Does anyone else think that DW has some good ideas but needs a little more mechanical crunch to actualize them?
But all of it's good points are based on not having crunch.
>>43530266
It actually needs less crunch. It's trying way too hard to emulate D&D instead of doing its own thing as a World game.
Got excited. Thought we were continuing
>>43530861
This.
The fact that it is a love letter to D&D is its downfall.
Sacred cows don't play nice with the core principles of the PbtA engine.
>>43530861
Yeahhhhhh. Probably only needed 4 Attributes, and no 3-18 stat spread that gets converted to a (-3)--(+3) bonus anyway.
>>43530266
I think it pisses off people that looks so much like DnD and yet it in no way resembles the rule-fetishism people expect of DnD.
More crunch? I started playing this because I wanted less crunch.
Anyway, I would be very happy with some pdf's, like compendium classes and whatnot.
I was hoping for a necromancer class. I saw that someone made a 3rd party pdf for one on DTRPG, but it didn't get a good rating.
>>43535943
This seems ok at first glance.
>>43536084
There's also a grave knight in this one
>>43530266
You'd be better off playing PathFATE, IMO.
In fact, you'd probably be better off playing PathFATE instead of actual Pathfinder.
But this is my 3:30 AM afyer eight hours programming opinion speaking, so take that as you will.
>>43536114
>There's also a grave knight in this one
Grave Knight as written is kinda broken
>>43536258
What makes it broken?
>>43536309
he can't die. especially if you have a player who argues that EVERYTHING has some kind of "Life energy" in it. At a higher lvl he leeches HP and souls with every attack, spends his souls to turn a miss into success and gets the soul back right away. and once he reaches lvl 6 he can cast ANY wizard or cleric spell regardless of lvl for ONE singe soul. it's ludicrous
>>43536139
This one?
http://www.killershrike.com/Fate/Fae/Pathfinder/PathfinderFateAccelerated.aspx
Tell me about DW. Which of its lessons can I utilize in DMing a sandbox in D&D?
>>43536632
>Which of its lessons can I utilize in DMing a sandbox in D&D?
Fronts and "play to find out what happens"
>>43536632
Fronts.
>http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/fronts
Dungeon World didn't invent them, but the SRD is free so read that shit. It's literally "how to sandbox RPG".
>>43536657
If you guys use hexmaps, how do you make your random encounter tables? Does the table for a region include both monsters and ephemera, non-hostile NPCs, etc., or do you first roll to see if a monster is encountered and then roll on the monster table?
>>43536711
A lot of the time I don't really do random encounter tables, and my "tables" are more "shit I wrote down because I thought it was cool and want to throw at my players at some point."
I do keep some random tables, though, and I usually roll twice. The first table has a bunch of encounters on it (with "no encounter" listed, usually taking up most of the space). The second table is a list of motivations.
So, I'll get results like
>Wolves
>Running from something
>Wandering warrior
>Minding their own business
>Travelers
>Want something
And then I kind of get a little GM activity where I figure out what that means. Are the wolves running from a bigger predator, or maybe some natural event? What is the warrior doing? The travelers want something--are they going to be traders, or bandits?
It's a nice way to get an encounter that's more than "enemies are here" while still being generic enough that I can customize it to fit in with whatever's going on at the time. Then again, I don't run D&D, I run a considerably lighter system where making up encounters like that on the go is super quick. D&D being a pretty prep-heavy game, your mileage may vary.
>>43530266
No.
Dungeon World's flaw is that it takes all the imagination out of the game. It's like if the devs decided 'hey let's force the players to play the most generic version of d&d possible. Dungeons only. No multiclassing or freedom of character build ever.'
I mean, when the game started telling me that I had to select a name from a goddamn *LIST* for my utterly generic (because I couldn't make him any other way according to RAW) human warrior character, I decided I was out.
>>43537899
>Dungeon World's flaw is that it takes all the imagination out of the game. It's like if the devs decided 'hey let's force the players to play the most generic version of d&d possible. Dungeons only. No multiclassing or freedom of character build ever.'
Listen friend... It's fine that some people don't like DW. But it's less fine when your arguments against it are fabricated nonsense based on miscomprehending a partial skim-though of a few pages.
>>43539333
I got all the way up to and through a character creation and first session.
I would have less of a problem if I could select my own character's personality. I wasn't allowed to make a compassionate righteous fighter- just a dickass sellsword.
>X owes me their life
>Y is weak, and I will make them HARD LIKE ME.
The bond system is actually a really good idea- if you could freeform them. But you can't. The rules explicitly say to select a certain amount the listed bonds.
So probably not good for a hardline DM.I also hated Apocalypse World, but that was more due to the general theme of the game, where it's all latex and leather and 'swordmurder chix'
>>43537899
>I mean, when the game started telling me that I had to select a name from a goddamn *LIST*
Shit, dude, do you understand that suggestions are not mandatory? You can write in your own name, look, and bonds. You can write in your own race, too, though you'll want to work with your DM on a racial moves.
You're also allowed to write equipment on your inventory that's not on the starting gear, and moves you gain from compendium classes and things.
> for my utterly generic (because I couldn't make him any other way according to RAW) human warrior character
If you can't make a character interesting except by giving him mechanical abilities and powers, you suck at roleplaying. This was everything wrong with the characters in the Star Wars prequels - if you stripped away their cool gear and powers and job titles, there was nothing left, because they were hollow characters created by a hack.
But even then, each class has unique traits right at level one -- two Fighters can have very different signature weapons, for instance.
>>43539424
>I wasn't allowed to make a compassionate righteous fighter- just a dickass sellsword.
I notice you left out the suggested starting bonds of:
>I have sworn to protect _______________.
>I worry about the ability of _______________ to survive in the dungeon.
Also, there's this alignment:
>Good
>Defend those weaker than you.
But again, those are suggested starting bonds -- even if you took them, you'd be replacing them with newly written ones later, but you don't have to take them from the start either.
DW has too much crunch. it's supposed to be a rules light, informal dnd and has a 400+ page rule book. World of Dungeons is all you need to get the exact same experience, for free without any of the totally out of place strictures that DW puts up
>>43539559
>muh page count!
I like WoD, but don't oversell it. Those strictures it doesn't have include any sort of combat mechanics, or anything but the most basic and vague of spellcasting mechanics -- they're kind of flavorful, but just shy of being completely freeform.
It uses the single core roll to do everything, removing the Apocalypse Engine's move structure entirely. This leaves the players much more at the GM's mercy as they can't predict what might happen when they do a specific thing anymore. As close as they can get is the skill system, which only replaces "failure" on the "success -- complication -- failure" metric with "slightly worse complication."
Removing the 3-18 numerical stats means reintroducing the idea of the lookup table that you have to break out when you level up to see if your stats can be increased, which is annoying.
It also reintroduces the HP bloat of classic D&D, since characters will run anywhere from as little as 1 HP at level 1 all the way up to 60 HP at level 10, with +3 Con and a healer.
WoD is a neat little mini-system, but it's really far from "the exact same experience." Also, the text of DW is free. PDF (124 pages, OMG) and link related.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/dungeonworld
![animu girl [NANI SORE INTENSIFIES]_1.gif](https://i.imgur.com/C4RabcH.gif "animu girl [NANI SORE INTENSIFIES]_1.gif")
>>43537899
>I mean, when the game started telling me that I had to select a name from a goddamn *LIST* for my utterly generic (because I couldn't make him any other way according to RAW) human warrior character, I decided I was out.
You can't be serious.
>>43539700
Thanks brother, the pdf is very much appreciated!
Now that we've established that >>43537899 probably hates the game for none of the reasons he mentioned, let's get back to DW general.
What expansion classes have you enjoyed and are worth while?
Also, does anyone have an easy to use file of all classes, races and compendium classes? Right now I just have a big fucking mess of a folder.
>>43539863
Class warfare, use whatever race and heritage moves
>>43539863
I love the Psion. There's also a "DnD Psion" floating around, which is almost a lesson on how not to make a DW class. It's way too focused on recreating the minutiae of the D&D mechanics in DW, and it's just a mess. If they had focused on the broad flavor of what they were going for, it might have come out better.
Michael Atlin's Princess is cool too. I almost had one in my game until the player flaked.
Sadly, while I've split things up into "Classes" "Compendium" and "Misc" directories, my drive is also a mess that needs more sorting.
>>43540144
Class warfare seems harder for a starting group. Or am I wrong?
>>43540216
Yeah, it ramps up the complexity quite a bit. Which is good for groups that want more to chew on, but I wouldn't go with that from the start unless your players were 3e/GURPS-head type guys who balked at trying DW because there weren't enough build options.
Even then, I'd probably just throw a stack of third party class sheets at them, maybe wave a couple of compendium class sheets around and explain those, too, and see how that goes, rather than go full-on Class Warfare.
It's ripe for stealing ideas from, though.
>>43530861
I don't know about less crucnh, I don't think it's really any more complicated than AW, but it's definitely a little bit worse, because, as you say, it prioritises emulating D&D to the point where it compromises the design strengths of AW. Which, I find it a little hard to criticise, because emulating D&D is very much the point of the game. It's does, however leave me wishing for a pulpy fantasy AW hack that doesn't make those compromises.
>>43540166
And here's the MA Princess class. Check out those social mechanics; look at the starting choices, the multiclass options. This is a great example of a well-designed, flavorful DW class, where the creator had a clear idea of what the class was supposed to be and then built it beautifully.
>>43535531
>rule-fetishism people expect of DnD
That really should say AD&D. You can play OD&D/BasicD&D in a way that is not all that different from DW. Though I suppose D&D and AD&D are now synonyms, since WOTC dropped Basic. I really wish they hadn't done that.
