Designing an RPG? You Need To Consider D&D First

[Jaeger]

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

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

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

[WillInNewHaven]

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

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

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

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

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

[WillInNewHaven]

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

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

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

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

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

[Itachi]

Yep, what WillInNewHaven said.

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

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

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

[Jaeger]

I considered 3D6 for combat rolls and decided that the D20 leads to more fun outcomes. ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And many don't.

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

[Alexander Kalinowski]

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

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

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

[HappyDaze]

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

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

[Itachi]

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

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

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

[Steven Mitchell]

What it means to the discussion? ...

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

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

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

[Alexander Kalinowski]

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

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

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

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