Quote from: Skywalker;683793Yep. I pretty said this in my first response to you:
Its just a well designed RPG with a particular style that some GM and players gel well with.

No, I didn't mean that. I think you just need a bunch good role-players and a good GM to pull it off.

Quote from: silva;683570Brett, if you reall want to see what the game does, I recommend taking a look at the original game, Apocalypse World. Its a package of well thought out rules that blend together to result in a very (using tags to facilitate compehension) player-driven, low-prep, rules-light, choice-consequence, intra-party tension, fiction-first little game.

And its much lighter and smaller then its Dungeon World hack.

Yeah, no.

Apocalypse World is a jumbled mess that makes absolutely no sense on first reading. Sure, it probably does go better at the table... but you have to get there first. The non-setting certainly doesn't help.

Dungeon World, and I presume more of the hacks, work better because they provide more structure for the game to play in. The move structure is more intuitive, because the triggers are more obvious. Hit points are simpler than the countdown clock. Sure, AW was first, but DW improves on it.

Quote from: Veilheim;683783Bless you.  Reading through this thread I kept asking myself "I wonder how many of the haters have actually played the thing?

Hey, I like DW.  It's a lot of fun.  And, it has some weak spots.  And, it does play like how my old games of D&D as a high schooler in the 80's did.  And that's both fun and not fun in some ways.  I do wish there were some slightly more mechanicals to it, but it's a real charm to run.  I also wish there were a few more limits on the players -- because it does get a bit out of hand when the players aren't abiding by any sort of rules of trust. But, you know, that doesn't make it a bad game nor undeserving of this win.  It just makes it something that has to be dealt with, kinda like negative AC values and experience for gold.

Freeform powers (Like the Mage's variable spellcasting, or the Druid's shapeshifting) do seem to be balanced out by "the GM gets to fuck you over on a 6-, so roll well" rather more than anything else. I mean, it works, but that's definitely the sort of mechanic a dysfunctional group could have issues with.

So yeah. Don't play DW with jerks, and trust your GM.

Quote from: Benoist;683786I have the game, and I read it.

You should give it a play. It's fun.

Quote from: brettmb;683794No, I didn't mean that. I think you just need a bunch good role-players and a good GM to pull it off.

True. Though as you say the same is true of any RPG.

Quote from: Ladybird;683798You should give it a play. It's fun.

To be clear, I'd play Dungeon World if I could count on having a good time. Being with friends, rolling some dice throwing Monty Python references at each other trumps system. Every time. And I'm not the kind of player to break the game in the middle of a session to bitch about how I think this or that rule might suck. I just play, and if I like the game, I just keep playing. So yes, I would give it a go if the circumstances were right, absolutely.

That doesn't change the fact of the matter: to me, Dungeon World has only a thin patina of "D&D" on top of a game that fundamentally has nothing to do with "D&D", nor anything to do with what I could construe as "old school gaming". It doesn't mean the game's inherently bad, or not fun, or can't possibly be fun for anyone, ever. It is just fundamentally different.

Quote from: Benoist;683813To be clear, I'd play Dungeon World if I could count on having a good time. Being with friends, rolling some dice throwing Monty Python references at each other trumps system. Every time. And I'm not the kind of player to break the game in the middle of a session to bitch about how I think this or that rule might suck. I just play, and if I like the game, I just keep playing. So yes, I would give it a go if the circumstances were right, absolutely.

That doesn't change the fact of the matter: to me, Dungeon World has only a thin patina of "D&D" on top of a game that fundamentally has nothing to do with "D&D", to me, nor anything to do with what I could construe as "old school gaming". It doesn't mean the game's inherently bad, or not fun, or can't possibly be fun for anyone, ever.

Yeah, but remember, Sage doesn't consider it an old-school game either (I'm not dredging back through the thread he posted in for links / quotes, though); it's unfortunately picked up some deeply overly-enthusiastic fans prone to exaggerating the merits of what is just a good fantasy adventure game.

Well, I think it's good, anyway.

I'd really be interested in seeing a play report from you, seeing how it went for your group.

Quote from: Skywalker;683803True. Though as you say the same is true of any RPG.

And baseball. And a rock band. Hard to find a replacement for good players having fun.

Quote from: Ladybird;683798Apocalypse World is a jumbled mess that makes absolutely no sense on first reading. Sure, it probably does go better at the table... but you have to get there first. The non-setting certainly doesn't help.

I love me some Apocalypse World. Our first game had some issues because we brought expectations along from playing lots of Burning Wheel and FATE. Once we adjusted our heads, it played like a song.

Ehh, your statements are true only if rewritten something like this.

Quote from: robiswrong;683727It has an "old school feel" in certain ways.

...claimed mostly by those who never played actual old school games.


If you played all RPGs with a kind of 4th-wall self-aware layer, then...

Quote from: robiswrong;683727The players make the same types of decisions.  They do the same things.

If your view of Roleplaying is playing a character in a game as opposed to a being in a world then...

Quote from: robiswrong;683727A lot of the focus is the same.

Quote from: robiswrong;683727But what the players engage with, and the decisions they make, is very reminiscent of old school games.

...as played by those who see their characters more from a narrative view to begin with.

Now you're spot on 100%.  Of the people on this site who have posted in support of Dungeon World at all, there is exactly ONE, Ramon, who has not shown from posting history a definite lean towards narrative aspects of roleplaying.  There is a reason DW appeals to those players and it isn't the old school aspect.

Old School Player: Blech, DW is too narrative, storygamey, whatever.
Narrative Player: This is what D&D should have been, but wasn't!

Really ain't too hard to figure out if you're not grindin' the axe, :hmm:.

As I've said before, the rules are well-designed, so it's definitely worth the indie win as well as carrying the Rules section of the Ennies.  

Totally off topic, but...

Not sure about the Rules/Best Game split, it seems odd when a movie wins the Best Oscar category, but not the Best Actor/Actress/Director or Screenplay award.  My question is always "well who or what the fuck made it Best Picture then"?  In the case of Iron Kingdoms I assume what kicked it over the top for the Game was art, presentation and the overall package, even if it didn't get Best Rules.  But I don't follow the Ennies enough to know if they split that commonly or not.

Quote from: Noclue;683841And baseball. And a rock band. Hard to find a replacement for good players having fun.

Also true. That doesn't mean that certain sports and music are preferred by some people over others, or that some sports and music may be more popular than others though. Though the players are vital, they aren't everything in the equation.

This is getting a little obtuse

Quote from: CRKrueger;683900Random ad-hominems and jackassery

Seriously, man, I don't threadcrap like some people.  I don't pollute threads with stuff that I know isn't welcome.  Hell, I bitch at people when they *do* threadcrap.

I've been nothing but on-topic in this thread, and have done nothing but tried to be helpful.  Disagree with me all you want, but there's really no need to go aggro on me like that.

If there's anyone grinding an axe here, frankly it's you.

I'm happy to talk about anything, debate points, and discuss shit.  I'll even happily admit when I'm wrong.

But this is the last response you'll get from me in response to one of you attacking posts.  If you want to talk about stuff with me, great.  Just talk like an adult.

Quote from: CRKrueger;683900Ehh, your statements are true only if rewritten something like this.

...claimed mostly by those who never played actual old school games.

I'm 45 and started gaming when I was 12. I played and ran tons of old school games.

So it's "no, and (GM fiat w/ pre-fab recommendations)." Which is different from "yes, but (pre-fab DoS)" in that GM has little room for determining player DoS resolution. OK, confining, but whatever.

Engaging the Theater of the Mind is what I've been doing with old school games since the beginning. The mechanics come after description of what I, my PC, is doing. I never had a problem with veterans in "just a cave of kobolds" because Tucker Kobolds put engaging setting over system mechanics. This DW setting engagement is not a novel state of play, as if like one offered but unfulfilled by D&D promises due to its mechanical nature.

The only big difference DW offers, that I can see, is a predominance of pre-fab DoS structures that supersede GM fiat during "yes, but" resolution. Now I believe people can convey just about everything through description. So instead of "you just have to play it," I want to hear a breakdown of Moves, Principles, and Agendas in what it is new they are providing. This shouldn't be hard; if I can struggle playing INS/MV in French and appreciate its mix of madness, though not really like it compared to its American conversion, then I can grok this too.

Quote from: Noclue;683942I'm 45 and started gaming when I was 12. I played and ran tons of old school games.

I'm pretty sure no sample here is going to be acknowledged as anything else but a blip, but I started RPGing in 1982 and I still play and run old school games. Admittedly, I enjoy RPGs with narrative elements, but I also enjoy those without.

Quote from: robiswrong;683937Seriously, man, I don't threadcrap like some people.  I don't pollute threads with stuff that I know isn't welcome.  Hell, I bitch at people when they *do* threadcrap.

I've been nothing but on-topic in this thread, and have done nothing but tried to be helpful.  Disagree with me all you want, but there's really no need to go aggro on me like that.

If there's anyone grinding an axe here, frankly it's you.

I'm happy to talk about anything, debate points, and discuss shit.  I'll even happily admit when I'm wrong.

But this is the last response you'll get from me in response to one of you attacking posts.  If you want to talk about stuff with me, great.  Just talk like an adult.

Ad hominem? Liking narrative games is not equivalent to being a donkey-raping shit eater, retard or anything else I did not call you or anyone else.  Unfortunately DW is becoming the cause celebre of the narrative warriors and advocates.  Unfortunately, not being real fantasy, Numenara won't completely replace it to switch things up a little.  It will become a lot easier to discuss when the salesman go away.  In any case, out of a few similar threads, your post just had that one paragraph where everything was problematic.

In any case, let me try again without the "jackassery".

The problem with the statements that you made are that, when repeated by the couple people in this thread, all are presented as if they were simple facts.  If you don't like the way I rephrased those statements, then just realize that all of those statements are FOR YOU.  Completely subjective, not objective.  If you actually polled all the people on this site, I'd bet good money the number of people for which your statements were false outnumber the ones for which your statements were true.  Either way, it means they are not objective facts.

You say Dungeon World closely resembles the way you play old school games, and the decisions the players make are similar.  I say Dungeon World does not resemble the way I play old school games, in many cases the mindset the mechanics forces the player into are fundamentally different then an old school game.

So, how do we resolve this?
One of us right, one of us is wrong?
One of us is sane, one of us is crazy?
One of us is telling it straight, the other has a meta-agenda?
Or, could it be...
We are both right, sane, and telling it straight?
How is that possible - very easily.

People experience and reference the exact same information in different ways.  Take a look at the neuroscience of learning and experience and you'll see that people's brains just work differently.  It's true of learning, listening, reading, pretty much everything we do, including Roleplaying.

When someone starts asking about DW, it's a lot more accurate to approach it rather like Noisms, who loves AW and DW, but recognizes the core narrative differences that make them not traditional or old school.

When you start saying that DW plays, is in the style of, has you doing the same things as old school games, etc, you have to realize that you probably weren't playing those games the same way as some others whether old school or new school, right?

So, "for people who like or don't mind narrative mechanics or a narrative layer to their games", everything you said about DW was true.  

"For people who do not like or can't stand narrative layers or mechanics in their RPGs" those things you said about DW were false.

Better?

Quote from: brettmb;683794No, I didn't mean that. I think you just need a bunch of good role-players and a good GM to pull it off.

Look kid, I've played RPGs from one end of this planet to the other. Gimmicky rule mechanics are no replacement for a good GM and good Players at your table.


(Goddamn, I knew that some win would show up in this thread!)