Okay, you're going to have to explain what privilege is implicated here and how that would work, because don't see how noting some games have principles that are part of the rules to play that game and some don't implicates any kind of privilege.
It suggests that games that place their principals heavily on one kind of output here are somehow different in kind and result than those that don't. I don't think that even follows from acknowledging there's a difference in their priorities. Further, associating them with D&D suggests that some of these games are more like D&D than Dungeon World is, which is, at best, a bit of a reach.
Secondly, D&D started the hobby, and the idea of rules as suggestions started with D&D at the same time. So when I say "D&D-born" I literally mean "born with D&D." That, near 50 years on, the market is different really doesn't speak at all to what I was saying. I'm honestly confused with this argument.
I'm arguing that Dungeon World is as D&D-inspired in any general meaning as any number of non PbtA games. D&D, among other things, at one time had no particular expectation that the GM would direct things toward a "story" than does PbtA. That was a relatively latter-day evolution. In that respects, games that actively direct things toward a story are as alien to OD&D as anything in PbtA is, just in a different direction. As such, calling them "D&D-born" either understates the influence on both or overstates the influence on one.
Well, yeah, it was an example, not an exhaustive list.
D&D is, by itself, most of the hobby by volume. If you instead look at individual systems instead of popularity, it's not so clear cut. We can take a pretty solid Trad game, Alien for instance. This game is strongly Trad but has clearly stated principles of play, ones that would work for 5e very well. You are intended to run the game with those principles. That's the intended play. You can, of course, ignore them because there are no RPG police ensuring compliance with game texts. But noting that you can is a weak argument because it doesn't at all imply you should, or that there's gain to doing so. Also, pointing out that some group of people like total chaos is unpersuasive to the argument, because as a matter of game design you are not considering the people that will ignore your design -- what would be the point?
Its not an argument that people like total chaos; its an argument that even among people who play games with avowed principals, only a limited subset consider sticking to those under all circumstances compelling. And that becomes more and more true the farther away you get from a game with a more specific play-cycle intention. There are going to be plenty of people who buy Apocalypse World to run games in a post-apocalypse setting; to the degree staying within its intended principals serve their needs, they'll do so, and to the extent it doesn't, they won't. Any assumption that the majority of people will not ignore your design at least some of the time is a misperception of how games are treated by the majority of people--as tools to an end. And its anything but clear that's a failure of process as long as they mostly get the result they want out of it.
As an example in point, maybe they're using Apocalypse World because they want the relative simplicity, the die range and the making-things-snowball elements, and no one could really care less about the player facing nature of the rules. If so, they'll ignore the latter without a qualm and probably get just what they want out of it.
I guess what I really don't like about your post here is that it's echoing common arguments used to say that system doesn't matter. And that's a valid viewpoint, but it rests on the assumption that it doesn't matter what system you use because the actual system used is going to be GM Says.
Not my argument at all. At worst you could reframe my argument as "Tools are used as they're used." I consider the hobby full of people using the wrong tool for the job they're trying for (if you search for the phrase "You can pound nails with a wrench" you'd probably find my name pop up more than once), but its also full of people using systems in ways absolutely not intended who get good value out of it. The issue is how much thinking the end user has done with what he wants the rules to do and what set he chooses for that purpose, not what the designer of those rules thought would and should be done with it. But that does not mean I think every use of rules does that.
(That said, as an aside, for people genuinely dedicated to "rulings not rules", rules usually don't matter, because all they're using them for is a framework to hang their decision making on them. In extreme cases, they could probably just have people write down a summary of their character concept and roll some die set when questions of success came and adjucate it from their internal model and understanding of the characters and the situation and move on. This is about as far away from what I want that you can't even see it from there, but its clearly result that is both desirable and functional to some people).
It's arguing for a system (GM Says) while dismissing all other systems. And yes, GM Says as a system concept is very basic, but I guess that's it's appeal. I don't share anything at all with people who prefer 'system doesn't matter.' If system matters, then all things about that system matter and should be fairly considered.
Whereas I think system quite matters, but that does not make it unitary in how high a priority it is in what you're doing. Among other things, to make that true requires a fair more schematic system than I want to be in play for it to apply 100% of the time and work properly.
I really don't get "try playing the game as it was designed" to be "all or nothing" and something said that isn't "serv[ing] the discussion well." The set of assumptions for that to be true are pretty tortured, and it's pretty much assuming that this take is in bad faith.
No, it assumes that there's no meaningful middle ground here that is defensible. That requires people to defend specific positions they do not share because of the excluded middle. I am not a fan of a take on running a game that considers mechanics simply a tool of convenience, but neither am I going to be in the corner with assuming they cannot be ignored when they aren't serving the game and players purpose, either.
www.dndbeyond.com
