What is *worldbuilding* for?

Tony Vargas said:

It's very nearly a given that anyone who started gaming prior to about 1995 /did/ try NWPs at some point, because they probably started with D&D, and probably tried 2e at some point - they may have put them out of their minds, or been exposed to a version in OA or the Survival Guides first. There's little need to plead for an open mind and giving the game a chance on behalf of the industry's 500-lb gorilla. I'd urge you to check out some games developed in the current milinium, with an open mind...

.

Click to expand...

I realize this. I started playing in the 80s, so I've seen things develop over time. But even I forgot how NWPs felt in practice. When I went back to them, I was half doing so intending to do it as a laugh. But more importantly, a lot of people didn't start playing until recently (1995 was over 20 years ago). And plenty of people haven't tried 1E, let alone 2E.

By the way, I play lots of modern games. I played several sessions of Hillfolk just a couple months ago, and have played games like Gum Shoe and continue to play Savage Worlds. But people are after different things in games. You see 2e as broken or poorly designed. I get that. I am just saying I don't share that view, and it is through the playing fo the game that I reached that conclusion. I think people should try it on their own before rendering a judgment. By the same token, I'd hope people would give the games you are advocating for a fair shake as well. I think one of the worst habits people have in gaming is forming an opinion based on the experience of posters in forums who make good arguments but might miss the essence of things.

Bedrockgames said:

I realize this. I started playing in the 80s, so I've seen things develop over time. But even I forgot how NWPs felt in practice. When I went back to them, I was half doing so intending to do it as a laugh. But more importantly, a lot of people didn't start playing until recently (1995 was over 20 years ago). And plenty of people haven't tried 1E, let alone 2E.

Click to expand...

...and it's not like trying it, now, would repell them from the hobby, and it would give them perspective, sure. But, as a fellow grognard who also started in the 80s, and later came back to D&D, I think your experience with going bck to 1e or 2e, is very much related to the fact it's going /back/.

By the same token, I'd hope people would give the games you are advocating for a fair shake as well

Click to expand...

Well, that Aldarc & Pemerton & Manbearcat are advocating for. I was mainly just pointing out that those games are very much underdogs to D&D's traditional dominance as gatekeeper to the hobby. Underdogs need people pleading for others to give them a chance. On behalf of the top dog, it's just ironic.

Tony Vargas said:

...and it's not like trying it, now, would repell them from the hobby, and it would give them perspective, sure. But, as a fellow grognard who also started in the 80s, and later came back to D&D, I think your experience with going bck to 1e or 2e, is very much related to the fact it's going /back/.

Well, that Aldarc & Pemerton & Manbearcat are advocating for. I was mainly just pointing out that those games are very much underdogs to D&D's traditional dominance as gatekeeper to the hobby. Underdogs need people pleading for others to give them a chance. On behalf of the top dog, it's just ironic.

Click to expand...

The present form of D&D is essentially pathfinder and 5E. AD&D is played in the OSR but the OSR isn’t dominating the market. For me it isn’t about underdogs or any of that. My feeling is what matters is people finding games that resonate with them and work for them in practice. I wouldn’t say for me it is about going backwards. I think innovation is great. It is about realizing sometimes we throw out the baby with the bath water and occasionally returning to the earlier games yields insight as a result. But I don’t play 2E all the time. I tend to play more recent games that are open minded about the past. Again, these are just game. At the end of the day it is about having fun. I was very struck how a return to earlier editions helped enhance my fun at the table. I think it is worth sharing. And it isn’t just D&D. There are benefits to exploring many other older games. I quite like the old HARN material for examples. Plenty of folk are exploring old traveler and other games. Many continue to play new games, sometimes bringing in charts, approaches to adjudication or mechanics they like from the old.

Tony Vargas said:

...and it's not like trying it, now, would repell them from the hobby, and it would give them perspective, sure. But, as a fellow grognard who also started in the 80s, and later came back to D&D, I think your experience with going bck to 1e or 2e, is very much related to the fact it's going /back/.
.

Click to expand...

I would say let people find out for themselves. I don't think my experience was related to 'going back'. It was because there was a specific feel of play that I wanted and couldn't get in my 3E and 4E sessions. That feel was quite clear when I used 2E. I've tried very hard to replicate that feel when I run my own games. Much of it has to do with how I approach skills. And I've seen new players respond strongly to it. Now I probably could swing it in 3E with the right group. But it would involve some tweaking. I am all for people trying other systems (old and new). I think that is helpful and healthy. Even discovering what you really don't like can be handy. But it is much better to form your own opinion about mechanics than to rely on posts.

Bedrockgames said:

The present form of D&D is essentially pathfinder and 5E. AD&D is played in the OSR but the OSR isn’t dominating the market.

Click to expand...

5e has thoroughly beaten PF from the moment it came back to the market. (Not that PF & OSR are inconsequencial, but 2nd is a long way behind 1st at this point. And they're both still D&D, OSR still embracing the DM-mediated improv we're talking about. PF, admittedly, is player-entitling and optimization prone, in contrast.)
So, yeah, top dog. And, 5e evokes a lot of what you're talking about, from 1e with vague rules that don't neatly cover many situations, it just does so up-front, with the presentation of it's shading of the core d20 mechanic. It puts the DM determining ('narrating') succes or failure /before/ any dice rolls or skill selections. From 3.x/PF back to 1e might've been a bit of a revelation for someone who started with e'm (if you drew a DM good who could handle the challenge) or re-revelation for someone away from the classic game for a while. But, IMHO, 5e offers the same epiphany (and calls it DM Empowerment).

And it isn’t just D&D. There are benefits to exploring many other older games. I quite like the old HARN material for examples. Plenty of folk are exploring old traveler and other games. Many continue to play new games, sometimes bringing in charts, approaches to adjudication or mechanics they like from the old.

Click to expand...

We are in the grip of a long overdue come-back of the 80s fad, yes. D&D is back on top in a big way, and strongly reflective of the fad years. Other games from the 80s and even 90s are getting re-booted on kickstarter to at least some fanfare, too.

Tony Vargas said:

5e has thoroughly beaten PF from the moment it came back to the market. (Not that PF & OSR are inconsequencial, but 2nd is a long way behind 1st at this point. And they're both still D&D, OSR still embracing the DM-mediated improv we're talking about. PF, admittedly, is player-entitling and optimization prone, in contrast.)
So, yeah, top dog. And, 5e evokes a lot of what you're talking about, from 1e with vague rules that don't neatly cover many situations, it just does so up-front, with the presentation of it's shading of the core d20 mechanic. It puts the DM determining ('narrating') succes or failure /before/ any dice rolls or skill selections. From 3.x/PF back to 1e might've been a bit of a revelation for someone who started with e'm (if you drew a DM good who could handle the challenge) or re-revelation for someone away from the classic game for a while. But, IMHO, 5e offers the same epiphany (and calls it DM Empowerment).

Click to expand...

We are kind of going in circles here. I am not knocking 5E, nor am I knocking newer games that give different experiences. And I am glad they incorporated a lot of these classic ideas into the new edition. But I think people are much better off judging for themselves where older editions stand in all this and whether or not 5E offers the same epiphanies. My advice is anyone reading is to read the 1E DMG for yourself, try out period editions at the table, and see how they feel. I am not asking anyone to swallow bleach. I am just saying, if you are curious about it, check it out directly yourself. Maybe Tony Vargas is right, maybe not. Maybe you'll find something neither of us noticed about the old games. Not only is it good practice for players, I think it is good practice for anyone interested in design. I know I've seen 5E players (people who have only played 5E) express some surprise when I explain the content of older editions to them. Some of that is because, yes 5E took inspiration from old school versions of the game, but it still expresses that in its own particular way. Everyone kind of resurrects these things with a different focus or different way of explaining them. Going back for yourself is, I think, the best approach. Of course, only if people want to. There is nothing wrong with not having an interest. But I would like to encourage any curious people to read the 1E DMG in its entirety and to take a look at things like the 2E NWP, some of the old basic D&D boxed sets, and original D&D.

Bedrockgames said:

We are kind of going in circles here. I am not knocking 5E, nor am I knocking newer games that give different experiences. And I am glad they incorporated a lot of these classic ideas into the new edition. But I think people are much better off judging for themselves where older editions stand in all this and whether or not 5E offers the same epiphanies.

Click to expand...

I think you're advising people who have tried trendy kale and reached a conclusion about it to also try good old-fashioned collard greens, because they're totally different. ;P
My contrary advice to those who have already tried D&D (in any form, but especially 5e), and are still willing to give the hobby a chance, to go to newer games (if they can even find them), rather than some other version of D&D, or some other revivified game from the 20th century.
...if you do want the historical perspective, you can get it from watching grognards like us argue on the internet.






(Edit: It occurs to me that no one who might concievably benefit from either that advice or that perspective would sitll be reading a thread like this.)

Aldarc said:

In Imaro's defense here: in Fate fate points can also be used to power powerful stunts. So you are correct that if you are spending fate points for the +2/reroll or declaring a story detail, then you are invoking aspects. But there is another channel for fate points in the form of stunts. These sort of stunts are rare and up and by far not the primary mode of spending fate points, but they do exist.

Click to expand...

OK, maybe I have never played a FATE-based game that really used that idea. I'm understanding from what I read that these are specific 'feats' which a player has to choose when building a character (and thus generally subject to the FUDGE-derived 'you can only have so much stuff' restrictions). So maybe your Samurai dude can spend a fate point to invoke 'great kaiai' and get some cool effect. This seems like a pretty small 'hole', and depending on how the character is implemented and what the player does with it, then it is likely to be as supportive of characterization as most anything else.

I think this is a common problem for people running or playing Fate. Create an Advantage is slightly more unconventional than the other three actions. It's less of "roll, okay, you did the thing," and more "roll, okay, you create the fictional element (i.e., a situation aspect) that is now on the table for use." It is easily the most forgettable action, but it's also one of the most critical ones.

Click to expand...

Right, because it helps with "here's how I like to solve problems", which actually makes it, in a weird way, most similar to 4e skill checks! Or for those GMs which are willing to entertain it, SC situations where the player introduces some twist in the plot to explain how he used skill X to do something (4e sadly hasn't a way to regulate this, though GMs can certainly figure something out, HoML fixed that).

As promised, from The Book of Hanz:
I what I found eye-opening about these examples is how Create an Advantage rather than Overcome is the integral Action. A Stealth Overcome roll opposed by Perception (whether passive or active) would be the standard "are you stealthed: yay or nay?" Likewise, it would be a simple Overcome roll for "did you climb this: yay or nay?" These may confer various advantages in different systems. In D&D 5E, you would possibly have advantage on the attack roll - but no double advantage - but that does not really affect the damage for a weapon attack.

But here, they are two Create an Advantage rolls that set the spy up with two aspects that they now have available to invoke (+2, +2) to take out the two guards with a Fighting roll. The GM could decide here that the mooks will gain an opposed defense roll or the GM may simply decide to give a static DC depending upon the fiction. "Damage," though really Stress here, is the difference between a Fighting Attack roll and either the Defense roll or the static ladder DC. The GM may say, "Okay, together these guards have three stress boxes. And I will make this a simple +2 on the ladder." The spy rolls their Fudge dice and gets a 0, but then add their +2 from their Fighting skill, and +4 from their two invokes for a total of +6. 6 minus 2 is 4, which is enough Stress to take out the two guards. But there are different ways to play this scene out depending upon what the GM and player may think best emulates the fiction being presented.

Click to expand...

Right.

Imaro said:

There's the stunts which can cost FATE points to use but also the expenditure of FATE points to modify story details which also don't have to be tied to an in-game Aspect...

Click to expand...

My reading of FATE Core is that modifying story details DOES require an Aspect. This can be against your own characters aspects, or against an aspect of another character (NPC or PC) or an aspect of the scene, including one introduced in play. Stunts I'm not so familiar with, but given that the build process heavily restricts their availability I'd consider them to be intermediate between an aspect (a rather narrow one) and something like a 4e power.

Well again my original contention was not that 5e can replicate FATE but that a player who enjoys storytelling/narrative elements in play can be served by this part of the D&D 5e rules. This was with the later caveat that they aren't trying to replicate a specific system (since again I would expect them to play said system) but in the situation where it is a group of players with differing desires/draws for their rpg fun trying to each find their enjoyment in a single system. It was my contention that this is a strength of more mainstream games.

Click to expand...

and my counterpoint is that this would be true only if a player has a very casual interest in that sort of thing and isn't interested in it being an important part of play. I'm not contradicting you, I'm simply pointing out that its a very limited thing and thus it will only satisfy few of the people would would want to play that way, and is a pretty limited/poor introduction to the whole concept for others.

I think we are in general agreement here, I think the matter may be getting blurred because others do seem to be arguing there is no similarity which I actually don't agree with. But taken in the context of my intital premise around a mixed group would you say that the Bonds/Ideals and Flaws along with Inspiration can give a storyteller/narrative leaning player some of what he is looking for?

Click to expand...

As I say, some. A limited amount. I didn't find them very satisfactory in my play of 5e. I had PIBFs on my main character, and a background. I certainly used them as a rough guide to play. We really didn't mess with alignment but it was roughly similar in impact to what alignment would be, but a little more specific. I did hanker for more, and at the same time the lack of attention on that system kind of made it fade from mind and we didn't really engage with Inspiration at all.

But my argument was never that they were the same game... to me this seems self-evident and that is perhaps why I didn't clarify it early since I thought my original presentation of the group of mixed players was the context in which the discussion was taking place.

Click to expand...

Well, I am pushing against the point where you made a case for there being a strong similarity, with each game being basically a skill-based system with some story-focused mechanics added on. I know you have backed off a bit from that position. Anyway, I think we're on the same page.

Well I am speaking to FATE core and it's defaults... if not do we then consider all variations of the d20 game engine as well? The default for FATE core is skills, stunts, aspects, etc...

Click to expand...

OK, you want to use d20 as your comparison? It has nothing in the way of story telling mechanics that I'm aware of (but I'm pretty ignorant of the details of d20). Obviously you can probably find ANYTHING somewhere in d20, but I would point out that such rules are CORE in FATE, so they pretty much always exist in all of FATE, just with variations. And my point stands, what FATE inherits from FUDGE (which includes skills, and stunts) it uses very differently. So really a good comparison would have to be a core system derived FROM d20 which adds in FATE-like mechanics and then uses variations on d20 plus that core for different genres. That also may exist, I don't know....

Can you also understand how, even from this description of FATE, someone could see skills as the main drivers and aspects simply the add-ons that modify their usage...

Click to expand...

Well, not if they really played a FATE-based game much. They would almost immediately understand how it is the story-telling FATE point economy part of the game which drives things. If you played D&D for 10 years and then read FATE Core you might think of Aspects et al as just some minor subsystem, despite it taking up a good part of the rules, but you'd learn different after 1 day of playing SotC!

Yes but FATE has defaults which are assumed...and FATE Core with said defaults is a perfectly playable system. You have to create a campaign world (same as D&D) but other than that it's a complete system.

Click to expand...

I would consider it to be similar to the BRP or GURPS core rules. A GM could make a bunch of decisions about which options to use, what elements to exclude, etc. and make a sort of vanilla skill-based game of genre X using BRP (for example). I would not call it a complete game on that basis alone. Its close, and might have the elements you need for a specific one-shot or something, but you WILL need genre-related rules and some thematic elements (think of CoC's sanity rules for example) to make it really work. Likewise with FATE Core. Its a bit looser system, but you will still need to make a bunch of decisions and add some elements to really make a decent game.

I feel like this is treading in the same water as a DM kitbashing D&D... What if any do you see as the fundamental difference?

Click to expand...

Would you rather discuss one specific FATE-based system? There are 100's and I'm not sure which ones we would both be familiar with. I merely discussed FATE because it does have highly developed story-based mechanics and it provides at least a general sort of basis of other subsystems a game needs.

I'll agree to disagree here since in FATE core I see the skills as more important at a practical level... but I can also see your viewpoint. That said, I just don't think I'm convinced of your viewpoint when I see an actual game of FATE being run by one of it's designers and skills are being leveraged as much if not more than aspects in play... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOFXtAHg7vU

Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you really. When I've been in some of these games we were constantly playing off of aspects. I mean, skills (etc.) provided a part of the game, but it was the aspects that decided what you WANTED and thus what you would 'go for'. If you weren't engaging some sort of aspect in some fashion, usually one of your own, then all you had was basic checks with fixed skill bonuses. It gives you a 'how did I succeed on this' but not a WHY, or a 'what do I want to do' either. The game is also a scene-framed game in essence, so it can only move forward into engagement with Aspects, high concepts, troubles, etc. Skills come into play, but rarely, if ever IME, outside of the context of an aspect.

Again I disagree. Now I'll admit it's a more universal game than D&D but I don't think FATE Core is incomplete or that one would be incapable of running a game using just FATE core.

Click to expand...

Could you run a game, in the sense of "I can use the subsystems to adjudicate things which happen", yes. But you lack all but the most rudimentary trappings.

These are variants though, FATE core is a playable game from the FATE rulebook.

Click to expand...

Actually I went back through my FATE 2.0 Core book and I have to say, it is a LOT more generic and less "playable off the shelf" than even I remembered. First of all it isn't ANY more specific than FUDGE, and uses basically just about the same mechanics. This means you don't have any definitive list of skills. Instead you have 3 possible types of skill system, broad, general, or specific, which you can flesh out. There are lists of skill names, as examples, for each of these three within categories. Before you could pick skills you would have to decide which of the three systems you were using, and make an actual definitive list of skills. Then you would have to describe them all (because there are no descriptions of what they cover in FATE 2.0).

Likewise you have aspects and extras. Aspects are generally assumed to be open-ended, but this is not strictly required. Still, you could assume so and play a game. Extras could be ignored, but otherwise they will have to be devised, and they're often the genre-defining parts of the game. They are not detailed except for a few examples.

Other subsystems are mentioned as possibilities, generally in chapter 9 under "magic". This could be reflavored to most anything though (psionics, tech, etc.). However there are simply many options provided, each of which would have to be fleshed out to be playable.

Now, maybe later versions of FATE are different. 'FATE 3' IS SotC, which is a complete game, but is a bit different, though it is essentially similar to FATE 2.0 from what I can see, except restricted to the pulp genre. The '4th Edition' Fate Core I haven't read, maybe it is more fleshed out. Looking at the SRD for that I guess it really depends on which things you consider to be part of 'Core', since the SRD encompasses 7 entire RPGs! If FATE 2.0 is marginally playable with some assumptions, then I guess you could say Fate Core plus the toolkits and SRD versions of the various RPGs is a lot more fully playable. Core by itself still seems to require some fleshing out though.

I think 5e through it's different combat actions, different effects, more precise movement, various spells class and racial abilities for combat, etc. is by default a more tactical game than FATE where the tactical decisions seem to boil down to create an advantage (which is the same set of possible effects irregardless of what advantage is created), overcome (yes I missed this one last time) attack or defend.[/QUOTE]

Tony Vargas said:

Other editions of D&D certainly had mechanics that made it not only viable, but desireable, to use your action to set up future actions that would be much more effective. They're generally spells, of course, but, again, as with the Rogue's Sneak Attack, above, that's just D&D being class-based. They could even quite often be 'being clever'/smart-play/CaW improvisation no different in kind from tagging an aspect or whatever in Fate, but for having no mechanisms or guidance from the system to do so in a consistent manner.

Click to expand...

IMHO, putting on my AD&D player's cap for a minute, it is rarely a good idea to waste time in a combat situation 'setting up' anything. There's a great deal of value in doing that AHEAD of combat, but once you're in combat the business should be to follow the cardinal rule of Musashi, who said "Every movement of the sword should be a killing blow."