Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9310513" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hang on. I agree with you, it REALLY should be made clearly an 'editorial you', but if they're misinterpreting basic stuff that is explained on page 4, and again on page 8, then WTF? The diagram on p9 is pretty clear (as is the accompanying text on page 8) You start in FREE PLAY, which includes Gather Information, Choose a Target, and Choose a Plan (but this is FREE PLAY, there isn't a specific order or structure to this, it is simply scenes organized around characters, actions, and consequences). THEN there's an engagement roll. This is not obtuse, it doesn't require careful reading of the book or picking carefully through text, it is on a par with the stuff at the start of the PHB in 5e.I'm simply asking the question because, frankly, it gets old talking to people who first state they have read, played, and thus have a claimed familiarity with a game, and then IMMEDIATELY they say things that contradict the introductory text of said game and form its most basic rules! So I will say it a different way, read the first 10 pages of the BitD rule book PDF (I assume the paging and such is the same in printed versions, if such a thing even exists). What else is one to say? If the only way to be a 'good community' is to tell people that didn't read the book that you're sorry you recommended such an obviously crappy game and how could we have done that, well, you will be disappointed. People are not required to like the game, but if they make factual statements about it that are incorrect, they will be incorrect, and probably corrected. Such is life!OK, then maybe they have bad reading comprehension??!! I don't know how else to respond, except the assertion was trivially dispelled by my reading the FIRST FOUR PAGES OF THE RULE BOOK. OK?I don't actually know them, and I don't really spend a huge amount of my time dwelling on lots of game forums. So, you could be correct that they don't play the way we do, but IME fronts are an important tool! They work! Now, maybe the authors have developed some other techniques, great. Fronts work, they work really well, and IME a game without them is flat and suffers from a rather static and uninteresting setting. Fronts are a point of attachment for GM prep, and a fairly structured way to control its introduction (IE by using Dooms and associated grim portents). I know that AW 2e doesn't talk about fronts, it talks about threat maps and clocks. That's fine, but IME AW is a much more 'in-your-face' game where stuff is whizzing in at you from various angles. There's not really some sort of overarching 'thing' going on, and stuff doesn't hang out there, gradually materializing for long. DW is a little more strategic and it is more amenable to stuff unfolding over time. So IMHO DW is more suited to fronts (they also work pretty well as a way to populate adventure locations, another thing that isn't prevalent in AW).No, I am just genuinely puzzled and slightly nonplussed when people describe so many instances of 'facts' that seem to contradict what I can plainly read. On the topic of fronts specifically, I don't know, maybe you have techniques of which I am ignorant. I don't know, but I would strongly counsel people wanting to run DW to build some fronts (after session 1).I'm not 'condemning' people, but I am asking in a somewhat pointed way why they think they know what they think they know, when again considerably parts of it evaporate when you read page 4 through 8 of BitD. We can discuss opinions about fronts, but I can tell you they are alive and well and being used successfully in many places by people running DW... If you don't use them, you DO need to do something equivalent, IME. Finally, it is obviously fine to alter a game, but do understand it! Again, 95% of the things I see posted by people are crazy, it gets very tiresome.</blockquote>

Verification