Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8114204" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, we will have to agree to disagree. While Hack & Slash, as a specific move, is representing roughly the same sort of thing as D&D's 'attacks', there are huge differences. There is no 'turn structure' in DW. Combat happens in a purely narrative sense, beyond even 5e's TOTM. It is an entirely narrative process, and might potentially not even HAVE 'attacks' in any mechanical sense (there really is no mechanical sense in which they exist). So, "an orc rushes out of the darkness and attacks you!" would be a 'hard move' in DW. The first thing you would note is that there are no 'attacks' made by monsters. There is literally no move open to the GM with the label "attack character X" and the GM DOES NOT EVER ROLL DICE in PbtA games (at least not for moves, maybe there are some situations where they can roll some dice for some other purpose, like damage). As soon as the above move was made by the GM one or more of the PCs would announce their responses to this change in fiction. The thief might say "I leap into the shadows!" (hiding, Defy Danger). The dwarf lifts up his axe and yells BARUK, BARUK KAZAD! and attacks (hack and slash). The ranger might Volley with his bow. Each of these would be dealt with in sequence, and that sequence would be based on the FICTION, not on any 'turn structure' or 'combat rules' (which don't exist).The thief DDs (he's at the front), he fails, the orc delivers its damage to him with a vicious chop (GM rolls damage). Next the Dwarf and the orc collide, the dwarf manages to get a 10 with Hack and Slash, a clear success, he deals his damage to the orc, which now begins to fight with him. Meanwhile the ranger is nocking an arrow and lets fly, with some effect or other depending on what he rolls. Now, at this point the it is really up to the players, the thief could backstab, the dwarf will probably keep fighting (and if he rolls low he will take damage), etc. The GM could describe the orc as pressing the attack, or as barreling on through the party and off into the darkness in the other direction (though surely someone would have a chance to alter that with a move if they want). What I'm saying is, sure, there are moves which speak to the concerns of dungeon adventuring, fighting, negotiating, handling hazards, getting drunk in taverns, etc. but they are not specific rules ABOUT the game world, they are about fiction, and only incidentally, sometimes, get related back to some of the fairly simple mechanics of the game.well, sure, every game involves a PROCESS, but I don't agree that 5e's process isn't explicit. It is pretty well spelled out. If you read the Intro to the 5e PHB it describes HOW you play. The DM describes the situation, and the players describe their actions. The situation then evolves in a kind of 'movie like' format. That is when the PCs go from the bridge to the castle they arrive there and 'make moves' in this new location. The reason for the existence of a location is simply to be the place you next went to. It could be more or less detailed based on what the DM places there, but the situational logic is purely described as "[the characters] navigate the its hazards and decide which paths to explore." In particular Page 6 has a pretty specific 'formula' 1. The DM describes the environment 2. The players describe what they want to do. (checks may result if the it is "challenging" to complete a task). 3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions There is a lot of technical detail basically from there, leading to a discussion of 'adventures' and 'three pillars', etc. This provides a pretty detailed idea of how you would play, though I agree it is less detailed and less specifically relates actions to the goals and principles of the game than DW's rules do. Still, I don't agree that it is unstated.And again, I point out that, while 5e has specific rules which might cover something like the 'orc fire brigade', the fact is that it doesn't really provide a PROCESS for how to employ them, beyond the 1,2, 3 above. This means you really are playing at the level of "the rules simply tell you how your PC interacts with the game world" but the rules don't have a FICTION orientation. So, how does the fiction, the narrative, actually come together? D&D is quite good when you are executing specific goals, like traversing a dungeon or fighting a monster. Games like DW OTOH are much better at handling conflict and fictional position and narrative as game elements in and of themselves. So, again, D&D is a focused on 'material things' (what happens when you swing a weapon), but DW is focused on "what is the process of advancing the narrative when an orc attacks?", and has VASTLY more to say about the process of how the story got to that point, in terms of why, and even how it is organized and run as a story, and not as simply a description of locations and character actions.5e sort of cursorily addresses the later at times, but not in an organized fashion. There are the character traits you can generate for your PC, but there's not really a framework for how to apply them systematically to the narrative.I think that 4e isn't entirely coherently a story game, and that is understandable, as it would be a really radical departure from the game's roots. That being said, it is more clearly in that camp than you may be appreciating! Note some of the wordings, even in the PHB (which seems less decidedly 'story game' in its descriptions than the DMG is). Here are some quotes:"[your character] is also one of the protagonists in a living, evolving story line. Like the hero of any fantasy novel or film, he or she has ambitions..." PHB P18. Right away 4e, in contrast with 5e, talks about the player's input to the narrative in an active role:"[the DM] can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected" PHB P6. and then "[the adventure] is like a fantasy movie or novel exception the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the story." which at least implies that STORY is the central element of the game. Beyond that, I agree, the PHB doesn't mostly read a lot different from, say, 5e. At least potentially the 4e PHB could simply be read as classic D&D rules. Now, when you get into the DMG, things are a bit different..."[the DM] doesn't want the player characters to fail any more than the other players do. [...] The DM's goal is to make success taste its sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead."There is also a discussion of the type of fiction being generated on DMG PP12-13. There is an interesting point made on PP21 which is returned to several more times "Gloss over the mundane, unexciting details and get back to the heroic action as quickly as possible."Comparing the 4e and 5e DMGs one is instantly struck by the differences. 5e's DMG spends 6 pages at the start on all aspects of how to play, story, etc. and then dives right into world building and rules discussion. 4e's spends over 20 pages here, and then seems much more interested in 'story' from there on, rarely delving into rules territory at all until around page 40. Chapter 5 "Noncombat Encounters" really does get into new territory. It explains that SCs are primarily about "goal and context." Now, beyond "Say Yes" and "skip to the action" there isn't a TON of very specific concrete story game process here. So you, again, CAN take 4e's description as classic D&D, but the problem is a lot of the game just doesn't make that much sense that way. It is MUCH more 'process oriented' in how it presents material, and which things it focuses on. I REALLY think the authors of the DMG, certainly, had a sort of narrative process play in mind, certainly at times. I think there's editing and presentation things that work against it, but the subtext really is there, it isn't just something people made up. One of the reasons I see this clearly is that I wasn't particularly cognizant of the principles of this type of play, and hadn't run/played many RPGs for a few years during the 3e era. So 4e actually TAUGHT me to play this way. I didn't import some expectation from some other game, it showed me what it wanted. This really is at least one possible way that the game wants to be played!Right, I don't think that the SC system per-se is perfect. I think it was actually sort of a compromise. Something like that was required, but it had to pass muster with the 'Gygaxian' crowd (which includes several D&D game designers who worked on 4e and clearly were not interested in story gaming). DMG2 really opens things up though, it is even MUCH more explicit about the focus on narrative and using the rules as a narrative building process. I often wish that they had been bold enough to really fully take the step of going with it from the start and very explicitly describing the game in those terms. Positioned the mechanics as "tools for describing the narrative" as opposed to so often falling back into the "wargame zone" of describing them as adjudication of game world techniques. It was so close, and yet what 4e really proves is you better not take half measures. Make sure your game is all one thing or all another thing and not some sort of in-between muddle.</blockquote>

Verification