Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8993773" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the difference here is in what we really consider to be meaningful hacks. I mean, sure, you can make up an infinite set of spells, monsters, classes, items, and even stand-alone subsystems that handle specific situations (lE one for logistics during overland travel/exploration) but I don't think those are really all that meaningfully changing the RANGE of things you can do with D&D. They might make certain specific activities easier, or more compatible with a certain desired play style, but they're on the order of coats of paint, or fancy rims, if you compared them to customizing cars, say. When I say I see little reason to believe that D&D is highly flexible, I mean something a bit more significant than that, like playing a narrative form game. Now, I don't think Dungeon World is going to play Trad very well either, it isn't very good for that. OTOH I'd say that the sort of hacking you seem to be suggesting, new classes and such, is no harder in DW than in 5e. Likewise if you were wanting to take either game and translate it into an entirely different genre, either game might work, though the sheet number of highly variable PbtA games might tell us which 'engine' is really easier to do that with (though again, each one will produce different games, so its not to say one should be preferred, but one is probably easier to do).I think its safe to say that the range of play you will get out of Fiasco is pretty specific. Each game can vary a lot, but within a pretty narrow range. More narrow than most games. I think that allows it to be pretty much a 'complete' game.I think D&D is extremely good at presenting 'canned stories'. It basically does 'neo-classic' play pretty darn well! You delve into the 'dungeon levels' (they can be anything analogous to a dungeon) and there you go. I believe the AP Descent into Avernus is a perfect illustration. Some have called the framing 'heavy-handed' but I don't look at it that way. It is delivering exactly what the majority of the D&D audience is after, a straightforward 'delve'. You can spend 13 whole levels just basically focused on one huge adventure. Yeah, the rules are a bit rough about how PCs get past obstacles, but the most obvious approach is going to perform OK when the scenarios are fairly simple and just aimed at mostly 'exciting moments' of play.I mean, that's fine, I've already proposed reasons, and within the context of this thread, allocation of all authority to the GM is actually one of them. Its easy to understand, and as long as the GM understands that the object is fun for everyone at the table, it should work out for the sorts of basic story scenarios outlined above. Heck, the actual PLOT of the story can get quite involved, as long as narrative structure is simple. 5e pretty much guarantees that with how it presents narrative.</blockquote>

Verification