This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: So, I played Dungeon World last night..  (Read 16549 times)

Phillip
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3990
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #105 on: April 06, 2013, 05:28:18 PM »
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642191
Honestly, it seems as if any problems with the mid-success mechanic could be fixed by a "GM chooses" rule. That way, it's not the player retroactively editing what they did, but the GM telling them "in order to hit, you had to expose yourself."

Even the most hard-core Trads should be down with that kind of mechanic.
That's how it looks to me, too.

EDIT: "Retroactive editing" may or may not be at issue, methinks. "This is what I'm trying to do" is different from "this is what happens" (which may not yet have been detailed).

As I said earlier, this is pretty familiar stuff from the days when D&D, T&T, En Garde, Traveller, etc., had abstractions that left a fruitful void for the participants to fill in with descriptions of what it meant, what exactly happened.

Quote
(Now, this may actually wreck the gameplay of AW/DW. But it does seem to answer the objection.)
It might not wreck the game, but it would seem to discard one of the reasons people who are enthusiastic about it are likely to be so.

Although I'm not likely to do more than peruse free stuff such as that character-sheet/moves-rundown packet, I might someday use a technique borrowed (consciously or not) from DW if it happens to fit the situation.

Different people -- sometimes the same people at different times -- have different preferences as to "where the game is": what decisions they want to focus on or gloss over, what things to roll for, what to work out in detail with calculations and tables, what to improvise.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 05:33:53 PM by Phillip »
And we are here as on a darkling plain  ~ Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, ~ Where ignorant armies clash by night.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #106 on: April 08, 2013, 04:26:29 PM »
Ok, this thread has now become about discussing DW and its mechanics, so its being moved to Other Games.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

silva
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #107 on: June 10, 2013, 06:29:02 PM »
So, resurrecting this monster to continue the discussion on the other thread..

Quote from: CKrueger
The problem Silva is that you're wanting to "agree to disagree" about the definition of key terms like sandbox, IC, OOC, narrative control, etc.

You, self-admittedly, possess little to no experience with old school RPGs, and yet you seem unable to understand for example why AW, due to it's very design does not support sandbox gaming, in fact cannot support sandbox gaming.

You post thread after thread saying "Hey guys, here's this new school game that's exactly like old school games (even though it was specifically designed not to be.)"

If you actually are incapable of telling the difference between...
1. Having your character build a castle from the ground up, paying for the whole thing, and taking months if not years of campaign time to do it.
And
2. Between character sessions (actual time not being important because there is no time if nothing dramatic is happening) I choose to *poof* create a new hold I now run.
...then I just don't know what to say. It just comes down to what goes on in my head when I roleplay in-character is not what goes on in your head when you "roleplay in-character". As I've said before different mental processes leading to a fundamental definitional difference.

Krueger, before we start discussing this, I think its important to ask:

What is sandbox gaming for you?

For me, its a gaming mode characterized by player-agency and by a GM that reacts and adapts to the players input, the more plausibly and consistently as possible. In other words, sandbox is what the GTA videogames do - to offer an open and vast "playground" for the players to run around and interact as they please. No central plot/story exists, except those the players elect for themselves or suggest for the GM to create.

This is the essence of sandbox to me. The methods or tools by which this gaming state is reached will vary - some will use tables and charts, others will use improv skills, others only shared imagined spaces, and others even videogames, etc. but the essence is there regardless of the tools.

Do you agree with my assessment about what constitutes "sandbox" here ?

K Peterson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 982
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #108 on: June 10, 2013, 07:07:20 PM »
Quote from: silva;661634
For me, its a gaming mode characterized by player-agency and by a GM that reacts and adapts to the players input, the more plausibly and consistently as possible.

Sorry to interrupt. But, a question: I'm not that knowledgeable about Forge theory; what is player agency? Is there a popularly-agreed upon definition, or is its definition a point of contention?

cnath.rm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • c
  • Posts: 528
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #109 on: June 10, 2013, 07:28:12 PM »
Quote from: silva;661634

For me, its...
No central plot/story exists, except those the players elect for themselves or suggest for the GM to create.
I guess for myself I see sandbox as a fully formed world that isn't going to wait for the PC's in order for things to happen. The PC's can work on plans of their own, but the world has a billion different plots/hooks/stories, most of which the players will never see due to them not paying attention to what/who is around them, or them being wrapped up in other things. The old D20 Star Wars ads indicating a single stormtrooper in a formation and asking "What's His Story? (It was something like that, I can't remember for sure)

Not sure if that makes sense or not, it's what showed up in my brain.
"Dr.Who and CoC are, on the level of what the characters in it do, unbelievably freaking similar. The main difference is that in Dr. Who, Nyarlathotep is on your side, in the form of the Doctor."
-RPGPundit, discovering how BRP could be perfect for a DR Who campaign.

Take care Nothingland. You were always one of the most ridiculously good-looking sites on the internets, and the web too. I'll miss you.  -"Derek Zoolander MD" at a site long gone.

apparition13

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • a
  • Posts: 527
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #110 on: June 10, 2013, 09:04:17 PM »
Quote from: silva;661634
So, resurrecting this monster to continue the discussion on the other thread..



Krueger, before we start discussing this, I think its important to ask:

What is sandbox gaming for you?

For me, its a gaming mode characterized by player-agency and by a GM that reacts and adapts to the players input, the more plausibly and consistently as possible. In other words, sandbox is what the GTA videogames do - to offer an open and vast "playground" for the players to run around and interact as they please. No central plot/story exists, except those the players elect for themselves or suggest for the GM to create.

This is the essence of sandbox to me. The methods or tools by which this gaming state is reached will vary - some will use tables and charts, others will use improv skills, others only shared imagined spaces, and others even videogames, etc. but the essence is there regardless of the tools.

Do you agree with my assessment about what constitutes "sandbox" here ?
Re. bold: try changing those to character rather than 'player'. Now mull that over a little while. Not what you, Silva want, but what the character you are portraying wants. Not the plot you select, elect, or suggest, but what the effects of the character acting in his/her interests as she/he sees them (filtered through you, obviously) turn out to be in the setting.

Character-agency, not player-agency.
 

Ladybird

  • \"Demonic cleric\"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2875
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #111 on: June 11, 2013, 08:37:41 AM »
Quote from: apparition13;661650
Re. bold: try changing those to character rather than 'player'. Now mull that over a little while. Not what you, Silva want, but what the character you are portraying wants. Not the plot you select, elect, or suggest, but what the effects of the character acting in his/her interests as she/he sees them (filtered through you, obviously) turn out to be in the setting.

Character-agency, not player-agency.


Actually, given one of the * World principles is "address the characters not the players", that actually makes it closer to the spirit of the games. So good point.
one two FUCK YOU

silva
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #112 on: June 11, 2013, 11:55:39 AM »
Yup, Ladybird is right. Apocalypse World asks the MC to address the characters all the time. Anyway, I have a question in this regard...

Quote from: Apparition13
Re. bold: try changing those to character rather than 'player'. Now mull that over a little while. Not what you, Silva want, but what the character you are portraying wants. Not the plot you select, elect, or suggest, but what the effects of the character acting in his/her interests as she/he sees them (filtered through you, obviously) turn out to be in the setting.

Character-agency, not player-agency.

Is there really a difference between those in practical terms (character-agency vs player-agency), in regard to sandbox gaming ?

The question is honest. I ask it because:

1. the most amazing sandbox experiences I had came from videogames where you control a party of characters instead of a single alter-ego (eg: King of Dragon Pass, Ultima 4, Darklands, etc) and this fact didn’t nullify the sandbox experience at all.

2. I have doubts on the possibility to separate what your character thinks/wants from what you/the player in control of the character thinks/wants. It seems impossible to me In practical terms, but I admit never giving much thought to it.

What do you guys think ?


Quote from: Cnath
I guess for myself I see sandbox as a fully formed world that isn't going to wait for the PC's in order for things to happen. The PC's can work on plans of their own, but the world has a billion different plots/hooks/stories, most of which the players will never see due to them not paying attention to what/who is around them, or them being wrapped up in other things...

Not sure if that makes sense or not, it's what showed up in my brain.
Makes total sense, Cnath! Yes, I would add it to my definition too. ;)

Quote from: K Petersen
Sorry to interrupt. But, a question: I'm not that knowledgeable about Forge theory; what is player agency? Is there a popularly-agreed upon definition, or is its definition a point of contention?
Sorry K, I don’t know about Forge theory neither. By "player-agency" I just meant "player-driven gameplay".

crkrueger

  • Hulk in the Vineyard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12559
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #113 on: June 11, 2013, 12:33:15 PM »
Quote from: Ladybird;661722
Actually, given one of the * World principles is "address the characters not the players", that actually makes it closer to the spirit of the games. So good point.


I'll give it to the AW/DW authors in that they do stress not announcing GM moves and trying to keep things at the character-level, unfortunately, to them character-level means "appropriate within the fiction", and many of the moves and mechanics concern things related to the character, yet outside the character's direct control.  The narrative meta-layer is assumed and fundamental.
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery's thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

silva
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #114 on: June 11, 2013, 12:57:08 PM »
Quote from: CRKrueger;661762
I'll give it to the AW/DW authors in that they do stress not announcing GM moves and trying to keep things at the character-level, unfortunately, to them character-level means "appropriate within the fiction", and many of the moves and mechanics concern things related to the character, yet outside the character's direct control. The narrative meta-layer is assumed and fundamental.

Assuming everything you wrote above is true, what does it have to do with sandbox gaming ? :confused:

cnath.rm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • c
  • Posts: 528
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #115 on: June 11, 2013, 12:57:35 PM »
Quote from: silva;661758
2. I have doubts on the possibility to separate what your character thinks/wants from what you/the player in control of the character thinks/wants. It seems impossible to me In practical terms, but I admit never giving much thought to it.
It only happens when a player doesn't choose the option that would be meta-best for the pc, but instead chooses the option that the pc would want, even if that brings no mechanical advantage, or even causes mechanical disadvantages. It could be considered the difference between roll and role-playing to use that old and overused phrase.

For instance, when I'm gaming I the player want the party to be a well oiled machine, watching each others back and working together. That said, I've had characters whose long term goals included killing other party members as revenge for insults... I the player knew that it would be bad to do that, but with things that had occurred, I couldn't deny the pc's desire to get his revenge, even if it would cause huge problems. (sadly I moved away and so never had the chance to finish off the long term plot)

Some times a character is a reflection of it's player, and that's fine. Some people want to take things a step further and create a character with it's own viewpoint/worldview/goals.

The above is of course imho, ymmv. :D
"Dr.Who and CoC are, on the level of what the characters in it do, unbelievably freaking similar. The main difference is that in Dr. Who, Nyarlathotep is on your side, in the form of the Doctor."
-RPGPundit, discovering how BRP could be perfect for a DR Who campaign.

Take care Nothingland. You were always one of the most ridiculously good-looking sites on the internets, and the web too. I'll miss you.  -"Derek Zoolander MD" at a site long gone.

Riordan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #116 on: June 11, 2013, 02:22:17 PM »
apparition13's point cuts to the chase, doesn't it?

Character-agency at the heart of an open world (generated and kept alive by tables/chance/GM refereeing): traditional rpg sandbox

Player-agency at the heart of an open world: storygame sandbox. Sandbox yes, but a storygamey one. Storygame yes, but indeed a sandbox - of sorts.

So while this discussion is in the right category now, what Silva talks about does look like a sort of sandbox to me - just not a traditional one. I'd be interested how such a world is kept consistent without the traditional 'boundaries' that lend it verisimilitude, though. does it feel real if anything can be changed from outside influence not by characters' actions but by by players' whim? or are players as bound by the sandbox's 'reality' in the storygame sandbox as the GM is in the traditional sandbox?

Is this a new thing with storygames?

apparition13

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • a
  • Posts: 527
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #117 on: June 11, 2013, 02:55:59 PM »
Quote from: Riordan;661785
apparition13's point cuts to the chase, doesn't it?

Character-agency at the heart of an open world (generated and kept alive by tables/chance/GM refereeing): traditional rpg sandbox

Player-agency at the heart of an open world: storygame sandbox. Sandbox yes, but a storygamey one. Storygame yes, but indeed a sandbox - of sorts.

So while this discussion is in the right category now, what Silva talks about does look like a sort of sandbox to me - just not a traditional one. I'd be interested how such a world is kept consistent without the traditional 'boundaries' that lend it verisimilitude, though. does it feel real if anything can be changed from outside influence not by characters' actions but by by players' whim? or are players as bound by the sandbox's 'reality' in the storygame sandbox as the GM is in the traditional sandbox?

Is this a new thing with storygames?
Sounds reasonable to me, and a useful discussion.

Quote from: silva;661758
Yup, Ladybird is right. Apocalypse World asks the MC to address the characters all the time. Anyway, I have a question in this regard...
Is your expected response assumed to be what the character would desire, or what you think would be more fun/dramatic?

Quote
Is there really a difference between those in practical terms (character-agency vs player-agency), in regard to sandbox gaming ?
Yes there is, in practical terms, and in regard to sandbox gaming.

Quote
The question is honest. I ask it because:

1. the most amazing sandbox experiences I had came from videogames where you control a party of characters instead of a single alter-ego (eg: King of Dragon Pass, Ultima 4, Darklands, etc) and this fact didn’t nullify the sandbox experience at all.
I'm having trouble groking this, because part of the sandbox experience is the possibility of unconstrained action. Aren't video games constrained? Can your King of Dragon Pass party decide "screw this, let's move to Pamaltea and open a tavern"?

Quote
2. I have doubts on the possibility to separate what your character thinks/wants from what you/the player in control of the character thinks/wants. It seems impossible to me In practical terms, but I admit never giving much thought to it.


The clearest example I can think of actually comes from a Ron Edwards game, Elfs. It is intended to be a comedy game of the slapstick variety. One of the stats is "dumb luck". If you decide to try and succeed at something with dumb luck, you declare two actions*, one that the character wants (hit the orc with my sword) and one the player thinks could be amusing (escape by tripping and tumbling through the door), and roll a dice pool vs. a target number. If you get any successes, the player action succeeds (the elf misses, but the momentum of the swing carries it through the door), if you get all successes, both do (the elf hits, and trips through the door). If you get no successes, both fail. (There doesn't seem to be a "character succeeds but player fails" option.)

In other words, the player is supposed to come up with funny actions, while the character is trying to be a dungeoneering Elf. Sometimes funny and dungeoneering will be the same thing, sometimes they will be in conflict.

If you're making decisions based on what the character would want, that's character driven. If based on what you want, humor, drama, etc., it's player driven. Any given decision can be compatible with both, but sometimes there is conflict between what you want (keep the party together) and what the character wants (split the party to pursue a private vendetta).

*I think this could work for Paranoia as well.
 

talysman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • t
  • Posts: 1073
    • http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #118 on: June 11, 2013, 03:51:01 PM »
Quote from: Riordan;661785
apparition13's point cuts to the chase, doesn't it?

Character-agency at the heart of an open world (generated and kept alive by tables/chance/GM refereeing): traditional rpg sandbox

Player-agency at the heart of an open world: storygame sandbox. Sandbox yes, but a storygamey one. Storygame yes, but indeed a sandbox - of sorts.

I think apparition13 has approached a crucial distinction, but didn't get it quite right.

Sandboxes are based on two principles, one of which is player-driven plot: a form of player agency restricted to what the characters do, not over anything else. It also implies and depends on a GM reacting and adapting to player input via the character's actions. Silva's definition of "sandbox" breaks "player-driven plot" into two components, ditching the restriction to character actions.

In addition, he's missing the other principle of sandbox play: a world divorced from external plot or other meta-level concerns. Nothing in a sandbox exists to fulfill a plot need, or to address a theme. Things exist either because they were defined in advance by the GM, created in the moment by a table, or improvised on the spot to fill an in-world need. Monsters show up in an encounter because they were placed there as guards or they are attracted to noise or the smell of food, not because of dramatic needs or game-balance needs. A magic sword exists in a treasure trove because it was placed their by someone, not because the PC's story includes finding a magic sword, or because the sword is a major macguffin. Events occur because some character, PC or NPC, did them, not to move the story along or because they fit the genre.

The reason why storygames -- pure storygames, at least -- are not sandboxes is because they don't follow the restrictions of the sandbox. Player agency isn't restricted to just what the character can do in the game, and GM additions to the world aren't restricted to in-world needs. If a GM railroad is antithetical to a sandbox, so is a player railroad -- a player changing things in the game world to suit some narrative end.

apparition13

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • a
  • Posts: 527
So, I played Dungeon World last night..
« Reply #119 on: June 11, 2013, 04:33:30 PM »
Quote from: talysman;661797
I think apparition13 has approached a crucial distinction, but didn't get it quite right.
I'm not sure about not getting it quite right, but we're in the same ballpark at least. :)

Sandboxes are based on two principles, one of which is player-driven plot: a form of player agency restricted to what the characters do, not over anything else. It also implies and depends on a GM reacting and adapting to player input via the character's actions. Silva's definition of "sandbox" breaks "player-driven plot" into two components, ditching the restriction to character actions.I'll quibble a bit with this. If a player wants to explore some concept in the setting, the way to do that is to create a character with the same interests. But those interests can then diverge, which can bring what the player wants the character to do and what the character would want into conflict again.

Quote
In addition, he's missing the other principle of sandbox play: a world divorced from external plot or other meta-level concerns. Nothing in a sandbox exists to fulfill a plot need, or to address a theme. Things exist either because they were defined in advance by the GM, created in the moment by a table, or improvised on the spot to fill an in-world need. Monsters show up in an encounter because they were placed there as guards or they are attracted to noise or the smell of food, not because of dramatic needs or game-balance needs. A magic sword exists in a treasure trove because it was placed their by someone, not because the PC's story includes finding a magic sword, or because the sword is a major macguffin. Events occur because some character, PC or NPC, did them, not to move the story along or because they fit the genre.
Well, again a quibble. The GM may create a world in order to explore some concept, for example Pendragon to explore Arthurian play, or Glorantha to explore religion, but once created the world follows it's own internal logic.

PCs acting on genre expectations is a different matter; I'm okay with it, some have problems with it.

Quote
The reason why storygames -- pure storygames, at least -- are not sandboxes is because they don't follow the restrictions of the sandbox. Player agency isn't restricted to just what the character can do in the game, and GM additions to the world aren't restricted to in-world needs. If a GM railroad is antithetical to a sandbox, so is a player railroad -- a player changing things in the game world to suit some narrative end.
This seems useful. So long as you remember that sandbox is not a midpoint between railroad (GM driven story) and story (player driven story), but is orthogonal to both (story, if anything dramatically coherent occurs, is emergent).