Quote from: jadrax;667658I just found a HUGE PDF explaining how to read the poorly written and ambiguous rules.

59 pages? Christ...I read the first 20 pages, but that's enough.

"But when I started poking around various online forums, I discovered that a lot of beginning players have trouble with the rules. They see some good stuff in there, they're excited to try the game, but the mechanics are just so different from what they know. It can be confusing, especially if you aren't experienced with Apocalypse World, which Dungeon World is based on. I think that's because you might need to unlearn some things about gaming before approaching Dungeon World."

Unlearn things about gaming? What? I've been playing games my whole life; what an asinine statement. See, when I was learning how to play Magic Realm, I did in fact read a PDF called "The Least You Need To Know To Play Magic Realm". It explained how the rules worked in certain circumstances, basic strategy, etc. MR is an extremely complex game, hence explanations of the rules were in order. But MR is, again, an extremely complex game. I would expect MR to take a long time to understand due to the enormity of the rules. However, Dungeon World is supposed to be an easy to learn game with light rules. It's supposed to be a D&D-like dungeon crawling game with a narrative aspect. If you need 59 additional pages to explain how to play the game when you already had 408 to do so, perhaps you need to revise the rules. It's not the fault of the reader. Fuck, Mentzer Basic explains how to play D&D in 20 pages, complete with a one-player dungeon. If you've never played an RPG before, trying to understand D&D is pretty difficult, so perhaps you might need to UNLEARN some things about gaming. Nahh, I figured it out just fine when I was a kid.

I stand by my original statements about sounding like a psych textbook. Over complicating things that should be easy is either pretentiousness or poor writing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;667666And since this comes fresh on the heels of his defense of rape fantasy argument, I just have a very hard time taking him seriously as a poster when he does this stuff.

In my defence, I started pretending that thread didn't exist straight after becoming aware of its existence

Quote from: Brad;667670I stand by my original statements about sounding like a psych textbook. Over complicating things that should be easy is either pretentiousness or poor writing.

FWIW IME new players have picked up DW's rules faster than most other RPGs, including B/X D&D. It is a remarkably simple RPG in play.

The complication you complain of is an attempt to make a lot of the unsaid parts of the esoteric task of roleplaying as explicit as possible (that is not saying that it removes the usual discretion that RPGing involves).

As said before, the main hurdle I have seen people experience with DW is a sense of outrage at being talked down to, usually ignited by a wealth of entrenched RPGing experience. I personally think this is a shame. If you are confident in your RPGing abilities, then you won't think that DW is somehow going to come into your house and erase or change anything that you don't want it to.

My advice is to play it or move on.

Quote from: Skywalker;667673My advice is to play it or move on.

Well, I did spend $30 on it, so I'm allowed to bitch.

Quote from: Brad;66767059 pages? Christ...I read the first 20 pages, but that's enough.

"But when I started poking around various online forums, I discovered that a lot of beginning players have trouble with the rules. They see some good stuff in there, they're excited to try the game, but the mechanics are just so different from what they know. It can be confusing, especially if you aren't experienced with Apocalypse World, which Dungeon World is based on. I think that's because you might need to unlearn some things about gaming before approaching Dungeon World."

Unlearn things about gaming? What? I've been playing games my whole life; what an asinine statement. See, when I was learning how to play Magic Realm, I did in fact read a PDF called "The Least You Need To Know To Play Magic Realm". It explained how the rules worked in certain circumstances, basic strategy, etc. MR is an extremely complex game, hence explanations of the rules were in order. But MR is, again, an extremely complex game. I would expect MR to take a long time to understand due to the enormity of the rules. However, Dungeon World is supposed to be an easy to learn game with light rules. It's supposed to be a D&D-like dungeon crawling game with a narrative aspect. If you need 59 additional pages to explain how to play the game when you already had 408 to do so, perhaps you need to revise the rules. It's not the fault of the reader. Fuck, Mentzer Basic explains how to play D&D in 20 pages, complete with a one-player dungeon. If you've never played an RPG before, trying to understand D&D is pretty difficult, so perhaps you might need to UNLEARN some things about gaming. Nahh, I figured it out just fine when I was a kid.

I stand by my original statements about sounding like a psych textbook. Over complicating things that should be easy is either pretentiousness or poor writing.

Well, for one I didnt find the suggestion that a modern gamer might need to 'unlearn' a few assumptions any moreradical in DW than I did in the Old School Primer. The assumption that a player might be influenced by such games as d&d 3rd or 4th edition or Pathfinder isnt that big a stretch. If anything DW chose to use a new terminology with the assumption that the player is not going to by default be familiar with old school style play, which should not irk a grognard simply becausetheyve been roleplaying longer or posses a widerrange of experience than the average gamer.

But regardless of whether you find it pretentious, thats not an argument for it not being an rpg.

Quote from: Brad;667677Well, I did spend $30 on it, so I'm allowed to bitch.

You certainly are. I think what you stumbled on here is the hot button topic of certain RPGs being segregated from the rest on shaky grounds.

Quote from: Skywalker;667686You certainly are. I think what you stumbled on here is the hot button topic of certain RPGs being segregated from the rest on shaky grounds.

Not on shaky grounds. On grounds you disapprove of, and don't want to recognize.

Plus, "segregated," really? What kind of over-the-top RPGnet rhetoric is this? :rolleyes:

You can talk about the story games you like all you want. In the right forum.

You guys really need to get a sense of proportion. Seriously.

Quote from: Benoist;667690Plus, "segregated," really? What kind of RPGnet rhetoric is this?

Whatever. I am happy to use 'separation', if that gets a less outraged reaction.

FWIW I haven't seen the word used on RPGnet in relation to this issue or TheRPGSite.

Quote from: Benoist;667690Not on shaky grounds. On grounds you disapprove of, and don't want to recognize.

I think 'shaky grounds' here means its very debateable as no one's made an authoratative or convincing argument. Heck I think its easier and more consistent to recognize who/what Pundit refers to as swine thàn it is to guess what one person or another considers a 'real' rpg. And no one's really made a convincing case for either a universal definition of what constitutes a storygame, let alone why certain games like DW fit into that category.

For my part I certainly dont trust the opoinion of anyone who hasnt actuallly played a game as to whether that game is a storygame, especially when their expressed opinion runs contrary to my own experiences playing.

Quote from: Skywalker;667695I am happy to use 'separation', if that gets a less mouth frothing reaction.

FWIW I haven't seen the word used on RPGnet in relation to this issue or TheRPGSite.

No, but this is over-the-top RPGnet-style bullshit. "Segregation", ghettos and the like are real life things that are totally misused when their meaning is stretched to extend to talking about games on a forum of the internet.

Get a sense of proportion, for fuck's sakes.

Well, it's not a traditional game so it belongs here. Ipso facto.

Quote from: jhkimThere is nothing about players narrating their successes. I suppose you could play it that way, but there is nothing in the rules that specifies that.

Quote from: Brad;667646Again, what? The players are inherently narrating after a success. They're creating a collaborative story, per the rules, so I have no idea WTF else you'd call it.

Maybe you're another DW apologist; I get it. But from actually READING THE RULES, everything I stated is accurate, at least according to how it's written. If there's some other interpretation diametrically opposed to my conclusions, perhaps the book is poorly written and ambiguous.

I guess you're ending your participation, but I don't see how you draw this conclusion.  Linking to the "Playing the Game" rules on Creative Commons.  From the introduction ( http://book.dwgazetteer.com/Introduction.html ), it says:

"As you play, the players say what their characters say, think, and do. The GM describes everything else in the world."

and

"It's a conversation between the players and the GM—the GM tells the players what they see and hear in the world around them and the players say what their characters are thinking, feeling, and doing. Sometimes those descriptions will trigger a move—something that'll cause everyone to stop and say "time to roll the dice to see what happens." For a moment everyone hangs on the edges of their seats as the dice clatter to a stop. Tension and excitement are always the result, no matter how the dice land."

In Playing the Game ( http://book.dwgazetteer.com/Playing_the_Game.html ), under the Effect of Moves, it says:

"The effects of moves are always about the fictional world the characters inhabit. A 10+ on hack and slash doesn't just mean the mechanical effects, it means you successfully attacked something and did some type of harm to it.

Once you've figured out what the effects of the move are, apply them to the fiction and go back to the conversation. Always return to what's going on in the game.

Some moves have immediate mechanical effects, like dealing damage or giving someone a bonus to their next roll. These effects are always a reflection of the fictional world the characters are in; make sure to use the fiction when describing the effects of the move."

Now, on the one hand, it does not explicitly say that the GM narrates the results of the roll.  On the other hand, it also doesn't say that the player narrates the results of the roll.  I guess you're interpreting "apply them to the fiction" to mean that the player can narrate whatever they want after a roll.  However, that is not how any of the games of it that I played worked, and it goes contrary to the principles from the introduction.

Quote from: TristramEvans;667697I think 'shaky grounds' here means its very debateable as no one's made an authoratative or convincing argument.

It's debatable TO YOU. Because you played Dungeon World without actually using its rules, read it in diagonal and actually played some RPG hybrid by saying "fuck it, I don't care for the moves" so that's it, "it's a trad RPG".

That's not how that works. Dungeon World is, among other things, predicated on the notion the GM applies moves in the same manner the players do. That's basically restricting the role of the GM as being bound by the rules in the same manner the players are, and that violates RPG Pundit's #6 landmark.

Add the narrative stance implied by the mechanics, the half results bullshit and so on, and we're getting even further from the mark. Sure, the thing doesn't have sex moves, but damn, it's trying hard NOT to be a traditional RPG in trad dress.

Now you might have a problem with the way Pundit defines traditional gaming and so on, but that's basically what it boils down to. It's not nebulous or devoid of logic. It's just something you disagree with.

Quote from: One Horse Town;667699Well, it's not a traditional game so it belongs here. Ipso facto.

So, the criteria for separation is now "traditional" not how much the game uses "story-game" elements?

Quote from: TristramEvans;667697I think 'shaky grounds' here means its very debateable as no one's made an authoratative or convincing argument.

It's the Pundit's website. He decides what goes where. He'll listen to arguments, but the final decision is his.

That's as authoritative as it gets. If you're not convinced, too fucking bad - it's not your website. Either get the fuck over it, or move on.