Quote from: RandallS;693837This 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 under 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 much real difference between what I do with D&D and what Dungeon World does other than terminology and the mechanics implementing play.

Ding!  Winner.

That's how MOST of us play D&D.

I also play Dungeon World.  It's mildly amusing, but I have a hard time taking the game really seriously.  It seems less like "Here is a game about adventuring in a dangerous world," and more like "Here's a way you can sit around and tell each other how awesome your characters are."

It's slightly more serious than Kobolds Ate My Baby, but not much.

It also annoys the SHIT out of me how deterministic it is; roll over a 10 you WILL succeed, roll under a 7 you WILL fail AND the monster will succeed.  It would be a shitty, shitty wargame.

Quote from: estar;693924My opinion that the prime goal of 3E was character customization and more tactical detail.

Tactical detail described by the mechanics themselves, as opposed to emergent tactics in play. The distinction is, I think, important.

Quote from: estar;693851You do realize that OD&D is explicitly a everything not forbidden is permitted game.

Marry me.


The change you discuss, to an "everything not permitted is forbidden" culture, is the single greatest harm ever done to D&D.

Quote from: Brad;693883What I've gotten from this discussion so far: because Dungeon World explicitly says so, the players are more empowered than when playing D&D and are, in fact, roleplaying.

So all I have to do is include a rule in a D&D-like game that says the same thing and I'm done, right?

Marry me.

Ok, kids.

OD&D is the better system ever, makes everything everyother game do, and have no flaws.

Now eat your soup or mamma will get mad at you.

Quote from: silva;693932Ok, kids.

OD&D is the better system ever, makes everything everyother game do, and have no flaws.

Now eat your soup or mamma will get mad at you.

Ooooooh, snap!  Kyoot widdle webel!

Hint: Look, Saliva, anybody who thinks Second Edition Basic D&D is the same as "OD&D" is going to get no mercy around here, and deserves none.  That's just plain a "learn what you're talking about before shooting off your yap, fuckwit" mistake.

Quote from: silva;693932Ok, kids.

OD&D is the better system ever, makes everything everyother game do, and have no flaws.

Now eat your soup or mamma will get mad at you.

Actually, I'd go so far as to say, yes, OD&D got roleplaying right. Give a loose framework that allows infinite extrapolation into a multitude of games. To use a philosophical analogy, all roleplaying games are nothing more than footnotes to OD&D.

Quote from: Brad;693934Actually, I'd go so far as to say, yes, OD&D got roleplaying right. Give a loose framework that allows infinite extrapolation into a multitude of games. To use a philosophical analogy, all roleplaying games are nothing more than footnotes to OD&D.

Fundamentally, yes.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;693684"I charge 70 feet at the dragon and make a full attack while using my Power Attack feat to take a -4 penalty on the attack roll while gaining +8 damage."

Ew, there are games that require you to play like that?

Quote from: everloss;693937Ew, there are games that require you to play like that?

Pathfinder.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;693684As someone raised on D&D 3e, I feel abused.  

Goddamn, you're fucked up.

This is obviously a troll thread, by the way.

Quote from: everloss;693937Ew, there are games that require you to play like that?

Star Wars d20.  D&D 3.*, apparently.

Quote from: jeff37923;693946Goddamn, you're fucked up.

Or taking the piss.

Quote from: Benoist;693927Tactical detail described by the mechanics themselves, as opposed to emergent tactics in play. The distinction is, I think, important.

Sorry Ben I am not seeing the distinction. I know that 3.X has emergent tactics because that what happened in the games I ran.

The way I look at it is like this,

Classic D&D
Somewhat abstract, everything is in feets so you can easily use miniatures. Advantages and disadvantages are represented by simple modifiers to the to hit roll for example -4 for an invisible foe +2 to hit from behind and so on.

GURPS
everything you can do in a combat round boils down to one of the many types of Maneuvers. Most involving a sequence of contest of skills  for a desired result. Unless explicitly label as cinematic designer try to mP maneuvers to real life actions and make the consequences, and modifiers reflect real life considerations. If they go cinematic they analyze the genre and use that as their asumption.

D20/3.X
Lies between classic D&D and GURPS. Special action are in the form of feats. Which General involve a d20 with modifiers versus a target DC generated from a target's stats or set by the referee. Some combat feats mirror real life considerations but most are there because they fit the author notion of the genre or simply because he thought it was cool. This isn't spelled out so the referee has to pick what is allowed in his game carefully to get the desired feel.

You are both right and wrong. It depends on what you are using from 3.X