really straddle the margin, as part of a storygames effort to infiltrate RPGs. What I've been trying to work out in all this time is whether its a Storygame that puts on a veneer of RPG-like play, or whether its an RPG that is loaded to the gills with Storygame concepts.
And I find myself forced to conclude that its probably the latter.
A) The text of the book certainly talks about creating a world, and that this world has things in it, and that the world itself (those parts that are known and defined of it) are not supposed to be malleable except "in game" (or I guess they'd say "in the fiction"). It is, in other words, an attempt at emulative. Whether it does it badly or not is another story.
B) It certainly has players playing their characters, and while some of the nature of the text works against Immersion, other parts seem to try to encourage players to immerse in their characters. Certainly, using concepts and details from Storygames means the game is working against its own goal here, you could even call it "incoherent" in that sense if one wished to hoist them with their own petard, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that Immersion is a) possible and b) not just possible as a reading against-the-grain of the game (because of course immersion would be theoretically possible in any number of storygames, or monopoly, or hungry hungry hippos, but in all of these would be counter to the stated nature of the game).
C) It has a GM. And while some of the mechanics do try to limit the game more than you'd see in OSR D&D, the way the game is written (plus the statements the author has made on this very forum) confirm that the GM is not in fact a hostage to either the players or the rules. He can change the rules or add new ones. He could, in fact, make a new "GM Move" called "Rocks fall, everyone dies".
D) There are a couple of areas that hint at players getting to decide things about the world inasmuch as the DM wants them to. There is also the infamous "choose whether you fired extra shots after you roll" thing. But I find myself forced to agree that while some of these details come very very close to playing with the boundaries, it is still within the limits (albeit the absolute limits) of the landmarks. There's no egregious case in the game where a player can choose to radically alter the reality of the setting suspending all emulation, and with no justification.
E) The final and big question, the one that matters above all else: does this game put Story over Emulation/Immersion (what some term versimilitude)? When push comes to shove, will the sense of being a real world with real people win out over trying to make the best story, or will trying to make the best story win out over creating a virtual world?
And to my surprise, the answer clearly seems to be that for all of its talk of "the Fiction" and of storytelling and that the game is about "seeing what happens", etc. etc., there is in fact nothing in Dungeon World that seems to let the group put the story above and beyond the emulation. You can absolutely be shot in the head by a goblin at 1st level and die, without being part of any bigger story.
Now, you might argue that this is in fact the "story" that DW is trying to tell, that its a Storygame about a group of people playing Dungeons and Dragons, and not actually a real game of "dungeons and dragons". But if the abstraction has become so flawless that in fact you can collapse it completely and with the same rules you are really just playing (a really weird version of) "dungeons and dragons", then does it matter from our point of view?
In a way, its like the Storygamers have become too clever for their own good. Its like if you send in a deep-cover agent to infiltrate the enemy, and you want him to be perfect so you brainwash him so intensely he completely forgets who he used to be, only the result is he ends up really working for the other side!
It also creates the irony that Storygames have, with Dungeon World, come full circle: the Forge/Storygames movement came out of a furious rejection of White Wolf's games that were full of pretentious jargon about "storytelling" and delusions of sophistication but didn't actually mechanically back that up; they then spent an entire decade creating games no one wanted to play that tried to really be about "creating story", only to end up with Dungeon World, probably the most popular game to have come out of the whole Forge/Storygame movement, be a game that's full of pretentious jargon about telling a story that doesn't actually back it up.
Dungeon World isn't a storygame; its like if the Soviet Union declared the "ultimate victory of communism" by calling elections and opening a Moscow Disneyland. Its the Boris Yeltsin to Ron Edwards' Lenin.
And here I was, Cold Warrior that I am, thinking that this game was some kind of trick, when its really about the utter collapse of Storygaming as a threat. In fact, if anything, Dungeon World proves their failure.
It addresses the question "What does a Storygame have to do to be a mainstream success?" with the answer "it has to become an RPG".
Not that there won't still be Storygaming Swine making games that are still really Storygames, sure; or trying to infiltrate storygame concepts and mechanics into regular RPGs by trick or by force. That will probably go on for a long time. But I think DW proves to me that as a separate movement, Storygames is spent. Their biggest fanatics, the ones who despise RPGs to the point where no surrender is possible, will have moved on; many of them have already into making Pseudo-Activism their new method. If being the soviets (complete with the red star of the "Indie Press Revolution") and seeking to remake the hobby through "Theory" didn't work for them, they'll try to become the Taliban, or the Tipper Gore Moral Defense League, or whatever you want to call it, and seek to remake the hobby that way.
So in any case, I find myself to my own amusement obliged to say sure, Dungeon World is in fact an RPG. Post about it in the main forum of theRPGsite if you like. Why on earth would I want to suppress the capstone on the grave of Forge Theory, the testament of the Storygame Swine selling themselves out and crossing back over the Landmarks into the Regular RPG hobby after realizing there's no market for the 'revolution' they were pushing?
RPGPundit
Color me pleasantly surprised.
Quote from: theRPGPunditSo in any case, I find myself to my own amusement obliged to say sure, Dungeon World is in fact an RPG.
(http://vegardskrede.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wait-what.jpg)
Or perhaps it means something even more revolutionary! That there isn't a hard, bright line between tabletop game types, and the passion of this whole classification war is misplaced.
Quote from: _nthdegree;675081Or perhaps it means something even more revolutionary! That there isn't a hard, bright line between tabletop game types, and the passion of this whole classification war is misplaced.
Heresy!
Quote from: Noclue;675109Heresy!
If you ever talk to a biologist who knows anything about taxonomy, you'll find out how often whole species get bumped around, relabeled and regrouped on the tree of life. And this, when there's actual DNA to use for identifying connections and heredity of traits!
Suddenly you feel that trying to classify & label with laser precision all the varieties of something as nebulous as RPGs is probably a fool's errand.
Obviously Pundit was bribed and/or replaced with False Pundit. CRKruger, as I think you are the most knowledgeable in these matters, I propose we flee on my barge to Constanti- TBP and excommunicate Pundit then swear fealty to Mods of RPG.net, IT IS THE ONLY OPTION.
Quote from: _nthdegree;675081Or perhaps it means something even more revolutionary! That there isn't a hard, bright line between tabletop game types, and the passion of this whole classification war is misplaced.
Nope. What's fascinating about DW is precisely about how in its zeal to "break through" to regular RPG gamers it essentially abandons all the things that do in fact make Storygames fundamentally different from Regular RPGs.
They're pretty much listed point by point in my post.
RPGPundit
Move the thread and retitle it "Dungeon World is an RPG" :D
I'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.
The entire idea that we're Boris Yeltsin seems to assume that we inherited some agenda which we're betraying. We're just people, making a game we like, because we like to play it. That describes every other game designer I've talked to.
You're welcome to call that game whatever you like, though it sounds like we'd both call it an RPG.
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.
The entire idea that we're Boris Yeltsin seems to assume that we inherited some agenda which we're betraying. We're just people, making a game we like, because we like to play it. That describes every other game designer I've talked to.
You're welcome to call that game whatever you like, though it sounds like we'd both call it an RPG.
Well, whether intentional or unintentional (as you seem to have tried claiming in this thread) you utilize the language, jargon, and overall style of the Forge/Storygames movement. That movement most definitely does have (or had) an agenda; and on multiple occasions they expressed it openly.
And one way or the other, your game does in essence break that agenda; whether you meant to do so or not. From the point of view of Ron Edwards' GNS essays, your game is absolutely a "betrayal". That it is by far the most successful game to have ever come out of those origins (you know, the long list of people you thank in the credits, who belong to that particular school of RPG design?) and that it accomplishes this by doing the exact opposite of what GNS theory wanted is a far bigger slap in the face to the Forge movement than anything I could have come up with in my wildest dreams. That's true whether you meant it to be that way or not.
And yes, I would definitely call it an RPG. An RPG that uses the language and styling of Storygaming but does not on any of the central points actually use the methods and theories when push comes to shove.
RPGPundit
Quote from: sage;675018Yeah, but there are many settings. If I started talking about "what's happening in the setting" that wouldn't be much like current usage, I think.
There's (usually) only one setting per campaign so I doubt there would be much confusion at the table.
QuoteThere's the setting, which is this place that the GM came up with (or learned about), but at least the way I'm used to talking about it "the setting" is a place, not the current state of an entire world.
Perhaps the same way were refer to the current state of the real world. "Current events" or or something similar.
However, I can see your point here, but I think "the Fiction" in a really bad choice because most people seeing the term are likely to think you are referring to "the story". Fiction is usually "story" in common usage. I think some form with "Fictional" would have been much clearer in meaning to the average person reading about the game or skimming the rules. Perhaps the seldom used term "fictionality" (noun form of "fictional"), although I suppose that would send people to a dictionary.
Quote from: RandallS;675151There's (usually) only one setting per campaign so I doubt there would be much confusion at the table.
True, but as a rulebook, DW needs to at least try to speak to the players of all instances of the game, everywhere, for all time, yes? Which is where confusion about "which setting" might enter.
Quote from: _nthdegree;675176True, but as a rulebook, DW needs to at least try to speak to the players of all instances of the game, everywhere, for all time, yes? Which is where confusion about "which setting" might enter.
Seriously? But no confusion about the word "fiction" could possibly arise, right?
Let's cut the bullshit here, the reason the word "fiction" was used was because its something much more favorable to the storygames lexicon. There's no other special purpose, its definitely not to try to avoid the "confusion" of using ordinary terms that RPGs have used for the last 40 years.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;675179Seriously? But no confusion about the word "fiction" could possibly arise, right?
Haha, I think you may have me dead to rights there, sir.
Quote from: RPGPundit;675179the reason the word "fiction" was used was because its something much more favorable to the storygames lexicon. There's no other special purpose, its definitely not to try to avoid the "confusion" of using ordinary terms that RPGs have used for the last 40 years.
RPGPundit
"All the IC table talk from setting development to player actions" is obviously too cumbersome a phrase for the way DW and AW use "the fiction". Then what's a good term to cover everything from what the last player said as their action to setting details ? As a shorthand for "all the fictional stuff in the game" fiction is a useful, if loaded, word.
In DW the GM is admonished to be consistent with the fiction, and that means everything that's been said in the game. Don't contradict a setting detail that came out in the last session, that prophecy might have ramifications behind the scenes. Don't ignore what the Druid changed into, someone might be allergic. Remember where the Thief said they were hiding. Can the guards see that the Ranger has her bow out from all the way down there ? A Battlemind in Serpent's Coil form might impress those snake god cultists and become their new prophet.
So in DW it's a useful shorthand for an essential abstraction. How about "narrative" as a less loaded synonym ? If that doesn't have too many storygaming connotations it would be a good way to phrase an imperative for the GM to keep the narrative consistent. I don't think many would disagree that consistency is a prerequisite for good GMing. The trick is to find an acceptable phrase for what the GM should be consistent with.
Quote from: mllaneza;675212"All the IC table talk from setting development to player actions" is obviously too cumbersome a phrase for the way DW and AW use "the fiction". Then what's a good term to cover everything from what the last player said as their action to setting details ? As a shorthand for "all the fictional stuff in the game" fiction is a useful, if loaded, word.
In DW the GM is admonished to be consistent with the fiction, and that means everything that's been said in the game. Don't contradict a setting detail that came out in the last session, that prophecy might have ramifications behind the scenes. Don't ignore what the Druid changed into, someone might be allergic. Remember where the Thief said they were hiding. Can the guards see that the Ranger has her bow out from all the way down there ? A Battlemind in Serpent's Coil form might impress those snake god cultists and become their new prophet.
So in DW it's a useful shorthand for an essential abstraction. How about "narrative" as a less loaded synonym ? If that doesn't have too many storygaming connotations it would be a good way to phrase an imperative for the GM to keep the narrative consistent. I don't think many would disagree that consistency is a prerequisite for good GMing. The trick is to find an acceptable phrase for what the GM should be consistent with.
Again, this is quite a game of pretend-necessity you guys are playing. Why has this never been a problem for, oh, say, EVERY RPG ever made until now?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;675216pretend-necessity
RPGPundit
I'm not sure what that means. Does it sound like I'm insisting that there be one term for setting+player actions ? I
am assuming that there should be one in terms of DW, but should is a funny word. Are you saying that we'd be better off without the concept of "the fiction" under any name ?
Quote from: mllaneza;675226I'm not sure what that means. Does it sound like I'm insisting that there be one term for setting+player actions ? I am assuming that there should be one in terms of DW, but should is a funny word. Are you saying that we'd be better off without the concept of "the fiction" under any name ?
You're pretending as though it was absolutely vital to invent a term like "the fiction" when in fact no RPG prior to DW has needed to use that term in order to make itself understood.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;675230You're pretending as though it was absolutely vital to invent a term like "the fiction" when in fact no RPG prior to DW has needed to use that term in order to make itself understood.
RPGPundit
Ah ! True, no RPG before DW though to lump the character's realm of what they do, in with the GM's realm of "the rest of the world". Fiction is awfully closely related to story, so I understand that it stands out as a bad thing.
I'm sincerely looking for a inoffensive term for "everything that's been established in the game, from the setting details to what the characters have done." If there's a problem with lumping the two together, I'd like to hear more about what that is. I'm honestly interested, both as a gamer with an interest in theory as well as a prospective RPG publisher.
edit: addendum. Here's this sentence from the Moves chapter (pp 16 in the PDF), "“Fictional” means that the action and effect come from the world of the characters we’re describing." and this, "We talk about the fiction—the world of the characters and the things that happen around them." from pp 15. I suppose this edit is me wondering about what's so bad about the phrase "fiction" when it's defined like this. It's just the setting and what's already happened.
Quote from: mllaneza;675233Ah ! True, no RPG before DW though to lump the character's realm of what they do, in with the GM's realm of "the rest of the world". Fiction is awfully closely related to story, so I understand that it stands out as a bad thing.
I'm sincerely looking for a inoffensive term for "everything that's been established in the game, from the setting details to what the characters have done."
Campaign
Setting
World
Any one of those could have been substituted directly for "the fiction" without the slightest problem.
Quote from: RPGPundit;675235Campaign
Setting
World
Any one of those could have been substituted directly for "the fiction" without the slightest problem.
Tell you what, I'll look very, very closely at using "world" instead of fiction in my hopefully-to-be-published rules if you'll read "world" for "fiction" in existing games.
What I'm aiming for is a game where the player characters are the protagonists and have that level of agency, but nobody is immune to sudden death if that's what the world demands. How's that in a game that's trying to be Indiana Jones crossed with the A Team, in space ?
Quote from: RPGPundit;675235Campaign
Setting
World
.
There is also milieu. But i haven't seen anyone except Gygax use it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;675240There is also milieu. But i haven't seen anyone except Gygax use it.
Hah! Yes, that occurred to me as well. But, frankly, "the fiction" is only controversial if you are reluctant to admit that in-game details are make-believe, for some reason. Which is crazy.
Or a category error.
Quote from: Bill White;675242Hah! Yes, that occurred to me as well. But, frankly, "the fiction" is only controversial if you are reluctant to admit that in-game details are make-believe, for some reason. Which is crazy.
It's also a problem if you do not want "in-game details"confused with "a story".
Quote from: Bill White;675242Hah! Yes, that occurred to me as well. But, frankly, "the fiction" is only controversial if you are reluctant to admit that in-game details are make-believe, for some reason. Which is crazy.
Or a category error.
I think the issue with the fiction, particularly now, is it is a term specifically associated with storygames. I honestly do not care at all about whether they are labelled rpgs or not (and I hold no hostility toward that side of the community), but nine ties out of ten, when i see posters talking about "the fiction" in an rpg, they are speaking from a viewpoint that includes stuff like sceneframing and narrative mechanics. There is nothing wrong with that style of play, but if it isn't your cup of tea, you will likely avoid the term becuse its associated with it. Even though some folks object to using words like "story" or "plot" to describe ingame events, those ones strike me as less specific to the storygame scene and seem more widely use. If someone talks about the plot or story in their most recent game, I won't necessarily assume anything about their style of play because those terms are used by a lot of different people and have been around in the hobby for a long time. But when if someone talks about "the fiction" I do tend to assume they are coming from a particular playstyle. Just like when someone uses the word "narrative".
I see the benefit of the term. It may not be essential, but it is a useful thing to have a label for. Words like campaign, setting, world, and millieu all imply something static and pre-planned rather than what just happened two minutes ago or what is happening right now. I'm surprised that people think of fiction as a storygame term though. Story, plot, or narrative I could understand carries this kind of baggage, but fiction? Surely no-one thinks that the events of their play are not fictional? Still, it's probably not a good idea to get into another long tangent about dictionary definitions etc.
Me and friends never had a problem with Fiction. Even before hearing about storygames or forge or whatever.
Ive heard somewhere the term "shared imagined space" but despite agreeing its more accurate, its too technical (and pretentious) for my tastes
Quote from: soviet;675269I see the benefit of the term. It may not be essential, but it is a useful thing to have a label for. Words like campaign, setting, world, and millieu all imply something static and pre-planned rather than what just happened two minutes ago or what is happening right now. I'm surprised that people think of fiction as a storygame term though. Story, plot, or narrative I could understand carries this kind of baggage, but fiction? Surely no-one thinks that the events of their play are not fictional? Still, it's probably not a good idea to get into another long tangent about dictionary definitions etc.
I do not have a problem with people using 'fiction' if they find it helpful. My point is because every time I encounter it in an online discussion, it is coming from people who are into narrative mechanics. When people use the word I usually assume that is probably their play style. Same with narrative. If someone says story or plot, those are used by lots of different people so I do not assume a link to storygames. So if you do talk about 'the fiction' in an rpg I think it is likely folks are more likely to assume you have things like scene framing and creating a story as the goal of play. It is entirely possible I am wrong but I strongly associàte 'the fiction' and 'narrative' with storygames.
Quote from: soviet;675269Words like campaign, setting, world, and millieu all imply something static and pre-planned rather than what just happened two minutes ago or what is happening right now.
Yeah, that's the issue I see for those terms too. Fiction has its own baggage, though, that doesn't trouble me but it's there. I've been mulling it, trying to imagine a word that covers both "the rules & details of our world" and "what we've been doing so far/just now". Something like "precedent first"? Could cover the established world details part, and the recent history part... "Agreements first"? To be encompassing of all the things the players/GM agree on: the world, events, & "fictional positioning", etc. It's a tricky one.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;675240There is also milieu. But i haven't seen anyone except Gygax use it.
The D&D Rules Cyclopedia uses the word Story. As in "the DM is the main narrator of the story in which the other players' characters will participate.
Quote from: Noclue;675308The D&D Rules Cyclopedia uses the word Story. As in "the DM is the main narrator of the story in which the other players' characters will participate.
The Rules Cyclopedia is based on Mentzer's D&D, not Gygax's.
In this particular instance, the distinction does matter.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;675279I do not have a problem with people using 'fiction' if they find it helpful. My point is because every time I encounter it in an online discussion, it is coming from people who are into narrative mechanics.
Exactly. 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).
RPGPundit
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;675349QuoteI'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.
Quote from: One Horse Town;675512He's already said so in this thread, mate. There's zero point in moving this one over given the baggage it contains.
My apologies. I missed that.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;675477It would be interesting to see what Pundit makes of Apocalypse World.
Why you think that ? Its practically the same game.
Quote from: silva;675542Why you think that ? Its practically the same game.
While true in many respects, even I have to say that ApocalypseWorld moves much further along the spectrum toward storygames. Does it cross a line? Dunno, don't care really. But the intent of AW definitely includes elements of being a sandbox storygame, even if it still managed to meet the Pundit's definition of "RPG".
Consider the "sex" moves in the playbooks & their effects, which can have an even bigger cause/effect split than similar things that pop up in DW. Or the way that players & the MC mark the 2 stats of another player they want to see highlighted, and thus are the only ones that produce XP for them. Those things feel more like storygame material to me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;674347But that does make a huge difference. In D&D, for example, a PC archer can (maybe) choose to fire more than one shot but at a penalty, or get a bonus if they put themselves in a more visible position or advance, but they have to choose that BEFORE rolling. And that means that they have to decide to take a risk that sometimes would be an unnecessary risk; maybe staying behind cover firing just one arrow would have worked, but they don't get to play "takeback" and do it over that way. Likewise, if they play it safe and miss, they don't get to play "takeback" and choose the riskier move.
RPGPundit
I used the term "frozen moment" a couple of times earlier in the thread; Sage used it as well. It isn't a takeback, but rather a response to a complication once you've decided on a course of action. Abort, try to force it, or something else? It actually come out more easily in narration than on paper:
player: I'm going to swing across the ravine. rolls partial success.
gm: you realize once you start to swing that the rope is a little too short to make a clean landing; do you
a: jump for it, landing on the cliff face scrabbling for a grip,
b: take a second swing to build up more momentum to make the jump, but giving the bad guys a swing at you,
c: something else I haven't thought of?
player: I don't like the idea of falling or being shot at while trying to scramble up the cliff, and giving them a free shot is just as bad, so I'll tighten my grip on the rope, swing a high as I can, and turn around. I'll try and kick the bad guys on the return swing, then see what happens before I decide what to do next.
gm: okay, roll initiative.
What DW seems to do is loosely codify this type of GM and player creativity by providing some guidelines so that people to whom it doesn't come naturally can experience it in play.
Quote from: sage;675018Yeah, but there are many settings. If I started talking about "what's happening in the setting" that wouldn't be much like current usage, I think. There's the setting, which is this place that the GM came up with (or learned about), but at least the way I'm used to talking about it "the setting" is a place, not the current state of an entire world.
We didn't just pull something out of the air, we thought about this, and felt like "fiction" was our best option. Dragons are often referred to as "fictional beasts." A fiction is something that doesn't actually exist, and that's what we're talking about.
I think the word you want here is "situation", not "fiction". Given the context/rules/(meta)physics of the world/genre/setting, what would be an appropriate event to occur in this situation involving these participants?
Quote from: sage;675021This is usually my approach too. And it's why there are various DW-based setting/hacks that change rules to fit a specific setting, and lots of people doing that day to day at their tables, and an entire section of the book on it. That section is aimed squarely at the GM.
The word you want here is "genre". "Apocalypse" is a genre, Twilight 2000 is a setting. "Dungeon crawl" is a genre, Greyhawk is a setting.
Quote from: mllaneza;675233Ah ! True, no RPG before DW though to lump the character's realm of what they do, in with the GM's realm of "the rest of the world". Fiction is awfully closely related to story, so I understand that it stands out as a bad thing.
I'm sincerely looking for a inoffensive term for "everything that's been established in the game, from the setting details to what the characters have done." If there's a problem with lumping the two together, I'd like to hear more about what that is. I'm honestly interested, both as a gamer with an interest in theory as well as a prospective RPG publisher.
edit: addendum. Here's this sentence from the Moves chapter (pp 16 in the PDF), ""Fictional" means that the action and effect come from the world of the characters we're describing." and this, "We talk about the fiction—the world of the characters and the things that happen around them." from pp 15. I suppose this edit is me wondering about what's so bad about the phrase "fiction" when it's defined like this. It's just the setting and what's already happened.
Situation seems the appropriate word to me.
I do think something is missing with the resolution system, since a pure miss doesn't exist by default; it's as if every miss is a critical failure/fumble. Three classes of results is simple, but I personally prefer more. I like Yes, And; Yes; Yes, But; No, But; No; No, And. *W has Yes (and sometimes Yes, And AND But) on 10+; Yes But and No, But collapsed into 7-9; and No, And for 6-. No pure critical success (Yes, And), no simple failure (No).
Quote from: apparition13;675692I do think something is missing with the resolution system, since a pure miss doesn't exist by default; it's as if every miss is a critical failure/fumble. Three classes of results is simple, but I personally prefer more. I like Yes, And; Yes; Yes, But; No, But; No; No, And. *W has Yes (and sometimes Yes, And AND But) on 10+; Yes But and No, But collapsed into 7-9; and No, And for 6-. No pure critical success (Yes, And), no simple failure (No).
The only thing I'd disagree with is where I added the emphasis. There are a lot of level-up bonuses different classes have that add rules to an existing move so that you do the thing you were trying, AND create a new really potent possible effect, on a 12+ result. Essentially, you have to level up into critical hits.
Quote from: Apparition13I do think something is missing with the resolution system, since a pure miss doesn't exist by default; it's as if every miss is a critical failure/fumble.
This is a heritage of Apocalypse World and is made on purpose/by design. Don't know Vincent whole intentions behind the mechanic, but the game tends to get more tense/dramatic as a result. I suspect that's one of the intended effects.
If anyone wants to see the system in action, I have an open PBP thread up.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=675196
Quote from: apparition13;675692I used the term "frozen moment" a couple of times earlier in the thread; Sage used it as well. It isn't a takeback, but rather a response to a complication once you've decided on a course of action. Abort, try to force it, or something else? It actually come out more easily in narration than on paper:
player: I'm going to swing across the ravine. rolls partial success.
gm: you realize once you start to swing that the rope is a little too short to make a clean landing; do you
a: jump for it, landing on the cliff face scrabbling for a grip,
b: take a second swing to build up more momentum to make the jump, but giving the bad guys a swing at you,
c: something else I haven't thought of?
player: I don't like the idea of falling or being shot at while trying to scramble up the cliff, and giving them a free shot is just as bad, so I'll tighten my grip on the rope, swing a high as I can, and turn around. I'll try and kick the bad guys on the return swing, then see what happens before I decide what to do next.
gm: okay, roll initiative.
What DW seems to do is loosely codify this type of GM and player creativity by providing some guidelines so that people to whom it doesn't come naturally can experience it in play.
I think the word you want here is "situation", not "fiction". Given the context/rules/(meta)physics of the world/genre/setting, what would be an appropriate event to occur in this situation involving these participants?
The word you want here is "genre". "Apocalypse" is a genre, Twilight 2000 is a setting. "Dungeon crawl" is a genre, Greyhawk is a setting.
Situation seems the appropriate word to me.
I endorse all of this.
Quote from: apparition13;675692The word you want here is "genre". "Apocalypse" is a genre, Twilight 2000 is a setting. "Dungeon crawl" is a genre, Greyhawk is a setting.
I think "setting" is a fair use by Sage. There are some true Dungeon World settings out already, such as
Inverse World (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1552912590/inverse-world-a-dungeon-world-sourcebook), and the much looser material for the city of Dis in the Planarch Codex setting covered in
Dark Heart of the Dreamer (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/110283/Dark-Heart-of-the-Dreamer).
But yeah, I can totally see your larger point of
"situation first" as both meaning the right thing, and "looking right" on a casual glance. Good stuff, for folks getting stuck on it.
Quote from: apparition13;675692I do think something is missing with the resolution system, since a pure miss doesn't exist by default; it's as if every miss is a critical failure/fumble. Three classes of results is simple, but I personally prefer more. I like Yes, And; Yes; Yes, But; No, But; No; No, And. *W has Yes (and sometimes Yes, And AND But) on 10+; Yes But and No, But collapsed into 7-9; and No, And for 6-. No pure critical success (Yes, And), no simple failure (No).
Well, there's something else that's not in the resolution system that makes a simple miss undesirable. No initiative roll. In DW the GM goes when you roll a miss. That's the GM's time to do their thing. Picture a combat where everyone misses. If the GM just says miss and moves on, nothing will ever happen. The GM never gets to make a move (I'm oversimplifying a bit, the GM makes moves when there's a break in the action too, but generally soft moves). So missing is extremely safe now.
And I disagree that a miss is now a fumble.. The GM can make as hard a move as they want on a miss, so the severity of the consequence is fully under the GM's control. It could be revealing an unwelcome truth just as easily as it could be dealing damage.
My Dungeon World sourcebook, Pirate World, (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2041872302/pirate-world-the-explosive-dungeon-world-fate-sour) is justabout to finish its kickstarter! Only five days left to back. It has totally new rules for:
* Hirelings (make them unique, with damage and moves)
* Backgrounds (customise your character at level 1)
* 9 playbooks (Pirate, Brute, Fanatic, Reefmonger...)
* Luncheon World! Play a game of vanilla DW in 30 mins on your lunch break, or via forums much easier
Plus tons of stuff like ship rules, skull islands, giant crab kings.
Quote from: Captain Shoggoth;712128Reefmonger
Someone who specialises is trading reefs?
Quote from: jadrax;712134Someone who specialises is trading reefs?
Sounds like a wrecker... good name if so.
Necroing massive controversial thread to shill product. Pricelessly mercantile.
Quote from: TristramEvans;712139Necroing massive controversial thread to shill product. Pricelessly mercantile.
Since shilling is the order of the day, the latest Bundle of Holding offer (http://bundleofholding.com/index/current) includes the subject of this thread.
QuoteDungeon World: The complete 450-page Apocalypse Engine fantasy game that is transforming the field.
Shrug. It's a fun game, with the right group of people.
Of course, ANYTHING is a fun game with the right group of people. I've been an advocate of "system is least important" since about 1977.
Quote from: jadrax;712134Someone who specialises is trading reefs?
It's more of a summoner who specializes in conjuring Deep Ones.
Quote from: LePete;712468Since shilling is the order of the day, the latest Bundle of Holding offer (http://bundleofholding.com/index/current) includes the subject of this thread.
Transforming the field? :rotfl:
Moved in next door to the field, more like.
So. . . Dungeon World plays no different than any trad game, but it is "totally transforming the field" at the same time? That is very cool.
Shilling necrothreading??? Gotta respect the capitalism of it.
Quote from: Old Geezer;712476Of course, ANYTHING is a fun game with the right group of people.
But when swine have fun our hobby is ruined!!! Suxxors upon the land and woe upon all!!! Fie, fie upon Dungeon World...unless we did decide its a real RPG. It's so hard to follow these mega-threads. Somebody please remind me how many posters have to get banned before a RPG turns real. I know there's some formula to it.
BTW, I played Bruno Faidutti's Mascarade on Friday night (a very cool memory card game with bluffing) and it was amazing how fast people got into playing the roles. Its always interesting to see a non-RPG spark the players to engage in play-acting their "characters"
Quote from: Benoist;712558So. . . Dungeon World plays no different than any trad game, but it is "totally transforming the field" at the same time? That is very cool.
Not to mention if you give it to an old grognard, he plays like an old grognard.
ME: I draw my sword and stand ready.
REF: The bad guy runs at you waving a club.
ME: I hit him with my sword.
REF: Okay, DW says I should ask "what are you trying to accomplish."
ME: I just whacked somebody with a three foot long piece of sharp metal. What the fuck do you THINK I'm trying to accomplish?
Quote from: Old Geezer;712640Not to mention if you give it to an old grognard, he plays like an old grognard.
ME: I draw my sword and stand ready.
REF: The bad guy runs at you waving a club.
ME: I hit him with my sword.
REF: Okay, DW says I should ask "what are you trying to accomplish."
ME: I just whacked somebody with a three foot long piece of sharp metal. What the fuck do you THINK I'm trying to accomplish?
Coming from you, it could be a whole lot of things.
QuoteDungeon World: The complete 450-page Apocalypse Engine fantasy game that is transforming the field.
Good golly why do people do this, it's always a terrible idea. It was stupid when the FATE people released 200+ behemoths and it's stupid now. You are releasing a rules light system, being less than 20 pages long is your selling point. For the love of Madokami this isn't that complex people.
Quote from: gamerGoyf;712647Good golly why do people do this, it's always a terrible idea. It was stupid when the FATE people released 200+ behemoths and it's stupid now. You are releasing a rules light system, being less than 20 pages long is your selling point. For the love of Madokami this isn't that complex people.
450 pages does sound like a lot, so I just checked my PDF to get the breakdown.
The book itself is 110 pages, but the character sheets and rules without the explanations are 37 pages total, and completely free. (http://www.dungeon-world.com/character-sheets/) so long as your GM has an understanding of the rules everything you need to play is on those 37 pages.
Pages 1-83 are the introduction and explanation about the basic rules and how the game plays. It gives the rules, which are generally a 50-60 words long for the rule, and then an explanation of how to implement it, including examples of play so you can read the move in action. The book isn't just written as though you were new to powered by the apocalypse, but as though you were new to RPGs in general.
Pages 84-157 are descriptions and rules explanations for the 8 base classes. The only time I've needed to refer back to these is when answering questions about specific rules in a forum, usually when someone asks about Druid's shapeshifting. The information needed to play is listed on the 2 page character sheets and the 2 page basic moves sheets.
158-187 gives all the rules and explanations for the GM to start playing the first session.
188-221 is rules and explanations for campaign play and discussing making evolving, active dangers in your world.
222-324 is all monsters separated into categories of types of environments you find them. I've used monsters from the book a few times, but mostly I make up monsters on the spot.
325-345 is equipment and items, I've looked stuff up in this section a few times during a game.
346-363 is advanced Delving - advice on hacking the game and creating your own rules and content. I've referenced this a few times when writing my own stuff.
364-380 is Thanks section. Personal thanks and then all the backer names - instant NPC name list that I reference pretty regularly.
381-384 is advice on how to teach the game to others. I've read this through once or twice before starting a game with new players.
385-392 is advice on converting modules and adventures from other games to DW. I've read it, but never used it, though I assume this is something that others would find very useful.
393-399 is reference info for tags and creating knacks and drives for NPCs. I usually have separate sheets with this info on the for easy reference, very handy for a GM!
400-406 Index. The PDF ends at 410 pages, with some art and blank pages at the end.
A player doesn't really need to read any of the book since everything they need to play is on a double-sided sheet of basic rules, their double-sided character sheet which also contains the rules for their character, and a double sided sheet of spell if they're playing a wizard or cleric.
The GM needs to read at least to 187 and familiarize themselves with the monsters section before they start playing, and can read more later. That way they can answer any weird "What if X" questions the players might have about the rules. The spacing is quite generous and there's a fair bit of art, so the size of the book didn't feel too onerous as I read it, and I'm super lazy.
Interestingly, the writer of Dungeon Planet, Johnstone Metzger wanted a GM companion that didn't have a lot of the main book in it, and since the whole book is CC licensed, he cut the material up and released Truncheon World which is just the GM parts for easy reference so he didn't have to cart the while book around.
Transforming the field is a very hyperbolic statement, and I doubt the creators or even most of the fans would claim that it is. DW works the way I want to play and GM, I'll leave anything beyond that up to the discussion of others.
Quote from: baragei;712642Coming from you, it could be a whole lot of things.
Actually, at least as often one of us will simply say "I kill the fucker."
"Okay, that's Hack & Slash."
"Gee, ya think?"
Quote from: One Horse Town;712523Transforming the field? :rotfl:
Moved in next door to the field, more like.
Quote from: Benoist;712558So. . . Dungeon World plays no different than any trad game, but it is "totally transforming the field" at the same time? That is very cool.
Perhaps they mean it's transforming the field of hipster gaming...? :idunno:
Quote from: Adric;712859Transforming the field is a very hyperbolic statement, and I doubt the creators or even most of the fans would claim that it is. DW works the way I want to play and GM, I'll leave anything beyond that up to the discussion of others.
Yep, exactly. The Bundle maintainers wrote that bit; the only part of the Bundle page that we wrote was our bios (one sentence for each of us). I just got back from vacation and saw it. I'll drop the Bundle folks a line about it, since I don't particularly like claiming to have transformed anything, but the bundle is nearly done with.
It's kind of a weird metaphor anyway. If this is a field, like a thing that cows stand in, then we're probably just taking a shit in it, like all the other cows.
Quote from: sage_again;713061If this is a field, like a thing that cows stand in, then we're probably just taking a shit in it, like all the other cows.
* golf clap *