Dungeon World basic questions

[Yora]

I've once more tried to take a look at Dungeon World, which certainly seems like an interesting way of playing "traditional" fantasy campaigns with a system that appears to sit in the middle between oldschool D&D and Fate, or something like that.

I am intrigued, but from only looking at the SRD I am still really confused about how this really works. One of the specific things I can't find is initiative, or in this case how you order what characters and NPCs are acting at which times in a fight. It seems like anyone goes whenever they like, but that way it sounds like you easily get some players acting all the time with some players not acting at all because they aren't quick enough to shout their action and opponents might act only when the GM remembers to do so.

[Cluedrew]

You generally just go around the table in Powered by the Apocalypse systems, or that is how the other such systems I have played have worked. Highest initiative goes to the character who is in the best position to act. You sometimes mess with it if someone does something really quick or really slow, and you can do so naturally as you feel appropriate.

Another thing to note is most combat moves take a "round" to complete (I think, been a while since I have looked at Dungeon World, so I am drawing from similar systems here) so all the players and all the opponents will get an opportunity to act when that happens.

Still, just going around the table is usually enough. Keeping when everyone went last in mind is a good safety as well.

[LibraryOgre]

One side effect of the PBTA system is that opponents don't always need to act... the conflict with the players tends to be their action. Player takes a swing at a goblin? If he rolls a 10+, he hits the goblin, no problem. He rolls a 7-9, he hits the goblin, and the goblin hits him. 6-, and the goblin hits him. If you're outnumbered, it can just mean that it takes a lot longer for the heroes to win the fight (and so have more chances to lose).

[Airk]

Dungeon World has no initiative. It's up to the GM to keep the ball rolling around - people don't just get to yell "Oh oh, my turn! I do <thing>!" but rather, it goes more like "Okay, Roderick, you slash at the orc, and you wound him, but he counterattacks and knocks your sword out of your hand, sending it spinning over towards where Alethia is grappling with the chieftain. Alethia, what do you do?"

Similarly, monsters/NPCs don't get "turns" at all - monster actions are consequences of player rolls. For example:

"I roar a battle cry and brandish my greataxe, then, once I have the ogre's attention, I rush in and hew his leg!"
Roll 2d6+Str
On a 10+ "You dash in, and the ogre swings his club at you, but you deftly duck under it, and lifting your axe, bring it down upon his ankle. Roll damage as the ogre roars and crumples to one knee!"
On a 7-9 "You dash in, and the ogre swings his club at you, but you deftly duck under it, and lifting your axe, bring it down upon his ankle... but then he reaches down with his free hand, seizes you by the back of your tabard, and hurls you against the wall! Roll damage, but you'll also take...<dice happen>"
On a 6- "You dash in, but you've underestimated just how fast that thing can move its club around! You try to duck under the blow, but instead it takes you full in the ribs, hurling you back and away before you even got close enough to attack it. Take <dice> damage, and your battleaxe is now lying at the ogre's feet."

You should probably pay the $10 for the actual PDF, it explains this stuff. Also, the Dungeon World Guide will probably head off some of your future questions.

[Yora]

Yeah, got those. It helps. Though when the handbook needs a handbook, that's pretty poor editing.

So do I get that right that NPCs and monsters only take actions (moves) in combat as reaction to a PC doing something and rolling under 10? And this also appplies to anything new that I am introducing to a situation as the GM? That seems like a pretty cool approach.

If you let players take actions freely (though with an eye on nobody hogging all the action) this would also mean that those players who announce actions most often also get hit the most often in return? That way players with comperatively weak characters could reduce their risk by simply not taking as many actions. And in turn players who always want to get the most attention also get the greatest beating. Interesting consequence.

[Friv]

Yeah, got those. It helps. Though when the handbook needs a handbook, that's pretty poor editing.

So do I get that right that NPCs and monsters only take actions (moves) in combat as reaction to a PC doing something and rolling under 10? And this also appplies to anything new that I am introducing to a situation as the GM? That seems like a pretty cool approach.

If you let players take actions freely (though with an eye on nobody hogging all the action) this would also mean that those players who announce actions most often also get hit the most often in return? That way players with comperatively weak characters could reduce their risk by simply not taking as many actions. And in turn players who always want to get the most attention also get the greatest beating. Interesting consequence.

This is all true, with one note. As GM, you are also allowed to introduce situations or consequences when a player is ignoring a threat that is growing. For example:

Alice, Bob, and Carl are out exploring and come across a warband of six very angry goblin soldiers. The goblins attack! Alice goes charging in, Bob prepares a spell, and Carl cowers in the back.

At this point, Alice is narratively stuck in with the goblins no matter what she does. If she rolls a 10+ she'll be dishing out damage and in no immediate danger, but she can't then say "Okay, I killed one goblin, I go and pick some wildflowers" without a goblin stabbing her.

Bob may or may not be stuck in; if he chooses "draw unpleasant attention" as a consequence of a poor spellcasting roll, a few goblins may break off and charge towards him and Carl. If everything went perfectly, it's fair to say "Bob kills a goblin, but the others are still stuck in with Alice and can't reach him right now".

Finally, if the goblins do get around Alice and rush Bob and Carl, Carl can't just continue not to declare actions in the hopes that he won't be hurt; he'll need to do something to either engage them or get away, or else he'll be stabbed by goblins.

So one player can take over a larger percentage of the actions and consequences, but usually unless a player has really gotten themselves hidden, the GM is going to be able to toss a danger or two their way.

(Similarly, if the players enter a dungeon room and proceed to have a loud argument about where to go next, the GM can absolutely say, "Right, someone overheard you, someone make me a Wisdom-based Defy Danger to spot an ambush.)

[Knaight]

The SRD isn't a complete system - Dungeon World isn't intended to be playable from the SRD alone if you haven't so much as read the actual system, and while you can probably bypass that by getting the actual system for Apocalypse World instead I wouldn't recommend that (though AW is a much better game than DW in a lot of respects).

[1337 b4k4]

So do I get that right that NPCs and monsters only take actions (moves) in combat as reaction to a PC doing something and rolling under 10? And this also appplies to anything new that I am introducing to a situation as the GM? That seems like a pretty cool approach.

More or less, and that reaction as pointed out can be in response to the PCs failing to do something even if they're succeeding at their roll. So if the goblin archers across the rickety bridge are taking a bead on the PCs and Black Leaf the thief is sprinting across the bridge, deftly leaping from broken plank to stretched vine (perhaps a Defy Danger - DEX roll), even if she succeeds, she may still take an arrow (GM Move Deal Damage) for not addressing that threat. Also, you only really get to choose your move on a 6-, the 7-9 result usually gives you as a GM a narrower set of consequences to apply.

If you let players take actions freely (though with an eye on nobody hogging all the action) this would also mean that those players who announce actions most often also get hit the most often in return? That way players with comperatively weak characters could reduce their risk by simply not taking as many actions. And in turn players who always want to get the most attention also get the greatest beating. Interesting consequence.

As a GM, you will get to scale up and down the "hardness" of the moves you make. A player who announces actions often might be acting on a micro level, describing most of their steps, where as one that doesn't might be talking in larger concepts. If you don't want to "pull" more out of that player, you might be harder on them (failures will see more of the "Deal Damage" "Reduce their Supplies" moves applied against them), where as your more active player might see more of the softer moves ("Reveal an Unwelcome Truth", "show a downside of their class"). You can also if you think the less active player is trying to sneak under the radar use moves that are triggered by others players against them. The unwelcome truth might be that Elfstar (your quiet player) sulking in the shadows and watching for an opening is also not noticing the spider slowly descending from above, and now Black Leaf is too tied up with the goblin archers to be able to assist with. In a way, as GM in dungeon world (at least when I play), "Fill the characters lives with adventure" means that moves don't always happen to the person that triggers them, they're all in this together, and they shall hang together.

But it also means that each player's engagement with an obstacle can be scaled to their desired level of involvement. I've had one player who was a very active combatant relative to the others. Applying simple damage every time they rolled less than a 10 would have had them dead fairly quickly. But applying softer moves allowed me to instead ratchet up the tension and the dangerousness of the spot they were in, giving them a sense of being cornered and desperate for an out.

Since you've already found the guide, might I suggest a youtube series of actual plays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooa-apRt2wk (RollPlay R&D). It serves as a pretty good overview of how the game plays and (for me anyway) was quite entertaining.

[Yora]

Looking at this system it immediately has me thinking of using it for Star Wars campaigns. This action resolution system seems like a great way of handling space battles in which everyone is sharing the same ship. Anyone can act whenever they have an idea with all of them getting the consequences together.

[1337 b4k4]

Looking at this system it immediately has me thinking of using it for Star Wars campaigns. This action resolution system seems like a great way of handling space battles in which everyone is sharing the same ship. Anyone can act whenever they have an idea with all of them getting the consequences together.

I'm pretty sure there's an Apocalypse World hack for star wars (I think called Star Wars World), that you might look up to draw some influence from. Although, if I recall correctly, Dungeon World deviates a bit more from AW than most of the hacks do, so you may need to look up the core rules for AW to use the hack.

[Yora]

DW does look awfully close to D&D with it's ability scores, classes, and spells. (Can't find any Star Wars hacks though.)

I sometimes come across the term playbooks. What's a playbook?

[Knaight]

I sometimes come across the term playbooks. What's a playbook?

It's basically a class.

[Yora]

I see.

I already noticed that the game seems to have a thing of calling regular well known concepts by new made up names.

Aside from the classes, are there substential differences between DW and AW?

[Knaight]

Aside from the classes, are there substential differences between DW and AW?

There's more than a few (e.g. the GM moves). AW hacks in general tend to deviate from AW somehow (and there's a lot of them, with DW just being the best known, probably followed by Monsterhearts), but DW is particularly far out. It's worth going back to AW proper when working on a hack, instead of trying to hack a hack further.

[Thrudd]

DW does look awfully close to D&D with it's ability scores, classes, and spells. (Can't find any Star Wars hacks though.)

I sometimes come across the term playbooks. What's a playbook?

I believe that's the point of DW. It's blatantly meant to emulate D&D with the AW game engine - so not technically designed for "generic fantasy", but a game where you form parties of fighters, wizards, clerics and thieves.

[Yora]

Which I actually kind of like. I generally like the approach of Basic D&D/AD&D to handling characters but the dramatic shift in character power with each level doesn't really quite line up with the kind of campaign I would like to run. From what information I've gathered about Apocalypse World it sounds much more like a non-action game with less of a combat system compared to Dungeon World and character advancement relying entirely in PC relationships. Dungeon World looks to be much more suitable for dungeon crawls (and also space opera).

I think I am starting to figure out how this game really works. Sneaking past guards would be a Defy Danger move using Dexterity, right?

[Morty]

It could also be a custom Dex move the GM made up on the spot. The important part is the choices and consequences.

[1337 b4k4]

Which I actually kind of like. I generally like the approach of Basic D&D/AD&D to handling characters but the dramatic shift in character power with each level doesn't really quite line up with the kind of campaign I would like to run. From what information I've gathered about Apocalypse World it sounds much more like a non-action game with less of a combat system compared to Dungeon World and character advancement relying entirely in PC relationships. Dungeon World looks to be much more suitable for dungeon crawls (and also space opera).

Yup. I've described Dungeon World to my players (and others) as everything 12 year old you thought D&D would be, before you read the rules. Which isn't to say now that I'm older I don't appreciate the game the the D&D rules were, just that DW delivers more on what I think a lot of people assume D&D to be based on the stories gamers tell.

I think I am starting to figure out how this game really works. Sneaking past guards would be a Defy Danger move using Dexterity, right?

As Morty pointed out, you could make a custom rule too if sneaking past guards was going to be a major thing for this session. As a general rule you will find that defy danger becomes a sort of catch all move. So before you roll it, you should consider whether A) there is really any interesting uncertainty to be had (e.g. The "take 20" scenario) or B) whether everyone is looking at you to see what happens ( in which case go with a gm move)

[Actana]

If you're looking for a scifi hack of the Apocalypse Engine, there's Uncharted Worlds. It doesn't really have a setting of its own, but it's very easy to customize based on what you want it to do. Instead of classes, you choose one origin (like Advanced, Crowded, Colonist, Impoverished, Rustic, etc) and two careers (eg. Military, Scoundrel, Clandestine, Starfarer, etc). You pick skills from each of them, and can advance in a freeform manner cross-career.

While the game does lack a lot of GM advice and campaign framing that is typical in PbtA games, it's a fairly decent hack and would be perfectly suited for a Star Wars campaign. Okay, perhaps almost perfectly: it doesn't have any sort of mystical powers in it, but I feel it wouldn't take a lot of work to introduce them in some manner, either mechanically or just purely narratively.

[1337 b4k4]

DW does look awfully close to D&D with it's ability scores, classes, and spells. (Can't find any Star Wars hacks though.)

Found the link for the star wars hack: https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...VZHSWwzZzlIcXM

[Yora]

Well, that's a rather inconvenient way to share documents.

But thanks for the link, I'll be browising through them.

I was actually quite surprised how fast I got through the whole DW rules. It's 400 pages, but when you take out the classes and monsters, the system itself is really pretty short.

[Airk]

Yeah, got those. It helps. Though when the handbook needs a handbook, that's pretty poor editing.

...that's because you're not reading the "handbook" (aka: The GAME) but rather a Reference Document designed to be used to look stuff up when you already know how to play, that deliberately does NOT include "how to play".

DW does look awfully close to D&D with it's ability scores, classes, and spells.

That's by design. It's supposed to specifically create a D&D-like experience without all the cruft of D&D.

I already noticed that the game seems to have a thing of calling regular well known concepts by new made up names.

Yeah! Like hit points and strength and..yeah. No. :P

Aside from the classes, are there substential differences between DW and AW?

Too many to list.

I was actually quite surprised how fast I got through the whole DW rules. It's 400 pages, but when you take out the classes and monsters, the system itself is really pretty short.

That's a part of the point, yes.

[LibraryOgre]

I played a fantastic DW Druid once, who adopted a Cajun accent and became "Boudreaux, King of the River".

I turned into alligators.

[Yora]

I think I am understanding Fronts. But what are Stakes? I don't see how the example questions would be relevant and how they would affect how I react to the players as GM.

[1337 b4k4]

I think I am understanding Fronts. But what are Stakes? I don't see how the example questions would be relevant and how they would affect how I react to the players as GM.

I interpreted stakes as basically the "plot line" of the front. These are the things that resolving the front will answer, they're the mysteries that completing this quest is supposed to reveal the answers for. Basically a focusing of the things you want to make sure you hit in the running.

[Jama7301]

Because I'm dumb, and I never contemplated the term "Playbook" before, this struck me yesterday

Because, in Dungeon World and other PbtA games, you aren't just given a power at a level up, you get to choose which one you take. You are building a playbook, like a coach of a sporting team. You choose which abilities and actions you want to take based on the makeup of your team and your personality. There are enough moves or plays, that your Paladin may be fairly different from my Paladin, for example.

And Multiclassing is literally Taking a Page out of Another Class' Playbook. You incorporate their ability to your own set of skills.

So thanks for making me dwell on that a bit and come to a realization I should have had before.

[Yora]

I interpreted stakes as basically the "plot line" of the front. These are the things that resolving the front will answer, they're the mysteries that completing this quest is supposed to reveal the answers for. Basically a focusing of the things you want to make sure you hit in the running.

Okay, that makes sense. And sounds like a good idea.

Looking at character advancement, it takes 117 XP to reach 10th level. Which I would expect to take 10 to 20 sessions of play. That's not a lot. Is there any mechanical reason why characters have to be retired by that point, other than the creators believing it is good for you to not play the same character for long?

[1337 b4k4]

Okay, that makes sense. And sounds like a good idea.

Looking at character advancement, it takes 117 XP to reach 10th level. Which I would expect to take 10 to 20 sessions of play. That's not a lot. Is there any mechanical reason why characters have to be retired by that point, other than the creators believing it is good for you to not play the same character for long?

Yeah, depending on how much your players are failing rolls, you might find they level fairly quick. Ultimate there's not any particular reason to retire them at that point anymore than you have to retire a level 20 D&D character. In fact, iirc there's an option if you don't want to retire the character to have them surrender their current class, keeping one or two moves they believe are "core" to that character, and taking a new class at level 1. (Reminiscent of the old D&D immortal rules where you had to level up multiple classes to reach immortal status).

Probably the only thing you would want to put a hard stop on is increasing ability scores. Otherwise failure results will quickly become impossible or extremely rare, and those results are just as much a part of the fun as the successes.

[Yora]

Oh, I had not seen that you also get to increase ability scores. Yes, increasing those to infinity wouldn't be a good idea.

Which makes me immediately think of the E6 solution: After 10th level it's only new moves but no ability score increases. Done.

Though increasing the XP to level up from 7+level to 10+level might also be a good idea for longer campaigns.

[Friv]

Okay, that makes sense. And sounds like a good idea.

Looking at character advancement, it takes 117 XP to reach 10th level. Which I would expect to take 10 to 20 sessions of play. That's not a lot. Is there any mechanical reason why characters have to be retired by that point, other than the creators believing it is good for you to not play the same character for long?

The main reason to retire characters there is to keep the play style at "dungeon crawl". Having played through the game, by Level 10 players are pretty beefy and able to solve problems up to and including "small army invading" without too much trouble. The players also have a lot more tools at their disposal stat-wise (you could be looking at +3, +3, +2, +1, +0, +0 as a spread, which leads to a lot of winning even before spells to give ongoing boosts come in).

And, of course, there's the martial/caster divide. It never gets as bad in Dungeon World as it does in D&D, but by Level 10 things tend to be getting out of control, because spell casters have (a) a lot of spells that provide wide-ranging problem solving, and more importantly (b) have a lot of things they can dump hard choices on that don't actually affect them that badly. When you get 11 spell levels worth of spells a day, and also probably have at least one free Level 1 spell (maybe more, depending on moves), and you cast at +3 and can lose a spell on 7-9 instead of suffering consequences, it is easy for a spell caster to become basically untouchable.

Our own game had a Level 10 Wizard in it, and he had the following spells in a typical day:
*) Light
*) Unseen Servant
*) Prestidigitation
*) Magic Missile (as L0)
*) Cure Light Wounds or Charm Person (1)
*) Dispel Magic (3)
*) Fireball (as L2)
*) Summon Monster (5)

He cast at +3, so as long as he rolled 4 or better he could choose to lose the spell, giving him five major rolls a day with no consequences for failure, more as long as he could get a 7 or better. He basically only got in trouble when he chose to. Fortunately, he chose to often, because he thought that it was funny to be suffering, but a couple more levels and things would have really gotten out of hand.