D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Enrahim]

This is the same line I tried earlier, suggesting it was incorrect to present modifiers that would be used this way as representative of "skill." That didn't seem to go down well, but maybe you'll sell it better.
D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

I think this was one of several sources that inspired this line of thinking. I actually did not see that much push back? I think maybe the formulation about luck being a bit too vague for it to really catch on, so we can see.

The main pushback I could see was from @pemerton regarding how this is not the case for BW. So let me preempt that critisism. I agree that BW skill is best understood as innate skill rather than as a narrative marker. In BW I would say it is rather the Artha flow that provides the narrative signaling that provide the "philosophical" basis for "justifying" the succeed with intent and fail forward mechanisms. But I think diving the intricacies of how that work is less helpfull for the purpose of encouraging understanding across the play style lines

 

[JConstantine]

Fortunately for me, what I wanted from the 2014 DMG was a worldbuilding guide, because its by far my favorite part of the game.

I think there's value in a worldbuilding guide, but I think a dungeon masters guide should probably, you know, guide people in how to DM. The 2014 DMG does nothing to help new DMs.

 

[Faolyn]

But then your explanation regarding MotW seems rather specious, don't you think? The real reason for all of it is what you just said, a clear narrative marker. And a good reason why I didn't and don't like it.

No? Because in any other system that would involve monster hunters in a modern-day supernatural setting, the PCs would be the focus of the game--because it's a genre that focuses on the thin-insert-color-here-line between humanity and the forces of darkness.

But you're wrong about the PCs being the focus of every PbtA game. A lot of them, yes, but not all. Masks? You're teenagers and there's adults trying to get in your way. In Root, you're rebels, but there's the many factions you're rebelling against, as well as other rebel groups you may not be allied with, or maybe even directly opposed to. And so forth.

But anyway, why shouldn't the PCs be the focus of the story? It's their story, after all. If you want NPCs to be the focus, write a book.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let's consider an extreme case. You know Calvinball, right? It's a game whose rules are made up as one goes. In a sense this provides the players with an extreme level of agency. I can introduce a new rule--I've got the Calvinball! Everyone else has to move in slow motion. This gives the players far more ability to control things than they do in say, chess.

But people find such free form games unsatisfying because all of that agency doesn't amount to much. You can introduce a new rule--I touched the wicket of power, so now YOU have to move slowly--and the smart play I made amounts to nothing. The choices I'm making are much less meaningful than say, a knight sacrifice which will put me up a queen. This is true even though chess limits my movements to a great extent.

I'm not saying narrative games are Calvinball. The point is that player agency isn't necessarily increased by giving the player more power. It depends on how that power interacts with the fixed structure of the game.

Then actually do the analysis! You are super willing to leap to conclusions and assume you know how this works, but what I hear you saying about, say, play in Dungeon World, bears no relationship to the actuality of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think there's value in a worldbuilding guide, but I think a dungeon masters guide should probably, you know, guide people in how to DM. The 2014 DMG does nothing to help new DMs.

Maybe not, but I learned to DM via Metzer's Basic and Gygax's 1e DMG.

Not a new DM, so a book primarily aimed at them is not a very efficient purchase for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No? Because in any other system that would involve monster hunters in a modern-day supernatural setting, the PCs would be the focus of the game--because it's a genre that focuses on the thin-insert-color-here-line between humanity and the forces of darkness.

But you're wrong about the PCs being the focus of every PbtA game. A lot of them, yes, but not all. Masks? You're teenagers and there's adults trying to get in your way. In Root, you're rebels, but there's the many factions you're rebelling against, as well as other rebel groups you may not be allied with, or maybe even directly opposed to. And so forth.

But anyway, why shouldn't the PCs be the focus of the story? It's their story, after all. If you want NPCs to be the focus, write a book.

I want the setting to be the focus, with the players exploring it, including NPC interaction, through their PCs. How many times have I said this?

If for you it's all about telling the story of the PCs, have fun. But that's not the way I most enjoy RPGs.

 

[The Firebird]

Then actually do the analysis! You are super willing to leap to conclusions and assume you know how this works, but what I hear you saying about, say, play in Dungeon World, bears no relationship to the actuality of it.

Well, I have. The calvinball point was specifically in response to:

But in trad play the GM already decided what runes are! The possibility doesn't even exist for anything else. To construe this as more player agency is Orwellian level newthink!

The point is that the GM deciding on the runes doesn't result in less player agency because power and agency often conflict. It's not Orwellian doublethink to say that.

In the specific case of the runes, I think they result in less player agency for reasons I've discussed previously.

 

[JConstantine]

Metacurrencies are often considered narrative, because you use them not to do the best manipulation of the rules (which would be gamist), and are instead used to make the resulting story turn out as you want it.

Except they're frequently used for manipulation of the rules/mechanics. Inspiration in 5e can be spent to gain advantage or impose disadvantage; Destiny in FFGSW can be flipped to improve your dice pool by converting an ability die to a proficiency die (or adding an ability die if your pool is all proficiency); Bennies in Savage World are used for rerolls, recovering from Shaken, regaining Power Points, etc. Influencing the story is frequently just one possible use, and sometimes just tacked on (looking at you, Savage Worlds).

 

[JConstantine]

I think one of the strange things is that sometimes metacurrencies are just currencies. There is nothing meta about Willpower in World of Darkness or Strings in Monsterhearts. They're just abstractions of diegetic phenomenon.

Yes, I prefer when metacurrencies are diegetic like Willpower. Destiny in FFGSW kinda falls into this for me due the framing of it representing the Force, even though it's really no different from say, SW's Bennies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A regression from what?

Well, think about it. My 4e thief is in an SC where the object is to steal something from a house. Thievery is more a modus than a specific skill, but being proficient in it certainly means you know your way around a burglary. So you make an action declaration "I pick the lock" and you fail. This is a failure to thieve effectively, and having missed the appearance of a cook in the kitchen is in all respects a consistent outcome.

Granted, the. entree here was via lock picking, but the whole general situation is burglary. A failure is assessed, and fictionally a situation, a startled cook, is present. Perhaps the next action is to kosh the cook. This could be a deployment of a combat power, or you could perhaps argue for more thievery. In any case, a failure here might involve an alert going out, or I can imagine a GM with a more subtle approach letting you know that you've killed the Duke's favorite chef, and this will precipitate a merciless manhunt!