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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8315157" data-attributes="member: 82106">Although, if you take advantage of it, the 'closure' of SCs (an SC can sub for a skill check) does allow for some rather more elaborated process in 4e's model. However, even a complexity 1 is a lot more elaborate than a single move in PbtA/FitD, generally speaking, so there is difference there. PbtA doesn't really have much 'taxonomy', there are just 'moves'. Beyond that it has 'downtime', 'dangerous journey', and 'adventuring', each of which has its own specific 'stuff'. They are a bit like SCs in a sense, but not really, as you note below. FitD OTOH has MORE structure than 4e, which has only 'free play' (which can include simple narrative as well as checks), encounter, and possibly DMG2's vignettes, though those seem pretty disconnected from the rest of the system. Encounters then have sub-types of 'combat', 'challenge', and 'puzzle' (which is free-form narrative play in a restricted scene with a defined goal). FitD seems to have 'score', and 'move' (which has more process than a check in 4e) and then the various downtime/preparation/fallout stuff. So there's a lot that could be parsed there, but I think nothing in FitD is quite as simple as a 4e check.So, that's an interesting analysis. I mean, as I understand it, there can be many clocks in FitD, running at different scales. I guess some of them are strictly related to the score, and roughly correspond to the 4e SC tallies. So, 4e checks definitely COULD be quite complicated. A check can burn resources (IE you take HS loss), or you could STAKE resources (IE I use a Daily Power to achieve success). 4e rules are vague here in that there's no guidance on what the valence of a power or other resources are (IE should a Daily being expended in a relevant fictional way produce an automatic success, or do you use Page 42, or what). Those aspects can be more refined (and in HoML's version of SC rules there is some guidance on that). In my game I also repurposed rituals. Instead of simply being a more open-ended 'power' with a cost, they specifically allow you to recast a fictional situation such that you can use the attribute or skill associated with the ritual to perform a check.So, if the party needs to cross a raging river, and normally that might involve Athletics, or Nature, or Survival depending on your approach, you could pay your ritual component cost and invoke Summon Spectral Mounts, and now it is an Arcana check instead. I think this is sort of implicit in 4e, but again not really spelled out. Powers might be implied to work similarly, but I sort of feel like allowing At-Wills to be used that way kind of wrecks the system! Certainly a GM might accept the possibility that Magic Missile (a Wizard At-Will) might accomplish task X and thus bring various bonuses and a different ability score into scope, it certainly shouldn't be something you can simply pull out of your hat all the time (and there are some cantrips that sure would fit that bill pretty often). Anyway... It is hard to really equate soft and hard PbtA moves with 4e check results. Check results must advance the fiction. PRESUMABLY failures advance it negatively, and could be basically either 'hard' or 'soft' in PbtA terms. PbtA simply lacks anything like the "skill challenge has failed, now for the wide plot consequences" thing. In this sense DW feels a bit mushy, because in principle you can hair split even a simple combat into a LOT of moves! SCs pretty much say "there are only going to be so many points of decision here." Of course 4e also has combat, which technically CAN go on forever in theory, but practically speaking it won't normally. At the very least a combat turn in 4e eats up your turn order resource and hands the ball to someone else. Technically speaking DW doesn't actually do that...Anyway, I'm with you on the overall taxonomy question. So the more vital question is "What can you accomplish with one process vs the others, and WHY use one or another?" How do they relate to game agenda/principle/process design.</blockquote>

Verification