Quote from: Brad;693988I 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.

Marry me.  Seriously.  Now.  Take me, you fool.

DW is a fun game for what it is.  Lots of fun.  It doesn't really feel much like D&D to me, but it's a fun game.

Not only was Gary a normal guy (with a sexAY wife!  and five kids!) who really liked games, but WHILE he was working on D&D, he was ALSO working on Boot Hill, Classic Warfare, Warriors of Mars with Brian Blume, revising CHAINMAIL, and helping write CAVALIERS AND ROUNDHEADS.

Honestly, it reminds me of what's happened to Star Trek.  Gene Roddenberry was a successful TV writer BEFORE Star Trek came along.  But ST is now in the hands of ST geeks, not TV writers.  And it matters.

Old Geezer, I just opened the first booklet of OD&D here and.. it says it uses Chainmail rules for combat. Now will you say Chainmail rules allows me to simply flank a given enemy by declaring "I flank him" without consulting "the machine" for constructs like grids and movement rates and emcumbrance levels and initiative, etc ?

Quote from: K PetersenI 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.

Youre right. Let me try an example:

In a trad game, any given decision you must take is informed predominantly by the machine and its constructs (things like initiative, turns & rounds, discrete distances, levels, morale, situational modifiers, damage codes, armor class, thac0s, saving throws, etc) and the outcomes of your decision tend to be equally "machine" reliant (I used all my movement rate of 6 foot per turn to flank him and now I will have -1 for my next hit roll; I rolled 2 on initiative minus 1 from my hurt level thus I will act last on the turn order; I have Wisdom 12 which gives me +2 modifier on spell resisting table so I will need to roll a 9 on my next saving throw, I missed my last saving so Im partially petrified and now I will have -4 on my initiative check, etc).

In the "World" games, the decision you must make is informed predominantly by the very fiction at hand. And the way you interact with the fiction is through a simple resolution with a trinary outcome: you succeed, or you miss, or you "succeed but at a cost". And while there is a machine present, this machine is much simpler and more fiction-friendly than the other one. So, the factors which will inform you decision are more directly correlated to your character´s own point of view instead of out-of-character gamey machine constructs. So instead of thinking like "whats the enemy level ? if he sees me will his initiative allow him to act first ? how many hit dice he has ? does my movement rate - 30 feet for each 10 seconds turn - allow me to reach him fast enough ? What about my encumbrance level, will it affect me ?", in Apocalypse/Dungeon World your mental decision process tend to be "is the enemy strong ? Is him in an advantageous position ? is it possible to flank him ? or to sneak behind ?".

And as importantly as the way youre informed for decision-making, is the way yourself interact with the situation at hand: you roll a stat and, say, "succeed at a cost", to which the GM says "Ok, you manage to reach his flank unnoticed but your dagger fell on the way.. what do you do ?" - in other words, there are no machine constructs involved except for the single stat you rolled. And the options that open up to you are direct consequences of your in-fiction decisions, creating a continuum of fiction-feeding-decision-feeding-fiction-feeding.. etc.

OBS: note though that both sides utilizes both machine language and fiction language. The difference is one of degrees, of predominance, and not a binary one.

You know...

Honestly, I see where the DW fans are coming from. In that I understand that it works well for them. And if they expressed it that way rather than taking shots at other games people would probably not be bashing them.

Well, a few would. Some people just hate people talking about any game they don't like.

Its like this: Yes, the game works for you. Yes, the mechanics might encourage a style of play that you personally haven't experienced in other types of games. No, that doesn't make other games inferior. No, that doesn't make other people incapable of playing that style of play in any other game, and it sure as hell doesn't mean its a new style of play.

Its cool that you are finding something that works for you, and ignore the people who are solely attacking DW rather than attacking your attack on D&D, but seriously, you fired the first shots. Let people enjoy the games they enjoy, and don't tell them how there was no way they played a game a certain way.

EDIT: Also, seriously DW is not D&D. It does have a different mechanical approach. And it encourages some people to play in a way that they didn't play before. And we SHOULD like that these people are learning a new approach that they enjoy. EVEN IF WE ALREADY DID IT THAT WAY IN OTHER GAMES, WE SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT NEW PEOPLE ARE LEARNING IT. I agree that the "wow, [game] sucks compared to this" is an annoying pile of shit (its also annoying when the people who like OD&D do it), but you know what, if people are learning to play in a way they enjoy, we shouldn't be hipster douchebags about it just because we were playing that way decades ago.

Quote from: silva;693997Old Geezer, I just opened the first booklet of OD&D here and.. it says it uses Chainmail rules for combat. Now will you say Chainmail rules allows me to simply flank a given enemy by declaring "I flank him" without consulting "the machine" for constructs like grids and movement rates and emcumbrance levels and initiative, etc ?

Aaaaand the goalposts emit a bright burst of blue pseudo-Cherenkov radiation as they approach the speed of light!

The crowd roars in appreciation at confirmation of the fact that nobody believes for an instant that Saliva is speaking in good faith.

Quote from: silva;693997While in the trad game you "Ok, I roll my Athletics feat which coupled with my Dex of 15 minus my emcumbrance level of 4 and the swamp terrain modifier allow me to traverse 13 feet per 10 sec turns, which means I reach his flank fast enough to attack in this same round".

In Apocalypse/Dungeon World you declare you roll a stat and, say, "succeed at a cost", to which the GM says "Ok, you manage to reach his flank unnoticed but your dagger fell on the way.. what do you do ?" - notice how there are no machine constructs involved except for the single stat you rolled, and how the possible outcomes are all directly fiction-related.

OBS: note though that both sides utilizes both machine language and fiction language. The difference is one of degrees, of predominance, and not a binary one.

Silva... from an in-world point of view:
1) Shouldn't it matter how fast your character is?
2) Shouldn't it matter how far away the target is?
3) Shouldn't it matter how much gear your character is carrying?
4) Shouldn't it matter if you're trying to run through a swamp versus other murky terrain?

Or, put another way, how does DW handle the difference in these two circumstances:
Circumstance #1: Adventurer, heavily laden with treasure, is in a swamp when he spots an enemy about 60 yards away. He wants to flank the enemy.
Circumstance #2: Adventurer, walking in a field with just his sword and armor, spots an enemy 20 yards away. He wants to flank the enemy.

As a GM, I can sort through these different circumstances using D&D, ACKS, D&D 3.5, etc. in a non-arbitrary way. You can infinitely iterate the circumstances and feel like you are making a fair ruling.

How does DW handle it?

Quote from: silva;693997In a trad game, any given decision you must take is informed predominantly by the machine and its constructs (things like initiative, turns & rounds, discrete distances, levels, morale, situational modifiers, damage codes, armor class, thac0s, saving throws, etc) and the outcomes of your decision tend to be equally "machine" reliant (I used all my movement rate of 6 foot per turn to flank him and now I will have -1 for my next hit roll; I rolled 2 on initiative minus 1 from my hurt level thus I will act last on the turn order; I have Wisdom 12 which gives me +2 modifier on spell resisting table so I will need to roll a 9 on my next saving throw, I missed my last saving so Im partially petrified and now I will have -4 on my initiative check, etc).

In the "World" games, the decision you must make is informed predominantly by the very fiction at hand. And the way you interact with the fiction is through a simple resolution with a trinary outcome: you succeed, or you miss, or you "succeed but at a cost". And while there is a machine present, this machine is much simpler and more fiction-friendly than the other one. So, the factors which will inform you decision are more directly correlated to your character´s own point of view instead of out-of-character gamey machine constructs. So instead of thinking like "whats the enemy level ? if he sees me will his initiative allow him to act first ? how many hit dice he has ? does my movement rate - 30 feet for each 10 seconds turn - allow me to reach him fast enough ? What about my emcumbrance level, will it affect me ?", in Apocalypse/Dungeon World your mental decision process tend to be "is the enemy strong ? Is him in an advantageous position ? is it possible to flank him ? or to sneak behind ?".

BUT more importantly than the way youre informed for decision-making,  is the way you interact with the situation at hand:

The "World" method represents OD&D without the trinary outcome crap. Basically you just say what you want to do and the DM handles the "machine".

This isn't new territory here. The difference is that there is no predefined universal mechanic for it. The DM may decide that the plan just works, just doesn't work, or might work, then determines odds. Sound familliar?

Quote from: Old Geezer;694000Aaaaand the goalposts emit a bright burst of blue pseudo-Cherenkov radiation as they approach the speed of light!

The crowd roars in appreciation at confirmation of the fact that nobody believes for an instant that Saliva is speaking in good faith.

Comedy gold!

Quote from: Brad;693988I 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.

And. . . thread won.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;693999EVEN IF WE ALREADY DID IT THAT WAY IN OTHER GAMES, WE SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT NEW PEOPLE ARE LEARNING IT.

That's my general take on it... that I should be happy that folks ARE basically enjoying the sort of gameplay I enjoy... vs. that 'Magic the Gathering' approach Benoist enjoyably ranted about.
Though not being able to enjoy your game without being a pretentious codpiece about it kind of drains my good will.
(and yes, at times I've been just such a pretentious codpiece)

Quote from: Simlasa;694010That's my general take on it... that I should be happy that folks ARE basically enjoying the sort of gameplay I enjoy... vs. that 'Magic the Gathering' approach Benoist enjoyably ranted about.
Though not being able to enjoy your game without being a pretentious codpiece about it kind of drains my good will.
(and yes, at times I've been a pretentious codpiece myself)

Yeah, I agree. Like, that was why the majority of my post was directed at the DW fans. Its like, it works for you, that's awesome, please chill out on being a douche about other games and people would be happy for you.

Well, except the people who are just as much douchebags on the other side.

Quote from: silva;693997In a trad game, any given decision you must take is informed predominantly by the machine and its constructs (things like initiative, turns & rounds, discrete distances, levels, morale, situational modifiers, damage codes, armor class, thac0s, saving throws, etc) and the outcomes of your decision tend to be equally "machine" reliant (I used all my movement rate of 6 foot per turn to flank him and now I will have -1 for my next hit roll; I rolled 2 on initiative minus 1 from my hurt level thus I will act last on the turn order; I have Wisdom 12 which gives me +2 modifier on spell resisting table so I will need to roll a 9 on my next saving throw, I missed my last saving so Im partially petrified and now I will have -4 on my initiative check, etc).

In the "World" games, the decision you must make is informed predominantly by the very fiction at hand. And the way you interact with the fiction is through a simple resolution with a trinary outcome: you succeed, or you miss, or you "succeed but at a cost". And while there is a machine present, this machine is much simpler and more fiction-friendly than the other one.

I would agree that Dungeon World is simpler than AD&D, D&D3, or D&D4. However, traditional games also include plenty of simpler rule sets, from Basic Role-playing to Over the Edge to Fudge. These have been using the same simpler resolution approach that you describe for decades. OD&D and Basic D&D don't have a codified universal roll - but still, DMs have been doing this for ages nonetheless.

Quote from: amacris;694001Silva... from an in-world point of view:
1) Shouldn't it matter how fast your character is?
2) Shouldn't it matter how far away the target is?
3) Shouldn't it matter how much gear your character is carrying?
4) Shouldn't it matter if you're trying to run through a swamp versus other murky terrain?

Or, put another way, how does DW handle the difference in these two circumstances:
Circumstance #1: Adventurer, heavily laden with treasure, is in a swamp when he spots an enemy about 60 yards away. He wants to flank the enemy.
Circumstance #2: Adventurer, walking in a field with just his sword and armor, spots an enemy 20 yards away. He wants to flank the enemy.

As a GM, I can sort through these different circumstances using D&D, ACKS, D&D 3.5, etc. in a non-arbitrary way. You can infinitely iterate the circumstances and feel like you are making a fair ruling.

How does DW handle it?

Dungeon World has no modifiers for rolls, but I can change when a roll is required and the results of each roll to be appropriate for distance, speed, and so forth.  So, comparing your circumstance #1 and circumstance #2, as a Dungeon World GM, I might require two rolls for circumstance #1 - one to close, and one to flank. In circumstance #2, I'd let the player get the same thing with just one roll.

In addition, I could adjust the results of the roll. So if you get a success in the more difficult case #1, I might say you do flank the enemy - but they have some time to react. Whereas if you succeed in case #2, then you have caught them completely off-guard with your flanking.

Quote from: K Peterson;693972Otherwise, it's easy to dismiss the approach as something that's not new, shiny, and original.

Compared to the current set of popular and widely-played games (3.xFinder, D&D4, 40kRPG, World of Darkness), yeah, it is a shiny and original concept. And if you're a fan of the rulings-over-rules, anything-not-forbidden-is-permitted style, well, this is it, it's another very accessible introduction to that style. Maybe it means more people for you to play with. It can't hurt.

Is it completely original, in the sense that nobody has done it before? Well, no. But absolute originality is a rubbish comparison method, compared to "is this a good example of this sort of thing".

Quote from: Emperor Norton;693999You know...

Honestly, I see where the DW fans are coming from. In that I understand that it works well for them. And if they expressed it that way rather than taking shots at other games people would probably not be bashing them.

There's cunts in every fanbase. It wasn't purely Dungeon World players who started the fights, it's both sides, as always.

Dungeon World is just a fun, fast-playing fantasy adventure game. That's all.

Quote from: Old Geezer;694000Aaaaand the goalposts emit a bright burst of blue pseudo-Cherenkov radiation as they approach the speed of light!

The crowd roars in appreciation at confirmation of the fact that nobody believes for an instant that Saliva is speaking in good faith.

Why would I lie ? I found the books here, together with Chainmail rules and everything. Those are not OD&D either ?

EDIT: disabled link to to copyright infringement.

Speaking as a Dungeon World GM...

Quote from: amacris;694001Or, put another way, how does DW handle the difference in these two circumstances:
Circumstance #1: Adventurer, heavily laden with treasure, is in a swamp when he spots an enemy about 60 yards away. He wants to flank the enemy.
Circumstance #2: Adventurer, walking in a field with just his sword and armor, spots an enemy 20 yards away. He wants to flank the enemy.

As a GM, I can sort through these different circumstances using D&D, ACKS, D&D 3.5, etc. in a non-arbitrary way. You can infinitely iterate the circumstances and feel like you are making a fair ruling.

How does DW handle it?

So, there's no concrete move rates in DW, but there are encoumberance rules, which work by imposing a penalty on actions taken.

So, by the book:

Adventurer #1 is either heavily laden or very heavily laden (Dependent on how much he is carrying and how much he can carry, total). If he's heavily laden, he gets a -1 to his roll. If very heavily laden, he can either drop something to get to heavily laden, or he just fails.

If he's carrying, say, a treasure chest, he couldn't even try unless he dropped it. He'd just fail.

Adventurer #2, I'd have more detail about this enemy. Is he on guard, or boiling some tea, or just taking a leak? If he was actively on guard, I might ask for a Defy Danger roll, for Adventurer #2 to avoid making a noise as she approached. If he was otherwise occupied, creep away. Backstab or headlock?

Of course, if either guard had already spotted our PC's, and the PC's didn't have some cover or other distraction, no flanking for them. Charge, and I'd call it Hack and Slash (Trading blows); retreat, and we'd see what happens next.

Quote from: Ladybird;694019There's cunts in every fanbase. It wasn't purely Dungeon World players who started the fights, it's both sides, as always.

There are, and I addressed that as well. But this thread started with "better than the D&D model", then someone straight up dismissing someone's opinions on the Early D&D model.

There are cunts on both sides, and I think some people here are being cunts about DW, but if you want to have a discussion that isn't flame wars, you can't walk in first thing lobbing grenades.

I just think it would be nice if people could discuss games they like without making it about games they hate.

Quote from: LadybirdIs it completely original, in the sense that nobody has done it before? Well, no. But absolute originality is a rubbish comparison method, compared to "is this a good example of this sort of thing".

I think there is a significant difference between the "rule zero" of trad rpgs and the kind of setup Apocalypse World presents - in the first you are given a whole number of discrete rules that you can use or not depending on preference and adjudication, while in the other you are given rules meant to be used in combination to your adjudication.

So, one approach is: "fuck, I need to cross these 2 stats in this matrix here and then get the result and cross with another table to find out the result ? Fuck this rule... Im fiating this shit out"

While the other is: "Ok, the rules say I must give the player a success but at a cost... hmmm, ok here it goes: you manage to jump to the roof´s edge but you make enough noise to alert the guard below. What do you do ?"