Quote from: Benoist;693948This is obviously a troll thread, by the way.

Entertaining, though.

Quote from: Benoist;693948This is obviously a troll thread, by the way.

Yeah, that first sentence gave it away.

Quote from: estar;693952Sorry Ben I am not seeing the distinction.

Really?!

Because I can talk about my perspective: I VERY MUCH care about the tactical dimension of the D&D game. I LIKE this about the D&D game, I like to make tactical choices, position myself in a fight, choose my approach, whether I set the spear to receive the charge, whether I jump on this ogre's back or slide between his legs with a chain to castrate it, whether we fire a volley of arrows in the melee, whether we charge down the hill, . . . these to me are emergent tactics. Tactics based on the game world, on the in-game situations, which after the fact are adjudicated from a rules standpoint by the referee based on common sense and the framework described by the rules.

This is COMPLETELY different to me than basing my tactics on the rules themselves, or build a system that includes tactical choices baked in, and based on something like say, a grid, abstract line of sight based on corners of squares, attacks of opportunity and the like.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that more and more what I see is role players assuming that "tactics" in an RPG means playing the rules for the sake of the rules and how these rules interact. Or that tactics just "don't exist" or "aren't a thing" in an RPG if the rules don't include squares and/or attacks of opportunity and whatnot. When I say I don't care for these types of things, I'm relegated by bone-headed theories of people like Robin Laws in categories like "storyteller" meaning I like "fluff" or whatever the fuck is the new edgy term these days. Then I when I say "no, I don't play an RPG to do a 'story'" I become a NON-entity because apparently nobody knows what it is I am actually talking about.

So when I get something like this I'm kind of peeved.

I care for tactics. In the game world. I don't care for "magic the gathering tactics" and "deck building" and "bean counting" bullshit baked in the game system. OD&D presents emergent tactical choices based on the game world, as you play the game. Something like 3rd edition is built to present "magic the gathering", baked-in-the-rules, types of tactics. That's what I'm talking about.

And the difference between choosing between a weapon proficiency in AD&D and a fighting style in D&D Next is part of that AS WELL, by the way. I do see a difference, and I'm kind of annoyed people keep telling me what I feel when *I* am playing a game doesn't matter or doesn't exist or isn't worth the distinction. It *is* worth the distinction to me. Thank you very much.

/rant

Well said, Benoist.  You've summarized it completely for me.

Or to put it another way, "tactics" baked into the rules automatically limits what I can do, especially because it tends to lead to "everything not permitted is forbidden" mindsets.

Sweet Yoda's fuzzy green nuts, I HATE the Star Wars d20 game.

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.

And I agree. But that doesnt mean OD&D does the exact same things every other game that came after it does.

- It doesnt provide realistic depictions of physical interactions, anthropologically correct character creation, or organic and naturalistic abilities progression ala Runequest do.

- It doesnt provide a fully unified and flexible system, naturalistic skills-atributes correlation, or plausible human-level lethality like Gurps do.

- It doesnt provide personality and thematic rules like Pendragon do.

- It doesnt provide psychological rules like Call of Cthulhu do.

- It doesnt provide the strategical char creation and freeform decision-making that Amber do.

- And it doesnt provide the kind of fiction-affecting rules that Apocalypse World (and Dungeon World) do.

Thats my point. No matter how freeform or "rulings over rules" or how the D&D GM is supposed to decompile the game machine language for the players... what matters is that in OD&D you do have a strong machine language - you have rules affecting numbers. While in Apocalypse World/Dungeon World you rules affecting fiction. At some point in a D&D game, someone at the table will need to to look up combat matrixes and aritmethical modifiers, and movement rates and percentile probabilities, and saving throws tables, etc, etc, etc, and these are all hard and cold numbers, numbers, numbers/machine, machine, machine. While in Dungeon World youre dealing with fiction, fiction, fiction.

Is that so hard to understand ? No one here is saying Dungeon World is the better game in the world, just that it makes something that D&D and other trad games dont generally do system-wise.

For my DW group, what I think it is that makes DW appeal to us is that, we grew up with video games, so we tend to have a very RAW approach. Like, the debated anecdote above involving surprise, that was us playing OD&D. We'd make surprise rolls even when it didn't work for the RP.

So having the loose, informal play codified into the system DOES help us. I agree that OD&D can be played the same way (I especially like that Stars Without Numbers uses a similar 2d6+mod skill resolution system). I also agree with the D&D With Porn Stars review of the game. But it's a good fit for us.

Quote from: Old Geezer;693966Well said, Benoist.  You've summarized it completely for me.

Or to put it another way, "tactics" baked into the rules automatically limits what I can do, especially because it tends to lead to "everything not permitted is forbidden" mindsets.

Sweet Yoda's fuzzy green nuts, I HATE the Star Wars d20 game.

Thanks, and yes. I like WEG Star Wars a lot too, remembering your previous post about that.

Quote from: silva;693968Thats my point. No matter how freeform or "rulings over rules" or how the GM is the sole responsible for decompiling the game machine language... what matters is that in OD&D you have rules affecting numbers, while in Apocalypse World/Dungeon World you have rules affecting fiction, caralho.

To me, (outside of storygames where it seems to actually mean "the story we are writing usingf the game rules") "the fiction" is just another term for "the imaginary world where play takes place." And in both OD&D and DW you have rules affecting the imaginary world where play takes place: that seems to be the point of the rules in both games.  If you mean something different by "fiction", please define exactly what you mean by the term.

Quote from: silva;693968Thats my point. No matter how freeform or "rulings over rules" or how the GM is the sole responsible for decompiling the game machine language for the players... what matters is that in OD&D you have rules affecting numbers, while in Apocalypse World/Dungeon World you have rules affecting fiction. At some point in the game, someone at the table will need to to look up combat matrixes and aritmethical modifiers, and movement rates and percentile probabilities, and saving throws tables, etc, etc, etc, and these are all hard and cold numbers, numbers, numbers. While in Dungeon World youre dealing with fiction, fiction, fiction.

Is that so hard to understand ?

I think the point of contention, confusion, and crossed-wires is that rules affecting fiction hasn't been defined well in this thread. Archangel Fascist's example doesn't really differentiate it that much from pre-3x D&D play - as many in this thread have already stated. A stronger example is needed. Otherwise, it's easy to dismiss the approach as something that's not new, shiny, and original.

Quote from: Benoist;693961This is COMPLETELY different to me than basing my tactics on the rules themselves, or build a system that includes tactical choices baked in, and based on something like say, a grid, abstract line of sight based on corners of squares, attacks of opportunity and the like.

I think there is absolutely a distinction to be drawn between rules-first approaches and fiction-first approaches (although, in practice, most people use a mixture of both). But the ideas being proffered in this thread that:

- This distinction didn't exist prior to 2000.
- That OD&D didn't expect the use of Chainmail.
- That AD&D didn't include rules for using grids.

Is horseshit and nonsense.

And you should know better.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;693973And you should know better.

I used to think you ought to know better, but then I got wiser.

Quote from: Benoist;693961This is COMPLETELY different to me than basing my tactics on the rules themselves, or build a system that includes tactical choices baked in, and based on something like say, a grid, abstract line of sight based on corners of squares, attacks of opportunity and the like.

I see where you are coming from.

I feel it is a problem of design not detail. non cinematic GURPS makes sense because it choices mirror real-life considerations. I feel the same way with Harnmaster.

With D&D 4e you have to play the game because the details are pure game mechanics and don't emulate anything in real life or even the genre. I view 3.X/D20 as partially in between.  Getting worse with late 3.5 splatbooks.

Quote from: Benoist;693961The reason I'm pointing this out is that more and more what I see is role players assuming that "tactics" in an RPG means playing the rules for the sake of the rules and how these rules interact. Or that tactics just "don't exist" or "aren't a thing" in an RPG if the rules don't include squares and/or attacks of opportunity and whatnot.

I differ in that having played GURPS and Harnmaster for a long time I know it not that way with a well designed system that has a an abundance of mechanics. IN GURPS and Harnmaster if you have to use real tactics to make to most of the combat situations you find yourself in. I have had more than a few GURPS end. You know if we just stayed together in a formation that would have gone a lot easier. Or something similar.

Quote from: Benoist;693961When I say I don't care for these types of things, I'm relegated by bone-headed theories of people like Robin Laws in categories like "storyteller" meaning I like "fluff" or whatever the fuck is the new edgy term these days. Then I when I say "no, I don't play an RPG to do a 'story'" I become a NON-entity because apparently nobody knows what it is I am actually talking about.

I feel similarly with my emphasis on immersion and playing the game as if you really there as your character.  

Quote from: Benoist;693961I care for tactics. In the game world. I don't care for "magic the gathering tactics" and "deck building" and "bean counting" bullshit baked in the game system. OD&D presents emergent tactical choices based on the game world, as you play the game. Something like 3rd edition is built to present "magic the gathering", baked-in-the-rules, types of tactics. That's what I'm talking about.

I agree with you in the broad sense. And for specifics I would say this is definitely true of D&D 4e.

However 3.X/D20/Pathfinder their problem is not that but rather too much "lets add this because it is cool." Maybe for certain set of feats Wizards tried a mtg style tactic/build setup late in 3.5 but by and large there was never the methodical combat focused setup that Wizards used for D&D 4e.

But broadly I agree with you although we may disagree on specifics.

Quote from: silva;693968While in Apocalypse World/Dungeon World you rules affecting fiction.

Yeah, that's not a fucking game. Sorry.

Quote from: estar;693982But broadly I agree with you although we may disagree on specifics.

I see that. Sorry for the rant: I'm just peeved about it.

Quote from: Brad;693984Yeah, that's not a fucking game. Sorry.

I think I finally figured it out: Gygax et al really liked games. A lot. But they were also, for the most part, normal guys. They had families, careers, etc., but their main hobby was gaming. Kinda nerdy, but whatever. Over the years, obsessive weirdos became more and more a part of the hobby and they gradually turned it into fucking jackasses wearing costumes and speaking in funny voices because they sucked at acting and couldn't get into an improv troupe. It's the same with most hobbies today, really. There are large groups of freaks taking something to an extreme no normal person understands, and labeling it fandom.

DW is just a bunch of fucktards playing D&D but calling it something different because their postmodern idealism keeps them from appreciating D&D. DW is new and shiny and awesome so therefore D&D must suck, EVEN THOUGH it's literally D&D, and also literarily D&D. That's all it is.

The levels of pretentiousness about DW far outweigh any sort of merits the game itself might have.