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 LIVE! 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
Dungeon World and Social Conflict
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7931628" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Some, but ultimately I'm still a bit concerned. Of course, principled application can smooth over rough spots, but I'll be honest that I'm uncertain about application from just the Move presentations. I think, maybe, that my sticking point is that I'm unclear on the requirements, here. It really seems like a development of mechanics that do a thing without a clear statement of the thing to be done other than wanting to improve the space. I'm not sure that these options really improve the space so much as be clever rules. This is exacerbated by the fact that they seem to require a good deal of GM principle to make work -- or, as I like to call it, driving around the potholes. </p><p></p><p>Honestly, though, I think it's good enough to take for a drive, but I'd like to see some concrete high-level statements about what play this is supposed to engender so there's good traceability from the actual play back to the design intent. I think you have reasonable design intent, but it's not clearly stated in a way that allows data from play to be mapped back to the design intent through the mechanics. Like, "this happened, and that meets/frustrates the design intent because X mechanic behaved in Y way during play," or, "I had to do B because mechanic A introduced unwanted outcomes in opposition to design goal C." Maybe it's the engineer in me looking for requirements traceability, but I think it holds for gaming. I'm still kicking around an essay about bringing system engineering concepts to game design and talking about process at multiple levels in game play and game design. Games are, after all, systems. Regardless, I applaud your efforts here and hope everything I'm saying is taken as constructive.</p><p></p><p>Thinking on it more (which happens sometimes while I'm writing), it occurs to me that there's a lot of overlap in your proposition. As you know, we already have Discern Realities for finding things out, but Consort primarily does exactly the same thing. And Spout Lore has some overlap as well. The real new 'tech' here is the introduction of Argue and Threaten. I don't really see anything new about Consort outside of a reframing of holds and triggers, and, with Consort so tightly tied to Sway, Sway is just Argue with a Consort beforehand. I'd think about streamlining your efforts here and maybe just adding Argue and Threaten. Maybe roll Consort into something like Beguile, as a different effort from Argue. Then we have "poke around and find something out" still as Discern Realities, we have 'convince the my argument is right" as Argue, we have 'browbeat them into accepting my wants' as Threaten, and we have 'seduce them into following my lead' as Consort or Beguile. </p><p></p><p>I think these map better at a high level to get to what social conflicts are about and how we usually address them -- logic, threats, or seduction. All are bolstered by knowing more about the desires of your opponents, which is where Spout and Discern live, as they already occupy those spots. I don't think muddying the waters of how you find things out in game is worthwhile. If you need to do anything, add some social conflict holds to Spout and Discern rather than building a social version of them. And Sway is really just Argue with a kicker from Consort.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7931628, member: 16814"] Some, but ultimately I'm still a bit concerned. Of course, principled application can smooth over rough spots, but I'll be honest that I'm uncertain about application from just the Move presentations. I think, maybe, that my sticking point is that I'm unclear on the requirements, here. It really seems like a development of mechanics that do a thing without a clear statement of the thing to be done other than wanting to improve the space. I'm not sure that these options really improve the space so much as be clever rules. This is exacerbated by the fact that they seem to require a good deal of GM principle to make work -- or, as I like to call it, driving around the potholes. Honestly, though, I think it's good enough to take for a drive, but I'd like to see some concrete high-level statements about what play this is supposed to engender so there's good traceability from the actual play back to the design intent. I think you have reasonable design intent, but it's not clearly stated in a way that allows data from play to be mapped back to the design intent through the mechanics. Like, "this happened, and that meets/frustrates the design intent because X mechanic behaved in Y way during play," or, "I had to do B because mechanic A introduced unwanted outcomes in opposition to design goal C." Maybe it's the engineer in me looking for requirements traceability, but I think it holds for gaming. I'm still kicking around an essay about bringing system engineering concepts to game design and talking about process at multiple levels in game play and game design. Games are, after all, systems. Regardless, I applaud your efforts here and hope everything I'm saying is taken as constructive. Thinking on it more (which happens sometimes while I'm writing), it occurs to me that there's a lot of overlap in your proposition. As you know, we already have Discern Realities for finding things out, but Consort primarily does exactly the same thing. And Spout Lore has some overlap as well. The real new 'tech' here is the introduction of Argue and Threaten. I don't really see anything new about Consort outside of a reframing of holds and triggers, and, with Consort so tightly tied to Sway, Sway is just Argue with a Consort beforehand. I'd think about streamlining your efforts here and maybe just adding Argue and Threaten. Maybe roll Consort into something like Beguile, as a different effort from Argue. Then we have "poke around and find something out" still as Discern Realities, we have 'convince the my argument is right" as Argue, we have 'browbeat them into accepting my wants' as Threaten, and we have 'seduce them into following my lead' as Consort or Beguile. I think these map better at a high level to get to what social conflicts are about and how we usually address them -- logic, threats, or seduction. All are bolstered by knowing more about the desires of your opponents, which is where Spout and Discern live, as they already occupy those spots. I don't think muddying the waters of how you find things out in game is worthwhile. If you need to do anything, add some social conflict holds to Spout and Discern rather than building a social version of them. And Sway is really just Argue with a kicker from Consort. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Dungeon World and Social Conflict
Top