TheRPGSite

When designing a ttrpg you can either choose to ignore D&D or you can choose to consider it carefully in contrast to your design.  The former has always ended in failure, so ignore Dungeons & Dragons at your peril.



[video=youtube_share;mATJKvyYFs8]https://youtu.be/mATJKvyYFs8[/youtube]

I would characterize the situation with alternatives, especially fantasy RPG, is that they need a path to get a hobbyist from what they know about Dungeons & Dragons to playing the new system.

If it a different genre the stereotypical adventures and what the PCs are doing. If it is fantasy, making sure what D&D has is covered in your core book. It can be whatever but you need to define what magic is, give a list of foes and monsters, equipment and so on.

A couple of items.

First of all, I read by coincidence yesterday an old blogpost of the Pundit (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2017/02/classic-rant-why-do-commercial-rpgs.html) about why commercial RPGs succeed. His #1 item was Promotion. (Which incidentally makes me wonder if D&D 3.x didn't succeed in spite of "Fucking up". Which in turn would underscore the importance of Promotion even more.) With DSA/TDE in Germany we have evidence regarding the importance of being first, the network effect, having a large canon of source material and the value of promotion. It's combined effect is YUGE.

Secondly, the video glosses over the case of Apocalypse World which contradicts a lot of what you have been saying in this video. And, yes, Dungeon World clearly considered D&D later. Smart move if you do a fantasy RPG. But not every RPG considers D&D. If I design a cyberpunk RPG, I consider Shadowrun and Cyberpunk 2020 and GURPS Cyberpunk.

Thirdly, and this one is the most egregious problem, you're claiming that all RPGs are shaped in the structure of D&D. Well, that is not a very profound insight, given that D&D was the first RPG and these games are being classified as RPGs. But that is just an aside. The real reason why this is a "problematic statement" is that it overlooks the fact that D&D has not inspired the wider world of game design in the last 20+ years, other than popularizing Advantage/Disadvantage in the last edition. To the contrary, D&D has taken up inspiration from innovations that either had become industry standards before (skill subsystem, a unified system or edges & flaws) or has shoplifted other ideas from other games (backgrounds).

In short: for a long, long time now D&D has been way more inspired by the rest of the hobby rather than inspiring it.


I watch this video and then I look at the following nonsense from the Angry GM (https://theangrygm.com/your-ability-scores-suck/):

QuoteNow, I recognize just how brilliant, elegant, and revolutionary the D&D 3E was. And how it changed everything about how people play RPGs. It did. Make no mistake. The idea of systematic action adjudication – the idea of a universal set of rules that could be used to consistently and fairly determine the outcome of any action anyone could think of – that idea was BORN with the d20 system.

...and it raises the issue of confirmation bias by people who are clearly fans of Dungeon & Dragons and which probably have a way too D&D-centric view of the hobby, leading to the former.


That said, having designed a fantasy RPG recently I can confirm that considering D&D is part of the process. But not on the rule- or world-design level (in my case).... instead, you consider (and you're explaining this in the video, which redeems it in my eyes) if the game you're envisioning has a niche. As to whether the niche I have chosen is a viable niche, that's a different question, but I think what I am, working on is distinct enough to cater to people who seek a specific experience that they cannot get from other games, not in this form.

Back in the late Seventies, I did consider D&D and I decided that I loved the experience of roleplaying around a table with the various people who gamed in New Haven back in the day but I really didn't like (all of) the rules or I didn't like them enough to use them anymore in the games I was running. So, I wrote different rules. I still play D&D when my friend Simon feels like running a game (mix of OD&D and AD&D1) and I played in a 5e oneshot right before I left Connecticut, but I don't run it. And some of the GM's I used to game with switched to my Glory Road Roleplay over the years.

Wow. Your personal preferences are really showing here. You need to give up on your war against the Swine, you won it already.

If a non-D&D based game cannot achieve either popularity or longevity, then how do you explain Call of Cthulhu, d6 Star Wars, Traveller, Cyberpunk, and Mekton?

I'll take the BRP system of Call of Cthulhu and old Swedish rpgs before D&D any day.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095736A couple of items.

First of all, I read by coincidence yesterday an old blogpost of the Pundit (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2017/02/classic-rant-why-do-commercial-rpgs.html) about why commercial RPGs succeed. His #1 item was Promotion. (Which incidentally makes me wonder if D&D 3.x didn't succeed in spite of "Fucking up". Which in turn would underscore the importance of Promotion even more.) With DSA/TDE in Germany we have evidence regarding the importance of being first, the network effect, having a large canon of source material and the value of promotion. It's combined effect is YUGE.

Secondly, the video glosses over the case of Apocalypse World which contradicts a lot of what you have been saying in this video. And, yes, Dungeon World clearly considered D&D later. Smart move if you do a fantasy RPG. But not every RPG considers D&D. If I design a cyberpunk RPG, I consider Shadowrun and Cyberpunk 2020 and GURPS Cyberpunk.

Thirdly, and this one is the most egregious problem, you're claiming that all RPGs are shaped in the structure of D&D. Well, that is not a very profound insight, given that D&D was the first RPG and these games are being classified as RPGs. But that is just an aside. The real reason why this is a "problematic statement" is that it overlooks the fact that D&D has not inspired the wider world of game design in the last 20+ years, other than popularizing Advantage/Disadvantage in the last edition. To the contrary, D&D has taken up inspiration from innovations that either had become industry standards before (skill subsystem, a unified system or edges & flaws) or has shoplifted other ideas from other games (backgrounds).

In short: for a long, long time now D&D has been way more inspired by the rest of the hobby rather than inspiring it.


I watch this video and then I look at the following nonsense from the Angry GM (https://theangrygm.com/your-ability-scores-suck/):


...and it raises the issue of confirmation bias by people who are clearly fans of Dungeon & Dragons and which probably have a way too D&D-centric view of the hobby, leading to the former.


That said, having designed a fantasy RPG recently I can confirm that considering D&D is part of the process. But not on the rule- or world-design level (in my case).... instead, you consider (and you're explaining this in the video, which redeems it in my eyes) if the game you're envisioning has a niche. As to whether the niche I have chosen is a viable niche, that's a different question, but I think what I am, working on is distinct enough to cater to people who seek a specific experience that they cannot get from other games, not in this form.

Great post Alexander, I agree fully. Just one observation:

I think Apocalypse World has more similarities to OSR  games than it shows on its sleeve. In special it's "play to find what happens" ethos that sounds pretty much like the way OSR uses randomizing tables to evoke surprise (even in the GM). I just ain't sure this is something old d&d does cconsistently or if it's more of a modern OSR thing.

D&D is the core of RPG design. You either actively choose to emulate or rebel against various aspects of D&D. And either road is okay.

However, before you emulate or rebel, as a designer you do need to thoroughly understand D&D. The problem most designers cause for themselves is they emulate too much and there's no reason for their game or they rebel too much and now players have few touchstones to understand their game as a RPG (and then it becomes RPG.net's Darling of the Moment).

Of course, if you're making a D100 game or genre specific RPG, you need to understand those as well...plus understanding D&D.

Fortunately, none of this is rocket science.

BTW, right now I am designing a Deck Builder game. That game genre was created and popularized by Dominion and thus, I gotta study Dominion and I'm analyzing how and where I want to emulate versus rebel and analyzing WHY I am making the choices I am. Also, I am paying special attention to deck builder games which have come out since and understanding what they emulated vs. rebelled and WHAT those choices created.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1095739And some of the GM's I used to game with switched to my Glory Road Roleplay over the years.

Will who art in New Haven, please start a thread about your Glory Road Roleplay. With links and all that fun stuff.

And I will try my best to not post links to Steel Panther's Gloryhole video.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095736...First of all, I read by coincidence yesterday an old blogpost of the Pundit (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2017/02/classic-rant-why-do-commercial-rpgs.html) about why commercial RPGs succeed. His #1 item was Promotion.... With DSA/TDE in Germany we have evidence regarding the importance of being first, the network effect, having a large canon of source material and the value of promotion. It's combined effect is YUGE..

Agreed being 1st is huge, but you also have to be 'good enough', to maintain your market leader position.

If you are not, then you run the risk of someone coming out with a better product and becoming the WoW to your EverQuest.

My own thought process on the issue played out here: https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?40439-D-amp-D-s-5-point-winning-formula&highlight=winning

Not enough RPG's have payed attention to what made D&D a hit.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095736Secondly, the video glosses over the case of Apocalypse World which contradicts a lot of what you have been saying in this video. ...

Actually, I would argue that The new genre of "Apocalypse World" games has proven that former Forge Story Game designers  have had to adopt the Traditional RPG GM-Player division paradigm, in order to be successful.

The rules themselves are just clever exception based mechanics that hyper focus on low prep GMing. (With a few narrativist bits for the players thrown in to keep their street cred.)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095736Thirdly, and this one is the most egregious problem, you're claiming that all RPGs are shaped in the structure of D&D. Well, that is not a very profound insight, given that D&D was the first RPG and these games are being classified as RPGs. But that is just an aside. The real reason why this is a "problematic statement" is that it overlooks the fact that D&D has not inspired the wider world of game design in the last 20+ years,.

I disagree here. D&D has inspired the wider world of RPG game design.

In all cases other RPGS have been a reaction to what D&D does. So to my mind not problematic per say. Just the default position of the 1st RPG and market leader.


 

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095736...other than popularizing Advantage/Disadvantage in the last edition. To the contrary, D&D has taken up inspiration from innovations that either had become industry standards before (skill subsystem, a unified system or edges & flaws) or has shoplifted other ideas from other games (backgrounds).

In short: for a long, long time now D&D has been way more inspired by the rest of the hobby rather than inspiring it.

This, I generally agree with. But D&D is in a weird position of not being able to kill too many sacred cows. 4e has shown the fine line that D&D has to walk.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1095736That said, having designed a fantasy RPG recently I can confirm that considering D&D is part of the process. But not on the rule- or world-design level (in my case).... instead, you consider (and you're explaining this in the video, which redeems it in my eyes) if the game you're envisioning has a niche. As to whether the niche I have chosen is a viable niche, that's a different question, but I think what I am, working on is distinct enough to cater to people who seek a specific experience that they cannot get from other games, not in this form.

This.

Actually designing a good RPG that is not d20srd based is really hard.

It is really all about finding you niche, and giving people a reason to give your game a try.

Quote from: jeff37923;1095747...
If a non-D&D based game cannot achieve either popularity or longevity, then how do you explain Call of Cthulhu, d6 Star Wars, Traveller, Cyberpunk, and Mekton?

The gulf in popularity between D&D and these games is .... well, we all know. "Popularity" and "successful" are relative terms when discussing non-D&D rpgs.

Quote from: Jaeger;1095788The gulf in popularity between D&D and these games is .... well, we all know. "Popularity" and "successful" are relative terms when discussing non-D&D rpgs.

And longevity?

d6 Star Wars and Traveller have both survived the death of their parent companies to still remain favorites to this day.

In the case of d6 Star Wars, even FFG has had to concede the game's popularity and impact by printing a 30th Anniversary Edition of the original rules.

(A conceit that I will make here is that in the case of promotion, d6 Star Wars is a significant demonstration since all of the media from the second rise in popularity of Star Wars in the late 80's in the form of novels of the Expanded Universe were based upon material created for the role-playing game. It all acted as advertising.)

Quote from: jeff37923;1095792d6 Star Wars and Traveller have both survived the death of their parent companies to still remain favorites to this day.

Which always makes me wonder why we don't see more popular RPGs using those rules.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095796Which always makes me wonder why we don't see more popular RPGs using those rules.

More popular? Or more current?

Mongoose Traveller sells pretty well, but people still buy Classic Traveller in CD-ROM form and use Cepheus Engine to create new creator owned content for the game.

FFG Star Wars had to acknowledge the original d6 Star Wars game in a 30th Anniversary Edition and fan made material and conversions are keeping up with all of the new Star Wars media being put out.

The thing is that our consumer culture is geared into believing that NEW is BETTER when that is not always the case. So NEW gets pushed and brought to forefront in FLGS, while the older games are on used book shelves where only those gamers old enough to have played them know how good they are in comparison. You can apply that to D&D as well because if you couldn't, then the bulk of the OSR would not exist.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095779D&D is the core of RPG design. You either actively choose to emulate or rebel against various aspects of D&D. And either road is okay.

However, before you emulate or rebel, as a designer you do need to thoroughly understand D&D. The problem most designers cause for themselves is they emulate too much and there's no reason for their game or they rebel too much and now players have few touchstones to understand their game as a RPG (and then it becomes RPG.net's Darling of the Moment).

Of course, if you're making a D100 game or genre specific RPG, you need to understand those as well...plus understanding D&D.

Fortunately, none of this is rocket science.

BTW, right now I am designing a Deck Builder game. That game genre was created and popularized by Dominion and thus, I gotta study Dominion and I'm analyzing how and where I want to emulate versus rebel and analyzing WHY I am making the choices I am. Also, I am paying special attention to deck builder games which have come out since and understanding what they emulated vs. rebelled and WHAT those choices created.




Will who art in New Haven, please start a thread about your Glory Road Roleplay. With links and all that fun stuff.

And I will try my best to not post links to Steel Panther's Gloryhole video.

I am now art in Deerfield Beach, Florida. The new version of the game, edited for clarity (which it sorely needed) and somewhat expanded will be out later this month. A link to the game website is in my sig. I will start a thread when the book comes out. If anyone here thinks they might review it, they can send me a PM and I will send them a pre-publication pdf.

Quote from: jeff37923;1095792And longevity?

d6 Star Wars and Traveller have both survived the death of their parent companies to still remain favorites to this day.
...

Personally, I think d6 starwars did a lot of things right from the get go. But IMHO the introduction of the wild die in 2e siginaled the beginning of the end.

The longevity is a good sign that they did something right in system or setting. And have imprinted their influence on the wider hobby.

But both are still very niche systems, and when compared to D&D fantasy elf games - no one really plays them much anymore.

Quote from: Jaeger;1095954. But IMHO the introduction of the wild die in 2e siginaled the beginning of the end.

Well, that and embezzlement.  Or whatever you want to call WEG getting gutted to try and save a shoe company.

Quote from: Jaeger;1095954But both are still very niche systems, and when compared to D&D fantasy elf games - no one really plays them much anymore.

A large part of that is simply because nobody knows that they exist anymore.

I never use the Wild die in D6. I love the concept in theory, but not how it plays at the table.

Quote from: jeff37923;1095814More popular? Or more current?

Popular and current.

BTW, I meant that we don't see NEW RPGS based on WEG's D6 or Trav's 2D6 systems that have become successful (aka popular and current). And yes, I know there's plenty of D6 and 2D6 games on DriveThruRPG (and some are awesome), but I mean RPGs sold at your FLGS.

Of course, both D6 Star Wars and Classic Traveller continue to kick ass. They're still common games at the big cons, and many regional cons have THAT GM who runs one or the other like clockwork at each event. I'd know about that!

Quote from: Jaeger;1095788Actually, I would argue that The new genre of "Apocalypse World" games has proven that former Forge Story Game designers  have had to adopt the Traditional RPG GM-Player division paradigm, in order to be successful.

The rules themselves are just clever exception based mechanics that hyper focus on low prep GMing. (With a few narrativist bits for the players thrown in to keep their street cred.)

Exactly. AW isn't the Triumph of Storygaming and GNS theory; it's the Forge/Storygaming crowd admitting defeat and trying to create a conventionally-designed gateway-drug into Storygaming. It succeeded as a game because it doesn't follow the conceits of Storygaming or Forge Theory, and it failed at making anyone want to play actual storygames or forge games.  Its most popular variant, Dungeon World, went even more into becoming a kind of twisted parody of the D&D experience.  It's the entire Storygames movement giving up and trying to Sell Out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1097318Exactly. AW isn't the Triumph of Storygaming and GNS theory; it's the Forge/Storygaming crowd admitting defeat and trying to create a conventionally-designed gateway-drug into Storygaming. It succeeded as a game because it doesn't follow the conceits of Storygaming or Forge Theory, and it failed at making anyone want to play actual storygames or forge games.  Its most popular variant, Dungeon World, went even more into becoming a kind of twisted parody of the D&D experience.

I think you're half-right here. You're right that Apocalypse World isn't entirely a narrativist game in the GNS sense - it deals in established genre tropes which somewhat undercuts the narrativist priority of playing.
But it still has presented successfully a radically different approach to role-playing games. (So different that it needs its own containment forum for storygames?) I can't think of any successful RPG that has deviated as heavily from the paradigm introduced by D&D. Can you?

For me, it's the most significant RPG system of the 21st century so far, purely from a game design perspective. From a POV of personal taste, however, it's not my cup of tea - even though I'd like to try it at least once.
Anyway, I did a comparison of AW&DW with Trad Games on a German RPG forum recently. I'll put some of the findings up here. It should help place AW/DW in the overall spectrum of games.

And since it is about how those two games stack up to normal RPGs, I hope that thread can remain in this forum.

As someone who knows D&D, it's hard to imagine not being familiar enough to consider it in design, but I don't think it's strictly necessary.

I do think it's possible to come up with a decent structure for a gaming system without reference to D&D - and a lot of 'D&D-ims' creep into games that they probably shouldn't.  Like a spy game probably shouldn't have 10th level characters with 10 HD capable of straight up taking a bazooka blast to the chest.  There's a certain amount of insight to be gained by comparing a large number of games mechanically.  Ultimately, they've all had to address the same general things...  How do you make a character that represents someone 'genre appropriate' with skills and abilities that allow them to succeed?  How do you determine action resolution so people can feel confident that they are good at the things they are supposed to be good at but you can't know whether the character is going to succeed or fail at any given moment?  How do you decide on what 'appropriate death' looks like and how durable characters are from one game to the next?  How do you handle injuries and healing in a way that the game remains fun?  

D&D isn't the only game that answered those questions, and if you DIDN'T look at D&D, but you did look at 4-5 other random games, you'd probably be alright.  But excluding D&D (the granddaddy of them all) seems a little remiss.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1095796Which always makes me wonder why we don't see more popular RPGs using those rules.

IMHO, largely because WEG did not make a good original setting / system variant that they could push while their SW IP was hot.

And when for various embezzlement related reasons they lost the core IP, they had no popular evergreen game to fall back on to sell their system to a wider audience.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1096022I never use the Wild die in D6. I love the concept in theory, but not how it plays at the table.
...!

Exactly! There were other issues with the SW d6 system that needed to be addressed, but they just plastered over them with the wild die in 2nd edition and figured no one would notice.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1097515I think you're half-right here. You're right that Apocalypse World isn't entirely a narrativist game in the GNS sense - it deals in established genre tropes which somewhat undercuts the narrativist priority of playing.
But it still has presented successfully a radically different approach to role-playing games. (So different that it needs its own containment forum for storygames?) I can't think of any successful RPG that has deviated as heavily from the paradigm introduced by D&D. Can you?.

Radical in the sense that they do hyper focus on low-prep, quick set-up play.

The Gm rolls nothing. The players have all the rules for their PC's on the character sheet itself. And Literally all the rules needed for play can be had on one or two reference sheets. So no long pauses to "look up a rule in the book".

They are also very rules light. I would call them descriptive more than narrative. Yes the player can narrate the outcome if they get a good success on certain moves. But that is more of the exception in these games, not the general rule.

But they still very much have the standard GM / Player dynamic where the GM runs the virtual world that the players get to run around and have adventures in.

Now they are not suited to long multi-year campaigns like more conventional RPG's - but that is not their design goal.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1097515For me, it's the most significant RPG system of the 21st century so far, purely from a game design perspective. From a POV of personal taste, however, it's not my cup of tea - even though I'd like to try it at least once.
Anyway, I did a comparison of AW&DW with Trad Games on a German RPG forum recently. I'll put some of the findings up here. It should help place AW/DW in the overall spectrum of games.

And since it is about how those two games stack up to normal RPGs, I hope that thread can remain in this forum.

What makes Apocalypse World style games work is precisely because they are very much normal RPG's! They are not really storygames!

They like to use code language by calling the Game Master anything but the GM in their books, and using words and phrases like: 'Fiction first' when they really mean genre  first. But that is just to keep their old forge street cred.

But, they are rather good at emulating certain types of play similar to more rules heavy games without all the rules crunch baggage that comes with them.

And that is where I think these kind of games do add something to the wider RPG hobby. You don't need the level of crunch in Shadowrun 6 to play a "Shadowrun' style game. If a GM wants to run a short 1-3 month campaign for his players why bother with all the rules crunch of the latest edition of Shadowrun for a short campaign? Just break out The Sprawl and you are off to the races with much less prep!

For me, they caused me to rethink the real level of crunch needed in my home brew system for my Starwars campaign.

I have become focused on how things really work during actual play with my players. If an action or subsystem isn't really being used at the table - then it needs to be re-written or thrown out. And I have found out that I can get away with a good bit less crunch than I initially had in, and still be playing the same game!

So for me, system crunch has to justify itself at the table. And when I look at new games coming out, if they are more crunchy than the level of complexity I'm running at now,(Rules medium - about SWd6 complexity) it better be some clever shit to get me to take a second look.

Tangentially, I think that the OSR movement has had a similar effect on D&D. A few holdout fans aside, D&D will never go back to 3.5 levels of complexity. Pazio is playing to a gradually shrinking audience. HERO and GURPs are now playing to their niche and nostalgia bases.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1097318... Dungeon World, went even more into becoming a kind of twisted parody of the D&D experience.  It's the entire Storygames movement giving up and trying to Sell Out.

This struck me as funny.

When you really look at Dungeon world, and all the effort that went into creating the game, they could have turned out a well produced OSR game variant that did basically the exact same thing.

But I guess it is a way to play D&D, without having to actually say that you have played D&D.

Quote from: Jaeger;1097534Tangentially, I think that the OSR movement has had a similar effect on D&D. A few holdout fans aside, D&D will never go back to 3.5 levels of complexity. Pazio is playing to a gradually shrinking audience. HERO and GURPs are now playing to their niche and nostalgia bases.

More and more people are playing RPGs and at the same time the audience is shrinking.

Thats a real head scratcher that one.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1097515For me, [Apocalypse World] is the most significant RPG system of the 21st century so far, purely from a game design perspective.

I agree.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1097515I think you're half-right here. You're right that Apocalypse World isn't entirely a narrativist game in the GNS sense - it deals in established genre tropes which somewhat undercuts the narrativist priority of playing.

Are you sure you're not conflating Apocalypse World with Dungeon World here? Despite sharing the same engine, they're different beasts. AW is a firm example of narrativism, IMO, with it's gameplay driven by the PCs personal dramas & issues (and some hacks take it even further, like Monsterhearts). But Dungeon World is pretty trad, I agree.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1097515Anyway, I did a comparison of AW&DW with Trad Games on a German RPG forum recently. I'll put some of the findings up here. It should help place AW/DW in the overall spectrum of games. And since it is about how those two games stack up to normal RPGs, I hope that thread can remain in this forum.

Please do. I'm curious on your thoughts!

Quote from: Shasarak;1097551More and more people are playing RPGs and at the same time the audience is shrinking.

Thats a real head scratcher that one.

I assumed Jaeger was referring to the audience for complex / heavy crunch RPGs.

While D&D might never go 3.5 again, there's always been players who enjoy crunchier RPGs and I could see players new to RPGs who came in via 5e possibly defecting to PF2e as they might see crunch as a novelty and try it for a while.

We will see how PF2e does six months post launch. I'm not a Paizo fan, but they are good at marketing. And in the RPG world, "good at marketing" is x1000 better than most of the other publishers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1097574I assumed Jaeger was referring to the audience for complex / heavy crunch RPGs.

While D&D might never go 3.5 again, there's always been players who enjoy crunchier RPGs and I could see players new to RPGs who came in via 5e possibly defecting to PF2e as they might see crunch as a novelty and try it for a while.

We will see how PF2e does six months post launch. I'm not a Paizo fan, but they are good at marketing. And in the RPG world, "good at marketing" is x1000 better than most of the other publishers.

So what signs are you looking for six months post launch to indicate a yeah or a nay?

My personal feeling is that six months wont be able to tell you anything one way or another.  Even 4e managed to get through the first 2 years.

Quote from: Jaeger;1097547This struck me as funny.

When you really look at Dungeon world, and all the effort that went into creating the game, they could have turned out a well produced OSR game variant that did basically the exact same thing.

But I guess it is a way to play D&D, without having to actually say that you have played D&D.

That's a reason for it too. Actually fucking playing D&D would be admitting defeat.

If you truly believed that, PbtA wouldn't be relegated to a containment forum with other narrative games.
"It's not really a role-playing game." - "It's basically D&D."
You can't have it both ways.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1097318Exactly. AW isn't the Triumph of Storygaming and GNS theory; it's the Forge/Storygaming crowd admitting defeat and trying to create a conventionally-designed gateway-drug into Storygaming. It succeeded as a game because it doesn't follow the conceits of Storygaming or Forge Theory, and it failed at making anyone want to play actual storygames or forge games.  Its most popular variant, Dungeon World, went even more into becoming a kind of twisted parody of the D&D experience.  It's the entire Storygames movement giving up and trying to Sell Out.

Oh, bullshit. It's just another way to run a fantasy campaign. Read the introductory material (https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/introduction/). It's just another way to run a game. You have no grounds to make an honest appraisal of the system because you've never run it. It's just a convenient target for you to tout your narrow-minded conceptions of what "real" gaming is. Believe it or not, it's possible to enjoy both DW and D&D -- unless you've tragically and foolishly locked yourself in the cage of your own orthodoxy. You can't even see the irony in your shrill and impotent protests. The DW designers DID consider D&D when they designed the game. What more do you want, man?

Quote from: Shasarak;1097594So what signs are you looking for six months post launch to indicate a yeah or a nay?

My personal feeling is that six months wont be able to tell you anything one way or another.  Even 4e managed to get through the first 2 years.

  I have a feeling the bean counters at Paizo have a good idea what to look for in the first 6 months, and it will tell them a whole lot.  As a man on the street, I dont know what to look for, but as a layman's guess I feel they will have a VERY good idea how they are doing by February.  That will have been through both the holiday season for retail and the after christmas gift money use for their materials.  They will know if they have a hit or if they have to course correct....fast.

Quote from: oggsmash;1097952I have a feeling the bean counters at Paizo have a good idea what to look for in the first 6 months, and it will tell them a whole lot.  As a man on the street, I dont know what to look for, but as a layman's guess I feel they will have a VERY good idea how they are doing by February.  That will have been through both the holiday season for retail and the after christmas gift money use for their materials.  They will know if they have a hit or if they have to course correct....fast.

I heard that early figures from Amazon put Pathfinder 2e sales at #2 in RPGs.

I also saw pictures of the Book Table at Gen Con so I would guess how quickly that sells through could be an indication (depending on their printing numbers of course)

Quote from: Shasarak;1097594So what signs are you looking for six months post launch to indicate a yeah or a nay?

Chatter online.

If it's a nay, it might look much like the 7th Sea 2e debacle. We saw this huge hype to the launch, and then POOF it was gone. A huge number of players got their books, and then only very few chattered about it, and then it was forgotten.

If it's a yeah, you will see heavy chatter about people starting PF2e campaigns, and rampant chargen build discussions.

Quote from: Shasarak;1097965I heard that early figures from Amazon put Pathfinder 2e sales at #2 in RPGs.

I also saw pictures of the Book Table at Gen Con so I would guess how quickly that sells through could be an indication (depending on their printing numbers of course)

I think they are number 1, however I think given what they put out to get the new edition done, they are not going to know how they fared till after the holiday season.  It was expected for them to be number 1 I should think.  But number 1 is a week to week thing, net returns is what is going to matter in a year.

If it's not #1, it's already a failure.  On launch, you'd expect that people who are eagerly awaiting it would pick it up.  If it can't beat an RPG that's been in production for years, that'd be a bad sign.  

Like, everyone that really wants to play 5th edition SHOULD have a book by now.  You either have newly introduced people or reluctant buyers who have finally agreed to migrate due to peer pressure or lack of better options.  PF#2 should have an army of early adopters if they want to succeed.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098017Like, everyone that really wants to play 5th edition SHOULD have a book by now.  You either have newly introduced people or reluctant buyers who have finally agreed to migrate due to peer pressure or lack of better options.  PF#2 should have an army of early adopters if they want to succeed.

Spoken like the true captive buyer audience that WotC wants......

Quote from: jeff37923;1098038Spoken like the true captive buyer audience that WotC wants......

I don't really play 5th edition or Pathfinder.  I was pretty excited about Pathfinder and participated in the original Alpha and Beta playtests.  I don't think that they were actually interested in feedback, and I don't think that Pathfinder 'fixed' 3rd edition in any of the ways I had hoped.  

Most of my gaming is a homebrew system I developed with my friends.  It delivers a D&D experience in a much more enjoyable way than playing by someone else's rules.  I'm very lucky because such a collaborative process would not have been possible if my friends didn't bring additional strengths to our efforts.  

I'm certainly an interested bystander in the RPG community and I watch what developers are doing relatively closely.  But it's hard to consider myself a 'captive buyer'.

You design outside the D&D paradigm.

D&D is the gateway drug to REAL roleplaying.

GURPS and HERO get you to the REAL game.

But --- down what you want.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098150GURPS and HERO get you to the REAL game.

Heh. Thus speaketh the crusty grognard. I'm with you - I have a shelf of Hero books, some GURPS, and don't really keep up with new games anymore. But let's face it, in 2019 these games have little mindshare and playtime outside the most obscure corners. Savage Worlds reinvented the universal system for the 21st C, and even that is old news now.

Quote from: GIMME SOME SUGAR;1095751I'll take the BRP system of Call of Cthulhu and old Swedish rpgs before D&D any day.

Same here, actually. Having started with Runequest-like systems, I never thought any product with D&D on it improved anything.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1098150GURPS and HERO get you to the REAL game.

Quote from: The_Shadow;1098193Thus speaketh the crusty grognard. I'm with you -

Hear, hear! :p

In support of Pundit's assertion:
https://awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/the-wfrp-manifesto-conclusions/

Quote from: Jaeger;1097547...When you really look at Dungeon world, and all the effort that went into creating the game, they could have turned out a well produced OSR game variant that did basically the exact same thing.

But I guess it is a way to play D&D, without having to actually say that you have played D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1097624That's a reason for it too. Actually fucking playing D&D would be admitting defeat.

Quote from: cranebump;1097815Oh, bullshit. It's just another way to run a fantasy campaign. Read the introductory material (https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/introduction/). It's just another way to run a game. You have no grounds to make an honest appraisal of the system because you've never run it.? ...The DW designers DID consider D&D when they designed the game.

Well, I do happen to have grounds for an honest appraisal.

And I believe there is some truth to what is being said in bold above.

I've read the 'introductory material' and it is a perfect blurb for introducing someone to playing D&D.

DW is not just another way to run a fantasy campaign, unless the definition of 'Fantasy campaign' = 'Play D&D'.

DW has every D&D trope, from the 6 ability scores, races, classes, levels,  Hit Points, and Class abilities that they call "Starting Moves"...

Mechanically speaking there is nothing done in DW that could not be ported over to a traditional OSR/D&D d20 roll high DC check system.

Everything DW does could easily be taken and adapted into an OSR rules variant.

Instead the designers made a deliberate decision to make a very "D&D/OSR" game that uses a different die mechanic than D&D.

Which begs the question: Why go to all that trouble to avoid rolling a d20?

Quote from: JaegerWhich begs the question: Why go to all that trouble to avoid rolling a d20?

Because a d20 doesn't have narrative action, don't do fail forward, don't use playbooks, don't subscribe to "play to find what happens", etc, etc.

Dungeon World aims at emulating D&D themes, yes, but the way it approaches those themes is different enough to the original(s) to warrant it's existence IMO.

Quote from: Itachi;1098957Because a d20 doesn't have narrative action, don't do fail forward, don't use playbooks, don't subscribe to "play to find what happens", etc, etc.
.

The 2d6 die mechanic does nothing that you can't port over to a d20.

Quote from: Jaeger;1098966The 2d6 die mechanic does nothing that you can't port over to a d20.

Actually it does. 2d6 produces a pyramid distribution that makes average results more common ( = more 7-9, "success at a cost" rolls). Where d20 produces a flat line.

Quote from: Itachi;1098967Actually it does. 2d6 produces a pyramid distribution that makes average results more common ( = more 7-9, "success at a cost" rolls). Where d20 produces a flat line.

So we narrowed it down to the one thing that would actually be different: using 2d6 has a different distribution than a d20 die. French fries vs tater tots...

In all other respects the DW designers created a D&D emulator by any definition.

Quote from: Jaeger;1099839So we narrowed it down to the one thing that would actually be different: using 2d6 has a different distribution than a d20 die. French fries vs tater tots...

In all other respects the DW designers created a D&D emulator by any definition.

2D6 or 3D6 versus D20 is a massive difference. It means far fewer extreme results and fewer "upsets." The expected winner wins much more often. It is not "French fries versus tater tots," it's an averaging die (wargame utility) versus an ordinary D6, it's a jury trial versus a panel of judges. It's big.

I considered 3D6 for combat rolls and decided that the D20 leads to more fun outcomes. By the way, I knew a DM who used 3D6 for his OD&D attack rolls back when GMs were less hung up on RaW.

How much other resemblance this game I have never played has to D&D, I do not know. Whether it is a different game or a clone is not a hill I would die on. But bell curve versus straight line is a big difference.

Quote from: Jaeger;1099839So we narrowed it down to the one thing that would actually be different: using 2d6 has a different distribution than a d20 die. French fries vs tater tots...

In all other respects the DW designers created a D&D emulator by any definition.

2D6 or 3D6 versus D20 is a massive difference. It means far fewer extreme results and fewer "upsets." The expected winner wins much more often. It is not "French fries versus tater tots," it's an averaging die (wargame utility) versus an ordinary D6, it's a jury trial versus a panel of judges. It's big.

I considered 3D6 for combat rolls and decided that the D20 leads to more fun outcomes. By the way, I knew a DM who used 3D6 for his OD&D attack rolls back when GMs were less hung up on RaW.

How much other resemblance this game I have never played has to D&D, I do not know. Whether it is a different game or a clone is not a hill I would die on. But bell curve versus straight line is a big difference.

Yep, what WillInNewHaven said.

One alternative is porting it to 2d10, like Kult: Divinity Lost did. This way you keep the distribution but with more granularity. It's not really equivalent to a d20, though, so you still have a problem.

But there's another, simpler reason for DW keeping with the AW chassis: everything is already done, it's just a matter of re-skinning and adapting moves like all hacks do. It's the same reason we have Shadowrun PbtA, Call of Cthulhu PbtA or Vampire the Masquerade PbtA. No one is crazy to try and fit PbtA sensibilities into those legacy systems, as it would be a huge pain in the ass. Besides, PbtA is good enough at genre emulation that depending on what a given fan values out of those games, a PbtA hack may even present a better solution than the legacy system*. So why the fuss?

*I've played Shadowrun all my life and after trying the PbtA counterpart I won't ever go back to the original, as the PbtA version gives me everything I ever wanted out of that fictional space, without the hassle of engaging in Shadowrun overly complex and slow mechanica.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1099883I considered 3D6 for combat rolls and decided that the D20 leads to more fun outcomes. ....

This is what I mean by French fries versus tater tots. Yes there is a marked difference, but I've seen peoples playstyle preferences trump using supposed 'objectively better' mechanics to get too caught up when people say "Ohhh... you see this mechanics does x unlkie that other  kind of die...".

Like your preference for d20 instead of 3d6 for fun outcomes. In fact A common GURPs mod in my area is to go 2d10 instead of 3d6 for all rolls.

Quote from: Itachi;1099890...
But there's another, simpler reason for DW keeping with the AW chassis: everything is already done, it's just a matter of re-skinning and adapting moves like all hacks do. It's the same reason we have Shadowrun PbtA, Call of Cthulhu PbtA or Vampire the Masquerade PbtA.

I absolutely agree with this - but I also don't doubt there is a bit of a snicker-factor for the former storygame advocates with a game like DW that emulates so much of the nomenclature of the 'legacy' game.

Quote from: Itachi;1099890No one is crazy to try and fit PbtA sensibilities into those legacy systems, as it would be a huge pain in the ass. ...

Actually, not at all. For my homebrew Star Wars game that uses d6 diepools, the force powers that the Jedi in my game use are literally ripped-off of the model for Player moves in AW games like monster of the week. Instead of On a 7-9: or on a 10+: - I use on 1-2 successes: on 3-4: on 5+:  etc...

It works really well, and is a great way to parcel out what the degrees of success are on a roll for a given Force power. I stole it shamelessly.

Quote from: Itachi;1099890*I've played Shadowrun all my life and after trying the PbtA counterpart I won't ever go back to the original, as the PbtA version gives me everything I ever wanted out of that fictional space, without the hassle of engaging in Shadowrun overly complex and slow mechanica.

This I'm also seeing more and more of. I believe that in the  long run, AW style games (and more genre focused games in general) will serve to keep crunch heavy games honest.

Why put up with all that crunch when you can get almost the same actual play experience for far less hassle?

And many don't.

But it will be a while before the people in charge of lines like Shadowrun start to wake up, and realize that maybe toning it down in the 7th edition to a more rules-medium format might get them more play in the long run.

Quote from: Jaeger;1100335Why put up with all that crunch when you can get almost the same actual play experience for far less hassle?

Because it's not nearly the same experience. Do I have to weigh the risk in PbtA whether my physical adept's pushed movement rate is enough to reach melee range before the enemy shaman can unleash another manabolt or do I better jump into cover? Will I have to weigh ROF versus recoil? How will you even address initiative order AND adhere to the PbtA philosophy at the same time? Now, it may be that these aspects are not important for you and you'd rather focus on driving the plot forward... great, in this case PbtA might be a good choice for you.

However, PbtA is weakening not only the simulationists aspects of the hobby but, arguably, also the gamist aspects by glossing over such minutiae. And that's natural because it stresses the story aspects of RPGs instead. But, please, let's not pretend that this is an optimization in the form of "almost the same output for much less input". It's not; instead, it's of a trade-off between different aspects of the hobby.

Quote from: Jaeger;1100335But it will be a while before the people in charge of lines like Shadowrun start to wake up, and realize that maybe toning it down in the 7th edition to a more rules-medium format might get them more play in the long run.

I'd heard that 6e was supposed to be somewhat lighter than the last two editions (OK, maybe even those before that too). I skipped the beginner box but have preordered the core rulebook to see if it's going to be more playable for me. OTOH, I looked at Anarchy and it practically burned my fingers and eyes before I dropped it back on the shelf, so who knows...

Sorry Alexander, but I'm with Jaeger here (or better, he is with me since I brought the idea first :D ).

Don't know if my circles are representative of the hobby as a whole, but more and more I see people of new and old generations alike lacking interest (or time) to deal with fiddly bits like "movement ranges", "ROF vs Recoil" or "initiative systems" etc. Specially so because this kind of minutia is much better served by videogames like ARMA or Rainbow Six or XCOM these days, and everybody knows it due to videogames being hugely popular. This is the reason why styles that adhere to "more play, less hassle!" mentality like OSR and PbtA have become so popular and influent this last decade IMO.

What it means to the discussion? I don't know, perhaps that simulationist games will have to cut their crunch to adapt or something? What are the behemoths of the style doing, like Gurps, Hero and BRP/Runequest? It seems to me the more "toolkit-games" like Gurps and Hero are completely out of fashion. 20 years ago we had lots of Gurps enthusiasts in my group... today? No one. No one has the time or inclination anymore to put the time of effort necessary to setup a game in Gurps, deciding on characters and NPCs point-ranges, tech level and gear availability, what supplements to use, etc. The BRP side seems to be fairing better but I don't know if on their own merit, or if it's their children (and simpler) games like Delta Green, CoC and Unknown Armies that are keeping the ball rolling. Because man I love Glorantha, but after looking at the PDF of the new RQ:G, I can safely say I will NEVER try to GM that shit. (it's beautiful though, I give you that)

Quote from: Itachi;1100387What it means to the discussion? ...

I think there was a time when "more crunch" would sell because some people were into having crunch for the sake of crunch.  It's what Knights of the Dinner Table lampoons when they have fake adds for a game product "With 150% More Rules!".  When there is no internet, long distance phone calls start at $3.00 for the first minute, but books and gas are relatively cheap, then a hefty book for a gaming group to work their way through over several months or even years--that's a lot of bang for the buck.

The value of spare time has increased faster than the value of the money.  There are people who still like crunch, but they want well-written, useful crunch that lets them do something specific.  They don't want that crunch laying on their gaming group (at least not the whole group, and not required to play).  

So I think it's basically Sid Meier's dictum:  People enjoy a certain amount of complexity in their games.  But there is a threshold.  The question is not whether to include complexity or not.  Rather, it is which complexity to include to stay within your "complexity budget".

Well, I see it a bit differently. The big trends in the 21st century were narrativist games, which were rules light, and the OSR which is also rules-light as far as rulings not rules go. Savage Worlds enjoys some popularity but I can't deduce with any safety that it's more popular than GURPS. It is certainly newer, which always helps in portraying your own game as more modern (which contains an implied value statement).
We have seen over the course of the last 10 years fairly successful RPGs that are not rules light, starting with Pathfinder over the various 40K RPGs and GENESYS to 2d20.
Streamlined versions of Vampire and Shadowrun have hardly been met with widespread approval by their communities.
In the meantime, wargames seems to prosper in spite of them being much more suitable to be played digitally.
And don't get me even started on boardgames - my friends, although all of them busy with work and family, are backing boardgames on kickstarter all the fucking time. The time spent on learning 5 new boardgames (and these are not simple boardgames like your grandmother's monopoly, mind you) might as well be spent on learning a somewhat complex system. So, I am not sure that time is as big a factor as it is.
As for toolkit games, they either need a strong, marketable setting to attach to (BRP works for CoC at least) OR they need a plethora of fresh community content. Again, GURPS has the problem of not being new but having done all of it ages ago. What's left for the community to do? Also, critics GURPS have made it more complicated than it actually is.

So, what I am seeing instead is a lot of gamer politics. People who like (or sell!) rules-light games having every incentive to promote their prefered gaming style by making it seem inevitable (sounds familiar from politics?). They're likely not doing it consciously, just subconsciously, but it's fairly clear that's what happens. The same way we have seen the various gamist-narrativist-simulationist camps trash each other in the past. (The gamist-simulationist divide even predates the invention of Dungeons & Dragons.)

If you like a particular style of gaming and you're talking on the internet about RPGs, you're probably going to shill it. It's not a commonly talked about thing but it's widespread nonetheless. The Pundit is doing it with his flavor of D&D/OSR, in particular where he seeks to emulate a setting like Westeros - but without the PCs being chosen ones like a Jon Snow. That's his preference and he's shilling it all the fucking time. No problem with that - but we should at least be aware of it and the various versions of "truth". Just like Ron Edwards is shilling his approach to gaming, by the way.

PS Which video game lets me take the risk assessment of whether to take that Sprinting test in order to reach the enemy Shaman or not? (And even if there was one which did, it would not combine these tactical gaming aspects with the free, largely unconstrained decision-making of P&P in- and outside of combat. So, I think this is another internet meme that has not being critically examined enough. I want tactical combat in the context of P&P.