Dungeon World Impressions

[Morty]

So, having heard interesting things about the system, I decided that $10 isn't that much and that I'll get it in the interest of widening my RPG horizons. Who knows, maybe I'll even run it or play it. Having taken a look at the PDF, I think I like what I see. There's some old-school D&D baggage it could really do without, but thanks to the system's flexibility, it can be worked around relatively easily. It's mostly the races and classes that suffer from it. Otherwise, though, the system's design seems to recognize what's important as opposed to what isn't and strikes a balance between flexibility and baked-in variety. Does anyone know if there's a repository of homebrew classes somewhere?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I know the Dungeon World Tavern is stuffed with homebrew in the "Base Classes" and "Compendium Classes" categories. (Compendium Class: when you meet its requirements, which may or may not be unknown to the players, you can take moves from the class as you level up, instead of taking moves from your own class.)

There's a lot to love about DW, and I fully endorse giving it a play. There's some stuff that becomes more obvious and interesting once you've actually played it. Also, had a great session Monday night. The duo fell down a cliff, got attacked by a few alligators, kept escalating the situation until they were surrounded by gators, then high-tailed it and took a nap to recover. The guy on watch decided to fall asleep, and now they've been captured by lizard-men.

All in the span of 2 hours, including character creation.

Also, the Fighter used the alligator clamped onto his arm as a bludgeoning weapon against the other gators. It was great.

[Morty]

Yes, I found the compendium in the meantime. Quite a useful resource. The Blade Dancer class looks like an interesting alternative to the beefy Fighter. Maybe I'll try my hand at making my own class, if I get more experience with the system? I'm also not entirely sure how weapons work - like, for example, if I were to slap a Precise tag into a longsword, are there any rules for it, or do I just wing it?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Some tags have rules. Precise and Piercing are the ones that come to mind immediately. Look in the index for "Tags, weapon".

Some tags just tell you when and how you can use the weapon. If you have a reach weapon, then you can simply deal damage to an enemy who's too far away to hit you. They'll probably try to close for range. On the other hand, that reach weapon is a liability if an enemy with a hand weapon gets next to you; you'd probably have to Defy Danger to get in the right range.

Oh, and then there's messy. The only rules attached to it: when you attack someone with a messy weapon, stuff gets ripped up, pulled apart, etc., etc. It takes a messy weapon to cleave an enemy in two.

The tags tell you what situations you can use your weapon in. They're a way of extending your combat abilities. More importantly, they're tools for specific purposes.

There's not a lot of hard-and-fast rules for what specific tags mean, because a lot of it comes down to making calls based on what's going on at the table. "I'm jumping off the rock ledge and swinging my Messy hammer at the Duke's head." It's the GM's job to figure out what that means, rules-wise. Be fair, be a fan of the players, and have fun.

(Also note that it's deceptively hard to create new classes; pay a lot of attention to what each class adds to the story and the world. The base DW classes all add to the world in some way, from the Paladin's quest to the Fighter's signature weapon to the Druid's homeland.)

[Morty]

I have looked at the weapon tags, looks like the only rule for adding them to weapons is 'whatever feels right'.

As far as classes go, I suppose you're right. It's not that simple. Maybe I could come up with some custom moves and features for Fighter to replace armour specialization and feats of strength.

Another thing I like in DW is that it gives races class-based new moves instead of fiddly little bonuses so many other systems are enamoured with. Unfortunately, a dark side of this is that only some races get custom moves from a give class. So you need to poach moves from other classes or come up with your own if you want to play a dwarf thief.

[Airk]

I have looked at the weapon tags, looks like the only rule for adding them to weapons is 'whatever feels right'.

As far as classes go, I suppose you're right. It's not that simple. Maybe I could come up with some custom moves and features for Fighter to replace armour specialization and feats of strength.

What exactly is it about armor specialization and performing feats of strength that bothers you? These are iconic Fighter Things. That's the other thing about all the classes in DW - they are all Iconic in their own way, and their moves (and the lack of overlap between them) reinforce that.

It's not clear to me from reading what you wrote exactly what your issues with the classes ARE other than that you seem to be rebelling against "D&D classes" or something?

Another thing I like in DW is that it gives races class-based new moves instead of fiddly little bonuses so many other systems are enamoured with. Unfortunately, a dark side of this is that only some races get custom moves from a give class. So you need to poach moves from other classes or come up with your own if you want to play a dwarf thief.

No, actually, this means dwarves can't be thieves in Dungeon World. It's not that "Only some races get moves" it's that "Here are the races you can pick" in much the same way that you are limited in which alignments you can pick by your choice of class.

[Morty]

What exactly is it about armor specialization and performing feats of strength that bothers you? These are iconic Fighter Things. That's the other thing about all the classes in DW - they are all Iconic in their own way, and their moves (and the lack of overlap between them) reinforce that.

It's not clear to me from reading what you wrote exactly what your issues with the classes ARE other than that you seem to be rebelling against "D&D classes" or something?

They're iconic fighter things. They're also not what I'm interested in when I'm playing a warrior. So I'd like an alternative. Luckily, the system makes it easy to come up with such, which is why I treat it as an inconvenience rather than an actual problem. The class design is otherwise solid, and makes sure every class has its strengths. It uses the battered old D&D class list, but eh. I can live with that. Especially since people seem to have made a lot of their own classes.

No, actually, this means dwarves can't be thieves in Dungeon World. It's not that "Only some races get moves" it's that "Here are the races you can pick" in much the same way that you are limited in which alignments you can pick by your choice of class.

Yes, and I don't particularly like that, so I'll instead poach moves from other classes or maybe even come up with my own - it's what the system encourages. I treat DW's adherence to old-school trappings as a minor annoyance, although one that doesn't outweigh its strong suits, and one I can work around.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I have looked at the weapon tags, looks like the only rule for adding them to weapons is 'whatever feels right'.

Oh, right! Yeah. That was the question you were actually asking, sorry.

As far as classes go, I suppose you're right. It's not that simple. Maybe I could come up with some custom moves and features for Fighter to replace armour specialization and feats of strength.

I like that; I feel like it's much, much less work (and requires less design experience) to make a variant class by swapping a few moves in or out. Let us know what you make!

[Airk]

They're iconic fighter things. They're also not what I'm interested in when I'm playing a warrior.

Which would be...? Not fighting things? Swashbuckling? That's certainly not a "warrior" thing. Also, are you PLAYING this game, or running it? I'd doubly discourage you from tampering with the game to suit "what you want to play (in terms of characters)" if you're the GM.

So I'd like an alternative. Luckily, the system makes it easy to come up with such, which is why I treat it as an inconvenience rather than an actual problem. The class design is otherwise solid, and makes sure every class has its strengths. It uses the battered old D&D class list, but eh. I can live with that. Especially since people seem to have made a lot of their own classes.

Here's the thing. This game is emulating D&D deliberately. If you are looking for something that doesn't "feel" like D&D, it's probably NOT a good game choice.

Yes, and I don't particularly like that, so I'll instead poach moves from other classes or maybe even come up with my own - it's what the system encourages. I treat DW's adherence to old-school trappings as a minor annoyance, although one that doesn't outweigh its strong suits, and one I can work around.

If it were really "adhering" to old school trappings, dwarves could probably be thieves. :P It is emulating the oldschool without being trapped by it. I suggest you play the game as written before you decide you know best. (Note: That's my generic advice for all games.)

To answer other questions: You don't generally "add" tags to weapons unless the weapons are different in some way from the norm. Some weapons have some tags already. The fighter signature weapon can get others. Special loot or the like might have others. But you don't just "add precise to a longsword" because a longsword isn't precise. The fiction informs the rules here, not the other way around.

[Morty]

I like that; I feel like it's much, much less work (and requires less design experience) to make a variant class by swapping a few moves in or out. Let us know what you make!

The Armored move lets the fighter ignore the Clumsy tag of the heavier armour, so the replacement should probably let you do something new while wearing chainmail. Easy enough. The replacement for "Bend Bars, Lift Gates" is more tricky, since it's an exploration tool that helps the party with obstacles. Its replacement for a more nimble and athletic fighter had best serve in a similar capacity.

Which would be...? Not fighting things? Swashbuckling? That's certainly not a "warrior" thing. Also, are you PLAYING this game, or running it? I'd doubly discourage you from tampering with the game to suit "what you want to play (in terms of characters)" if you're the GM.

Currently, I'm doing neither. I might use the system to run an adventure idea I've been thinking about. If I do, I'll give the players the core set of classes, unless they're not satisfied with them, in which case we'll look into the custom-made ones. Your objection to making up custom moves in a game that appears to be designed with customizability and tinkering in mind strikes me as bizarre.

Here's the thing. This game is emulating D&D deliberately. If you are looking for something that doesn't "feel" like D&D, it's probably NOT a good game choice.

Well, I'm dreadfully sorry, but the D&D-esque elements aren't enough to turn me off an otherwise refreshingly well thought-out game. So I'll run or play it, if I get the opportunity, while downplaying them.

If it were really "adhering" to old school trappings, dwarves could probably be thieves. :P It is emulating the oldschool without being trapped by it. I suggest you play the game as written before you decide you know best. (Note: That's my generic advice for all games.)

Emulating the old-school without being trapped by it seems like a good summary of Dungeon World. One that certainly does not stop me from making up a flavourful move for a dwarven thief if I want to. Unless you think the game will break if I do that or something.

To answer other questions: You don't generally "add" tags to weapons unless the weapons are different in some way from the norm. Some weapons have some tags already. The fighter signature weapon can get others. Special loot or the like might have others. But you don't just "add precise to a longsword" because a longsword isn't precise. The fiction informs the rules here, not the other way around.

Yes, I suppose a precise longsword would be a rapier that we call a longsword.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The Armored move lets the fighter ignore the Clumsy tag of the heavier armour, so the replacement should probably let you do something new while wearing chainmail. Easy enough. The replacement for "Bend Bars, Lift Gates" is more tricky, since it's an exploration tool that helps the party with obstacles. Its replacement for a more nimble and athletic fighter had best serve in a similar capacity.

Just throwing stuff at the wall here...

"Nimble: while you are wearing light armor*, any close weapon you use is also a hand weapon, and any hand weapon you use is also a close weapon."

*I don't remember how armor is classed in Dungeon World

That way, you get some cool versatility in combat and can use multiple types of weapons effectively. Models an annoying "you can't hit me!" character in an interesting way.

For the latter: to me, it's also about "fighter smash problems!" I might go a completely different route, if you want to be swashbuckly...

"Daring: When you put on a display of fancy swordsmanship, you may immediately parley, even if you don't have leverage."

Less sure about this one, but it seems right to me. I'd definitely require a Defy Danger in certain situations, though! You can't put on that fancy display in the middle of a fight without effort!

[Morty]

The tone I'm going for is less 'daring swashbuckler' and more 'nimble, precise and focused swordsman'. Or axeman, or hammerman, as the case may be. My first idea was some sort of enhanced danger sense, but that's a bit similar to the thief's trap sense. Now I'm thinking about some sort of superior focus-themed move that lets the fighter remove distractions, be they noise or a were-rats's teeth in their ankle, to focus on the task at hand, whatever it may be. Your idea for a 'nimble' property sounds good, though. DW seems to group anything from leather to chainmail as 'light' armour. Another idea would be to let them temporarily sacrifice the one armour point from such gear for a +1 to moves related to acrobatics and athletics.

[SiuiS]

If you ever do run a game, if it's here then sign me up.

Have you looked at apocalypse world at all? Dungeon world is a hack of that system which is very good despite the post apocalypse tone and despite the smarmy writing. I have a friend who can sell ice to Eskimos but keeps it under wraps unless he really likes something. He really likes the *world engine. I'll quote mine him for you when I get the chance.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Another idea would be to let them temporarily sacrifice the one armour point from such gear for a +1 to moves related to acrobatics and athletics.

Hmm. I'm not generally so keen on moves that give +1 forward or +1 ongoing, because too many of those, and it turns into a modifiers game. I really like moves that add context and play with the fictional elements.

[Morty]

If you ever do run a game, if it's here then sign me up.

Have you looked at apocalypse world at all? Dungeon world is a hack of that system which is very good despite the post apocalypse tone and despite the smarmy writing. I have a friend who can sell ice to Eskimos but keeps it under wraps unless he really likes something. He really likes the *world engine. I'll quote mine him for you when I get the chance.

I haven't, but I am vaguely aware that Dungeon World is a variation of some larger engine. As far as running it goes, I'm not sure how long it'll take for me to get comfortable enough with the system, but if I do decide, I'll definitely let you know.

Hmm. I'm not generally so keen on moves that give +1 forward or +1 ongoing, because too many of those, and it turns into a modifiers game. I really like moves that add context and play with the fictional elements.

Good point. Fiddly bonuses only go so far and part of DW's appeal is that it shifts the focus towards new ways of affecting the world and narrative instead of tacking numbers onto things.

[Airk]

Yes, I suppose a precise longsword would be a rapier that we call a longsword.

But...why would you... that makes no sense. A rapier is DIFFERENT from a longsword. Which is why it has "precise". It's not different from a longsword so you can use DEX with it. This creates a fictional malfunction here. =(

[Morty]

Because I want to make a character who uses a longsword, or maybe a battle axe, but whose Dexterity is greater than Strength. And Dungeon World lets me do it without getting hung up on definitions. There's no fictional malfunction; just taking the list of example weapons and working with it. Not that it matters in case of the Fighter, anyway - they can add this tag to their signature weapon regardless of its form.

[obryn]

Dungeon World is great fun. If you love fiddly bits, it can get old, but its innovative, entertaining, and character creation is awesome. It's also got a ton of innovative ideas for running campaigns; fronts are revolutionary, IMO.

Be sure to grab the Dungeon World Guide because it explains how to run the game better than the game itself does.

[Morty]

I've read that one, yeah. It's what got me to try out the system in the first place.

[Loki_42]

I will say one of the worst things about Dungeon World is the core playbooks. There's fun to be had with them, but it's not the best PbtA design, and they're often too based around mechanics instead of narrative. Look up Jacob Randolph and Funhaver Industries on Drivethru RPG. They have a ton of extremely fun to use playbooks. They cost money, but you can usually get them in bundles that aren't too expensive.

Edit: Also, for a nimble swordsman, check out The City Thief, which could very easily be used for that purpose.

[SiuiS]

Dungeon World is great fun. If you love fiddly bits, it can get old, but its innovative, entertaining, and character creation is awesome. It's also got a ton of innovative ideas for running campaigns; fronts are revolutionary, IMO.

Be sure to grab the Dungeon World Guide because it explains how to run the game better than the game itself does.

Oooh, neat. Definitely in.


As promised, Thanqol-speak.

Spoiler: some Australian blurbs on games

Show

Though every encounter, everything in the game really, is ''Whatever the hell the DM decides'', so how is it different? A DM can say ''you open the door and see to beholders'', that is what DM's do. And the players have no idea what they will encounter ahead of time.




Trust in games is different. A player should just ''trust'' that the DM is going to run a fun game. That is why everyone is there. The player that demands to nitpick every rule (''what? The paper caught on fire?! DM, I demand you tell me where in the rules it says paper can catch on fire!'') is not showing trust.

And lets say your in the game, and suddenly the spell you just cast summons some water elementals. Does it really matter how and why? Or does it only matter if it's negative: ''Your sword breaks''. Is it ok when it is positive: ''Your blade cuts into a hole in the air and 100 000 gold falls out.''




A word? Named after me?

Fun story, my very first convention game of Apocalypse World, I was playing Mister Big the Hardholder. Some merchants came up to me to complain that they weren't getting paid enough, so I looked at my list of skills and decided to roll seize by force on the assumption it was 'like, seize the moment or something'. I picked inflict terrible harm and impress, dismay and terrify.

The GM looked at me kind of startled and is like, "woah, everyone, Mister Big just f*cking killed this guy in broad daylight in the middle of town! He knocks him down and beats him bloody and he's not moving at all". I was thinking, "Oh crap! That isn't what I meant to do at all!" and then everyone is like "jesus, Big, what the hell?" and I'm just kind of stunned at how dramatic and sudden that was. I'd never encountered anything like it.

But then I come to my senses. Everyone's staring at me, so I start acting like that was exactly what I meant to do all along. I yell at everyone to get back to work and wave around my machine gun menacingly. Everyone backs the hell away and then the Driver and the Touchstone frantically start talking about how Mister Big was crazy and needed to be stopped. But after that terrible accident Mister Big knew that he needed to assert absolute power or he was done, so he started throwing his weight around and threatening everyone in his way like a bloodcrazed tyrant.

Everyone was terrified of Mister Big by the end of it. He was this unstoppable, ruthless force of nature who everyone else just kind of cowered from as he passed. He made these big, idealistic speeches about reclaiming the surface and restoring peace and harmony to the world, and then backed it up by pointing a machine gun and screaming at anyone who crossed him. This was doubly terrifying because he was backed up by Mister Weird, his Brainer brother, who was totally, flawlessly loyal to Mister Big. Mister Big's town had become this strange, thought control dystopia run by these two scary bastards. And there's nothing in Apocalypse World as deadly as two PCs who are totally loyal to each other.

(Clarity, in this story, was the Touchstone police chief who, despite his idealistic visions, owed everything he had to Mister Big and went through a profoundly emotional struggle when it came to crossing him)

It all started because I got Go Aggro and Seize By Force mixed up. This is why I'll never get those two confused again.

Oh, I totally did, but this was a time where I'd only played effects-based games like D&D and Exalted and I was totally dumbfounded by how I could achieve such a dramatic result without going through a deliberate ritual sequence of actions. I didn't declare an attack, check against AC, roll damage, anything like that - it just happened. Boom. Like that.



Outcomes of these are generally left to the MC.

My other big passion right now is the AW hack, Monster Hearts.

Monster Hearts I talk about with the same breathless reverence as I do about AW; it's a genius system which captures and understands the beating heart of an entire genre. Even just looking over the playbooks is captivating. It's the perfect expression of it's conflict and I want to play it so badly.

Now the catch is that I'd only play it with people I really, totally trust.

This is because Monster Hearts is an expression of the Teen Romance genre and it's all about abusive, unhealthy relationships. It's about people who aren't in control of their lives or bodies and are undergoing profound and scary changes. It expresses these truths with extremely simple yet profoundly meaningful moves. Where an Apocalypse World character has the ability to SEIZE BY FORCE, which lets them violently take control of a situation and dominate and terrify the opposition... a Monsterhearts character has the ability to 'Lash Out With Violence' - which is a far less controlled brutal act of passion. Likewise, rather than having the ability to 'Seduce or Manipulate', which involves a directed, experienced understanding of physical attraction, a Monsterhearts character has the ability to 'Turn Someone On'. That's it, that's all it does, and you have no idea what that's going to mean or do.

Moreover, in addition to all these limited, scary, uncoordinated moves, your playbooks are designed to promote unhealthy relationships; they're all about that. The Mortal, which is basically Bella from Twilight, gets to pick someone arbitrarily as her True Love (they don't have to love her), and she gets to do things like mark experience for every time she excuses or justifies her love's bad behaviour. The Vampire is all about stringing people along, playing hot and cold with them and never granting them real satisfaction. The primary game resource is 'Strings', which represent how much emotional leverage each other person has over you. The Werewolf gains Strings on anyone he physically injures.

Finally, there's the concept of the Darkest Self. When your Darkest Self triggers you become a bad guy for a while. When the Hunter triggers she goes off, finds the biggest baddest thing she can, and fights it alone. This lasts until her friends physically restrain her or she wakes up in hospital. When the Witch's Darkest Self goes off she goes on a rampage of petty vengeance against every slight against her, real or imagined. Those things are scary.

So it's a very, very scary game about very, very complex relationships and it's sublime in how it pulls all that off. But what really stands out to me is the profundity of the Growing Up moves which offer hope through the darkness; you can take these after the game's passed a certain point. The upgrade to 'Turn Someone On' in this set is 'Make Someone Feel Beautiful'. The upgrade to 'Shut Someone Down' is 'Call Them On Their ****'. The upgrade to 'Gaze Into The Abyss' is 'Share Your Pain'. Good grief! That's sublime! No other game even comes close to grappling with those concepts or asking those questions!

But, at the end of the day, those are very scary questions. No other media, anywhere ever, will ask those questions of you half as directly. So, the end result is that I'd only play that game with a group of people I totally trust. One of my great ambitions in life is to assemble that group.

AW has three basic advantages:

1: Encoded best practices. A functional group can have fun playing anything. My current most awesome game, hands down, is a game of Exalted 2E! Even with all the garbage and cruft and mechanical complexity that entails. We even used the infamous mass combat rules last session!

But what AW does is systematizes, emphasises and encourages those traits most common to those best practice games. It's written in a very blunt, concise style and the MC chapter is full of very severe, hard directives of what you are and aren't allowed to do, and when. My Exalted GM, after reading the Fronts chapter, complained to me it was exactly how he structured stuff already - and that man is a gaming wizard so that's a major vote in favour of AW.

A lot of AW is taking, internalising, and applying that MC advice. Some people when running it just kind of gloss over the MC chapter or assume it's not as important as the core crunchy system, or that they don't need to spend the time to think through things like Fronts or whatever. They're wrong; that stuff's integral to the experience.

2: Outcomes based gameplay. In my mage tabletop, Jayden Mavel had Intelligence 4, Science 4, and a speciality in Acoustics. She rolled science one time ever in three years of gameplay. Why the hell was it on my sheet for that long then?

The vast majority of gaming systems ask you to do some reductive sh*t to figure out what you're good at or where you fit in the world. I have 48,000 gold pieces - am I rich or poor? I have three levels of iron hoof and 60 unarmed - am I an adequate melee combatant for my level? I have Allies (city hall) 2 and connections (police) 1 - is that enough to play the mayor of New York? What is?

The *World system does not care even slightly about if you spent your arbitrary character gen resources to justify your concept or not. It's not interested in those questions. It's interested in your narrative role and what you do with it. In Monster Hearts it explicitly notes that you could be a rich kid who throws money around like water and is guaranteed a spot at Princeton after graduation, or a trailer park kid who's dad robs liquor stores and it doesn't care. MH also doesn't have any stat for "How well you're doing academically". Who cares if you didn't sink enough character gen points into intelligence and academics? What's interesting is when Gene flunks the test and then Maurice taunts him about it, causing Gene to smash his head into the lockers.

3: Incentives to promote and reward genre appropriate gaming styles. AW uses XP-baits all over the place to promote and encourage certain forms of behaviour; it's a meta resource that's paid out when you bow to the genre's demands. When the Mortal in MH ignores or justifies blatant problems with how her lover is acting then he gets XP. That bends the entire structure of play around that behaviour; the Mortal is encouraged to actively seek out problematic relationships to involve herself in because that's what she's rewarded for doing. That's how she, essentially, 'wins' the game.

These emotional and relationship moves run deep in MH. The ghost has this one sweetly awful move which is basically the "Nice Guy Friend", who lets others unburden their problems on him while he nods and murmurs compassionate reassurance while secretly savouring the emotional proximity that grants him. On the other end of the spectrum, the Ghoul has a move that straight up means he can not die. Ever. He just gets up a few hours later, brushes himself down, and goes on good as new. Holy crap! Any other system that'd be crazy broken but in MH it's perfect because nobody cares about the threat of violent death. They care that the Ghoul is crazy and self destructive and can express that concept through total lack of concern for his own well being. The move in this case is a safety net which lets the Ghoul freely express that self destructive side without fear of mechanical penalty. Unlike a traditional character gen resource like Power Attack that lets you win fights harder, each move in a *World game should totally change the set of assumptions that inform your playstyle.



Yeah definitely.



Warhammer Fantasy, age 11. Played it every day for 3 years, got D&D, played it every day for 5 years, got Exalted, played it every day for 3 years, got WoD, played it every day for 3 years, just now moving into AW/MH.

AW's genius is that you don't need people to read a lot of rulebooks or give a lot of by in for the system to sell itself. What you do is you say you're running a post-apocalypse game. Then you print out all the playbooks and put them on the table, inviting people to pick whichever one catches their fancy. And then you follow the 1st Session chapter to the letter. You don't need to explain all the rules right away.

Unlike other games, AW gives you tonnes of advice on how to structure things during actual play. Follow it! That's what it's there for! My Sunday group were extreme end dice and spreadsheets types and now they're running AW all over the place, in games I'm not even involved in.

I'm not that deep in system understanding, man, I just work off the Principles and they're pretty straightforwards.

And sometimes even thinking about it as a hard system is wrong. Monster Hearts has a section that AW sorely lacks in "How to teach the game to new people". Part of it is sort of, don't think of the basic moves as a thing or explain the entire system straight up, it's if they do something that fits in with that move then you say, "Oh, so you're trying to physically restrain him? Roll seize by force". Let the situation set the stakes before the dice are rolled. Escalating beyond the stakes naturally set by the scene is weird and wrong. Basically be straight up with everything. Principles, honesty, prep.

Part of the reason I adopted the folksy Bastion-style narrator voice in World's Wheels is so I can be like "Now woah there, sport, if Kreen goes ahead and knifes that man that could set off a clan war" and I can otherwise pepper dialogue with useful facts, meta or otherwise, even beyond a post's normal flow. It'll be useful to watch once literally everyone gets back from the vacations they all decided to take at the same time.


E: What I've really learned recently is how absolutely important total buy in to the MC chapter is to run AW successfully. The mechanics are just as hard there as they are anywhere else even if no dice are rolled.

[kyoryu]

It's kind of interesting that one of the things Thanqol talks about is *against the rules*.

I looked at my list of skills and decided to roll seize by force on the assumption it was 'like, seize the moment or something'.

Moves don't work like that, and part of it is to avoid this type of problem. You don't just pick a move from your sheet, by the book. You start with what you're doing *in game*.

This increases immersion as well as preventing the type of misunderstanding that Thanqol talked about (even though it ended up awesome).

[SiuiS]

It's kind of interesting that one of the things Thanqol talks about is *against the rules*.



Moves don't work like that, and part of it is to avoid this type of problem. You don't just pick a move from your sheet, by the book. You start with what you're doing *in game*.

This increases immersion as well as preventing the type of misunderstanding that Thanqol talked about (even though it ended up awesome).

Well, yes. The story is explicitly a "that time I first played and disnt know what was happening and had a revalation". You'll notice that later in the quote bomb he actually says this; you don't pick a move, you tell a story until something that fits a move happens organically.

[Morty]

Those are some interesting perspectives. I've heard of Monster Hearts, but didn't know it's part of the same framework. There are certainly things I like in RPGs that Dungeon World doesn't do - but what it does, it seems to do nicely.

One thing I'm a bit confused about, though - the Fighter's advanced moves, Merciless and Scent of Blood. They seem to do more or less the same thing, only in slightly different circumstances.

Also, I'm looking at the Barbarian class, that's on a separate PDF in my Drive Thru RPG library for some reason, and it almost feels like a joke class. But I imagine it might be good at playing a passion-driven, larger-than-life barbarian hero.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

One thing I'm a bit confused about, though - the Fighter's advanced moves, Merciless and Scent of Blood. They seem to do more or less the same thing, only in slightly different circumstances.

One difference is what they mean. Someone with the Merciless move doesn't fight the same way as someone with the Scent of Blood move. The former? They're just out-and-out punishing and brutal. The latter? They're driven on by battle frenzy.

Now, mechanically, since you can only take a move once, it's important because you can stack their effects. If you're going for that, take Merciless first and then Scent of Blood later, and now your first attack deals +1d4 damage, and the rest of your attacks against that foe deal +2d4 damage.

Merciless is definitely more useful overall, though: not only does it trigger immediately, but it also triggers even when you don't Hack and Slash. (Hello, archery fighter!) Remorselessness pays off for the Fighter.

Also, I'm looking at the Barbarian class, that's on a separate PDF in my Drive Thru RPG library for some reason, and it almost feels like a joke class. But I imagine it might be good at playing a passion-driven, larger-than-life barbarian hero.

I believe the Barbarian was released after Dungeon World was published, so it's a supplementary class.

It's very much a Conan-inspired class.

[Morty]

Yes, taking both lets the Fighter deal quite lot of damage, but it's also a bit dull - the other moves are more interesting. So one of them just feels a little superfluous. If I ever play a DW fighter and reach level 6, I'll take Through Death's Eyes in a heartbeat. As far as the Barbarian goes, the Full Plate and Packing Steel ability makes me want to make one into Minsc from Baldur's Gate, but I'd probably need to come up with a custom appetite for him.

I do wonder, though, who thought it would be a good idea to use Google+ as the homebrew repository, and why. I can't find that handy Excel file with custom classes again.

[SiuiS]

Google+ is the social network of the OSR and Indie games featuring it.

[Morty]

One way or another, looking for something there is quite a task. I should have bookmarked that spreadsheet when I had the chance.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Google+ is the social network of the OSR and Indie games featuring it.

Also of tabletop gamers in general.

[SiuiS]

Also of tabletop gamers in general.

That might be most accurate. I just tacked on 'indie games' because OSR was wrong on it's own.