Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8999469" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I mean, sure, I'm just using the PbtA game I have the most experience with. Though I would say some of them are more hard-coded than others. Dungeon World is pretty flexible, but Monsterhearts and Masks are a lot more focused. You can break them out more, e.g., it's pretty clear the aforementioned SCUP draws on Monsterhearts, what with the sex moves, but the emphasis on factions and intrigue is new. But I wouldn't call them quite as open-ended because their premises ("Teen Wolf: the RPG" and "Teen Titans: The RPG") are narrower from the start.If the flexibility is intended to look only at overall concept/premise, then D&D is as open-ended as any fantasy-and/or-sci-fi game, because "fantasy" is about as specific as "imagination" and "sci-fi" is only more specific because it needs to have specifically technology of some kind (but it can be totally background, so even that's weak.)I had assumed the emphasis was on mechanical flexibility, since...well, concept flexibility doesn't really have any game design in it. And I've found D&D is very mechanically inflexible. I mentioned Skill Challenges earlier because they're a rare breath of fresh air in this sense. D&D magic: hard-coded to work in specific ways, and you're on your own for figuring out how to make more, because there are few to no truly consistent rules (e.g., damage numbers? Broken by several traditional spells. Utility effects? Completely all over the map. Etc.)Whereas, in my DW game, when I wanted to develop a new magic system for the Battlemaster in our party, it was as simple as creating a new Compendium Class with an appropriate already-met trigger move (in this case, "When you have been touched by the dark essence of a fallen spirit") and then filling it with interesting moves.Looking at more recent comments, I definitely don't understand the claim that DW is less flexible within a single session. Defy Danger is literally flexible enough to cover anything where the character is acting despite some major difficulty: one move, flexible enough to cover "saving face in front of the Duchess after a social faux pas," "wrasslin' with a kraken trying to pull you under," "dancing out of the way of a ray if burning acid," "holding your breath long enough to run through the cloud of hallucinogenic smoke so you can escape the burning alchemist's shop," and many, many more. Physically attacking in any way that requires slinging a weapon? Hack & Slash. Using any kind of ranged attack? Volley. Protecting something? Defend. Etc.The only place it isn't instantly flexible is if you want to do something that feels like it should have a more specific or detailed move, but none are ready to hand. Spell research, for example, feels like it could (even should) be much more in-depth than a mere Spout Lore, but no such move by default exists. So, let me draft one. I will time myself for doing so.14 minutes, 51.13 seconds. And that was all on my phone, while adding in the niceties like the eight-pointed star glyph and wrangling the absolutely infuriating mobile interface for formatting stuff.If, in the slowest entry method I have, I can draft a new move in only 15 minutes, that should work pretty much perfectly fine, how exactly is this game poor at within-session flexibility? Or is this yet another "well it actually means three things, let's subdivide even further" thing?I have no problem calling early efforts at something terrible, if it be warranted, even if they were the only option feasible at the time. The Model-T was pretty much hot garbage by modern standards, and I don't mean for creature comforts. Its brakes were awful, the windshield was either one or two panes of flat glass (which caused a lot of injuries and deaths in crashes), the manual engine crank was awful to work with, and in the initial decade of its run, most of them had oil lamps instead of electric ones. It was still one of the best cars money could buy, and despite prioritizing cheap construction, was quite durable, and much less picky about fuel than other cars of the day.You can say similar things about all sorts of stuff. Early cell phones were terrible, but if you needed to receive calls while moving, those ugly, boxy, limited things were irreplaceable. Early genetic engineering (indeed, so early we hadn't discovered DNA yet in some cases) involved literally irradiating things to see if any interesting mutations developed. Early glow-in-the-dark watches used radium paint for their glow, which I think we can all agree is a terrible way to get glowing numbers on a watch dial!Point being: early efforts may be extremely important, may change the world, may be utterly irreplaceable in their day, may even be worthy of praise to this very day for what they accomplished...but may still be terrible products and/or the result of terrible methods.Modern takes on classic games (e.g. Dungeon Crawl Classics) almost always introduce significant innovation to improve upon the old formula, and some of these innovations are quite clever. I mention DCC specifically because of its brilliant "funnel" concept; I don't know if they invented it or just popularized it, but either way, it's an excellent solution to an otherwise major impediment to playing early editions, namely the amount of time it takes to get to characters that actually have a chance of surviving for a while. Such concerns were less relevant in fhe 70s, but it's been nearly 50 years, things have changed and a snappier entry path is hugely important for keeping this style of play active with younger generations.And, on that note, I want to be clear about separating the rules by which you achieve something from the style of play one pursues. Old school is more than just D&D, it must be, since it covers so many systems and many of them share nothing beyond an ethos (well, and being TTRPGs.) There is nothing wrong with the style of classic D&D. But man, its rules can so easily get in its own way! I consider that the most straightforward definition of bad design. Having a clear ethos is necessary for doing design in the first place, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent. Making rules which get in the way of achieving the ethos for which they were designed is pretty clearly bad design. The purpose of a car is to drive; a design element of that car which often seriously impairs its ability to drive without giving more value than it takes away (be it safety, aesthetics, efficiency, utility, whatever) is an example of bad car design. A car which contains a lot of such elements is badly designed. Likewise, if a game has a clear design ethos, a purpose for which it was built, then rules which frequently hinder that purpose and do not give back enough alternative value are bad rules, and a system which contains a lot of such rules is badly designed. Doesn't matter what the ethos was or whether it was meant to be tinkered with; saying "it's meant to be altered" is no excuse for selling a sloppy jalopy as a brand-new car.</blockquote>

Verification