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: 6478925" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Hey Cyberen.  I certainly agree that 5e is infinitely more equipped than DW for the type of RC/1e "skilled play" that those system push play towards (and Gygax advocates for).  I know that DW is advertised as a love letter to D&D (which I think it is) but as a "story now" engine, its not built around the play agenda that Gygax had in mind.  I mean, certain facets of play certainly are about resource management (Spells, HPs, Ammo, Adventuring Gear, Rations, etc) but this is a very, very different sort of setup in terms of zoom (DWs resources are extremely abstract and meant to be so), pacing implications, the implication on player action declarations, and the way that management plays into everything else (specifically the positive feedback of failure).  My 1e and RC dungeon crawls look and play nothing like my DW games.  I can imagine someone sitting down and observing my table and commenting that they can see that they're both from the same family, but definitely separated at birth.  Its difficult to say how well 5e could push play toward DW's agenda and total experience.  I can certainly see that Mearls, Crawford, et al had some of that in mind (specifically w/ bonds, ideals, flaws providing advantage and the Backgrounds setup), but I really think it would take a fair bit of work to sync everything together harmoniously.  So much plays into the table experience.  You'd have to mod the task resolution system into a robust conflict resolution system.  You'd need to establish the DCs required for outright success vs success with complications (and a GM soft move) vs failure with some not so tidy fallout (and a GM hard move).  And of course PC builds would need to have their math inclined toward funneling play mostly at the 5e equivalent of a 7-9 DW outcome.  Then there is the xp feedback system.  Then there is the fact that D&D combat has an action economy while noncombat conflict resolution doesn't have an equivalent (same issue 4e suffers from when trying to transition directly to/from an SC into the hardcore combat system).  You need keyword tech to coordinate all of the abstractions, robust math in the basic engine and in the PC build schemes, clear GMing principles and play agenda, and a strong feedback system that incentivizes players such that they are inclined to play their thematic hooks to the hilt, come hell or high-water, and such that they aren't paralyzed into optimization due to the prospects of brutally punitive fallout for failure.I mean, it could do it, but it wouldn't do it anywhere near harmoniously enough where I would think someone that loves DW would say "ahhh...well...this is close enough I guess".  I feel the same way about 5e and 4e.  There are just too many round pegs, square holes and vice versa.  If you want the totality of each of those experiences, I think having each game would be preferable.</blockquote>

Verification