D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[Charlaquin]

No worries. I appreciate your willingness to circle back.

I find that is helpful to first play games as RAW and RAI, getting a solid grasp of the game, before trying to hack them into something else. It's easier to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and what you gain/lose by hacking the different parts of the game.

Oh, yeah, that’s my preference too. I was just trying to give you an idea of where my interest is at, not describing a specific set of house rules I intend to use.

If you are interested in Dungeon World, then I am going to suggest skipping Dungeon World. Sorta. There is a DW hack called Homebrew World by Jeremy Strandberg that, IMHO, is easier for getting your feet wet in DW. I would also suggest Stonetop by Jeremy Strandberg, as it bakes in things like domain building (i.e., the Village), gaining followers, etc. However, I think that Homebrew World is better for starting out.

Haha alright, I’ll look into that then.

IME, Homebrew World is good for one-shots or a handful of sessions. It hammers out a lot of DW play for the better, clarifying and improving Moves. It also does a better job making inventory management matter more while minimizing book-keeping. Inventory management is partially abstract and concrete. For example, the below image represents the inventory/gear on a cleric's playbook:

Spoiler

View attachment 250288

Players can select their load by picking from this list or maybe other items. They can declare items Undefined and then later declare that they have the necessary item later, so long as it makes reasonable sense in the fiction (e.g., torch, dagger, rope, etc.).

Neat!

While you may prefer Task Resolution over Consequence Resolution, particularly for your more B/X Gamist style exploration preferences, I would nevertheless recommend playing this game as is, because the consequences that follow from the various Moves may threaten those supplies or players may have to decide between their Inventory/Supplies or other consequences.

If you wanted to hack-in wandering monsters, timers, etc., then I would probably look at and modify how Blades in the Dark does Progress Clocks.

Cool, thanks for the advice!

 

[Charlaquin]

Torchbearer is a freaking crucible, and I'm shocked I didn't realize how up your alley its approach might be from our exchange. Goes with drilling down too far, I guess. Also @Manbearcat has a ton more experience than I do as both player and GM (I'm just a player right now).

The rules are very complex (which I understand you might not like), the writing could be better (but hey it's better than Edwards!), but the way the game deliberately puts you into incoherent situations where you have to choose whether to win now or later, or as a player vs. as a character, or in many other ways, is amazing (or intensely frustrating to those who don't want their brains torn apart in every moment of play...). Totally fits our exchange earlier where I said it looked like you wanted to face agendas in conflict, as a meta-agenda. This was again getting trapped in reification of G/N/S instead of recognizing that you like a particular blend.

Yeah, apart from the complexity this sounds very much like my jam. And really, complexity isn’t necessarily a turn-off for me. I greatly appreciate economy of design, which means complexity is fine, as long as it serves a purpose. I love it when a game is exactly as complex as it needs to be to accomplish what it’s trying to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Apparently Torchbearer has a Kickstarter going for a second edition? Anybody know more about that?

EDIT: Oh, wait, maybe the Kickstarter already happened and the second edition is in the wild?

 

[hawkeyefan]

A lot of the newer OSR material is also not even that dissimilar to narrative games. There is becoming more and more of an overlap, as both styles wrestle with game creation and philosophy. I'm thinking Troika, Torchbearer, Spire (and Heart). These games seem to be appreciated by both the OSR and narrativist bases. There's been a shift in the OSR scene from recapturing the rulesets from the late 70s/80s to a more philosophical/experimental bent that has a much stronger "indie" feel.

Yeah, I’ve seen some examples of this. OSR takes on narrative games, and vice versa. Or games that blend elements of the two.

You mention Spire and Heart, which are games I really love (especially Spire), and I’d never have described them as being at all OSR, but I can see how they may appeal to OSR fans. Especially Heart, with its focus on dungeon delving. I’ve been curious for other folks’ take on them, because I’m never quite sure how to classify them, other than as games I really enjoy!

 

[niklinna]

Apparently Torchbearer has a Kickstarter going for a second edition? Anybody know more about that?

Torchbearer 2e is actually what @Manbearcat is running for our little group. @pemerton started a thread about it...you might want to skim some of the earlier posts but there's a goodly amount of commentary, play discussion, all that kind of thing. Feel free to ask specific questions there too!

 

[Malmuria]

One of the things I find a bit sad is how much OSR and narrative game fans tend to clash. Both types of games are largely trying to resolve the same issues they find with the modern versions of D&D and other games.

They do go about addressing those issues in different ways, so of course the games play differently. But they have their roots in the same dissatisfaction with mainstream games.

I think part of it is historical and part of it is a clash of thinking styles. To introduce another typology ( ) from a different context: Architect, Gardener, Librarian. Forge theory strikes me as very systemic and orderly (architect). OSR design thinking happens on scattered blog, and seems very much about collecting things (subsystems, minigames, etc), using them, discarding, modifying etc, continually (gardener). Even one of the more referenced collection of such theory, the “principa apocrypha” describes itself as a collection of “axioms and aphorisms.”

I'm intrigued and I have meant to look into this FKR business. Could you perhaps provide a link or otherwise point us toward some solid iteration of rules (or perhaps it is "rules") used for this?

The page count over/under for this thread just increased by at least 50.

 

[niklinna]

I think part of it is historical and part of it is a clash of thinking styles. To introduce another typology ( ) from a different context: Architect, Gardener, Librarian. Forge theory strikes me as very systemic and orderly (architect). OSR design thinking happens on scattered blog, and seems very much about collecting things (subsystems, minigames, etc), using them, discarding, modifying etc, continually (gardener). Even one of the more referenced collection of such theory, the “principa apocrypha” describes itself as a collection of “axioms and aphorisms.”

Reminds me of the Cathedral and the Bazaar essay in the software dev community, from back in the day.

I'm also reminded of personality-typing "bucket" systems, like Myers-Briggs, as compared to the Enneagram, which arranges its personality modes in a complex diagram with relationships amongst them. You'll have one primary, but lean toward a mode to one side or the other, and have two other modes across the diagram that you tend to exhibit under different conditions.

 

[Malmuria]

Oh! Sorry, I missed your earlier post.

I mean, it’s hard to say as I don’t have much experience with either. I can tell you what I’m envisioning is a system using Dungeon World’s core mechanic of rolling 2d6 + a modifier of up to +3 (which conveniently coincides with B/X’s relationship between ability scores and modifiers), with mixed success on a 6-9 and total success on a 10+, but tweaked to be used for “task resolution” rather than “consequence resolution.” I look at Dungeon World’s Act Under Pressure move and I see something very close to how I approach calling for checks in 5e. I can easily see massaging it into something like…

Ability Check
When you want to accomplish a goal, describe what you want to do and how you try to do it. The GM might describe a potential consequence for failure and ask you to roll…

• +Str if you use direct physical force
• +Dex if you use agility or fine manipulation
• +Con if you use resilience and fortitude
• +Int if you use memory or deductive reasoning
• +Wis if you use your senses of perception or intuition
• +Cha if you use charm and social grace

On a 7 or higher you accomplish what you were trying to do. If you get under a 10 you suffer the consequence the GM described.

That could then be the basic format other Moves follow. Attack someone in melee? Roll + Str, deal damage on a 7+ but <10 they take +1 Forward to attack you back. Shoot an arrow at someone? Roll +Dex, deal damage on a 7+ but <10 the arrow is lost or damaged beyond repair, mark off 1 ammo. Try to recall lore? Roll +Int, on a 7+ you remember something interesting but <10 it might not be directly relevant. Etc.

From B/X I’d want the dungeon exploration procedures, basically as-is. The tracking of time and resources, rolling for random encounters, just generally all that “Gamist” scorekeeping stuff.

For characters, I’d want something like the Dungeon World playbooks, picking a new Class Move from among a couple options when you level up. But I might use the level 10 capstone to lead into that B/X style domain building endgame. You know, hit the level cap and start attracting followers, which then expand your stable of characters and gives you options to choose from to start taking into dungeons now that the previous character has moved on to running their stronghold or whatever.



West Marches style is definitely where I’m leaning, so that sounds promising.



Cool! I appreciate the recommendation!

I think I mentioned this in the other thread, but I would highly recommend The White Hack 3e for your purposes. It’s kind of a ‘weird’ system compared to other OSR systems, but I found once reading it a couple times very simple and easy to come up with rulings on the spot

 

[Arilyn]

Yeah, I’ve seen some examples of this. OSR takes on narrative games, and vice versa. Or games that blend elements of the two.

You mention Spire and Heart, which are games I really love (especially Spire), and I’d never have described them as being at all OSR, but I can see how they may appeal to OSR fans. Especially Heart, with its focus on dungeon delving. I’ve been curious for other folks’ take on them, because I’m never quite sure how to classify them, other than as games I really enjoy!

They came to my attention through Questing Beast! And there are also a lot of very cool things being done with magic and settings that don't feel at all like original D&D.

 

[Campbell]

@Charlaquin

I would actually look at Freebooters on the Frontier. It's a B/X inspired hack designed to work with B/X modules and hexcrawls. It might be exactly what you're looking for. It has a very strong focus on exploration and old school feeling play. It's designed by Jason Lutes who made the excellent Perilous Wilds supplement for Dungeon World.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com