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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8114486" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I think what you call 'meta' is what I call 'process'. I don't draw a distinction between 'game' and 'meta game', that is a very 'Gygaxian' classic early RPG sort of position (though it has certainly hung in there amongst a crowd which includes a lot of people here). Thus I don't see the difference as so much one of principles of play and such as it is a straightforward difference in tool sets. DW does not have a combat section in its rules. It doesn't talk about resolving fights and what happens in fights, except incidentally as it may be an example of 'dangerous situations'. It does provide 3 moves, 2 of which are totally combat specific (defend can be applied in a few other situations). So it COVERS combat, given that it is a significant class of activities, but "resolving combat" is not one of the processes of DW. Advancing a narrative, including combat narratives, IS. Note again that there are no distinctions in its rules process for combat/social/exploring, etc. They are all moves. The only difference is which move might be relevant in a given situation. This is entirely different from 5e where there are things "the rules don't cover" or where a distinct 'check' system is used which is different from combat. The 5e combat rules are specifically discussed as providing resolution of what happens when you swing a sword, etc. DW simply says "describe what you do" and then some move or other will be mapped onto that. Nobody in DW would say "I go hack and slash on the orc!" This is not because of 'principles', it is because that isn't the PROCESS OF PLAY! You say "I want to hurt the orc with my sword" and yes, that maps pretty directly onto Hack and Slash, but that is only one case. You could easily decide that retreating from the orc uses Defy Danger, etc. In 5e you would specifically call out rules you are using, "I'm swinging my sword at the orc." or "I disengage from the Orc." These would invoke specific other rules, like maybe OAs, triggering the use of class abilities, etc. Note how this all happens in a turn order, which simulates a strict advancement of time. DW has no concept of time. The fiction advances, maybe a little bit, maybe a lot, it just depends on what moves are made. It may well be that only one PC will even take moves in a combat in DW, and there is no rule about who gets to do what, when. The narrative and logic of DM moves is entirely in charge of that.</p><p>Now, maybe you see some principles being in charge, but I think that example of "playing DW like 5e" is MECHANICALLY FLAWED, and I could point out specific places where the rules of DW were broken. If its rules were followed, the game would PERFORCE be a story game, it could not be otherwise (Admittedly, the principles exist for a reason, I'm not denigrating them, but their purpose is more to make the game work WELL and break people of their 'Gygaxian' habits vs being what makes the game itself mechanically work).</p><p></p><p>I think it is less accidental than you do, much less. We agree, it CAN be read either way. As I said, I think this was kind of necessary, the story game advocates don't seem to have had absolute sway, or probably even the most say in what got included and the exact wording. Pity. Anyway, you can come play HoML sometime and see how you would take those principles and design elements of 4e and go all the way with it <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8114486, member: 82106"] I think what you call 'meta' is what I call 'process'. I don't draw a distinction between 'game' and 'meta game', that is a very 'Gygaxian' classic early RPG sort of position (though it has certainly hung in there amongst a crowd which includes a lot of people here). Thus I don't see the difference as so much one of principles of play and such as it is a straightforward difference in tool sets. DW does not have a combat section in its rules. It doesn't talk about resolving fights and what happens in fights, except incidentally as it may be an example of 'dangerous situations'. It does provide 3 moves, 2 of which are totally combat specific (defend can be applied in a few other situations). So it COVERS combat, given that it is a significant class of activities, but "resolving combat" is not one of the processes of DW. Advancing a narrative, including combat narratives, IS. Note again that there are no distinctions in its rules process for combat/social/exploring, etc. They are all moves. The only difference is which move might be relevant in a given situation. This is entirely different from 5e where there are things "the rules don't cover" or where a distinct 'check' system is used which is different from combat. The 5e combat rules are specifically discussed as providing resolution of what happens when you swing a sword, etc. DW simply says "describe what you do" and then some move or other will be mapped onto that. Nobody in DW would say "I go hack and slash on the orc!" This is not because of 'principles', it is because that isn't the PROCESS OF PLAY! You say "I want to hurt the orc with my sword" and yes, that maps pretty directly onto Hack and Slash, but that is only one case. You could easily decide that retreating from the orc uses Defy Danger, etc. In 5e you would specifically call out rules you are using, "I'm swinging my sword at the orc." or "I disengage from the Orc." These would invoke specific other rules, like maybe OAs, triggering the use of class abilities, etc. Note how this all happens in a turn order, which simulates a strict advancement of time. DW has no concept of time. The fiction advances, maybe a little bit, maybe a lot, it just depends on what moves are made. It may well be that only one PC will even take moves in a combat in DW, and there is no rule about who gets to do what, when. The narrative and logic of DM moves is entirely in charge of that. Now, maybe you see some principles being in charge, but I think that example of "playing DW like 5e" is MECHANICALLY FLAWED, and I could point out specific places where the rules of DW were broken. If its rules were followed, the game would PERFORCE be a story game, it could not be otherwise (Admittedly, the principles exist for a reason, I'm not denigrating them, but their purpose is more to make the game work WELL and break people of their 'Gygaxian' habits vs being what makes the game itself mechanically work). I think it is less accidental than you do, much less. We agree, it CAN be read either way. As I said, I think this was kind of necessary, the story game advocates don't seem to have had absolute sway, or probably even the most say in what got included and the exact wording. Pity. Anyway, you can come play HoML sometime and see how you would take those principles and design elements of 4e and go all the way with it ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top