D&D "roleplaying": >Okay, I attack. >Don't

who cares

>>51677866
I ask myself that every day when I wake up.

>>51677853
If there is a point you want to make, make it in clear terms, so that we may refute it.

>>51677853
I enjoy our DW way more than all that time I've wasted on 3.5 together...

>>51677853
Yes, D&D is garbage. Yes, everyone who plays it must be shot, and everyone who enjoys it must be flayed alive.

Happy now?

Why do mechanics stop you roleplaying? Are you so easily distracted or confused that you can't use the rules as just another way of expressing your character?

I admire the design of rules light games, but at the same time I find them deeply mechanically unsatisfying, because the only real distinction between characters is pure fluff. I can create a fluff and roleplayed distinction between two characters in freeform, I don't need a system to help me with that. What a system does is create a tangible, mechanical distinction between PCs, letting me be creative in how they interact with the games systems and giving each character a unique way of interacting with the world.

Then again, most versions of D&D suck for this too.

Can someone remind me why /tg/ hates this system? It seems okay after a quick flip through.

>>51678409

The two factors seem to be the angry anti-rules light/storygame reactionaries and the fact that an annoying troll (possibly multiple) aggressively pushed Dungeon World as 'The best thing ever' for long enough that it turned some people against it.

I've also heard some fans of rules light games, and PbtA in specific, criticising DW and not being one of the best examples of it, citing other games that use the structure better.

>>51678100
Because in D&D the mechanics get in the way of roleplaying, while in DW they flow seamlessly together.

>>51677853
Go home virt, you're drunk.

>>51677853
No, it's just a fucking terrible system made by people who don't understand why Apocalypse World is good.

>>51678448

In DW the mechanics don't matter. They're entirely non-variable and provide a simple, somewhat non-interactive method of progressing the plot and resolving conflicts.

And that's fine! It works for a certain play style, but I think minimal mechanics like that aren't what enhance roleplaying, they just kinda get out the way.

Crunchy mechanics can be just as good, if not better than that for roleplaying. Taking a risk isn't just saying 'I'm using my Take a Risk move'. If you have a system of mechanics with enough depth and complexity to give your different choices different effects, choosing a riskier option is more meaningful because it can have real mechanical consequences. The expression of your character has a tangible, distinctly different result as per the rules and mechanics of the system, not just in fluff.

Again, as I said, most D&D doesn't do this well, but some D&D and D&D-like systems do, and others can be made to do it (admittedly with a lot of work from the GM, which does not excuse the quality of the system at all.)

>>51677853
you have to count any more moves that give you extra assorted dice, or increase damage dice
Also, moves like "you have +1 when you protect your allies from an evil danger, etc" seem marginally used or you have to force the situation so much to happen that are virtually a waste of space.

World of Dungeons is neat though if played at low levels.

World of Dungeons Turbo Breakers would be awesome if it was oriented more towards fantasy and magic had real, if tiny, rules.

DW is much more autis

>>51678447
Dungeon world took a good system and made it slightly worse to fit a niche it wasn't intended for, and gets hailed as the best thing fucking ever despite being at best "Slightly more rules light than 3.5".

Play apocalypse world if you want to see what the system can do, and then you'll see why dungeon world just fucks it up every where.

>>51678595
I've actually read both systems to the letter, never played them. COuld you explain how they play differently? I'm genuinelly curious. Just the 2 or 3 more important highlights please.

>>51678447
>I've also heard some fans of rules light games, and PbtA in specific, criticising DW and not being one of the best examples of it, citing other games that use the structure better.

Yeah, I have to agree with this assesment. I don't think that DW is a terrible game, per se, but it tries to combine the Gamerist nature of D&D with the Narrativist nature of PbtA.
In PbtA games, the moves exist to further the plot. In DW they closely emulate D&D powers, as just special action conferred by a class. It's not impossible to connect the two, but the way DW does is not always the best. But hey, if you like it, don't let my opinion stop you from playing it. I'm sure the game has its merits, otherwise it wouldn't have such a following.

>>51678100
>>51678537
Basically this, for me.

>>51677853
3.5 is garbage for Johnny

DW is garbage for Vorthos

>>51678657
I'm not very good at explaining things so bear with me.

Apocalypse world is a system that's very based on story, and storytelling. Whereas dungeon and dragons is more about cool mechanics (How cool they are is another matter, but the mechanics are definitely in focus).

Now what the author has done is essentially bolting on D&D mechanics to apocalypse world, so it gets more finnicky without allowing the mechanical distinctions of D&D.

>>51678761
>Whereas dungeon and dragons is more about cool mechanics

That really only true for the WOTC editions.

>>51678657
Every stat in AW represents a very different approach to a situation.
Three of DW's six stats deal (with) damage.

Moves in AW have tangible and significant consequences that usually lead to further moves.
Half the Moves in DW do numbers instead of consequences, and those that don't tend to be bad at making the consequences stick.

Experience in AW is a tool for the group to reward the players for taking the kind of actions the rest wants to see.
Experience in DW rewards players for ignoring what their characters are good at.

>>51678823

The reality of the situation is that the WotC editions, for the vast majority of people, are D&D. They are what people think of and they provide the key frame of reference for discussing D&D. I think that's part of why the OSR has become its own distinct thing, since even mentioning D&D in the same space would warp peoples perceptions towards 3.x onwards.

I have never understood the appeal of Apocalypse World or its spin-offs.

The game seems like a collection of so many poorly-explained half-ideas that you're probably better of doing it freeform if you're more interested in telling a story than playing a game.

>>51677853
>>Okay, looks like a fairly difficult Hack and Slash move to me, go on and roll with a -2 penalty
That's not a thing, you don't apply penalties in Dungeon World mate
Know the rules before you shitpost about them.

File: 00001.jpg (786KB, 1000x1415px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1000x1415px

>>51678513
>No, it's just a fucking terrible system made by people who don't understand why Apocalypse World is good.

Can you explain further

>>51680172
See >>51678825

>>51677853
>-2 to hack&slash
This is what happens when you don't read your source material before you make a bait thread.

>>51678100
>Why do mechanics stop you roleplaying?
Because I have to stop and wait for my supercomputer farm in China to process the crunch on each action. I thought OP's example was brilliantly clear.

>>51679770
it's an optional rule at the back of the book (for some reason)

>>51680512
Maybe try not being a retard who cant do basic math.

>>51680538
Yeah, but using it as the prime example of why X is better than Y marks this as 2/10 making us reply sort of shit.

>>51677853
>Okay, looks like a fairly difficult Hack and Slash move to me, go on and roll with a -2 penalty
okay, enjoy your GM fiat fest

>>51678409
because the less rules, the more what happens depends on GM whim.

>>51680600
Even retards can do increments, it has nothing to do having to keep track of a million such modifiers.

>>51677853
why have rules at all? why not let the GM decide everything on a d20 roll?

>>51680635
>>51680686

You know there's a number in the lower right that keeps track of how many posters are in the thread?

>>51678100
>Why do mechanics stop you roleplaying?

>I want to swing from that chandelier and kick two guards on the way down!
>do you have the advanced chandelier swinging feat?
>If you don't, Johnny will be assmad that you're stealing thunder from his Halfling Chandelier Swinger prestige class that he had to focus all his skills and feats on til level 8.

>>51680777

And the point of creating an imaginary example that doesn't really apply to anything is...?

>>51680800
missing the point: the post

>>51680818

I don't see a point to miss.

An exaggerated, unrealistic example of how ludicrously bad mechanics might limit your options in combat with a bad and uncreative GM has no bearing on the statement 'Why do mechanics stop you roleplaying?'

>>51680713
so?

>>51680837
fuck me you're dense

>>51680861

Oh no, I entirely get what you were trying to do. I'm just using questions as a way of implying that it completely failed to land. To be clear- The example was trash, the intended meaning had no support and the intended point had no substance. It is a trash, worthless argument that I snidely dismissed as it deserved.

>>51680905
>tips fedora

>>51680905
It was actually pretty funny because it's true, old D&D was too restrictive unless you had specific prestige bullshit.

>>51680931
>>51680940
What the nigga is trying to say is that your "argument" is a pointless strawman that's literally never actually happened to anyone; therefor the post in itself is completely irrelevant to the thread; and as such, a perfect example of shitposting.

>>51680940
>old D&D
>3.X now qualifies as old

>>51680940
You can literally blame thieves/rogues for it. Before that class was introduced, there weren't skills or anything like that, but when it came in, you needed rules for all the things it could do. Now, instead of just picking a lock or climbing a rope, you had to have the abilities of that one specific class.

>>51680905
Ha, nicely done.

>>51681002
It's 17 years and 2 new editions ago.
It's old.

>>51681023
So before they made a class for it, how did people pick locks or climb? Did they just say 'I pick the lock' and that was it?

>>51681074
When you consider that the system as a whole is nearly 50, it's only middle-aged.

>>51680940

I do find it funny that being overly focused on RAW is an accusation often levelled at 4e, yet as a system 4e actually had better support for that kind of improvised action than 3.5 did.

>>51681075
yep
roll under str/dex on a d20 if you really must, but for the most part why bother, keep the game moving to the fun stuff.

>>51681075
Exactly the same way as they picked locks and climbed after the Thief was introduced: They told the DM that they wanted to do the thing, and the DM told them what to roll.

>>51681075
Usually with a simple dex or str roll. Really simple. Roll a d20, if it's under your stat, you succeed.

>>51681113
>>51681123
>>51681075
There's the sort of assumption as well in very early D&D that every character is a thief to some degree. If you weren't, why would you be breaking into ancient tombs and temples to take all the valuable stuff? From AD&D 2e and beyond it moved more towards epic fantasy and storytelling, so this assumption stopped being made.

>>51681124
>every agile person can pick a lock
yep, that's D&D bullshit

>>51681684
>Every tomb raiding adventurer who isn't unprepared can do tomb raiding activities
Yep, sounds about right.

>>51681684
see>>51681221

>>51680397
The shame is that DW would actually benefit from stuff like small positive and negative modifiers but all of that stuff is just too complex for DW fans to get their heads around

>>51680777
To be fair, the whole point of feats/archetypes is to bundle certain actions around a specific theme. I'm totally fine with reinforcing penalties for untrained chandelier swinging for everyone who's not Johnny's halfling, because he's choosing to invest in fluff over outright munchkining (or playing a wizard).

That might seem restrictive, but the give-and-take with collaborative storytelling is sometimes placing restrictions on how much a character can do so you keep the action moving for EVERYONE. Play with any veteran roleplayer and they'll say "I move here and power attack the goblin." Play with any new player (or That Guy) and he'll say, "I want to kick over the table AND vault over it so I can push goblin A into goblin B before I cut off goblin C's head AND kick it into the chamberpot to impress the barmaid I'm seducing on this turn."

Dungeon World encourages these sort of nonstop godmode fantasies, but doesn't actually have the means to back it up except GM fiat.
>"I want to hack and slash the goblin"
>"Well, you're not supposed to KNOW the name of the move, just describe it and I'll pick one."
>"Fine, I want to run up and attack the goblin."
>"...Ok, that's a Hack and Slash move..."
And of course you're encouraged to put your worst stat as the one you're using to attack the most with, because for some idiot reason you get more XP for failing moves.

>>51677853

Dungeon World is acceptable for quick pulp games, but for me it lacks the detail and groundedness for more serious ones.

No, I am not a DnD player either.

>>51681746
>>51681751
>you must play a tomb raider
yep, D&D bullshit

>>51682076
The entire game, in the early days, was about playing as tomb raiders, so yes, sure.

>>51681904
>And of course you're encouraged to put your worst stat as the one you're using to attack the most with, because for some idiot reason you get more XP for failing moves.

You also get killed for failing moves.

XP is not an incentive to fail, it's a reverse slippery slope (which is of course counter to AW's, and even DW's original goal of a downwards spiral, but there it is).

>>51682089
I don't have a problem with that at all, in its historical context. However, if someone criticizes the existence of a skill system, it's an issue that needs to be raised.

I think Freebooters on the Frontier does better what DW tried to get at.

>>51677853
So what you're saying is you don't like math? Gotcha

>>51678761

>Says he isn't good at explaining things
>Nonetheless explains

Literally why? As you yourself could have predicted your explanation wasn't very good.

File: 31d45c309a27bd21c17555027f9bd40365d4797cc4bc84679a1f45e115504174.jpg (35KB, 526x334px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 526x334px

>>51677853
That's just WotC D&D vs. TSR D&D. Babies raised on 3e cancer don't know how to roleplay. Dungeon World is a garbage game that completely misinterprets the PoA engine. get better taste.

>>51680940
This isn't true at all. AD&D 2e started down that route and 3e took it to an extreme. The majority of vast majority of real D&D's gameplay was done through roleplay that were mostly guided by mechanics behind the DM screen.

>>51682175
Skill systems are not old school D&D.

>>51682346
So Oriental Adventures is not old-school?

>>51682346

>real D&D

Man, No True Scotsman doesn't really benefit your point dude.

All D&D is real D&D. Your preference is your preference, and that's fine and all, but trying to draw an arbitrary line between what you like and everything else and declaring your preferred version to be the 'real' one is just kinda dumb.

>>51682346
>>51682427
The only real d&d is OD&D, the moment you ask opinions from people that shouldnt be playing your rpg, and use those opinions to make your rpg, your rpg will become something else.

>>51682476

So... You oppose the very concept of iterative design and development?

File: fc61f9a6fdb9ff0e0103b3bd9373e29c23cd7ef05ebfc4bdf3dd3c071faf1839.gif (2MB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x280px

>>51682427
Learn what the no true scotsman fallacy means, pseudo-intellectual. Drawing boundary lines between categories it is not.

There is a very strong and well recognized shift in design & gameplay (character, dev team, owning company, setting, system, basically everything not part of the brand identity) in the D&D series, to the point where the later period would not be remotely considered the same game if it was not for retaining the intellectual property that was stolen from the creators. It's hardly an arbitrary line.

>>51682476
Nah, real D&D is where you resolve conflicts through Knife Fights. The DM is allowed to strap a phone book to his chest to represent task difficulty, but mine was just that good at dodging that he just adjusted how quickly he reacted.

Get on my level scrubs.

>>51682545

>There is a very strong and well recognized shift in design & gameplay (character, dev team, owning company, setting, system, basically everything not part of the brand identity)

You could make this statement about literally every edition change, though. Heck, I've seen people make this statement about every edition change.

And even with that, that's still not an argument for the first one being 'Real'. It'd be just as easy to argue that with such sweeping changes each time, only the latest iteration is 'Real' D&D. It's utterly arbitrary.

>>51682518
I oppose justin bieber asking death metal fans how his next album should be and vice-versa

>>51682599
Who are the death metal fans in this analogy?

>>51681088
>middle aged isn't old
Keep telling yourself that Gen X

Why do autists have such a problem with letting the GM decide difficulty? Have years of 3.PF rotted their minds, made them unable to trust the GM? Or are they GMs afraid of having to think without having their hands held?

>>51682545
>stolen from the creators
Good Lord, I think you are serious.

File: fe4.jpg (8KB, 207x204px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 207x204px

>>51682589
>You could make this statement about literally every edition change
Except you couldn't, not pre-WotC. The first edition to take any distinct departure from OD&D's clear design goals and inspirations was AD&D 2e after Gygax was ousted, and even that was mostly in the modules and marketing, not the system mechanics itself.

>It'd be just as easy to argue that with such sweeping changes each time, only the latest iteration is 'Real' D&D. It's utterly arbitrary
D&D was a game very distinctly drawn from the intentions, tastes, inspirations of two individuals. The series very clearly retained all of that in each iteration until it didn't. You're trying to argue that regardless of how far you drift from an original series, regardless of removing its creators from the project, removing all its influences, radically altering its design goals, mechanics, setting, etc. it's still completely wrong and arbitrary to suggest it's not an authentic member of the series. For no reason other than the current producers of the product have legally acquired the IP and choose to continue using it to describe their own, entirely different game. Interesting.

>>51682683

Except this happens to franchises and series all the fucking time? They change hand and change nature and evolve, but trying to call all the current iterations of those franchises not 'real' is utterly meaningless. You're objecting to a fundamental part of how media works.

>>51678691
Jokes about the artwork aside, Fellowship does a much better job of PbtA fantasy. Of course, even then, it's doing a very specific kind of fantasy - a group of friends on an epic journey. Not sure how well it would do for a game about pulp vagabonds, or dnd-esque murderhobos, or epic wizard battles.

File: 5d365f042d15dd89e9e928f91299c2da0e09e553a9b762c7bcc2fa26568c9c6b.png (51KB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 275x275px

>>51682900
>Except this happens to franchises and series all the fucking time?
Yes, and fans completely ignore the egregiously unfaithful corporate manipulations - or if it's good on its own, respect it as its own separate thing. Nobody has a problem suggesting there's a difference between Howard's Conan and "Hollywood Conan" or that the latter isn't true to the former. Not to say that it's inferior, it's just not at all what the Conan character actually is. inb4 but WHO'S to say which is the real Conan character? Movies, comics, books what's the difference? It's all the same, man! No, it's not. Conan is clearly a distinct character created and explored by one author in a series of works, all other adaptations are interpretations looking towards the original. while they can stand on their own as worthwhile works, it doesn't change the fact there is a "true" Conan. Trying to argue against that is just petty sophistry.

I'm sorry the new school fanbase has some weird pathology about pretending their versions come from a direct lineage of progression from the primitive, unformed TSR games - rather than it being an entirely different game with different goals - but that doesn't stop describing those games as inauthentic or unfaithful to the series from being a completely reasonable and accurate assessment that would be entirely uncontroversial if we were discussing literally anything else.

>>51678537
>Crunchy mechanics can be just as good, if not better than that for roleplaying. Taking a risk isn't just saying 'I'm using my Take a Risk move'. If you have a system of mechanics with enough depth and complexity to give your different choices different effects, choosing a riskier option is more meaningful because it can have real mechanical consequences
I disagree. There is little functional difference between "I'll use my Take A Risk move, at -2 to my roll" and "I'm going to do x, with all these -x penalties but because I built my character to do this, I get +x too"...only to it mean the same mechanically, a -2 to the roll only it appeases grognard autism more.

Crunch is the dumbest shit, all it ever seems to do is 'reward' min-maxing but effectively punishes not min-maxing. Why dies the guy with 18 str have to take all those feats just to reliable wrestle a bear? Why not just let him be good at wrestling?
"B-but I NEED to be mechanically distinct! What if I want to be good at wrestling but another character who has the same primary stats can wrestle just as good despite not focusing on it with their character?!? WAAH MY CHARACTER ISN'T UNIQUE"
That's where ROLE PLAYING comes in, something that seems to be lost on you rules heavy spergs.

>>51683401

It just sounds like you've only ever played systems with shitty crunch.

A well designed crunchy system is enjoyable to play, in and of itself. The mechanics are a fun game that supports and adds to the roleplaying you're doing alongside it.

There is a tangible difference between an abstract thing like a move and choosing how you interact with a more complex and satisfying set of mechanics. With simple, rules light systems there are no mechanical choices to speak of- It's all just a matter of how it ends up being fluffed.

This is fine for some people, but the crunch is part of the fun for me, and how I interact with it through the lens of my character is part of how I roleplay.

Are a lot of crunch heavy systems bad for this? Sure. But they aren't by default, and we're seeing games like Legends of the Wulin, which combine satisfying mechanics with a narrative focus on storytelling which break the old assumption that narrative focused games must be rules light.

>>51677853
Brainlets systems """Playing""" a """Game"""
>Is character is rooollsss
>Nooo! us forget buff!!
>Noooooo!! us forget debuff!!!
>iz modifiers 2?
>Is numbers final... 23!
>me confus, number go over 20? Me no like.
>I no natural 20, i no fun no crit fun


GURPS
>Hello my fellow mensa IQ150+ certified players, I have run the calculations and you emerge victorious of this session
>Thanks my fellow IQ150+ certified MENSA member DM, we're understanding as we too have run the calculations, our satisfaction degree is of 94.23% total we now shall leave your house.

>>51677853
>6yr old pasta

Pretty autistic

>>51678825
I don't understand why they changed the XP system from apocalypse world for DW. What did they think would be gained?

This is why free form / homebrew is the best.
You can adjust your gameplay to your party obviously you need to know your PC's but its not difficult

Do you guys think we could keep a powered by the apocalypse general alive? An awesome anon posted his mega with a Tom of sweet pdfs awhile back and I'd love general just for that. Not a dungeon World player but Green Law of Varkith sounded like a cool setting for example

>>51683879
A reward for high risk play to encourage players to embrace the downward spiral in-built into the game.

Problem is that it leaves players sour because people want to do the stuff they're good at but the game rewards failure.

>>51684131
That's why I like the AW system because the players and GM determine progression rather than a mechanic that rewards only shenanigans

>>51684153
It also gives the MC heavy encouragement to make sure that a character's highest stat is tagged for xp even if the player with highest hx didn't pick it.

>>51677853
>D&D "roleplaying"
That's wading through WotC "rollplay" d20-System-muck.

True D&D is listening while a TSR-era fat man rolls all the dice for everyone behind a full-body screen.
No one consults the rules. They would fit on a single page if they weren't so chock-full of shitty prose.
Despite that, everyone has a 3-ring binder. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ No one knows why.

>Dungeon World:
Is a shitty clone of Apocalypse World that was made without any consideration for what made AW good.
It also becomes self-defeating in an attempt to use "familiar" mechanics to dungeon delve systems.

The only remotely good* narrative system for dungeon delving is Torchbearer.
*but even that's a stretch, narrative and dungeon delving are inherently at odds
I would sooner try to drift upstream than expect them to mesh well

>>51684256

I don't think they intrinsically need to be so. It's a very different medium, but Dark Souls (for example) shows how you can have an environment and the enemies you fight tell a story.

The places you pass through and the state they're in, the foes you face and the equipment you bear... Even if it's not conventional storytelling, it can still weave a story of a place in ways that can be interesting and compelling, making the act of getting through it more meaningful than it might otherwise be.

That being said, I don't know any systems which particularly support this, but I think it's an example of how the two can mesh together.

>>51684308
It doesn't work at the table.
Players generally obsess over throw away details.
The GM's focus receives their minimal attention, if any.

Glad to see that after a 8 week rest from /tg/, you fucktards are still making the same fucking threads every day.

File: 90df1912036cc973641ffba0a988d0a3c41e7699c3a44f17f166564e698df37d.png (110KB, 310x431px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 310x431px

>>51684256
Most true post I've read on /tg/

>>51684308
>The places you pass through and the state they're in, the foes you face and the equipment you bear... Even if it's not conventional storytelling, it can still weave a story of a place in ways that can be interesting and compelling, making the act of getting through it more meaningful than it might otherwise be.
That's how dungeon modules have been written for decades, retard. Read Jaquays' sometime

>>51677853
>D&D is bad! DW is awesome!
Okay. I'm convinced to play DW now, yup.

>>51683401
>meaningful mechanics are bad!
Ahuh. Sure.

You know, I think I'd actually be willing to try Dungeon World, so long as I don't have to play it with an average rabid DW player.

>>51682609
Presumably non osr players, who are more interested in a semistructured story than competitive dungeon crawling adventures with a staggering mortality rate.

>>51682654
There are certainly examples of that. Githyank and slaadi come to mind.

TSR had rights to print ip owned by individuals *once*, and then printed them again and again and acted like they owned them legitimately.

>>51684959
From what the guy's saying (only OD&D is true D&D), those death metal fans would be anybody who wanted a properly-written set of rules that didn't assume you'd be being taught to play by somebody who already knew.

>pro dw false flag bait thread
>turns into OD&D arguments

weird

>>51684922
>meaningful mechanics are bad!
My point was that it's NOT meaningful
If you're getting +2 to your roll when the only difference between the systems is "Because it's my stat" and "Because I took x,y and z feats to offset a,b,c penalties for this specific action giving me a grand total of...+2 to my roll" there is no functional difference between the systems other than penalizing arbitrary actions for "balance". The major difference is that it's appearing that retarded sperg ( you ) who thinks mechanical distinction is necessary because merely ROLE PLAYING the character differences isn't restrictive enough for you because you know you're a power gamer and would stop role playing as soon as you wanted to do something your character wouldn't do.

>>51683197
I both agree with you that they're not at all the same franchise as of 2e ad&d. I'd also say 4e is a separate franchise.

However, I've got no interest in pre-2e d&d or oar play, so the 'original' d&d is not in any way more desirable to me.

What I played of old d&d and ad&d didn't appeal to me much, and neither have most osr retro lines I've tried at conventions.

>>51684999
I got the impression that he was approving of everything up to ad&d, and presumably also osr retroclones like swords and wizardry.

You can't honestly claim the more epic story focus on the newer editions is in the same genre as the original dungeon crawl deathtrap games.

>>51685052

You never actually bothered to reply to >>51683487 you know.

>>51685091
No, you can't, but the two managed to coexist from Dragonlance to the end of 2e. I think that it seems like 2e stepped right away from the deathtrap modules because those small ones ended up in Dungeon.

>>51685052
>Personal attacks
Guess anyone with different taste in games than you has autism. Such tantrums seem to happen from everyone who professes everyone should stop playing other games and play DW. Is it contagious or are you just one really diligent shitposter?


>Mechanical distinction in capabilities between different types of characters is bad!
>If you want mechanical distinction you're a power gamer, take that!
Okay. I can acknowledge I want game in my role-playing game. If I wanted to deform roleplay I would just do it.

>>51685052
Do you act like a nutbar to deliberately drive people away from DW?

Because I'm not convinced one way or another as to the quality of DW, but I am now disinclined to play games with DW players.

>>51685204
>Do you act like a nutbar to deliberately drive people away from DW?

dude, its been bait since OP

>>51682630
3.PF players are so used to having control over every aspect of the system that having factors beyond their control scares them to their core.

Think about it, in 3.PF, you could roll up a Cleric or a Druid and effectively warp the game's difficulty around you while earning the jealousy of the silly martials. If the DM stepped in to put a stop to it, it was to either force them onto a railroad or because he's trying to win, which causes the players to escalate to maintain control, which inevitably ends in the campaign disintegrating, yet in some warped way, still ends in a victory for the 3.PF players because they never lost that semblance of control.

Meanwhile, everyone else either doesn't care or recognizes that the GM sets the difficulty because they trust the DM not to fuck them over and the DM trusts the players not to derail the plot just because.

It's just unfortunate that the fanbase is populated by the former rather than the latter.

>>51685052
no, you cocksucker. first of all, the mechanical distinction you're talking of has its origins in simulationism. secondly, such mechanical distinction is binding. it's a GUARANTEED bonus that the GM's WHIMS have no influence over, which can only be changed by house-ruling in advance, presumably during character generation. Which gives our choices at character generation regarding the distinctive abilities of our character more weight. And if those choices reflect the personality of the character, it gives that personality more gravitas during gameplay.

An alternative """narrative""" approach to that is FATE's aspects or D&D 5E's background which still use the mechanical distinction, they just made it a uniform bonus across all aspects/backgrounds because legal retards like you can't handle anything else.

>>51685301
>it's a GUARANTEED bonus that the GM's WHIMS have no influence over

>>51685264
>3.PF players are so used to having control over every aspect of the system that having factors beyond their control scares them to their core.

Really activates my almonds

>>51682630
Topkek.

One of the few good parts of 3.x is the strict DC guidelines.

Nothing ruins a game worse than inconsistent GM DCs.

Being able to know the DCs and tell the GM the quality of your checks in terms of results rather than just a number makes for a much fairer game, and for better GMs.

>>51680683

Then don't use a million modifiers?

>>51685336
That's not the players controlling everything. thats players controlling the kind of character they built.

The game itself controls that.

Not all games are primarily GM/Player in terms of control. Some are GM/System/Player.

File: 1474311593738.png (988KB, 622x896px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 622x896px

>implying I forget to include all the applicable modifiers
Sorry you're too much of a babby to handle even the most babby of games.

>>51685365
>Then don't use a million modifiers?

>>51685353
>Being able to know the DCs and tell the GM the quality of your checks in terms of results rather than just a number makes for a much fairer game, and for better GMs.
>>51685301
> the GM's WHIMS have no influence over, which can only be changed by house-ruling in advance

REALLY makes me think
>DC shouldn't be up to the GM whims
>But if you don't want to keep track of a million modifiers then don't

>>51685429
Harnmaster is not a good game, anon.

>>51685436
I'd say part 1 yes, part 2 has to do with picking a system with the degree of granularity you're looking for.

>>51685467
Stop kidding yourself, we all know you play 3.PF and pick and choose which situational advantage/penalty rules you use

>>51685486
How the fuck would I pick that while playing PF?

I can rp the setup to justify some modifiers, or use tactical positioning to take advantage of cover rules, or take the ones that are literally part of your character, but I can't decide "Im not blind in deeper darkness because I don't want to be". That's retarded.

>>51685486
The answer to which adv/dis rules you use? All of them. And the GM is there to say when they apply.

>>51685561
>>51685576
I've played in several games in r20 and not once has a DM actually enforced darkness rules.
Certain races have darkvision certainly didn't help

>>51685629
Well that's on your GM then. They're in the game, he should be enforcing them.

His job is to run the NPCs, set up the scenarios, and enforce the rules, not fuck with the games physics on a whim because he has decided your not failing enough, or because he has a poor grasp on task difficulties.

>>51685676
>His job is to run the NPCs, set up the scenarios, and enforce the rules, not fuck with the games physics on a whim
Wow and what is the players "job"?
Have fun? lmao.

So we come to the root of the problem. Entitled players who don't give a fuck about the GMs burden of balancing all these bullshit situational bonuses/penalties on top of having to balance the game around players bullshit special snowflake "builds". And if you don't like it these entitled players tell the GM to fuck off because the GM is supposed to be an autist who finds enjoyment in bookkeeping, spreadsheets, plot,and balance. Actual fun is only for the players.
Fuck off. Players play for a few hours once a week and completely forget about the game meanwhile entitled players expect GM to put in several hours of prep work alone.

>>51685676

If I wanted a robot as a GM I'd play a videogame.

The GM is an active and engaged member of the group, working with the players to create an enjoyable and engaging story. This applies regardless of level of crunch. Warping the rules and changing them on the fly is a key part of the GMs job.

>>51685762
The players job is to play entertaining characters that actually belong in the world presented by the GM.

My group has 7 people and 4 GMs, including me. I GM one game and play in 3 others.

So get your projecting the fuck out of here. If the GM isn't going to enforce the situational penalties that's on him. But it's up to the players to track their own bonuses and call them out when they apply, and if they situation doesn't warrant the bonus the GM will say so.

>>51685801
Of course he's an active member of the group. Hence the players role to entertain him as well. But no, warping the rules on the fly is not part of the GMs job, it's proof you are a shit GM. There's no immersion in a world without consistent rules.

>>51685940

So you're disagreeing with the GMing advice given in every RPG I've ever read? Including D&D?

>>51686002
You mean rule zero the GM can change the rules?

Sure. In writing. Between sessions. Not on the fly, without telling the players in advance.

>>51686020

Can you point out that caveat to me? Because I don't think you can, because it doesn't exist.

The rules are there to support the GM. They have no value in and of themselves.

The first and foremost priority of a GM is to run and enjoyable game. While the rules are effective in supporting that? Awesome, use them. If you don't need them right now? Cool, ignore them. And if a rule would technically apply but would not make the game more enjoyable? Fine, ignore it, twist it or whatever you like.

Creating an enjoyable experience trumps the rules every time.

Can overusing it damage the sense of consistency of the game? Sure. But using it with discretion leads to a better experience for everyone involved and any lack of consistency is insignificant compared to the gains.

>>51685436
you're expecting consistency across different posters? also, players are supposed to know the mechanics of their PC's traits, not the GM

>>51685462
not him but it is one of my favorite systems

>>51686059
>Creating an enjoyable experience trumps the rules.

If you can't tell what your character is capable of because the GM sets the DCs all over the place, an enjoyable experience is highly improbable.

>>51685762
Well, each GM has a tolerance threshold of how many situational modifiers he can bear. For morons with ADS, it is close to zero. Most normal GMs can cope with a fair amount. Basically you need to know the fundamental modifiers of the combat system, as well as the ads/disads of the NPCs in the next encounter. Also, if a particular scene comes with specific rules you need to know them too. All of this is manageable, even for family fathers with a regular job.

>>51685801
>Warping the rules and changing them on the fly is a key part of the GMs job.
If guaranteed mechanics which tie both the GM;'s and the player's hands are not a factor, you might as well dispose of any rules and just use "Roll d20, the GM decides what happens"

Which is actually effing PbtA in a nutshell, except it's 2d6.

>>51686242

So you didn't read the rest of the post?

Also, tell me again how the GM setting wildly variable and inconsistent DCs is a logical extension of the GM twisting the rules to make the game more enjoyable?

>>51686290

Mechanics aren't about tying hands. They're about providing interesting options, means of interaction and means of expression, and crunchy rulesets can be excellent for this.

>>51686002
>>51686020
GM's CAN change rules on the fly, in particular rules that come from the scenario and are scene-dependent. But GMs control over things as core combat rules or PC abilities is generally more limited - they generally can't change those on a whim without an uproar, rightfully so. If there is an obvious reason, it will pass by; otherwise, the players will challenge the GM.

>>51686059
>The rules are there to support the GM. They have no value in and of themselves.
Yes, they do. Traditionally, rule systems limit the GM's discretion. They ar elike an unsigned contract:
>we play these rules and I, the GM, shall stick by these rules - unless something is obviously broken
Basically, the rules ensure that it's not the player who reads the GM's mood best does best in-game.

>Creating an enjoyable experience trumps the rules every time.
Living by the GM's whims only does not create an ejoyable experience. The game moves from defeating the game/prepublished scenario/whatever to complete subjugation to the GM's spur of the moment. Which is freeform cancer.

>>51686323
Well, that's what I complained about as being bad, and you responded by saying it was a good thing and calling it changing the rules to make the game more enjoyable, so I believe this explanation is on you.

>>51686355

How does 'Bending the rules to create a more enjoyable experience' automatically translate to the game existing at the GMs whim? That seems a huge logical leap and also assuming excessive stupidity on the part of the GM.

>>51686361

Protip- Multiple anons are disagreeing with you, and comments to that effect are nowhere in the posts I was engaged with. Care to reply to the broader point?

>>51686342
No, they are about tying hands. Without rule systems, you have freeform. With rule systems, the players have rules to hold the GM accountable to. Because if the GM was ignoring all the rules all the time, you might as well be gaming without a fixed systems to begin with.

Which, btw, is why fudging dice behind the GM's screen is a thing. If the GM's hands are tied by the rules and the pre-written scenario, the only way to make a fight that is too difficult by design more manageable is by fudging the dice. If the rules would not tie his hands, he wouldn't need to resort to fudging dice.

>>51678595

>Dungeon world took a good system

No

>>51686410
He can also tone down the tactics and make the enemies fight dumber. That's what I do when I overengineer an encounter.

>>51686395
Bending the rules is fine but there's limits to that before it becomes whimsical. Please that we were debating the merits of having guaranteed mechanical effects (distinction) when picking a certain trait during character generation. If I pick an advantage in GURPS, I can rely on my PC getting the stated bonus when an applicable situation comes up during gameplay. If the GM was to deny that, he'd generally have a player rebellion at his hands, rightfully so. (Unless the ad was clearly overpowered, etc.)

>>51686410

But it isn't about the GM ignoring all the rules all the time. As I said in >>51686059

>The first and foremost priority of a GM is to run and enjoyable game. While the rules are effective in supporting that? Awesome, use them. If you don't need them right now? Cool, ignore them. And if a rule would technically apply but would not make the game more enjoyable? Fine, ignore it, twist it or whatever you like.

When the rules are functioning as intended, all is good. And if you're not playing a shitty system, that should be the base state of affairs, most of the time. But the GM can and should always have the option to change things if necessary. What value is there in letting a rule actively make a session less interesting or enjoyable for the players?

>>51678409
The way I see it an RPG does any concentration of three things: simulate, describe characters, and provide metamechanics for role-playing.

Rules-lite games usually excel at metamechanics, focusing on them, and have pretty thin characters from a mechanical standpoint BECAUSE the focus isn't on simulation, which is the thing strong mechanical character identities exist to leverage. And that's fine, because they're about metamechanics, rules for empowering cooperative storytelling using role-playing.

For the record, I'm considering checks in general as part of simulation, because they're about trying to fairly figure out what happens in situations where a character has decided to do something that could have good or bad consequences, depending on how well they perform.

Dungeon World is weird because the focus is almost entirely on simulation. The main selling point is these "moves" which are meant to intervene in the narrative to resolve "perilous" moments (moments where what happens is of significant narrative import), but the characters don't interact with basic moves almost at all, which is most of what you do. So the moves feel invasive since you have so little control, and the control you've got over special moves is pretty limited because the system is so lite. And there aren't any metamechanics. So the whole focus is pretty feeble, IMO.

>>51686491

I don't know, the line between simulation and metamechanics is a bit wibbly these days. Some games focus on genre emulation, after all, which is as much simulation as focus on realism, just using a different set of laws and principles as their foundation.

crunch has another advantage, btw: it ensures consistency and avoids issues such as
>GM: okay, giring your gun full-auto gives you +10% to hit
>Players: but why +10??? last week it was +20%!!!
>GM: yeah, but you're wiping the floor with these guys and if you get +20%, the current encounter will be too easy for you. hey, I'm just trying to create an enjoyable experience for you here!
>Players: kill him. kill him now.

>>51686465
i will refer you to the beginning of the debate here:
>>51685052

>>51686513
This subject has been covered as well in terms of DCs going all over the place.

Apparently some people see that as a good thing.

>>51686510
Yeah, I think realism falls under the simulation category. Simulation covers everything from flipping a coin to figuring out the weight, volume, and roughness of a stone to see how well you throw it, depending on your hands' independent callus maps, of course, and the angle the sun lights your face from.

And metamechanics was referring to mechanics for creating plot hooks and worldbuilding, and also things like inspiration and fate or luck points.

I also failed to mention a fourth very important job of RPGs, which I think you're mentioning, which is to describe a setting, both flavorfully and mechanically.

>now that Virt is banned, we're back to Dungeon World fans trolling D&D players

I'm not surprised in the slightest.

>>51683879
Because, as the rest of the system shows, they didn't understand anything about AW's system, but still made random changes to try and be original.
Not to mention that just keeping AW's experience system would haven been pointless, because it requires the stats to have clear and meaningful differences.

>>51686491
look up the player/design types of GNS theory

>>51684256

Torchbearer is pretty fucking good for a dungeon crawling game, would certainly recommend it over both D&D and Dungeon World if thats the kind of game you want to play.