Which is your question? "How does DW create a D&D-like experience if it doesn't have all these D&D things?" or "How is DW innovative if it's got all these things D&D already has?"

The sales pitch for DW is D&D, but better.

so yes

@Mala Now we're talking about their sales pitch? I thought this was about the opinion of fans?

if they left out a mechanic, wy is that better?

You're all over the place.

That makes me think we still haven't gotten to the root question all this is coming from.

if they still use a mechanic, how is their use of it innovative

The sales pitch is obviously important because that's how people (like me) who don' t know the system in depth will expect.

what

even

to be honest if I were to ask your question I wouldn't even worry about challenging individual components of it.

"No initiative - this seems bad." Sure, because you're used to playing with it, and maybe D&D would not work so well without it, but this isn't that kind of game.

@Mala Dungeon World, like Sagas of the Icelanders and Monsterhearts and Murderous Ghosts and probably a bunch of other games by now, is a game that takes an engine for telling stories in a certain way and adapts it to a particular genre (in this case, D&D fantasy, which is totes its own style of story). It's not starting from D&D, mechanically. It's starting from AW and using it to tell D&D-style stories.

There are good ways to ask about the differences between two systems, and they generally just stick to this: "So I've heard this Dungeon World thing is super new and innovative, why's it so different? What are the major improvements and differences in style?" (and then say very little else)

Alex quote above is on point:

> Dungeon World isn't trying to copy D&D blow-by-blow. That'd be a waste of time. It's gutting the game aggressively to identify what the author considers to be the cool, fun, inspiring stuff -- "the game you imagined D&D was when someone first told you about it" -- and just do that stuff.

@Mala you're misdirecting the point by trying to direct it toward things you don't recognise the innovative nature of. Those probably aren't why it's considered innovative. Better to just not mention it, and let other people drill into the details themselves about what is actually innovative about it, and say why it is.

@Mala same here. just because they left it out doesn't mean that is why people are so excited about it.

ok your first point is really good

but I am not looking for a fluff-based fiction-first kind of answer

just... don't go into detail yourself, because as is quite firmly established you're not sure about what details are and aren't innovative. Let other people who actually understand what it does, how it does it, and why it's innovative, talk about the details.

I am looking for a discussion of mechanical differences

Then say that.

That's why I focus on these things

I do!

Yeah, just say that, and don't focus on those things at all

don't mention them.

@Mala Fiction isn't fluff. It's the thing -- the only thing -- of an RPG. That's basically the statement DW is making.

@Mala Yes, but then you go on to pre-suppose which mechanics need to be talked about.

>A good answer would contain a short discussion of each of the major innovations of DW over older D&D variants, and what problem this change solves. This also applies if the mechanic itself is not new but is used in a novel way.

BESW: Yes, because I consider some mechanics integral to the D&D experience.

So they should be talked about.

I can cut the Xp for misses and scaling things

but ... well

I feel they belong in there

They certainly belong into a good answer.

Answers don't belong in a question, though.

@Mala this isn't the D&D experience. This is the DW experience.

But without mentioning those parts, how is someone who writes an answer going to know I am looking for inclusing of these.

Are you asking about why DW is innovative or good, or are you asking about why a game that isn't D&D isn't D&D?

Maybe you could list them without making statements about them?

Dungeon World has no obligation to implement mechanics integral to a game that isn't Dungeon World

Say "Here are some things I consider central to D&D: list," for instance.

Of course not, but if they chose not to, a good answer will discuss on why ' D&D Cornerstone X' was cut

@Mala As it's phrased now, they have no reason to do that.

You're asking about innovation in DW, not about how DW recreates the D&D experience.

@BESW yes, this is what I think it lacking. Moreover, though, I do not find any great virtue in the lack of comments for discussion, I do not see the same rule enforced nearly as heavy-handedly on other SE sites, and I don't think it is really to the betterment of this site that it is. I am not interested in debating that point, and accept that the moderators consider it their responsibility to do so, but there is only so far that I am willing to go to accommodate that.

@BESW or specifically, how it recreates the D&D experience without so-and-so D&D mechanics you consider integral to the experience

You talk about how fans say it's innovative, then without mentioning the "sales pitch" you run around talking about how it fails the sales pitch.

I am not saying it fails anything

my understanding is that additional site functionality like that has to be added to all SE sites, and is therefore a much bigger debate than I am interested in starting

Why do you always rephrase everything in a confrontative manner

:(

You've got two different topics in your head and you're only mentioning one, but expecting answers about both.

@KRyan You could just ask it on Meta.SO. "Can we have the [let's take it to chat] link be an available option (at least to experienced users) sooner than after a lot of ABABing?" (If that's the issue here!)

@Mala Sorry, I'm a little frustrated because I keep discovering new parts of the question that you want answered but had assumed were implied instead of making explicit.

> A good answer would contain a short discussion of each of the major innovations of DW over older D&D variants, and what problem this change solves.

@Mala Because he is confronted, and is confronting you. That's why it sounds confronting.

@BESW tis, but I don't know Meta.SO, nor the community there, and therefore am somewhat leery (or, at the least, expect little in the way of result) of just dropping something that simple there

> you run around talking about how it fails the sales pitch.

WAT

I assume that feature isn't available for some reason, and thus reasons to add it would be necessary

You are confronting him with the fact you're variously talking about asking three entirely different things. It isn't switching tact, by any means, but you're not being clear. And you're not asking the question you're trying to ask, and just outright asking what you want to know.

anyway, dinner time

And overall you appear to be responding to advice about how to deal with the question with "but i've already said that", when you haven't, or by ignoring it.

> and just outright asking what you want to know.

Yes I do. What are the innovations of DW when compared to D&D?

@Mala yes, and you've spent a couple of sentences on that, but you have a whole significant portion of your question doing that badly

under special consideration of X, Y Z

Yes, sure, my question is bad.

You told me this many times in comments and in here.

However, it will not get better when I cut out what I want to know.

@Mala Let's put it this way. You have already supposed multiple things about Dungeon World. You are challenging those things on false pretense that they are what this whole thing is all about, putting people in a position to defend those things that aren't the issue. You are then also asking what the good changes are that make people like DW so much, whilst saying they can only talk about certain issues, which may not even be why people like DW so much.

Your answer implies a LOT of background material (such as the DW sales pitch rather than just than things SE fans have said), and leaves it as an exercise for the answerer to figure out what's on your mind. Additionally, your question contains a lot of leaps of logic (like that DW is "a step forward" from D&D rather than just a different game which has different goals), and expects answers to also make those assumptions.

Because then it's a question that invotes answers that might make you happy, but not me.

You told me to cut things

again and again

When we're saying just ask what you want to ask, you're hearing the "ask what you want to ask" but you're not hearing the JUST at the beginning. As in, ONLY ask that, which you can do in a couple of sentences!

Obviously not, now you ask me to add things and ask different things.

I am never asking anyone to defend anything.

That is your value judgement.

Yeah you are.

I want it explained.

The way you're bringing it up is a challenge to those design choices, and although you're not asking anyone to defend anything, that puts people in a position to do so.

@Mala Yes. We're saying you need to cut things from your question, and also add particular different things. Because that is how the editing process works, and it's because you are saying things in your question that don't help you get to the point you're trying to ask about or distract from it, and you are not saying things that will help you get there.

...yes of course I challenge those, because - as I said in my question - I do not understand why they are a good thing, why they are good and innovative compared to D&D

I'm seeing three things you want explained: Why DW is considered to be a D&D-like experience; Why DW is considered innovative; and Why DW is an improvement over D&D.

@Mala and as I've said, maybe that's because they're not the point and you should just be letting people explain on their own.

But you tell me to remove the things about flanking.

I REALLY don't want to remove that part.

Seriously.

That is an important part of this issue to me.

Then maybe that is actually the core of the question.

Maybe you need to ask a question that's actually about why DW left out D&D-like flanking.

The core is ' mechanical differences and innovations '

"Considering DW is meant to recreate the D&D expeirence, why did they remove flanking and initiative?"

its an important part

@Mala That's the subject of the core, but it's not a question.

but especially considering that you seem to favor a holistic approach to this question

.. well, it's a contradiction

back

did things get sorted

@JoshuaAslanSmith Not at all!

ok so I paste the relevant part again, if you insist:

wow

@JoshuaAslanSmith So, not really.

Yes, this includes value judgements. Obviously.

since mechanics are supposed to improve enjoyment of the game

or have some other goal

which they might do well, or not so well.

> Why DW is considered to be a D&D-like experience?

No.

That is not my question.

@Mala It's not asking this because it's already presupposed.

Right?

I.e. you've already concluded it's a D&D-like experience

look make this your question: At my first appraisal dungeon world's mechanics and intention of play seem to be very similar to 3.5 and 4e. Can someone illustrate how it really differs?

(or supposed to be, or etc)

@JoshuaAslanSmith That doesn't address the "WHY" of "why did they leave out flanking," which Mala's very concerned about.

I have read this on the author's home page

Yes

Ok, right.

@besw lol

D&D improved

implies D&D

not sure why this is unclear

Folks, be mindful of dogpiling here. Give Mala some space to reply to all three of you (or four of us, if you count my interjections).

pile on, that's fine

@AlexP trying to

I don't have that typing indicator script. @BESW Can you link it to me?

Ok, lets start from a different angle

maybe that helps

@JonathanHobbs Typing indicator script

1. Rules-lite systems are fluff heavy and most rules-light systems discussion are based on the fiction instead of the mechanics

@BESW Ta

2. DW is (presupposed by me, yes, since they state that themselves) to capture the D&D essence.

3. D&D is mechanics-heavy.

@Mala it's fine to suppose that, i'm not objecting to you doing so

4. DW seems more rules ...medium, I guess.

not rules light, not rules heavy

So:

@Mala If it's a major part of your train of thought, it should probably be made explicit somewhere in the question instead of counting on everyone to know that's what you've got in mind.

Now I would like to read a discussion of differing mechanics between DW and D&D, why that change is good, why that change is seen as innovation.

BESW which part now? That DW is D&D but better?

@Mala Yes. Provide a link or a quote or something where DW makes the claim to be a superior D&D-like product.

@mala rules clunkiness is a bad thing about D&D

the stories, heroic adventure and hijinks are the essence of D&D also looking cool

I, for one, was unfamiliar with the idea that DW claims to be better than D&D. I thought it was trying to be emphasising a different kind of D&D-like experience, without a value judgement.

@Mala So, this part: D&D has gone through a lot of versions. Including B/X, which is one of the most respected ones in some ways. Not all have the same mechanical complexity or the same mechanical focus.

So, you know, I think that what you just posted, with a note asking specifically for answers to address flanking, would be a pretty great question.

I'll draft a version.

Alex: Indeed, that's why I specifically mentioned 3.5 Pf and 4e

BESW: That would be great.

Thanks

@Mala This is where a citation about DW's claims would be useful, because I suspect DW was looking at earlier versions of D&D for its inspiration.

I mean, 4e is different enough from 3.5 that it caused the geek equivalent of rioting in the streets, and they both use the d20 System, which no earlier version of D&D had available.

BESW well Alex' quote above captures this

I think

Yeah.

Well, AD&D 2e's base mechanics are a mathematical transformation of d20

It wasn't termed like that but the core is there; the subsystems not related to combat are different, but so are they in 3.5 and 4e

so yeah

If you can fish up a link about DW being a superior D&D-like system, that'd help me draft this question.

@BESW I think it's in d7's post.

@mala I would simply say that flanking isnt in dungeonworld because you dont use a grid in dungeonworld, its not important

@AlexP Mala says there's some kind of semi-authoritative claim, like in a dev's blog.

I am looking for it

Plus flanking lead to the flank chain

or the tactical conga line

Is there a way to see deleted comments on this site?

Not unless you're a mod.

@Mala Get elected as a moderator

I'm working on the post draft here

Whoops, sharing should be on now.

Can't find anything better right now than Alex' quote above

(from 'official' sources)

I'm trying to write around it.

Is it unlocked?

Can't seem to edit

Or should I not?

;)

You can comment, not edit.

ok

Multiple people editing at once gets messy.

Sure, np

I mean, I am really grateful for your help. I am happy to accept this help in the way you prefer ;)

Better?

(Anyone who's been watching the conversation should feel free to pitch in and comment.)

Also I am not sure that's correct; My experience with 3.5/4e is rules heavy

I think you're just going to have to accept that something can be innovative without being entirely new.

I think that those systems are rules heavy

yes

is that up for discussion such that it needs such qualifier?

The "in my experience" bit?

yup

That's mostly there to try stemming the tide of "Well, I played D&D 3.5 without ever opening the rule book, so your absolute statement that it's rules-heavy is incorrect" comments.

which is also not true. It's not the focus, but it's certainly an important part.

However, if I wanted to play combat-only, I for sure wouldn't pick D&D for that

BESW: hm, ok

I will argue that D&D 3.5 and especially 4e are very much focused on tactical combat. The vast majority of rules, features, items, and supplements are dedicated to it.

Maybe better: One part I especially enjoyed when playing 3.5 and 4e was the rules-heavy tactical combat system

4e, sure, 3.5, not so much ...

Doesn't mean the systems don't support non-combat play, but they dedicate the lion's share to combat.

but ok

Another discussion

@Mala I can get behind that.

your phrase at the end is really cool but it doesn't really fit in there as is now

It's hearkening back to the "required reading for any designer today working on innovation in mechanics" quote at the beginning.

I'll just copy-pasta that.

I would like to read a comparison of mechanics between DW and D&D that addresses which mechanical changes are considered significant improvements, what problem they solve compared to the D&D implementation of the corresponding mechanic, and why Dungeon World considered a seminal work for innovative mechanic design.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the difference between the first two points.

Wouldn't an explanation of why the change is an improvement, by its very nature, be talking about what problem it solved?

@BESW it would, and in a way that doesn't constrict an explanation unnecessarily (and, well, unhelpfully for getting the answers this question is after)

I think in a lot of case there won't be a "problem," per se, more of a design or philosophy adjustment.

I do think the entire question is ontologically backwards, but it's probably a useful kind of ontological backwardness to have around.

hm

(Your fundamental assumption is that DW mechanics are derived directly from D&D mechanics, which they aren't.)

No.

DW is more like a D&D hack of a non-D&D system.

'more'

it is exactly that

I guess

but still

But as I said, I think it's a useful question nonethless: since the two systems invite comparison, a question asking for that comparison is a good addition to the site.

Let's suppose for a moment that that's a false assumption, and it is not a hack of D&D nor a derivative of D&D: asking "what problem are they solving compared to the corresponding D&D mechanic?" falls flat, because the answer is mu.

if it is a derivative, then you get an answer.

but just asking "Why is this an improvement?" will get you an answer to that question if it applies, whilst not being a question whose answer is mu when it does not

I think I used problem because I feel that a value judgement of the answer writer on the corresponding D&D mechanic is very helpful to evaluate and understand the discussion of the corresponding DW rule.

So sticking to the broader question is, in fact, the best way to find out the answer to that.

but I don't really care if DW improves on X compared to Burning Wheel

If the DW mechanic is considered an improvement, that means the D&D mechanic needed improving. I think you'll be safe.

@Mala we're asking for improvements over D&D, that's not an issue

Still

eg 4e scaling vs 3.5e scaling

vs DW scaling

You need to stop thinking of Dungeon World as D&D 5th Edition

I don't

You do

Well, thanks for your opinion on my thoughts.

But yeah

I don't ;)

Or at least you appear to, because you expect that the reason Dungeon World did X has anything to do with fixing a problem in D&D, which supposes they were interested in upgrading D&D

@JonathanHobbs Mala says he's seen a quote from one of the devs which makes that claim.

If we could track down that quote, I could craft a much stronger question.

@BESW A recreation of the D&D experience does not make it D&D 5e though

I would ask about AW otherwise

but I ask about DW

@JonathanHobbs "Improvement" would, though.

We could recreate the D&D experience using Fate, given the right experiences

all I'm trying to get across here is well

this

Aye.

avoid that because it's based on a pretense that might be false

@JonathanHobbs I think not.

fuck it

i'm just going to leave this conversation

(the Fate as D&D thing)

i'm not interested in repeating anything 3 times through arguments

So far as I can tell, this is pretty close to what Mala's asking, phrased in a way that will probably get useful answers.

So

Copy-Paste this into my Q?

Or how to go from here?

It's great.

@Mala This is a call.

mala

You could update your question again, but it's different enough that the previous answers are pretty much dead in the water.

you are unable to seperate the core mechanics you are used to from the narrative that usually goes hand in hand

I think it'd be best off as a new question entirely.

@BESW ok so I will make a new one.

So you can close the other one again.

@JoshuaAslanSmith Thanks that you tell me what I can and cannot, but I don't agree with you.

@JoshuaAslanSmith I cautiously agree, but I think you're oversimplifying a bit by conflating the game's narrative with the experience of playing it.

Your character can flank without having a specific flanking-bonus mechanic on a grid and tell the same story, but for Mala the D&D experience includes those things and a system which doesn't have them isn't D&D-like even if the story being told is identical.

So I've read through this thread, and I think a deeper misunderstanding is at play here. @Mala, you're not going to appreciate DW for whatever it's worth, as long as you don't see how it implements flanking. Namely, through fictional positioning that you've discarded as "fluff". By doing so, you've discarded an essential part of the system, making its appraisal impossible.

For me, stuff like thinking about where to position monsters (or my character and other party members) on the battle grid for profit are part of the core D&D experience in any edition released in the last 15 years.

There are many rules lite systems that offer great ways to put fluff first

"Flanking" (or any other kind of fictional advantage) will not grant a bonus, but it may enable you to attack the enemy. It is entirely up to the GM in that regard. You may well decide this is a bad system, or not to your liking. But that is the system.

So if your question actually is "does DW provide a better tactical combat experience than D&D", the answer is "no".

It is a different system with different goals. Battle grids are just not on them. If that's a dealbreaker, DW is not a system you'd enjoy.

Ultimately, this is the answer: DW is innovative because it effectively and elegantly implements the realisation that you don't need D&D mechanics to tell D&D stories. Instead, it looked at the end result of D&D (the stories it lets us tell) and used an entirely different engine to create that end result.

If you play D&D for the mechanical process, then DW is not, for you, going to produce a D&D experience. But if you play D&D for the stories that process creates, DW is worth looking into to find out if its mechanics are, for you, a more enjoyable way to tell D&D stories.

This is not an either/or question

Thanks again BESW

@Mala Please note that you are welcome to take with a grain of salt those who berate you on various topics in chat.

I can easily believe that the stories that you can tell with D&D can be reproduced and maybe even experienced in a better way using DW.

However, for me the tactical combat is an important part of the D&D experience.

Without it, it doesn't feel like D&D.

@mxyzplk Haha, yeah I know. Not only in Chat ;)

@Mala Tactical combat is emphatically not something DW does.

Looks like Bryan has already closed the new question, probably he's not sure why a similar question's being asked.

Hey @BrianBallsunStanton

There are very few game experiences, especially with Rpgs, that can be separated from mechanics.

@@BrianBallsunStanton

He just hates me.

I think you new one still combines "Why is this D&D?" and "Why is this required reading?"

The two questions have very different answers.

I think I'm being trolled.

Hahaha, you got me.

He hates the consternation and bullcrap surrounding an otherwise fine question. Me too.

So here's the deal, the "come to chat and let us change your question crew" isn't actually the site mods.

@mxyzplk yo.

Hey so the chat tribe put him up to that new question. Worth a mod consult on what we think should be done with it

I'm not sure of the problem with the old one, the answers seem on point

Look guys.

@mxyzplk the old one was ... broad? But the answers seem fine and are well upvoted.

this new one looks to be a duplicate without any research being done

@mala have you bothered to read DW?

between the old and new questions?

I am really interested in getting good answers to this.

Mala, is the previous question not getting you something you want? Or is it just everyone telling you something you should do?

@mxyzplk He's looking for mechanics-specific answers which compare DW with D&D, which wasn't expressed as well in the old question and so the answers didn't satisfy.

Yes, reading DW did not solve this; neither did reading all of SevedSideds links.

So multiple guys here wanted me to remove all the specific examples I had in the old question and just keep flanking/tactical combat

Ah well, the discussion is visible here

@Mala Well, your old question is also quite incomprehensible.

OK. then we can close the old one and open the new one, I guess - but we have very low tolerance for that, because then we have effective dupes all over the site. I think the new question as currently posted is way too brief to guide the answers in to the pretty narrow well you want them

@Mala Sure, but they are possibly wrong.

If we're creating questions from scratch, I think it's worth to separate the "Why is this innovative?" and "How is it like D&D?" into separate quesitons.

But I am specifically interested in innovations over D&D

@AlexP They're also not the sorts of questions we deal particularly well with.

not, in general

The latter is not a real question, really, and I'm not sure the former can be answered without referring to D&D as it is clearly a storytelling D&D emulator

It's very hard to tell why you're asking these questions.

mike's answer to your first question seems to answer it well.

Because I did not find good enough answers on the rest of the web.

True. What's your backing problem?