Basic Mechanics / Fundamental Crunch

[Andor]

What are these real and imaginary activities? Can they be boiled down into a short list? And to weave in another thread, which ones preclude roleplaying?

Can the real and imaginary activities that RPGs try to model be boiled down into a short list? No. No they cannot. Not unless that list is so broad as to be useless like "change something" which does actually encompass all possible activities.

In the most general of terms RPGs rule serve to define conflicts, and resolve those conflicts. But that tells you nothing. The conflict could be a massive war ranging across an entire planet or the doubt in a single mans heart. It could be both in the same session of a single game.

In RPGs I have seen people try to accomplish tasks ranging from a minor act of dexterity like palming a coin to fixing the drive system of an alien spaceship as it plunges burning through the atmosphere. I have seen them try to fight or reason with foes ranging from mice to dragons to sentient computer viruses. I have seen them try to win the hearts of goblins, princesses and entire planets. I have seen them overcome temptation, fall to it, and lead others to damnation or salvation. I have seen people try to develop entirely new technologies, philosophies or magics. I have seen them try to defeat or become gods. This is not an exhaustive list.

Which ones preclude roleplaying? Rules or actions? It's almost impossible to preclude roleplaying if someone wants to, but there are things which both encourage and discourage it.
Player agency is a big promoter of roleplaying IME. Conversely barring a player from acting or removing the consequences of his actions (even the bad ones) leads quickly to discouraged players. It's like how in computer games the greatest mistake a developer can make it to remove a players ability to effect a scene either by something basic like stun-lock or even long cut-scenes which can't be skipped and occur right before the save point. RPGs are no different, how many times have you heard the phrase "Save vs box text?"

Along that line, rules that tell a player how his character must react or feel about something must be employed very carefully, and only if it adds significantly to the tone or genre of the game.

 

[steenan]

Dungeon World is a pretty radical departure from most roleplaying games I've seen. That doesn't make it wrong, of course, but that might pull it outside the thread's scope.

That's why I asked in the beginning of this thread what is the scope of games you want to analyze. When you compare DW to various editions of D&D and direct derivatives, it may seem radical. When you compare it to Dogs in the Vineyard, Bliss Stage or Polaris, it feels very traditional.

Or, maybe DW is an informative look at exactly what we need here; it spells out in "moves" what other games accomplish with rules.

That's exactly why I like to use DW as an example in various rules discussions. Representing nearly all rules as "moves" gives a very clear structure, with well-defined triggers and effects. The game not only has rules - it clearly communicates how they should be used.

It's hard to play Dungeon World wrong (as in: "not fun") when playing by the rules and that means that the rules really describe the game. You can't "abuse" the rules by following them strictly.

That's in strong contrast to many traditional games that have rules but also a lot of unstated assumptions and there is often a conflict between the rules and assumed playstyle.