Quote from: silva;693728Traditional simulation-based mechanics tend to abort the fiction when they enter play.

Seeing as how task-resolution mechanics aren't meant to create fiction, I can see how that would be a problem for you.  Stephen King also doesn't roll dice when he authors a story.

Quote from: silva;693728DW/AW mechanics dont do that. On the contrary, they tend to provoke/stimulate fiction even more.

Which is why you like them, me, I like roleplaying as my character in a world, so task resolution does me just fine.

Quote from: amacris;693730but your example set up a D&D straw man and didn't illustrate what makes the game great.

Funny how that tends to happen, huh?

Quote from: CRKruegerSeeing as how task-resolution mechanics aren't meant to create fiction, I can see how that would be a problem

Dont think the quality of "fiction-abortion" is related to task-resolution proper, since you can have some isolated task-resolution tests not abortive to fiction flow. I think the problem is in some more "mechanicist" sub-systems, where you have a whole mini-game taking precedence over the fiction (like combat in most trad games).

I think thats one important difference between Dungeon World (or Apocalypse World) and more trad rpgs. They manage to provide a gaming structure with all that it entails (meaningful choices, tactical options, tangible consequences, etc) without being abortive to the fiction flow.

Quote from: silva;693721Estar, if we are gonna discuss game systems, we must consider what they do/promote, not what people do at their table.

Otherwise one can consider chess a great roleplaying game just because he likes to roleplay a rook while playing chess.

Neither system (3.X/4e) advocates or requires half of the things listed in the OP. The remaining complaints are true of any RPG with a lot of character and combat details. If you start finding the details tiresome of course a lighter RPG is to be appealing.

Case in point I ran D&D 4e by the book in a short campaign. Immediately the players notice that the encounters are not balanced in the way they usually are in published modules. Sometimes they run into things tougher then they are, sometime they are way weaker.

My reply was to pull out the DMG and them the section on creating encounters. Pointed out the opening paragraphs where it explained clearly that the following was a tool that could be used by the DM. Nobody found a rule that said you had to structure your adventure like published modules.

Then I asked them did my setting make sense in terms of what you know about the Majestic Wilderlands? They all agreed they did. I told them that criteria I used to put together encounters.

I am well aware that not how most say they played 4e. That in of itself not an issue. The issue is when they think they have organize their campaigns like that when it is simply not a rule of the game. This is also not a new problem but existed as far back as I can remember.

A RPG is a game where players interact with a setting with their ajuducated by a referee. The rules are things like the stats of the characters, combat rules, advancement rules, stats for monsters, items, and spells.

What you DO with the above items are not covered by the rules. If you choose to focus your character stats and advancement on a optimal build that your choice not the rules making you do it. If the referee makes optimal builds the only viable choice to get ahead in game that is on him not the fault of the rules. The same if he feels he can only run adventures a certain way.

Now the culture that surrounds a game is a powerful influence. And by switching to another game you are just trading one culture for another. What I advocate is screw that for all games. Realize you can make ANY RPG your own even if you run it by the book. That the most important part of a feel of a campaign is not the hard/fixed stuff like the rules but the soft/intangible things like the roleplaying and how the referee runs things.

One of the things that makes games like Dungeon World and Fate such a contrast is that their culture emphasizes how you run your characters and how you run your campaign more than mechanics. And because they focus so much on the how side they tend to like lite mechanics.

But that too is an illusion because I run games by the book with detailed mechanics that emphasized the roleplaying and with all the twists and turns that brings.

If you don't want to deal with builds in 4e then don't. Pick options that make sense in terms of your character's background and past actions.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;693727I found FATE to be too metagamey for my own taste.  Dungeon World is much different than D&D, despite what the people in this thread say.  Dungeon World emphasizes how the PCs react to danger and treats in-combat and out-of-combat the same.  Whereas D&D is very much based on hard numbers (AC, percentile charts, THAC0, save DCs, and so forth), Dungeon World is not.  I'll give an example.

DM: As you are exploring the room, you hear the door behind you crack and splinter.  A mighty ogre bursts through, driven to a furious hunger by the scent of fresh meat.  
Fighter: I'm going to draw my sword and stand between the ogre and everyone else.  "Come get some, you ugly brute!"
DM: Wait, you can't act yet.  We have to roll for initiative.

*break in scene to determine initiative order*

DM: The ogre gets to act first because he's surprised you.  The ogre is famished, so he rushes over to the closest target--that's you, Wizard.
Wizard: Can I run away from him?
DM: No, he gets to act before you.  The ogre rolls a 15.
Wizard: Can I dodge it?
DM: No, it hits your AC and does 12 points of damage.
Fighter: Can I block the attack with my shield?
DM: No, it's not your turn.

Here's how the scenario would play out in Dungeon World.

DM: As you are exploring the room, you hear the door behind you crack and splinter.  A mighty ogre bursts through, driven to a furious hunger by the scent of fresh meat.  
Fighter: I'm going to draw my sword and stand between the ogre and everyone else.  "Come get some, you ugly brute!"
DM: The ogre is famished, and he has the jump on you.  He's heading straight for the closest person--that's Wizard.  How are you going to make it in time?
Fighter: Simple, I'm faster than that ugly brute.
DM: We'll see.  Roll +Dex.
Fighter: 12+, so I make it in time.
DM: Okay, you make it over, but the ogre is swinging his club down.  You can try to block it, if you want.  Roll +Con.
Fighter: I rolled an 8, so I get 1 hold.  I'm going to spend it to redirect the attack to myself.
DM: Okay, the ogre does 12 points of damage to you.
Wizard: While the fighter's doing that, I'm going to run back to cast a spell.

And so on.  It's a much more natural flow to the game.

And yet, if you look at the examples of play in the AD&D DMG and Moldvay basic, they look exactly like the latter example, and nothing like the first.

D&D has certainly changed over the years, and it's hard to really pin-point when and where, but the original model was that players operated almost entirely by their description of what they were doing, and the "rules" were handy pre-fab structures to aid the DM in adjudication.  With OD&D only the DM would refer to the rules, beyond character generation.  In AD&D, a player doesn't even know his THAC0 -- it's not listed in the PHB.  

So D&D and DW have essentially similar goals, but the processes they go through to get there are quite distinct.  D&D puts virtually all metagame resources (the game mechanics) in the hand of the DM; they player simply rolls if and when the DM asks them to.  DW spreads the metagame resources to all the players, and the DM never even rolls dice.  But those mechanics are almost entirely metagame, requiring the player to use fictional description to give them any shape.

Somewhere along the line, D&D players began to see the to-hit roll not as "the abstract result of a minute (or 10 seconds) worth of fighting" but as "one attack with my weapon".  Instead of seeing Thieves Skills as "add specialty chances to do things anyone in the game can do", they became "concrete skill mechanics the lack of which render one unable to attempt them".  And solely but surely, mechanics and rules went from being structured DM adjudication aids, to the primary medium through players interacted with the game.  And worse, the primary expression of physics in the game world.  Then people play DW and say, "Wow, cool!  You play the game through description, rather than through the rules!  Rules are merely metagame constructs to aid resolution!  This is so different from D&D."

Still, certainly it can be said that there are key differences the default assumptions for the games.  DW is essentially about telling a collaborative story, and its the GMs job to provide complications that make the story interesting and worthwhile.  D&D is essentially an Ueberfrei Kriegspiel where in the DM is a referee who provides a setting with challenges, and the players seek out those challenges and try to resolve them.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;693727I

DM: As you are exploring the room, you hear the door behind you crack and splinter.  A mighty ogre bursts through, driven to a furious hunger by the scent of fresh meat.  
Fighter: I'm going to draw my sword and stand between the ogre and everyone else.  "Come get some, you ugly brute!"
DM: Wait, you can't act yet.  We have to roll for initiative.

*break in scene to determine initiative order*

DM: The ogre gets to act first because he's surprised you.  The ogre is famished, so he rushes over to the closest target--that's you, Wizard.

Here's how the scenario would play out in Dungeon World.

DM: As you are exploring the room, you hear the door behind you crack and splinter.  A mighty ogre bursts through, driven to a furious hunger by the scent of fresh meat.  
Fighter: I'm going to draw my sword and stand between the ogre and everyone else.  "Come get some, you ugly brute!"
DM: The ogre is famished, and he has the jump on you.  He's heading straight for the closest person--that's Wizard.  How are you going to make it in time?
Fighter: Simple, I'm faster than that ugly brute.
DM: We'll see.  Roll +Dex.
Fighter: 12+, so I make it in time..

What you described here is not the same situation. In the first example the referee declared the ogre had surprise. You accurately describe what would happen as a result.

This did not come up in the DW example. Surprise is not mentioned. In DW there is apparently a mechanic to allow a quicker fighter to go before a slower opponent. Which makes sense. GURPS and a lot of other RPGs have that.  The analogus situation in D&D is a Dex bonus to initiative.

So does DW allow for surprise attacks and for PCs to caught with their pants down? If so then you need to alter your example to reflect that.

Quote from: estar;693756The rules are things like the stats of the characters, combat rules, advancement rules, stats for monsters, items, and spells.

What you DO with the above items are not covered by the rules. If you choose to focus your character stats and advancement on a optimal build that your choice not the rules making you do it.

Goddamnit, estar, you are doing it wrong. You need to be divisive, one-sided, strident, contemptuous, sneering, condescending, and angry. You need more ALL CAPS and swearing.

If you continue with this reasonable, polite, evenhanded discourse, other people might do the same. And then what? An Internet where polite people voluntarily have polite discussions?

Who wants that?

Quote from: amacrisAll I can say is that I didn't see anything in that scenario that couldn't be emulated by a D&D-like game. By hand-waving the Surprise roll and Initiative roll, you've handwaved away the mechanism by which these games emulate the process you're describing.

Regardless of handwaving one or another roll, in D&D (as in most trad rpg) you still have predominately rules where hard numbers affect hard numbers. In other words, a mechanical, idiossincratic, mini-game that pushes fiction aside and makes you think predominantly in terms of cold numbers. ("Whats my damage code? And my armor class? And my saving throw? And my attack bonus? And his weapon speed? whats the enemy movement rate in feet? And his level? And whats my hit probability with the bow? Is a 2d6 sword better than a 1d10+2 one ?").

While DW/AW tend to keep players decision making more grounded on fiction. So if you want to flank the enemy, you just roll and do it - no need to translate the intention to the "mini-game" terms (whats my movement rate in feets? Whats my emcumbrance? Do the enemy deserve a aweness roll? Etc).

So, while a "Flanker" trait in D&D would sound like "once per day you may roll dex to flank an enemy. If sucessful you may ignore your emcumbrance and increase your movement rate by +5 feet for the next 2 turns", in DW such a trait would be "roll Dex. If sucessful you flank the enemy".

Notice that the first case disassemble the player intention into the mini-game idiossincratic language, while the latter simply keep it at the same language as the fiction. The result of such a system is that the players dont need to "break" the fiction for tactical decision making, thus making the process much faster (because there is o need to translate/retranslate) and preserving suspension of disbelief (since you dont need to get ou of character to take mini-gamey decisions).


Edit: I remember in IT field, more specifically programming languages, there is a categorization for this. Languages which are closer to human language and commands are considered "high level" while distant ones (languages closer to the machine) are considered "low level" (Assembler is a low level language if I remember right). So, if we assume the fiction in rpgs are the human language, Dungeon World would be a high level programming language, while D&D/Shadowrun/Gurps would be a low level one.

Quote from: CRKrueger;693701Of course you wouldn't, since by your own frequent admission, you have absolutely no fucking clue what early D&D was even like.

Wait for it.

Quote from: silva;693703Rectified since Ive acquired and read it.

Wait for it.

Quote from: silva;693723I have the Moldvay edition here. Isnt it considered OD&D ?

And silva shits the sheets again.

Quote from: silva;693773While DW/AW tend to keep players decision making more grounded on fiction. So if you want to flank the enemy, you just roll and do it - no need to translate the intention to the "mini-game" terms (whats my movement rate in feets? Whats my emcumbrance? Do the enemy deserve a aweness roll? Etc).

That's how we did it in pre-3e D&D; movement rates and stuff are there to help the GM adjudicate, not to create a plug and play process simulation. It sounds as if you're seeing pre-3e D&D through the veil of 3e/4e. 3e was a big reaction against the looseness and 'GM fiat' of D&D up to that time. Hence derogatory terms like 'mother may I'.

There may well be something different about Dungeon World vs D&D due to its narrativistic approach, but you haven't said what it is. The kind of loose, ad hoc adjudication you describe is what I see in most of the traditional RPGs I have - all the lighter ones like Dragon Warriors, Fighting Fantasy, Tunnels & Trolls, OD&D, and even 1e AD&D as normally played.

Quote from: S'mon;693789That's how we did it in pre-3e D&D; movement rates and stuff are there to help the GM adjudicate, not to create a plug and play process simulation.

Early D&D was written by wargamers for wargamers. It shares their assumptions and speaks their language. "Process simulation" is in there, or there wouldn't be the weapons versus armor type table or the conversion of movement rates from indoors to outdoors.

But you're absolutely right that adjudication of the rules is off-loaded in large part to the referee. Players can describe what they want to do, and the referee applies the rules as necessary.

Referee: "The ogre is ahead of you."
Player 1: "CHARGE!"
Player 2: "I ready my mace and shield and approach cautiously."
Referee: *to player 1* "You attack the monster . . . " *to player 2* ". . . while you maneuver into position."

The referee in this case is the only one who needs to think about what this means to the characters rules-wise, that is, the distance to the monster and the character's movement rate plus modifiers to hit and armor class for player 1's character and the rule that says player 2's character must wait 'til the next round to attack after closing to engage.

Quote from: silva;693773So, while a "Flanker" trait in D&D would sound like "once per day you may roll dex to flank an enemy. If sucessful you may ignore your emcumbrance and increase your movement rate by +5 feet for the next 2 turns", in DW such a trait would be "roll Dex. If sucessful you flank the enemy".

Notice that the first case disassemble the player intention into the mini-game idiossincratic language, while the latter simply keep it at the same language as the fiction.

I'm not sure about that.
"Roll +Dex" happens to be the mini-game and the idiosyncratic language of DW. It's just less complicated and involved than D&D.

No one "in the fiction" says or thinks "roll Dex".


The "DW example" upthread sounds like any other traditional (pre-3e/4e) RPG that doesn't have a dedicated skill system or combat subsystems, one where the GM is left to fall back on attribute tests (or saving throws, initiative rolls, or 1-in-6-rolls, or T&T/FtA! like stunts) for any action that might happen in a combat round, leading up to the to-hit roll.

Quote from: S'mon;693789That's how we did it in pre-3e D&D; movement rates and stuff are there to help the GM adjudicate, not to create a plug and play process simulation. It sounds as if you're seeing pre-3e D&D through the veil of 3e/4e. 3e was a big reaction against the looseness and 'GM fiat' of D&D up to that time. Hence derogatory terms like 'mother may I'.

There may well be something different about Dungeon World vs D&D due to its narrativistic approach, but you haven't said what it is. The kind of loose, ad hoc adjudication you describe is what I see in most of the traditional RPGs I have - all the lighter ones like Dragon Warriors, Fighting Fantasy, Tunnels & Trolls, OD&D, and even 1e AD&D as normally played.

I am curious; was it really an intentional reaction, or just an attempt to make the older rules more logical?

I greatly prefer the pre 3E versions of dnd; just curious if the 'reaction' was planned or just happened.

Quote from: estar;693762So does DW allow for surprise attacks and for PCs to caught with their pants down? If so then you need to alter your example to reflect that.

Er, yeah, it does.

The monster gets behind you while you're not paying attention, it smacks you, and you take damage. Maybe you get to Defy Danger with your WIS to see if you hear the monster, I don't know, it depends on the situation. As a GM, you never explicitly state "the monster has surprised you", because it surprises someone and that lets it do it's thing. Everyone else then gets their turn based on the GM's interpretation of how ready they are, or however the GM wants to handle it. Don't want to get surprised? Have a character keep watch while the rest of the party gets engrossed in whatever's going on. Don't let a situation develop where you can be surprised.

Same works the other way for PC's; if you've got the drop on someone, you can just stab 'em in the kidneys. Job done, kill or injure as you like. Creeping up on an unarmoured man standing in the middle of a field of gravel, maybe Defy Danger with your DEX to get there without them noticing you, but if someone isn't trying to prevent you stabbing them then you can just stab away. But maybe he's got an armour plate under his shirt! Then your kidney-stab won't work, and he's gonna be pissed. It's your own fault, really.

Want to flank someone? OK, move around them, have something to distract them (Your mate, say), and then next time you get a turn stab 'em in the lungs. Of course, their friends are probably trying to do the same to you! And if you don't have any way of distracting them into letting you get behind them, then it won't happen.

Dungeon World isn't a narrative game, but it lets the narrative determine how things play out; to have your character do something, say how they're doing it, and maybe you'll need to make a roll, maybe it'll just happen, maybe it'll just fail. There aren't very many rules to it at all, and it runs mainly on GM fiat; it's much closer to diceless RP or the S section of Edward's theory, than it is to anything else.

Quote from: Ladybird;693834....to have your character do something, say how they're doing it, and maybe you'll need to make a roll, maybe it'll just happen, maybe it'll just fail. There aren't very many rules to it at all, and it runs mainly on GM fiat....

This describes how I've ran and played D&D since 1975. Perhaps this is why I don't get Dungeon World. It took this simple process and made it more complex (at least from my POV) with all sorts of formal process like restricting actions to moves, restricting what the DM can do to those moves, etc.

In my games, players simply describe what their characters are trying to do in the game world in normal terms (no gamespeak required) and I either just tell them what happens (sometimes rolling dice) or tell them what to roll (if they need to do so). I don't really understand the "in the fiction" phrasing since I run sandbox campaigns that lack a fiction-like plot, but if I treat the phrase as somewhat equivalent "in the game world" I don't see much real difference between what I do with D&D and what Dungeon World does other than terminology and the mechanics implementing play.

Quote from: Ladybird;693834Er, yeah, it does.

The monster gets behind you while you're not paying attention, it smacks you, and you take damage. Maybe you get to Defy Danger with your WIS to see if you hear the monster, I don't know, it depends on the situation. As a GM, you never explicitly state "the monster has surprised you", because it surprises someone and that lets it do it's thing.

Nor does that occurs in the classic D&D you were using in your example. I was assuming in the first example that the classic D&D referee rolled a surprise check for the Ogre and it succeeded.

If your assumption was that it was a arbitrary call then your D&D example is incorrect.  If it wasn't then BOTH example needs to reflect the result of a successful surprise. As it stands now the D&D example shows the result of a combat encounter where surprise was achieved. The DW example shows the result of a combat encounter where surprise wasn't achieve.

They are not examples of the same situation in combat.



 

Quote from: Ladybird;693834Dungeon World isn't a narrative game, but it lets the narrative determine how things play out; to have your character do something, say how they're doing it, and maybe you'll need to make a roll, maybe it'll just happen, maybe it'll just fail. There aren't very many rules to it at all, and it runs mainly on GM fiat; it's much closer to diceless RP or the S section of Edward's theory, than it is to anything else.

Above and in the sections I omitted are played out the same way in various editions of D&D. I am not seeing the difference here aside from the type of rolls you make. D&D has a surprise check, DW has a dex check, GURPS has perception check, and so on.

Nor I am seeing any difference between what you are describing versus how people who DO NOT use miniatures run their classic D&D games. It all sounds like something that has been done a million times since the debut of OD&D in 1974.

I am not putting down Dungeon World. The unique combination of mechanics that make up a given RPGs has an appeal of its own which is why each system develops a fanbase.  Even ones that are widely held to be nearly unplayable like Snider's Powers & Perils have a fanbase.

What I getting at is what I am doing different in Dungeon World?  For example compared to a miniature less game of OD&D using the original three booklets only. Or if you don't much about that a miniature less game of Mentzer's Red Box D&D.