Quote from: Benoist;667702It'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".

Thats not entirely accurate. I played DW. After 1 session we made one houserule, the GM rolled for damage instead of the player. To say I was then playing some hybrid game is hyperbolic nonsense, especially  if the main comparison being made is to TSR D&D. We used moves, we just didnt refer to them as such, because frankly you could go through the entire bookand replace the term 'moves' with 'feats', 'rolls', 'charts', 'effects' or 'throws' and it woulnt make a lick of difference. And yes its debatable to me, but you,re not seriously feigning ignorance that its debatable to a shitload of people besides me. And even if that wasn't so, I'm enough. You don't seriously think that Im so insecure in my own opinionn that I find yoûrs or anyone else's statement of foregone conclusions convincing, let alone authorative? 'Because I say' is not a meaningful statement, and I could not think of responding in any way besides a rolling of the eyes.

QuoteThat'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.

The players described what their characters were doing and the gM narrated the results. Just like every rpg ever made' but yeah I addressed from the beginning the gm 'training wheels' which are the reason I wont be running the game. OTOH, I think these are a great idea for helping new gms, something they can easily ditch once they get more comfortable improvising in reaction to the players. It strikes me as sad that so many of thesame people worried about getting new people into the hobby are also so fervently intent ondeclaring DW 'not a real rpg' that they're essentially ostracizing one of the few games that makes an effort to deal with one of the major obstacles of trad rpging, as few are born with the talent for running an rpg without experience and practice. I honestly think the osr crowd inparticular should be pointing every new player they can to this game and saying 'okay, once youre comfortable running this, you'll be ready for some old school D&D, or at least just to wean them off the influence of WoTC D&D or actual storygames.

QuoteNow 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.

Its nebulous in that i havent seen a convincing or consistent qualification for what point an rpg ceases to be an rpg.I disagree with the conclusions, if theres a  logic behind them than I havent been made privy to it.

But Im not violating the site's policies towards posting in the 'correct forum' so I dontsee why anyone should be fussy about me stating my objections, if only for the benefit of any poor sod who stumbles on these forums and might in general be interested in the game. Not to mention that Id have no interest in this site if it turned into an echo chamber on any issue with rpgs, including that of storygames.

Quote from: jhkim;667746To put this into a practical experience, I might compare two real-world cases of play:

1) A GM running a Living Pathfinder module
2) A GM running a Dungeon World one-shot

Oh please, a Living Pathfinder module?  You mean a module intended to be run all over the country if not the world as part of a shared experience within the Living Pathfinder Campaign system?  Hey everybody, organized tournament modules are more linear and restrictive then random one-shots, who knew? In other news, water's wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets.

Jesus man, I know you have to do your Distinction Denial thing, but you don't have to be such a disingenuous fuck about it every time, do you?  When it comes to RPGs you're practically a respected scholar, don't you feel weird making a calculatedly misleading argument like that?

Quote from: daniel_ream;667747"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of therpgsite.com mods. The creatures outside looked from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod, and from RPG.net mod to therpgsite.com mod, and from therpgsite.com mod to RPG.net mod again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

I can tell the difference - on Big Purple, this post would get you a warning or a ban for cross-forum drama.

Quote from: CRKrueger;667760Oh please, a Living Pathfinder module?  You mean a module intended to be run all over the country if not the world as part of a shared experience within the Living Pathfinder Campaign system?  Hey everybody, organized tournament modules are more linear and restrictive then random one-shots, who knew? In other news, water's wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets.

Jesus man, I know you have to do your Distinction Denial thing, but you don't have to be such a disingenuous fuck about it every time, do you?  When it comes to RPGs you're practically a respected scholar, don't you feel weird making a calculatedly misleading argument like that?

I don't think there's any deception going on here.  Yes, I picked the example of a Living Pathfinder game because it is restrictive.  Duh.  

The point is that play within traditional RPGs can get a lot more restrictive than Dungeon World - which is counter to Benoist's point that the limited range of GM moves (which is extremely broad) makes Dungeon World wholly outside the range of RPGs.

Quote from: Bradafter reading about half the book, I can safely say it's not an RPG

Gnome Stew disagrees with you.

Quote from: silva;667781Gnome Stew disagrees with you.

Okay..?

Also, I'm still not convinced Dungeon World is an RPG, but I'll hand it to jhkim for making a legitimate effort to explain why he believes it is.

Quote from: hamstertamer;667726After reading the rules, i would categorize DW as a STG and not a RPG.  It's definitely not a traditional RPG and should not be labeled as such.

I'll just label it a hipster game.

So wait, after reading several pages of that "HUGE PDF," I'm trying to figure out if the GM has the laxity to ignore a Move when the dice repeatedly come up badly for the players. Sometimes a string of failed banal efforts is just that, plain ol' failure, and doesn't need complications to the point of convolution. How much of these Moves are ignorable? Or is it part of some sort of "fate pool economy" that dries up the game if not engaged?

Forgive me, as I have little interest in reading all of this DW Guide. I just want a Reader's Digest version. Preferably Cliff Notes with quick examples and bullet points, but I've noticed a lot of these new games with aspect/traits/moves can't explain things without lengthy exegesis, so my expectations are already lowered.

How is this different from other Degree of Success systems, and why would all those Moves be necessary? How ignorable is this DoS mechanic (besides rule zero. I mean ignorable on case by case task resolution basis)? Why the need for a Moves list for the GM at all?

Quote from: Opaopajr;667827So wait, after reading several pages of that "HUGE PDF," I'm trying to figure out if the GM has the laxity to ignore a Move when the dice repeatedly come up badly for the players. Sometimes a string of failed banal efforts is just that, plain ol' failure, and doesn't need complications to the point of convolution. How much of these Moves are ignorable? Or is it part of some sort of "fate pool economy" that dries up the game if not engaged?

Forgive me, as I have little interest in reading all of this DW Guide. I just want a Reader's Digest version. Preferably Cliff Notes with quick examples and bullet points, but I've noticed a lot of these new games with aspect/traits/moves can't explain things without lengthy exegesis, so my expectations are already lowered.

How is this different from other Degree of Success systems, and why would all those Moves be necessary? How ignorable is this DoS mechanic (besides rule zero. I mean ignorable on case by case task resolution basis)? Why the need for a Moves list for the GM at all?

Basically a 'move' issimplyany action in the game that interacts with the  rules. So comparing it to d&d anytime a a DM would ask for a roll, or saving throw, or the player initiated an attack, these would all be 'moves'. Its basically just a compartmentalized method of presenting the system. For comparison, imagine a game like whfrp 3rd where the majority of rulesfor situations are put on cards for easyreference. Each card would be considered a 'move'. For the Gm these are very broad categories. As to why a moves list for the GM at all, well thats kind of like asking why the ad&d dmg included random encounter tables;itssimply an aid to the DM's task. For an experienced GM the moves are unnecessary, but as others ànd I have said before, they would be of great utility to a person newto GMing, or one trying to break the habits of crunchy 'optimization-based' modern systems.

Quote from: Opaopajr;667827So wait, after reading several pages of that "HUGE PDF," I'm trying to figure out if the GM has the laxity to ignore a Move when the dice repeatedly come up badly for the players. Sometimes a string of failed banal efforts is just that, plain ol' failure, and doesn't need complications to the point of convolution. How much of these Moves are ignorable? Or is it part of some sort of "fate pool economy" that dries up the game if not engaged?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Failure can just be failure in DW, like in any RPG. The GM moves are broad enough to encompass any form of failure I can think of. Is there a specific failure you think is not covered?

Or are you asking if a GM can ignore the results of a failed roll, once it's rolled? That's a source of endless debate in RPGs

Quote from: Opaopajr;667827How is this different from other Degree of Success systems, and why would all those Moves be necessary? How ignorable is this DoS mechanic (besides rule zero. I mean ignorable on case by case task resolution basis)? Why the need for a Moves list for the GM at all?

The Move list is just a summary of pretty much everything a GM will do in an RPG. It can serve as an inspiration for the GM and provides direction for a GM who isn't sure what to do next. What it doesn't do is restrict a GM from doing anything that they would do in any other RPG (as far as I can see).

The whole idea is about demystifying the GM's role, making the esoteric explicit.

In regard to the dice mechanic, it is no different to DoS other than being slightly biased towards producing success and also producing consequences/cost for success.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;667820I'll just label it a hipster game.

That's a truly awesome label and I believe I'll steal it

Also, just so it's clear, the DW Guide linked to is a fan made guide recording the advice of one fan after his experiences with DW. It is not necessary to run DW, though it is well written IMO.

I am struggling to see why people are suddenly equating the complexity of an RPG on the amount of fan discussion there is about it. If that's a new standard, I think DW would easilt prove to be one of the least complex RPGs out there

Quote from: Benoist;667712The fact the set of moves is different has fuck all to do with it, and the particulars of the moves have fuck all to with it either. It's trying to can the GM into a set of moves and make the GM a player like the others around the game table that is under the authority of the rules, and not the rules under his authority, that is the heart of the problem.

Yup. I agree entirely. Which is obviously why OD&D is a story game.

You are talking about OD&D, right?

Quote from: Benoist;667723You lie.

Whoops. Sorry. Looks like you were actually talking about AD&D. I mean, you were just paraphrasing from pg. 9 of the 1st Edition DMG, right? The bit where Gygax talks about how the DM has to follow the rules and is only allowed to express his creativity when it's not "bounded by the parameters of the game system"?

...

When it comes to this topic, you're a hypocritical moron, Benoist.

So when the DW Guide says, "When the rules say 'make a move', what they're really doing is telling you something happens, something besides just failure. Instead of being a dead end, player's failure leads to consequences: the situation gets worse or they have to pay a price," it doesn't mean what it says?

How do I get just plain old failure? Like, nothing interesting happens, no complications, no loss (except time) failure?

For example, picking a hard lock on a rather mundane treasure chest in your own distant and safe hideout: isolated, relatively safe, and you with a set of sturdy lock picks, and plenty more lock picks nearby. How do I get just plain failure. No extra consequences: no destroyed lock picks, no jambed lock with broken lock picks inside, no suddenly appearing guard, no imminent threat or lost supplies, just "it's too hard, you fail."

Do I have to engage these soft and hard moves if I don't want to?

edit: The DW Guide implicitly answers this as that is core to the point of the system. It's resolution system is there to determine the price of failure; but there's so far no fourth option of plain, uncomplicated failure. So, unless the rulebook says explicitly so, so far my answer seems to be there's no such thing as mundane failure. I'll rely on others who own the book to answer this.

Well, I just finished the whole DW Guide.

I do appreciate that last comment that this is a game not interested on the difficulty of tasks, but on the price of completion/failure. It's a different way to look at things, and I can see where it can be fun.

I didn't really enjoy much of the in-play examples as there was a lot of player narration of results. Some of the flat-out world creation bugged, too, like the "rubies for magic circle powder" Wizard player justification blurb, but whatever. But if I got into that mindset, I guess it could be fun. Perhaps that was just the writer's method of engagement with the system.

The examples of Moves and Move creation (like the swashbuckling swing example, etc.) were interesting in a choose your own adventure manner. Not what I'd want, but maybe Moves have alternate structures available in the corebook. Perhaps these shaped Moves in general could be discarded for improvisational results, or corebook Moves show other ways to avoid pre-determined range of results. Otherwise an interesting take on text-based adventuring styles, now ready-made for TT RPGs.

The idea of Fronts, Dangers, and Portents is actually interesting. Fronts is just another word for hook/premise, so nothing new there. I don't know about the primacy of "adventure!" attitude, which I've had truck with on this site as well as a  D&D assumption. But that's a playstyle thing.

Portents is basically a subroutine scheduler for NPCs. However their loose structure with bullet points is quite clean and grokable. I've been doing something like this for ages, just with more chronological structure and less linear threat progression, but this is quite stealable for just about any new GM. If one could incorporate Moves degree of success structure into divergent threat progressions for Portents, you might get something really special for GM world building. I already do similar, but I wonder if it will be easier to transmit to new GMs.