Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7016820" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Putting these parts of those two posts together because they're pretty central to the point.  I think the martial-types having to declare "naturalitstic moves" from a mechanically "blind" position is a particularly astute observation.  The Wizard's moves are broad, "face-up" moves whereby the codified mechanics and the "naturalistic" terminology are integrated.  If a martial-type is trying something unorthodox, they can infer neither the breadth nor the inherent odds of their potential moves because there is nothing "face-up", there is no integration of codified mechanics and "naturalistic" terminology... because neither exist...until the moment of adjudication.  To put it in Texas Hold 'Em terms, both the Wizard and the martial-type have their 2 hole cards.  However, when "the flop" (3 community cards) is placed on the table, the spellcaster is looking at their number/suit before calling/checking/raising/folding, while the martial-type has to declare his move blind.5e is not Dungeon World.  It has way too much steeped system machinery (both in precision specifically and in breadth generally) that pushes back against a Dungeon World conception.  It has way too little in the way of focused GMing tenets (this is purposeful).  It can be played neither coherently nor functionally as Dungeon World, yet I see a GMing inclination on these boards toward trying to sort of adlib through the (intentional) open-endedness of 5e's adjudication procedures and its comparatively heavy machinery and force a sort of sloppy Dungeon World experience (trading GM force for Dungeon World's agenda, principles, and GM moves) out of 5e.Consequently, when a 5e martial-type player wants to declare something unorthodox, they must orient themselves toward system machinery to some degree (more than a little).  Action economy matters.  Odds of success matter.  The mechanical artifact component of breadth/scope of outcome afforded by success matters.  Opportunity cost matters (significantly when it comes to situations that are likely to be over in the scope of a few moves from any given participant).In Dungeon World, a player of a martial character and the GM trivially focus on the fiction (as the game was devised to do so) when describing and adjudicating moves.  There is no action economy.  There is no intersection of precision and abstraction.  There are no concerns for downstream 2nd and 3rd order mechanical interactions.  There are no real concerns for intra-party balance or challenge-based balance.  There is a simple procedure for both GM and player and simple, abstract (yet robust) resolution mechanics to follow.  The same procedure applies for a Wizard or another spellcaster as it does for a martial character.System-wise, 5e pushes toward a rulings-not-rules, old-school-world-explorationey, hex-crawl...with some loosely integrated indie-tech.  Product-wise, WotC pushes big setting APs out as product for GMs who want to run a group of players through a metaplot.  That net seems to catch the Pathfinder players, the AD&D 2e setting tourism players, and the OSR (which is what I'm fairly sure is the combination they were looking for...and new players by proxie of them).</blockquote>

Verification