I've never seen before a Dungeon World thread on here; let's try to get one going.
What are your opinions on the system?
What's good/bad?
What can be improved?
Share custom moves and .pdf's if you have any you've enjoyed!
Tell me about dungeon world
>>43997875
Why does it roll the 2d6?
>>43997901
because it meme funny haha.
>>43997901
But you told me nothing
>>43997875
It's an attempt to do OSR in modified Apocalypse World.
There is absolutely no reason to go for DW over OD&D unless you have a massive fetish for AW.
>>43997875
dungeon world is a hack of Apocalypse world, a system that is built from the ground up to build stories with you as a player influencing the story beyond what your character does.
Dungeon World takes that system and applies it to DnD, including the combat-focus, the dungeoncrawling-focus and the focus on the character of the player. It adds rules from DnD to the AW engine that clash with the base game and it's very intent and leaves others for so called streamlining.
That's DW.
>>43997945
Someone get this hothead outta here.
>>43997999
>including the combat-focus
Did they forget that the point of OSR was to get treasure, not murder things?
>>43997991
I'm not super experienced with OD&D but I can't imagine it being simpler or easier to pick for new players than DW. They literally only have 4 pages to worry about, and 2 of those are common to everyone. And mechanically it's the simplest thing ever.
I'm planning to introduce a bunch of people to RPGs sometime soonish, and I haven't seen a better system than DW so far.
>>43998017
no they didn't, you don't get XP for killing things. What I mean is that they have a propper fighting system, shoehorned into a system where fights started and stopped with one roll.
>>43998039
>They literally only have 4 pages to worry about,
Sir, I can fit the entirety of Phoenix Command on 4 pages if I shrink it small enough.
Why don't you use a version of AW that uses the system for its designed purpose?
Anyone remember rolemaster? The game which everyone hated because you had to roll on a table to do everything? Suddenly, that's the cutting edge of game design, because some hipsters used it.
Exactly the same people who bash rules-heavy games for having too many rules are wetting themselves over games which are basically an entire book of special-instance rules where every single action has it's own unique chart. But it's cool, so long as it's written by the right people and makes sure to spell out that your character can be a transgressive genderqueer lesbian once for each character class.
>>43998054
>Sir, I can fit the entirety of Phoenix Command on 4 pages if I shrink it small enough.
What are you doing? Why waste both of our time making arguments you don't believe in.
> Why don't you use a version of AW that uses the system for its designed purpose?
...because AW among other things AW is designed to create hardcore, adversarial RPing opportunities where players are easily engaged in PvP and the classes and much of the aesthetic aren't anything you'd call 'accessible'
But it has an absolutely brilliant core 2d6 mechanic and it lends itself really well to super focused games systems. DW intelligently takes that base and makes a very accessible but powerful entry-level gaming system that doesn't get bogged with bloat and errata.
>>43998163
>doesn't get [...] errata
That's not a good thing.
>>43998043
> shoehorned into a system where fights started and stopped with one roll.
Do expand on this; I have some issues (the fact that mobs don't roll attacks, or can attack you when you deal a killing blow, are the biggest problems for me) with the DW fighting system aswell, I'd like to read your take on it.
>>43998163
>>43998170
I think Anon's talking about DnD-esque errata. DW is as simple as it's open ended, interpretation concerns are uncommon, and the ones that arise are easily solved.
Always wanted to try this class, seems like a blast to be Indie.
>>43998170
I mean in the sense that most RPGs are filled with poorly thought out bs, in terribly bloated, horribly organised books, and then get another 50 pages of errata on top of that
I'm going to play with new people, I'm not interested in dissecting an entire books for them everytime they level just because they're so unfamiliar. With this I can introduce them to the hobby, and we can all have a great time doing it
>>43998039
>I'm planning to introduce a bunch of people to RPGs sometime soonish, and I haven't seen a better system than DW so far.
Don't start them on DW. Start them on something rules-medium, so it's easier for them to move among systems.
>>43998239
>most RPGs
3.5 is not most RPGs.
>>43998229
well you hit the nail on the head, didn't you. 'Going Agro' and 'Ceasing by Force', the original moves in AW aren't fighting moves, they are violent conflict resolution moves. You roll on them when you decided the scene will potentially end in a bloodbath, and the dice and narration (that you, as a player, take part in) decides on the outcome.
That's why there's no opposed roll, that's why there aren't turns - you are rolling on the scene that is influenced by your action, not your action proper.
But in DnD, you roll your action. And DW, wanting to emulate DnD, takes that, and stubornly keeps the basic structure of AW's 'fighting'. Now there is HP and abstracted damage, and while it definitely can siumulate a fight in a normal fashion when retold, when you are actually playing it, it feels like you are required to lean further and further into the danger just so anything happens, which is just awkward.
>>43998248
>Don't start them on DW. Start them on something rules-medium, so it's easier for them to move among systems.
I want them familiar with roleplaying, first and foremost. I think most rule-heavy systems are wasted on the tabletop, and besides, I don't have to convert anyone who would be interested in anything any more complicated or exotic than D&D. They already know what tablegames are, and have already either jumped on them or rejected them.
I also disagree in general. I feel the biggest and most important hurdles are basics like dice, modifiers, and character sheets, and after that, 'what can my character do and how do I make them do it?'. After that it's just more complex versions of the same thing, and oceans of spell tables.
THAT SAID - I'm still genuinely interested in other recommendations if you have them.
>>43998229
>(the fact that mobs don't roll attacks, or can attack you when you deal a killing blow, are the biggest problems for me)
DW solves that by having the DM control those events - though that then flows into one of the major weaknesses of DW: it's more reliant than other systems on the strength of your DM.
>>43998317
GURPS Lite's a good one. Highly flexible, extremely modular, and the whole thing's only 32 pages.
>dice, modifiers, and character sheets
In what way are these hurdles? These are plastic shapes that show you a number. These are numbers that you add to the number on the die. This is a piece of paper with all your numbers on it.
>>43997390
The reason why you haven't seen many DW threads is because there is a subgroup on this board that will shit on the game every time they get a chance. There are flaws with the system, as with any system, but some people are just very keen on pointing out those flaws.
My experience: I'm a casual player, I like narrative over rules and I'm quite good at imagination and improvising.
My players are somewhat the same, we get more enjoyment through having a good story than through 'winning' the game. We came from quite a rule-heavy game, which didn't work for us, and then got to DW and had a blast.
It's simple to explain, it's easy to jump right in. The book gives some good, basic tips on GMing, like not trying to show off your amazing setting but creating the setting as you go along. It's just perfect for a certain kind of player, but not for everyone.
>>43998264
That sounds really good, and while I do agree that it's awkward as is, I live and breath number crunching DnD, and need to roll my dice just as much as I need the RP aspect of it. It'd be nice to work out a roll system with a more natural feel to it, regarding roleplaying.
>>43998354
I know what you mean, on my first DW rp, our fighter, somehow, was broken, and he OTK'd the first boss with a polevaulting-jump-spear-thrust on the guy. Since he decided to go for more damage, he got retaliated with some bs hit from the boss, which just shouldn't have happened. We got really angry at our DM. =P
Even so, the communal worldbuilding in DW is placid and organic. That overtone makes the game shine.
>>43998373
>In what way are these hurdles? These are plastic shapes that show you a number. These are numbers that you add to the number on the die. This is a piece of paper with all your numbers on it.
As someone who has taught more complicated systems to people whose biggest experience with gaming was a few goes at Mario Kart, I can tell you a) Yes and b) I sure as fuck ain't throwing anything more at a newbie in the first couple of sessions ever again
>>43997390
Good to see a Dungeon World thread
I know /tg/ is gonna /tg/, but it's not the whole reason these threads never show up. This board just loves obtuse, combat heavy systems. Which is fine. People don't really come here for what Dungeon World is offers.
Anyway, here's Dungeon World's book, and one splat (Mage/Priest/Templar/Artificer)
https://mega.nz/#!Jxl0SYbB
If anyone has additional splats I'd fucking love your dick forever
>>43999398
SORRY! I didn't know that was encrypted. I don't know what. I know people have shared unencrypted stuff before.
First time using Mega, my bad.
Here's the key
!YdL886rBUnooX5C7yZ9cj7OiovHTecl7GLeuh5ehDTI
>>43998532
How? I managed to pick up AD&D 2e at the age of 12 right quick.
>>43999398
My problem with DW is that my ideal roleplaying experience is not communally writing/directing a fantasy novel or movie. My (personal) ideal is getting to live the life of someone else, with all that entails. Essentially simulationist I guess, a lot of what DW cuts out is what I enjoy about roleplaying.
When I play more rules-heavy, I get insanely tense about whether my character will survive the fight, and if they will, whether its in one piece. I enjoy having more tactical options that aren't arbitrary, I like that I'm facing an enemy that feels alive and present in the world. I think it'd be harder to get that in an AW hack.
That all being said, I think that DW (and AW) is a really great system that knows what it wants to do and does it well. If you want to live out a fantasy story without all the in between scenes, and I know for a lot of people that probably is the ideal playing experience, I really don't see a better system than this one. Maybe Fate?
If you're about to run DW for the first time, pdf related is good to read beforehand. It's full of advice on getting DW to really shine for you.
>>43998518
>Since he decided to go for more damage, he got retaliated with some bs hit from the boss, which just shouldn't have happened.
That's the rules, though. You as a player can CHOOSE to do extra damage on a 10+ at the cost of exposing yourself to retaliation from the enemy. It's like driving recklessly in past their guard to get a really good killing blow in, but on the way there, they'll hit you back solidly.
It's up to the DM (optionally with help from the players) to figure out how that works in the fiction, though, and it sounds like your DM skimmed over that.
Also for a big fight against a major adversary, the DM ought to be throwing some Defy Dangers at you instead of just having the baddie stand there passively and allow you to attack him, ending the fight abruptly. That kind of behavior is for ordinary foes. See the "How difficult is this fight?" section on page 17 of pdf related.
>>43997390
Good:
Quick character creation with open ended powers. You can go from game introduction to playing in short order, with characters' backstories emerging organically from the social connections made during creation.
Bad:
The burning wheel influence means that it's theater improv which relies heavily on DM fiat instead of mechanically interesting choices. Fans of tactical decisions in games which emphasize rules mastery to defeat their opponents may find this unsatisfying.
>>43998373
Sir, I can fit the entirety of Phoenix Command on 32 pages if I shrink it small enough.
>>43997991
>There is absolutely no reason to go for DW over OD&D unless you are intelligent enough to realize OD&D is garbage
Yeah pretty much this.
>>44001052
>The burning wheel influence means that it's theater improv which relies heavily on DM fiat instead of mechanically interesting choices.
What the everloving fuck are you on about?
Why would you namedrop a system that has nothing to do with the game we're talking about?
The system seems nice and I plan to run a game.
However, one thing that keeps bothering me is how pretentious the writing is. The way it always talks about how moves should "follow from the fiction" and whatnot. It has a way of saying obvious things in a very smug tone.
Also a lot of the terminology is odd. "Mark XP" is apparently a holdover from Apocalypse World, but "take +1 ongoing" and "take -1 forward"? A lot of terms just don't sound intuitive, almost like a poor translation from a different language.
>>44001626
This is /tg/, lots of people have weird, half-baked ideas about shit, and they are gonna tell you about 'em, loudly.
>>44001705
>follow from the fiction
It means to ensure that you do things in the fiction first before the moves come out, and ensure it all makes sense.
As a player you don't say "I use Hack 'n' Slash," you describe what you're doing, and that maybe invokes Hack'n'Slash, or not as the case may be.
(If that goblin had his back turned and doesn't know you're coming, then attacking him doesn't invoke H&S, you just deal your damage and keep going.)
Likewise when you make a move as a DM, you need to make sure what you're doing follows from what happened before. If you want to have drop ogres fall from the sky, you need to have established beforehand that drop ogres are a possibility in this world, else it doesn't follow that this is happening.
"+1 ongoing" continues for as long as whatever triggered it holds true. "+1 forward" just adds to the next roll and is gone; both are just straight from Apocalypse World, and are part of the engine. I dunno, they seem pretty straightforward to me.
>>44001705
I like the system, but I concur with your assessment.
It's trying to define terms distinctly different from D&D because using the same terms might (leave them open to lawsuit) give the wrong impression of the game to people coming from D&D.
They're trying to define a system that is played differently from its influences, while keeping true to its system progenitor. It comes out a little messy or strange for that.
This isn't strictly a DW question since I don't plan on running DW. But it relates to the Powered by the Apocalypse system.
How can I make one on one fights seem more interesting? Often it doesn't feel like the players are in any real danger.
>>43998097
Here's your reply.
>>44001993
Check the DW guide posted above, it's got good advice on this.
tl;dr version: You need to threaten the players in multiple ways. Look at what you've established in the situation and start making things dangerous. Increase the number of rolls you're putting between them and what they want. Remember to do more than just deal damage, you have to put them in tight spots where they need to make hard choices.
You have an arsenal of tools as an Apocalypse Engine MC that you can use to make things hard on players, you've just got to learn how to use them all.
>>44001993
This >>44002462 is a very DW answer. 'Increase the number of rolls' is the opposite of what you want to do as an AW GM. Increasing the number of rolls runs counter to the whole system.
The answer instead is: you don't, except if you are playing a -world game that has been bent out of shape as much as DW, 1 on 1 combat is the last step, the culmination of the story that lead there, which the rolls are on.
The 1on1 fight is just a ceasing by force roll, then narrated by you and the people in a way that incorporates all that has lead up to it.
Again, if you run DW, DO increase the rolls, that's how it's hacked. If you run AW or something else that works closer to the system, it won't do you any good. Going Aggro, then Ceasing by force, then Going Aggro again doesn't work there, the moves aren't designed that way.Alternatively, use phases and have the antagonist move away or lose armour instead of to die, but again, that's really against the system.
>>43999398
Thank you kindly Anon, I have just been looking into DW, and am reading all the books I can get.
>>43997901
why not?
>>43997390
In the interest of keeping general threads alive, Here's some history: You don't see a lot of Dungeon World threads on /tg/ these days because, about 2 years ago, they got fairly popular, which lead to a dedicated group of posters whose dislike of the system lead to them shitposting any DW threads made for about a year. This was one of virtualoptim's prime posting arenas, before he was banned. Basically, you haven't seen any recently because the /tg/ DW community is kind of brushing the dust off from an extended battle.
>opinions.
Personally, as a guy who works with a lot of theatre people, and RPG newcomers, it's one of the best introductory games I've ever encountered for my type of people.
I do wish that they had handled the "racial bonuses" thing more generally, but I understand the want to keep the initial character sheets smaller.
I'm a big fan, but I'm very aware it takes the right group to pull off.
>>43997390
as an occasional GM, I like it a lot. the rules are few and once understand you can have them all on few paper sheet, most of them on character sheet.
it's an easy game to setup, an easy game to play and an easy game to improvise on (for example creating a new monster on the fly take few second, compared to the horror of DnD). It also deliver the experience most first time player want from an rpg (and the experience I wanted when I started)
it have limitation, and some people seems to hate it for some design flaws I apparently don't play enough to understand, but it's perfect if you don't want to spend hours on details.
>>43997390
It's the COD of Dnd.
If you're the sort of person who only ever played 3.5/pathfinder and gave up because of all the complicated rules and just want to focus on 'clever mad cap antics', this is the system built with you in mind for. You have a good time with DW.
Go enjoy your game.
>>44009919
> It's the COD of Dnd.
in what universe is DnD not the CoD of DnD
>>44010255
dnd is used to be the cod of dnd. The Dw came along so we had to bump it back to the Halo of dnd.
Pathfinder is pretty much battle field. fantasy craft would be half life 1 if we're generous.
>>44010431
Then say it's the Cod of Fantasy games?
Also.
>DW is as mainstream as Call of Duty.
>not the new hip indie game realeased.
Any ideas for dming my first game of this tomorrow? Everyone's new but I've played a few dungeon world campaigns so far
>>44010666
What sort of ideas are you looking for? Setting ideas? Ideas on what kind of adventure to run? Encounters?
>>44011939
Setting shouldn't be a problem since they all said they had ideas but I'm not sure what to throw at them in the first session to get the adventure going
>>44010538
Is when you look past the hipster cred and look at the game design. it offers the 'experience' of a fantasy adventure role playing game in the most safest accessible normie friendly manner possible.
It's pure COD.
>>44010666
Someone wants them to get Macguffin to place X.
The first village they come across has just been raided by orcs. The hetman's daughter is missing.
They are hired by the coty watch to investigate the murder of a watchman. The watch captain does not trust his own men, he knows they are corrput.
A few open-ended hooks I've used for my own games. Hope that triggers some inspiration.
>>44014801
Thanks a bunch, hoping this goes well
>>43997390
>good
It's got some great advice for players and GMs new and old to play basically run Dnd as a group story telling game.
>bad
The game mechanics are simplistic to the point of lacking. Static target numbers and a narrow modifier ranges don't help. Fan base is the worst.
>Improvements?
Just dump a lot of the necessary flowery language it uses for the rules. If define danger and 'perceive reality' is can you simply be referred to dodge and perception. Also don't make the players narrate stabbing someone every time. There's only so many ways you can spin hitting someone with a sword. Just let them hack and Slash.
>>44015824
>If define danger and 'perceive reality' is can you simply be referred to dodge and perception.
Defy Danger isn't called dodge, because it covers way more stuff than merely "dodge." Same for Discern Realities, which covers things like perception, trap sense, sense motive, and a host of other things depending on the context you use it in.
> Just let them hack and Slash.
This is guaranteed to make your Dungeon World session suck ass, because the game runs on the narrative that the players and GM generate. If you can't all accurately picture what the actors are doing, then the whole system won't work right.
The GM especially needs to know precisely what the player characters are doing in order to make moves that are interesting and fit the situation.
Target number treadmills are a waste of time. DW doesn't deal in old-school task resolution, it uses conflict resolution, so the only things it cares about are the narrative outcomes -- do you get the thing you want easily, or does it come with some kind of catch, or do you get trouble instead? The PCs are assumed ot be competent, and figuring out the odds that they can perform a specific feat is something the system is entirely uninterested in -- that's the GM's job, and he's encouraged to wing it.
>>43998097
That's the future we are to live; a future controlled by tumblr.
>>43999489
Kids nowadays wants everything to be munched and dumbed down for their little heads to understand and "have a blast", like a ephemeral dose of cocaine.
>>44016485
Thanks fucking god for that
Dungeon World makes everyone who likes gamist RPGs incredibly angry because of how flexible the rules are, how little system mastery matters and how few tactical decisions there are to actually make.
It makes people who like simulationist RPGs incredibly angry because the difficulty curve flaunts common sense and how it abstracts away a ton of stuff that might actually matter if you think about it sensibly (like ammunition).
And non-narrativist systems make Dungeon World fans incredibly angry because of how unflexible they are and how difficult it is for the GM and the player to create cool narrative on the fly.
Can we just accept that people want different things from different RPGs? All of the "flaws" mentioned in the system so far in this thread aren't really flaws at all as long as you're just going at it from the narrativist perspective.
>>43998054
Dungeon world has a combat focus?
Tell me where it separates combat rules from normal game rules. Tell me where the combat is in any way disjointed from the narrative aspects of the game.
The game has a narrative focus, the combat is just a tool for narrative and the game uses it as such. You don't know what you are talking about, have probably never played the game or I just got b8'd
>>44016665
you obviously replied to the wrong comment, and yeah, DW has a combat focus in comparisson to other -world games, in that the way it delivers narrative is focused on combat, rather than inter-player interaction, like AW.
>But bonds!
Yeah, turns out focus doesn't imply exclusivity.
>>43998097
I'm not sure why the success of Dungeon World would prevent you from enjoying Rolemaster. If you want a more generalized whining over why games made 20 years ago are not as fashionable now as they were when first published that's fine, just take it to another thread please.
>>44014823
Do tell us how your game went. I'd love to hear some examples of actual play with the system. One of my players is very excited over trying the system out one of these days.
>>44016073
Not poking fingers anon but the reason why the fan base is the worse is that they seem to insist everything is a feature not a bug.
Perceiving, Dodging and Attacking are all just as versatile words as the ones you just mentioned. All with the added bonus of brevity and transparency. But I'm willing to agree to disagree. It's a matter of personal preference.
>Target number treadmills are a waste of time. DW doesn't deal in old-school task resolution, it uses conflict resolution, so the only things it cares about are the narrative outcomes
Here however is where I have contention. You're just defending an unnecessarily limited system. In Dungeon world the mightiest dragon is as easy to hit in combat as a the lowest goblin by design. How is this considered a plus?
>>44016654
Flat difficulty curves are just as much as flaws a narrative point of view. Where's the dramatic tension?
>>44012623
>normie
Don't you have some butthurt autistic REEEEEEEEEEing to do?
>>44017197
Because hitting a twenty-foot-long death lizard isn't that fucking hard, it's actually hurting it that's the problem.
>>44017197
this
>>44017333
Also, read this piece on encounters in Dungeon World. It isn't about the stats, it is about the narrative which allows the GM to make creatures a serious threat entirely separate from their stat block
>>43997390
Copypasta, really? That's pathetic.
It's a game for people to play murderhobos in, and nothing else. Anyone saying anything different clearly hasn't read the book.
>>44017695
so basically you're saying it's okay if the monsters as weak hell stat wise as long as your DM sets the scene? (which you can do in dungeon world but not 4e for unexplained reasons)
But yes I suppose you can work around the low number range with clever storytelling and an appropriate use of special rules (ie armour 4 and the messy tag).
>>43998317
If I were to introduce someone to RPG, I'd go with either DW or Fireball. There are some minor things that require tweaks, but otherwise it's good. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw4a7RuFvg-aNGF6M2lLTGVNUkU/view?pli=1
>>44018060
no, what he is saying is that you shouldn't reduce a monster to a hack and slash roll.
I don't like DW, but you are not listening to the counter arguments.
>>44017695
I ran a Sixth World campaign that ended with the party fighting an Aztechnology dragon that was Seattle's regional manager.
It may have had a larger HP pool and better armour than a Dungeon World dragon (30 as opposed to 16, with 6-8 armour instead of 4) but it really, really felt like an apocalyptic fight to the death as it tore through roofs and chased them down the building before finally taking what was probably a pair of assault cannon shots to the eyes and ceasing to move in the middle of a company mall.
>>44017709
>I have read the book
>It's not just a game for murderhobo's
Whoa, see what I did there? I just blew your entire statement wide open with two simple sentences!
In all seriousness though, If you have a group who just want to murderhobo, you are correct. If you are not up for a murdercampaign, you should try to be a better GM and give better incentives or find a different group.
>>44012623
>in the most safest accessible normie friendly manner possible
Yes, being accessible to non-neckbeards is a bad thing.
>>44018210
It should have worn a rating six medical kit on its armour.
>>44018181
But that's all monsters are. They just floating blocks of stats and HP.
Everything else is just what you the GM brings to the table. It's the man who descries stuff like like smell of sulphur on on the dragons breath and the sound of leather being beaten with the flaps its wings.
>>44010431
>Pathfinder is pretty much battle field
Is this supposed to be good or bad? Because Pathfinder is shit
>>44018467
>just floating blocks of stats and HP
That is not how DW really works, like it or not. The monster is not just a stat block with an appearance: fighting a goblin that is charging at you in anger is different than a goblin that's jumping around trying to trip you or a goblin that is hiding behind a shield to avoid damage and wait for backup.
Each of them should have a slightly different feel and different motives and your players should be insensitive to not always just swing a sword at them.
>>44018447
...what, on its feathers?
>>44018578
Yes. Yes, exactly on its feathers.
If it wasn't also armed with a giant fuckoff rocket launcher or rotary cannon custom made for its claws and had close air support from helicopter gunships then it was a piss poor dragon with no sorts of forward planning.
I may be biased but dragons in my shadowrun game don't fuck around with JUST tooth and claw and atomic breath unless they're caught with their pants down.
But hey, as long as your players enjoyed the game!
>>44018467
>But that's all monsters are. They just floating blocks of stats and HP
not in the -worlds games. More in DW, I admit, but it's a weird mutant abomination anyways. Enemies should be a part of a scene, they shouldn't EVEN be a block of stats and HP in a -world game. That DW insists on making it that opens it up to critisism.
>>44018715
Eh, it was sitting in its office and the PCs had made it past a horde of security troops and some cyberzombies to get to the server room beneath it (they were out to erase some records the Azzies had on them and a technomancer friend)
The team's aerial strike drone was, at best, a distraction that let them flee down the pyramid tower while Dragon Manager tore it to shit.. And yeah, it was a great campaign.
>>44018775
Just thinking that any OTHER district manager would not engage a strike team directly. But hey! More fun this way, it seems.
Dragons who DON'T go after you with tooth or claw, but instead after your contacts, your family and friends, your street doc with a bribe and blackmail to infect your cyberware with a slow acting virus and your entire street shack with antimage toxins so to get your mage's ability neutered and so on -
Those are more than just a block of stats, that's petty vengeance personified and with the leverage to do so.
>>44017197
>Perceiving, Dodging and Attacking are all just as versatile words as the ones you just mentioned
No, you're missing the point. Defy Danger is not used in the same way as "dodge" nor is "discern realities" used in the way as "perception." The names are changed to get you to step back from preconceived notions of how you handle dice rolls in the games DW is emulating.
This leads into the next point.
>In Dungeon world the mightiest dragon is as easy to hit in combat as a the lowest goblin by design.
It is, only if you're running it wrong. Saying this is like complaining about D&D 5e's paucity of situational modifiers while ignoring advantage/disadvantage.
"Fiction first" isn't a buzzword or something, it's a principle that you need to get before DW will work right for you. Players can't just walk up and "I use Hack'n'Slash" a dragon's toes until it runs out of HP. Even getting near the dragon will likely require a series of Defy Danger rolls to handle resisting its firey breath, dodging the swipe of its tail, fending off its teeth and claws, and finally getting in close enough to strike a blow. It might require 4 rolls to get past all the dangers that a dragon poses.
The lowliest goblin for example, might require zero rolls. If he's not tough enough to stand and fight you, Hack'n'Slash is not triggered, because the move only happens "when you engage someone in melee combat." So in that case you'd just do your damage, because the move happens when the fiction calls for it, not when the player calls out a thing on his sheet.
To increase the threat of something, you increase its danger in the fiction first, and that triggers more moves. (If a dragon fight was supposed to be a big thing, say they're delving a dungeon specifically to hunt a dragon that's been locked away down there, I'd probably even build a couple of custom moves around the dragon and its lair)
>>44018719
>Enemies should be a part of a scene, they shouldn't EVEN be a block of stats and HP in a -world game. That DW insists on making it that opens it up to critisism.
Yeah, this seems to be the main cause of misunderstandings of DW - people come to it with preconceived notions from D&D, and then try to apply those directly to DW even though the Apocalypse Engine doesn't work that way, all because DW is trying to emulate D&D and so looks kind of similar.
So renaming everything to match D&D would probably only make this problem worse.
Monsters having HP is kind of important to get the drawn-out back-and-forth D&D combat that DW wants in the AW engine, but it also means people aren't as readily knocked out of their mindset that monsters are just stat blocks, and that in an Apocalyse Engine game where the fiction is wired so tightly to the engine, fluff and crunch are two parts of the same whole.
>>44018719
> -world games
You want 'Powered by the Apocalypse'. PbtA is the accepted term and a lot less goofy
>>44019963
This is a good explanation, but there's one thing I want to add that I rarely see addressed in these discussions.
Fictional positioning doesn't just make a challenge more difficult because it calls for more rolls. While "you must resist the dragon's fiery breath in order to get close enough to attack" adds an extra mechanical element of challenge, you could instead/also say "the dragon is perched up on the roof of the town hall, well out of reach of your sword." Then the player has to not only succeed on some kind of roll to get to the proper dragon-stabbing altitude, but also has to come up with a way to get there. Different approaches will have different risks and payoffs: do you scrounge around for a ranged weapon in the debris (risk: taking your eyes off the dragon; payoff: you can attack from relative safety), or do you climb the back side of the building (risk: falling or being seen by the dragon while vulnerable; payoff: you close to melee range unnoticed), or maybe pretend to be injured and immobile (payoff: you lure the dragon to the ground so your buddies can stab it; risk: there's a dragon next to you and you're lying down).
I personally find that making fights difficult by simultaneously throwing several such open-ended obstacles at players (e.g. you're flanked on both sides by archers, the hill you stand on in covered in loose, easily dislodged rock, each wound you inflict on the ooze shoots a sticky substance that threatens to envelop your sword and lock up your armor, etc) makes things plenty challenging - whatever actions players take, they need to manage threats from multiple different sources (foes, environment, logistical, whatever).
>>44020092
>people come to it with preconceived notions from D&D, and then try to apply those directly to DW
yeah how strange that people come from D&D to play a game that's modeled on D&D but are confused by the shitty, obtuse rulebook that pretends it works like D&D even though it doesn't
>>44020288
I accept that that's the terminology, but I really don't care.
>>44020092
>onsters having HP is kind of important to get the drawn-out back-and-forth D&D combat that DW wants in the AW engine
which is, in my opinion, a failing of Dungeon World. It compromises in being DnD as well as in being a -world game, ending up just kind of eh.
>>44020680
Also, IMO, challenging DW encounters should usually have more interesting stakes than "do you kill the bad thing before it kill you?" Even the lowliest goblin might cause the party a lot of trouble in a race-for-the-MacGuffin conflict. So the question is often not "is this monster powerful enough to be a challenge" but instead "is this situation tenuous/complicated/dangerous enough to be a challenge".
Standing in defense of something precious, winning the favor of the crowd in the gladiator pit, and infiltrating the mad king's armory are all goals that might be accomplished by killing enemies, but you're probably not going to succeed at any of those just by spamming Hack n' Slash.
>>44020701
The rulebook does not pretend it works like D&D. It does the opposite, using non-D&D terminology and things left and right, which is what the guy upthread was complaining about.
>>44020902
Sure, you don't have to care for it, but I'd say that It's not a failing in that it does exactly what it's creators intended it to do. It brings longer, more D&D style combat than is standard in the Apocalypse Engine.
>>44021082
It is a failing though, in that he wanted longer, DnD style combat and used an Engine for it, that just doesn't support it. So he changed it around and added a few things and took a few things away, and what he got was a game of constantly of leaning forward that, while many surely enjoy it, is clearly held down by either intent or engine, depending on from which direction you look at it. Adam Koebel took dungeon world, took DnD, and mashed them together until it worked. And now it works, and does DnD worse than DnD and AW worse than AW.
The game is not an absolute failure, and you're not having badwrongfun for enjoying it, but the material suffers from the form and the form from the material. You can do better.
>>44021352
That's some pretty strongly worded opinions there, and I just plain disagree. I think DW combat works great. It flows from threat to thrdoesn'teat in a wonderfully cinematic way that stock D&D never did, while generally avoiding the original game's problem of "Here comes the Gunlugger, aaaand the fight's over."
Also don't omit credit to Sage LaTorra, Adam Koebel is only half of the team.
>>44021414
Well I think it's cinematicness in the moment is greatly stifled, because it's just as choppy as DnD with 'Oh you have to do something now - oh you don't? well something happens, you better do something - okay you do', and yeah, obviously fights stay longer, and of course get a lot more divorced from the scene than AW.
Basically, your opinion is completely valid, you're just content with a deeply flawed product.
>>44021551
>it's just as choppy as DnD with 'Oh you have to do something now - oh you don't? well something happens, you better do something - okay you do'
And with that my respect for your opinion just dropped quite a bit.
I call that sequence above "playing an RPG."
>>44022167
And I call what you just did there 'pretending to have a point'. It's not fluid, it's choppy. It doesn't flow. I describe what happens, I give you the opportunity to do a thing. If you do, you roll, if you don't, the enemy does their thing. Rince and repeat. that's taking turns that you don't call turns.
But sure, be a bitch about it, there's only so many times you can say 'That's like.. You're opinion man' before it gets boring. If you're just deflecting every point in the most infantile of manners I'm outty 3000. And that's what I am right now. I'm outty 3000
>>44022302
That's the dungeon world fanbase to you.
>>44022302
>It doesn't flow. I describe what happens, I give you the opportunity to do a thing. If you do, you roll, if you don't, the enemy does their thing. Rince and repeat. that's taking turns that you don't call turns.
Your mileage may vary, I guess, but it flows great at my table. And if you give somone the opportunity to do a thing it doesn't automatically mean there's a roll.
I'm sorry if I came off snippy, but you're basically taking your subjective opinion and presenting it as an objective fact over and over again.
>>44022485
>Your mileage may vary, I guess, but it flows great at my table
The classical "You are playing it wrong".
>>44022568
Well, sometimes folks actually do things the wrong way, but I don't think that's what's happening here. What I'm getting at is not "you're doing it wrong" but rather that I think his standards for what is "choppy" is really weird and not possible to acheive in an RPG.
The only way to really make that less "choppy" is for one person to monologue at the other one, who stays silent. At which point you're not playing a game anymore.
In an rpg you have to have a conversation with your players, which means you take turns saying things at each other. I don't see how the fuck that makes an RPG "flawed." It's grasping at straws.
Dungeon World relies on too much theory of mind for my taste.
It's a lot nicer having unambiguous positioning and stats and other crunch then applying a narrative to those, rather than trying to work a narrative out of a million different variables (some of which might be misunderstood or simply wrong to begin with).
>>44022302
What would be more fluid than that?
>>44022302
>that's taking turns that you don't call turns.
This. There was a general, non-DW thread about this a few weeks ago.
There's no such thing as a game where you don't take turns. It's a very weird myth that DW doesn't have turns. "There are no turns--it's a conversation!"
You know what psychiatrists call going back and forth in a conversation? Turn-taking.
>>44022719
You're right that Dungeon World has "turns" in the same way as a conversation, but it doesn't have turns in the strict D&D type sense.
People go when they want, in the order they want. The flow of combat shifts from point to point on the battlefield in the manner of a camera zooming around a fight in a movie, rather than a strict rotation.
The DM can make moves on people in varying ways, and others can jump in to help out or do a thing as needed. Nobody has to sit and wait for "their turn" to "come up." In addition, what consitutes "their turn" might happen at any time, so they have to pay attention because their PC might be threatened by something that's happening at any time.
All this is what makes combat flow so smoothly in my experience.
>>44022719
I think it's more that there is no set turn order, plus chinese whispers.
In DW the next person to have an interesting thing happen goes next. None of that shit where Dave takes a complicated fucking delay action and two people reload and nobody can skip Roger's go til he's finished re-reading the sunder rules. It's just whoever's next.
I'm pretty sure they go over that in the DW rulebook: no set initiative order, it's just a conversation.
>>44022835
>they have to pay attention because their PC might be threatened by something that's happening at any time
Huge advantage to DW, actually. Good point.
>>44022835
>>44022876
What I hate about systems like D&D is the turn order, rather than the system of turns themselves (which can't be helped). But what I DO like is that it's very equal: every player gets one turn per round.
What you describe sounds like it would be great with a decent group, but what if you have one player who insists on hogging the spotlight? Sure, more monsters get to make more moves against him, but what if it's That Guy who doesn't care? He just wants all the action.
And I get that the ebb and flow means the GM should be saying, "Okay, the goblin is about to release the trap on Alice. Bob, what do you do?" but what if, on the opposite end of the spectrum, one player is completely quiet and passive?
Alice-then-Bob-then-Carol... order at least means they all act, and they all act equally. Sadly that means time "stops" in the game, but isn't that happening in Dungeon World when one player describes a sequence of actions and the other players just sit there, quiet?
>>44022835
>Dungeon world doesn't have a turn order.
This says more than 'It's a conversation!'
>>44022666
not micromanaging combat, see: AW.
>But that's not what I want! That's booooring!
Well then quit claiming you want fluidity, because you want something that relies on the choppiness.
>>44023064
>what if it's That Guy who doesn't care? He just wants all the action.
That's not such a big problem in DW, because the players moves include a chance for failure and complication. The more you act, the more risk you take. The guy in the spotlight is the one most likely to get hurt. That Guy can still be a pain, but at least he gives the DM a chance to hoist him by his own petard, 100% according to the rules.
Plus the DM has the ability to shift focus and/or threaten other players if they're hanging back too much.
>>44023121
Eh, six of one, half a dozen of the other. "It's a conversation" also applies to everything else, with players helping each other and the DM to spot moves when they happen, and working out how things work and what happens.
>>44023148
That's not the game being more fluid, though. That's just your MC narrating a cool combat scene while you sit back and listen, because you've already made your one and only roll. That's all after the game part where you discussed your turn and rolled the dice.
Combat isn't "more fluid" in AW, it's just shorter and more perfunctory, because AW is more interested in the results of combat than what happens in the fight itself.
>>44023148
I'm not convinced AW even HAS combat, it just has a roll to fight, like a roll to climb a wall or whatnot. In that sense, it's more fluid because it's glossed over entirely.
DW is more fluid than D&D or other crunchy games, and sadly I think that's what people usually mean in RPGs by any one word adjective. There's like an asterisk by them and at the bottom it says
*compared to the edition of D&D popular when the authors were young.
>>44023343
no that IS more fluid, you can interject at any point and you can actually have a conversation about how the fight went. and the reason for it is:
>>44023536
That it's not combat. Combat is glossed over, it's a roll, not like climbing a wall, but like resolving a scene where a wall is an obsticle.
That's not combat. The powered by the apocalypse engine's not good for combat. You'd have to shoehorn it in, and it would clash with the rest of the game - oh wait.
>>44023675
>>44023536 here.
I think we... just agree. AW and DW are simply different.
>>44020701
>>44019963
The rulebook's in game terminology is needlessly obtuse and verbose. This a problem in any game but an real issue to the other wise newbie friendly Dungeon World.
>>44023995
yeah, I used you as part of my argument. Though I am more critical of DW's choice to use the apocalypse engine than you seem to be
>>44009919
>It's the COD of Dnd.
Do we do this now? Is this a thing that we do?
>>44009919
>It's the COD of Dnd.
That would imply that it's massively popular and mainstream, though.
RPGs don't really have anything like that, but since the closest equivalent is D&D itself I guess D&D is the CoD of D&D?
Or perhaps Pathfinder, but that's just D&D in witness protection.
>>44024994
>Game is broken at launch but fan based insisted it's better then the games it's trying to copy.
Pathfinder is battlefield 4
