Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8293129" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, I've never tried to argue that we need to change the definition of SP, it is just a traditional term, as Snarf noted in the OP, lol. It is just basically &quot;Whatever Gygax did.&quot; I think it is true, yes, that players are expected to have more say in 'what happens' in DW. You describe what action your PC is taking, and what its goal is, and then the GM describes what mechanics are involved. I don't think the GM in DW has an option to say &quot;that is impossible&quot; for example, or to change the player-described outcome of their fiction, ONCE IT HAS BEEN TRANSLATED TO A MOVE. However, the GM does the translation. Thus a player could say &quot;Ragnar runs up to the Dragon and slashes at it with his sword!&quot; (his preferred fictional outcome is implicit here) and the GM could say &quot;his sword bounces off the dragon's unnaturally hard scales, as it bites you!&quot; (IE no mechanics, your goal was infeasible, no sword can slash through a mature dragon's armor). Now there would be a negotiation of what the Defy Danger is, or maybe Ragnar sticks his sword down the Dragon's throat next, etc. So, the player has a certain fictional authority. In D&amp;D you could DESCRIBE the same thing, but the result would always be &quot;make an attack roll&quot; (maybe initiative first). The result of that attack would be some sort of abstract outcome, maybe hit points of damage to the dragon, with the fiction being &quot;your sword has little effect&quot; (IE the dragon has a lot of hit points) and then it bites on its turn, etc. D&amp;D is pretty awkward in terms of handing off that narrative to players in any more substantive way. NOW AND THEN it awkwardly tries. So, certain monsters have several ACs, or some situation where their AC is different. Presumably this invites the player to invent a 'move' that will provoke the DM to rule that you attack that lesser AC. Something like that. By contrast, if Ragnar's player says &quot;I dodge the Dragon's bite!&quot; then maybe its &quot;Defy Danger (DEX)&quot; and success provokes &quot;I stab the dragon in the mouth!&quot; and that's allowed as a Hack &amp; Slash which Ragnar can succeed at. It might even result in damage bypassing the dragon's Armor value (DR). If this sort of action can happen in D&amp;D it is certainly not due to any particular rules, stated agenda, etc. And this is a bit of a problem with analyzing classic D&amp;D. It is really very unclear what it is. If you go back to 'West Coast D&amp;D' of the 70's, ala Arduin Grimoire and such and find surviving descriptions of play, you will see that a lot of them actually SOUND a lot like DW! But it was all up to a skilled DM and reinterpreting the entire idea of the game. Still, it wasn't like it contravened anything that was written in the 3 LBBs...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8293129, member: 82106"] Right, I've never tried to argue that we need to change the definition of SP, it is just a traditional term, as Snarf noted in the OP, lol. It is just basically "Whatever Gygax did." I think it is true, yes, that players are expected to have more say in 'what happens' in DW. You describe what action your PC is taking, and what its goal is, and then the GM describes what mechanics are involved. I don't think the GM in DW has an option to say "that is impossible" for example, or to change the player-described outcome of their fiction, ONCE IT HAS BEEN TRANSLATED TO A MOVE. However, the GM does the translation. Thus a player could say "Ragnar runs up to the Dragon and slashes at it with his sword!" (his preferred fictional outcome is implicit here) and the GM could say "his sword bounces off the dragon's unnaturally hard scales, as it bites you!" (IE no mechanics, your goal was infeasible, no sword can slash through a mature dragon's armor). Now there would be a negotiation of what the Defy Danger is, or maybe Ragnar sticks his sword down the Dragon's throat next, etc. So, the player has a certain fictional authority. In D&D you could DESCRIBE the same thing, but the result would always be "make an attack roll" (maybe initiative first). The result of that attack would be some sort of abstract outcome, maybe hit points of damage to the dragon, with the fiction being "your sword has little effect" (IE the dragon has a lot of hit points) and then it bites on its turn, etc. D&D is pretty awkward in terms of handing off that narrative to players in any more substantive way. NOW AND THEN it awkwardly tries. So, certain monsters have several ACs, or some situation where their AC is different. Presumably this invites the player to invent a 'move' that will provoke the DM to rule that you attack that lesser AC. Something like that. By contrast, if Ragnar's player says "I dodge the Dragon's bite!" then maybe its "Defy Danger (DEX)" and success provokes "I stab the dragon in the mouth!" and that's allowed as a Hack & Slash which Ragnar can succeed at. It might even result in damage bypassing the dragon's Armor value (DR). If this sort of action can happen in D&D it is certainly not due to any particular rules, stated agenda, etc. And this is a bit of a problem with analyzing classic D&D. It is really very unclear what it is. If you go back to 'West Coast D&D' of the 70's, ala Arduin Grimoire and such and find surviving descriptions of play, you will see that a lot of them actually SOUND a lot like DW! But it was all up to a skilled DM and reinterpreting the entire idea of the game. Still, it wasn't like it contravened anything that was written in the 3 LBBs... [/QUOTE]

Verification