Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9016070" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You're welcome and for sure, we can.Ok, so I think the starting point here is that we're suffering a difference on the question of "what constitutes unifying" or "what constitutes integrated" when it comes to game engines.AD&D and Apocalypse World are wildly different beasts.  To start, I would say AD&D is not an integrated system.  It is an extremely dense, comparatively baroque (particularly when evaluated against the population of all games in the last 20 years and change), discrete toolkit of a system where the constituent parts sometimes interlock, sometimes are at-tension (tension that must be resolved by the GM), sometimes diverge, and sometimes the rules are silent on a subject where multiple AD&D templates for resolution can be applied (percentile, roll low vs ability, save vs, reference various analagous modifiers and map onto what you're choosing to deploy as action resolution).  For those who love AD&D, resolving (sometimes compatible and sometimes incompatible) subsystem collisions and heavily mediating action resolution is a feature.  It requires that GMs are involved heavily (on multiple axes) in most every moment of noncombat action resolution; extrapolating via their personal preconceptions of some combination of the shared imagined space + indexing their mental modeling or coupling of naturalistic causal logic, then resolving.Broadly speaking, I would say that a typical session of AD&D GMing (particularly noncombat situation/obstacle resolution) entails a sufficient amount of the above which would rise to the level of "new rules creation."  I think an easy way to demonstrate this is to contrast AD&D with D&D 5e which, imo, is AD&D 3e.  5e's ethos of "rulings not rules" would probably land on "hey, we're actually generating rules in-situ by way of our rulings."  But, while 5e easily has just as much GM input into the trajectory of play as AD&D does, I don't think 5e's version of noncombat action resolution remotely rises to that level of "rules creation in-situ" that AD&D does because 5e's loop does not entail the session-consistent resolving of the features described in paragraph 2 above.Put another way, a 5e GM will (a) resolve the first order action resolution component above in a stable fashion; reference Ability Check loop.  However, (b) there is going to be significant table heterogeneity across the various layers of that loop from uncertainty evaluation for "yes/no/roll dice" to setting a DC to generating consequences.  Then, (c) evaluate if Exhaustion applies or some other thing like Vile Transformation or whatever.I think a strong case could certainly be made that some instantiations of (b) and (c) in 5e rise to the level of "new rules creation" because GMs are generating and operationalizing such a unique matrix of rulings AND those rulings are going to be governed by unique, individual GM ethos or governing principles.  The combination of those two things will generate a "new rules creation" situation in 5e sometimes.  But because of the stability and unifying experience of (a) and the lack of so many subsystems to index and resolve (for incompatibility or make a ruling on priority or to "glue together"), the instances of "new rules creation" situations in 5e is going to fall well short of AD&D.Now pivoting to AW (or DW), this is reduced to virtually no instances of "new rules creation" because (if GMed correctly...and there is absolutely a transparent, orthodox way to GM the game) of the convergence of stability in content generation, stability in resolution loop, stability in agenda and principles, minimization of indexing (particularly the reality that any indexing of stuff is not going to require a weighing of contravening action resolution subsystems or collisions that generate potential unwieldiness).  In DW, I don't need to evaluate (i) is there a novel class resolution subsystem for this vs (ii) is there a novel percentile subsystem for this already vs (iii) should I develop percentile odds and extrapolate fiction to generate a causally coherent modifier vs (iii) same as prior but "roll under Ability/Prof" vs (iv) saving throw vs xyz...and then evaluate various other novel or unified features of system for fallout/consequences.  In DW, you resolve the same conversation architecture and move resolution loop ad infinitum.TLDR:  Its the discrete and novelty in general and the "discrete and novelty at scale" specifically that differentiates any given moment of situation/obstacle resolution in AD&D from that of AW's (and derivative's) "unified & rote" in conversation structure, in content generation procedure, in application of system-specific principles and action resolution engine.  Therein lies my assessment of AD&D as a relative, new rules-generating engine in contrast with AW's absence thereof.Put another way, imagine if you took the most stable, most straight-forward system component of AD&D, applied it at scale to the entire game, made that table-facing, and then removed any GM as storyteller imperatives/rights to the GMing role.  That would make for a pretty drastically different experience than running AD&D, right?  The difference, in large degree, would be owed to the minimization (if not removal) of discreteness and novelty at scale.</blockquote>

Verification