Well thank you for answering, robiswrong!

It sounds -- oh my god, this is going to come out totally condescending but I cannot think of another way to parse it -- like an old school rules light RPG with narrative training wheels. It is for complete novices to the hobby thinking about the theater of the mind, and for detoxing charop minmaxers to start paying attention to the setting. The Moves are this stop-gap measure to leave a button to push and gimp the GM in a "yes, but" roll in an effort to regain trust from the charop group, and to spur imagination and avoid freezing up from the novice group.

Useful for specific audiences. Not a panacea or second coming, like FATE or Savage Worlds were similarly pushed. But just a return to RPG basics (engage the setting, be the character) with a narrative crutch, like a wounded prodigal child coming home.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684167It sounds -- oh my god, this is going to come out totally condescending but I cannot think of another way to parse it -- like an old school rules light RPG with narrative training wheels...

...But just a return to RPG basics (engage the setting, be the character) with a narrative crutch, like a wounded prodigal child coming home.

:hatsoff:

Most of the old school/new school divide comes down to the desired function of the rules.

In an old school game the rules are sort of a necessary evil, a baseline physics engine that the GM consults, adjusts, or ignores as needed to suit the effect he wants.

In a new school game the rules are embraced as a tool, a structure that can directly support and enhance the intended experience for both players and GMs.

That's why system matters more to new school people than old school people. It's why NS people tend to play RAW and not fudge ('system is a good thing and we chose ours  carefully') while OS people tend to treat the rules more like suggestions ('rules are a necessary evil and secondary to our fun''). And it's why NS games tend to put rules in for things ('we'd like to help') that OS games do not ('we'd like to stay out of your way').

Clearly DW is a new school game.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684167It sounds -- oh my god, this is going to come out totally condescending but I cannot think of another way to parse it -- like an old school rules light RPG with narrative training wheels. It is for complete novices to the hobby thinking about the theater of the mind, and for detoxing charop minmaxers to start paying attention to the setting. The Moves are this stop-gap measure to leave a button to push and gimp the GM in a "yes, but" roll in an effort to regain trust from the charop group, and to spur imagination and avoid freezing up from the novice group.

I generally agree with you?  I'd only have two points of contention with your characterization:

1) Even for more experienced groups, I think the game has value in how it streamlines play.  It's *really* fast.

2) I don't necessarily think even the 'training' bits are really useful to just 'beginners'.  I think that probably the vast majority of players or groups could get value from them.  Even if they end up not playing DW long term, it can serve as a good refresher course, like doing training drills in a sport.  Seriously old-school tables that have been playing for a long time are probably the exception.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684167Useful for specific audiences. Not a panacea or second coming, like FATE or Savage Worlds were similarly pushed. But just a return to RPG basics (engage the setting, be the character) with a narrative crutch, like a wounded prodigal child coming home.

Well, I don't really see the narrative crutch, but that's okay.

It's a specific system, with specific things it does well, and specific things it doesn't.  It's well-suited to some things, and poorly suited to others.  I wouldn't ever claim anything differently about *any* system.  I do think it has a certain amount of value, and I think it's probably worth people giving it a shot for a game or two, as it's very quick to pick up.  If nothing else, there's a few ideas in there that might be useful to go forward with.

I don't push any system as a panacea.  I'm a Fate fan, but it's a specific game that does certain things very well.  I wouldn't think about replacing D&D with it.  They do different things.  I think that anybody pushing any system as some kind of second coming, or "One True System" or anything of the like is blind to the vast array of gaming that actually occurs in the hobby.

Quote from: Opaopajr;684167like a wounded prodigal child coming home.

That's not a terrible analogy, though I think the prodigal child may have learned a few things on his journey that are worth sharing

Quote from: soviet;684181That's why system matters more to new school people than old school people. It's why NS people tend to play RAW and not fudge ('system is a good thing and we chose ours  carefully') while OS people tend to treat the rules more like suggestions ('rules are a necessary evil and secondary to our fun''). And it's why NS games tend to put rules in for things ('we'd like to help') that OS games do not ('we'd like to stay out of your way').

Clearly DW is a new school game.

I like the way you suggest by omission that old-schooler's fudge.

Quote from: One Horse Town;684194I like the way you suggest by omission that old-schooler's fudge.

Not all, certainly, but I'm talking in generalities.

I'm curious as to how many of the people who like Dungeon World are looking at it from a 'player-side' perspective, vs. a 'GM-side' perspective.

It seems like for the GM there's less specific definition of how things operate, because they pick a generic 'move' that's relevant and apply an effect from it. The rules don't specify the details, the GM is just supposed to select an appropriate effect using 'the fiction'. That's what separates, say, the Symbol of Death in Archangel's post a ways back from a Symbol of Polymorphing, or something; in one the fiction has you taking damage while the other has you turning into a chicken, but neither symbol is different, or even defined, in DW's rules. (Perhaps this is designed considering that, well, the GM could've put anything in there anyway, so they may as well pick).

In a sense its kind of 'effects-based' GMing - like how in HERO you'd buy a power and reskin it to whatever you want, in DW the GM picks a 'move' and reskins the effect to what they want.

OK, back to the regularly scheduled flamewar.

As someone else mentioned, all the actions you take in Dungeon World are in character and described as such.  It's something I really like.  You don't hear players saying, "I roll to Defy Danger" or "I take an action to Hack 'n' Slash," you hear players describing what their characters do within the context of the game world.

Now, personally, I would like to see a more mechanically robust hack for Dungeon World.  I'd like to see special skill specialties, and I might tweak the dice rolled to 2d8 or even 2d10 to give the game a broader "sweet spot" of where you're supposed to roll.  Once you're rolling 2d6 + 3, you're not often going to get a 6-.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;684267As someone else mentioned, all the actions you take in Dungeon World are in character and described as such.  It's something I really like.  You don't hear players saying, "I roll to Defy Danger" or "I take an action to Hack 'n' Slash," you hear players describing what their characters do within the context of the game world.

Technically speaking, saying "I Hack and Slash" does *nothing*.  You can't do a move by simply declaring it.  Moves happen when they're triggered by the description.  Sometimes people do say "I Hack and Slash", and the generally suggested response is "Okay, so what do you *do*?"

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684260I'm curious as to how many of the people who like Dungeon World are looking at it from a 'player-side' perspective, vs. a 'GM-side' perspective.

It seems like for the GM there's less specific definition of how things operate, because they pick a generic 'move' that's relevant and apply an effect from it. The rules don't specify the details, the GM is just supposed to select an appropriate effect using 'the fiction'. That's what separates, say, the Symbol of Death in Archangel's post a ways back from a Symbol of Polymorphing, or something; in one the fiction has you taking damage while the other has you turning into a chicken, but neither symbol is different, or even defined, in DW's rules. (Perhaps this is designed considering that, well, the GM could've put anything in there anyway, so they may as well pick).

In a sense its kind of 'effects-based' GMing - like how in HERO you'd buy a power and reskin it to whatever you want, in DW the GM picks a 'move' and reskins the effect to what they want.

OK, back to the regularly scheduled flamewar.

GM side, primarily.

You just say "yeah, sure" or "no, that won't work" to any situation, as a GM, if you think that's the right call; not everything needs to go to the dice. Not everything should go to the dice.

The symbols would be something most likely written up in the GM's notes (As a "custom GM move"), along with what they did when the players interacted with them. You'd basically prep them like you would any other game; a "custom GM move" is just DW terminology for "something that can happen if the characters do this thing".

DW's moves are less flexible than AW's, they do more particular defined things, but I think that's a strength because it makes the mechanics/narrative link easier to comprehend. It adds gaps, but that's fine because the GM is there to fill them in with rulings and fiction.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;684260I'm curious as to how many of the people who like Dungeon World are looking at it from a 'player-side' perspective, vs. a 'GM-side' perspective.

It seems like for the GM there's less specific definition of how things operate, because they pick a generic 'move' that's relevant and apply an effect from it. The rules don't specify the details, the GM is just supposed to select an appropriate effect using 'the fiction'. That's what separates, say, the Symbol of Death in Archangel's post a ways back from a Symbol of Polymorphing, or something; in one the fiction has you taking damage while the other has you turning into a chicken, but neither symbol is different, or even defined, in DW's rules. (Perhaps this is designed considering that, well, the GM could've put anything in there anyway, so they may as well pick).

In a sense its kind of 'effects-based' GMing - like how in HERO you'd buy a power and reskin it to whatever you want, in DW the GM picks a 'move' and reskins the effect to what they want.

I've always remarked about this as one of the biggest pros or cons, depending on the side you are looking at, of storygames/new school games. The high abstraction of mechanics and adherence to the importance of story allows for balance to be achieved, since all the different fireballs and ice storms are usually flavours and descriptions, often with little mechanical changes/bonuses to them, rather than 2 whole different things.

QuoteOK, back to the regularly scheduled flamewar.

In the grim darkness of the 3rd millennium, there is only flamewar.

One thing I don't like about Dungeon World is how much is dictated by GM fiat.  In a tradgame, a TPK can happen because of rolls of the dice.  In DW, a TPK can happen because the GM allows it.  The difficulty of each encounter is largely based on how difficult the GM wants it to be.  How often do the PCs have to Defy Danger to get into position?  How often do the monsters deal damage?  Leaving such largely to the GM's whim is troublesome to me.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;684673One thing I don't like about Dungeon World is how much is dictated by GM fiat.  In a tradgame, a TPK can happen because of rolls of the dice.  In DW, a TPK can happen because the GM allows it.  The difficulty of each encounter is largely based on how difficult the GM wants it to be.  How often do the PCs have to Defy Danger to get into position?  How often do the monsters deal damage?  Leaving such largely to the GM's whim is troublesome to me.

Isn't the difficulty in all rpg's set by the gm?

Quote from: Bill;684793Isn't the difficulty in all rpg's set by the gm?

Exactly. We had a (fairly) huge discussion (once again) about that topic when I wrote a few posts on diceless rpgs on my blog. "GM Fiat" is, basically, a bullshit term. At least in traditional games, the GM is god -- and this is supported by the rules. So, it's not "GM fiat", but rules design.

And, quite frankly: I like it that way. Games with "shared narration" tend to fall apart pretty quick. At least, this is my experience.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;684673One thing I don't like about Dungeon World is how much is dictated by GM fiat.  In a tradgame, a TPK can happen because of rolls of the dice.  In DW, a TPK can happen because the GM allows it.  The difficulty of each encounter is largely based on how difficult the GM wants it to be.  How often do the PCs have to Defy Danger to get into position?  How often do the monsters deal damage?  Leaving such largely to the GM's whim is troublesome to me.

As a GM who ran games that way for a long time, rules-light + lots of GM latitude has a lot of merit. The issue is that it's very taxing on the GM. When you have to make a judgement call on everything to generate the maximum tension, you carry too much of the weight of the fun at the table. Freedom has a cost.