Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7588978" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is interesting.I don't think there's anything contentious in your description of DW! And I tend to approach most RPGs that way because it's my preferred approach (and I avoid RPGs that probably won't work with it) - at the moment I've got active Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, BW, Cortex+ Heroic, Dying Earth and 4e campaigns that use some or other variant on this general approach. (And yes, too many active campaigns relative to time available!)I think that the way you characterise 5e as being similar might be more contentious (not to say it's wrong, but may be not universal), and I'm curious to see what response you might get. For instance,   [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach seems to require the GM establishing key elements of the fiction (like, to stick with the toy example that's been kicked around a bit, the presence o the door knob of the viscous fluid that's a contact poison). I see his approach as, in many ways, quite close to a classic Gygaxian "skilled play" approach. But if I'm in error here I'll await correction!(For full disclosure, I'm not a 5e guy but I saw this thread was started by   [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], and I'm always interested in S'mon's ideas about RPGing, which is why I dropped into it.)EDIT: After replying to your (Elfcrusher's) post I saw this post which I think relates to my point. Quoting it isn't meant to be combative or trying to drive any wedges, but rather to try and identify some of these differences in approach which give each table it's own "flavour" of RPGing.The idea of an action logically having a chance of success, or failure, seems to me to require that the in-fiction context already be established at least to some significant degree. Whereas in DW, say, the chance of failure is imposed by way of a "metagame" logic: at key moments the system demands a check to find out what happens, and "failure" can be anything from literal un-success to some adverse development that (in ingame causal terms) is unrelated to the action actually performed by the PC, depending on context, details and the GM's imagination and inclinations. And in this sort of way (plus narration forced by successes, too) the fiction is built up out of these chances of success and failure.And another, further thought: I guess a group could try and play DW so as to avoid making moves as much as possible and try to get the GM to "say 'yes'" instead, but I'm not 100% sure how that would work, and to me it would look like a very atypical and perhaps even degenerate instance of DW play. Whereas I don't think that there's anything degenerate about what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] describes (and thus, for instance, don't agree with those who say it "devalues" PC build choices).</blockquote>

Verification