Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9319005" data-attributes="member: 82106">But a system like the move system that PbtAs use does this SUPER SUPER WELL. Sure, you can get any level of quality of play out of 5e's resolution system, but you are going to have to put a lot of work into it to get that. With AW it 'just happens'. There's no wasting time with gauging difficulty and this and that, say your action, GM says "OK, that's move X", 2d6 + STAT, 6-, 7-9, 10+ bing bang badda boom! Things roll fast and because every move is either introducing some player desired advancement of the fiction, and/or some new, potentially problematic, factor there's very little chance of things 'squibbing'. Yes, theoretically in 5e if the GM is very assiduous in culling checks (no, that's got uninteresting failure conditions, nothing is at stake, etc.) you might get some of that momentum, but a lot of the system text assumes differently, and so does the culture. PbtA also has no 'firewalling' of GM roles. The GM (in AW/DW at least) is a 'Fan of the Characters' and has an explicit job to create tension and adversity, but also to reward success. I mean, AW is a bit of an "you are all doomed in the long run" sort of a game, but DW definitely allows for 'winning through', and despite some people claiming otherwise there IS such a thing as 'skilled play'. Subsystems exist to help drive things, adding obstacles (no more light!) etc.Ehhhhh, not quite. I mean, sure you are encouraged play kind of fast and loose, but that doesn't mean you don't play to win. You play your character authentically, and the PCs sure don't want to go down, do they? Or if so only for a good cause (to them). I would say, from recent Stonetop play it is more like a '4 check thing'. If I roll 6- 4x in a row, I'm probably pretty darn screwed, maybe dead. In recent play I had one PC fail around 4 checks and visit Death's Door. I had another character get to a point where he was about to be obliterated after 3 or 4 bad rolls, and then I pulled out a boxcars and saved my ass. Note: BOTH of those characters were taking risks! Either of them could have played it safer and probably the same sequence of checks would have resulted in a lesser predicament.I think it is a misunderstanding. I don't feel like my play is any less goal-directed in DW/Stonetop than in B/X D&D way back in the day. You take whatever risks you care to take, and then see what fate dishes up. Generally you have something you are wanting to achieve, and a plan, and resources, and you see what happens. Certainly PbtA's mechanics are no more swingy and arbitrary than those of B/X!I don't understand how conflict resolution doesn't do this. I am not even of the opinion that resolution and premise are that tied together. I thought all [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] was saying is that task resolution allows for some 'outside focus' on non-premise things. I kind of get where he's coming from but honestly I think there's plenty of ways to 'drift' if that's what the table wants.So, where we all (IMHO) came to our preferences is in terms of wanting to stop faffing around. I found there was so much faffing around in most D&D play, and then play would lurch off in a direction of the GM's choosing and leave all my character's concerns and values on the table. Like, sure, some digressions are OK, and in a DW game, for example, you probably go chase off after some other PC's concern at some point that only tangentially interests you. Still, the whole process is about 'zero faff'. Move forward, keep the situation evolving, keep the momentum of play, and really engage with the premise, and frame it in relation to the characters, and do that all the time!</blockquote>

Verification