NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6478525" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Just going to heap all of these together and then post thoughts.  Pemerton has the right of it 100 % in how a stealth conflict is framed and mechanically adjudicated in DW (Defy Danger - typically Dex).  Further, I think he has the right of it in how 5e and Dungeon World are quite different in (a) their guiding ethos, (b) their base chassis/engine, and (c) the actual play experience that comes forth from the synthesis of a and b (and a few other components).  Dungeon World has a very specific formula (which, unlike much of D&D, it doesn't deviate from) and a construct built specifically to support it.  It doesn't have task resolution that requires GM adjudication by way of referencing "quasi-process-sim" components, with tight zoom and specificity (such as lighting, LoS, the precise establishment of where some objects are relative to each other in terms of measurable units, etc).  Further, it doesn't suffer compounded tension when those then interface with other system components that may be abstracted (possibly with respect to both space and time - both of which do heavy lifting and bear precise unit relevance in their codification within much of D&D's mechanics/build components for an adventuring day/encounter) far outside of that initial zoom and specificity of the first component (s) that also must be referenced/considered. *  And then the whole thing must be ruled upon in a way that respects PC build components that may be given short-shrift or may be rendered overpowered if the ruling is one way or another.  DW has PC moves, GM moves, some modern gaming tech (such as keywords which assist in getting folks to roughly share the same mentally conjured position of fictional elements), principles which are all exceedingly clear **, and a basic resolution scheme which pushes play towards dynamic, pulp D&D action where the entirety of the table "plays to find out what happens."I've seen you post that DW has borne out some cognitive dissonance with some cross-section of the gaming populace before.  Of this I have no doubt and I suspect it is precisely that cross-section of the gaming populace that expects to reference/deal with the exact mismatched collage of things (and calls it a feature) that pemerton points to above.  Presumably for them, its liberating (at least I've heard that voiced)?  For some folks (such as myself), it serves to only increase the mental overhead that must be spent on teasing out the signal of designer intended adjudication in a ruleset (like 5e and AD&D), and specifically how the various exchanges between the (not noncomplex) component parts of the engine are meant to fit together (which I find maddening at or away from the table).[HR][/HR]* 4e can suffer from this when synching a Skill Challenge with the actual combat mechanics or when transitioning directly from one to the other.  The GM really has to know what they're doing to make the deviant zoom/level of abstraction work.** I personally struggle to understand how "put someone in a spot" is difficult to discern what a GM should be doing when they initiate it as a GM move.  To "put someone in a spot" (generally) is to "impose upon them such that their ability and/or will to respond is tested and, as such, proved or exposed."  In DW, a PCs "ability and/or will to respond" is the portfolio of their class, race, gear, alignment, bonds.  Remember, DW is "fiction first" so the GM should be thinking about testing these things when they decide to "put someone in a spot" while simultaneously synthesizing those things with the current fictional positioning.  For instance:Bob the Paladin believes in "endangering himself to protect someone weaker than him" (alignment).  Bob has attempted to Aid another PC (lets call him Jack) on a Parlay move to convince the mayor that its in his best interest to relinquish his vested control of the town orphanage (which basically produces indentured servitude but keeps the kids safe and healthy) to the priesthood that is establishing a church on the periphery of the town.  Jack blew away the Parlay effort (rolled a 10 + and had solid leverage)!  Well, unfortunately for the group, Bob's aid effort was a stunning failure (6-)!  I decide to "put Bob in a spot" as my move.  I'll test his alignment and see what he is willing to do here (especially in light of the fact that they've just "earned a win" with Jack's Parlay).  So out comes the mayor's scribe to pen the transaction and the transfer to the local priesthood.  Obviously the scribe is going to be one of the former kids from the orphanage, now on the payroll of the mayor for an extremely meager sum.  He is a mousey young man who is constantly trying to avert his gaze from any and all.  He flinches abruptly anytime folks move around him...like a dog that has been abused.  During the dictation, there are a few occasions where the young boy seeks clarification and is, in turn, brutally admonished by the mayor.  Finally, when the mayor really raises his voice right in the kid's face, the boy does one of his customary flinches.  Oops!  He spilled the inkpot on the document and now we have to start all over again!  <SMACK>  The mayor backhands the boy...as the assembly of 15 members of the mayor's guard look on stone-faced or smirking.That...is "putting the PC in a spot."  And, of course, the system has a feedback that rewards the player for fulfilling his alignment.  And the whole setup rewards all members of the table with exactly the type of play they're (presumably) looking for; non-railroaded, high-octane, dynamic pulp D&D action where everyone is rewarded for engaging each situation with thematic vigor...and the GM isn't burdened with extreme pre-game prep (contriving a major metaplot and how to keep the game "on course"...or the rock/paper/scissors game of keeping a major encounter climactic/interesting) and is his mental overhead is focused exclusively on the fiction and his GMing principles/moves, as he can let the extremely user-friendly, basic resolution scheme do almost all of the heavy lifting of adjudication.</blockquote>

Verification