What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me ask if someone used the play techniques from sorcerer in a mainstream game could the experience be replicated? I guess that's how I see things that aren't based in the mechanics... IMO something that is rule agnostic can be transferred from one game to another. As an example look at scene framing... why can't scene framing take place in 5e? Or procedural play what would be the obstacles to implementing it in 5e? And ultimately even in a game like FATE or Sorcerer the GM is tasked with running a certain way in order to produce a specific experience in game. Though honestly if there is a reason these same techniques can't be applied to more mainstream games I'd love to discuss and/or hear your perspective on why.

I think this ignores the very significant ways in which a game can INHIBIT a certain type of play. You yourself referred to this by asking about FATE not being able to handle tactical wargamish play (like 4e provides I assume). There are MANY ways in which games block or discourage a certain type of play. Honestly I think this is usually a MORE important factor than things a game does to facilitate play. Another dimension of this is 'focus'. By emphasizing one thing, then something else will be diminished.

This is why the experience provided by a certain game is not simply a matter of concatenating some list of mechanics together which implement X, Y, and Z. The whole game has to 'hang together' by encouraging, emphasizing, discouraging, deemphasizing, and mechanically supporting specific things. The overall structure of play (roles and organization of activities at the table) is critical too, as well as presentation of the material. Creating an RPG, at least a quality one, is a multidimensional undertaking.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The reason I like that 2E NWPS don't scale up like 3E skills is that chances roughly stay consistent. In 3E you end up with tasks that are impossible unless you have an enormous bonus. That scale can really make things thorny in my view. Whereas with NWPs, the chance doesn't have this wide range of probability.

Well, here we can agree! That is, 3e is borked up in many ways, and the actual PROGRESSION of bonuses is dumb. 4e doesn't have any of these problems.

I don't think most of them break down to 50/50. I haven't crunched the numbers though, but that seems on the low side. Some of the NWPs do have a -2 check modifier, but not all of them. Most, if I recall fell between 0 to -1. With cropping up on some of them. But you can also take ranks in them. But if the probabilities are off, this is a pretty easy fix. What I like about it is the consistency, the lack of 3E style scaling, the fact that they don't interfere with aspects of role-play, investigation and exploration that I enjoy, and that are a simple roll under die roll.

I think they're just not reliable enough to BECOME a significant part of play, and I don't understand, personally, the idea of insignificance of a mechanical subsystem being a benefit. I eschew complexity. If I put something into my game there was a reason for it. NWPs have no compelling reason to be there, as written. IMHO

Again though, my point was they worked well for me in practice at the table. There was a night and day difference for the better when I shifted back to 2E for Ravenloft and much of it boiled down to how skills worked (though there were certainly other things). If you don't get that experience from NWPs, I am not here to convince you that you should. I just think people should play with these mechanics themselves and see how they feel in practice, rather than rely on discussions like these where you have two people trying to score points for their positions. Worst case scenario, they try them, and you're right, they suck. Best case, they discover value in a mechanic they may have otherwise dismissed.

I think we just largely disagree on the Gygaxian approach. That is a whole other conversation. I don't think it is worth getting into here.

Well, I'm not going back to 2e to test my reaction to NWPs. I mean, I'd be the last person to insist that something I have not tried MUST be a certain way. I am of the opinion I wouldn't find anything really new there. Now, perhaps if I was going back from the train wreck of 3e, that might be different, but I moved on to 4e and my own thing long ago....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is an entirely subjective thing, and frankly I am not 100% sure why I preferred NWPs (I am just trying to offer the best explanation I can think of). But I know they worked better for the game I wanted to run. I found this to be the case with a lot of 2E, and I think much of it had to do with the approach to play and the assumptions behind many fo the rules. You frame that somewhat negatively (as Gygaxian antagonism or something). Whatever was behind it (and I think antagonism is pretty reductive, because Gygax was all over the map if you read him, and he was pretty well excised from the 2E material), it made for a better Ravenloft campaign in my view. I struggled with Ravenloft during 3E. As soon as I switched editions, it just never felt the same. Something about the NWPs and other features, helped me get the feel that had originally drawn me to Ravenloft. Beyond that, we're just going to be going over the same series of points and rebuttals I think.

Sure, I'm not trying to argue your experience either. Frankly Ravenloft never REALLY worked for me in D&D that well. They did reasonably well trying, but even in 2e it didn't really feel like gothic horror to me.

With 4E, I think the reduced skill list was good. But I just never clicked with Skill Challenges or the general 4E approach to things. Again, whole other conversation. I get that the game works for lots of people. I just never connected with the game (even under great GMs).

Yeah, that's cool. Honestly, I liked AD&D pretty well, back in its heyday. It was fun, and I still like a lot of the sort of genre elements that it incorporates. I just got frustrated by the system itself. It lacks the ability to do certain things.

 

[pemerton]

If a game asks you to "re-learn what it means to be an RPG player," it's strongly implying that it's not an RPG - or that every RPG before it wasn't. Neither seems like a politik sort of implication.

That's a weird thing to say. If you've only ever played auction-and-trick card games (bridge, 500, etc) and then play blackjack, you skill at remembering played cards might still help you but you're going to have to learn a lot of new stuff.

The skills a player gets from playing Caves of Chaos and Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain are going to be of pretty modest use in a game of In a Wicked Age.

 

[pemerton]

I've played plenty of D&D using 2nd ed AD&D NWPs (the same mechanic is also found in the DSG/WSG, and I've used those too).

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. They're fairly weak descriptors, with a poor relationship to PC build rules, masquerading as a resolution mechanic.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't understand what rules you are referring to here. FATE points are spent to either Invoke an aspect, to Compel an aspect, or to avoid the compulsion of an aspect. I know of no other general use of FATE points. In all cases they involve aspects (and these may be aspects of any part of the game world fiction, not just of your character).

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.

I honestly didn't even remember "Create an Advantage" from the times I've played FATE. But, then I barely remembered there were 'actions' at all, and, looking them up, it's probably because they're all pretty improvisational in nature, anyway, and improv is something I'm pretty used to.

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.

As promised, from The Book of Hanz:

"Fiction, not Physics". I find myself quoting this a lot, and it's really become key to how I understand Fate. When I first heard it, I assumed it meant "we're not concerned with realism, here!" And that's part of it, but certainly not the whole thing, and probably not even the most important thing (after all, you can have realistic fiction).

What I've come to understand this phrase as meaning is that Fate sets out to model how stories flow in actual story media - movies, novels, etc.

Here's an example: Let's say that our spy hero needs to get past a door, guarded by a couple of mooks in a movie. We see him slip into the shadows where the mooks can't see him. He then climbs into the pipes above the guards, and once above them drops down, taking them both out with his weight. He hauls the guards off behind some boxes and proceeds…

Okay, so in a more traditional RPG, this would be a stealth roll, probably some more notice checks, probably a roll to get up on the pipes, and then an attack roll with some bonuses.

Now, sure, you could do something similar with Fate, after all it does have elements like skill rolls and whatnot. But, really, it's better to map actions to periods of "camera time", just like in the movie. So in the first shot of the scene, we see our spy slip into the shadows… That's a Create Advantage roll, opposed by the mooks' Notice.

Then, our hero climbs up on the pipes. Again, this is Create Advantage, but against a static difficulty this time (the danger of failing is more from the inherent danger, and less from being noticed - we've already established that our character is out of view.)

With these aspects now in place (the scene is now ABOUT our hero being "In the Shadows" and "On the Pipes Above the Door"), and our free tags on them, it's a pretty easy Fighting roll to do enough stress to knock out the two mooks.

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.

 

[pemerton]

In Cortex+ Heroic the action is not called "create an advantage" but rather "create an Asset". Otherwise it works very similarly to what [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] describes, with two exceptions: (i) only one Asset can be used at a time; (ii) an Asset doesn't adjust the result but rather adds a die to the pool.

As well as Asset's there are stunts (bonus dice triggered by spending points) and resources (bonus dice triggered by spending points which are more constrained than stunts in when you can generate them, and may be rated differently, but last for longer).

Here's an example from our viking game:

Meanwhile (I can't quite remember the action order) the scout has climbed up onto the top of the pallisade, gaining an Overview of the Steading asset, and the troll has remembered tales of Loge the giant chieftain, gaining a Knowledge of Loge asset. And the berserker - who has the Deeds, Not Words milestone which grants 1 XP when he acts on impulse - charged through the open gate at the giant, inflicting d12 physical stress.

But the swordthane - who was hoping to learn more about his quest - used his Defender SFX to take the physical stress onto himself (in the fiction, stepping between giant and berserker and grabbing hold of the latter's axe mid-chop). And the berserker - whose player was happily taking 3 XP for being rebuked by an ally for his violence - calmed down.

The next action cycle took place in the main hall of the steading, into which the PCs were led by the giant at the gate. I drew heavily on the G1 thematic here - all but one of the players was familiar with it. And I got to add in my third scene distinction - Great Wolves under the trestle tables and gnawing on bones at the sides of the hall.

I'm not going to remember all the details of this one, but highlights included: the swordthane opening up negotations with Loge, the giant chief, including - in response to a demand for tribute - offering up the steed as a gift; the scout, after successfully parlaying his Overview of the Steading asset into a Giant Ox in the Barn asset, leading the ox into the hall and trying to trade it for the return of the horse, and failing (despite the giant chief's Slow distinction counting as a d4), and subsequently avoiding being eaten (a stepped-up Put in Mouth complication, as per the Giant datafile in the Guide) only by wedging the giant's mouth open with his knife (a heavily PP-pumped reaction roll); and the swordthane successfully opening a d6 Social resource (based on his Social Expertise) in the form of a giant shaman in the hall, who agreed that the troubles plaguing the human lands were afflicting the giants too, and so they should help one another.

(In this example, as well as the ones called out, the horse was a resource - most naturally used to add to a physical endeavour pool, but here - as a gift - used to boost a social pool. The Scene Distinctions are similar to situation/location aspects in Fate, while complications are similar to aspects/consequences placed on a particular character.)

In Cortex+, victory can be by way of attrition, but need not be. Basically, a character (PC or NPC) is out if Stress or a Complication reaches d12+. If a condition is already rated at DX, then imposing it again at DX or less steps it up; imposing it at DY where Y > X substitutes. So if a NPC has d8 Emotional stress, dealing d4, d6 or d8 Emotional Stress will step that up to d10; while d10, d12 or d12+ will just override the existing Stress.

This means that (unlike can often feel like it is the case in D&D), spending an action to create an asset which then boosts a pool making it easier to get a big Effect Die on your first go can be just as rational as going straight for the attack. The player of the scout (in the quote above) was the first in our group to really work this out. But recently the idea has been spreading!

4e combat can emulate some features of this because of its complex and synergistic power system; and in a skill challenge, there are secondary checks to create bonuses. But it doesn't loom as large as it does in Cortex+. And I don't see how any other form of D&D can emulate this sort of play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've played plenty of D&D using 2nd ed AD&D NWPs (the same mechanic is also found in the DSG/WSG, and I've used those too).

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. They're fairly weak descriptors, with a poor relationship to PC build rules, masquerading as a resolution mechanic.

based on your posts, I would definitely say posters who share your preferences probably won't find much value in NWPs. On the other hand, if you found skills in 3E a bit frustrating, if skill challenges are not your thing, NWPs and Secondary Skills, might be worth checking out. What you regard as weak descriptors, I regard as non-intrusive. They are more flavoring than build. And they don't feel like buttons (which is probably why they don't pass for some as resolution mechanics). They can add color to the game. They are quite easy to use in practice, and you don't have the scaling issues of 3E skills or the mini-gameness of skill challenges. What I found they did well, was not disturb the sense of immersion I wanted in play. Now that just may be me. But I found it to be solidly the case. So just from my own experience, assuming others out there exists who share my way of playing and approaching the game, I would recommend trying NWPs, trying 2E or trying 1E. You might even find you don't need the NWPs. Much of what makes these editions work for me in this respect is the lack of clear mechanics for certain things. I find you tend to default more to just saying what you want your character to do, and the GM figuring out how or if that is going to happen.

Definitely can see it isn't for everyone. But I also don't think any of this is one size fits all. I suspect there are plenty of folks who will have encountered the same frustrations I have. I found it very helpful to go back to the editions I had stopped playing to see if babies had been thrown out with the bathwater. Worst thing that happens to you, is you encounter mechanics you don't like. But I would definitely add, don't take my word for it. Don't take Pemerton's word for it. Try for yourself, Test it and see how you feel if you are curious about the rules.

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand what rules you are referring to here. FATE points are spent to either Invoke an aspect, to Compel an aspect, or to avoid the compulsion of an aspect. I know of no other general use of FATE points. In all cases they involve aspects (and these may be aspects of any part of the game world fiction, not just of your character).

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...

I agree that they GENERALLY relate to similar things. I think however that it isn't exactly the same. Its like you have bridge and pinochle, and you are discussing bidding and rules of play in each game. They ARE similar in SOME respects. Bidding in each game serves some analogous purposes, but one is still a quite different game from the other.

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.

This is A difference, there are many others. I do see similarity, and I have never denied that there was ANY similarity, just that they're different in ways that make it difficult to talk about in any non-trivial way without getting into. Just like you cannot talk about bridge and pinochle without some reference to the fact that they use different decks.

''

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?

I think this is as simple as, having played D&D and FATE I can say that the results, even with 5e's added mechanisms is VERY different. They are profoundly different games, both in terms of how they play and in terms of the goals of play. There are also similarities, and we can logically classify them both as RPGs. At a core level they're both games with a GM and players who each take on the persona of a single character (usually at least). Chess and checkers move pieces on an identical board too...

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.

Well, yes, FATE is based on FUDGE, but the mechanics it inherits from FUDGE (if they are used at all, some FATE implementations replace them) are used in a very different way. FUDGE is fundamentally more like D&D than it is like FATE.

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...

FUDGE is entirely lacking the point economy which drives FATE. Yes, in FATE you can use a skill, as you could in FUDGE, to attempt to accomplish a task. This is a necessary underpinning which sets up the engagement of Aspects. So, a character needs to accomplish something, so a check is made with FUDGE dice against a skill. Aspects can then be compelled or invoked to produce bonuses and penalties to the check result. In FUDGE a character is COMPLETELY defined by these skills (and a set of underlying attributes which contribute to them). FUDGE is literally just a mathematical variation of Traveler in essence, they are both pure skill-based games. FATE is very different, even if it uses some of the same mechanics.

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...

You cannot say a given mechanic is or is not optional in FATE, because FATE isn't a complete system, it is a toolbox.

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.

Not all FATE-based games have skills! Also, FATE points cannot simply be spent to alter ANY arbitrary check, you MUST describe how you are invoking an aspect to get either a +2 or a reroll. ALL bonuses/rerolls are thus rooted in aspects, completely. You don't NEED skills for this to work either! You can simply assume everyone is equally good at all tasks, and modify checks via invoke/compel as needed. Aspects also allow tagging, which produces greater and more interesting effects, and there is invocation for effect, where you get to create a new piece of fiction by referencing one of your aspects. This alone is huge and unrelated to skills or anything from FUDGE mechanics.

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?

NOW, possibly in some FATE-based systems skills, stunts, or other attributes (FUDGE also has other categories) COULD be highly important, and might be written so as to contribute more than aspects, or to temper them, etc. Its a flexible system! However, by default, aspects are pretty much the most important thing in the game, and the other things that are up there would be high concepts, troubles, etc.

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

Well, this is OK to a point, but FATE is not a stand-alone game. D&D is...

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.

Again though, this would be like talking about 4e and only looking at the RC. Yes, it has all the rules in it, but you need other books to tell you what all the actual classes, powers, etc. ARE. You can only talk hypotheticals here. FATE barely has a combat system in core! However, if you look at Dresden Files, or SotC, or other actual games, they have various types of rules relating to specific genre elements. Characters in actual games can have all sorts of attributes.

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

I think it is fair to say that 4e would be more tactical than FATE, as a general thing, but this is still hypothetical. 5e, is 5e really tactical either? I mean, its OK to say a game simply does or does not emphasize something. However we were contrasting things...

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

My problem was merely in remembering that it had been broken out from the general "make stuff up" vibe that permeates the game (and is not exactly foreign to RPGs in general, of course), categorized as an 'Action' (and that Fate had any formal 'action' at all, for that matter) and given a name.

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.

In 5e D&D creating the advantage of Advantage by stealthing up on your victim most certainly affects the damage for a weapon attack - if you're a Rogue. Symptomatic of a class-based system, that.
And it's utterly conventional.

Much of what makes these editions work for me in this respect is the lack of clear mechanics for certain things. I find you tend to default more to just saying what you want your character to do, and the GM figuring out how or if that is going to happen.

In the 90s, one of the wolfies (um, guys who worked for WWGS keeping up WoD's book-a-month production pace) summed this up as something along the lines of "Bad rules make games good!"

Ironically, what Aldarc is selling, above, is the same kind of 'good game,' just forced on the player with a functional system that requires creativity to use, rather than a dysfunctional one, that requires creativity to avoid.

I would recommend trying NWPs, trying 2E or trying 1E.

It's very nearly a given that anyone who was introduced to RPGs in the 20th centuries (excepting those sneaking in via LARPS in the later 90s) /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...

... you may find that it's not so bad having a functional system that lets you just back up and make stuff up, either.

This means that (unlike can often feel like it is the case in D&D), spending an action to create an asset which then boosts a pool making it easier to get a big Effect Die on your first go can be just as rational as going straight for the attack. The player of the scout (in the quote above) was the first in our group to really work this out. But recently the idea has been spreading!

4e combat can emulate some features of this because of its complex and synergistic power system; and in a skill challenge, there are secondary checks to create bonuses. But it doesn't loom as large as it does in Cortex+. And I don't see how any other form of D&D can emulate this sort of play.

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.