TheRPGSite

While I know that this site considers DW to be an Official RPG Product (Swine Un-Approved), the game has clear storygame roots, which is something I'd like to discuss briefly.  In a traditional RPG, the rules are very clear-cut in how they function: when you want to sneak, you roll Stealth; when you want to swordfight, you roll Swordsmanship; and so on.

This is the strength of traditional RPGs: the player says something, rolls the dice, and it happens.  But in a storygame (or even DW), the rules are not clear in this regard.  I've seen a lot of confusion and consternation on how moves are triggered in the game, when to roll, and when the DM is supposed to act.  I mean, someone on SomethingAwful wrote up a huge long guide on how the game is supposed to be run because it was too hard for new players to understand.

Maybe it's just poorly-explained rules, but I think that it has more to do with the idea that everyone is sharing in a narrative experience rather than playing a game.

Shrug.  I just finished a six-month campaign of DW and it's pretty fucking obvious when a move triggers.

"I'm gonna kill the fucker."  Hack and Slash.
"I'm gonna jump past the monster and protect the girl."  Defy Danger, then next 'turn' Defend.
Et cetera.

All this "narrative first" is just a fancy-ass way of saying "Tell what you're trying to accomplish, don't spout rule shit."  Just like D&D back in 1974.

Of course, I've seen people complain that they couldn't understand CHAINMAIL, so maybe the problem is that people are stupid.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733389While I know that this site considers DW to be an Official RPG Product (Swine Un-Approved), the game has clear storygame roots, which is something I'd like to discuss briefly.  In a traditional RPG, the rules are very clear-cut in how they function: when you want to sneak, you roll Stealth; when you want to swordfight, you roll Swordsmanship; and so on.

This is interesting, because one of the issues with traditional games is that it's often not quite clear what a single roll of a skill actually means in terms of its in-game consequences. Okay, so I made my Sneak roll; am I past the guards? Well, maybe; or maybe you're just past one of the guards, and now you need to Sneak again to get past the next one.

But that's okay, because we have a GM who is empowered to make those decisions--to set the stakes for any given roll, as it were--and after a while the GM learns how to run a traditional game, get the pacing right, and make it all flow naturally, effortlessly. But it's possible that the "ease" and "naturalness" of the traditional RPG style are merely familiarity with its conventions.

Because you do have to run DW differently; each roll resolves a conflict rather than a task, and the pacing suffers if you try to use it for task resolution (as I have done). But I don't think it's because "everyone is sharing in a narrative experience"; it's because what a die roll represents is slightly different.

Would I like this game if I liked Rules Cyclopedia or B/X D&D? What's with the "begins and ends with the fiction" stuff that I've read about online? I don't know much about it.

Well, from THIS old fart's viewpoint, it's just a different way of saying the same old shit.

"Begins and ends with the fiction" is just another way of saying "Just tell me what you're trying to do, I'll tell you what dice to roll."

"I want to sneak past all these guards and hide behind the altar."  Okay, that's a Defy Danger.

Et cetera.

Really, for those whom DW gave them a new insight into playing, good for them; anything that's fun is great.  And I like playing DW just fine.  It's just nothing really new or earthshattering.

I wonder if it seems new in relation to later iterations of D&D where "sneak past all these guards and hide behind the altar" would take half an hour and twenty die rolls.

Quote from: Old Geezer;733399All this "narrative first" is just a fancy-ass way of saying "Tell what you're trying to accomplish, don't spout rule shit."  Just like D&D back in 1974.

QFT.

I was under the assumption that this was the way all people played RPGs, until I started reading web forums.

Quote from: Endless Flight;733407Would I like this game if I liked Rules Cyclopedia or B/X D&D? What's with the "begins and ends with the fiction" stuff that I've read about online? I don't know much about it.

As far as I've been able to find out Teh Fiction refers to the result of play.

Quote from: Endless Flight;733407Would I like this game if I liked Rules Cyclopedia or B/X D&D? What's with the "begins and ends with the fiction" stuff that I've read about online? I don't know much about it.

"The fiction" is a pretentious way of saying "stuff that's happening in the game."

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733419"The fiction" is a pretentious way of saying "stuff that's happening in the game."

To be fair it refers specifically to the stuff happening in the players' imaginations and not the stuff physically happening at the table. That could be a useful distinction to make.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;733423To be fair it refers specifically to the stuff happening in the players' imaginations

It's still pretentious. People have referred to that distinction for, literally, longer than I've been alive.

"In the game world" or, heaven forfend, "in-character" or some other commonly used and easily understood phrase.

Plus, "the fiction" as a phrase directly assaults the suspension of disbelief. It's a pretentious and pointless way of phrasing something common and easy to understand.

For someone like Old Geezer, DW really is no different, because he doesn't really play any differently.  For a lot of people, they read DW and conclude they don't need formalization of the process they've internalized over many years, even decades.

For people who haven't been playing that way, and may have been looking down on D&D from the narrative side of things, the old school style with Baker Story-cred is a revelation.  Plus, the rules easily allow a more narrative style of play.

So it exists as a kind of permission-slip from the hipsters allowing trenders to engage in old-school play?

Quote from: Dan Vincze;733423To be fair it refers specifically to the stuff happening in the players' imaginations and not the stuff physically happening at the table. That could be a useful distinction to make.

That actually makes it sound more pretentious, not less.

I think I'll just stick to Rules Cyclopedia. :D

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733427It's still pretentious. People have referred to that distinction for, literally, longer than I've been alive.

"In the game world" or, heaven forfend, "in-character" or some other commonly used and easily understood phrase.

Plus, "the fiction" as a phrase directly assaults the suspension of disbelief. It's a pretentious and pointless way of phrasing something common and easy to understand.

While the word "fiction" isn't commonly used - traditional RPGs have been using similar terms like "scene", "story", "chronicle", "plot arc", and more for decades - from James Bond 007 to Star Wars D6, and more. Many current RPGs continue to use such language - White Wolf most prominently, but also lots of others.

Similarly, there was a point when "graphic novel" was a considered a pretentious term for a comic collection - but these days its just the norm.

It is a pretentious game to me. That's the hardest part of reading it. Still, that does not mean it isn't a fun game to play, and I'd be perfectly happy to give it a try. I don't feel like it offers me anything I can't get experientially in many other more "traditional" RPGs, but neither does BBF and I love that little game.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733389This is the strength of traditional RPGs: the player says something, rolls the dice, and it happens.  But in a storygame (or even DW), the rules are not clear in this regard.

FWIW my experiences are almost opposite. Storygames are normally associated with rigid rules application compared to traditional RPGs, which more readily rely on GM's discretion. This is not inherent in all storygames but its a common trend.

Dungeon World also tends to be much more clear and explicit about rules application. For example, each rule in DW includes a specific "in-game" trigger compared to the traditional RPG approach of having rules sit in isolation, like a skill list, that are reliant on the GM to decide when to calls rolls for. Sometimes, the difference here is minimal so it can be hard to distinguish them. In a traditional RPG common sense will tell you when a GM should call for many rolls ("I don't want to be seen" is the trigger for using the Stealth skill") but DW rules are just more clear in this regard.

I think the confusion you are seeing is not so much with the rules application but the slight shift in some assumed concepts that DW contains.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733419"The fiction" is a pretentious way of saying "stuff that's happening in the game."

Actually, it's an UNpretentious way of saying that. Or rather,as Dan pointed out, it's stuff that's happening in the game world, not the game.

I was actually on the Forge forums for a couple years back around 2004 to 2006 or so. At one point, someone introduced the term "Shared Imagined Space", which they immediately abbreviated to SIS, and it became a buzzword. And it was very annoying, not only because it was opaque like a lot of Forge jargon, but because the hot idea at the time was to focus on "the people around the table", and there was a lot of pretentious talk examining the SIS as a product of human interaction and the game's rules as a method of governing how the players interacted and blah blah blah...

As far as I know, I was the one who introduced "the fiction" on the Forge as a less pretentious way of talking about what your elf is doing what as opposed to what you are doing. I didn't mean it in the storygamer sense -- it has nothing to do with making stories -- but in the more common sense of "stuff that isn't real". And I specifically brought up the distinction between system vs. fiction because the Forgeoisie have a long-term problem understanding what "Simulationism" is; they couldn't quite grasp that some people are more interested in what that stupid elf is doing than in mastering game rules.

Now, I haven't read Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, or any story game for several years, so I don't know how pretentiously "the fiction" may be in current usage. But it was never meant to be used in anything but a practical sense.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733389While I know that this site considers DW to be an Official RPG Product (Swine Un-Approved), the game has clear storygame roots, which is something I'd like to discuss briefly.  In a traditional RPG, the rules are very clear-cut in how they function: when you want to sneak, you roll Stealth; when you want to swordfight, you roll Swordsmanship; and so on.

This is the strength of traditional RPGs: the player says something, rolls the dice, and it happens.  But in a storygame (or even DW), the rules are not clear in this regard.  I've seen a lot of confusion and consternation on how moves are triggered in the game, when to roll, and when the DM is supposed to act.  I mean, someone on SomethingAwful wrote up a huge long guide on how the game is supposed to be run because it was too hard for new players to understand.

Maybe it's just poorly-explained rules, but I think that it has more to do with the idea that everyone is sharing in a narrative experience rather than playing a game.

You've changed your mind since this then?

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=693684&postcount=1

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733389Maybe it's just poorly-explained rules, but I think that it has more to do with the idea that everyone is sharing in a narrative experience rather than playing a game.

I think it has to do with how the rules are invoked.

In 3.x (and many other games), you invoke the rule, and describe what's happening.  In DW (and many other games, including old school D&D), you describe what you're doing, and then if that requires a roll you figure out what to roll.

Both work.  But if you're strongly used to one, it's jarring to go to the other.

Quote from: talysman;733446I was actually on the Forge forums for a couple years back around 2004 to 2006 or so. . . . As far as I know, I was the one who introduced "the fiction" on the Forge as a less pretentious way of talking about what your elf is doing what as opposed to what you are doing.

(http://www.nightmare-fuel.com/media/donald-sutherland.gif)

Quote from: One Horse Town;733447You've changed your mind since this then?

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=693684&postcount=1

:rotfl:

Hey, for a troll, at least AF comes up with somewhat interesting topics to bash about.

All this talk of DW is actually making me curious. I might break down and buy the damn thing one of these days.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;733414I was under the assumption that this was the way all people played RPGs, until I started reading web forums.

God help me, I wish I could say the same.

It's just a couple of guys in my group (unsurprisingly, the same two who bailed out of my current OD&D game) but it's still depressing.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733419"The fiction" is a pretentious way of saying "stuff that's happening in the game."

Yeah, you got stuff happening in any game but in this game it's Teh Fiction.

(http://img.pandawhale.com/77316-shocked-cat-WHOA-gif-Imgur-Ia81.gif)

Was this lingo adapted straight from Apocalypse World?

Quote from: Simlasa;733435So it exists as a kind of permission-slip from the hipsters allowing trenders to engage in old-school play?

Exactly. I'm curious if Apocalypse World fills the same niche, by the way.

Quote from: jhkim;733440While the word "fiction" isn't commonly used - traditional RPGs have been using similar terms like "scene", "story", "chronicle", "plot arc",

Dude, Torg guy here. Scene, Act, Subplot card, Act Awards, Dramatic or Standard scene for combat — I know this happens.

That's irrelevant. This phrase — "the Fiction" — is both pretentious and disruptive. It's a pointless affectation.

"In-game" or "in-character" is better, clearer, and less affected.

EDIT:

Quote from: talysman;733446As far as I know, I was the one who introduced "the fiction" on the Forge as a less pretentious way

I will readily concede "The Fiction" is less pretentious than Shared Imagination Space. In comparison.

But in comparison to "in-game" or "in-character", it's still pretentious.

I'm not trying to say you are, but this phrase definitely is.

From what I read it's common Swine practice to take a fairly common term and endow it with pretentious meaning and value. "Indie" once simply meant "independently published", nowadays we have to resort to "small press" if we want to refer to indie games that don't hold hipster cred.

Quote from: The Butcher;733452All this talk of DW is actually making me curious. I might break down and buy the damn thing one of these days.

Almost the entire text is available online (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/), if you want to read it before buying it. All it's missing is the margin notes.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733455But in comparison to "in-game" or "in-character", it's still pretentious.

Alright. So?

Quote from: Simlasa;733435So it exists as a kind of permission-slip from the hipsters allowing trenders to engage in old-school play?

EDIT:  You're right.  I didn't realize who you were talking about.

So on a Forgeoisie tangent, my original post:

A solid majority of the most vocal Forgeoisie (love that term, by the way) play an old school game of some sort on a regular basis.  The idea that there are these hipsters who look down on your way of playing isn't exactly accurate.  When they have discussions about these games though, they sometimes don't even talk about them in their jargon and theory talk.  For example, here's Luke Crane (author of Burning Wheel, Mouseguard and co-conspirator with Jason Morningstar) talking about his D&D game:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5

Quote from: Luke CraneWhy is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic.

I think this forum has a tendency to lump together people as "story-gamers" or "forgists" without actually looking at what any individual is doing.

Quote from: NathanIW;733467The idea that there are these hipsters who look down on your way of playing isn't exactly accurate.

Well, I'm basing that comment on nonsense I've seen on TBP... talk of games being 'evolved' vs. 'old', 'obsolete'... general chatter. Not that I've run into such nonsense in the real world. People who turn their nose up at OD&D but praise DW as the hot new thing.
I was also only half-seriously trying to paraphrase what CRKrueger wrote.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733455Dude, Torg guy here. Scene, Act, Subplot card, Act Awards, Dramatic or Standard scene for combat — I know this happens.

That's irrelevant. This phrase — "the Fiction" — is both pretentious and disruptive. It's a pointless affectation.

.

I have to agree with how "the fiction" comes across here. It is one of those terms I hear, and it just feels too haughty for what we are talking about. If people want to use it, they are free to do so, but its one of those words (like tall mocha latte or venti filthy dirty chai) that just feel unnatural if I attempt to say it. I feel like I need to get a new zip code if I am going to start using it.

Quote"The Fiction"

I'm reminded of the Southpark episode where everyone sniffs their own farts and enjoy it.

Quote from: Simlasa;733478Well, I'm basing that comment on nonsense I've seen on TBP... talk of games being 'evolved' vs. 'old', 'obsolete'... general chatter. Not that I've run into such nonsense in the real world. People who turn their nose up at OD&D but praise DW as the hot new thing.
I was also only half-seriously trying to paraphrase what CRKrueger wrote.

Ah yes.  You're right.  I forgot that there are actually lots of people like that.  I don't think of them as being in the hobby though as I have doubts they actually play much at all.

Thanks for pointing that out.  I was wrong about that.  They definitely exist.

Quote from: Simlasa;733478Well, I'm basing that comment on nonsense I've seen on TBP... talk of games being 'evolved' vs. 'old', 'obsolete'... general chatter. Not that I've run into such nonsense in the real world. People who turn their nose up at OD&D but praise DW as the hot new thing.
I was also only half-seriously trying to paraphrase what CRKrueger wrote.

Sage, DW's author, isn't too keen on them either, and is a big D&D fan.

Essentially, there's two groups of DW fans... the ones who think it's a revelatory revolution in gaming, and the ones who know that it isn't.

Quote from: CRKrueger;733434For someone like Old Geezer, DW really is no different, because he doesn't really play any differently.  For a lot of people, they read DW and conclude they don't need formalization of the process they've internalized over many years, even decades.

For people who haven't been playing that way, and may have been looking down on D&D from the narrative side of things, the old school style with Baker Story-cred is a revelation.  Plus, the rules easily allow a more narrative style of play.

Pretty much.  Like I said, if DW helped somebody grok old style play, hooray!

Quote from: Sigmund;733441It is a pretentious game to me. That's the hardest part of reading it. Still, that does not mean it isn't a fun game to play, and I'd be perfectly happy to give it a try. I don't feel like it offers me anything I can't get experientially in many other more "traditional" RPGs, but neither does BBF and I love that little game.

I didn't find it pretentious, but I did find it "trying too hard" to be sarcastic and ironic an' shit.  The class descriptions are all written with the attitude of 'We all know these old school classes and archetypes are old fashioned and lame but we're putting them in the game in a hip and ironic way.'

Playing a Paladin was fun.  Playing with a guy who was playing a Fighter was fun.

Reading the descriptions of the classes made me groan.

Quote from: Old Geezer;733498Reading the descriptions of the classes made me groan.

I am of a different opinion. I like the class descriptors; they speak to you the player, instead of the general "fighters all do this" sort of schlock that riddles modern RPGs.

Its tone reads like old-school Warhammer.

Its tone speaks to me, not down to me.

Its tone is a bit tongue in cheek, which RPG authors should strive towards in their own writing.

It also reads like my own RPG ZWEIHÄNDER (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dg67lylDm2d9ygxRxUvjHLmO5KwX8lMJNEY_eAOGuqE/edit#).

Above all else - say what you will about the rules - it assumes everyone playing it understands the typical fantasy tropes out the gate.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733455That's irrelevant. This phrase — "the Fiction" — is both pretentious and disruptive. It's a pointless affectation.

"In-game" or "in-character" is better, clearer, and less affected.

No it isn't because two terms you think are better are completely irrelevant to how the the word is used in game.  In fact the only terms I can think of which are more appropriate are even more pretentious.

Quote from: Old Geezer;733399All this "narrative first" is just a fancy-ass way of saying "Tell what you're trying to accomplish, don't spout rule shit."  Just like D&D back in 1974.

Of course, I've seen people complain that they couldn't understand CHAINMAIL, so maybe the problem is that people are stupid.

On a fundamental level its way more than that and its probably Dungeon World's greatest innovation contrasted to D&D.

Quote from: technoextreme;733519No it isn't because two terms you think are better are completely irrelevant to how the the word is used in game.  In fact the only terms I can think of which are more appropriate are even more pretentious.
On a fundamental level its way more than that and its probably Dungeon World's greatest innovation contrasted to D&D.

I'd say that that DW is more a style of playing D&D that's been more codified in the DW rules. You can play the kind of descriptive, ad-lib, make-it-up-as-you-play kind of games in D&D, but DW has rules that make that kind of play easier. (for me at least.) Where D&D allows it, DW helps it. Evolution of a particular style as opposed to innovation.

I read some older versions of D&D Dungeon Master's guide, and it flat-out told me that being a good GM was all about some esoteric bullshit skills that the guide wasn't going to teach me, and I should hunt down some magazine to try and learn those skills.

Quote from: AD&D 2eBeing a good Dungeon Master involves a lot more than knowing the rules. It calls for quick wit, theatrical flair, and a good sense of dramatic timing—among other things. Most of us can claim these attributes to some degree, but there's always room for improvement.
Fortunately, skills like these can be learned and improved with practice. There are hundreds of tricks, shortcuts, and simple principles that can make you a better, more dramatic, and more creative game master. But you won't find them in the Dungeon Master Guide. This is a reference book for running the AD&D game. We tried to minimize material that doesn't pertain to the immediate conduct of the game. If you are interested in reading more about this aspect of refereeing, we refer you to Dragon® Magazine, published monthly by TSR, Inc.

Dungeon World (and Apoc world before it) turned most of the rules that are used for finding out what happens next into player facing rules, and took GM advice, distilled it into statements of intentions and consequences, and made it the GM's rules.

Quote from: Dungeon WorldThere are many different fantasy genres, each with their own style or advice for GMing. Dungeon World is designed for one of those styles in particular—a world of elves, orcs, dragons and magic where dark dangers mix with lighthearted adventure. The rules in this chapter will help you run a game in that style.

The characters have rules to follow when they roll dice and take actions. The GM has rules to follow, too. You’ll be refereeing, adjudicating, and describing the world as you go—Dungeon World provides a framework to guide you in doing so.

This chapter isn’t about advice for the GM or optional tips and tricks on how best to play Dungeon World. It’s a chapter with procedures and rules for whoever takes on the role of GM.

For anyone interested you can find the rest of the GM rules for free here. (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/gm.html)

Quote from: One Horse Town;733447You've changed your mind since this then?

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=693684&postcount=1

I can like some aspects of the rules while criticizing others.  I think DW is a pretty solid game, but there are some problems with how the rules function.

Quote from: Old Geezer;733399maybe the problem is that people are stupid.

Every single fucking one of them.

Quote from: technoextreme;733519No it isn't because two terms you think are better are completely irrelevant to how the the word is used in game.  In fact the only terms I can think of which are more appropriate are even more pretentious.
On a fundamental level its way more than that and its probably Dungeon World's greatest innovation contrasted to D&D.

Grand and deep knowledge — that you don't explain — that's a great innovation over D&D.

Not pretentious at all, then.

Quote from: Ladybird;733464Almost the entire text is available online (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/), if you want to read it before buying it. All it's missing is the margin notes.

Thanks!

Looks trad enough at a first read, with a bit of confusing jargon on the way.

I have half a mind to hybridize this with J Arcane's Drums of War: Warcraft RPG and use the resulting Frankengame to run something new school and MMO-ey (in terms of fluff anyway).

Quote from: The Butcher;733805Thanks!

Looks trad enough at a first read, with a bit of confusing jargon on the way.

I have half a mind to hybridize this with J Arcane's Drums of War: Warcraft RPG and use the resulting Frankengame to run something new school and MMO-ey (in terms of fluff anyway).

It reads a lot clearer than Apocalypse World; I didn't even understand that as being a game for ages. But Sage seems to know his genre well, and benefited from further understanding of the * World system, so that helps a lot. "Moves" are just another word for "rules" from other systems... the bit that I found the least intuitive was "take x forwards" and "hold x", but it works in play.

I don't know how well it would mesh with any mechanical stuff from outside the * World design style, but fluff is fluff, and that sounds like a fun set-up.

I haven't read Drums of War, though. I could be wrong about it.

Quote from: Ladybird;733857I haven't read Drums of War, though. I could be wrong about it.

It's d20-based and some footwork will be required, but I think it can be done.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;733389I mean, someone on SomethingAwful wrote up a huge long guide on how the game is supposed to be run because it was too hard for new players to understand.

DW is a non-traditional RPG. The people who seem to have difficulty comprehending it seem to be primarily traditional RPG players who can't grok any other way of designing or playing an RPG.

I saw similar issues, albeit to a lesser degree, back when L5R was first released: The non-traditional breakdown of stats (instead of the traditional dualism of brain vs. body) broke some people's brains.

Quote from: Endless Flight;733407What's with the "begins and ends with the fiction" stuff that I've read about online? I don't know much about it.

That basically translates: Make decisions and describe what you're doing in terms of the game world.

If we applied this to a traditional RPG like D&D we might say something like: "Don't say 'I'm going to use the grapple rules now'. Instead say 'I grab the motherfucker'."

On the flip side, once you've used a rule the output goes back into the fiction. The mechanical outcome might be "you lose 2 hp", but the final step of resolution needs to be taking that mechanical abstraction and putting it back into the game world ("he strangles the fuck out of you").

Quote from: Justin Alexander;733986

Quote from: Endless Flight;733407What's with the "begins and ends with the fiction"  stuff that I've read about online? I don't know much about it.

That basically translates: Make decisions and describe what you're doing in terms of the game world.

If we applied this to a traditional RPG like D&D we might say something like: "Don't say 'I'm going to use the grapple rules now'. Instead say 'I grab the motherfucker'."

On the flip side, once you've used a rule the output goes back into the fiction. The mechanical outcome might be "you lose 2 hp", but the final step of resolution needs to be taking that mechanical abstraction and putting it back into the game world ("he strangles the fuck out of you").

(http://replygif.net/i/386.gif)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;733986That basically translates: Make decisions and describe what you're doing in terms of the game world.

If we applied this to a traditional RPG like D&D we might say something like: "Don't say 'I'm going to use the grapple rules now'. Instead say 'I grab the motherfucker'."

On the flip side, once you've used a rule the output goes back into the fiction. The mechanical outcome might be "you lose 2 hp", but the final step of resolution needs to be taking that mechanical abstraction and putting it back into the game world ("he strangles the fuck out of you").

That's basicly how I roleplay the WoD. If someone shoots someone else for five damage, I don't say: "You dealt five damage.". I say: "You shoot him right in the head and his brains are on the wall!" or something like that.

How would that work where an NPC/PC might have quite a few hit points (50+)? Would the DM keep saying "you knicked him in the pinkie finger/you slice into his calf/you bite a piece of his ear off like Mike Tyson/etc etc" until he croaks? That could get old after awhile.

Quote from: Endless Flight;734094How would that work where an NPC/PC might have quite a few hit points (50+)? Would the DM keep saying "you knicked him in the pinkie finger/you slice into his calf/you bite a piece of his ear off like Mike Tyson/etc etc" until he croaks? That could get old after awhile.

Not entirely in response to your question, I note that NPCs and PCs don't have 50+ HP in Dungeon World. 20 HP is close to the upper limit IME.

Quote from: Skywalker;734098Not entirely in response to your question, I note that NPCs and PCs don't have 50+ HP in Dungeon World. 20 HP is close to the upper limit IME

Yeah, my reply was kind of in response to the fact that people said they ran their games like this before Dungeon World came around. I actually haven't read DW yet.

Man, I'm surprised any of you have any axes left at the rate y'all grind them.

Pretentious = a term not used when I was 13.

"There are a lot of disappointed fans in the fiction today. Who thought that play had any chance to get the ball another ten yards down the fiction? The coach is sure to face some fiction on that in the fiction room after this fiction fiction!"

Quote from: Phillip;734121"There are a lot of disappointed fans in the fiction today. Who thought that play had any chance to get the ball another ten yards down the fiction? The coach is sure to face some fiction on that in the fiction room after this fiction fiction!"

If you ever say the word "fiction" at the table to refer to the events of game, you're doing it wrong. It's a rulebook term, nothing more.

Quote from: Endless Flight;734102Yeah, my reply was kind of in response to the fact that people said they ran their games like this before Dungeon World came around. I actually haven't read DW yet.

"You hit him but he looks like he hardly noticed."

"You hit him and he staggered."

Et cetera.  It ain't that fucking hard.  This isn't rocket surgery.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;734090That's basicly how I roleplay the WoD. If someone shoots someone else for five damage, I don't say: "You dealt five damage.". I say: "You shoot him right in the head and his brains are on the wall!" or something like that.

Yeah. It's nothing that I find particularly revolutionary.

It is, sadly, the opposite (where the mechanical connection to the world is forgotten) is something I've run into occasionally at convention games. And based on how many people online seem to treat the "fiction first" guidelines like some radical heresy, I'm left with the rather uncomfortable feeling that there's a lot more incredibly bad gaming going on than we really realize.

Quote from: Ladybird;734122If you ever say the word "fiction" at the table to refer to the events of game, you're doing it wrong. It's a rulebook term, nothing more.

You are assuming good faith.

Quote from: Old Geezer;734124"You hit him but he looks like he hardly noticed."

"You hit him and he staggered."

Et cetera.  It ain't that fucking hard.  This isn't rocket surgery.

What if each hit is only 1 hp off the total and you do that 50 times? :D

Quote from: Old Geezer;734124"You hit him but he looks like he hardly noticed."

"You hit him and he staggered."

Et cetera.  It ain't that fucking hard.  This isn't rocket surgery.

I must say I really like your fiction.

Quote from: Old Geezer;734124"You hit him but he looks like he hardly noticed."

"You hit him and he staggered."

Et cetera.  It ain't that fucking hard.  This isn't rocket surgery.

Quote from: Endless Flight;734128What if each hit is only 1 hp off the total and you do that 50 times? :D

Then it's "you hit him but he hardly noticed" (or shrugged it off, or parried, or whatever.) And when he's at half points, you say "You think you're wearing him down, though,"  and in the 1-point range, "he's definitely tiring out." You can't standardize this, though, because some creatures like ghosts or blobs are going to be different.

Remember, you aren't rolling "to hit", despite what we often say. You're rolling to see if you have a chance of killing your opponent this round. 1 point of damage is a deadly blow, to a small creature or an unlucky mercenary. And when you deal a potentially deadly blow to someone, but don't do as much damage as his remaining hit points, that means you know your blow would normally be deadly, but your opponent was lucky or quick and dodged, parried, turned his body just right to avoid losing a kidney, grimaced under a crushing blow but remained on his feet, or whatever seems appropriate.

Quote from: Endless Flight;734128What if each hit is only 1 hp off the total and you do that 50 times? :D

"He's still laughing at you."  20 or 30 times.

Besides, if you're standing there slugging it out 1 HP at a time, you're playing OD&D wrong.  Your thief should have snuck up behind him and stabbed him in the nutsack by now.

Quote from: Old Geezer;733399Shrug.  I just finished a six-month campaign of DW and it's pretty fucking obvious when a move triggers.

"I'm gonna kill the fucker."  Hack and Slash.
"I'm gonna jump past the monster and protect the girl."  Defy Danger, then next 'turn' Defend.
Et cetera.

All this "narrative first" is just a fancy-ass way of saying "Tell what you're trying to accomplish, don't spout rule shit."  Just like D&D back in 1974.

Of course, I've seen people complain that they couldn't understand CHAINMAIL, so maybe the problem is that people are stupid.

So what is the essence of DW?

If two game groups were playing side by side, one being 1E dnd and the other DW, and I was observing them, what would be different?

Quote from: Ladybird;734122If you ever say the word "fiction" at the table to refer to the events of game, you're doing it wrong. It's a rulebook term, nothing more.

To me, it's the wrong term in the rules book because it's the wrong term at the game table.

All it does is create needless dissonance and confusion, IMO.

Are we still going on about the word "fiction"?

Quote from: jhkim;733440While the word "fiction" isn't commonly used - traditional RPGs have been using similar terms like "scene", "story", "chronicle", "plot arc", and more for decades - from James Bond 007 to Star Wars D6, and more. Many current RPGs continue to use such language - White Wolf most prominently, but also lots of others.

Similarly, there was a point when "graphic novel" was a considered a pretentious term for a comic collection - but these days its just the norm.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733455Dude, Torg guy here. Scene, Act, Subplot card, Act Awards, Dramatic or Standard scene for combat — I know this happens.

That's irrelevant. This phrase — "the Fiction" — is both pretentious and disruptive. It's a pointless affectation.

"In-game" or "in-character" is better, clearer, and less affected.

So are you saying that Torg's use of terms like "Scene" and "Act" are also pretentious? Or are you saying that Torg is non-pretentious for using such terms, but if other games pull in similar terms then they are pretentious?

Personally, I don't think that any of "act", "scene", "plot", or "fiction" are pretentious. "Fiction" is ordinary English that people on the street use to distinguish between things that aren't real and things that are.


As for your alternatives, they are both useful - but they don't refer to the same thing.

"In-game" is good for distinguishing out-of-game stuff, like comments, jokes, and so forth. However, it doesn't distinguish between stuff in the fictional game-world (i.e. "Throg hits the troll with his axe") and stuff at the real-world game table (i.e. "I rolled an 18 to hit").

"In-character" is good for distinguishing stuff from the characters' point of view - but it only refers to the characters. This is different from the fiction if the characters are mistaken and/or lying. For example, Throg thinks that trolls are demons, but they aren't really - or Throg might say "I killed it" in-character, but really he didn't kill it.

The equivalent to "fiction" is really "in-game-world", which is fine - but while it is established, it isn't nearly as entrenched as terms like GM, NPC, or in-character.

Quote from: jhkim;734274Personally, I don't think that any of "act", "scene", "plot", or "fiction" are pretentious. "Fiction" is ordinary English that people on the street use to distinguish between things that aren't real and things that are.


.

Obviously this is just a subjective assessment and may be shaped by regional speech. But for me both "Act" and "Fiction" (especially "The Fiction") come off as snobby or pretentious. That is simply how they sound to me when I hear them. Plot just sounds like everyday speech to talk about events in a game, movie, video game, book, etc. Scene, while it is a word I would personally to talk about what happened during a game, doesn't strike me as pretentious or arrogant.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734294Obviously this is just a subjective assessment and may be shaped by regional speech. But for me both "Act" and "Fiction" (especially "The Fiction") come off as snobby or pretentious. That is simply how they sound to me when I hear them. Plot just sounds like everyday speech to talk about events in a game, movie, video game, book, etc. Scene, while it is a word I would personally to talk about what happened during a game, doesn't strike me as pretentious or arrogant.

I think a lot of it is just baggage.  Between the 20+ years of railroading we've seen in the industry, and the pretentiousness that hit during the 90s, it gets really easy to hear something like "fiction first" and think either "fuck the players, fuck the rules, I'm telling my story", or some avant-garde post-modern roleplaying bullshit, rather than hearing what's actually intended - "focus on what's happening in the game world, not on your fucking character sheets and minis map".

There's certain terms that I avoid (especially here) simply because of that baggage.

That, and a lot of the stuff is so ingrained into old-school players that it seems not even worth mentioning to people that have fully internalized it.

Quote from: Bill;734255So what is the essence of DW?

If two game groups were playing side by side, one being 1E dnd and the other DW, and I was observing them, what would be different?

For THIS old fart's money, pretty much only that in DW, EVERYTHING is "2d6, 2-6 fails, 7-9 success with complication, 10-12 success."

If you watched closer, you'd see that DW doesn't have the skirmish wargame aspect of D&D; if six orcs are chopping on you they only roll once and "extra" orcs only add damage.

Frankly, that's the one thing I do NOT like about DW; for my taste, combat sucks horribly.  I WANT a skirmish wargame.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734294Obviously this is just a subjective assessment and may be shaped by regional speech. But for me both "Act" and "Fiction" (especially "The Fiction") come off as snobby or pretentious. That is simply how they sound to me when I hear them. Plot just sounds like everyday speech to talk about events in a game, movie, video game, book, etc. Scene, while it is a word I would personally to talk about what happened during a game, doesn't strike me as pretentious or arrogant.

So "act" and "fiction" sound pretentious to you, while "scene" and "plot" do not. As you say, it is a subjective reaction - and I don't have a problem with that, but also one shouldn't read too much into author intent based on that.

I just don't think it should be a big deal. RPGs have had a lot of varying terms for stuff. For example, Gygax used the term "milieu" for this same concept - which didn't really catch on - possibly because it sounds pretentious, or just because it was obscure. It wasn't a big deal, though, to adjust to that usage.

Quote from: jhkim;734363So "act" and "fiction" sound pretentious to you, while "scene" and "plot" do not. As you say, it is a subjective reaction - and I don't have a problem with that, but also one shouldn't read too much into author intent based on that.

Yes.

I am not making any assumptions about intent, just saying what my gut reaction is to these words. That said, it will likely color my impression of the speaker or message.

I was reading a book the other day, and put it down because the writer was useing a lot of pretentious language. This had nothing to do with RPGs, though.

QuoteI just don't think it should be a big deal. RPGs have had a lot of varying terms for stuff. For example, Gygax used the term "milieu" for this same concept - which didn't really catch on - possibly because it sounds pretentious, or just because it was obscure. It wasn't a big deal, though, to adjust to that usage.

I wouldn't say it is a big deal. People can communicate however they wish. I would add in Milieu as sounding pretentious too though(just coming from the other side of the spectrum). For me, I have to admit, I have a bit if an instinctive negative reaction to things that come off as pretentious or snobby.

Quote from: Benoist;734263To me, it's the wrong term in the rules book because it's the wrong term at the game table.

And that's why it works for me; it's a term we can use to discuss the game rules (The contents of the book Dungeon World) and their interaction with play, as distinct from discussing the actual game (Which is what happens at the table).

So... it doesn't produce any confusion for me.

Quote from: Benoist;734263To me, it's the wrong term in the rules book because it's the wrong term at the game table.

All it does is create needless dissonance and confusion, IMO.

It may create dissonance for you and other people, but that is not my experience for myself or others I have introduced the game to.

You can replace Fiction, Shared Imaginary Space, Game world, In-Game, In-Character Milieu, narrative, story, plot, campaign, campaign world, ~~The Theater of the Mind~~, etc. with Made-Up Bullshit, the least pretentious term for the made-up bullshit gamers talk about in their elfgames.

Fiction works for me because it's easy for players new to the hobby to understand when you use it, and players who don't frequent internet forums for arguing about RPGs don't have any adverse reaction to it. It has no dissonance for players I have introduced the game to, whether they have experience in made-up bullshit games or not.

The rules give a definition of the fiction as a term in the first paragraph explaining the game.

Quote from: Dungeon WorldPlaying Dungeon World means having a conversation; somebody says something, then you reply, maybe someone else chimes in. We talk about the fiction—the world of the characters and the things that happen around them. As we play, the rules will chime in, too. They have something to say about the world. There are no turns or rounds in Dungeon World, no rules to say whose turn it is to talk. Instead players take turns in the natural flow of the conversation, which always has some back-and-forth. The GM says something, the players respond. The players ask questions or make statements, the GM tells them what happens next. Dungeon World is never a monologue; it's always a conversation.

A lot of roleplaying games are written only for people that already play roleplaying games. They don't work on making themselves approachable for players new to the hobby, creating an insular community. I like that dungeon world is written so that you could pick it up and play it without ever hearing about roleplaying games or D&D.

Quote from: Old Geezer;734354For THIS old fart's money, pretty much only that in DW, EVERYTHING is "2d6, 2-6 fails, 7-9 success with complication, 10-12 success."

If you watched closer, you'd see that DW doesn't have the skirmish wargame aspect of D&D; if six orcs are chopping on you they only roll once and "extra" orcs only add damage.

Frankly, that's the one thing I do NOT like about DW; for my taste, combat sucks horribly.  I WANT a skirmish wargame.

DW definitely doesn't scratch that minis skirmish combat itch. Instead, combat (and arguably the whole game) revolves around positioning yourself so that the stakes and consequences of your actions are more favorable. It focuses on leveraging the situation and your surroundings to your advantage, instead of leveraging rules to your advantage. The intent is that you spend less time discussing the rules, and more time talking about made-up bullshit to determine what happens next.

A drawback can be that if the players and GM aren't creative with stakes, actions, and consequences, it can turn into bland "I swing my axe." "You do your damage and take D8 damage, roll."

Quote from: Adric;734401It may create dissonance for you and other people, but that is not my experience for myself or others I have introduced the game to.

That's cool. The only real question is whether I'm just a blip on the radar, or there are more people like me who think a term like "fiction" to describe "the game world" is needlessly confusing and leads to all sorts of red herrings, like construing role playing games as a story telling medium complete with novel-writing techniques and movie-making tropes. It looks, from the sample we have here, that it is the latter.

I know, I know. The plural of anecdote is not data. But still. I feel entitled to say my piece.

'The Fiction' gets my hackles up a bit because it reminds me of 'The Text' and the literature majors who pepper their talk with that term to cover up the fact that they're speaking nonsense.

I have always used "the fiction" to refer back to the source material we are supposed to be trying to emulate. So in an 007 game I am trying to get the game to feel like a James boind movie (no the books). If I am playing Star Wars likewise.

So in D&D terms it depends on what fantasy genre this particular game is aimed at, Dying earth, Conan, Locke Lamora, Blade itself, Middle Earth.

So I will complain about say clerics, because they don't feature in "The fiction" and so feel like a meta class added in to make some bad design decisions work in play, etc

Obviously just me :D

Quote from: jhkim;734274Are we still going on about the word "fiction"?

Aren't you? :)

Quote from: jhkim;734274So are you saying that Torg's use of terms like "Scene" and "Act" are also pretentious?

'Course not. And you know that. Come on.

Quote from: jhkim;734274Or are you saying that Torg is non-pretentious for using such terms,

Yup. :)

Quote from: jhkim;734274if other games pull in similar terms then they are pretentious?

This game using this term in this way is pretentious.

Quote from: jhkim;734274However, it doesn't distinguish between stuff in the fictional game-world (i.e. "Throg hits the troll with his axe") and stuff at the real-world game table (i.e. "I rolled an 18 to hit").

Maybe the term means something different where you live, but the gamers I've talked to use "in-game" as shorthand for "in the game world", as in "what's happening in-game". It is wholly and undoubtedly different from "in the real world".

"In-game" and "in the real world" are not the same thing. At least with respect to the people I've gamed with and spoken to. And there has never been any confusion about the term. Your experience obviously differs.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;734440Maybe the term means something different where you live, but the gamers I've talked to use "in-game" as shorthand for "in the game world", as in "what's happening in-game". It is wholly and undoubtedly different from "in the real world".

"In-game" and "in the real world" are not the same thing. At least with respect to the people I've gamed with and spoken to. And there has never been any confusion about the term. Your experience obviously differs.

I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. Maybe another example would help.

So Madeline asks me "What happened last time in-game?"  I reply, "Well, we fought our way through a bunch of abominations in the pyramid, and Taylor got to level 4, but Mike's character died so he introduced a new PC - a ranger."

Does that sound like something you might hear? Or is your usage contrary to this?

Don't people usually ask "what happened during the game?".

"What happened in the fiction" sounds strange.

Quote from: jhkim;734474I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. Maybe another example would help.

So Madeline asks me "What happened last time in-game?"  I reply, "Well, we fought our way through a bunch of abominations in the pyramid, and Taylor got to level 4, but Mike's character died so he introduced a new PC - a ranger."

Does that sound like something you might hear? Or is your usage contrary to this?

That isn't how i would use that word. I am sure this varies a bit from place to place, Your answer would possibly be how someone in my group would respond to the question "what happened last game?" but not "what happened last time in-game". In-game to me means the stuff that happens in the setting, not the stuff that happens at the table. Now, we wouldn't slap someone on the face for using levels or metagame language to talk about in-game events. But in-game to me, suggests in the game itself, what the player characters are doing, not what the players do. If i ask you what happened in-game, i am not asking how many levels you obtained or what have you.

That said, i think your example isn't egregious. It just feels like a somewhat casual response, without concern for precision. I would understand what the person was telling me and would just assume they find it easier to speak about game setting events by drawing on metagame language. Not saying your useage is wrong. This is just how i would interpret at my table.

Quote from: Benoist;734424That's cool. The only real question is whether I'm just a blip on the radar, or there are more people like me who think a term like "fiction" to describe "the game world" is needlessly confusing and leads to all sorts of red herrings, like construing role playing games as a story telling medium complete with novel-writing techniques and movie-making tropes. It looks, from the sample we have here, that it is the latter.

I know, I know. The plural of anecdote is not data. But still. I feel entitled to say my piece.

I don't find it confusing, just completely redundant and pseudo-intellectual. Most traditional RPGs have a perfectly serviceable "what is a roleplaying game?"-chapter where the exact same thing is explained in common terms.

Quote from: Endless Flight;734482Don't people usual ask "what happened during the game?".

"What happened in the fiction" sounds strange.

I have never heard any player or gm ever use the word 'fiction' in regards to an rpg (other than on message boards) and I have been playing bucket loads of rpgs for over 30 years.

If my memory is accurate, the word fiction has been exclusively a reference to novels, not rpg's.


I have heard the word 'Story' in the context of 'what happened in the campaign"

Quote from: Old Geezer;734354For THIS old fart's money, pretty much only that in DW, EVERYTHING is "2d6, 2-6 fails, 7-9 success with complication, 10-12 success."

If you watched closer, you'd see that DW doesn't have the skirmish wargame aspect of D&D; if six orcs are chopping on you they only roll once and "extra" orcs only add damage.

Frankly, that's the one thing I do NOT like about DW; for my taste, combat sucks horribly.  I WANT a skirmish wargame.

So ultra rules lite.

Based on that, why do some people seem up in arms over DW?

Quote from: 3rik;734488I don't find it confusing, just completely redundant and pseudo-intellectual.

Quote from: 3rik;734488. . . just completely redundant and pseudo-intellectual.

Quote from: 3rik;734488. . . completely redundant and pseudo-intellectual.

That pretty well covers it for me.

Quote from: Adric;734401Fiction works for me because it's easy for players new to the hobby to understand when you use it, and players who don't frequent internet forums for arguing about RPGs don't have any adverse reaction to it. It has no dissonance for players I have introduced the game to, whether they have experience in made-up bullshit games or not.

"Game world" is a perfectly utilitarian and widely understood term. But it doesn't have the implied sophistication of "fiction."

Quote from: Adric;734401A lot of roleplaying games are written only for people that already play roleplaying games. They don't work on making themselves approachable for players new to the hobby, creating an insular community. I like that dungeon world is written so that you could pick it up and play it without ever hearing about roleplaying games or D&D.

That may be the case. But it's undercut by the fact it's almost impossible to buy the book retail. So in practice Dungeon World is a game that's only going to be played by hardcore RPG internet hipsters.

If "the fiction" comes across as pretentious we screwed up. We're two dudes making a game about going into dangerous places and punching things in the face, pretension is not something we excel in.

I guess because of some of the people we're associated with we should have been more wary of anything that could come across as fancy-shmancy hippie talk. Oh well. If that's a game-breaker for you, no problem, there are a ton of other games out there that use different terminology.

The book shouldn't be impossible to find in retail, though. At the moment we are sold out through one of our suppliers, which may limit what you see on shelves, but in general the game is available anywhere that stocks RPGs. of course there are all kinds of reasons a given game is or isn't on a given store's shelves, but anecdotally we're showing up in a lot of dedicated hobby shops.

Quote from: sage_again;734540If "the fiction" comes across as pretentious we screwed up. We're two dudes making a game about going into dangerous places and punching things in the face, pretension is not something we excel in.

I guess because of some of the people we're associated with we should have been more wary of anything that could come across as fancy-shmancy hippie talk. Oh well. If that's a game-breaker for you, no problem, there are a ton of other games out there that use different terminology.

The book shouldn't be impossible to find in retail, though. At the moment we are sold out through one of our suppliers, which may limit what you see on shelves, but in general the game is available anywhere that stocks RPGs. of course there are all kinds of reasons a given game is or isn't on a given store's shelves, but anecdotally we're showing up in a lot of dedicated hobby shops.

I am not familiar with DW; have not had a chance to read it yet. But may I ask why the word fiction was used at all? I personally don't get a fancy pants vibe from the word fiction, but it seems to apply to written novels at least in my head.

We chose it from a bunch of options, mostly based on what we found in our own communications clearest and easiest to use. "In-game," "in-character," "in setting," "in world," "in the current situation," and numerous others were considered. At various points during development we used all of them, but often found they fell short, or were just a pain to use.

Adam and I live in different countries, so we email a lot. That means our emails often are effectively first drafts of new rules, and we found that "in-character" would lead to problems with clarity, for example (there's both "in character" as in talking in silly voices or "in character" as in what your character perceives, plus things that are in the same made up world as your character but which your character has no idea of). We may not be average readers, but this was our process. We ended up referring to "the fiction" a lot, as it encompassed the entire world the characters exist in, both known to the players and unknown, in it's entirety (not just the current moment or current plane or whatever). It made sense to us that the way of talking we had found easiest might work for others, but it may have come across as insider lingo.

That may have been the wrong choice, in which case: sorry to anyone put off by it. We felt it was our best option for clarity and conciseness.

I am just curious why the word seems so 'hot button'
'Fiction' does not really push my buttons as a term.
I guess to me it just means "Didn't actually happen in reality"
Thanks for the reply.

Quote from: Bill;734499So ultra rules lite.

Based on that, why do some people seem up in arms over DW?

Because it's a hack of Apocalypse World, which was written by Vince Baker, one of the Unholy Trinity of the Forge - together with Luke Crane and the Dark Lord Ron Edwards himself.

Quote from: robiswrong;734562Because it's a hack of Apocalypse World, which was written by Vince Baker, one of the Unholy Trinity of the Forge - together with Luke Crane and the Dark Lord Ron Edwards himself.

Which also explains the main issue that some people here have with the  word "fiction", being uncomfortable close to "story".

Quote from: jhkimSo Madeline asks me "What happened last time in-game?" I reply, "Well, we fought our way through a bunch of abominations in the pyramid, and Taylor got to level 4, but Mike's character died so he introduced a new PC - a ranger."

Does that sound like something you might hear? Or is your usage contrary to this?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734483(...) But in-game to me, suggests in the game itself, what the player characters are doing, not what the players do. If i ask you what happened in-game, i am not asking how many levels you obtained or what have you.

That said, i think your example isn't egregious. It just feels like a somewhat casual response, without concern for precision. I would understand what the person was telling me and would just assume they find it easier to speak about game setting events by drawing on metagame language. Not saying your useage is wrong. This is just how i would interpret at my table.

Fair enough. And I'm not saying this usage is the only way that I use the term "in-game". I'm just saying that in my experience, that usage is pretty common. So when I join a new group, I would not be at all surprised to hear that usage, and I might well use it that way among them.

Quote from: Bill;734560I am just curious why the word seems so 'hot button'
'Fiction' does not really push my buttons as a term.
I guess to me it just means "Didn't actually happen in reality"
Thanks for the reply.

I guess for me, when i hear the words "the fiction", to echo another poster, it reminds me of my brushes with literary criticism and critical studies courses talking about "the text". I hear that, and i immediately associate it with things like postmodernism, and it feels looe a useage that takes the normal meaning of something and almost turns it into a code language. So to me, it feels like that kind of mentality seeping into the discussion.

I have never read or played DW, so not commenting on the language they use in their rules, since it might well not come off as i am describing above. I am just responding to posters in this thread talking about the use of "the fiction" in isolation, which is a term i have come across in places like enworld.

Quote from: sage_again;734558We chose it from a bunch of options, mostly based on what we found in our own communications clearest and easiest to use. "In-game," "in-character," "in setting," "in world," "in the current situation," and numerous others were considered. At various points during development we used all of them, but often found they fell short, or were just a pain to use.

Adam and I live in different countries, so we email a lot. That means our emails often are effectively first drafts of new rules, and we found that "in-character" would lead to problems with clarity, for example (there's both "in character" as in talking in silly voices or "in character" as in what your character perceives, plus things that are in the same made up world as your character but which your character has no idea of). We may not be average readers, but this was our process. We ended up referring to "the fiction" a lot, as it encompassed the entire world the characters exist in, both known to the players and unknown, in it's entirety (not just the current moment or current plane or whatever). It made sense to us that the way of talking we had found easiest might work for others, but it may have come across as insider lingo.

That may have been the wrong choice, in which case: sorry to anyone put off by it. We felt it was our best option for clarity and conciseness.

I am not familiar with your useage of the term in the DW rules, so haven't really been commenting on that specific case. For me, it has more to do with how I have seen it used in online discussions about rpgs in general.

Quote from: Skywalker;734563Which also explains the main issue that some people here have with the  word "fiction", being uncomfortable close to "story".

In all honesty, I had a bunch of issues with more narrative-focused games based on preconceptions, mostly from DragonLance and other linear module series.  I had developed a serious aversion to anything smacking of "the story the GM wants to tell".

What initially broke me of that was someone telling me "no, you're not guaranteed to win.  In my last Dresden game, one person died, another lost herself to her Fae nature, and another one ended up enslaved to a demon.  None of which I had planned."

I still have lots of issues with Forge-theory, as I've described in great deal in other threads.

Quote from: jhkim;734566Fair enough. And I'm not saying this usage is the only way that I use the term "in-game". I'm just saying that in my experience, that usage is pretty common. So when I join a new group, I would not be at all surprised to hear that usage, and I might well use it that way among them.

I think there's a good reason to not use "in-game", in that it's too all-inclusive.  From what I can tell, the impetus to have another word was to draw a distinction between "the shit we're imagining" and "the shit that's on the table".

"Fiction" may not be the best term, due to baggage from people getting hammered with "it's all about the (GM's) story!" for several decades, I'll grant that.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734568I guess for me, when i hear the words "the fiction", to echo another poster, it reminds me of my brushes with literary criticism and critical studies courses talking about "the text". I hear that, and i immediately associate it with things like postmodernism, and it feels looe a useage that takes the normal meaning of something and almost turns it into a code language. So to me, it feels like that kind of mentality seeping into the discussion.

As someone who took a lot of classics courses, when "the text" is used in that field, it refers to an actual text of classical Greek or Roman origin and what it actually says, it's relation to its place in history and the various bits of linguistic data, manuscript evidence and information we know about the author and his time and place.

So it might just be a personal hangup of yours that's resulting from your interaction with the term.

I think that "the fiction" was the exact right term to use because no one is confused by it.  Despite all the argument in this thread, everyone knows it means "the made up stuff" just like the content of a novel.

For my group, saying "Say what's happening in the game, not what rules you want to use" worked just fine in DW.

Quote from: NathanIW;734574As someone who took a lot of classics courses, when "the text" is used in that field, it refers to an actual text of classical Greek or Roman origin and what it actually says...

I'm sure there's some proper, narrow use for it in academia but the majority of times I've run into 'The Text' it was coming out of the mouth of some student using it to sound properly academic. It's often a dead giveaway that someone is obfuscating the weakness of their argument/observation.
I was at an academic conference a few weeks ago and the ONLY person I heard trotting out 'The Text' was a guy who had his whole presentation reduced to 'Downton Abbey is pretty neat' by smarter minds in the audience (none of them mentioning 'The Text').

QuoteI think that "the fiction" was the exact right term to use because no one is confused by it.

That's obviously less than true...

Quote from: NathanIW;734574As someone who took a lot of classics courses, when "the text" is used in that field, it refers to an actual text of classical Greek or Roman origin and what it actually says, it's relation to its place in history and the various bits of linguistic data, manuscript evidence and information we know about the author and his time and place.

.

Sure. I studied mainly history and people talked about the text as well. But your useage and the one we employed is much closer to the literal meaning, than how I saw it used by people involved in literary and cultural criticism (where The Text seemed to refer to many non-text based mediums, to the point where a banana could be referred to as The Text). And that is the useage that I associate with pretention. Certainly could be a personal hang-up of mine. But when I hear "the fiction" that is what enters my mind.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;734568I have never read or played DW, so not commenting on the language they use in their rules, since it might well not come off as i am describing above. I am just responding to posters in this thread talking about the use of "the fiction" in isolation, which is a term i have come across in places like enworld.

The text is available online, I posted the link back near the top of the thread for The Butcher. It's easy to go and read it if you're interested.

Quote from: Ladybird;734607The text is available online, I posted the link back near the top of the thread for The Butcher. It's easy to go and read it if you're interested.

I have enough reading on my plate at the moment. I can't say this is something I have much interest in playing, but it also isn't something that bothers me. It seems like a lot of people do enjoy it. I was just making the point that my comment on the fiction was not related to dungeon world, as i am pretty unfamiliar with the game's content.

Quote from: Simlasa;734583I was at an academic conference a few weeks ago and the ONLY person I heard trotting out 'The Text' was a guy who had his whole presentation reduced to 'Downton Abbey is pretty neat' by smarter minds in the audience (none of them mentioning 'The Text').

Wow.  Can you use it in a sentence the way that student did?  This literally makes no sense to me and googling for post modern uses of "the text" didn't turn up anything like what you're talking about either.

Last time I was at a seminar and someone said "the text" they were actually talking about the content of a letter in Latin.  It was super concrete and talking about the content of a historical work.  In this case, bringing attention to the actual words and phrases used and then showing that those words were not used until the 3rd century, so that had to be the earliest the text could have been written.

Quote from: Simlasa;734583I was at an academic conference a few weeks ago and the ONLY person I heard trotting out 'The Text' was a guy who had his whole presentation reduced to 'Downton Abbey is pretty neat' by smarter minds in the audience (none of them mentioning 'The Text').

In my experience, the more someone uses academic/technical jargon unnecessarily, the *less* knowledgeable they are.

Hell, one of the things I use to judge really stupidly smart people is their ability to explain complex things *without* the use of jargon.

So, what jargon does Baker use in Apocalypse World instead of "Teh Fiction"? It already sounds awfully Forgy, though possibly not intentionally, but apparently it wasn't adopted from Baker's game.

Quote from: 3rik;734627It already sounds awfully Forgy, though possibly not intentionally,

Sage seems like a stand-up guy, and I'll take his word for it. Why the word struck me as pretentious:

Pretentious jargon obfuscates, it's an attempt to make the speaker seem smarter. Usually, it's a novel term that replaces perfectly usable everyday language which everyone already understood.

That's (part of) my criteria for pretentiousness in language: a new term which replaces perfectly clear everyday language for no compelling reason.

So, "The Fiction".

1. It's a piece of jargon.

2. It's a wholly new piece of jargon.

3. That refers to a universally known concept.

4. Which already had a number of widely used terms to describe it.

The concept already existed, terms to describe it already existed, so an awkward, redundant piece of jargon will seem pretentious.

Add to that people who (in this very thread) insist the concept being referred to is a great and novel innovation never present in D&D, and the term seems like a lock for the Bullshit Pretentious Jargon Championship. "We're better than D&D, with bold new ideas it never even considered" is pretty much the hallmark of a pretentious game or game designer.

Fine, that was only a fan speaking and not the creator. (And the creator, again, seems like an okay guy.) But I've seen a lot of fans (in other venues) using the term pretentiously.

Again, sage seems like a stand-up guy, and I'll take his word for it. He was genuinely looking for clearer language.

In this case, unfortunately, the phrase he chose came across as pretentious. I'm not trying to harangue him, or suggest he do anything different.

In fact, I'd like to wish him well: congratulations on your success, and I hope you continue to find success in the future. Cheers!

Trigger Warning: A Term You might Have Heard someone on a message board you don't like use.

And people complain about the SJWs.

Quote from: 3rik;734627So, what jargon does Baker use in Apocalypse World instead of "Teh Fiction"? It already sounds awfully Forgy, though possibly not intentionally, but apparently it wasn't adopted from Baker's game.

I don't think he did.

Quote from: NathanIW;734619Wow.  Can you use it in a sentence the way that student did?  This literally makes no sense to me and googling for post modern uses of "the text" didn't turn up anything like what you're talking about either.

I don't remember specifics quotes... he was just kind of liberally sprinkling 'The Text' throughout his explanations... in a way that didn't add any clarity or specificity.

Quote from: robiswrong;734622In my experience, the more someone uses academic/technical jargon unnecessarily, the *less* knowledgeable they are.

Hell, one of the things I use to judge really stupidly smart people is their ability to explain complex things *without* the use of jargon.

Exactly.
It's really just insecurity... that they won't sound 'smart' without it.

Quote from: 3rik;734627So, what jargon does Baker use in Apocalypse World instead of "Teh Fiction"? It already sounds awfully Forgy, though possibly not intentionally, but apparently it wasn't adopted from Baker's game.

The terminology was pretty clearly inherited from AW:

"... letting the game's fiction decide it is uniquely satisfying."

"... [make] your move for reasons entirely within the game's fiction..."

"... always choose a move that the game's fiction makes possible..."

These are all quotes from Apocalypse World. But AW doesn't treat it as a piece of jargon. From the same section, you also get: "Pretend, though, that there's a fictional cause; pretend that it has a fictional effect." Other places in the rulebook use "fictional details", "fictional circumstances and capabilities",

DW took general discussions of "fiction" and "fictional world" and so forth and boiled it down into a consistent piece of terminology.

Contrary to some of the other people in this thread, I don't find it a useless or redundant piece of jargon: Yes, it shares some stuff in common with "the game world". And it shares some stuff in common with "the PC's back story". And it shares some stuff in common with "what your character's motivation is".  But you'll notice that those are all different terms. Handling them all under a single label unifies concepts which are frequently treated as diverse and separate bodies of concern in other games.

The other reason I don't really consider it newfangled jargon is that it's being used in a manner completely consistent with the English definition of the word "fiction":

OED 3.b: That which, or something that, is imaginatively invented; feigned existence, event, or state of things; invention as opposed to fact.

That use of the word is cited back to 1398. Claiming that using the common word "fiction" in a way that's completely consistent with its common usage since 1398 doesn't qualify as pretentious unless you're living in 1398. (And if you're living in 1398, I'm questioning how you're using a computer to post to this message board.)

Quote from: Old Geezer;733498I didn't find it pretentious, but I did find it "trying too hard" to be sarcastic and ironic an' shit.  The class descriptions are all written with the attitude of 'We all know these old school classes and archetypes are old fashioned and lame but we're putting them in the game in a hip and ironic way.'

Playing a Paladin was fun.  Playing with a guy who was playing a Fighter was fun.

Reading the descriptions of the classes made me groan.

FWIW, Sage and Adam may like to write with ironic humor, but I have never known them to say that classes are lame. I'm confident they don't feel that way nor intended the book to come off that way. And, in my opinion the book doesn't come off that way at all. Of course, opinions, they like to differ.

Quote from: Simlasa;733435So it exists as a kind of permission-slip from the hipsters allowing trenders to engage in old-school play?

In essence, yes.  Which means that Storygames have now reached the point that White Wolf Swine reached when they got to Exalted.

I always said that Exalted is to White Wolf "Storytelling Games" what "artistic french erotic cinema" is to porn movies.  Its what people who imagine themselves "too good" for regular porn resort to for titillation, erotica that still allows them to pretend its "art" or more "sophisticated" than what the "unwashed masses" like.
Exalted is uber-powergaming in the exact same sense that WW-Swine spent a decade insulting D&D for; but it kept that veneer of WW-smugness and pseudo-artistry so that WW players could have something to play without having to admit they were wrong about what's actually good.

DW has fulfilled the same function now for Storygamers.  It lets them pretend that they're still being radical pseudo-intellectuals who are so much better than regular gamers, it even makes them think that they're cleverly playing a storygame that puts on a facade of an RPG; when in fact all they're doing is playing an RPG with the crumbling facade of being a storygame.  Its the feather on the cap of their creative bankruptcy.

RPGPundit

Quote from: talysman;733446Actually, it's an UNpretentious way of saying that. Or rather,as Dan pointed out, it's stuff that's happening in the game world, not the game.

I was actually on the Forge forums for a couple years back around 2004 to 2006 or so. At one point, someone introduced the term "Shared Imagined Space", which they immediately abbreviated to SIS, and it became a buzzword. And it was very annoying, not only because it was opaque like a lot of Forge jargon, but because the hot idea at the time was to focus on "the people around the table", and there was a lot of pretentious talk examining the SIS as a product of human interaction and the game's rules as a method of governing how the players interacted and blah blah blah...

As far as I know, I was the one who introduced "the fiction" on the Forge as a less pretentious way of talking about what your elf is doing what as opposed to what you are doing. I didn't mean it in the storygamer sense -- it has nothing to do with making stories -- but in the more common sense of "stuff that isn't real". And I specifically brought up the distinction between system vs. fiction because the Forgeoisie have a long-term problem understanding what "Simulationism" is; they couldn't quite grasp that some people are more interested in what that stupid elf is doing than in mastering game rules.

That's pretty amusing, that "the fiction" is the closest they could get to trying to make up jargon that was straightforward. That they actually thought they were simplifying things by using that.

Its like when Democrats try to make up soundbytes to compete with the republican spin machine; they're usually so terribly fucking bad at it because they can't even fathom what will actually sell in Peoria, they went so far down the bureaucratic rabbit-hole that they don't know how normal people talk anymore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;735339DW has fulfilled the same function now for Storygamers.  It lets them pretend that they're still being radical pseudo-intellectuals who are so much better than regular gamers, it even makes them think that they're cleverly playing a storygame that puts on a facade of an RPG; when in fact all they're doing is playing an RPG with the crumbling facade of being a storygame.  Its the feather on the cap of their creative bankruptcy.

I'm not actually sure that storygamers who "pretend they are so much better than regular gamers" exist as an identifiable group, just opinionated individuals.  When people say they're interested in trying a new Fiasco playbook, they usually end up being the same people who also play in a Labyrinth Lord game.

Today I was at a new player's place for our 1980 Runequest game (we rotate hosting) and in his game room his shelves had things like My Life With Master and Dogs In the Vineyard right next to his Swords & Wizardry book and his Moldvay D&D.  

So I think you might be conflating the opinions of individuals with entire groups of people.  And this idea of ongoing war between storygamers and traditional RPGs might also not actually reflect reality.

Quote from: RPGPundit;735339DW has fulfilled the same function now for Storygamers.  It lets them pretend that they're still being radical pseudo-intellectuals who are so much better than regular gamers (...)

I get the impression it even fulfills such a role for certain players of traditional RPGs - though these people seem less big on the pseudo-intellectualism - who seem convinced that AW and DW offer a more clever, more effective way of playing than other RPGs; that they fix something that was broken or dysfunctional in other games.

Quote from: NathanIW;735346I'm not actually sure that storygamers who "pretend they are so much better than regular gamers" exist as an identifiable group, just opinionated individuals.

On an RPG discussion board I used to visit I've experienced a small clique of forum members behaving like this. Though there was never anything resembling a full-on conflict or attempt at subversion, there was clearly a smug, pseudo-intellectually elitist attitude towards players of more traditional RPGs. They were only a very small group, though, but no less annoying for it.

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/smug.gif)

I wonder how many of these people are now playing AW & hacks like it's the next big thing in innovative arty farty gaming...

Quote from: 3rik;735380On an RPG discussion board I used to visit I've experienced a small clique of forum members behaving like this. Though there was never anything resembling a full-on conflict or attempt at subversion, there was clearly a smug, pseudo-intellectually elitist attitude towards players of more traditional RPGs. They were only a very small group, though, but no less annoying for it.

That's awful. Are you okay?

Quote from: NathanIW;735346I'm not actually sure that storygamers who "pretend they are so much better than regular gamers" exist as an identifiable group, just opinionated individuals.

I'm sure there are, but no more than you'll find across the rest of RPG fandom... ie, so few that we should basically just ignore them, because they have nothing valid to say.

QuoteAnd this idea of ongoing war between storygamers and traditional RPGs might also not actually reflect reality.

It lets certain people pretend that they're an OPPRESSED MINORITY of ONE TRUE WAY thinkers, and use that as their excuse for being a cunt on the internet. Of course, the rest of us know that the "war" is only in one side's heads, and just get on with things.

Basically, it's a symptom of the crazy that we should try and kick out of roleplaying circles.

Quote from: Noclue;735397That's awful. Are you okay?

It wasn't that bad, haha. They were easily ignored. It was just an example demonstrating that such storygamers do exist as a group. But like Ladybird, I also don't think they're a majority.

Quote from: 3rik;735380They were only a very small group, though, but no less annoying for it.

I don't know if it's Pundit's tendency towards absolutism and lumping people together willy-nilly, but I'm pretty sure extrapolating the existence of such a group into the idea that their actions, attitudes or positions describe all  "storygamers" as a category isn't likely that smart.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

Quote from: 3rik;735418It wasn't that bad, haha. They were easily ignored. It was just an example demonstrating that such storygamers do exist as a group. But like Ladybird, I also don't think they're a majority.

I am not sure if I have ever met a storygamer.

How would I identify them?

Quote from: Bill;735627I am not sure if I have ever met a storygamer.

How would I identify them?

Offline? I have no idea. On forums? Well, the type of storygamer I was referring to is very vocal about their preferences in gaming and openly disapproving of traditional RPGs. You can't mistake them for anything else, really. But again, I haven't encountered many of them and I certainly don't think they are a large group making organized efforts at destroying traditional RPG or anything like that.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733427It's still pretentious. People have referred to that distinction for, literally, longer than I've been alive.

"In the game world" or, heaven forfend, "in-character" or some other commonly used and easily understood phrase.

Plus, "the fiction" as a phrase directly assaults the suspension of disbelief. It's a pretentious and pointless way of phrasing something common and easy to understand.

Since what you are talking about is based on player preference, "I think not." Or at least that's what my character says...

Quote from: Bill;735627I am not sure if I have ever met a storygamer.

How would I identify them?

Depending on the variety:

Long hair. Tie dye. Hemp. Patchouli oil. "When we all just start working together, man, it'll all, like work out."

Propaganda. Hammer and sickle. Rants about capitalism and the evil of money. "In the glorious future there will only be dice-less GM-less art games that no one will play."



(None of these people exist. There's no such thing as a "storygamer." There's just people who happen to like different things in games. Some of them can be dicks about it. Some of them are alright. Don't worry about figuring out if someone is a "storygamer" just play what you like, learn from what others play, and get on with gaming.)

Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown, but that said, watching this panel video (http://ageofravens.blogspot.com/2013/06/collaborative-world-building-and-gaming.html) on collaborative world-building from Contessa reminds me that the attitudes of smug condescension and pseudo-intellectualism which fuel his conspiratorial ravings do exist among some roleplaying gamers.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735655Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown,

I think it had some traction up to about 2 or 3 years ago.

Since then, the missionaries seem to have gone back home.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735655Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown, but that said, watching this panel video (http://ageofravens.blogspot.com/2013/06/collaborative-world-building-and-gaming.html) on collaborative world-building from Contessa reminds me that the attitudes of smug condescension and pseudo-intellectualism which fuel his conspiratorial ravings do exist among some roleplaying gamers.

Ah, yes... some of the usual suspects there.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735655Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown, but that said, watching this panel video (http://ageofravens.blogspot.com/2013/06/collaborative-world-building-and-gaming.html) on collaborative world-building from Contessa reminds me that the attitudes of smug condescension and pseudo-intellectualism which fuel his conspiratorial ravings do exist among some roleplaying gamers.

Just the fact that they can take 1.5 hours discussing that is rather mind boggling. Is there any way to get the gist of that without having to sit through all of it?

Quote from: 3rik;735670Is there any way to get the gist of that without having to sit through all of it?

My blog post (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/under-microscope.html).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735677My blog post (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/under-microscope.html).

Interesting post.  I'd like to watch the whole video eventually.

I'm generally a fan of collaborative world-building, for *certain types of games*.  For others, it's utterly inappropriate.  I agree with the page you posted on many of the advantages, and didn't find that part too 'smug'.

What I did find a bit smug, however, (and it would be interesting to see where the smugness came from) was the arguments *against* it - they all seem to be some form of "people may not like it, even though it's better."

Guess what - if I'm running a really old-school, open-table type of game, I am *not* using collab worldbuilding.  It doesn't really have a place.  It works best in games where the game really is *about* those particular characters.  And if you can't come up with situations where your technique isn't appropriate (beyond 'people aren't enlightened enough'), then you lack the appropriate level of objectivity.

OTOH, I kind of disagree with your main point, Black Vulmea.  When I do collab worldbuilding, it's generally only lays out some basics of the world as a whole, and is done before the campaign, usually in a session 'zero' where we also do character creation - so in that way, it's no more 'out of character' than character creation itself.

During play, there's no real out-of-character setting creation going on.  The closest might be letting a player declare something like "hey, I know the Purple Worm Inn here in town, it's the best place if you're looking for underworld types."  If that makes sense for the character to know, and it's reasonable that there's such a place, then I find little value in having them ask me for the name of every damn thing in the game.  Same with other things like certain cultural details, etc... if they're a dwarf, and they spout off about some dwarven lore, sure, go ahead.  I don't really consider that OoC, either.  But, of course, even that is dependent on the type of game...  again, a more traditional open table type of game, I'm less likely to be as free with that kind of stuff because there's likely more setting details that are already set *anyway*.

Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

Quote from: Simlasa;735709Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

I don't really disagree with you, but it's a problem with the group, rather than the concept. Every game assumes players who will want to play a certain way.

If the group is happy with that sort of game, fine, there's no problem. If not, they should play something else; we shouldn't stop exploring concepts just because they aren't for everyone.

Quote from: Simlasa;735709Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

It's certainly a potential problem.  In my experience the "collaborative" nature of CWB can kinda help with that, as the more passive players will just utilize more input from the active players.  That, of course, will also depend on how CWB is being done for a particular game.

It's also certainly of a lot less use for players who expect games to primarily be "a bit of a skirmish".  If the world is primarily a backdrop for the minis battles, then it's kind of a pointless exercise.

Quote from: Ladybird;735714I don't really disagree with you, but it's a problem with the group, rather than the concept.

Well, I think it's an inherent entry hurdle of the concept... very few groups I've played in would work well with it. It's a 'problem' that would plague CWB but not a traditional group with a solid GM.

QuoteIf the group is happy with that sort of game, fine, there's no problem. If not, they should play something else; we shouldn't stop exploring concepts just because they aren't for everyone.

People should play however they like, of course... but exploring concepts can become a game of it's own, a game of a different sort altogether. Brainstorming is fun but maybe not an end unto itself.

Quote from: robiswrong;735722It's also certainly of a lot less use for players who expect games to primarily be "a bit of a skirmish".  If the world is primarily a backdrop for the minis battles, then it's kind of a pointless exercise.

I think it is for some players... just like there is often the 'numbers guy' whose primary joy is optimizing the stats on his character sheet. Most groups I've played in have been a mix of various sorts... the guy who wants to play-act in funny voices, the guy who just wants to hang out, the guy who likes the math of it all. With a GM managing the 'big picture' they can all kind of muddle along and get their own fun out of it... but CWB seems to be asking them all to step up to the creative plate... and in that I think it's inherently a niche sort of activity that is gonna leave a lot of players behind while exalting the 'creativity' of others.

Quote from: Simlasa;735728Well, I think it's an inherent entry hurdle of the concept... very few groups I've played in would work well with it.

I've played with groups and players where it would work, and where it wouldn't. If it's not something a particular player enjoys, we don't suggest games like it to them again, and they don't join games like it again.

It's not something I'm keen on in large chunks either, actually. Small bits (Like the Barbarian's "tell us something about your homeland, every session" ability), great; co-op star sector building, sounds a bit dull, not for me.

If your group is more limited, sure, your group choice might be more limited, but you're all adults; you compromise and play something you all enjoy, or stop playing if the group is too incompatible for you.

QuotePeople should play however they like, of course... but exploring concepts can become a game of it's own, a game of a different sort altogether. Brainstorming is fun but maybe not an end unto itself.

And if the group is enjoying that, OK, what's the problem?

Quote from: Simlasa;735728I think it is for some players... just like there is often the 'numbers guy' whose primary joy is optimizing the stats on his character sheet. Most groups I've played in have been a mix of various sorts... the guy who wants to play-act in funny voices, the guy who just wants to hang out, the guy who likes the math of it all. With a GM managing the 'big picture' they can all kind of muddle along and get their own fun out of it... but CWB seems to be asking them all to step up to the creative plate... and in that I think it's inherently a niche sort of activity that is gonna leave a lot of players behind while exalting the 'creativity' of others.

*shrug*

In actual play, I haven't found it to be an issue, primarily because of the fact that we're talking about *one* session of the game, which is also the same time that characters are made.  Of course, that's anecdotal, and could be influenced by the people I play with.  If it was an every session type of thing, I could certainly see it being a bigger problem.

Again, I'm not claiming it's a panacea, and it's certainly not appropriate for certain types of games.  But I do think it's a very useful tool in the toolbox, and a bit beyond 'niche'.  I'm also not claiming that people who use CWB are more enlightened, have whiter teeth, or anything like that.  Strangely enough, I don't typically pass value judgements on people based on how they play their elf games.

I do think the idea that there can be no exploration in a CWB campaign is a bit overstated.  I find the setting details to come out of CWB to be closer to a back-of-the-book blurb than they are to the whole damn book.  To use an example from Black Vulmea's site, knowing that the Yakuza are in the game certainly stops them from being a surprise.  But it in no way precludes *other* groups from existing, which certainly can be a surprise.

Certainly, you're not going to be fleshing out reams of setting information in a few hours.

Also, depending on the form of CWB you're using, you can certainly establish things like "there are secret societies at work" without actually detailing out *any* of them.  But that's dependent on the type of CWB that you're using.  I don't think that's a likely result from Microscope, frex, but it's pretty likely from something like Spark.

I'm totally fine with a pre-game whiparound to see what ingredients everyone would like to see in the game... but that discussion Vulmea posted was favoring a lot more than a bit of a chat before the game.
Characters using resources to alter the setting details mid-game... or creating detailed NPCs... organizations... histories... all of which I assume would have some degree of being inviolate by the GM ('Hey! I created her and that's NOT what she would do!').
As usual there is a continuum here... and at the shallow end of CWB I'm happy. But at the deeper end it does feel like it's either an endless brainstorming session that goes nowhere... or something competitive where I push for nihilistic horror vs. the guy who wants to play in Discworld. Either way it leaves roleplaying far behind in search of something... else.

I'll maintain that the heavier sorts of CWB are 'niche' because few RPG groups are going to be able to work together that well... and it's not like it's that easy to just go out and find a group that perfectly matches my preferences/tastes even for traditional gaming.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735I'm totally fine with a pre-game whiparound to see what ingredients everyone would like to see in the game... but that discussion Vulmea posted was favoring a lot more than a bit of a chat before the game.
Characters using resources to alter the setting details mid-game... or creating detailed NPCs... organizations... histories... all of which I assume would have some degree of being inviolate by the GM ('Hey! I created her and that's NOT what she would do!').

I'm not really familiar with any games that use mid-game heavy CWB - particularly not in terms of rewriting already set details of the setting.  That would be very odd.

Even with CWB systems that I've used, there's generally a presumption of "handoff" to the GM after you go through the CWB process.

Again, mid-play detailing about things that the character absolutely *would* know?  Depending on the game, that's one thing.  I have zero issues with a mercenary telling me about the sleazy inn in town that he stayed in!  Similarly, the barbarian guy riffing on about the culture and ceremonies of his tribe?  Generally cool.  Just saying "hey, there's a secret society here in this town now that's actually behind all of this!" is kind of... wtf to me.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735As usual there is a continuum here... and at the shallow end of CWB I'm happy. But at the deeper end it does feel like it's either an endless brainstorming session that goes nowhere...

I tend to use the Spark (specifically, "A Spark in Fate Core").  It has a series of specific steps to follow, that in most cases allow for or require people to build off of the previous step.  It's pretty damn cool for what it does (and is easily migratable to non-Fate Core stuff).

Quote from: Simlasa;735735or something competitive where I push for nihilistic horror vs. the guy who wants to play in Discworld.

I think that's something that needs to be sorted out before you start playing anyway.  CWB doesn't *create* that problem, even though it may expose it.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735Either way it leaves roleplaying far behind in search of something... else.

If it were more than the first session, I'd agree.  Lighter setting detailing stuff (like the aforementioned sleazy bar/cultural details) stuff to me can help roleplaying, as it gives players the ability to just riff on the spot without having to ask me for every damn name of every damn thing in the game.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735I'll maintain that the heavier sorts of CWB are 'niche' because few RPG groups are going to be able to work together that well... and it's not like it's that easy to just go out and find a group that perfectly matches my preferences/tastes even for traditional gaming.

If by "heavy" CWB, you mean something that's done in a heavyweight session for every game, I'd totally agree.  At the extreme end, you might end up with something like Microscope run as a campaign.  Which could be interesting, but it's not roleplaying in any traditional way.

But most folks I've heard of in favor of CWB do *not* suggest that kind of heaviness of its use.

Here's something I wrote in the Fate Core group a while back, about what it kinda means to me.

https://plus.google.com/108546067488075210468/posts/Tqa3iKdsUsu

You'll notice I make some assumptions about the idea that the game *does* revolve around these particular characters.  That's true, *when I play Fate Core*, as it's kind of designed around some of that.  As I said, I wouldn't use CWB for a traditional, open-table D&D game.

Quote from: robiswrong;735690OTOH, I kind of disagree with your main point, Black Vulmea.  When I do collab worldbuilding, it's generally only lays out some basics of the world as a whole, and is done before the campaign, usually in a session 'zero' where we also do character creation - so in that way, it's no more 'out of character' than character creation itself.

First, that wasn't my main point - my main point is that the panel missed an opportunity to have a more wide-ranging and perhaps enlightening discussion, instead of settling for a circle jerk.

Second, I addressed differences in collaborative world building in the comments.

Quote from: Black VulmeaIn my experience, players routinely make up game-world details pertaining their characters' backgrounds in all of the traditional roleplaying games I've ever played. The difference is not one of either/or, but rather one of scale.

Quote from: Black VulmeaIf you want a secret society, you need to (1) add the secret society during CWB and then all of the players pretend it doesn't exist, (2) add the secret society during CWB and then allow the referee to change it so that it's actually not the secret society the player who proposed it intended it to be, effectively vetoing the player's input, (3) ignore the secret society added during CWB because it's not really secret, or (4) agree that no one can add something during CWB that is a secret from the everyone else except the referee.

None of those options are 'bad' or 'wrong,' but each one carries certain opportunity costs. Players can, and do, partition player knowledge and character knowledge pretty routinely, so (1) is a viable option, but how much and what kind of information the players need to partition may adversely affect their engagement with the game.

Of course there are different ways to do it - how much is comfortable and appropriate will vary by player, by game, and by circumstances.

Quote from: robiswrong;735738Even with CWB systems that I've used, there's generally a presumption of "handoff" to the GM after you go through the CWB process.
***
But most folks I've heard of in favor of CWB do *not* suggest that kind of heaviness of its use.

Well, as you describe it I've got little or no issue... which leaves me wondering if I'm crazy for thinking that I've seen collaborative play folks promoting heavy ongoing collaboration... and using meta resources to buy changes to ongoing settings during play... such as, 'Oh, I find a machine gun under a slanket!'

Quote from: Simlasa;735760Well, as you describe it I've got little or no issue... which leaves me wondering if I'm crazy for thinking that I've seen collaborative play folks promoting heavy ongoing collaboration... and using meta resources to buy changes to ongoing settings during play... such as, 'Oh, I find a machine gun under a slanket!'

There are games like that, that give the players the ability to introduce a convenient (or inconvenient) truth.

Generally, since I'm a low-to-no-prep GM, when the group encounters something new, I'll ask the players pointed questions, either in character or out of character, about this new thing. In my experience, this has resulted in everyone at the table (including myself) being surprised more often by an emergent game world created through play, lower overhead for me making the game run faster, and all of us being more engaged in what's going on because we all have a creative stake in it.

Perhaps the success of this method can be attributed to my players, but some of them also run pathfinder modules for the group (though they admitted to GM fatigue) and lots of board gaming, and tabletop war gaming, which doesn't really interest me. I don't really see my group thinking about whether the questions I asked broke the 4th wall, or immersion, or was directed at them instead of their character, they're there to have kickass adventures in bizarre settings, roll some dice, and have a good time.

It's also interesting to note how different game rules influence a player's behaviour. The same player that uses system mastery to make a combat juggernaut in pathfinder quickly adapted to making a quirky, entertaining edible magic pudding golem and not concentrating on stats or builds and is one of my most creative players in dungeon world.  He still enjoys both games.

Creative world building is important in my Amber games.

I remove the Elders from my Amber games as I want the PCs to be the protagonists of the story and I don't want a cast of better, tougher characters in the wings (I would do the same in a Superheroes game).

I assume the basics of the Amber universe. Dworkin draws the Pattern in his own blood using the Eye of the Serpent (aka The jewel of Judgement) as a pattern.
Its creation forms a pole in the universe which is then generated in the interference between Amber and Chaos.
Earth exists on the Amber side of the mix, the midpoint is marked by Ygg the World tree.
Chaos is made up of lots of houses not unlike House Bariman (Dworkin's house) and is basically a collection of floating shadow pockets.
Oberon Dworkin's son is King in Amber. The PCs are his children for the most part.

Now everything else about the universe is up for grabs.
A PC wants to be the main architect of the Castle sure give me some plans. Want to decide what the Amber standing is army is like, the guards in Arden, or indeed make Arden a giant swamp not a forest, etc etc
All of this stu we decide as part of char gen. The party can remake the golden Circle can extablish long running diplomatic ties to Chaos, np.
Basically, the PCs define the Amberverse (note PCs not players .....)

It's fantastic to engage players in the process and it makes them really care about the world.

I think that it all really depends on the people with whom you're playing. Which reads as really damn obvious, I know, but this point really punched me in the face recently. Or, to be more specific, during my current campaign.

I tried collaborative world-building for the first time, in the hopes of feeding off of the players' ideas to create a sandbox. It seemed like a good experiment at the time: theoretically everyone at the table would be on the same page for character creation, development and other themes.

I was so fucking wrong. At least, I was about the two new players to our group. I extended the trust that I had for my closer friends (with whom I've been playing for over ten years) to the two newcomers.

Through polling and voting, I had them choose the mood, the theme and the setting. Based on those answers, I chose a game system that I believed was a good fit. In our example, let's just say that it ended up being very much inspired by the Unhallowed Metropolis RPG crossed with Hellboy and the Supernatural TV show. Pretty specific, I felt and it was entirely the players' choice...

But with some players, if you give them a bunch of rope, they'll demand an entire fucking rope FACTORY and then complain that there aren't enough chains.

They felt WAY too entitled to make shit up about their characters and backgrounds which conflicted with even the most basic premise for the setting, the most fundamental rules in the game, and the meagre backstory I set up for the organization that they worked for. My philosphy is never just "no", I try to use "yes, but" and play along, but... Well I got really challenged this time.

One example:

"my character is really a dragon and was sent to earth by a magical council of dragons"...

My reply was "yes and they're like the Ogdru Jahad from Hellboy, the seven dragons of Chaos who wish to undo the world because they're apathetically evil in an alien way"

(This sort of worked, but later on it became apparent that she wanted more of a high fantasy anime thing... *shudder*)

So I've made adjustments on their behalf after we all had an open talk about it. I'm glad that we did, but boy we (my veteran players and I) do not want to play with them again next campaign. The whiny entitlement that I've seen... I seriously used to think that these sorts of gamers were straw-men boogeymen that some grognards made up. Now I've seen it first hand, my world view has changed. Yeah I fucked up but sadly that's how I tend to learn the most in this hobby.

Summary: CWB is something that I'll only do with people that I know pretty well and with whom I share a mutual trust. Never again with strangers or mild acquaintances.

Quote from: Simlasa;735709Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

Absolutely. When I read about storygamers, I think: A group made up entirely of GMs. Who all care much more about narrative and genre than anyone I've met. How unlikely.

The 70 or 80 people in the english-speaking world who care about such things all found each other online and shared their enthusiasm. Which is fine. But the notion of there being enough like-minded people to form face-to-face groups who play mainly storygames, with each participant being a creatively-inspired artist invested in the game as deeply as a GM, is wishful thinking.

Me, I'm lucky if half the guys in my group even bother to read the rules to the game, let alone have a creative agenda. And I don't think I'm unusual in that respect.

I have no objection to people playing through collaborative world building. My only issue is if someone tells me that I ought to be doing so, or that not doing so is somehow bad. I mean, if it adds to your enjoyment of play, by all means go for it. For me, some of this stuff breaks the fourth wall a bit.

Quote from: Simlasa;735760Well, as you describe it I've got little or no issue... which leaves me wondering if I'm crazy for thinking that I've seen collaborative play folks promoting heavy ongoing collaboration... and using meta resources to buy changes to ongoing settings during play... such as, 'Oh, I find a machine gun under a slanket!'

There's a discussion on improvisation at Big Purple (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?719255-Moving-from-Prepared-GMing-to-Improvised/page2&p=17692997#post17692997) right now that addresses this very thing.

My biggest pet peeve regarding these sorts of discussions is that there are still people who refuse to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between (1) playing a game where you *are* a character in the game world and act as such, as if you were your character, considering the situations themselves as make-believe, seeing yourself in the situation as it unfolds, only using game world resources you yourself as your character would be able to use in order to deal with make-believe situations as they arise, and (2) playing a game where you participate as a co-author in building a story, where your character is instead a narrative device among others allowing you to shape and influence the building of the resulting piece of collaborative fiction.

These are two fundamentally different points of view, two fundamentally different ways to construe the object of the game, two play styles which can each be appreciated on their own terms, on their own merits by the same gamers, or not, depending on what particular individuals are searching for when they are participating to a game. It's okay to like both, and it's also okay to like one thing and not the other.

What is not okay from my point of view is to pretend the distinction doesn't exist and that those who don't like this or that should just go along for the ride and "get on with the times" when games like D&D, Warhammer, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu or whatever are changed in order to pander to the story-building crowd because since the distinction isn't supposed to exist, "the game remains the same," right? Right. That's just not cool with me.

Its the deus ex machina to me. In storygames there is a lot more of it than there is in traditional games, so the "story" that is generated tends to be more like a "B" movie plot than something worth some critical acclaim with breadth and depth.

What happens when something is suggested that isn't liked?  Do you vote or is it decided by the DM?

And aren't all games telling stories? I seem to have missed all the fights in the gaming community.  :)

Quote from: Ralph The Dog;735866And aren't all games telling stories?

(http://replygif.net/i/1245.gif)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735757First, that wasn't my main point - my main point is that the panel missed an opportunity to have a more wide-ranging and perhaps enlightening discussion, instead of settling for a circle jerk.

My apologies.  Based on:

Quote from: Black Vulmea's BlogThe sad and somewhat frustrating thing about this whole exercise is that neither the panelists nor Francis' blogpost take note of the trumpeting African bull elephant in the room: the difference isn't between the players collaborating in world building or not - it's between collaborating in world building in-character or out-of-character.

I kind of assumed that was your main point (since it was called out, and was the only bolded text).

As far as the "not exploring when it's useful vs. not" issue, you'll notice I agreed with you.  I even called out that when the only useful con of a technique you can come up with is "people might not be comfortable with it" (which kinda easily comes off as 'people may not be enlightened enough'), then you lack the necessary objectivity to truly analyze whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735757Second, I addressed differences in collaborative world building in the comments.

And yet you ignored *my* suggestions on how I would/have done similar things using collaborative world building, which I find less contentious than your extremely artificial methods:

1) The existence of the Yakuza does not preclude other groups
2) The existence of the Yakuza does not tell you what they're up to
3) It's just as viable to establish the existence of secret societies *in general*, without specifying *exactly* which ones are there and which ones aren't.

At a more general level, collaborative world building establishes *some* facts about the game world.  It certainly doesn't establish *all* facts, and in no way should a GM feel prevented from doing additional world creation as required.

I don't see it as being fundamentally different than using a canned setting - it will areas filled in, and areas left blank, and it's the GM's job to take that setting and add to it and make it real.  The real difference is where that initial setting comes from, and the fact that with CWB it's almost *universally* less fleshed out than a published setting (or a historical one, or...)

I don't see people claiming that setting your game in the Forgotten Realms, or Glorantha, or means that there can't be any exploration or discovery.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735757Of course there are different ways to do it - how much is comfortable and appropriate will vary by player, by game, and by circumstances.

Of course.  And I'm not arguing that it's applicable to all games or groups.  I do find it a pretty useful technique for the right games, and think that a lot of groups would be benefitted by it.  But I also don't think that not using it is a sign of some kind of weird moral deficiency.

Quote from: Simlasa;735760Well, as you describe it I've got little or no issue... which leaves me wondering if I'm crazy for thinking that I've seen collaborative play folks promoting heavy ongoing collaboration... and using meta resources to buy changes to ongoing settings during play... such as, 'Oh, I find a machine gun under a slanket!'

The ongoing stuff is pretty orthogonal to what I think of as CWB.  CWB is, to me, mostly the stuff that happens before play.  Declaring setting details *during* play can be done with or without CWB, and will vary based on what kinds of details you're trying to set.

I also think that very few games I know of recommend allowing people to *modify* already established facts via meta resources, even if they do allow for players to *establish* facts that don't contradict other established facts.

The 'machine gun under a blanket' situation is kind of that latter category.  I can't speak for others, but in games where it makes sense to me, I generally allow it for the categories of things where I'd normally say "maybe" if I was asked.  So, if you're in a supply room in a war zone or the like, is there a machine gun under the blanket?  ....Maybe.  I can roll for it, or you can pony up the resources and I'll just say "okay".  But if you're in a suburban home, the answer is 'no', no matter how many Fate Points or the like you throw at me.

As an example, in Fate, players are only allowed (RAW) to make declarations about things that relate to their aspects - this is usually more in line with the 'tell me of your homeland' stuff than 'machine gun under the blanket'.

There's also a difference in play-style, in whether the GM intends the scenario to be more of a 'puzzle', where the goal of play is to see whether the players can overcome the obstacles, or more of a 'situation', where the goal is to see how things develop.  'Machine gun under the blanket' is pretty patently bad for the first type, but *may* (given the previous caveats) work in the second.

It is kind of interesting that detail declarations that people against them use are almost always silly ones like 'machine gun under the blanket', when most GMs that allow for detail declaration wouldn't allow that type of declaration *anyway*, because it makes no damn sense.  A more neutral declaration might be 'we're at a construction site, and I find some rope'.  It's a strawman in the same way that the 'mages in 1e can't live because anything can kill them in one hit' bullshit, which completely ignores the fact that there's plenty of rules and ways to ensure that the mages don't *get* hit, and if they're in a place to take damage, somebody has already screwed up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;735845I have no objection to people playing through collaborative world building. My only issue is if someone tells me that I ought to be doing so, or that not doing so is somehow bad. I mean, if it adds to your enjoyment of play, by all means go for it. For me, some of this stuff breaks the fourth wall a bit.

Agreed, and I agree that the panel's description of why you might not want to use CWB came off as a bit judgemental, as they didn't seem to offer any real reasons why you wouldn't.

As far as the fourth-wall stuff goes, again, I do see this usually happening *before* play, at the same time as (or before) character creation.  I would personally find doing this kind of stuff on a regular basis throughout 'normal' play to be very jarring, personally.  I don't know any proponents of CWB that I've known actually propose that, though.

Quote from: Benoist;735856My biggest pet peeve regarding these sorts of discussions is that there are still people who refuse to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between (1) playing a game where you *are* a character in the game world and act as such, as if you were your character, considering the situations themselves as make-believe, seeing yourself in the situation as it unfolds, only using game world resources you yourself as your character would be able to use in order to deal with make-believe situations as they arise, and (2) playing a game where you participate as a co-author in building a story, where your character is instead a narrative device among others allowing you to shape and influence the building of the resulting piece of collaborative fiction.

While I basically agree with you, I do think the 'co-author' thing is overstated, from my experience with both 'narrative' games and traditional games (and I have far, far more experience with traditional games, for over 30 years).  I see that a bit in things like Fiasco or My Life With Master or Penny For Your Thoughts, but honestly, playing AW, or DW, or Fate, I generally don't see a huge distinction in the player/GM roles from playing GURPS.

CWB, specifically, I find applicable even to many 'traditional' games as it happens prior to 'play' proper.  The only real impact it has on play is that players will know some of the details of the setting, which is something that's happened for years with published settings anyway.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735869(http://replygif.net/i/1245.gif)

It's like raking water up a hill.

Quote from: Benoist;735876It's like raking water up a hill.

Agreed.  When people say things like that, they're ignoring that people play games for different reasons.

There's a reason Dale Carnegie said "understand first, then be understood".

Quote from: robiswrong;735873While I basically agree with you, I do think the 'co-author' thing is overstated, from my experience with both 'narrative' games and traditional games (and I have far, far more experience with traditional games, for over 30 years).  I see that a bit in things like Fiasco or My Life With Master or Penny For Your Thoughts, but honestly, playing AW, or DW, or Fate, I generally don't see a huge distinction in the player/GM roles from playing GURPS.

I do. What should be okay IMO is to acknowledge the difference, all along with the idea that from there it's a matter of degrees and grey areas, rather than fences, the two play styles or takes on the object of the game blending into each other in a number of games. Likewise, personal takes, and how particular game structures and mechanics will resonate with this or that player, this or that game master, will be different depending on a whole host of things, like the way you envision the game world, the type of tools helping to realize these visions, and so on.

What's not okay, to me, is to basically wave the distinction away and pretend that it doesn't exist.

Quote from: robiswrong;735873CWB, specifically, I find applicable even to many 'traditional' games as it happens prior to 'play' proper.  The only real impact it has on play is that players will know some of the details of the setting, which is something that's happened for years with published settings anyway.

That completely depends what the participants in the game are searching for in playing the game, IMO. Besides, it's not because something has been done for a long time that it can't rub some people the wrong way. Cue railroading in adventure modules, for instance. Personally, I prefer when I can make up small details about my PC's background along with the GM, all the time with the latter having a right of veto telling me "this fits the world nice," or "this doesn't do at all." I don't like games where every player comes up with a chunk of the setting - this is design by committee, and it usually sucks hard, from my standpoint. I'm very much of Black Vulmea's mind here, in the sense that there's a question of scale in coming up with a character concept, rather than kind.

Quote from: purple thread linked to by BMGet used to saying 'yes'. We're used to saying 'no' because 'no' gives us a false sense of control. Play with saying 'yes.' When a player asks you a question it's because they are interested in something. Reward that. There are three variations on this.

1. Ask for specifics. You're in a tavern. The player asks if anyone is acting 'suspicious.' You say "What do you mean by 'suspicious'?" The player responds by asking if it looks like anyone has a concealed weapon. Now you have someplace to go. "Actually, the mood is very festive in the tavern. Music is playing and people are having a good time. No one seems to be acting hostile or anything. But while you are taking in the ambiance of the evening you see a woman approach a man. She moves her hand down the side of her jacket and, though it's only exposed for a second, you're sure you see her flash a magic wand. The man whom she had approached goes pale, scans the room, and leads her to a small side room. What do you do?"

2. Use 'yes, but...' "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?" "Yes, but it's old and frayed. You're not sure if it will support your weight."

3. Use 'yes, and...' "Now that he's unconscious, I go through the nobles pockets. Does he have any money?" "Yes, and you also find a very ornate letter. It's in a language that you don't recognize but you figure it must be important due to both the quality of the material and the fact that he kept it in the top right breast pocket of his shirt."

Why?
Why always yes?
What is wrong with...
Player - "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?"
GM - "No."
Now the character has to decide what to do next.   He could...
1. Try to climb the wall anyway, this gives just as much drama, consequence, and protagonism as the yes, but, arguably even more.
2. Not climb down the wall, coming up with some other path, possibly being better then the one he was going to try.
3. Decide to forget going down there and avoid the...etc etc etc.

The ONLY way the "Yes,X" philosophy works as the default response is if you are approaching the game from a storybuilding point of view where you are a group of people riffing on each other's creation like any type of group creative exercise.  In that case, a "No" stops the flow of storytelling and interrupts the player's creation.  For shared storytelling, that is not cool.  For Roleplaying a character, however, it should be just as valid and common an answer as yes.

Now the GM may decide to give out false or incomplete information because that's what the situation describes, but if we are talking about a binary decision, then every fact the GM answers a question with is based on...

• Something he knows is true, because he created it beforehand and the answer is concrete and objective - ie. even though there is a shotgun behind most bars in the Wild West, there is no shotgun behind Clem's bar in the Songbird Saloon.
  
• Something that is strongly implied by the specifics of the setting - Firearms aren't allowed in Big Whiskey Montana, so even though the GM hasn't decided on the fact beforehand, it's pretty clear Skinny wouldn't have a shotgun back there, because he's scared to death of Little Bill.
  
• Something that is generally true because it fits the genre and GM, like the player, assumes it to be true.  The players decide to head to a town the GM hasn't really prepped, they walk into a bar, get into a fight and a player jumps over the bar to grab a shotgun, the GM rolls with it because why not. (or rolls the dice to be more impartial).
  

The "Say Yes" crowd generally assumes the third point to be the default mode for good GMing, which leads to collaborative worldbuilding.

Quote from: Benoist;735856What is not okay from my point of view is to pretend the distinction doesn't exist and that those who don't like this or that should just go along for the ride and "get on with the times" when games like D&D, Warhammer, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu or whatever are changed in order to pander to the story-building crowd because since the distinction isn't supposed to exist, "the game remains the same," right? Right. That's just not cool with me.

Agreed, when I am roleplaying my character I am focused on pretending that I am in the setting reacting to whats around the character. I intensely dislike metagame mechanics because they force me to think of what going as a player.

For example if I don't want to be worry about whether I have enough Fate Points to have a mug of milk "handy" to throw on the barbarian. Either it is there or is not. Just tell me when I ask. If not then I will make due or come up with another plan.

Also I feel metagaming invariably leads to making the game less of a challenge. It all too human to use the mechanic to make something easier rather than worse. And good forbid you get to use the metagame mechanics on other players. All too often the game devolves into silliness or harsh feeling.

Despite my personal view it obviously many find story games and metagame heavy mechanics fun. More power to them. But I heartily agree there is a big difference between the two styles of play.

Quote from: estar;735893Agreed, when I am roleplaying my character I am focused on pretending that I am in the setting reacting to whats around the character. I intensely dislike metagame mechanics because they force me to think of what going as a player.

I also dislike RPGs that use of metagame mechanics whilst playing my character, such as FATE, for the same reason.

However, I am a big fan of RPGs with metagame mechanics that are used primarily outside of the session, such as during character creation and during downtime phases, such as The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, or Atlantis. I find that such mechanics boost communication by players and help the GM create a world and story that the players will enjoy more, without interfering with being in character.

Quote from: robiswrong;735873And yet you ignored *my* suggestions on how I would/have done similar things using collaborative world building . . .

Yes, you are correct, in a blog post and comments that I wrote back in June 2013, I ignored what you wrote yesterday.

Do you often suffer from temporal distortions?

Quote from: Skywalker;735898I also dislike RPGs that use of metagame mechanics whilst playing my character, such as FATE, for the same reason.

However, I am a big fan of RPGs with metagame mechanics that are used primarily outside of the session, such as during character creation and during downtime phases, such as The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, or Atlantis. I find that such mechanics boost communication by players and help the GM create a world and story that the players will enjoy more, without interfering with being in character.

I also find meta mechanics and overly crunchy core mechanics, and even huge piles of dice to all negatively impact my immersion.

I also have a theory that many players don't immerse, and probably think immersive players are on crack.

Quote from: Ralph The Dog;735866And aren't all games telling stories?

In traditional tabletop, the story is you describing what you experienced as your character. The only things you can do are the things that you can do as if YOU ARE THERE AS YOUR CHARACTER.

In storygames the focus is on collaborative storytelling, often with the players focusing on an individual characters. In addition to mechanics that resolve character actions there are a range of metagame mechanics that allow elements of the settings to be created on the fly. With the intent that it furthers the unfolding story.

For example in a traditional tabletop If Bob the Bard wants to throw milk on the Billy the Barbarian the first thing the player does is the same thing as if he was really there. Look around to see if there is a mug or jug of milk to throw. The referee mostly likely doesn't have this detailed. So he looks at what notes he does have, probably the inn pricelist, and rolls to see if there some milk with in reach. If the roll is successful he tells Bob that yes there is some milk nearby. The player then describe how Bob the Bard picks up the milk and proceed to roll to-hit. If there no milk then Bob has to make a decision whether to throw ale instead or just forego the whole idea.

In a game with metagame mechanics then the situation unfolds like this.
The player decides that having his character Bob the Bard throw milk on Billy the Barbarian would add some nice comedic conflict to the unfolding story. The players know that so far there has been no description of what drinks are nearby. But the player considers that is very plausible that there would be a mug of milk. So he burns a plot point  and describes how Bob the Bard reaches over and picks up the mug of milk and throws it on Billy the Barbarian. If the player had no plot points left then he would be forced to use the mugs of ale that already been described or forego the comedic conflict.

While the two methods produced similar results, the prospective of the player is completely different. In the first Bob throw the milk because that what the player wanted to do as if he was really there as the character. The player is thinking and acting like Bob the Bard.

In the second, the player is thinking how the overall story would be effected. Thinking that what the story needs right now is some comedic conflict. That an interesting comedic conflict would to be have his character, Bob the Bard, throw milk on the Billy the Barbarian.

Now I admit that is a pretty long winded explanation explaining my point of view on the subject. For something that in the end resulted in the same course of action. However in the first the players was dealing with the situation as it was presented to him. In the second he got to use metagame mechanics to make something up.

Which approach sounds like the more challenging one to you as a player?  

Which one winds up being more creative over the long run?  The one where you are forced to think up something despite the limitation of your circumstance. Or the other where you get to create whatever you need to do what you want?

By how I phrased my question you can see where my bias are. Perhap 30 or 20 years I would be mocking storygaming because I perceive as less challenging and less interesting than the games where I forced to deal with the circumstances as is.

But today I really not everybody thinks like I do. That what I consider to be a challenge is considered uninteresting by other. So today I can see storygames have a good reason to be form of entertainment for many. But recognize that the two approaches are largely incompatible and result in different types of games.

Quote from: Skywalker;735898However, I am a big fan of RPGs with metagame mechanics that are used primarily outside of the session, such as during character creation and during downtime phases, such as The One Ring, Tenra Bansho Zero, or Atlantis. I find that such mechanics boost communication by players and help the GM create a world and story that the players will enjoy more, without interfering with being in character.

Is really metagaming? Or just different set of mechanics that simulates or abstracts the downtime or character creation process? Ars Magica comes to mind with all their research and covenant rules.

I agree that well designed subsystems can really add to a RPG. For me the canonical example is Traveller with their merchant rules, starship creations, animal creation, world creation, etc.

Quote from: Bill;735904I also have a theory that many players don't immerse, and probably think immersive players are on crack.

It been my experience is that many gamers basically play themselves with the capabilities of their characters. That for most roleplaying is just one or two quirks or behaviors.

Long ago, I said to myself this was OK. The only requirements of my game is that you roleplay as if you are there as your character. Even if it just in essence you. The main practical effect is that I discourage speaking about your character in third person.

I have, and currently have, groups that actively avoid what they consider "plot complications". Which is again fine, I take it into account in the events of the setting. The practical effect is that they have little control over their circumstances. Shit just happens when they run across it from their point of view.

For the current group, it worked out well for them. They have no real place of their own and keep all their stuff in Bags of Holding. All their wealth is plowed into magic items and gear. So far they haven't run into anybody they can't handle although there has been a few challenges.

Quote from: estar;735910Is really metagaming? Or just different set of mechanics that simulates or abstracts the downtime or character creation process? Ars Magica comes to mind with all their research and covenant rules.

I would consider it so. The frequency of metagaming mechanics is like a spectrum and everyone will have a point at which they find their use intrusive:

- never
- just a character creation
- between campaigns
- between adventures
- between sessions
- between scenes
- within scenes

The only part of that spectrum where there is a fundamental difference is IMO "never" which eschews all player input into the world and story.

On saying that, systems for actions such as trading or research aren't necessarily metagame mechanics. They are just a mechanical abstraction for player actions that operate on a larger scale.

Quote from: Benoist;735880I do. What should be okay IMO is to acknowledge the difference, all along with the idea that from there it's a matter of degrees and grey areas, rather than fences, the two play styles or takes on the object of the game blending into each other in a number of games. Likewise, personal takes, and how particular game structures and mechanics will resonate with this or that player, this or that game master, will be different depending on a whole host of things, like the way you envision the game world, the type of tools helping to realize these visions, and so on.

What's not okay, to me, is to basically wave the distinction away and pretend that it doesn't exist.

I don't pretend there's no distinction.  I just find the distinction in the games I mentioned far less, in practice, than I find the distinction in games like Fiasco, PTA, etc.

AW can be played in a "players, tell me what's going on" fashion - I've been a player in such a game.  I find that incredibly jarring.  That's not typically how I've seen it played.

Certainly my experience with Fate (and with most people I've met online that play Fate), the GM/player division is far closer to a traditional game than it is with something like Fiasco, MLWM, etc...

Maybe that's because I'm playing AW/Fate/etc. 'wrong' and playing them too much like a traditional game.  Maybe it's because the folks here that have played them are over-focusing on the non-traditional/meta mechanics.  I dunno.

Quote from: Benoist;735880That completely depends what the participants in the game are searching for in playing the game, IMO. Besides, it's not because something has been done for a long time that it can't rub some people the wrong way.

I've never claimed it is, or that disliking things like CWB is some kind of entrenched unwillingness to change.

Quote from: Benoist;735880I don't like games where every player comes up with a chunk of the setting - this is design by committee, and it usually sucks hard, from my standpoint.

My experience with CWB is generally that specific points are come up with, and that those are then used by the GM as seeds for the overall world.  I agree - design by committee is almost universally a bad idea.

Quote from: CRKrueger;735892Why?
Why always yes?
What is wrong with...
Player - "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?"
GM - "No."

Agreed.  I don't buy into the "always yes" philosophy, especially about "is there a rope there?"  Sometimes it's no, sometimes it's yes.  Deal with it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735901Yes, you are correct, in a blog post and comments that I wrote back in June 2013, I ignored what you wrote yesterday.

Do you often suffer from temporal distortions?

You quoted your blog post here, *after* I made my post, to point out why CWB can't work.  In doing so, you completely ignored the posts that I had made which offered (I believe) much better ways of handling the "yakuza" issue than the comments on your blog post.  At best, that's a strawman.

You're *still* ignoring those ways of dealing with it, in favor of a cheap shot.  Presumably, you're here to discuss things, and not for a two-minute hate.  If you're really just out to discredit anything resembling CWB because it's bad or for stupid storygamers who don't understand 'real' roleplaying, well, that's fine, and good to know, because then I know not to continue this discussion.

And the fact that there are ways of dealing with the "yakuza" example that don't utterly suck still doesn't mean that CWB is right for every group or every game, as I've pointed out multiple, multiple times in this thread.  I'm not one of htose jackholes that uses any visible crack or movement off of a position as a way to "gotcha".  I'm very familiar with that type of behavior, and I completely understand reactions to it.  It annoys the shit out of me.

And just to reiterate, I've acknowledged the following things about CWB:

1) It's not for all types of games.
   a) Specifically, games where the GM already has a strong idea of the setting in mind won't work.
   b) Games where there's an open-table type structure, it's less usable for, since the setting has to work for more than just 'the group'
   c) It's kinda pointless in games that are primarily about overcoming a challenge/puzzle, as the world is kinda irrelevant anyway
2) It's not for all groups.
3) If done on a consistent basis, rather than at scenario creation, it could be very jarring or completely change the nature of the game.

Quote from: Skywalker;735917I would consider it so. The frequency of metagaming mechanics is like a spectrum and everyone will have a point at which they find their use intrusive:

I think metagaming, detail and complexity are separate issues. Too complex or too detailed can have the same effect as too much metagaming on a player's interest.

Making rolls on how your covenant is doing to me is a abstract simulation not metagaming as it reflects something within the game world. Plot points don't simulate anything.

I guess if you consider metagaming thinking like a player then in that case managing your covenant could be metagaming as you are largely think as the player not the character. Or are you? Since you are not doing anything that your character couldn't do.

Quote from: estar;735919I guess if you consider metagaming thinking like a player then in that case managing your covenant could be metagaming as you are largely think as the player not the character. Or are you? Since you are not doing anything that your character couldn't do.

It depends on the specifics. If the system was to model your PC managing the covenant, then its probably not a metagame mechanic. If it includes control over the covenant members or have player input into what happens in the coming year, then it may be. What makes it more tricky is that many metagame mechanics are cast from the viewpoint of the character to make them less intrusive in play. I think that this all just adds to the fact that the boundaries here can be very blurry.

No, I do understand why people play games for different reasons.  What I don't understand is the pissing contest over terms, please explain.

Quote from: robiswrong;735918I don't pretend there's no distinction.

I don't pretend you don't. Trust me, this time, I made sure I understood what you were talking about before answering, and I did not intend my response to you as a finger-pointing rebuttal, but really a response to the specific points you raised. Peace. :)

Quote from: robiswrong;735918You quoted your blog post here, *after* I made my post, to point out why CWB can't work.

Usually your reading comprehension is much better than this. or maybe I just haven't been reading your posts closely enough, but what I wrote was, CWB involves trade-offs, not that it doesn't work, and that some of those trade-offs may be unwelcome to some gamers.

Again, using the example of secret societies, some players like the idea of collaboratively creating a secret society, with or without knowing any details beyond its existence. That knowledge is a trade-off, and its one that I don't care to make. As a player, I don't want to know about secret societies until I ferret them out in-game, and as a referee, I choose not to broadcast them to the players, which is why, if you click on the Secret Societies page of my campaign wiki, you get this (https://le-ballet-de-l-acier.obsidianportal.com/wikis/secret-societies).

Quote from: Ralph The Dog;735923No, I do understand why people play games for different reasons.  What I don't understand is the pissing contest over terms, please explain.

When you start by assuming that the only difference is in the terms being used, rather than the substance of what people want out of their games which then informs the terms that are being used to describe it, there's no conversation to be had. You basically assume it's just a lexical slap fight, so you're missing the point. Game over.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735925Usually your reading comprehension is much better than this. or maybe I just haven't been reading your posts closely enough, but what I wrote was, CWB involves trade-offs, not that it doesn't work, and that some of those trade-offs may be unwelcome to some gamers.

Granted.  I think I listed a bunch of scenarios where CWB wouldn't work.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735925Again, using the example of secret societies, some players like the idea of collaboratively creating a secret society, with or without knowing any details beyond its existence. That knowledge is a trade-off, and its one that I don't care to make. As a player, I don't want to know about secret societies until I ferret them out in-game, and as a referee, I choose not to broadcast them to the players, which is why, if you click on the Secret Societies page of my campaign wiki, you get this (https://le-ballet-de-l-acier.obsidianportal.com/wikis/secret-societies).

Sure, and I'll agree with you - if it's even known that the game will involve secret societies, then setting them during CWB will certainly divulge that to the players.

But there's lots of ways to CWB secret societies exist:

1) There's the Order of Snerglerg, here's the leader, their structure, and their goals.  There's the Cult of Farklewark, and here's all the information about them.  There are no other secret societies.

2) There's the Order of Snerglerg, here's all of their details.  No idea about anything else.

3)  There's the Order of Snerglerg.  We know nothing about them, or any other possible societies.

4) Secret societies exist.

I think many people are assuming that CWB results in something closer to the first point, where my experience has it closer to the third or fourth points.

But again, it's kind of like any widely-known setting.  The same issues you'd run into about player knowledge of the setting created with CWB would be just as true if you used Forgotten Realms, or Middle Earth, or whatever.  Sure, you know about the Red Wizards of Thay or hte Harpers or whatever, but you don't know what they're up to, factions within them, other groups that may exist that aren't part of the canon, etc.

Certainly, if you're of the opinion that for your game using a published setting would be a bad idea specifically because of available player knowledge about it, then CWB would be a bad fit - the problem here really isn't CWB, though, so much as "I don't want players to have outside knowledge of the setting".

OTOH, I'd argue that the mere existence of that page kinda clues in players that there *are*, in fact, secret societies...  I mean, if I was playing in your game, seeing that page I'd sure as hell assume that there were secret societies that were manipulating stuff in the background.  (Yeah, ass of you and me).

A heavily investigative game, where the point of the game is to discover what shit the GM's made up, may not benefit from CWB (I should probably include that in the list of bad fits for CWB).

If the game is more about 'seeing what happens', CWB can work well.

But that's also dependent on how much of the world is actually built collaboratively - a few tentstakes?  Major strokes?  Every goddamn detail that will ever appear in the game has to come from CWB?  Even in the games where I've done CWB, there's *lots* of things that the players have *no clue* about.  Hell, in one game I'm running, the players know there's angels and demons.  I'm pretty sure they'll have no idea about the first dozen or so times they meet an angel.

I do collaborative worldbuilding stuff in Other Worlds. But there is generally a clear division between things that are considered hard facts about the world (like details of the races the PCs belong to, and the nearby locations) and things that are considered just suggestions for the GM (possible adventure ideas, monsters, places to explore further away, potential future events, rumours, etc). The latter stuff is then handed off to me as the GM to use, ignore, or adapt as I see fit.

I basically never just use something straight up, I find that the art in GMing this kind of game is taking the player suggestions and making something new out of them so that they are still surprised and intrigued when they happen. That way you get the benefits of CWB like player buy-in but none of the downsides. In fact just the passage of time often makes players forget what they said anyway, many times I've had players excited, confused, or amazed by stuff that was firmly based on comments they themselves had made a few  weeks previously and since forgotten. I've never once had players just go 'oh right, this is that thing we suggested before'.    

For instance here is a link to the worldbuilding notes from my last campaign http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24043 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24043). Note how many of the future adventures suggestions are just images, fragments of ideas, or phrased as questions. I got a year long campaign out of this but looking at them now I reckon I ignored about half of them and used most of the other half in disguised/respun form. Some were put in the world as potential opportunities that the players never picked up on (for instance, there were powerful dragons hibernating in somewhere known as the forbidden lands, if the players had ever gone there they would have been able to consult/negotiate with them... or had to fight them, if they did not present enough of a sacrifice).

Quote from: robiswrong;735929But there's lots of ways to CWB secret societies exist:

1) There's the Order of Snerglerg, here's the leader, their structure, and their goals.  There's the Cult of Farklewark, and here's all the information about them.  There are no other secret societies.

2) There's the Order of Snerglerg, here's all of their details.  No idea about anything else.

3)  There's the Order of Snerglerg.  We know nothing about them, or any other possible societies.

4) Secret societies exist.

I'd normally place somewhere around 2.5. Players give me a variety of broad suggestions, some I ignore and some I work on and expand into something new. Here are some of the suggestions I got last time:

• Threat could be a new land mass emerging from the sea - a relic of ancient times? 'The Tenth Kingdom'. A returned god? Some strange and powerful items might have been salvaged from this place already.
• Or a new evil religion - led by an Osama Bin Thulsa Doom type figure. A false prophet. The rise of this cult could be what is causing the war (religious vs secular?). He could be an avatar or have some special item.
• Or demons, planar invasion, dragons (allied to the forces on the island maybe?), gnomes, etc

The first I turned into 'there is a pyramid on a submerged island that has recently floated back to the surface, it is a weapon against the unseelie that was built by precursor races you know nothing about'. The second I ignored except that I put in a necromancer guy who was actually a potential ally rather than a threat, he just deliberately projected a dread reputation so that people would leave him and his people alone. The third I turned into an unseelie invasion force based on the moon and the aforementioned hibernating dragons.

Quote from: soviet;735934...The latter stuff is then handed off to me as the GM to use, ignore, or adapt as I see fit.

I basically never just use something straight up, I find that the art in GMing this kind of game is taking the player suggestions and making something new out of them so that they are still surprised and intrigued when they happen. That way you get the benefits of CWB like player buy-in but none of the downsides.

I also find a "GM Synthesis" stage to be really important with CWB.  I won't say that it nukes *all* of the downsides, but it mitigates a number of them.

I guess I also see CWB as something more like Iron Chef, rather than "okay, let's sit down with Campaign Cartographer..."

CWB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling, nor is it necessarily a big deal.

I've got a regular D&D player who likes to play "exotic" character types (e.g., a Nehwon ghoul or a wemic). He raises the idea, I as DM say OK, and badda-bing, there are such creatures somewhere in our shared world.

The whole group of regulars has a bull session, discussing ideas for what sort of scenario to play next. Should comicbook or wuxia superpowers be in the mix? No, D&D is pushing some people's tolerance for that with levels in the low teens. How about a theme of paranoia and betrayal? No, a little Call of Cthulhu was enough for some, a little Diplomacy too much for others. Rennaissance or Age of Reason? Not unless it's really tarted up. More in the style of Robert E. Howard's Hyborean Age, or "sword & planet" stuff? Response was negative initially, but has warmed up a bit with with more experience. Empire of the Petal Throne? No, too strange.

And so on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;735892Why?
Why always yes?
What is wrong with...
Player - "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?"
GM - "No."
Now the character has to decide what to do next.   He could...
1. Try to climb the wall anyway, this gives just as much drama, consequence, and protagonism as the yes, but, arguably even more.
2. Not climb down the wall, coming up with some other path, possibly being better then the one he was going to try.
3. Decide to forget going down there and avoid the...etc etc etc.

The ONLY way the "Yes,X" philosophy works as the default response is if you are approaching the game from a storybuilding point of view where you are a group of people riffing on each other's creation like any type of group creative exercise.  In that case, a "No" stops the flow of storytelling and interrupts the player's creation.  For shared storytelling, that is not cool.  For Roleplaying a character, however, it should be just as valid and common an answer as yes.

Now the GM may decide to give out false or incomplete information because that's what the situation describes, but if we are talking about a binary decision, then every fact the GM answers a question with is based on...

• Something he knows is true, because he created it beforehand and the answer is concrete and objective - ie. even though there is a shotgun behind most bars in the Wild West, there is no shotgun behind Clem's bar in the Songbird Saloon.
  
• Something that is strongly implied by the specifics of the setting - Firearms aren't allowed in Big Whiskey Montana, so even though the GM hasn't decided on the fact beforehand, it's pretty clear Skinny wouldn't have a shotgun back there, because he's scared to death of Little Bill.
  
• Something that is generally true because it fits the genre and GM, like the player, assumes it to be true.  The players decide to head to a town the GM hasn't really prepped, they walk into a bar, get into a fight and a player jumps over the bar to grab a shotgun, the GM rolls with it because why not. (or rolls the dice to be more impartial).
  

The "Say Yes" crowd generally assumes the third point to be the default mode for good GMing, which leads to collaborative worldbuilding.

"Yes, X" comes from improvised theatre. for it to work, everyone involved needs to be playing by the "Yes, X" rule, meaning what the say can't contradict anything that has already been said. It's not about storybuilding per se, but it is about collaboration and compromise, listening to others' input into the conversation, using it, and responding.

One thing missing from that conversation is that, as a GM, "Yes, X" can be useful, but so is "No, X". Whether you say yes or no, giving the players more information, context, and opportunities or challenges keeps things moving.

Let's take the random bar shotgun example:

"I jump over the bar and grab for a shotgun!"

No - "There isn't a shotgun there. What do you do?"
No, but - "There isn't a shotgun there, but there is a truncheon. What do you do?"
No, and - "There isn't a shotgun there, and the owner, this big burly guy looks pissed that you jumped the bar. He's walking towards brandishing a truncheon. What do you do?"

Yes - "There's a sawed-off double barrel just sitting there. What do you do?"
Yes, but - "There's a shotgun, but it isn't loaded! The owner usually just uses it to intimidate drunks. What do you do?"
Yes, and - "You grab the shotty, and almost everyone in the bar goes suddenly still. One woman in a pinstripe suit, though is reaching into her jacket and holding up her other hand to you. What do you do?"


If this town, or bar has just been made up, the GM doesn't have any real stakes in how the situation plays out, so they can just go with their gut and what makes sense or seems fun.

That's pretty much how I GM all the time, zero prep, balls to the wall improv GMing is very liberating, and means you get to be surprised as often as the players. It also means I don't waste hours of prep designing an encounter the players aren't interested in. That means that systems that require prep and encounter balance don't work for me.

Dungeon World GM mechanics allow me to play the way I want, but they have a spectrum of play. Lots of GMs are adapting old D&D modules, others are creating worlds or full dungeons with few blanks, or quests with clear objectives.

Quote from: robiswrong;735940I guess I also see CWB as something more like Iron Chef, rather than "okay, let's sit down with Campaign Cartographer..."

I agree entirely. Actual quote from Other Worlds:

"Think of it in the same vein as those 'iron chef' competitions on TV: each player's job is to shout out a load of interesting ingredients, and the GM's job is to try to turn those ingredients into a dish that everyone can enjoy."

Quote from: soviet;735962I agree entirely. Actual quote from Other Worlds:

"Think of it in the same vein as those 'iron chef' competitions on TV: each player's job is to shout out a load of interesting ingredients, and the GM's job is to try to turn those ingredients into a dish that everyone can enjoy."

Which is great up until the point where you want to have a cheeseburger be a traditional ethnic Indian dish.

Quote from: jeff37923;736028Which is great up until the point where you want to have a cheeseburger be a traditional ethnic Indian dish.

Braze some beef in the Kashmiri style, take some naan and some paneer and call it good.

Quote from: robiswrong;735929But there's lots of ways to CWB secret societies exist:

1) There's the Order of Snerglerg, here's the leader, their structure, and their goals.  There's the Cult of Farklewark, and here's all the information about them.  There are no other secret societies.

2) There's the Order of Snerglerg, here's all of their details.  No idea about anything else.

3)  There's the Order of Snerglerg.  We know nothing about them, or any other possible societies.

4) Secret societies exist.

I think many people are assuming that CWB results in something closer to the first point, where my experience has it closer to the third or fourth points.

That's an incredibly useful addition to the discussion. Now, where did I read something like that already?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735925. . . ome players like the idea of collaboratively creating a secret society, with or without knowing any details beyond its existence. (emphasis added - BV)

Oh right, that was it.

Quote from: Phillip;735948CWB doesn't necessarily have anything to do with storytelling, nor is it necessarily a big deal. (...)

This. Coming up with mechanics/rules and hip jargon for it, acting smug pseudo-intellectual about it and wasting 1.5 hours "discussing" it are completely redundant.
Why would you even need mechanics/rules for CWB? You just talk with your players and do whatever works for that particular game or setting for your group. There's really nothing novel or groundbreaking about it, either.

Quote from: estar;735909In traditional tabletop, the story is you describing what you experienced as your character. The only things you can do are the things that you can do as if YOU ARE THERE AS YOUR CHARACTER.

In storygames the focus is on collaborative storytelling, often with the players focusing on an individual characters. In addition to mechanics that resolve character actions there are a range of metagame mechanics that allow elements of the settings to be created on the fly. With the intent that it furthers the unfolding story.

I think the split between styles came from this  How much do you Improv thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29176)

Quote from: jeff37923;736028Which is great up until the point where you want to have a cheeseburger be a traditional ethnic Indian dish.

Garam masala lamb patty and a slice of paneer melt between two chunks of naan? I'm game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;736064That's an incredibly useful addition to the discussion. Now, where did I read something like that already?


Oh right, that was it.

Good point.  I retract my comment.

Quote from: estar;735910Is really metagaming? Or just different set of mechanics that simulates or abstracts the downtime or character creation process? Ars Magica comes to mind with all their research and covenant rules.

Two different things. The covenant rules in Ars Magica still involve in-character decisions; those decisions are just covering broader (and more abstracted) stretches of time.

Something like the Dresden Files, OTOH, has an entire system by which the players are specifically designing the campaign world and the antagonists their characters will be facing during play.

Quote from: Skywalker;735917The only part of that spectrum where there is a fundamental difference is IMO "never" which eschews all player input into the world and story.

I'd say the distinction between character creation and actual play is far more relevant. Trying to ignore that distinction seems like a really disingenuous way to pretend that point-buy character creation and narrative control mechanics are the same thing.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;736239I'd say the distinction between character creation and actual play is far more relevant. Trying to ignore that distinction seems like a really disingenuous way to pretend that point-buy character creation and narrative control mechanics are the same thing.

I am only including metagame mechanics, not character creation mechanics in general. Metagame character creation mechanics include issues, destinies, traits, aspects etc that describe the character from an authorial perspective. Backgrounds, resources, flaws and other character creation mechanics that describe what the character can or cannot do or owns are not metagame mechanics.

As such, I think my comment is right, but would agree with you if the net was cast unnecessarily wide.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;736239Two different things. The covenant rules in Ars Magica still involve in-character decisions; those decisions are just covering broader (and more abstracted) stretches of time.

Something like the Dresden Files, OTOH, has an entire system by which the players are specifically designing the campaign world and the antagonists their characters will be facing during play.



I'd say the distinction between character creation and actual play is far more relevant. Trying to ignore that distinction seems like a really disingenuous way to pretend that point-buy character creation and narrative control mechanics are the same thing.

there are point buy character generation mechanics that definitely feel like narrative control mechanics.

Like so many of these things there is a spectrum.

Take James Bond 007 - a Trad RPG with complex social mechanics played out through skill rolls, and hero points that allowed you to make authorial change in play in line with genre, from finding  a motorbike with the keys in the ignition just outside the Louvre to happening to have a Deck of The Tarot of the Witches that had 78 lovers cards in it. It still plays liek a trad game.
Likewise some of the point buy stuff in WoD definitely allows you to make authorial changes say you take contacts at 3 points. Then you need a contact with business connections et voila.  The Subculture skills in FGU games worked in a similar way they gave you information about the say the criminal underworld but also allowed you to generate on the fly connections in that subculture.

So its a spectrum one narrative mechanic doesn;t make a game a story game just like a story game having a skill check mechanism doesn't make it a board game.

The point above though wasn't to distinguish story games and RPGs; it was to distinguish narrative control mechanics from point buy chargen mechanics. The JB example has zero to do with chargen.

Neither do the WoD or FGU examples--all are in-play. (Although, slight digression, I think the application of "social contacts" mechanics can vary widely from narrative control to quite traditional abstraction. Dogs in the Vineyard ability to declare relationships being an example of the former, while "roll on your streetwise, with a circumstantial modifier decided by the GM, to see if you can find a corruptible official in town" is an example of the latter.)

A far better idea of chargen as narrative control is when you can take patrons and enemies as in GURPS. Even then, it depends on whether you're limited to patrons and enemies that the GM has already developed.

Raven Crowking has a blog post (http://ravencrowking.blogspot.com/2014/03/unexpected-this-is-planned-vs-improvised.html) today on planning, improvisation, and collaborative world building that's worth a look.

Quote from: Simlasa;734426'The Fiction' gets my hackles up a bit because it reminds me of 'The Text' and the literature majors who pepper their talk with that term to cover up the fact that they're speaking nonsense.

Exact same purpose used here!

Quote from: RPGPundit;736373Exact same purpose used here!

I'm glad you know my purposes so well! Honestly, I was a bit confused. I thought that we chose the best word we could come up with, which may be crappy. I had totally forgot that I was trying to appear smarter than everyone while writing an RPG about smacking owlbears with swords and quoting Rush.

Quote from: sage_again;736482I'm glad you know my purposes so well! Honestly, I was a bit confused. I thought that we chose the best word we could come up with, which may be crappy. I had totally forgot that I was trying to appear smarter than everyone while writing an RPG about smacking owlbears with swords and quoting Rush.

Is it about smacking owlbears and quoting Rush, or about creating the piece of fiction where the characters/narrative devices smack owlbears while occasionally quoting Rush?

Quote from: sage_again;736482and quoting Rush.

Now you're just being preposterous.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;736239Something like the Dresden Files, OTOH, has an entire system by which the players are specifically designing a subset of the campaign world and a subset ofthe antagonists their characters will be facing during play.

This would be more accurate if you included the bolded phrases.  It's a significant difference, as usually it's also a *small* subset.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;736239I'd say the distinction between character creation and actual play is far more relevant. Trying to ignore that distinction seems like a really disingenuous way to pretend that point-buy character creation and narrative control mechanics are the same thing.

I'd agree that it's a hugely important distinction.

The irony here is that in general, CWB happens *before* even character creation, and is not a factor during actual play.  Mass world-editing *during* play is something I'd find to be pretty damn bizarre.

Quote from: One Horse Town;736493Now you're just being preposterous.

We quote Rush in the book. It is preposterous.

Quote from: Benoist;736492Is it about smacking owlbears and quoting Rush, or about creating the piece of fiction where the characters/narrative devices smack owlbears while occasionally quoting Rush?

You say "piece of fiction" which I assume means a story, like something that would be written down? In that case, nope. DW doesn't give a shit about your narrative. It cares about action and adventure and dying horribly and maybe living to tell about it.

It's about going into a fictional place where there are owlbears, and you can fight them, and maybe die to them. Since this isn't any one named fictional place, we call it the fiction. We called it other things, but found this the easiest way to describe "the place that doesn't actually exist where the players are which might be a specific known world like Dark Sun or might not be and which encompasses everything going on both known and unknown to the players on all the various planes of existence."

I'll freely admit that "the fiction" might be a horrible word for that. If we ever revise DW I'd think carefully about how we might do it better (though we already thought carefully about it once). For now, that's the game we put out. If we use too much jargon for you, that's cool. We're not perfect, and we might have erred on the side of new-ish terms instead of reusing existing ones that didn't fit exactly. I don't see the case for us being pretentious, but I guess no one thinks they're pretentious. We certainly didn't choose words just to be different because that'd be stupid.

Quote from: robiswrong;736498I'd agree that it's a hugely important distinction.

The irony here is that in general, CWB happens *before* even character creation, and is not a factor during actual play.  Mass world-editing *during* play is something I'd find to be pretty damn bizarre.

Actually that's a good point which we didn't even get to. DW included very little CWB in either character creation or in actual play. Sure, the GM can include it, but the system does no more to facilitate this than any other traditional RPG.

OK, so I started reading this thing online... Is it just me or is this basically "roleplaying for retards" with some hip jargon and convoluted wording thrown in so the Forgeoisie will buy into it? I cannot read this stuff without getting the impression I'm being treated as if I'm some kind of half-wit.

I'm not saying this is intentional, but this is how it comes across to me.

Quote from: dwgazetteer.comThe most important role of a character’s equipment is to help  describe the moves they make. A character without a weapon of some sort  isn’t going to trigger the hack and slash move when fighting a dragon  since a bare-knuckle punch really doesn’t do much to inch-thick scales.  It doesn’t count for the purposes of triggering the move.
  Likewise, sometimes equipment will avoid triggering a move. Climbing a  sheer icy cliff is usually defying danger, but with a good set of  climbing gear you might be able to avoid the imminent danger or calamity  that triggers the move.
  Weapons are particularly likely to modify what moves you can trigger.  A character with a dagger can easily stab the goblin gnawing on his  leg, triggering hack and slash, but the character with a halberd is  going to have a much harder time bringing it to bear on such a close  foe.

I mean... What. The. Fuck. That is some seriously redundant shit.

(http://i.imgur.com/tP43T.gif)

Quote from: 3rik;736538OK, so I started reading this thing online... Is it just me or is this basically "roleplaying for retards" with some hip jargon and convoluted wording thrown in so the Forgeoisie will buy into it? I cannot read this stuff without getting the impression I'm being treated as if I'm some kind of half-wit.

Sorry about that. Our intent was to be straightforward and explicit and not assume anything. I can understand how that'll come across as redundant if you already get this stuff.

Quote from: 3rik;736538OK, so I started reading this thing online... Is it just me or is this basically "roleplaying for retards" with some hip jargon and convoluted wording thrown in so the Forgeoisie will buy into it? I cannot read this stuff without getting the impression I'm being treated as if I'm some kind of half-wit.

I'm not saying this is intentional, but this is how it comes across to me.



I mean... What. The. Fuck. That is some seriously redundant shit.

Not to mention that doing a two-handed downward stab with the POINT of the halberd into someone at your ankle would not only be a simple move, but a devastating one.

Quote from: sage_again;736540Sorry about that. Our intent was to be straightforward and explicit and not assume anything. I can understand how that'll come across as redundant if you already get this stuff.

You don't have to apologize, I am not offended or anything. I'm just trying to imagine what kind of people would *not* already get this stuff. To me it comes across as a convoluted way to explain something pretty simple: your character can do stuff and with a weapon it can do other stuff than without a weapon - it's so obvious that I fail to see the need to spell it out.

BTW I doubt all the narrative/forgian/whatever you want to call it lingo is as "accidental" as he claims, but even so, it's not Sage's fault if the Forgeoisie (great term btw) want to treat his game like the liberation of D&D-land by the Second Coming of Baker, and all the purple-nurples want to think it's a new game instead of simply laying out styles and tools used for 30 years.

Quote from: 3rik;736543You don't have to apologize, I am not offended or anything. I'm just trying to imagine what kind of people would *not* already get this stuff. To me it comes across as a convoluted way to explain something pretty simple.

That's actually exactly what we found. For some people this just didn't enter into their thinking. They expected a halberd to specify every single thing about it, and if it wasn't specific in the rules it didn't exist. People wouldn't make judgement calls based on what's going on, they wanted exact rules ahead of time.

We like judgement calls, so we hammer that home a lot. If you're already used to that it's going to feel maybe redundant.

Quote from: 3rik;736543You don't have to apologize, I am not offended or anything. I'm just trying to imagine what kind of people would *not* already get this stuff. To me it comes across as a convoluted way to explain something pretty simple: your character can do stuff and with a weapon it can do other stuff than without a weapon - it's so obvious that I fail to see the need to spell it out.

This is a common reaction IME. If you get past the outrage, you may find that the explicit and transparent approach is at worst no worse to an experienced RPGer, who can easily ignore as required, and at best very useful for a newbie or certain players who prefer the approach.

TBH despite over 30 years of GMing experience, I found that DW has helped me reexamine some long held ideas, once I got over that sense of outrage. This has ultimately assisted me in improving certain aspects of my GMing, especially in relation to my sandbox gaming.

I have also found that DW excels in accomodating both old school style and new school style players, which ultimately gives me a much larger pool of D&D players to draw on. Which is also a good thing for people who may struggle to gather enough players normally.

Quote from: Skywalker;736549This is a common reaction IME. If you get past the outrage, you may find that the explicit and transparent approach is at worst no worse to an experienced RPGer and at best very useful for a newbie.

TBH despite over 30 years of GMing experience, I found that DW has helped me reexamine some long held ideas, once I got over that sense of outrage. This has ultimately assisted me in improving certain aspects of my GMing, especially in relation to my sandbox gaming.

Come on, even as a newbie I had no need for Moves that needed to be Triggered and put into Teh Fiction. It was pretty clear and obvious from the start that you made dice rolls to see how well your character succeeded at something. Maybe today's newbies are erm... different.

Quote from: 3rik;736550Come on, even as a newbie I had no need for Moves that needed to be Triggered and put into Teh Fiction. It was pretty clear and obvious from the start that you made dice rolls to see how well your character succeeded at something. Maybe today's newbies are erm... different.

I think RPGing as an activity, especially for a GM, can be more esoteric than many remember for a newcomer. I base this on my own hilarious errors in those early days with Basic D&D.

And again, if it isn't needed for you, it's not hard to bypass it, right? It's all upside benefit IME

Quote from: CRKrueger;736541Not to mention that doing a two-handed downward stab with the POINT of the halberd into someone at your ankle would not only be a simple move, but a devastating one.

This is probably blindingly obvious, but: Adam and I are not experts in arms and armor. That example probably does suck. Our intention is "if you have a long pole it's hard to hit someone hugging your leg with the end of it."

Quote from: Skywalker;736552I think RPGing as an activity, especially for a GM, can be more esoteric than many remember for a newcomer. I base this on my own hilarious errors in those early days with Basic D&D.

And again, if it isn't needed for you, it's not hard to bypass it, right? It's all upside benefit IME

To me DW makes it *seem* like something esoteric with its Moves and Triggers. Now this may be unintentional or not, I really cannot know, but I do believe it is the reason why it appeals to the Forgy/"indie"/storygame crowd - for lack of a better term. I've never had to explain it like that to make it clear to any newbie GM.

It goes without saying that DW's approach will work for some people and not others. There are many approaches to RPGing after all. I think the main thing is that there is very little benefit from being outraged about an approach that works for other people. If anything, it's insightful. And, in the likes of DW which can cater for those people as well as your own approach, it just opens up the pool of people you can have fun with :)

Quote from: 3rik;736554To me DW makes it *seem* like something esoteric with its Moves and Triggers. Now this may be unintentional or not, I really cannot know, but I do believe it is the reason why it appeals to the Forgy/"indie"/storygame crowd - for lack of a better term. I've never had to explain it like that to make it clear to any newbie GM.

I have no idea who our real audience is, partially because I don't think there's much of defined 'Forgy/"indie"/storygame crowd' these days. My experience is that most people are playing most everything and finding their tastes along the way.

We've had great feedback from people who have played D&D longer than I've been alive and horrible feedback from people who always look for story in their games, and vice versa. No skin off my back. It's just a game, and we approach it with no agenda. If some people play it have fun that's awesome and the people who it's not for are no big deal, of course nothing is for everyone.

And FWIW IME DW has excelled most with either complete newbies or 3e and 4e players being rehabilitated to a more freewheeling style of play that I associate with my old school D&D experiences.

Most "indie/forgie/storygamie" people find DW to be too loose an experience and lacking in CWB to really work for them without going way beyond what's on the page :)

Quote from: sage_again;736548They expected a halberd to specify every single thing about it, and if it wasn't specific in the rules it didn't exist. People wouldn't make judgement calls based on what's going on, they wanted exact rules ahead of time.

We like judgement calls, so we hammer that home a lot. If you're already used to that it's going to feel maybe redundant.

I can dig that; it beats books that assume one is already steeped in the culture, and so are useless to novices. A slightly different criticism, though, is that the text might be too prolix about saying what you said so plainly here.

Quote from: Phillip;736559I can dig that; it beats books that assume one is already steeped in the culture, and so are useless to novices. A slightly different criticism, though, is that the text might be too prolix about saying what you said so plainly here.

I can see that. This was also our first time making a game as a product, and we learned a lot about writing from releasing it. I kind of think that the only thing that can teach you about writing a game for a broad audience is writing a game and having a broad audience pick it up.

We're working on some other projects that I think we'll present a little better, mostly because we've had several thousand people to get feedback from.

Quote from: 3rik;736554To me DW makes it *seem* like something esoteric with its Moves and Triggers. Now this may be unintentional or not, I really cannot know, but I do believe it is the reason why it appeals to the Forgy/"indie"/storygame crowd - for lack of a better term. I've never had to explain it like that to make it clear to any newbie GM.

I can get that.  Calling things out that are second-nature to you can make them seem artificial.

Also, I think that in the early days of D&D/etc. there was less need to make a distinction, as there's now a subset of games/gamers that believe that the game starts and ends with the character sheet, that the proper thing to do is look on your sheet for your kewl powers, and directly call them out off of the sheet without thinking about what's actually happening in the shit that everyone's imagining in their heads.

You know, kind of the antithesis of "just say wtf your guy is doing, and the GM will tell you what to roll".  Which is ultimately what the whole 'triggered moves' thing is trying to codify.

The language issue was a bit of a hurdle for me when a friend took me to play D&D 4E. That it didn't sound like D&D as I had known it would be a non-issue to someone with no prior experience; but what did it sound like?

It sounded sort of as I imagine (with next to zero actual experience with either) World of Warcraft would sound as a porn movie. There's a curious phenomenon: People who don't know jack about the current video game scene get ripped for saying 4E is like a video game; but it's the players who are totally familiar with the video game scene who take the stuff referred to for granted rather than as really strange and a bit offputting.

So, there is an element of selecting a certain narrow audience when we indulge in jargon or style that is usual in a subculture, but not so normal to a wider public. Early D&D texts assumed a bit too much the same audience as had enjoyed Chainmail and Fight in the Skies. Later works were written to speak to more ordinary folks. Now, we've come full circle to stuff seemingly addressed to RPG cognoscenti: John Wick and Robin Laws writing for each other, not for the kid who's just picked up his or her first FRP product.

3rik, in a game where climbing a sheer cliff face calls for a Defy Danger roll, there's nothing unusual about the question "what do I do if they have a rope and grapnel?" Common sense says climbing should be easier. You're reading the text, so ignoring the section you called retarded, what should you do as GM using the rules? Same with punching a dragon. Since the damage is based on class, not weapon and is the same whether you're wielding a sword, dagger or a fist, "what happens when I punch a dragon?" Shouldn't be a surprising question. It's a question that gets asked even with that section in the book.

Quote from: sage_again;736557I have no idea who our real audience is, partially because I don't think there's much of defined 'Forgy/"indie"/storygame crowd' these days. My experience is that most people are playing most everything and finding their tastes along the way.

Where will you find people that see it with an us-vs-them mindset that thinks the camps are divided?  A subset of this forum, a subset of story-games.com, a few blogs, a few youtube channels and other tiny pockets of the internet here and there.

The real story is that the average gamer doesn't care so much about identity politics and plays whatever games seem like fun.  It's like religion where the average person in the pews doesn't really care about minor differences between denominations (or even entire religions) and is fine with the idea of it all working out in the end, but the true believer has a need for the sheep to be separated from the goats right now.

Quote from: Noclue;7365743rik, in a game where climbing a sheer cliff face calls for a Defy Danger roll, there's nothing unusual about the question "what do I do if they have a rope and grapnel?" Common sense says climbing should be easier. You're reading the text, so ignoring the section you called retarded, what should you do as GM using the rules? Same with punching a dragon. Since the damage is based on class, not weapon and is the same whether you're wielding a sword, dagger or a fist, "what happens when I punch a dragon?" Shouldn't be a surprising question. It's a question that gets asked even with that section in the book.

I didn't call the quoted text retarded, I called it "some seriously redundant shit". Because it is stating the obvious but especially because of the convoluted pseudo-esoteric way it is worded. "If circumstances - such as the possession of certain pieces of equipment - make a task easier the GM decreases the difficulty" would have sufficed. It was just one example. The game is full of stuff like that. I have to give props to Pundit for actually managing to read the whole thing. I found it way too tedious. It makes me curious to take a quick look inside Apocalypse World, though, to see how much of its DNA made it into Dungeon World.

Quote from: 3rik;736647I didn't call the quoted text retarded, I called it "some seriously redundant shit". Because it is stating the obvious but especially because of the convoluted pseudo-esoteric way it is worded. "If circumstances - such as the possession of certain pieces of equipment - make a task easier the GM decreases the difficulty" would have sufficed. It was just one example. The game is full of stuff like that. I have to give props to Pundit for actually managing to read the whole thing. I found it way too tedious. It makes me curious to take a quick look inside Apocalypse World, though, to see how much of its DNA made it into Dungeon World.

You're right, my quote wasn't accurate. You asked if it was "roleplaying for retards." I don't think that actually changes my point. The problem with your comments on the rules is you don't know the rules. The GM doesn't typically "increase the difficulty" as that term is often understood. Adding a -1 or +1 difficulty modifier is rather rare in DW. Certain moves can give you a +1 to a future roll in select instances, but generally, no, there aren't difficulty modifiers for things like climbing with or without a rope.

Quote from: 3rik;736647"If circumstances - such as the possession of certain pieces of equipment - make a task easier the GM decreases the difficulty" would have sufficed.

Not really, due to how difficulty works in Dungeon World. The DM typically doesn't muck about with dice results for basic moves; rather, difficulty is reflected in the fiction (By blocking characters off from tasks they aren't equipped for, or consuming more / less resources, including time; or by making the consequences for failure more severe or non-existent).

So, a climbing kit (Rope, pitons);
* Lets you scale surfaces that you couldn't without one
* Is probably going to slow your ascent compared to free climbing
* Would probably make climbing some surfaces simple enough to not bother rolling Defy Danger for, you can just do it (...which means you can't fail, unless you want to try SPEED CLIMBING or something)
* Is going to let you leave pitons to assist your party members
* Is probably going to leave more marks in the wall for people to spot
* Will mean that, if you fail a "climbing" roll (Likely Defy Dangerm but it could vary), you're probably just stuck or dangling from your last piton, rather than falling to your death

But it doesn't just give you a +1 Climb Check bonus, because that's boring and meaningless.

Given that it's a game designed from the "say what you want to do" rather than a "say what ability you want to use" mindset, some of this is obvious to us, but it won't be to a 3.xFinder skirmish gamer. So there's stuff that isn't for us. That's okay.

QuoteIt makes me curious to take a quick look inside Apocalypse World, though, to see how much of its DNA made it into Dungeon World.

Honestly, if you're finding Dungeon World a difficult read, Apocalypse World will be even worse. I don't think it's worth the effort personally.

Quote from: Ladybird;736655Honestly, if you're finding Dungeon World a difficult read, Apocalypse World will be even worse. I don't think it's worth the effort personally.

Just to highlight that, here's what Apocalypse World has to say about gear:

QuoteAll of the different character types come
with their own assortment of gear and
other crap, including holdings, gangs, gigs,
followers, crews, workspaces, weapons,
and specialized equipment.

Most individual items of gear or crap get a little list of descriptive
tags, like magnum (3-harm close reload loud) or followers (fortune+2
surplus: 1-barter augury want: judgment savagery). Those tags
work in 3 different ways. Some of them are straightforwardly
mechanical, like 3-harm, fortune+2, surplus and want. Some note
the circumstances under which the thing can be useful, like
close and reload. Some tell you, the MC, things to say when the
character uses the thing, like loud, 1-barter, augury, judgment and
savagery (Page 15)

QuoteWeapons’ and gear’s descriptive tags fall into 3 categories. First,
the plain mechanical; second, constraints on when the characters
can use them; third, cues recommending something for you to
say about them (Page 238)

Quote from: Ladybird;736655Not really, due to how difficulty works in Dungeon World. The DM typically doesn't muck about with dice results for basic moves; rather, difficulty is reflected in the fiction (By blocking characters off from tasks they aren't equipped for, or consuming more / less resources, including time; or by making the consequences for failure more severe or non-existent).

So, a climbing kit (Rope, pitons);
* Lets you scale surfaces that you couldn't without one
* Is probably going to slow your ascent compared to free climbing
* Would probably make climbing some surfaces simple enough to not bother rolling Defy Danger for, you can just do it (...which means you can't fail, unless you want to try SPEED CLIMBING or something)
* Is going to let you leave pitons to assist your party members
* Is probably going to leave more marks in the wall for people to spot
* Will mean that, if you fail a "climbing" roll (Likely Defy Dangerm but it could vary), you're probably just stuck or dangling from your last piton, rather than falling to your death

But it doesn't just give you a +1 Climb Check bonus, because that's boring and meaningless.

It's the same thing, just less wordy. Disallowing the action is like turning the difficulty way up to impossible. Not requiring a roll is the same as making the difficulty negligible.

Quote from: Ladybird;736655Given that it's a game designed from the "say what you want to do" rather than a "say what ability you want to use" mindset, some of this is obvious to us, but it won't be to a 3.xFinder skirmish gamer.

Hence my impression that it was like reading "roleplaying for retards".

Quote from: Ladybird;736655Honestly, if you're finding Dungeon World a difficult read, Apocalypse World will be even worse. I don't think it's worth the effort personally.

Not really difficult, strictly speaking, just tedious, but I get what you mean.

Quote from: Ladybird;736655difficulty is reflected in the fiction

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/stop-it.gif)

Quote from: 3rik;736662It's the same thing, just less wordy. Disallowing the action is like turning the difficulty way up to impossible. Not requiring a roll is the same as making the difficulty negligible.

What if you want to make it somewhat less difficult, rather than negligible? Like, I don't know, you've got good climbing shoes. Or somewhat more difficult? Maybe a strong breeze is blowing. You look in the book and it says simply, the GM makes it more difficult, without any further explanation. What do I do?

Quote from: 3rik;736662It's the same thing, just less wordy. Disallowing the action is like turning the difficulty way up to impossible. Not requiring a roll is the same as making the difficulty negligible.

It's the range of events in between that are different and interesting, though.

Dungeon World encourages action; if you can do something that requires a move, then your chances of doing it don't change, the consequences for failure do... which means that you're not punished for trying something risky, but also that you don't need to go hunting for mechanical bonuses. If you're mix/maxing your character to be the best climber in the world, you... buy some climbing gear, and develop your upper-body strength (So, advance your Strength and Dex when you level up), which seems pretty reasonable.

QuoteHence my impression that it was like reading "roleplaying for retards".

Not every word of every game needs to be targeted at us, we're the hardcore, products entirely targeted at us would be useless for anyone else. Some people need "roleplaying for retards".

QuoteNot really difficult, strictly speaking, just tedious, but I get what you mean.

I consider it like the "tech demo" and the "actual game". I'm sure Baker et al had a lot of fun with AW, I'm sure a lot of other groups have as well, but DW refines it a lot.

Quote(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/stop-it.gif)

*shrug* It works for me, and it clarifies distinction between what happens at the table, in the game mechanics, and in the conversation / imagination of everyone at the table.

Quote from: Noclue;736664What if you want to make it somewhat less difficult, rather than negligible? Like, I don't know, you've got good climbing shoes. Or somewhat more difficult? Maybe a strong breeze is blowing. You look in the book and it says simply, the GM makes it more difficult, without any further explanation. What do I do?

It never just says "the GM makes it more difficult".

Quote from: 3rik;736666It never just says "the GM makes it more difficult".

Actually, that's what it would say if we make the change you suggested above when you said it would be sufficient to just say the GM changes the difficulty. You may be assuming somewhere else this point would be further clarified, but why make assumptions? You have the text. You can look.

Quote from: Noclue;736669Actually, that's what it would say if we make the change you suggested above when you said it would be sufficient to just say the GM changes the difficulty. You may be assuming somewhere else this point would be further clarified, but why make assumptions? You have the text. You can look.

Obviously some explanation about the mechanics should be given, like in any game.

Quote from: 3rik;736676Obviously some explanation about the mechanics should be given, like in any game.

Again, you have the text. You can look at the mechanic referenced in the section you revised, the Defy Danger move, and see what is discussed. Once you've read that, then you may know if instructing GMs to change the difficulty is sufficient. I'm not sure why you've switched to an abstract discussion after commenting on the sufficiency of a specific piece of text. I like the specificity, rather than broadening the discussion to a general statement about what games should have.

I'm not challenging your opinion of the writing. You're indisputably the world's top expert of what you find tedious. I am wondering why you think you know anything about the role of that text in instructing players of a game you haven't read and don't seem to want to understand.

Quote from: Noclue;736678Again, you have the text. You can look at the mechanic referenced in the section you revised, the Defy Danger move, and see what is discussed. Once you've read that, then you may know if instructing GMs to change the difficulty is sufficient. I'm not sure why you've switched to an abstract discussion after commenting on the sufficiency of a specific piece if text. I like the specificity, rather than broadening the discussion to a general statement about what games should have.

I'm not challenging your opinion of the writing. You're indisputably the world's top expert of what you find tedious. I am wondering why you think you know anything about the role of that text in instructing players of a game you haven't read and don't seem to want to understand.

Of course, if you want to stick to the "Triggering of Moves" and "expressing everything through Teh Fiction" you're also going to need to explain each and every thing specifically, because none of that is a particularly obvious way of stating the obvious.

Quote from: 3rik;736680"Triggering of Moves"

"When to use this particular subsystem"

Quote"expressing everything through Teh Fiction"

"Don't talk in game mechanics"

Player-Character?  What kind of bullshit jargon is that? What, you can't make up your mind which one you want to be?  If you're sitting at a table, you're a PLAYER, dumbass, not a 'character' in some kind of story?  
"Oooh, look at me, I'm a special snowflake character! I'm an important person that the events of the story hinge on.  Laa dee daaa."

God, I hate that pretentious shit.

Quote from: 3rik;736680Of course, if you want to stick to the "Triggering of Moves" and "expressing everything through Teh Fiction" you're also going to need to explain each and every thing specifically, because none of that is a particularly obvious way of stating the obvious.

As Ladybird's post shows, the issue you are raising isn't solved by rewording the description. I can write "When you do something that requires agility, roll 2d6 + Dex," but that won't answer the question of what to do if the cliff is really tough. And I can write "Describe things in the game world" but that won't fix anything either. You still won't know how to deal with a steeper cliff when they roll their 2D6.

Wording isn't the issue, design is. The game does not use mechanics to simulate different difficulties, but relies on the GM's ability to follow set of principles. Once you make that choice, you really do have to put some specific examples in the book for things that would be a simple matter of adding a +1 difficulty modifier in other games. But, I don't think being the simplest answer, or the easiest to describe, in all cases was a design goal.

So, if you said that telling GMs how to run the game would be easier if you were describing a different one, I guess I'd agree.

Quote from: 3rik;736680Of course, if you want to stick to the "Triggering of Moves" and "expressing everything through Teh Fiction" you're also going to need to explain each and every thing specifically, because none of that is a particularly obvious way of stating the obvious.

There are few games of any sort that don't have their own terminology, and the roleplaying scene is lousy with it. You've absorbed these terms as part of your hobby, but that doesn't make them any less impenetrable to an outsider.

Fiction may or may not be a new term to roleplaying games, but it definitely isn't a new word to the english language. It's not an abbreviation or using some esoteric interpretation. It's using a common definition for the word.

fiction
fic·tion  [fik-shuhn]
noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

In contrast, type "Game world" into an online dictionay. then type it into google. Then, type "Game world RPG" into google. If none of those give you a clear definition of this term, type in the question "What does game world mean" and click on the top result. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_world)

First, Game World redirects to a page called Fictional Universe. That esoteric, pretentious word doesn't seem all that far removed from the term you're used to after all, as far as the average person is concerned.

Second, Fictional Universe and Game World really only describes the settings, locations, history, etc of the imaginary stuff the group is talking about, it doesn't directly include in a clear way "What is happening right now in the imaginary world with the characters" Fiction covers that in a simple, common english word with a definition understood by the average person.

Dungeon World's choice of language and explicit descriptions of play and systems seems to express a desire for anyone, including those not steeped in tabletop RPG culture, to be able to pick up the book and start playing. I appreciate that, since it makes it a lot easier to introduce friends to roleplaying without giving them a lot of complex, alien elements to contend with.

I also really like that the examples of play for each bit of rules has an example of the GM or a player making a mistake, and the group discussing it and revising what happens. It's a great way of showing how the game plays, and how to resolve differences at the table.

Quote from: Ladybird;736655So, a climbing kit (Rope, pitons);
* Lets you scale surfaces that you couldn't without one
* Is probably going to slow your ascent compared to free climbing
* Would probably make climbing some surfaces simple enough to not bother rolling Defy Danger for, you can just do it (...which means you can't fail, unless you want to try SPEED CLIMBING or something)
* Is going to let you leave pitons to assist your party members
* Is probably going to leave more marks in the wall for people to spot
* Will mean that, if you fail a "climbing" roll (Likely Defy Dangerm but it could vary), you're probably just stuck or dangling from your last piton, rather than falling to your death

But it doesn't just give you a +1 Climb Check bonus, because that's boring and meaningless.

That's a good principle to my mind. Some of it can be specified in a way that gets similar results from a +X Climb Check Bonus; which might please people in the "rules, not rulings" camp who also want less complexity than that sometimes produces.

Dungeon World seems likely to spawn further branches of development, just as it sprouted from the *World lineage.

Quote from: JonWake;736694Player-Character?  What kind of bullshit jargon is that? What, you can't make up your mind which one you want to be?  If you're sitting at a table, you're a PLAYER, dumbass, not a 'character' in some kind of story?  
"Oooh, look at me, I'm a special snowflake character! I'm an important person that the events of the story hinge on.  Laa dee daaa."

God, I hate that pretentious shit.

I can't tell if you are serious or using humor. So assume I am clueless and elaborate; what exactly is pretentious in this example?

I feel like I am missing your point.

Quote from: Bill;737026I can't tell if you are serious or using humor. So assume I am clueless and elaborate; what exactly is pretentious in this example?

I feel like I am missing your point.

He's basically showing that finding the world "fiction" to be pretentious is 100% on the reader's end and that words that have been part of the RPG tradition since the beginning can be cast that way as well.

Quote from: NathanIW;737062He's basically showing that finding the world "fiction" to be pretentious is 100% on the reader's end and that words that have been part of the RPG tradition since the beginning can be cast that way as well.

Thanks, at least I have a clue what that post meant now.

I am not seeing how pretentiousness is really relevant.

I thought the debate was about fiction as a goal vs playing a character to see what happens.

Are people really twisting the meaning of these terms?

Or is it just innocent confusion?

Quote from: Bill;737070Are people really twisting the meaning of these terms?

Or is it just innocent confusion?

I think there is a subtle twisting of the term going on in some circles... whether that was intentional or not depends how how much you believe the claims/denials of the folks who wrote it.

Quote from: Bill;737070I am not seeing how pretentiousness is really relevant.

I thought the debate was about fiction as a goal vs playing a character to see what happens.

Are people really twisting the meaning of these terms?

Or is it just innocent confusion?

It's intentional twisting.  Some have developed an us-vs-them mindset where everything connected with certain publishers, game designers or even imagined factions of players must be seen in the worst possible light.  And when the game is not the usual type they like to criticize, all that's left is to say that you find the phrase "the fiction" to be pretentious.

As for Dungeon World, it's definitely a "play to see what happens" game.  People who play in a very old school approach find themselves quite at home with it and find nothing about it innovative or new.  Those that might get the most from it though, are those who's game experience is primarily with games published in the last 15 years or so.  There are lots of gamers out there who only have experience with games where playing the system rather than describe what your character does is supported by the game.  Dungeon World can be a great tool for re-introducing an approach to the hobby that might be largely missing from a lot of current game products.

It's a strange thing that people object to a book explaining the basics of what you actually do at the table as "roleplaying for retards."  I guess it's the result of people only seeing themselves and their own experiences as the possible target audience for a given game.

Quote from: Bill;737070Thanks, at least I have a clue what that post meant now.

I am not seeing how pretentiousness is really relevant.

I thought the debate was about fiction as a goal vs playing a character to see what happens.

Are people really twisting the meaning of these terms?

Or is it just innocent confusion?

Pretentiousness of game terms was brought up by other posters in the thread, saying that fiction is a pretentious word for describing all the imaginary bullshit roleplaying games center around.

Fiction isn't a goal of the game, playing to find out what happens in the fictional world, and how the fictional characters react to it is. Fiction is used in the sense that the people, things, places, and events the players are talking about are imaginary and not real.

The only differences between fiction and terms like "game world", "Campaign", "scene", or "milieu" is that fiction can include all of those things and more, and that you may be more familiar with some of them than you are fiction. Those other terms may have been used in reference to roleplaying games for a lot longer than fiction, but fiction has been used in the English language, in the way it's used in Dungeon World, for a lot longer than roleplaying games have existed.

But these are just the reasons why I don't find the word fiction pretentious, and that's my opinion. If others have different opinions, well, that's life.

Quote from: Adric;737133all the imaginary bullshit

Well, if we do someday revise DW and change the term, I think we just found the winner.

Quote from: sage_again;737138Well, if we do someday revise DW and change the term, I think we just found the winner.

Heh.

Around here I usually use "the shit we're imagining in our heads" as opposed to "the shit on the table".

Quote from: sage_again;737138Well, if we do someday revise DW and change the term, I think we just found the winner.

(http://gammazikdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/applause.gif)

Quote from: robiswrong;737139Heh.

Around here I usually use "the shit we're imagining in our heads" as opposed to "the shit on the table".

Dude. :eek:

No dump on the table, please!

:D

A post from a discussion of the revised edition in the future:

Look at this Dungeon World game.  They talk about the game world as "imaginary bullshit."  Why are they always trying to pretend to be so edgy?  It's so pretentious.

:D

Quote from: sage_again;737138Well, if we do someday revise DW and change the term, I think we just found the winner.

That would be an improvement!

Quote from: NathanIW;737231A post from a discussion of the revised edition in the future:

Look at this Dungeon World game.  They talk about the game world as "imaginary bullshit."  Why are they always trying to pretend to be so edgy?  It's so pretentious.

:D

Sad but true.  But I do personally like "imaginary bullshit."

Honestly, I think this is really a tempest in a pee pot.  I'm about the groggiest of grognards, but it was always perfectly clear to me what DW was after --

"Just tell me what you want to do, not what rule you want to use."

It ain't that hard.

Our group is pretty hard core "non story gamers" and our typical DW combat went like

P: "I'm gonna hack and slash him"
R: "Don't use game terms, tell me what you want to do"
P: "I'm gonna kill him"
R: "Roll 'hack and slash'"
P: "Isn't that what I just said?"
(everybody laughs)

After about six sessions, though, we got used to it:

P: "I'm gonna hit him on top of the head so hard his nuts explode.  That's hack and slash, right?"
R: "Yep. Roll."

Interestingly, it seemed a bit easier for me than some of the hard core 3.5/Pathfinder types.  I think that may be because I cut my teeth playing "Greyhawk" before the rules were published, and "Just say what you want to do" is how I learned to play.