D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Does the GM always have to give hints as to what's about to happen? And do consequences always have to be immediate?

No, not really. I mean, generally speaking its like any RPG where things should 'follow from the fiction'. Obviously its possible to have some sort of 'comes out of left field' thing. If you examine the Dungeon World agenda and principles of GMing what you find is, the characters are mostly at the center of things. While the game has techniques (fronts) to have a 'living world' that is going on around you, the PCs are the stars of the show.

Consequences need not be immediate at all. A front could manifest a 'Doom' (a move related to a danger, which is some sort of NPC or something) due to the fact that the PCs didn't bother to address some Grim Portent 3 sessions ago.

Could the PCs killing a character in one session, result in an ambush a few sessions later by yet unseen characters that want revenge for that death? Does the GM need to tell the players that an evil wizard is magically watching them?

Well, I think that kind of thing is fine. Dungeon World is a bit more focused on how the PCs are dealing with these threats and whatnot than maybe some other PbtAs are. I think in some games things might tend to be more immediate and focused. A danger could manifest in DW for the reason you specify, though the exact timing of its appearance would be gated by the GM getting a 'hard move', though a 'grim portent' could show up as a soft move.

These aren't must-haves, I'm just curious where the boundaries are.

I think DW is a pretty flexible game this way. I think other games, like BitD pretty much represent this sort of thing in a bit more formal ways, but the mechanics are designed so they WILL happen. BitD particularly is that sort of game, people are always moving against you, there are forces in the world, they are not your friends.

As for the combat, if one orc is tougher than another, does that just affect the player's roll then? As it sounds like there is no health stat equivalent in that game.

Dungeon World has hit points, and DR. Your average orc obviously has certain stats, some orcs could be tougher, so they probably have higher DR (armor), maybe somewhat more hit points, and possibly nastier moves and damage. DW also has a lot of 'tags' that you can apply which bring in certain effects. DW is a FICTION FIRST AND LAST game, so definitely whatever the orc does and what happens to it is rooted pretty closely into the fiction, thus you might defeat even a tough monster by some clever problem solving (IE getting it to fall in a pit or something).

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Again, lets use Dungeon World as an example. Every PC starts with a couple of 'bonds', which are just statements about the character and her relationship to other characters (often PCs, but they could be NPCs as well). Characters also have an alignment, and their class (playbook) and build choices also provide various 'hooks'.

So, if the Fighter player creates a bond "The halfling looks weak and in need of protection, I will keep him from harm." that's a fairly succinct and clear statement of the character's goal and implies a certain attitude, etc. Now, maybe the fighter is evil, so his motive is to show how powerful he is and keep the party in line, and he 'protects' by killing anything threatening. We have a workable entre into various situations, with the obvious starting point being "something threatens the halfling." The character NEEDS to respond to that, if he doesn't he might look weak, lose access to this potential ally, etc. The GM is DEFINITELY going to challenge this bond at some point! Probably pretty quickly.

Thanks for the effort in explaining it. Some of that would be OK, but not all the time. Every group I've played in has at least one player who doesn't want the spotlight. Some times that player is me. I definitely don't want to be put on the spot if I'm not in the mood for it.

Seems like at least the popular Story Now games are very "you're either all in, or find something else". Hopefully some more blended games come about in the future, though maybe there aren't enough players wanting that, to have a market worth development.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

For example, you don't determine what items you have ahead of time, instead you have a "load" of X items. When it comes into play narratively, you can select the item you want and mark off the appropriate load. It's definitely different than characters who have to go shopping ahead of the adventure and make choices about what they might need, or else improvise with what they have, but for this kind of game it allows for more cinematic scenes.

Ah, OK. I'd only be OK with that in a game replicating the feel of Looney Tunes or some other "zany" cartoon. For serious games, I'd prefer a proper inventory. I'm OK with a mechanic determining number of remaining bullets or wand charges (such as roll a d10, on a 1 you're out), versus tracking individual ammunition. I'm not OK with a player saying, "oh I have a bazooka now", without ever mentioning it before.

 

[Malmuria]

Ah, OK. I'd only be OK with that in a game replicating the feel of Looney Tunes or some other "zany" cartoon. For serious games, I'd prefer a proper inventory. I'm OK with a mechanic determining number of remaining bullets or wand charges (such as roll a d10, on a 1 you're out), versus tracking individual ammunition. I'm not OK with a player saying, "oh I have a bazooka now", without ever mentioning it before.

It's a bit more specific than that so maybe I'm not explaining it well. Basically you choose a load of 3, 5, or 6, with most items counting as 1 but heavier items counting as more than that. Your character sheet has a list of items you can choose from, but you can go beyond this with GM discretion. You can see what this looks like on this sample character sheet. The items listed are very normal mundane things, like a lantern or a pistol or climbing gear. That's to say, there is a structure and set of limitations of what you can retroactively have, but on the other hand the game is very comfortable with retroactive planning. So characters can see in the middle of a session they have, for example, a forged letter of invitation to a party if that comes up, without them having to plan in advance to have that thing (there are other mechanics that work with this idea). IME, the feel is not "zany" but it is very cinematic, for lack of a better word. It feels like a movie or a tv show, where the characters face opposition and danger but generally not because they just forgot to bring along their favorite pistol.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

You'd be frustrated by combat that could be at the same level of "zoom" as D&D, but also could be abstracted up to fewer rolls if it's not important or deadly?

I literally (in the literal sense of the word) can't see how that would be frustrating to have control over the zoom instead of one preset level.

Please, why would it be frustrating to be everything you do now, but also do less to make it quicker if the combat isn't important / is a forgone conclusion?

For genres where combat is relatively frequent, I'd like more concrete rules, with more detailed back and forth between sides. In other genres, where it isn't the focus a single roll might be fine. Also, just because mooks are involved doesn't necessarily mean the combat is meaningless.

Also, you don't have to take my preferences so personally.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

It's a bit more specific than that so maybe I'm not explaining it well. Basically you choose a load of 3, 5, or 6, with most items counting as 1 but heavier items counting as more than that. Your character sheet has a list of items you can choose from, but you can go beyond this with GM discretion. You can see what this looks like on this sample character sheet. The items listed are very normal mundane things, like a lantern or a pistol or climbing gear. That's to say, there is a structure and set of limitations of what you can retroactively have, but on the other hand the game is very comfortable with retroactive planning. So characters can see in the middle of a session they have, for example, a forged letter of invitation to a party if that comes up, without them having to plan in advance to have that thing (there are other mechanics that work with this idea). IME, the feel is not "zany" but it is very cinematic, for lack of a better word. It feels like a movie or a tv show, where the characters face opposition and danger but generally not because they just forgot to bring along their favorite pistol.

You like it that way, enjoy. Retcons would irk me even if it smoothed play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, OK. I'd only be OK with that in a game replicating the feel of Looney Tunes or some other "zany" cartoon. For serious games, I'd prefer a proper inventory. I'm OK with a mechanic determining number of remaining bullets or wand charges (such as roll a d10, on a 1 you're out), versus tracking individual ammunition. I'm not OK with a player saying, "oh I have a bazooka now", without ever mentioning it before.

Let's see... a good post discussing how the system handles complex events well and you decide to focus on a quick clause about inventory to the exclusion of everything else. And you use that quick statement to say that the whole system works for "cartoons" and that therefore the game cannot be "serious." What happened to asking questions?

How are you doing with Ironsworn?

 

[RhaezDaevan]

No, not really. I mean, generally speaking its like any RPG where things should 'follow from the fiction'. Obviously its possible to have some sort of 'comes out of left field' thing. If you examine the Dungeon World agenda and principles of GMing what you find is, the characters are mostly at the center of things. While the game has techniques (fronts) to have a 'living world' that is going on around you, the PCs are the stars of the show.

Consequences need not be immediate at all. A front could manifest a 'Doom' (a move related to a danger, which is some sort of NPC or something) due to the fact that the PCs didn't bother to address some Grim Portent 3 sessions ago.

The PCs should be the main characters, agreed.

Well, I think that kind of thing is fine. Dungeon World is a bit more focused on how the PCs are dealing with these threats and whatnot than maybe some other PbtAs are. I think in some games things might tend to be more immediate and focused. A danger could manifest in DW for the reason you specify, though the exact timing of its appearance would be gated by the GM getting a 'hard move', though a 'grim portent' could show up as a soft move.

OK, I guess that's fine.

I think DW is a pretty flexible game this way. I think other games, like BitD pretty much represent this sort of thing in a bit more formal ways, but the mechanics are designed so they WILL happen. BitD particularly is that sort of game, people are always moving against you, there are forces in the world, they are not your friends.

OK, so Blades is out. Thanks for the heads up.

Dungeon World has hit points, and DR. Your average orc obviously has certain stats, some orcs could be tougher, so they probably have higher DR (armor), maybe somewhat more hit points, and possibly nastier moves and damage. DW also has a lot of 'tags' that you can apply which bring in certain effects. DW is a FICTION FIRST AND LAST game, so definitely whatever the orc does and what happens to it is rooted pretty closely into the fiction, thus you might defeat even a tough monster by some clever problem solving (IE getting it to fall in a pit or something).

Oh, my mistake. When someone mentioned there was no combat system I made the wrong assumption that things like hitpoints would also not be there. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Let's see... a good post discussing how the system handles complex events well and you decide to focus on a quick clause about inventory to the exclusion of everything else. And you use that quick statement to say that the whole system works for "cartoons" and that therefore the game cannot be "serious." What happened to asking questions?

How are you doing with Ironsworn?

I was commenting on just the inventory part, not the whole post. I'll edit for clarity.

I don't have time for reading a whole rule set right now. Maybe another day.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was commenting on just the inventory part, not the whole post. I'll edit for clarity.

Oh, yes, I got that part, I called it out. I also pointed out that you leapt to a bad assumption, made an erroneous conclusion, and then labeled the whole thing as unserious and only fit for zany cartoon games. Oh, and that this is contrary to your earlier claim, you didn't ask questions. It's this exact reason I declined your invitation to explain anything more -- you seem more keen on finding assumptions to dismiss than actually learning about the concepts of play.

If you don't care, and just want to dismiss the play, then do that and stop wasting people's time. If you actually are interested, show more curiosity and less jump to conclusion.

I don't have time for reading a whole rule set right now. Maybe another day.

Ironsworn is not a large or complex ruleset. You could have made it through the overview and first pass (the presentation is in layers) in just the time you've spent posting today. It's not much at all.