Quote from: Skywalker;667704So, the criteria for separation is now "traditional" not how much the game uses "story-game" elements?

Have you ever looked at the headings for the sub-forums?

No? Go do it.

Yes? Then what the fuck are you on about.

Quote from: Benoist;667702That's not how that works. Dungeon World is, among other things, predicated on the notion the GM applies moves in the same manner the players do. That's basically restricting the role of the GM as being bound by the rules in the same manner the players are, and that violates RPG Pundit's #6 landmark.

The GM in DW has an entirely different set of moves from the players, which are extremely broad in comparison to player moves. I challenge you to identify something a GM does in a traditional RPG that doesn't fall within the GM moves.

I also note that the GM in DW can make up new moves on the fly. This is the same process as rules calls in a traditional RPG under a different name.

As such, using this as a basis for separating two games, its complete crap.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;667705It's the Pundit's website. He decides what goes where. He'll listen to arguments, but the final decision is his.

This I agree with. This doesn't mean that I don't think his grounds for separation are not shaky though.

Quote from: One Horse Town;667707Have you ever looked at the headings for the sub-forums?

No? Go do it.

Yes? Then what the fuck are you on about.

The point being that the word "traditional" seems to have no meaning other that what Pundit attributes to it to suit his arguments at the time. There are plenty of RPGs with non-traditional elements being discussed in the main forum, and plenty of RPGs with traditional elements being discussed in this forum.

Quote from: Skywalker;667709The GM in DW has an entirely different set of moves from the players, which are extremely broad in comparison to player moves. I challenge you to identify something a GM does in a traditional RPG that doesn't fall within the GM moves.

The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the moves have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.

The game redefines the role of the GM as a guy who just applies a set of prescripted moves otherwise it's "bad" and he "cheats". That's a game that's based on the notion the GM must be held by the balls by the rules, and in that, it's as far from traditional as you can get it. It's a hack on Apocalypse World which has been written by a guy who believes the traditional role of the GM is a problem that should be fixed, the worse thing that happened to RPGs, and that game is the direct fruit of that fucked up thinking.

Guys - that's mods & admins. We should really leave this thread, it's back to the circle of hell J Arcane described above.

Let Brad and the others debate why it's in this forum all day long. Our presence is just prolonging it and coming across as a bit heavy.

Over to you Brad & co.

Quote from: One Horse Town;667714Over to you Brad & co.

Fine by me.

Quote from: Benoist;667712The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the move have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.

No. There is hardly any restriction or usurpation of GMing power in DW. In fact, IME DW empowers the GM with greater discretion and flexibility than most RPGs, reminiscent of my own old school experiences where rulings were more prominent than rules.

The GM moves are an attempt to make the GM's role more explicit. In effect, they have little bearing on the actual role of GMing but help explain the expectations of that task. Given this is usually just implied in most RPGs, this can be an helpful tool for new GMs.

Nor are the GM moves such that the players are forced to think about their PCs from an authorial perspective.

In your benefit, there are RPGs out there that restrict the GM's discretion and flexibility, and some of those do so to the extent that empower the players to fill that void. I would agree that these are untraditional. Examples being PTA, Burning Empires, Polaris, and Theatrix.

However, lumping DW's approach in with those is nonsense, especially in light of Pundit's comments that this distinction is made primarily on his opinion of the authors and not any experience with the system. Claiming that DW's GM moves are a story-game element is just plain ridiculous.

Quote from: How to GM, Dungeon WorldWhen you sit down at the table as a GM you do these things:
• Describe the situation
• Follow the rules
• Make moves
• Exploit your prep

(...)

From the get-go make sure to follow the rules. This means your GM rules, sure, but also keep an eye on the players’ moves. It’s everyone’s responsibility to watch for when a move has been triggered, including you. Stop the players and ask if they mean to trigger the rules when it sounds like that’s what they’re doing.

Part of following the rules is making moves. Your moves are different than player moves and we’ll describe them in detail in a bit. Your moves are specific things you can do to change the flow of the game.

You lie.

As for the narrative stance, whether we're talking about agenda, drawing maps with holes that are left in a vacuum because what is being played is a narrative that gets filled bit by bit, not playing in a world that exists and is set apart of the game's action, the moves themselves, all these things are part of making Dungeon World NOT a traditional RPG.

And you guys keep lying about it. Why?

Fuck it. I said I would get out of the thread and I will.

After reading the rules, i would categorize DW as a STG and not a RPG.  It's definitely not a traditional RPG and should not be labeled as such.

Quote from: Benoist;667723You lie.

No, I don't. The GM uses GM Moves in DW. These Moves attempt to codify everything that a GM does in a traditional RPG, and does so pretty well IMO given how broad and flexible those Moves are. In addition, the GM is explicitly allowed to create new GM Moves (on the fly even) to fill in any situation that the GM Moves don't cover.

You can hang your hat on those three words as being restrictive on the GM, but unless you look at how it is actually implemented through the rulebook, its just a kneejerk reaction to something that is new to you. Accordingly, it is a very shaky ground for separating this game from what you consider traditional RPGs.

On the positive side, new GMs may find this kind of explicit advice to provide them with a level of certainty and security which encourages them to GM more. However, despite the approach being different, a DW GM will be almost indistinguishable from a D&D GM once they gain their feet, and more GMs is a good thing IMO.

Quote from: Skywalker;667710This doesn't mean that I don't think his grounds for separation are not shaky though.

What you or I or anyone else not named RPG Pundit thinks is ultimately irrelevant. His basement, his rules.

Your incessant need to carp about it is boring and accomplishes nothing.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;667729What you or I or anyone else not named RPG Pundit thinks is ultimately irrelevant. His basement, his rules.

Your incessant need to carp about it is boring and accomplishes nothing.

I thought this thread was going nicely until the mods felt the need to defend their shaky grounds.

Quote from: Benoist;667712The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the moves have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.

The game redefines the role of the GM as a guy who just applies a set of prescripted moves otherwise it's "bad" and he "cheats". That's a game that's based on the notion the GM must be held by the balls by the rules, and in that, it's as far from traditional as you can get it.

You use "bad" and "cheats" in quotes, but that's not at all in the rules.  The system presents a way to play.  That doesn't inherently mean that it is claiming that a different way to play is bad.  

In any case, this doesn't match my experience. The GM moves in Dungeon World are incredibly broad options like "Put someone in a spot" or "Reveal an unwelcome truth" - and the GM is free to extend them with custom moves.  To put this into a practical experience, I might compare two real-world cases of play:

1) A GM running a Living Pathfinder module
2) A GM running a Dungeon World one-shot

From my experience, the DW GM was vastly less bound and prescripted.  He had a lot more latitude to come up with things, and in fact the system demands that he more freely come up with wide-ranging stuff.  If we want to say that Living Pathfinder is not a traditional RPG, that would be consistent.  However, I think that's kind of screwy since I've seen at least a few GMs running in that manner for decades.

EDITED TO ADD:   I have no general beef with the moderation here - I was addressing characterization about how Dungeon World played.  I think the current split is stupid, but not a big deal.

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of therpgsite.com mods. The creatures outside looked from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod, and from RPG.net mod to therpgsite.com mod, and from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."