Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7096519" data-attributes="member: 16586">I fail to see how the player moves of a game like Apocalypse World are in any way more constraining than the combat rules, stealth rules, spells, and special abilities of a game like Dungeons and Dragons. Right now I am currently playing in an occasional 5th Edition game with friends. I am playing a Tiefling Valor Bard with Vicious Mockery, Friends, Thaumaturgy, Bardic Inspiration, Charm Person, Cure Wounds, Sleep, and Identify. All these abilities are binding mechanisms with teeth that tell you what happens when you succeed and when you fail. Sleep does not even have a saving throw. All of these things can be used when I choose. I do not even have to establish fictional positioning to do so. They also tend to be more specific in their ability to affect the fiction than most player moves in Apocalypse World.What there is a lack of in a game like Dungeons and Dragons is a lack of mechanisms with teeth to affect non-physical changes in the fiction from both the player and GM sides of the equation through mundane means. This is one of the classic Walled Off Gardens in most mainstream games I was talking about upthread. In this regard both 5th Edition and 4th Edition are much better than most other editions.Let's take a look at a situation where a Dungeon World GM actually has far more flexibility in their ability to affect change in the fiction than the same GM would in 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons - Combat.So when the player of a fighter wants to smack a Dragon with their great sword in 5th Edition they need to establish they are within reach of the Dragon. They do so through detailed movement rates and the action economy. They can than take an action to make one or more attacks. When they do so they make an attack roll against the Dragon's AC listed in a detailed stat block prepared by the GM. If they succeed they roll their damage expression. The GM subtracts that damage from the listed hit points. If the player failed in their roll all that happens is they fail to effect the fiction. There are zero consequences for doing so. To effect the player character the GM must take an attack action based on the details of the stat block they have prepared. If they are successful against the player's AC they do damage. If they are not nothing happens in the fiction. Everything is finely controlled. There is no need for judgment calls because the system takes care of everything for you.When a fighter wants to smack a Dragon with their great sword in Dungeon World first they must be given the opportunity to act by the GM because there is no action economy in place. Then they must establish fictional positioning that indicates they are able to hurt the Dragon. They do so by explaining in detail what they are doing and why it means they can hurt the Dragon. This is subject to GM judgment.  Often to get in a position where they can affect the Dragon a Defy Danger roll will be necessary. Once they successfully establish their ability to hurt the Dragon they can make the player move Hack and Slash. On a 10+ the fighter hurts the dragon and suffers no repercussions. On a 7-9 we get an exchange of blows. On a miss the GM gets to make as hard a move as they like. That might mean I separate them by having the dragon pick up the character with his teeth and fly off. It might mean I explain the consequences and give them a hard choice as them lurching forward give the Dragon on opportunity to go after one of the other PCs. It might just mean they get a nasty gash from the Dragon's claws.Yes, Dungeon World places constraints on the GM. Yes, Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition also places constraints on the GM. We become so used to the constraints we normally operate under that we fail to see them, both when it comes to mechanics and when it comes to the social layer.When I play 5e I am constrained by the action economy, detailed physical positioning, lack of meaningful social influence unless the GM or other players explicitly allow it, rules and a social contract that sometimes obfuscate fictional positioning, social contracts which discourage playing too hard, the social impact of long campaigns that sometimes make playing really hard untenable, and a social contract where I am not a peer with the GM. I am emboldened by the action economy, combat and stealth rules, very explicit spells and special abilities, respect for individual creativity, and a social contract that mandates the GM to provide for my fun.  When I play Apocalypse World I am constrained more meaningfully by fictional positioning, have no action economy to fall back on, must deal with social influence mechanics from other players and the GM, a social contract that favors vigorous active collaboration over individual creativity, rules that require active use of fictional positioning, a social contract that favors playing as hard as possible, expectations that are placed on me, my fellow players, and the GM. I am emboldened by clear fictional positioning, social influence mechanisms I can rely on, a collaborative and competitive atmosphere, the ability to clearly speak to my personal concerns with the entire group, being able to call for do overs when things were unclear, and clear social expectations.When I run mainstream games I am constrained by a less clear social contract, an expectation of story advocacy, a need to provide for the other players, a need to world build and prepare encounters and stat blocks, rules I cannot trust, having to provide clarity to the proceedings, a need to design mystery, overly procedural combat rules, the burdens of authority, and having to have everything filtered through me. I am emboldened to take a more active hand, express my individual creativity, design specific encounters, not being constrained by mundane social influence or the fiction as established, amongst other things.When I run Apocalypse World I am constrained by meaningful social influence with teeth, the established fiction, the expectation of character advocacy and curious exploration of the fiction, and the expectation that I will actively challenge the players, not softball, and advocate for the fiction. I am emboldened by the expectation that everyone will take an active interest and involve them with everyone else's stuff because they have a say, the expectation of constructive criticism, the expectation that players will actively bring it and not play passively, the lack of expected group play, really not knowing what is going to happen, real tension and social risks, mechanics that reward character advocacy, and the expectation that we can choose to step outside the rules together rather than that being my decision to make.I am not saying you have to like the constraints that apply in other games that do not apply in Dungeons and Dragons. I am not saying you have to find the expectations that it brings as being particularly constraining to you. I do expect acknowledgement that when I say I find them constraining much of the time I am being authentic, and that when I say I find these other games socially freeing and flexible I am also being authentic. Games constrain social behavior to get us to act in ways we would not naturally act. That is what they do. I value this.I have never said that 5th Edition and other mainstream games are bad or inflexible. We can always choose to step outside the rules and expected social conventions in any game. Mainstream games place all that power in the hands of the GM. The social contract for the games I most prefer makes that a group decision because we are all social peers. If we do not like the way something played out we simply revise or change the rules rather than manipulating things behind the screen. It's about GM flexibility vs. group flexibility. I simply prefer a different sort of social contract and trust model than some other posters.When I play games I generally do not want to be provided for or provide for others. I want everyone to advocate for their own interests in genuine ways through vigorous and sometimes contentious collaboration. I want to be emboldened to play a game boldly. I want real tension even when I am running a game. This is no way more narrow or specific than other sorts of games. Different constraints, both mechanically and socially - not more constraints.</blockquote>

Verification