Quote from: brettmb;683399robiswrong, it's too long. I'm a simple man and the rules are all over the map. For rules-lite, it really needs less.

Most of them are GM-facing.

You can mostly just read the "how to play" chapter, skipping anything like hirelings that's beyond the normal.  If the SRD has the "example of play", read that, it gives a good feel for the game.

Beyond that, if you just read the basic moves, and then pick a single class and read its moves, you'll have a good feel of the system from the player's viewpoint.

If you're familiar with RPGs in general, you can probably skim most of "how to play".  There's a lot of explanation of stuff that's been standard for 40 years.

If you really want to cut down to the bare essentials, read the Basic Moves, and then one of the class chapters.

Or, join a game in a G+ Hangout.  The game is simple enough to pick up when playing.

Quote from: brettmb;683390No. I'm just not following anything here. You're telling me a 6 is a failure (or botch) and a 7-9 is a success. So the GM improvised the results. Am I correct or did I miss something again?

Here's what happens.  When a player attempts a task that has a chance of failure, he rolls 2d6 + his relevant stat.  On a roll of 10+, the character gains a particularly good success.  On a roll of 7-9, the character gains a partial success, which means he gets some of what he wants, but not all of it.  On a roll of 6-, the DM gets to make a "move," which means he gets to perform a bit of improvisation that has the potential to harm or hinder the players.

For example, let's use the previous example of the glyph of flesh to stone.  The setup for a tradgame and Dungeon World is alike: you enter the room and see a sigil etched into the floor.  The players then react to this accordingly in both games.  In this example, we'll have the wizard examining it.

Tradgame Scenario #1:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and examine it.  What do I know?
DM: Roll Spellcraft.
WIZARD: I roll 25.  (A good roll, one that can likely provide a fair amount of information.)
DM: You recognize this is a glyph of flesh to stone that triggers whenever a living creature comes into contact with this.  Once it has been activated, it requires one hour to recharge.

Dungeon World Scenario #1:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and examine it.  What do I know?
DM: Roll 2d6+Int.
WIZARD: I roll 10+.
DM: You recognize this is a glyph of flesh to stone that triggers whenever a living creature comes into contact with this.  Once it has been activated, it requires one hour to recharge.  (The move Spout Lore says that the DM must provide information that is both useful and interesting on a 10+.)

Tradgame Scenario #2:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and examine it.  What do I know?
DM: Roll Spellcraft.
WIZARD: I roll 15.  (A mediocre roll, one that provides limited insight.)
DM: You recognize that this is some sort of magical trap, but you're not sure what.

Dungeon World Scenario #2:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and examine it.  What do I know?
DM: Roll 2d6+Int.
WIZARD: I roll 7-9.
DM: You aren't sure exactly what the glyph does, but you recognize the style of the glyph as the sort that are commonplace when guarding a wizard's sanctum.  (On a 7-9, the DM is required to give out a bit of interesting information, but it may not be immediately useful.)

Tradgame Scenario #3:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and examine it.  What do I know?
DM: Roll Spellcraft.
WIZARD: I roll 5.  (A poor roll, one unlikely to provide any information.)
DM: You know the glyph is magical, but nothing else.

Dungeon World Scenario #3:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and examine it.  What do I know?
DM: Roll 2d6+Int.
WIZARD: I roll 6-.
DM: Uh-oh!  While pondering the glyph, you begin walking around it, hoping a different angle will jog your memory.  Unfortunately, you take a step too close and trigger it.  (On a 6-, the DM gets to make one of his moves.  In this example, I'm using "use a danger move," which in this case is the flesh to stone glyph.)  The glyph glows bright purple.  What do you do?
WIZARD: I leap out of the way.  (Defy Danger move using Dexterity.)  I rolled a 7-9.
DM: As you jump backward, an amethyst ray strikes your arm.  You let out a shout as the limb goes numb and turns to granite.  (The DM gives the player a worse outcome on this roll, as per the Defy Danger move.)

Tradgame Scenario #4:

WIZARD: I carefully walk over to the glyph and touch it.
DM: Uh-oh, you've triggered the glyph!  Roll a DC 15 Fortitude save.
WIZARD: I roll a 15.
DM: Lucky for you, you shrugged off that spell.

Or...

WIZARD: I roll a 10.
DM: Uh-oh, you turn to stone.

Quote from: brettmb;683399robiswrong, it's too long. For rules-lite, it really needs less.

Given the books linked in your .sig, I think it's safe to assume at this point that you're blatantly trolling.

Good work, though. You managed to spin this out for several pages.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;683402Given the books linked in your .sig, I think it's safe to assume at this point that you're blatantly trolling.

Good work, though. You managed to spin this out for several pages.

Wow. Really? Books in my sig? I can't have outside interests?

I'm trying to get this explained... finally did. All it seems to come down to is get hurt, succeed but with difficulty, or win. OK. Pretty simple. Hey, if that's what makes the game fun for you, great! That one facet just doesn't seem much different from anything I've played for me to say, "I've got to play this," and that makes me curious as to what it's got that makes other people want to play it.

Quote from: silva;683387Tell me any other game that has "sucess at a cost" built-in on the resolution.

Okay, I'll play. Fate Core. Torchbearer. Mouse Guard.

Each very different from Dungeon World.

@brettmb, "sounds like any other game" is a silly statement. Which games? Does it sound like DnD 4? Does it sound like Fiasco? Does it sound like Dogs in the Vineyard? You mention Kult and Story Engine, does it sound like both of those games simultaneously?

Dungeon World doesn't bill itself as rules lite, but it's not very rules heavy. The GM presents a perilous and fantastical world and the players say what their heroic characters do. The interesting bits of the game revolve around the moves. Sometimes what the players say will fit a character move and the GM will call for a dice roll. On a 10 or better they succeed. On a 6 or less the GM gets to say what happens by making a GM move, listed below:

• Use a monster, danger, or location move
• Reveal an unwelcome truth
• Show signs of an approaching threat
• Deal damage
• Use up their resources
• Turn their move back on them
• Separate them
• Give an opportunity that fits a class’ abilities
• Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment
• Offer an opportunity, with or without cost
• Put someone in a spot
• Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask

So, say Burne is standing over his friend Perkins, shield raised against a Wyvern's aerial assault. The GM says "Cool, you're standing in defense of Perkins, roll +CON (move: Defend)." If Burne rolls at least a 10, he gets to do three of the following:

• Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
• Halve the attack’s effect or damage
• Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker
• Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level

If Burne rolls a 6 or less, the GM gets to make as hard a move as they like, perhaps they want to Deal Damage "One of the wyvern's claws rakes across your face, flaying your cheek to the bone. Roll 2D6 damage." Or maybe show a downside of their equipment, "The wyvern's maw clamps down on your shield as it tosses its head back on forth, leaving the shield a tattered and useless mess hanging from your arm." Or maybe you reveal an unwelcome truth, "As your shield resounds with the tremendous blows from the wyvern's claws, you spy its mate flying up behind it..." It's up to them and those things happen.

GM moves give the GM a lot of power to take things in new directions and to deal out complications and consequences to the characters. I think it plays like its own thing and doesn't feel like most games, although it feels inspired by old school DnD play (not saying it's an Old School game).

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;683232Yeah, the hardcore storygamers are huge douchebags.  Seems like most of the Tumblrites over on RPG.net are big into that sort of thing, probably because the "old school" D&D dredges up memories of Ronald Reagan and being bullied at high school.  I'm normally against "hipster RPGs" and storygames, but damn if Dungeon World isn't a load of fun.  The GM my group played with was a storygamer, but we still had a load of fun.



Uhh, okay.  Here's what happened in our game.  I was an elf fighter.  One of my compatriots was a rogue.  We were facing a door to the dungeon.  The rogue wants to quietly open the door.  The DM says, "How are you going to do that?  It's a huge wooden door."  The rogue thinks for a minute and says he's going to oil the hinges and slowly push the door open, just peeking in.  The DM says he succeeds based on his actions within the game.

EDIT: Actually, forget it.

Quote from: Noclue;683414Okay, I'll play. Fate Core. Torchbearer. Mouse Guard.

Each very different from Dungeon World.

@brettmb, "sounds like any other game" is a silly statement. Which games? Does it sound like DnD 4? Does it sound like Fiasco? Does it sound like Dogs in the Vineyard? You mention Kult and Story Engine, does it sound like both of those games simultaneously?

Dungeon World doesn't bill itself as rules lite, but it's not very rules heavy. The GM presents a perilous and fantastical world and the players say what their heroic characters do. The interesting bits of the game revolve around the moves. Sometimes what the players say will fit a character move and the GM will call for a dice roll. On a 10 or better they succeed. On a 6 or less the GM gets to say what happens by making a GM move, listed below:

• Use a monster, danger, or location move
• Reveal an unwelcome truth
• Show signs of an approaching threat
• Deal damage
• Use up their resources
• Turn their move back on them
• Separate them
• Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
• Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment
• Offer an opportunity, with or without cost
• Put someone in a spot
• Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask

So, say Burne is standing over his friend Perkins, shield raised against a Wyvern's aerial assault. The GM says "Cool, you're standing in defense of Perkins, roll +CON (move: Defend)." If Burne rolls at least a 10, he gets to do three of the following:

• Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
• Halve the attack's effect or damage
• Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker
• Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level

If Burne rolls a 6 or less, the GM gets to make as hard a move as they like, perhaps they want to Deal Damage "One of the wyvern's claws rakes across your face, flaying your cheek to the bone. Roll 2D6 damage." Or maybe show a downside of their equipment, "The wyvern's maw clamps down on your shield as it tosses its head back on forth, leaving the shield a tattered and useless mess hanging from your arm." Or maybe you reveal an unwelcome truth, "As your shield resounds with the tremendous blows from the wyvern's claws, you spy its mate flying up behind it..." It's up to them and those things happen.

GM moves give the GM a lot of power to take things in new directions and to deal out complications and consequences to the characters. I think it plays like its own thing and doesn't feel like most games, although it feels inspired by old school DnD play (not saying it's an Old School game).

That's why I say the game has the genre furniture of old school dungeoneering games, but it isn't an "old school game". The fact that consequences come from a meta-game mechanical process rather than in-game logic is the crucial distinction.

Quote from: jeff37923;683020I'm turned off by having this shit constantly pushed at me online.

Fuck Dungeon World and all the rest of the -Worlds.

Quote from: Rincewind1;683093(...) the biggest turn off are the gaming hipsters who praised AW as the next  coming of Homer. (...)

Admittedly however, while I do somewhat like D&D, the peons sung for  it by fans of various editions, are also causing me to sneer and roll  my eyes, especially when the discussions reach the inevitable point of  "Why anything else, when there's D&D". And same rule applies to AW  and it's clones for me.

I agree.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683027It is a little off subject, but it would be cool (if it isn't already being done) for someone to launch an Old School RPG awards and tie it in with the ennies like the indie rpg awards.

Wouldn't that have the same trouble defining precisely what constitutes an old school game as the Indie RPG Awards have explaining what an indie game is exactly?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;683166When you use the word "style" here, what's your definition of that word? (...)

This does seem to be the crux of the discussion.

Quote from: silva;683387Tell me any other game that has "sucess at a cost" built-in on the resolution.

The Vortex system, used in Doctor Who, Primeval and Rocket Age, defines its levels of success in such terms but doesn't present it as something fantastically unique and innovative, which it probably isn't.

From Primeval (the other games may differ slightly): You roll 2D6 + attribute + skill. If the difference between the result and the difficulty is:

9+            Fantastic Yes, and...
4 to 8        Good Yes!
0 to 3        Normal Yes, but... You've succeeded but the GM *may* add some sort of complication or secondary problem.
-1 to -3    Failed No, but... It could've been worse. The GM *may* allow you to gain something out of the encounter, but it may not be what you'd expected.
-4 to -8     Bad No!
-9 or lower Disastrous No, and...

It's also recommended that you don't roll if failure is boring, if success is vital, if the task is trivial or if you've already rolled.

Quote from: brettmb;683405(...) All it seems to come down to is get hurt, succeed but with difficulty, or win. OK. Pretty simple. Hey, if that's what makes the game fun for you, great! That one facet just doesn't seem much different from anything I've played for me to say, "I've got to play this," and that makes me curious as to what it's got that makes other people want to play it.

Possibly they're unfamiliar with this kind of resolution and susceptible to the way it is presented as if it's something innovative and unique, either by the publishers or by the fans. Also, the scripted GM role may appeal to people.

I agree, though, that there's nothing particularly different or new there.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;683448Wouldn't that have the same trouble defining precisely what constitutes an old school game as the Indie RPG Awards have explaining what an indie game is exactly?
.

Yes, I am sure people would argue and debate the exact definition of old shool. But I still think it would be nice to have an award venue for such games. We are not going to arrive at a final consensus where everyone agrees old school is X, but that is okay IMO. You can still set criteria for nomination though.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683450Yes, I am sure people would argue and debate the exact definition of old shool. But I still think it would be nice to have an award venue for such games. We are not going to arrive at a final consensus where everyone agrees old school is X, but that is okay IMO. You can still set criteria for nomination though.

It may be challenging to get a jury that's not biased towards only a certain type of old school game, like with the Indie RPG Awards.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;683454It may be challenging to get a jury that's not biased towards only a certain type of old school game, like with the Indie RPG Awards.

That is always the challenge with awards. To some degree it can't be helped and is even desireable (the indie rpg awards is for people who like indie rogs and that does have a particular meaning for many people: though I would point out one of my own games did okay in the voting and I believe Lords of Olympus managed to get a runnners up slot). I think if you have the right mix of judges it can be offset. At the same time, you would want something called the RPG awards to select winners that line up with what folks involved in old shool gaming consider old school to be. You could also alleviate any disagreement here by having categories for games a bit more outside the box.

I don't know. Just an idea. I think it beats the current situation, where old school games are judged by the same criteria as modern ones by the same judges.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;683461I don't know. Just an idea. I think it beats the current situation, where old school games are judged by the same criteria as modern ones by the same judges.

I don't think any game should be able to get away with "but this game is old school / new school / yellow school" whatever to dodge flaws or criticisms. Crap games are crap, regardless of design school.

But then again, I also think that some actual "old school" games hold up just as well today, on their own merits - Marvel Super Heroes, for example, which I only started playing this year but really enjoy. I'm willing to concede not everyone is as open-minded on this subject.

Quote from: Ladybird;683467I don't think any game should be able to get away with "but this game is old school / new school / yellow school" whatever to dodge flaws or criticisms. Crap games are crap, regardless of design school.

But then again, I also think that some actual "old school" games hold up just as well today, on their own merits - Marvel Super Heroes, for example, which I only started playing this year but really enjoy. I'm willing to concede not everyone is as open-minded on this subject.

I disagree. Different games have different expectations and conventions. Judging an indie game by the standards of osr is just as unfair as judging an osr game by the standards of indie. Both have different criteria for what is good and bad in a game. True some games are crap across the board. But that doesn't mean design approach and convention is meaningless for somethiing like handing out awards. I am pretty confident if you had a contest between DW and LotFP for best and worst game and had an even mix of judges from the the osr and the indie crowd, you would have a pretty split decision on which is best and which is worst.

I think a game tailored to a particular genre can say "but this is an indie game" or "this is an osr" game against certain criticisms. If the game is intended for a more general audience, then clearly that isnt the case. So who you are making the game for in the first place does matter. Some games, just like movies, will transcend genre or design approach (silence of the lambs was a horror movie but it won a bunch of oscars. Still something could be a great horror movie, suitable for a horror movie award venue, but not likely to win an oscar.

Do people even agree on what a 'crap game' means?

I can see really poorly designed mechanics as 'crap' but mostly people refer to what they do not like as 'crap'

Quote from: noisms;683439That's why I say the game has the genre furniture of old school dungeoneering games, but it isn't an "old school game". The fact that consequences come from a meta-game mechanical process rather than in-game logic is the crucial distinction.

Well, it's on the GM to fit the consequence into what's been established so far, so it has to fit the in-game logic. But, since the game encourages prepping with lots of blanks to leave room for impromptu things to come up, I guess your point is accurate compared to a fully prepped dungeon. It's definitely not trying for an Old School feel, but it is not an old school game, and doesn't try to be.

However, I would point out that Old School GM's have been doing this since before time began when players took an unexpected left turn and veered off into territories the GM didn't foresee.