Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9016610" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yep.I don't know much about Monster Hearts, but DW is very close to being just a reprint of Apocalypse World but with different playbooks (D&amp;D instead of Mad Max meets Total Recall), different fronts (ditto), and slightly rejigged stats and basic moves. And a harm system that uses slight different numbers, dice rolls, and calls itself hit points.Agreed.Yes. It's not a tactical minis game at all. I mean, you can draw maps to help represent where different people are, and this will help give &quot;heft&quot; in everyone's imagination to what the threats and opportunities are; but there's no action economy, no movement rules, no list of actions to choose from and optimise, etc.Agreed. To use some Vincent Baker terminology (which I think is permissible when discussing AW/DW!), it has very little &quot;boxes to boxes&quot; - that is, almost all the reasoning that players engage in is reasoning about the fiction, or about how to trigger the opportunity to change the fiction (say, by making a move). But there is very little reasoning about the rules/mechanics as a self-contained system, as happens, say, in optimising spell point usage when playing a mage in Rolemaster, or working out how to avoid attacks of opportunity in modern grid-based D&amp;D play, or working through the interaction of a feat with a spell with a rule for weapon damage, which is also pretty typical in modern D&amp;D play.I would summarise this by saying that DW has very little boardgame in it.100%. This is what I was getting at, upthread, when I posted this:I am SO GLAD that you noticed this, because the description of DW as a game with &quot;narrative mechanics&quot; or &quot;cooperative stortyelling&quot; is one of my biggest bugbears on these boards!At the heart of AW and DW, in my view, is the principle that the GM always makes a soft move unless the rules call for a hard one. It seems simple, but its implications for RPGing (if we are mostly familiar with more-or-less trad D&amp;D, CoC, GURPS, etc RPGing) are so profound as to be virtually revolutionary. To me, it seems that everything else - the different role played by GM prep in DW/AW compared to trad D&amp;D; the purpose and hence design of player-side moves; when and how to use custom moves; etc - follows from this core.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9016610, member: 42582"] Yep. I don't know much about Monster Hearts, but DW is very close to being just a reprint of Apocalypse World but with different playbooks (D&D instead of Mad Max meets Total Recall), different fronts (ditto), and slightly rejigged stats and basic moves. And a harm system that uses slight different numbers, dice rolls, and calls itself hit points. Agreed. Yes. It's not a tactical minis game at all. I mean, you can draw maps to help represent where different people are, and this will help give "heft" in everyone's imagination to what the threats and opportunities are; but there's no action economy, no movement rules, no list of actions to choose from and optimise, etc. Agreed. To use some Vincent Baker terminology (which I think is permissible when discussing AW/DW!), it has very little "boxes to boxes" - that is, almost all the reasoning that players engage in is reasoning about the fiction, or about how to trigger the opportunity to change the fiction (say, by making a move). But there is very little reasoning about the rules/mechanics as a self-contained system, as happens, say, in optimising spell point usage when playing a mage in Rolemaster, or working out how to avoid attacks of opportunity in modern grid-based D&D play, or working through the interaction of a feat with a spell with a rule for weapon damage, which is also pretty typical in modern D&D play. I would summarise this by saying that DW has very little [I]boardgame[/I] in it. 100%. This is what I was getting at, upthread, when I posted this: I am SO GLAD that you noticed this, because the description of DW as a game with "narrative mechanics" or "cooperative stortyelling" is one of my biggest bugbears on these boards! At the heart of AW and DW, in my view, is the principle that the GM always makes a soft move unless the rules call for a hard one. It seems simple, but its implications for RPGing (if we are mostly familiar with more-or-less trad D&D, CoC, GURPS, etc RPGing) are so profound as to be virtually revolutionary. To me, it seems that everything else - the different role played by GM prep in DW/AW compared to trad D&D; the purpose and hence design of player-side moves; when and how to use custom moves; etc - follows from this core. [/QUOTE]

Verification