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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9015404" data-attributes="member: 82106">I see a fairly significant difference between what is on DMG 5 and the 'action loop' of DW. This is fairly well described in the first 20 or so pages of the rules. Specifically you are referring, I assume, to P5, 'Part 3: Master of Rules' and especially para 3 "The rules don't account for every possible situation..." This section then goes on to give an example of a character making an improvised attack, recommending an ability check with a GM set DC. We can immediately see how this is pretty different from the conversation -> action description -> move trigger of DW. Nowhere in the DW description is something like 'GM decides' ever required! At one point it is stated that if there's disagreement as to whether or not a move was triggered then the people at the table will have to decide that issue. So, yes, clearly there's a question of interpretation of dialog and fiction in order to decide player move triggers. There is also the overall appropriateness of whatever a player has said, does it comport with the fiction at all, and is it genre appropriate, etc.In the case of 5e the determinations go FAR DEEPER, the GM must essentially create a 'rule' here! First, is this action feasible at all, coherent with the fiction, genre appropriate, etc.? Second, does it meet the criteria of an 'action which requires a check'. There isn't really a term for this, and exactly what those criteria are is the subject of what I would term guidelines, which we have had discussions on in the past (IE is it dangerous, is there doubt as to success, etc.). Finally the GM has to decide what ability is checked, and invent a DC. This is a lot of stuff being determined, effectively the entire 'rule' or 'ruling' or whatever you want to call it, is being invented here. Now dice can be thrown, and THEN the GM determines what happens on a success. This is VERY different and much more a process of adjudication than the DW process. So, no, I don't think they are fully comparable.Chess is closed because there are a finite number of states that can exist AT ALL in chess, formally that they are 'countable', and that each state is objectively distinct in ways that the rules fully describe. A game of chess is always entirely occupying one of these states, unambiguously, and we can even generate random game states and in at least some cases evaluate whether they could potentially arise by following the other rules of chess from the well-defined starting state. That's a closed game. Open games lack some of the features of closed games, they don't have countably many well-defined game states. RPGs pretty much all fall into this category because the fiction is part of the game state and fiction is not well-defined. Even if it was well-defined in terms of saying "this fiction differs from this other fiction" there are practically speaking no limits to the number of fictions we could imagine and that would be feasible to reach in play by following the rules.Note that in the above I have only referred to rules in terms of their "generative power", that is as a PROCEDURE with which we generate new game states. I will note there is a fundamental property of open game rules, they MUST be described generatively! With chess, hypothetically, you could construct a very large rule book which described every possible state transition explicitly, without any generalizations at all, and in a logical sense this would be equivalent to the actual, much more compact, algorithmic generative rules we actually use. This is impossible for open games, the existence of infinite game state precludes any such possibility, the rules FUNDAMENTALLY are generative in nature. So, any complete RPG, MUST be a set of algorithms for determining state transitions. The real problem arises in that the states in RPGs really are not very well-defined. So you object to the possibility of a COMPLETE RPG on that basis. This is the essence of your "ritual doesn't say a fixed amount of gold" objection, that you don't see the outcome of the ritual move as describing a well-defined game state. I look at game state in RPGs a bit more loosely, in terms of its 'effectivity'. That is, a 'family of states' is effectively identical if play would proceed on exactly the same trajectory from all of them. I am of the opinion that the ritual rule produces such effectively identical states. That is, the GM charges the PC 'a lot' of gold, which leaves them with 'a little' gold, right? DW is not a game about counting your gold pieces! While it might be possible to concoct an example where a PC finishes casting a ritual and then does or does not have enough gold to buy his crew a round of drinks (and this snowballs into some significance) I find that a bit strained. The ambiguity in 'ritual' IMHO is more a matter of compactness of rule presentation in DW, where in a game more like 5e (lets say 4e since it has rituals) there is an elaborate rule and many detailed notations about different rituals with different levels and costs. So, I don't agree with your analysis of complete and incomplete. I think DW is pretty complete, whereas 5e tends to require the GM to do a lot of fairly fundamental work in terms of deciding outcomes, what to check against, DCs, etc. This is a LOT more buttoned down in DW, to the extent that one could follow along a DW session transcript and note exactly what rule was applied and how it was mapped into the fiction at every point where rules are in use. Maybe my definition suits me, but I think there's some justification for it, and that it expresses an actual trait of different games that can be objectively discussed.I think, in accordance with the principles above, it actually IS possible. I think the rules of Major League Baseball, for example, are probably pretty complete! Actually, we can see how this fails, such as this famous example: There was a MLB pitcher who used a 6-fingered either hand glove, and pitched left or right. No rule had ever been made about this, as he was the only such pitcher who ever appeared in a game. Subsequently a switch-hitter appeared at the plate. The pitcher, observing the batter's choice of stance then moved his glove and took position on the mound, at which point the batter left the box and returned at the opposite side of the plate! The pitcher then switched hands! This went on for several minutes before the Umpire called a rules conference. The referees determined that NO RULE EXISTED for this situation, as it was novel. Subsequently MLB made a slight amendment to their rules covering this situation. Now, in a formal sense, this might make MLB an 'incomplete' system of rules, but really I find that fairly strained. Such minor lacunae aside, the job of an Umpire in MLB is simply to recognize what rule applies in a given situation. This generally consists of applying definitions to the game state; was that a bunt or not? Did the runner deliberately leave the baseline to collide with the fielder? Was the ball over the foul line? Is it a strike or a ball? Some of these might be arguable at times, but the rules are still definite and general enough in nature to be applied objectively.Of course we understand what you are saying. I pointed out some of the logical characteristics of different games and types of games. I agree that RPGs have a trait by which their states are not super well-defined and thus no amount of precision of rules will ever remove all judgment from them and reduce them to the precision of a chess board. I get why you want a label for that, but I also want a label for the distinction between a general design with a universal rule and exceptions vs 5e's far less structured 'a rule for everything, or no rule at all' approach. If you want to try to numerically rate the completeness of each game, be my guest, I am not convinced that sort of exercise will gain us a lot.</blockquote>

Verification