D&D 5E 5e* - D&D-now

[clearstream]

If the authorship isn't being used, then we don't have pre-authorship of the major events of play, do we?

Can you define what you mean by "major events of play" so that isn't ambiguous.

I don't know what you mean by "the authorship isn't being used". If it informs play, is it being used?

 

[clearstream]

This is why I tried to draw the distinction between DRIVING and INFORMING. In 5e fiction largely INFORMS mechanics, it serves as the structure upon which basic motivations and decisions hang (IE will I enter into combat against X or will I try to recruit him as an ally). Once decisions are made, D&D (and 5e being typical) largely drive at least COMBAT decisions almost purely via the mechanics. Given 5e's loose and murky tiebacks from mechanics to fiction it can often be pretty hard to even KNOW what the fiction is, but you can still go ahead and execute the next mechanical action! When fiction DRIVES mechanics, the linkage is causal and strong. The fiction of iron hard scales CAUSED the fighter's attempt at Hack & Slash to be adjudged ineffective, meaning his player had to come up with a different option, which was again supplied purely by fiction.

Remember that I say the DM brings principles unavoidably to their interpretation of the rules. To what they will say, based on them. So for Hack and Slash, can you show how that mechanic DRIVES without reference to principles?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Remember that I say the DM brings principles unavoidably to their interpretation of the rules. To what they will say, based on them. So for Hack and Slash, can you show how that mechanic DRIVES without reference to principles?

I'm not entirely sure how to answer the question. I think the salient question is about how fiction drives mechanics. Hack & Slash is invoked by some purely fictional event. There are no mechanical or cue-based requirements for that invocation listed in the rules text, aside from "it happens when a PC enters melee combat with an opponent." I'd even note that H&S might NOT be the result of such a declaration, it depends purely on the fiction (IE the example of the dragon who cannot be hurt by a melee attack, or the Ogre who's club must be bypassed via DD before it can be engaged).

So, yes, I can construct examples of fiction driving the use of H&S, which I think are already present and recapitulated above. As for 'without reference to principles' I'm stumped by why this would make sense as a point of discussion. I don't think there's any possibility of describing ANY action in DW without reference to principles. I mean, we can fail to mention them, and in many cases 'general practice' might suffice even if a specific principle didn't exist, but they exist specifically because they shape play in a certain way. In fact we could scrape the whole superstructure of distinct moves and playbooks and whatnot from DW and the principles would STILL apply! You would still be able to play!

Think of it this way, suppose we had a simple PbtA that had basically the agenda and principles of DW, but lacked any specific moves and playbooks. When a player said "I'm a wizard" then what would happen? The agenda is to present a fantastic world, that includes wizards, who presumably engage in the use of magic. So, if the wizard player says "I ensorcell the Orc Chieftain" we can well imagine that the GM is bound by his principles to narrate some sort of fantastical happening, etc. Thus simply having a structure of "players and GMs make moves" plus the agenda and principles of DW is pretty close to a logically complete and usable game system! This system would have mechanics, the making of moves, and a process, but very very few cues.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not entirely sure how to answer the question. I think the salient question is about how fiction drives mechanics. Hack & Slash is invoked by some purely fictional event. There are no mechanical or cue-based requirements for that invocation listed in the rules text, aside from "it happens when a PC enters melee combat with an opponent." I'd even note that H&S might NOT be the result of such a declaration, it depends purely on the fiction (IE the example of the dragon who cannot be hurt by a melee attack, or the Ogre who's club must be bypassed via DD before it can be engaged).

That side steps my question. Drives from it!? The underlined part - F > S > F. Where the 'S' is DW Hack & Slash. What about the mechanic drives the following F?

 

[clearstream]

We've a lot of open questions, and I have examples to write (I took notes from my weekly game last night.) But first I wanted to follow up something I've been thinking about.

An RPG - C*
The game loop is

• DM establishes fiction setting things in motion
• Players say what their characters say and do
• DM arbitrates
• DM narrates the results

To say what your character says or does, say something, that follows from your preestablished fiction and the ongoing conversation, that uncovers and shapes future conversation; don't say anything that doesn't accord with your principles

To arbitrate, when it follows, decide consistent with your preestablished fiction and the ongoing conversation; don't decide in a way that doesn't accord with your principles

• If you decide something is impossible, say and ask for clarification
• If you decide something is sure to succeed, say that it does
• If you decide something is uncertain and it matters, make a call

To narrate the results, say something that follows from your preestablished fiction and the ongoing conversation, that uncovers and shapes future conversation; don't say anything that doesn't accord with your principles

In C*, there are no mechanics: only the process description above. DM will decide results by making calls. F > C > F. Principles are unwritten: it's up to each group to decide. Can a DM run C* in fiction-first mode?

 

[clearstream]

I can say something like 1) IFF the group's principles influence toward fiction-first, then a DM can run C* fiction-first

To make some of the arguments (others have made) in this thread, I need to also say 2) IFF an RPG has mechanics that are driven by and drive the fiction, then a DM can run that RPG fiction-first

C* has no mechanics, so cannot satisfy 2).

C* doesn't prevent DM making calls driven by and driving the fiction; so how can it be ruled out that they may do so? I don't believe that it can be! So it's down to principles, C* says don't forget to play in accord with your principles (you were going to anyway.)

C* is intended to imply a negative-twin - X*. I don't know the rules of X*, but I suppose them to work in specific ways that make it impossible to obey a group's fiction-first principles. 5e* says "5e isn't X*." Maybe a group with anti-fiction-first principles can find ways to interpret 5e as X*. 5e* says, "Don't do that. Use this interpretation that lets fiction-first live in the text." That's all it needs to say: the rest is up to the group.

Is it possible to hope that 5e* will force a group to play fiction-first? Earlier arguments in another thread necessitated a common belief that no RPG text can force a group to play fiction-first. 5e* thus has more modest expectations.

 

[pemerton]

This is why I tried to draw the distinction between DRIVING and INFORMING. In 5e fiction largely INFORMS mechanics, it serves as the structure upon which basic motivations and decisions hang (IE will I enter into combat against X or will I try to recruit him as an ally). Once decisions are made, D&D (and 5e being typical) largely drive at least COMBAT decisions almost purely via the mechanics. Given 5e's loose and murky tiebacks from mechanics to fiction it can often be pretty hard to even KNOW what the fiction is, but you can still go ahead and execute the next mechanical action!

<snip>

nobody is ever positing that trad D&D doesn't have rightward arrows, it does! Every RPG has them, I think it is a definition of RPG. Still, AD&D, for example, is not necessarily 'fiction first'. The action is embedded IN a fiction, but in a lot of cases that fiction could be a pretty thin veneer! Your typical dungeon illustrates exactly that, the important constraints are the mechanics of exploration turns, effects of darkness, wandering monster check rules, and the formal dungeon map structure with associated typical features. Dungeons definitely depart into more fictional territory when they have idiosyncratic features, or if players attempt unconventional actions, but there's a very strongly mechanistic process in place that is somewhat loosely coupled to fiction (or you can view it as there is a lot of fiction, but it is of a structured and predetermined variety).

In the classic dungeon context, the fiction and the rightward arrows it gives rise to arise, at least to a significant extent, out of those unconventional actions that engage idiosyncratic features. White Plume Mountain might be fundamentally silly, but there's no denying its crazy rooms and the tricks in them generate cloud-to-cloud or cloud-to-box arrows!

It's classic D&D combat that is particularly light on rightward arrows in many cases, which is why I've been leaning heavily on it in this discussion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That side steps my question. Drives from it!? The underlined part - F > S > F. Where the 'S' is DW Hack & Slash. What about the mechanic drives the following F?

Well, this is where DW/PbtA 'holds together' as a system quite well. ANY move will demand a return to the fiction. I mean, suppose an Orc approaches you with hostile intent, and you declare that you're going to fight him, and pull out your sword. This is about as cut-and-dried as it gets, the GM could reasonably just rule that you've invoked an H&S move. So, what are the possibilities here? You could roll 10+ and simply pig-stick the orc, forgoing the extra 1d6 damage option. You could roll 7-9, in which case you simply take damage in return for dealing it. 6- subjects you to some sort of GM Hard Move.

So, 10+ you MIGHT simply damage the bad guy and there's no other real fictional consequences. Note that in DW hit points are a very limited resource and even high level PCs don't have large stacks of them, so the fictional outcome of damage is MUCH more easily established than for D&D! That is, any blow that does 10 damage to ANYTHING seriously injured it! Likewise if a monster dishes out 10 damage, the result is pretty serious, and can be reliably narrated as such. There is MUCH LESS need for the Gygaxian equivocation about hit points that are 'luck' and whatnot! So you got a 10+, and assuming your opponent isn't killed outright by the resulting damage, the GM can narrate the result predictably in the fiction. The GM is also free to impose a soft move at that point, which could be anything, but will HAVE to be fiction-based, as there's no mechanical basis for initiating moves in DW. (IE "the orc takes your blow and attempts to push past you to get to the wizard!").

On a 7-9 there's likewise wound fiction for each side, and again the GM COULD come out with a soft move.

On a 6- the GM MUST respond with a hard move. This is going to be, necessarily rooted in the fiction, there are no mechanics that can simply generate such a thing. The most mundane answer would be something like "The orc takes a big swing at you with his axe and you take N damage!" Honestly, it could be anything, as long as it hurts and it follows from the H&S move and its fiction.

Now, the above example is about as cut-n-dried as it can ever get in DW. I'd note that there is NO TURN STRUCTURE, so once this interaction happens, the other players and the GM are going to be going back into the fiction and generating new moves. Maybe at this point the wizard pipes up with "I cast a magic missile at the Orc!" or something like that. This is again about as clear cut as it gets in terms of move generation, and admittedly the fiction part of it is more in terms of the wizard player adding his input at this point (again no mechanic dictates this, there's no initiative order or anything) but it is true that casting a spell is pretty mechanical in terms of how it works, at least up to a point.

But, really, in actual play IME, straight up combats rarely get very cut-n-dried. If you want to WIN and you don't want to just get chewed by every monster, you better learn to invent some tactics and bring some more fiction into play. For example the Dwarf above, his player could say "What do I know about Orcs that might help me here?" and all of a sudden he's spouting some nasty curse in the orc's face which makes it recklessly attack him and gives him some forward! This is the sort of thing that DW does, by its very design. It brings this stuff out.

Now, contrast with 4e, which can get pretty 'fictional' in some styles of play. Maybe a player pulls a Monster Knowledge or some kind of Lore check and then utilizes it to invoke a skill (Minor Action, spout a curse at the orc which gives you a +1 on your attack). This kind of thing is often cued via some keywords, or the easily invoked structure of the conditions (IE I toss a flask of oil in the troll's face, and it reels back, fearing the fire which comes next!). 4e reduces the impedance of these kinds of things a lot by keywording things heavily and providing ready-made conditions and things like forced movement to represent them, as @pemerton pointed out earlier.

Anyway, in terms of DW it is VERY HARD to get into anything resembling a D&D-esque mechanics-first combat loop. There MIGHT be a pair of moves traded between GM and player that could be colored that way now and then, but the game simply doesn't produce things like several rounds of combat in which everything is pure mechanics with only incidental narration for color, which 4e or 5e can easily do.

 

[Shardstone]

I have been lurking, and you guys have been talking past each other for a long time.

@clearstream , your ideas of narration-first is not the ideas that D&D were built off of. Your interpretation of that one line of text is an attempt by WotC to emulate PbtA genre games.

This doesn't mean people haven't always played D&D like this. But the conceit is, in D&D, you have buttons you hit that generates math that generates fiction. In DW, you have buttons you hit htat generates fiction that generates effect that generates more fiction.

But, you can play D&D just like this. However, the design of the game is to allow for both. DW does not allow for both, only the former. In D&D, you can play and ust use the names of spells and mechanics, and keep it something more gamey. In DW, you are forced to narrate.

Your ideal for D&D, which is to be a narration best game, means that you already play D&D like its DW. You aren't too caring of the other style, so I don't think you realize a lot of people play that other style in D&D, and they can't play it in DW.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We've a lot of open questions, and I have examples to write (I took notes from my weekly game last night.) But first I wanted to follow up something I've been thinking about.



In C*, there are no mechanics: only the process description above. DM will decide results by making calls. F > C > F. Principles are unwritten: it's up to each group to decide. Can a DM run C* in fiction-first mode?

I think you can get fiction-first play out of most systems, so yes a GM could probably do that. The things that concern me to a degree in this case have to do with the lack of a way for the players to establish anything beyond their character's actions in the fiction as-presented. So, PROCESS WISE, since you give only process, there is a lack of something analogous to, say, Wises checks in BW, where the player gets to establish some sort of element of fiction whole cloth. I mean, there may be principles such as in DW like "ask questions use the answers" or something like that. There could be additional structure, like character traits, which the GM could be bound to honor. However, you have put things in pretty stark terms where you say "consistent with your preestablished fiction" that seem to recognize the existence of no such mechanics.

Frankly, this type of 'game' shows a couple of things. One is that, since there are no other mechanics than the basic process of play, some form of fiction must be the determinant, so it must be 'first' and 'last', but its hard to say there's a lot of significance to it, in the sense that ALL OF THE FICTION comes from one source! The players are merely choosing from options given by the GM, who is then free to interpret those choices in a way that produces any outcome she desires. While the players can certainly generate some basic input, the GM is in total control at all levels. It is more a fictional monologue than a game!