It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I am curious what some examples are of OD&D rules (in the broad sense) that support fairness in adjucating.
You are sure to encounter situations not covered by these rules. Agree on a probability that an event will occur and convert it into a die roll - roll the number and see what happens!
I think there's been some disconnect in this thread about fictional vs mechanical risk/reward choices.
I guess my concern is that there's no modeling of difficulty. And maybe that's just me failing to fully adopt the AW Newthink. Let's say you get into a bad gunfight. You want to run away. It's probably Act under Fire. (Forgive me if I use the wrong moves; it's been a year since I played AW.) My worry is that as long as you can narrate some kind of plausible "run away," it's the same roll. It doesn't matter how awesome your plan for running away is. Act under Fire. Where's the challenge there?
Character with bad positioning:"I'm totally surrounded by blazing gunfire and have no cover or safe route! I'm screwed! I want to run away!"MC: "Sure, but like you said, you're screwed. You'll take a bullet no matter what, Act Under Fire to see if you can even make it out alive."
Character with good positioning: "I want out of this gunfight! Good thing I'm behind cover with an established escape route!"MC: "Yup, that's good for you. Act Under Fire to see if they notice your escape."
You use your ten-foot pole so you don't have to roll the dice; you describe your perfect unexpected plan so you don't have to fight the goblins; you fictionally-optimize the ever-loving crap out of your actions, because otherwise the dice will punish you (often arbitrarily/fatally/intensely.)This is why I asked about what tools OD&D provided that WoDu-type games did not. I am surprised to hear that the answer is 'the ability to set a random difficulty for anything and then roll it' -- not because I don't see how that's something AW-type games don't provide, but because I didn't realize that was a major tool for the OD&D GM.
"set a probability and roll"
This is why I asked about what tools OD&D provided that WoDu-type games did not. I am surprised to hear that the answer is 'the ability to set a random difficulty for anything and then roll it'
The OSR people avoid rolling by manipulating the fiction with their character.
"set a probability and roll"
Does not exist in OD&D.
If we had a situation where the ogre broke the charm--and Eowyn could speak either chaotic or ogre--and Eowyn did something like stepping forward and trying to talk the ogre down, I would likely handle it this way:1: Ogre starts in hostile disposition on the reaction table.2: Eowyn rolls + charisma modifier.3: on a leave result, ogre leaves but will consider Fellowship enemy and will attack if he sees them again. A friendly result would allow him to part on friendly terms, but he would likely not volunteer to join the group.Eowyn doesn't speak either of these languages, but if the ogre stays with them much longer, I'm going to assume they have picked up enough ogre words for very basic communication.
@Irminsul, if you read my post just above Paul's, I think that may be more pertinent. Agreed, rolling for rain is irrelevant.
Is there a way to use the AW/WoDu rules in a way that the D&D group I'm quoting here would find satisfactory? If so, how?
However I do think that all of those things in your example could happen in Dungeon World or World of Dungeons. The (in)famous DW dragon example would be another. Those games do have expendable items and magic swords and magic spells and hit points and et cetera.
As a simple example, if in an OD&D game the party comes up with a clever plan which bypasses every possible danger, they automatically succeed and reach the appropriate rewards. In a game of AW, however, the MC is instructed to keep making moves, regardless of what the fictional situation is. (Certainly the fictional positioning influences which moves are available and how hard they can be, but they're never going to disappear altogether in any form of AW play I've seen.)
I’m getting a wee bit frustrated because it feels like you *Paul_T* have an agenda that is something like:“I will disprove that games that use the AW engine can be used for challenge-based-play”.
I think you think that the things you do when you run OD&D aren't "gm moves." But they totally are. They're just from a somewhat different list. Hell, it isn't actually very different.
if you mess around with the lists, it's possible to write up a hack that is all confused because the Moves don't actually enforce the Principles, or the Principles don't enforce the Agenda. That's a serious issue, that's probably a bigger issue than broken math in the system . . . there's totally this Principle: Successes should be bittersweet at best, with rewards few and far between. To me, that doesn't say 'let a luck roll decide.' That Principle tells me exactly what my goddamn answer should be.
- Challenges don't have to be modeled with stats and numbers (maybe HP for a monster) so they can be very quickly generated on the fly to suit the fictional situation.
- The lack of mechanical detail for stuff (gear, situational mods, no NPC stats) forces us to evaluate concrete fictional details to determine positioning, range of actions/outcomes. This supports challenge-based play as mastery of tactical thinking rather than mastery of game system choices.
Aside: this is part of why the term "hack" confuses me for games that truly re-author those connections where one level enforces another. If you nail that, you're doing more than hacking, you're doing fairly bottom-up game design.
is there anything we can say about what AW does give you to replace those stats and numbers? A generic list of ways to threaten and inflict consequences on characters, which applies across diverse situations, and is easy to flesh in with appropriate specifics case by case, perhaps?
Again, though, I don't need any help from AW to simply play without mechanical detail. That option's been around forever. What does AW add to it?
the "GM moves" style of play is a type of description of "the things a GM does," not a separate, incompatible procedure from standard GM play. It's an innovation of notation (IMO) not execution. Everything you say when you run OD&D is a "gm move" based on goals and principles -- we just haven't deconstructed it all into handy lists yet.