Quote from: Phillip;739253Wait, I'm pretty sure pure abstract numbers is not what the DW designer guy said he meant by "the fiction." Sounded to me more like that happening-in-the-world, perceiveable-by-characters kind of stuff you get in old D&D and so on.

Correct.

Quote from: Ravenswing;739245Except in so far as any time now, I have this sinking feeling that someone's going to screech "OMG it sounds like a storygame thing!!!  Unclean!  Unclean!!  UNCLEEEEEAN!!!"

Don't worry, DW has the Pundit Seal of Approval as Not-Swine.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;739239I don't understand how a "fiction first mechanic" would do such a thing any better than a normal old mechanic. For example, if my character needs to climb a wall, how is rolling 2d6 and trying to get a 10 any more fiction first than rolling 1d20 and trying to get a 16?

In dungeon world, the term fiction first basically means "start by describing what your character is doing, and when the situation triggers a specific part of rules use that to determine the outcome, and then say what happens."

The fiction first part on DW works in conjunction with the way the rules are organised, into small chunks that start with a trigger, so when the trigger comes up in conversation, you consult just a few lines of rules,  maybe roll some dice, and then say what happens based on the rules.  Generally, systems don't refer to other mechanics in the game,  meaning you don't necessarily need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules to play or even GM the game. The world is being simulated by what the GM and players are imagining, not by what the rules simulating physics or natural laws.

 
For your climb example, the GM would describe the wall, then the player would say they want to try and climb it. Depending on how dangerous the situation is, the GM may call for a defy danger roll, establishing what the danger in the fiction is. (Is the player being chased or attacked? Are they trying to sneak? Basically what's at risk.) if there's no danger, the GM just makes a call on whether the player can just do it or not.)

The player rolls 2d6, and the rules tell them how to interpret the result in a general sense: success, success with a complication or cost, or things just got bad. The GM and players then interpret these general outcomes in terms of what the situation is, what the dangers are, and what's at stake. These general rules that allow the situation to determine the variables on a case by case basis means you spend more time talking about imaginary bullshit, and less time consulting charts or reams of rules.

It also means that the lethality and strangeness of any given game is determined by how the GM and players describe the situation.

Here's a stealth mechanic I created for dungeon world a while ago.

Sneak
When you move stealthily through dangerous or hostile territory, roll+Dex. *On a 10+, hold 3. *On a 7-9, hold 1. Spend your hold 1-for-1 to remain undetected, if at all possible, while you take an action, including:

You cover your tracks or avoid pursuit.
You get close to someone or something.
You hide or conceal yourself.
You snatch, pocket, or conceal an item.


If you reveal yourself, you lose any remaining hold.

Quote from: Adric;739266In dungeon world, the term fiction first basically means "start by describing what your character is doing, and when the situation triggers a specific part of rules use that to determine the outcome, and then say what happens."

The fiction first part on DW works in conjunction with the way the rules are organised, into small chunks that start with a trigger, so when the trigger comes up in conversation, you consult just a few lines of rules,  maybe roll some dice, and then say what happens based on the rules.  Generally, systems don't refer to other mechanics in the game,  meaning you don't necessarily need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules to play or even GM the game. The world is being simulated by what the GM and players are imagining, not by what the rules simulating physics or natural laws.

 
For your climb example, the GM would describe the wall, then the player would say they want to try and climb it. Depending on how dangerous the situation is, the GM may call for a defy danger roll, establishing what the danger in the fiction is. (Is the player being chased or attacked? Are they trying to sneak? Basically what's at risk.) if there's no danger, the GM just makes a call on whether the player can just do it or not.)

The player rolls 2d6, and the rules tell them how to interpret the result in a general sense: success, success with a complication or cost, or things just got bad. The GM and players then interpret these general outcomes in terms of what the situation is, what the dangers are, and what's at stake. These general rules that allow the situation to determine the variables on a case by case basis means you spend more time talking about imaginary bullshit, and less time consulting charts or reams of rules.

It also means that the lethality and strangeness of any given game is determined by how the GM and players describe the situation.

Here's a stealth mechanic I created for dungeon world a while ago.

Sneak
When you move stealthily through dangerous or hostile territory, roll+Dex. *On a 10+, hold 3. *On a 7-9, hold 1. Spend your hold 1-for-1 to remain undetected, if at all possible, while you take an action, including:

You cover your tracks or avoid pursuit.
You get close to someone or something.
You hide or conceal yourself.
You snatch, pocket, or conceal an item.


If you reveal yourself, you lose any remaining hold.

So "fiction first" really is just a nicer way of saying "rules-light"? Or maybe "rules-light and zero tolerance for rollplaying"? I play online, and this can vary depending on circumstance or the GM, but OOC I say what I'm rolling for and why. Then I emote/write what my PC just did, sometimes as an attempt (where the GM then responds) or as her/him succeeding/failing.

Quote from: Jeem;739270So "fiction first" really is just a nicer way of saying "rules-light"?

If you actually look at what's happening in practical terms- yes, very much so. However it comes with the attempt to justify Rules-Light (by means of its name) at the same time making it even more self-righteous.

its not really rules-lite and its not really self-righteous either.

I have never played DW (or any other W either:) ) , but its fairly obvious that the system is simply enforcing a basic rulings not rules methodology.

So if I am understanding this correctly.
A wizard in DW might have fire magic. They decide to cast a fireball.

To do this they say "I want to cast a ball of fire into the room on the left. I want to do as much damage as possible."

the GM replies "Okay sure I need you to roll a on 2d6+ . "  
"If you roll 10+ its a perfect hit and will do x damage if you get 7-9 then there will be some side effect, maybe some blow back or maybe the spell doesn't work as well as you woudl like, but we can discuss that after you roll"
Oh the creatures in side might get a chance to to take cover to reduce the damage

PC : roll

In D&D they would say " I cast fireball into the room on the the left."
GM: Okay no problem with the cast. Roll damage

PC : Rolls

GM:  Now the room is 30 by 40 and 10 feet high for a total volume of 12,000 cubic feet your fireall volume is x so it speads out in this pattern ... blah blah.  the creatures inside take damage,let me make their saves.

So it's not particularly original or different to old play, its quite different to new say 4e play however.
The key is the player is encouraged to talk and think in character rather than refer to mechanical rules . You can do that in TSR D&D easily although we all know that wizards woudl faff about working out which point they should hit with their fireball to get maximum enemy coverage.
So if anythign its just a reversion to teh old rulings not rules paradigm.

Quote from: Ravenswing;739245

I admit I'm still waiting, though, to be instructed as to how this is a "troll thread."

I'm just basing it on the OP's previous threads on this subject. It's a bit like the last series of Heroes. I like it! I don't like! I like it! I don't!
 
I'm having a GhostWhistler flashback.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739279The key is the player is encouraged to talk and think in character rather than refer to mechanical rules .

If this is true, then I don't understand how Dungeon World is an example of this type of game play. If you wanted to make a game where the actions, and results of actions, are described using in-world or in-character terms, then the best way to do that would be to go hardcore old-school where the players don't know the rules and the DM rolls all the dice.

Instead, Dungeon World takes the opposite approach, the player is responsible for rolling the dice as well as doing the task of translating in-game narration into game jargon or "Moves". Either that or the player describes his action and the DM redescribes them using the jargon.

So, if a D&D player says,

"Before the guard notices me, I rush past him, draw my dagger and stab the evil Vizier."

A Dungeon World player would have to say,

"I Defy Danger past the guard and Hack-and-Slash the evil Vizier."

By putting the game mechanics in the forefront, the designer of Dungeon World is working against it's stated goal of being fiction first.

Quote from: Adric;739266.."start by describing what your character is doing, and when the situation triggers a specific part of rules use that to determine the outcome, and then say what happens."

You can do this with any RPG. All of my RPGing has essentially consisted of me saying "My PC does/says this..." and the GM responding by telling me what happens or telling me to roll something to determine the outcome.

I know that some people play RPGs in a very mechanical manner (i.e. effectively sans roleplaying) but I've never encountered any of them personally.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739279its not really rules-lite and its not really self-righteous either.

I have never played DW (or any other W either:) ) , but its fairly obvious that the system is simply enforcing a basic rulings not rules methodology.

So if I am understanding this correctly.
A wizard in DW might have fire magic. They decide to cast a fireball.

To do this they say "I want to cast a ball of fire into the room on the left. I want to do as much damage as possible."

the GM replies "Okay sure I need you to roll a on 2d6+ . "  
"If you roll 10+ its a perfect hit and will do x damage if you get 7-9 then there will be some side effect, maybe some blow back or maybe the spell doesn't work as well as you woudl like, but we can discuss that after you roll"
Oh the creatures in side might get a chance to to take cover to reduce the damage

PC : roll

In D&D they would say " I cast fireball into the room on the the left."
GM: Okay no problem with the cast. Roll damage

PC : Rolls

GM:  Now the room is 30 by 40 and 10 feet high for a total volume of 12,000 cubic feet your fireall volume is x so it speads out in this pattern ... blah blah.  the creatures inside take damage,let me make their saves.

So it's not particularly original or different to old play, its quite different to new say 4e play however.
The key is the player is encouraged to talk and think in character rather than refer to mechanical rules . You can do that in TSR D&D easily although we all know that wizards woudl faff about working out which point they should hit with their fireball to get maximum enemy coverage.
So if anythign its just a reversion to teh old rulings not rules paradigm.

Jibba, the way you describe D&D sounds like you played with a group of rollplayers. Online, I describe what I'm about to do, roll and then emote/describe what my character just did.

Breaking down your post it's:
1. This is what my PC is going to do.
2. The GM is telling you what to roll. (Which is a bit weird and only really makes sense if the game has a really subjective skill system or something IMO, but not really that special).
3. There's varying degrees of success & failure & the GM describes them in IC terms.
4. The cubic feet thing is really just a matter of how crunchy the system is.

You may be right in that DW (I never read it, admittedly) tries to enforce a certain style of play,  but the issue you describe just sounds like a group of rollplayers with no sense of immersion.

Quote from: Phillip;739253Wait, I'm pretty sure pure abstract numbers is not what the DW designer guy said he meant by "the fiction." Sounded to me more like that happening-in-the-world, perceiveable-by-characters kind of stuff you get in old D&D and so on.

Shit, if you just want minimal detail, then the original D&D booklets will REALLY blow your mind, dude.

QFT. Its like the creators of DW had never heard of OD&D.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;739285If this is true, then I don't understand how Dungeon World is an example of this type of game play. If you wanted to make a game where the actions, and results of actions, are described using in-world or in-character terms, then the best way to do that would be to go hardcore old-school where the players don't know the rules and the DM rolls all the dice.

Instead, Dungeon World takes the opposite approach, the player is responsible for rolling the dice as well as doing the task of translating in-game narration into game jargon or "Moves". Either that or the player describes his action and the DM redescribes them using the jargon.

So, if a D&D player says,

"Before the guard notices me, I rush past him, draw my dagger and stab the evil Vizier."

A Dungeon World player would have to say,

"I Defy Danger past the guard and Hack-and-Slash the evil Vizier."

By putting the game mechanics in the forefront, the designer of Dungeon World is working against it's stated goal of being fiction first.

Yep. It sounds a lot more like "buzzword first" than anything else. Instead of taking intentions spoken in plain language and translating them into mechanics, it is taking plain spoken language, translating that into buzzwords, THEN translating that into mechanics.

That isn't fiction first, its an extra layer of translation. How is this more rules light and intuitive than OD&D?

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;739227It's where you focus on what is happening in "the fiction" (Dungeon World term that means "in-character") instead of numbers.

So PC story first as it were? IE: Describe it - don't roll it?

Addendum: Reading the following posts seems more like basic role playing with new terms slapped on???

I don't know where people are getting the impression that players are supposed to announce moves. Look, I'm not a booster of *world but Baker had a saying about AW moves: to do it you have to do it. Meaning: players do not describe actions in terms of the moves. They say what they're doing, the GM decides if it triggers a move and what move, and then tells the player what score (move) on their sheet to roll against.

And those of you saying this isn't particularly innovative compared to OD&D are absolutely correct, but the OP is coming from an impoverished RPG history consisting of 3.5e/Pathfinder/4e/Savage Worlds, and not much else.

Quote from: Arminius;739307I don't know where people are getting the impression that players are supposed to announce moves. Look, I'm not a booster of *world but Baker had a saying about AW moves: to do it you have to do it. Meaning: players do not describe actions in terms of the moves. They say what they're doing, the GM decides if it triggers a move and what move, and then tells the player what score (move) on their sheet to roll against.

And those of you saying this isn't particularly innovative compared to OD&D are absolutely correct, but the OP is coming from an impoverished RPG history consisting of 3.5e/Pathfinder/4e/Savage Worlds, and not much else.

It just seems like more effort will be spent by the player trying to guess the right buzzwords to trigger moves then putting "fiction first". That extra layer of translation does not appear to add value to the whole experience.

Quote from: Arminius;739307I don't know where people are getting the impression that players are supposed to announce moves. Look, I'm not a booster of *world but Baker had a saying about AW moves: to do it you have to do it. Meaning: players do not describe actions in terms of the moves. They say what they're doing, the GM decides if it triggers a move and what move, and then tells the player what score (move) on their sheet to roll against.

And those of you saying this isn't particularly innovative compared to OD&D are absolutely correct, but the OP is coming from an impoverished RPG history consisting of 3.5e/Pathfinder/4e/Savage Worlds, and not much else.

Wait a second....is that really all fiction first is? Just saying what your doing in the game world? If so I dont see the big deal from either side. That is just how i have always approached the game, say what your character is doing (not "i make a diplomacy check"). Are people genuinely not aware RPGS can (and generally have been) played this way?

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;739190I'm not struggling to smash , I'm struggling with evocative prose and the consequences of my writing.  For instance, I was really having trouble with a stealth mechanic.  In Dungeon World, stealth is mostly handled by Defy Danger or DM moves, and that didn't sit with me.  Today, I've figured out the general idea of how I'm going to do it, and it was like:

I feel you. I took a somewhat similar approach with the authorship of ZWEIHÄNDER. Here is how it breaks down for me:

BAD AXX!
Talent
Armed with two insanely vicious weapons, you relentlessly cleave with both hands into the fray. This is a particular favorite of Dwarven Slayers whose predilection to a particular fighting style cannot be dissuaded.

Effect: Whenever you spend 3 Action Points to make a Melee Attack, add an additional 1D6 Fury Damage. However, you must wield 2 one-handed weapons to utilize this Talent. Unfortunately, if you do not possess the Ambidexterity Talent, you suffer a -20 Base Chance to hit with this attack.

and...


PLIERS...SCALPEL...SCISSORS...BONESAW
Professional Trait
With an assortment of bizarre and frightening instruments, the Barber Surgeon sees to "curing" the wounded. Barber Surgeons are universally relied upon to perform surgeries as well, almost unmistakably the living image of a butcher. Where bonesaws fail, the machete works to hack through all that sinew and bone to remove a patient's bothersome, gangrenous limb.

Effect: You may flip the results to succeed Heal Tests. When you succeed, it is always considered a Critical Success.