D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

Micah Sweet · Tuesday at 5:46 PM

AbdulAlhazred said:
Eh, there's both more and less differences than you imagine. Playing AW is related to playing 5e as MLB is to high school baseball, they're essentially the same activities, with somewhat different rules and rather different goals and context. It's absolutely possible to compare and contrast.

Disagree. Both of those are basically the same game, albeit with additional complications in the case of the MLB. That's akin to playing D&D and playing Level Up IMO. A better analogy I think is MLB and NFL. Both sports, but very different in fundamental ways.

AlViking · Tuesday at 6:00 PM

Campbell said:
It's a lot more like American Football and rugby. Maybe even American Football and soccor.

To me it's like discussing American Football and everywhere-else-in-the-world Football along with half the time not explain when posting to an NFL site that you're talking about what American's call soccer.

Pedantic · Tuesday at 6:39 PM

Thomas Shey said:
Oh, I'm aware. I just think some people, particularly in the PbtA adjacent sphere, don't understand how much the baked in "complication is good" premise there is just absolutely not what some others want. I commented after buying and reading Monster of the Week that it reminded me that, for the most part, it doesn't have failures; It has what most people would consider successes, partial success, and fumbles. That's because it wants ever roll to move the narrative on in one way or the other, but it also means that you here repeated examples of people who haven't really bought into the idea that the worst sin is stasis avoiding making rolls because they'd rather have stasis and see if they can find some other way around than have things get in any fashion worse. (It doesn't help that with many of the same people, the frequency of complications as an output from the system makes them feel incompetent).

This is the most effective summary of the divide I've read, on both points. Tying complication to mechanical interaction, instead of originating outside of interaction is the baseline point of incompatibility, and the point about competence is a good articulation of how I've always felt engaging with those systems. It's particularly frustrating, because they nearly always go out of their way to write down a presumption of PC competence, which feels like a violated promise in play.

DinoInDisguise · Tuesday at 7:16 PM

Thomas Shey said:
Oh, I'm aware. I just think some people, particularly in the PbtA adjacent sphere, don't understand how much the baked in "complication is good" premise there is just absolutely not what some others want. I commented after buying and reading Monster of the Week that it reminded me that, for the most part, it doesn't have failures; It has what most people would consider successes, partial success, and fumbles. That's because it wants ever roll to move the narrative on in one way or the other, but it also means that you here repeated examples of people who haven't really bought into the idea that the worst sin is stasis avoiding making rolls because they'd rather have stasis and see if they can find some other way around than have things get in any fashion worse. (It doesn't help that with many of the same people, the frequency of complications as an output from the system makes them feel incompetent).

Feel free to push back on this, but I want to offer a slightly different view.

What you're describing as a systemic feature of PbtA games, like Monster of the Week, strikes me more as a GMing principle than something that should be system-bound.

To me, the idea that any GM, in any system, would ask for a roll that doesn't move the narrative forward feels off. One of the GM’s most important responsibilities is pacing. Calling for rolls that don’t affect the story is, in my view, an unforced error. It wastes time and often creates drag on the momentum of play. It's textbook poor pacing.

So while I do agree that PbtA enforces this structurally, I’m not sure the difference you're highlighting really exists in a well-run game with a GM who understands good pacing. “Every roll should matter and move things forward” is a hallmark of strong GMing across the board. PbtA just happens to codify it.

AbdulAlhazred · Tuesday at 7:22 PM

jayoungr said:
Are you really claiming that AW is a more advanced, "high-level" game than 5E? Because that's what this analogy sounds like you're implying.

If that is what you mean, then speaking as someone who has played both games extensively, I strongly disagree.

No, not really, they're just different, but pretty analogous. Neither is better. Why the insecurity?

clearstream · Tuesday at 7:25 PM

DinoInDisguise said:
Feel free to push back on this, but I want to offer a slightly different view.

What you're describing as a systemic feature of PbtA games, like Monster of the Week, strikes me more as a GMing principle than something that should be system-bound.

To me, the idea that any GM, in any system, would ask for a roll that doesn't move the narrative forward feels off. One of the GM’s most important responsibilities is pacing. Calling for rolls that don’t affect the story is, in my view, an unforced error. It wastes time and often creates drag on the momentum of play. It's textbook poor pacing.

So while I do agree that PbtA enforces this structurally, I’m not sure the difference you're highlighting really exists in a well-run game with a GM who understands good pacing. “Every roll should matter and move things forward” is a hallmark of strong GMing across the board. PbtA just happens to codify it.

5e also codifies it. In 2014 in the DMG with the rule* not to roll unless there are consequences, which was brought into the PHB in 2024.

*The 2014 DMG contains "variant" rules, "optional" rules and just rules; such as the text on page 237.

At the same time, I have heard @Thomas Shey's comment elsewhere and experienced something like it myself, so something is going on there.

AbdulAlhazred · Tuesday at 7:29 PM

DinoInDisguise said:
Feel free to push back on this, but I want to offer a slightly different view.

What you're describing as a systemic feature of PbtA games, like Monster of the Week, strikes me more as a GMing principle than something that should be system-bound.

To me, the idea that any GM, in any system, would ask for a roll that doesn't move the narrative forward feels off. One of the GM’s most important responsibilities is pacing. Calling for rolls that don’t affect the story is, in my view, an unforced error. It wastes time and often creates drag on the momentum of play. It's textbook poor pacing.

So while I do agree that PbtA enforces this structurally, I’m not sure the difference you're highlighting really exists in a well-run game with a GM who understands good pacing. “Every roll should matter and move things forward” is a hallmark of strong GMing across the board. PbtA just happens to codify it.

I think we agree. I happen to think PbtA type games do a bit more than that, but certainly in a game like AW every player move has significance. MotW seems to water things down a bit though, and I am getting the impression there's a bunch of people jumping into PbtA design, judging by DW2e, who really don't get it.

TwoSix · Tuesday at 7:36 PM

clearstream said:
5e also codifies it. In 2014 in the DMG with the rule* not to roll unless there are consequences, which was brought into the PHB in 2024.

*The 2014 DMG contains "variant" rules, "optional" rules and just rules; such as the text on page 237.

At the same time, I have heard @Thomas Shey's comment elsewhere and experienced something like it myself, so something is going on there.

I mean, I don't think it's particularly controversial to point out that for D&D, or at least traditional D&D (3e and before), the point of a roll was to determine the outcome of a process, not the realization of an intent.

The core of that play is DM presents obstacle, player uses environmental negotiation + resource + roll (if needed) to overcome obstacle. An ideal session, in terms of outcome, would be to bypass all obstacles with minimal expenditure of resources to acquire treasure. That's very different from PbtA style game where the players and DMs are both looking to creates obstacles and challenges to derive narrative.

Micah Sweet · Tuesday at 7:45 PM

DinoInDisguise said:
Feel free to push back on this, but I want to offer a slightly different view.

What you're describing as a systemic feature of PbtA games, like Monster of the Week, strikes me more as a GMing principle than something that should be system-bound.

To me, the idea that any GM, in any system, would ask for a roll that doesn't move the narrative forward feels off. One of the GM’s most important responsibilities is pacing. Calling for rolls that don’t affect the story is, in my view, an unforced error. It wastes time and often creates drag on the momentum of play. It's textbook poor pacing.

So while I do agree that PbtA enforces this structurally, I’m not sure the difference you're highlighting really exists in a well-run game with a GM who understands good pacing. “Every roll should matter and move things forward” is a hallmark of strong GMing across the board. PbtA just happens to codify it.

This assumes that the purpose of all RPG is the generation of coherent narrative, which as you say Narrativist system handle structurally. That simply isn't the case. I don't know how to explain that more clearly.

clearstream · Tuesday at 7:47 PM

TwoSix said:
I mean, I don't think it's particularly controversial to point out that for D&D, or at least traditional D&D (3e and before), the point of a roll was to determine the outcome of a process, not the realization of an intent.

It's not a perspective I hold with, as I've never see a player embark upon an intentless process. To recycle a past observation, here's a sequence we never see

Player: I want to climb the wall

DM: Okay, roll Strength (Athletics)

Player: 14+5 that's 19

DM: That's some real nice climbing you are doing there

Player: So I've reached the top of the wall?

DM: No, no, you're just climbing really nicely (cares only about the outcome of the process)

Player: ... (expected to resolve their intent: reaching the top of the wall)

TwoSix said:
The core of that play is DM presents obstacle, player uses environmental negotiation + resource + roll (if needed) to overcome obstacle. An ideal session, in terms of outcome, would be to bypass all obstacles with minimal expenditure of resources to acquire treasure. That's very different from PbtA style game where the players and DMs are both looking to creates obstacles and challenges to derive narrative.

One might moot that intent were limited to "overcome the presented obstacle"... I'll need to reflect on that before I can say whether it seems right to me.

D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

AlViking

Hero

Pedantic

Legend

DinoInDisguise

A russian spy disguised as a t-rex.

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

clearstream

(He, Him)

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

TwoSix

Everyone's literal second-favorite poster

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

clearstream

(He, Him)

Similar Threads