Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8520358" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>My feeling is that the fundamental difference, the key differentiator, is REALLY all those statements which FILL the DW book (and I presume other PbtA systems are pretty similar in a general sense, though I have little experience with any of them). </p><p></p><p>So when you read DW MOST of what the rules text talks about are the things [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is saying. They are the central theme and subject of that text. There's a bunch more that explains moves, the general structure of a game, some specific tools, etc. but in every case there is a laser focus on this structure of play. </p><p></p><p>How you operate on the GM side, what you do, why you do it, and when and where to apply different elements of the game, techniques, and considerations IS the rules by and large. The actual mechanical "here's how you roll the dice" sort of stuff could be summarized in 3 pages, at most! Playbooks and Monsters take up a decent amount of space as well, but this is vastly different from 5e.</p><p></p><p>5e, typical of D&D, is MOSTLY mechanics, or else focused on how the mechanics are intended to map to the fiction (IE an explanation of what a Fighter is and various color related to that). VERY LITTLE is actually expended, proportionately, on the things which DW focuses on most heavily. When there ARE statements of intent or structure, like PHB p6, or the several paragraphs in the DMG which talk about narration and when to ask for checks, they're like 'raisins' in the bread. Most of the bulk of the game is discussing various mechanical considerations and subsystems.</p><p></p><p>Now, I'm not saying 5e lacks color or anything like that. There's a good bit of both basic color (descriptive text) as well as text which is meant to be expositive of character motivations, background, capabilities as related to the fiction, etc. But there's really essentially nothing about the primary driving loop of the game and how it relates to what the players want, etc. </p><p></p><p>You can call it 'flexibility' if you want. Frankly I just call it sloppy. I mean, I don't argue that it isn't deliberate. Its just easy mode design though, and it happens to also work well for a game which basically rests on name vs quality of underlying conceptual design, TBH. I think it has the virtue of being the accepted and sub-culturally approved style, everyone understands it, has played it, was probably introduced to gaming on this style of game, etc. And sure, you can interpret it in your own particular style (5e*) and imagine that its this or that game. Given an experienced GM with a wide knowledge of GMing techniques, no biggie. I just found it a TON easier to GM 4e, and WAY WAY easier to GM DW, or my own game (there I cannot say actually what other people would get out of it, maybe my style of play isn't really inherent in the text, lol). </p><p></p><p>So, whole cloth game design IS hard. That's mostly because you can't really know what it is you're doing simply 'by feel'. Other people will come and see something totally different, and not approach it with your assumptions. So a good game, IMHO, has to rely heavily on conceptual structure to guide the game designer. 5e IMHO lacks that, though it does have "be like other D&Ds" which itself is a pretty strong constraint. </p><p></p><p>But this is why I don't even really find it super useful to talk about principles of design or how to interpret and apply a game like 5e, there's simply no THERE there. It is like looking at a pile of rocks and discussing the virtues of living in the castle, first you gotta build it, and to do that you need architecture!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8520358, member: 82106"] My feeling is that the fundamental difference, the key differentiator, is REALLY all those statements which FILL the DW book (and I presume other PbtA systems are pretty similar in a general sense, though I have little experience with any of them). So when you read DW MOST of what the rules text talks about are the things [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is saying. They are the central theme and subject of that text. There's a bunch more that explains moves, the general structure of a game, some specific tools, etc. but in every case there is a laser focus on this structure of play. How you operate on the GM side, what you do, why you do it, and when and where to apply different elements of the game, techniques, and considerations IS the rules by and large. The actual mechanical "here's how you roll the dice" sort of stuff could be summarized in 3 pages, at most! Playbooks and Monsters take up a decent amount of space as well, but this is vastly different from 5e. 5e, typical of D&D, is MOSTLY mechanics, or else focused on how the mechanics are intended to map to the fiction (IE an explanation of what a Fighter is and various color related to that). VERY LITTLE is actually expended, proportionately, on the things which DW focuses on most heavily. When there ARE statements of intent or structure, like PHB p6, or the several paragraphs in the DMG which talk about narration and when to ask for checks, they're like 'raisins' in the bread. Most of the bulk of the game is discussing various mechanical considerations and subsystems. Now, I'm not saying 5e lacks color or anything like that. There's a good bit of both basic color (descriptive text) as well as text which is meant to be expositive of character motivations, background, capabilities as related to the fiction, etc. But there's really essentially nothing about the primary driving loop of the game and how it relates to what the players want, etc. You can call it 'flexibility' if you want. Frankly I just call it sloppy. I mean, I don't argue that it isn't deliberate. Its just easy mode design though, and it happens to also work well for a game which basically rests on name vs quality of underlying conceptual design, TBH. I think it has the virtue of being the accepted and sub-culturally approved style, everyone understands it, has played it, was probably introduced to gaming on this style of game, etc. And sure, you can interpret it in your own particular style (5e*) and imagine that its this or that game. Given an experienced GM with a wide knowledge of GMing techniques, no biggie. I just found it a TON easier to GM 4e, and WAY WAY easier to GM DW, or my own game (there I cannot say actually what other people would get out of it, maybe my style of play isn't really inherent in the text, lol). So, whole cloth game design IS hard. That's mostly because you can't really know what it is you're doing simply 'by feel'. Other people will come and see something totally different, and not approach it with your assumptions. So a good game, IMHO, has to rely heavily on conceptual structure to guide the game designer. 5e IMHO lacks that, though it does have "be like other D&Ds" which itself is a pretty strong constraint. But this is why I don't even really find it super useful to talk about principles of design or how to interpret and apply a game like 5e, there's simply no THERE there. It is like looking at a pile of rocks and discussing the virtues of living in the castle, first you gotta build it, and to do that you need architecture! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
Top