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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Drifting games, genre limitations, and fruitful voids
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="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 8941535" data-attributes="member: 78752"><p>In short, I think my problem with "moves," differentiated from simply taking a generic action that is instead defined by character development and design, is that <strong>they are a strong element of specificity in an otherwise uniformly abstracted play environment.</strong> From a design perspective, I think you need to have a damn good reason for doing that, and PbtA has never convinced me of its reasons. For that matter, neither has D&D.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You are right that FitD does not contain the "move" concept from a player perspective, and not from a GM perspective either, at least not in a strictly defined sense, although the GM's available actions are well-circumscribed by the requirements of the setting and campaign in a similar fashion, which is more to what I was referring. In any case, it was not a further complaint -- it helped me better visualize a bridge between D&D and this style of game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D4's power lists weren't really intended to limit the player either, but they do in practice, because when you give a human (even a very smart, creative human) a list, they follow the list. It's possible to break that habit (in any context), but it takes practice. I know that fans of PbtA either don't have this problem or don't care; if they did they would not be fans.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And it's gone, and good riddance. I don't mean to be flip; I agree with what you are saying. Conceptually, BB/LG had an outsized relevance to original D&D play, where the setting was a town next to a buried ruin, and direct comparisons can be made to that style of play and the PbtA limited-setting model (Dungeon World being the most obvious example).</p><p></p><p>But by AD&D's time, the books even explain that it is a catch all for feats of strength, and at that point why have a specific "move" at all when you've already got a Strength ability score? There are echoes of this idea in the Athletics skill in D&D5, in the sense that players understandably seem to want to add proficiency to every Strength check, but the proficiency specifically only impacts climbing, jumping, and swimming. Why is Strength different for boulderers, long jumpers, and swimmers, and for that matter why does being a boulderer or swimmer also make you a better long jumper?</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not a question of 'too used to,' it's a question of <em>preference</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm afraid I don't understand how you got to this conclusion from what I wrote, and I'm further confused by the fact that my understanding of PbtA is that it is not turn based, at least not in the sense that D&D is. Or do you mean sequential? Both games seem to me to be sequential, but only D&D feels turn based.</p><p></p><p>[SPOILER="For clarity, some definition of terminology from my perspective follows."]When you say turn-based, I think of D&D's encounter initiative order and player-defined actions and rolls, which tends to permeate much D&D play informally, even outside of combat (at least in my experience):</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM describes scenario</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Player describes action, rolls if necessary, and describes result</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">DM integrates outcome of result into scenario and adjudicates NPC actions, rolling if necessary</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Next player describes action...</li> </ol><p>When I say sequential, I mean PbtA's 'flow,' for lack of a better word:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM describes scenario</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Player describes action</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM defines action as a move or series of moves</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Player rolls if necessary</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">GM describes outcomes and integrates them into scenario</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Player (maybe a different player, maybe the same player) describes action...</li> </ol><p>This flow still alternates between GM and player, I suppose, but it doesn't feel turn-based, to me, because there's no "NPC turn" or expectation that another player will have a chance to act before the first player can act again. There's also no direct correlation between actions and rolls, as there is an additional GM step that determines that correlation. All of the actions are player defined, and all of the rolls are GM defined, and the scenario is modified by negotiated agreement.[/SPOILER]</p><p></p><p>I think what I "dislike" isn't either of these flows, necessarily, but rather a game in which a player's or GM's actions are defined by the system, and not exclusively by either the character or scenario, respectively.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 8941535, member: 78752"] In short, I think my problem with "moves," differentiated from simply taking a generic action that is instead defined by character development and design, is that [B]they are a strong element of specificity in an otherwise uniformly abstracted play environment.[/B] From a design perspective, I think you need to have a damn good reason for doing that, and PbtA has never convinced me of its reasons. For that matter, neither has D&D. You are right that FitD does not contain the "move" concept from a player perspective, and not from a GM perspective either, at least not in a strictly defined sense, although the GM's available actions are well-circumscribed by the requirements of the setting and campaign in a similar fashion, which is more to what I was referring. In any case, it was not a further complaint -- it helped me better visualize a bridge between D&D and this style of game. D&D4's power lists weren't really intended to limit the player either, but they do in practice, because when you give a human (even a very smart, creative human) a list, they follow the list. It's possible to break that habit (in any context), but it takes practice. I know that fans of PbtA either don't have this problem or don't care; if they did they would not be fans. And it's gone, and good riddance. I don't mean to be flip; I agree with what you are saying. Conceptually, BB/LG had an outsized relevance to original D&D play, where the setting was a town next to a buried ruin, and direct comparisons can be made to that style of play and the PbtA limited-setting model (Dungeon World being the most obvious example). But by AD&D's time, the books even explain that it is a catch all for feats of strength, and at that point why have a specific "move" at all when you've already got a Strength ability score? There are echoes of this idea in the Athletics skill in D&D5, in the sense that players understandably seem to want to add proficiency to every Strength check, but the proficiency specifically only impacts climbing, jumping, and swimming. Why is Strength different for boulderers, long jumpers, and swimmers, and for that matter why does being a boulderer or swimmer also make you a better long jumper? It's not a question of 'too used to,' it's a question of [I]preference[/I]. I'm afraid I don't understand how you got to this conclusion from what I wrote, and I'm further confused by the fact that my understanding of PbtA is that it is not turn based, at least not in the sense that D&D is. Or do you mean sequential? Both games seem to me to be sequential, but only D&D feels turn based. [SPOILER="For clarity, some definition of terminology from my perspective follows."]When you say turn-based, I think of D&D's encounter initiative order and player-defined actions and rolls, which tends to permeate much D&D play informally, even outside of combat (at least in my experience): [LIST=1] [*]DM describes scenario [*]Player describes action, rolls if necessary, and describes result [*]DM integrates outcome of result into scenario and adjudicates NPC actions, rolling if necessary [*]Next player describes action... [/LIST] When I say sequential, I mean PbtA's 'flow,' for lack of a better word: [LIST=1] [*]GM describes scenario [*]Player describes action [*]GM defines action as a move or series of moves [*]Player rolls if necessary [*]GM describes outcomes and integrates them into scenario [*]Player (maybe a different player, maybe the same player) describes action... [/LIST] This flow still alternates between GM and player, I suppose, but it doesn't feel turn-based, to me, because there's no "NPC turn" or expectation that another player will have a chance to act before the first player can act again. There's also no direct correlation between actions and rolls, as there is an additional GM step that determines that correlation. All of the actions are player defined, and all of the rolls are GM defined, and the scenario is modified by negotiated agreement.[/SPOILER] I think what I "dislike" isn't either of these flows, necessarily, but rather a game in which a player's or GM's actions are defined by the system, and not exclusively by either the character or scenario, respectively. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Drifting games, genre limitations, and fruitful voids
Top