What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Bedrockgames]

.

Even then the mechanics were poor. The success rate for using them was terrible. Even if you simply ignored the idea of making a check in most situations, the dangerous situations where they might be somewhat defining, were exactly where you'd only use an NWP in uttermost desperation, since the chance of success was rarely 40% and usually much worse! I never understood what was the concept behind this. It was literally as if the design was intended to make you NOT want to use them!

.

This is so dependent on which NWPs you choose to take though. Obviously if your taking a NWP tied to an ability score of 9 or something, your chances will be poor. In my experience, players tended to take NWPs that connected well with their abilities. And you can still increase your ranks in them. If you have a NWP for a skill that is 13 or higher for example, your chances are not that bad. Also, if the baseline is too low, I think it is reasonable to pad them with a couple of extra ranks or something. But why I liked them better than 3E skills was they were far less intrusive and they were so much more grounded. There wasn't this massive upward progression of scaling. It was just a roll against the ability score itself with some minor improvement in your rank over time.

Not trying to convince anyone if they don't work in practice for them. All I am saying is, my experience was I used to laugh at NWPs as 'obviously bad'. But after years of playing 3E, when I went back to 2E, it was so much better. In actual play I just about preferred everything about them, and I discovered something that always irked me a bit about 3E, was immediately gone. So I just always tell everyone, give them a try for a bit before knocking them (I realize this might not apply to you, but again, so many people form their opinions on systems based on second hand reports from posters on forums like this).

Also, worth pointing out, NWPs are purely an optional mechanics. There are a couple of different options presented in the 2E PHB (at least in the first one----the one from the mid-90s might have changed things).

 

[Bedrockgames]

As I said, I have a LOT of experience with 2e, and 1e as well. My experience was that the skill systems in these games were marginal at best, and designed to be so deliberately. I think a lot of the problem was that, even in 1989, there wasn't a very coherent idea of what RPGs really SHOULD be doing. I guess by then we thought we knew a lot, but by today's standards it was actually very little.

Honestly, this is part of the appeal I think. They are not central to the game. This is why I keep describing the 3E skills as intrusive. Things like NWPs only bothered us as much as we allowed them to. It was a lot harder not to be bothered by Skills in 3E you didn't like. I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what RPGs are about and for. I am not particularly interested in an RPG being coherent. Especially one like D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which is why I don't understand the whole fascination with checks. They should have simply been things you DID, or knew, not things you had to make a roll for.

I tended to use them as last resort measures. Here is what I noticed when I shifted back to 2E, instantly. I should say, I had also recently re-read the 1E DMG, so that might have been an influence. I was asking for rolls that much as players interacted with the world. Because there wasn't a big list of buttons on the character sheet, they just said what they wanted to do, and I usually allowed it unless it was something really odd or seemed like it required a die roll. So we just fell back to naturally exploring and interacting more directly with the setting and adventure, and this was the thing that had been missing from my 3E Ravenloft campaigns, that immediately came back in my 2E sessions.

That said, I have nothing against big skill lists. I use them myself, and there are plenty of skill based games I adore. But I do think there is something to be said for the approach that 2E took. At least at my table, it made a massive difference when running my favorite setting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I. Here is what I noticed when I shifted back to 2E, instantly.

At first glance I read that last word as 'insanity.'

They all tend to define the character in terms of mechanically-rated abilities to perform certain tasks. They all tend to approach resolution in a fairly granular, "Did my attempt to do that work?" fashion.
...(D&D hp-attrition combat is an exception...
...except in 4e - skill challenges -
None makes *the scene* the unit of resolution
(4e is an exception...

Heh. Can't even stick D&D, itself, in the box once that wilely 4e comes into it. ;P

And all assume that the GM is the principal deliverer of content for the fiction. (There are hints to the contrary in HERO - eg the Hunted disadvantage and similar stuff - but that stuff tends to be marginal rather than core, and is treated as a disadvantage for the GM to use against the player, rather than a player-side resource to be leveraged as an opportunity to shape the content of the fiction.)

D&D had been slowly inching toward players having more input into "the fiction" In, 2e they started getting some 'build' options, 3e more options & they got to re-skin their characters' appearnce & gear, 4e more options & could re-skin just about everything about their character. Of course, that was by 2008. In 1981 Champions! was already letting players define virtually everything about their character, including things like, yes Hunteds, that tied them back into, or even /added to/ the world. Really, each 'special effect' on a power that wasn't just lifted from some example essentially added to the fictional backdrop of the world. And, Hero powers didn't just accomplish tasks, they had effects, that could represent, in fiction, quite different things from the obivious implied task resolution. For instance, your Batman clone could pull his 'vanishing when you turn your back' trick ("I hate when he does that") without resolving discrete Stealth tasks all the time, 'just' buy a Teleport (not through solid objects - or maybe through them, for preternatural Escape Artist), the special effect is preternatural stealth & timing - heck, as part of it, his decision to Teleport could "make" you turn your back for a moment.

A D&D player who comes to a HERO or RM table will have to learn how to read and apply the numbers on the sheet, and will have to learn some new resolution mechanics, but probably isn't going to have to relearn what it means to be a RPG player. Whereas if that player comes to the games [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is referring to, it's not just about learning which dice to roll to make an attack and whether spells are on a "slot" system or a spell point system.

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.

A D&D player who comes to a HERO or RM table will have to learn how to read and apply the numbers on the sheet, and will have to learn some new resolution mechanics, but probably isn't going to have to relearn what it means to be a RPG player.

Oh, there'll be some re-learning whatever you emerge from D&D into (obviously, other than Arduin, PF, OSR, Fantasy Heartbreakers, &c). Even in the 70s, going from D&D to Traveler, for instance, you're not treasure hunting, leveling up, and having your character fundamentally changed by arbitrary run-ins with curses, wishes, magic items, etc... you're just getting older.
Going to Hero you'll be re-learning all that, and getting used to the idea that the number (power/limitation/advantage) on your sheet only represents what you can accomplish, in game terms, not what/how you do it, that's night & day compared to D&D.

Whereas if that player comes to the games Campbell is referring to, it's not just about learning which dice to roll to make an attack and whether spells are on a "slot" system or a spell point system.

I feel like there's a lot more to this thought...
"...not just about..."
...but also:

?

 

[pemerton]

This is so dependent on which NWPs you choose to take though. Obviously if your taking a NWP tied to an ability score of 9 or something, your chances will be poor. In my experience, players tended to take NWPs that connected well with their abilities.

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] was talking about OA non-weapon proficiencies, which are not based on stats but ratherhave proficiency-specific success numbers. And as AbdulAlhazred said, the success numbers are high (eg for Horse Riding, it's 18+ on a d20).

 

[Bedrockgames]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] was talking about OA non-weapon proficiencies, which are not based on stats but ratherhave proficiency-specific success numbers. And as AbdulAlhazred said, the success numbers are high (eg for Horse Riding, it's 18+ on a d20).

Well, I wasn’t talking about OA NWPs. I was talking about the ones from the first 2E players handbook. The OA NWPs are a whole other conversation.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I wasn’t talking about OA NWPs.

But [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] was, in two posts that you replied to:

I think it is very trivially easy to see how 'skills', when implemented at all, in 'classic' D&D were of little significance, even in 2e where NWPs were at least presented as a possibility in the core books.

1. They were NEVER used to represent anything like a class or race ability, even when they obviously could have been (IE thieves, rangers, elves, etc.).

2. They were always optional systems (2e NWPs, 1e Secondary Skills, etc.). The one marginal exception was OA, where they ALMOST became a significant subsystem.

3. No implementation in classic D&D was actually mechanically viable in any sensible way. DSG, WSG, OA, and 2e PHB (etc.) implementations were mechanically unworkable in significant ways. I was always dubious that they had ever really been playtested, and they almost seemed like a way of simply discouraging players from doing 'other stuff' vs actually something you would use in practice.

<snip>

A clever DM in OA (for example) would probably allow a character with 'Tea Ceremony' or whatever to simply do his thing and ignore the actual mechanic of it, but in a mechanical sense they weren't something you could ever depend on.

I played 1e and 2e for their entire runs, pretty extensively. While we did USE NWPs they only really played any significant role in one OA based campaign, which was a system where they were first introduced and intended to fill a significant role in a game that was supposed to be more social and political and focused more on the character's relationship with society.

Even then the mechanics were poor. The success rate for using them was terrible. Even if you simply ignored the idea of making a check in most situations, the dangerous situations where they might be somewhat defining, were exactly where you'd only use an NWP in uttermost desperation, since the chance of success was rarely 40% and usually much worse! I never understood what was the concept behind this. It was literally as if the design was intended to make you NOT want to use them!

You quored the last para of each of the above posts in your replies. And those paragraphs are clearly about OA.

And [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] is correct that the success chances for NWPs in that book were very low.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But @AbdulAlhazred was, in two posts that you replied to:


You quored the last para of each of the above posts in your replies. And those paragraphs are clearly about OA.

And @AbdulAlhazred is correct that the success chances for NWPs in that book were very low.

I don't know what you want me to say Pemerton. I didn't realize he was talking about NWPs that function differently. And I don't see why they would be relevant to the point I was making. That was a response to me saying 2E NWPs worked well in my campaign. When I responded to his quote, I assumed he brought up OA NWPs because they functioned the same (it has been ages since I've even read the OA NWPs section). If the discussion we are having is around 2E NWPs, I am just saying what is relevant are the 2E NWPs rules. We can fight about this point all day if you want. I don't see the value (and I don't think AA does either, as it felt to me like he and I were having a productive back and forth). I am not trying to point score here or prove who knows more about what system. I am just saying, 2E NWPs worked much better for me in practice when I went back to them, than I expected they would. And I think they have value if people give them a chance.

 

[Imaro]

Well, arguing about 'tastes' is a fruitless endeavor. I have never mentioned 'taste' at all...

Definitely agree.

I think, as I just told [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], we need to be explicit and concrete and talk details. I don't know what 'at a high level' means. I know specific situations at tables and categories of similar situations at tables as their generalization. So, I would say, in general, when a player wants to do something like have his character's 'aspect' (generally a qualitative thing) be reflected concretely in the game situation, that is to have some real mechanical and procedural heft, then FATE is more likely to be able to meet that need. This is kind of general though. We cannot say that there is NEVER a case where 5e's Inspiration/Bonds system will deliver this. It could, but since Inspiration isn't actually tied explicitly to PIBFs, which have no defined mechanical impact AFAIK. There's a vague "the GM might give you inspiration if you play in a way that reflects your traits" but it doesn't even say if it is positively or negatively! (IE you would GAIN inspiration for taking actions beneficial to your character if they happen to align with his PIBFs).

Ok two things...

1. Let's remember the context of this side discussion... it was not if one player wants to play FATE and another wants to play OD&D then they can both get what they want by using a mainstream game like 5e... that's too specific and was never my argument. I assume if you are knowledgeable enough and focused enough and nothing matters more than getting the exact experience of FATE... well then you'l be playing FATE with a group of like-minded individuals... personally I don't think the specific rules and experience are that important to the majority of gamers and so my argument was based on players with particular leanings and preferences vs. a desire to play an exact system.

2. Let's step back for a moment and look at the definition of FATE's aspects as I think this will help us examine it at a high level (and perhaps shed clarity on what I mean by that...

-Defining Aspects
An aspect is a phrase that describes something unique or noteworthy about whatever it’s attached to. They’re the primary way you spend and gain fate points, and they influence the story by providing an opportunity for a character to get a bonus, complicating a character’s life, or adding to another character’s roll or passive opposition.

Defining FATE Points
GMs and players, you both have a pool of points called fate points you can use to influence the game. You represent these with tokens, as we mentioned in The Basics. Players, you start with a certain number of points every scenario, equal to your character’s refresh. You’ll also reset to your refresh rate if you ended a mid-scenario session with fewer fate points than your rate. GMs, you get a budget of fate points to spend in every scene.

When your aspects come into play, you will usually spend or gain a fate point.


Aspects...
So it's a phrase that describes something unique or noteworthy about whatever it's attached to. I would say creating Bonds, Flaws and Ideals do the same (thought admittedly they are more categorically limited than aspects...).

They're a primary (though not the only) way you spend and gain FATE points... so I would say that kind of debunks the tight coupling of FATE point expenditure and aspects, FATE points (which are the actual currency can be spent on bonuses related to aspects... but don't have to be. In turn inspiration could be spent on an action relevant to the Bond Flaw or Ideal... but don't have to be.

They influence the story in one of 3 ways...provide an opportunity to get a bonus/complicate characters life/add to another character's roll... These are all things the Bond/Flaw/Ideal system coupled with Inspiration cover...


FATE Points...

They influence the game... Inspiration does the same.

Now here is where I see the major differences at a high level... The DM doesn't get Inspiration to spend and There is no starting/refreshed Inspiration each game.

Again though, I don't really understand what is meant by "at a high level". If you mean sort of in a hand-wavy kind of way that both games have some sort of mechanics that include character traits and some sort of mechanics that can give bonuses to checks, then I guess 5e and FATE are close cousins! I think that's so vague however that it misses the entire essence of what each game is really about.

Well I've tried to clarify it above but I am starting to think that many proponents of FATE see admitting similar their high level functions are in each game. Do I believe they are the exact same or that the mechanics of 5e can replicate FATE exactly... no, but I never made that argument.

What I'm saying is that I think the two systems are so qualitatively different that 'what' they accomplish is only 'the same' in an extremely superficial way. I've never said 5e can do everything FATE can do or that you seriously argued that, although [MENTION=2486]Al[/MENTION]drac DID quote where you made statements which are EXCEEDINGLY like that statement! You very certainly did attempt to minimize the central nature of aspects/compulsion/invocation in FATE. I didn't set out to prove that you were 'wrong that 5e can do all that FATE can do', I set out to prove that your assertion that FATE is just "FUDGE with a few narrative elements slapped on it". This assertion was, frankly, completely wrong! It gave the whole discussion a character that produced inaccurate conclusions. I simply corrected it, perhaps with zest, but it was simply a correction.

You have been somewhat inconsistent, as @Aldarc accurately pointed out in his response to your last post before this one. I am happy to take it that you have clarified your position here. FATE is not simply a skill-based system with some traits tacked on. If this is an accurate assessment of your current position, then we can proceed from there and need not beat expired equines anymore..

Well to be fair that was a very recent statement on my part and not really part of my initial argument... Also, FATE started as a variant of FUDGE... so not sure I'm willing to totally backtrack on that statement however I think it's only tangentially related to my main point so I'm also not ready to spend a ton of word count on disputing the matter. I'll just leave this tidbit from wikipedia and let everyone draw their own conclusions.

From Wikipedia...
System

Probability of results in the Fate system
Fate is based on the FUDGE system, and uses FUDGE's verbal scale and Fudge dice, but most versions of Fate eschew the use of mandatory traits such as Strength and Intelligence. Instead, it uses a long list of skills and assumes that every character is "mediocre" in all skills except those that the character is explicitly defined as being good at. Skills may perform one or more of the four actions: attacking, defending, overcoming obstacles (a catch-all for solving problems) or creating an advantage (see below). Exceptional abilities are defined through the use of Stunts and Aspects.

Its not necessary for me to recapitulate what I stated above, so I won't. My position is as it has been. 5e has some fairly superficial and minor 'trait' attributes which loosely couple to an Inspiration mechanism. FATE OTOH is a system which is entirely driven by aspects as its universal mechanical underpinning. While FATE does have (potentially at least) skills as well, they are mostly useful to set the success/fail threshold for the various checks, which are then subject to the aspect rules. Skills are not totally unimportant, but it is telling that FATE core doesn't even have a suggested list of them that I can recall, they are entirely setting-specific.

Hmmm... I disagree with how you view skills in FATE...I haven't seen anywhere in the rules where skills are totally optional. Can they be tweaked for your particular game, yes but they are assumed to be part of a FATE game, at least according to the FATE rules. Skills are how you perform any action in FATE not Aspects. If there are nothing but Aspects... what exactly are they being tagged to give a bonus too? Also FATE Core does have a list of default skills and suggestions on tweaking said list for different genres... Personally, I see Aspects as a modifier to the basic competencies of your characters represented by skills and stunts (these are the rolls being modified by FATE points which are in turn gained through Aspects.

I think that FATE is going to likely tend to be more abstract in terms of tactics. That is to say, your character might have an aspect or a skill that bears on his tactical prowess. You would assert your tactical chops by leveraging that aspect in some sort of 'I apply tactics to this situation' check instead of practicing tactical principles yourself as a player. Now, I think it could be possible to make a FATE-based game that WAS tactical in 4e-esque kind of way. I'd have to think carefully about how that would work if I wanted to design it.

Well I assume we are talking about FATE Core, if not then we have to make allowances for all the variations of the d20 engine as well.

In FATE Core there are 3 actions...

Attack, Defend and Create Advantage. I think Attack and Defend are pretty self explanatory while Create Advatage allows you to invoke an aspect which in turn allows you to do one of 4 things...

Take a +2 on your current skill roll after you’ve rolled the dice.
Reroll all your dice.
Pass a +2 benefit to another character’s roll, if it’s reasonable that the aspect you’re invoking would be able to help.
Add +2 to any source of passive opposition, if it’s reasonable that the aspect you’re invoking could contribute to making things more difficult. You can also use this to create passive opposition at Fair (+2) if there wasn’t going to be any.

So it's the same thing you can do with an aspect. I'm sorry but in core FATE I'm just not seeing how someone who enjoys tactical play is going to find this satisfactory much less someone who's primary enjoyment is derived from it.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry for disappearing. Been in the middle of a career transition while ramping up my training regimen.

No worries, I'm glad you found time to reply.

Here is my basic contention: The different expectations, culture of play, and specific play techniques in utilized in game like Sorcerer provides an experience that does not easily arise when playing modern Dungeons and Dragons. The same is true for Moldvay B/X. although modern D&D can come closer there. I am also contending that mainstream games have a highly specific culture of play, expectations, and set of play techniques that most of do not normally look at with a critical lens because they represent the default of what most of us consider a role playing game to be. This is even seen in when [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] criticizes indie games from the prism of that culture. It's all about the experience the GM provides and satisfying individual kicks as seen through the prism of Robin Laws' Player Types. Story as seen as something the GM [/B]provides[/B].

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.

Here's why I find this analysis flawed: It is done with zero reference to basic features of the culture of play that makes Sorcerer the game that it is. When I play Sorcerer I am not looking to the GM to provide me with an experience or a story. We are all exploring these characters together. I am not just invested in my character. I am also invested in what everyone else brings to the table, the definition of Humanity we worked on together, and finding out how human our characters are. I would be very interested in going into more detail about this culture of play if there is real interest.

I'm a little confused by this... is a GM in Sorcerer not, through techniques, advice, etc. tasked with facilitating a certain experience in the game? Can the GM run a bad Sorcerer game by disregarding or going against these techniques? If so I feel the GM is, at least in part, responsible for providing a certain experience to his or her players?

Note: I never meant to imply that mainstream games were less fun than OSR and Indie games. I only meant to convey that they are not somehow contained within and represent a narrowing of the basic experience of playing a role playing game. Difference of kind. Not a narrowing of experience.

I still think it's a more specific and more narrow (as in restrained by the techniques, advice, etc. you cite above) way of running a roleplaying game that gives a deeper but more narrow experience.