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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8114230" data-attributes="member: 16814">You moved from my point that the moves in DW are fairly similar in kind to 5e actions to a discussion about turn order, which I don't see what connection exists here.  Your initial argument was that DW moves aren't like 5e actions in that DW moves are about "how to manage the story" and 5e is about "telling the GM how the world works."  I don't see that in your earlier post, and I don't see it in your new tangent about turn orders.  The DW moves do very similar things to 5e actions, even as there are other differences in mechanics.  I mean, GURPS handles things differently from 5e, too, but they're much closer in design than 5e and DW.  That DW is a narrative game isn't really a function of the moves, but of the principles of play -- again, there's a recent thread where DW was played in a 5e style, and it wasn't the moves that broke but the principles of play.  The distinction between the games isn't in a fundamental difference of what the tech does -- the tech resolves uncertainty.  It's the how the tech is used that's different, and that's nothing to do with the tech itself.You seem to have completely missed my point, here.  It doesn't have to do with "PROCESS."  It has to do with the meta-rules in each.  5e, while it outlines the tech and process of play, doesn't bother to tell you how you're supposed to use it.  As such, we have arguments on this board as to whether or not you should use ability checks or skill checks, even those these are very similar things.  The difference between the two is really in the meta-rule arena; in the principles of play.  And, the biggest difference between 5e and a DW or similar game (and I just finished running a session of Blades, so I have relevant experience) is not in how the tech works -- ie, the mechanical ways things are resolved -- but in how, when, and why you use the tech.  Look at ability checks versus skill checks in 5e, for instance.  Ability checks are called for by the GM when the GM determines a declared action is uncertain.  Skill checks are largely used by players to push the story forward because they don't have a sufficient handle to declare an action, or don't have sufficient confidence to declare actions not directly based on game tech (largely a risk evaluation issue).  This is a 5e relevant illustration of how a different set of principles of play result in different applications of tech within the same game.  DW has different tech, sure, but not vastly different tech.  It achieves it's narrative play because the GM is strongly constrained by the principles of play, like "play to find out what happens" or "be a fan of the PCs" or "hold on lightly."  These things inform the GM on how to use the tech to achieve the desired play.  They aren't mechanical tech, or a process, but instead meta-directions on how to use the provided mechanical tech.  If you abandon those principles of play and just use the DW tech, you end up with a mess, as evidenced recently in a thread where exactly this happened -- the GM ran DW using D&D principles of play and had lots and lots of problems.Your examples aren't very strong and don't really support your point.  The big difference really isn't that the 5e DMG doesn't say largely the same things, but that it does it more succinctly and with different language.  The "skip to the action" bits are clearly in the "middle path" suggestion of how to use the dice, just in different words.  This is repeated across all of your points.  4e isn't designed to be a narrative game.  I point to all of the printed adventures for it from WotC as proof of this assertion -- they're all pretty standard D&D adventure designs in that they feature linear storylines and set encounters with assigned DCs and suggestion possible actions.  This is what 5e adventures do as well.No, 4e gets it's ability to be run narratively by accidental design.  They aimed for one thing, but, if you're experienced enough in narrative play principles, 4e works well with those -- so long as you ignore a few things judiciously.I find that any perceived direction to be more 'open' narratively is directly countered by the advice on how to pick the relevant skills which requires pre-plotting a path through the skill challenge or anticipating PC actions, both of which run counter to narrative play principles.  4e hews closely to the traditional modes of play, but is designed (again, I argue accidentally) in a way that you can switch to narrative play principles and have good success as well.</blockquote>

Verification