Quote from: CRKrueger;642114The "Succeed with Complications" result adds a level of abstraction to everything where the roll is firing the bow if you roll high enough, but if you don't, your roll really is attempting to set up the shot, and your failure means you have different ways to optionally try and get a better shot.

Simple "physics of the world", simulation, single task-based resolution, whatever you want to call it, those mid-range successes are not it.

Quote from: Imperator;642183Yeah, but I do not think they are such a great deviation as to drag you out of immersion or stop the game from feeling like any other RPG. YMMV, of course.

Honestly, it seems as if any problems with the mid-success mechanic could be fixed by a "GM chooses" rule. That way, it's not the player retroactively editing what they did, but the GM telling them "in order to hit, you had to expose yourself."

Even the most hard-core Trads should be down with that kind of mechanic.

(Now, this may actually wreck the gameplay of AW/DW. But it does seem to answer the objection.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;642191Even the most hard-core Trads should be down with that kind of mechanic.

I wouldn't be. In my case I'm of the opinion that choice (beyond the decision to make the attempt in the first place) has no part in resolution be given to the player or the GM.

We played it once, and I wouldn't do so again. There's no initiative system, so everything comes down to whatever a-hole decides to shout the loudest.

I also didn't like the limitations on players picking the same class in a group (everyone has to pick a different class), the asinine practice of picking a character's name from a provided list, or the relative high starting power level of characters.

It just seems like an awful lot of effort to try to get a certain amount of rules to run a certain way. I can make a block engine Chevy power my refrigerator, , but that doesn't mean it's useful or desired in any sense.

Dungeon World is a poor, badly flawed game that does nothing that other games don't do better for me. I don't care what label or politics you wish to ascribe to it, but it just isn't a very good game.

Quote from: Zachary The First;642199We played it once, and I wouldn't do so again. There's no initiative system, so everything comes down to whatever a-hole decides to shout the loudest.

Last I checked there was a GM to "direct traffic/fiction".

QuoteI also didn't like the limitations on players picking the same class in a group (everyone has to pick a different class), the asinine practice of picking a character's name from a provided list, or the relative high starting power level of characters.

Valid points.
While not something written in stone, it is something to encourage unique characters and ease new players into gaming.

QuoteDungeon World is a poor, badly flawed game that does nothing that other games don't do better for me. I don't care what label or politics you wish to ascribe to it, but it just isn't a very good game.

This reminds me of the ending of ALIEN ART.
While you are entitled to your opinion, you offered a blanket statement instead. Sad because it stains your previous points.
=

Quote from: Zachary The First;642199Dungeon World is a poor, badly flawed game that does nothing that other games don't do better for me. I don't care what label or politics you wish to ascribe to it, but it just isn't a very good game.

I sense that you are holding back, let go your true feelings!

I don't think I've heard you slam a game so hard, it must be a real dog. Interesting that it's getting such a positive spin from some. We may be seeing a bit of a sea change in the hobby.

You'd likely disagree with me, but perhaps this is due to people get bored with the OSR which is about the age to be yesterday's news. That it would open doors for games like AW wouldn't surprise me, many of the OSR concepts would taken a bit farther carry one there.

Quote from: CRKrueger;642114Simple "physics of the world", simulation, single task-based resolution, whatever you want to call it, those mid-range successes are not it.

Quote from: Imperator;642183Yeah, but I do not think they are such a great deviation as to drag you out of immersion or stop the game from feeling like any other RPG. YMMV, of course.

I agree with Ramon; I didn't find the process egregious enough to break my bond with my character or the flow of the in-game action.

Good post, Zach!

Quote from: Zachary The First;642199We played it once, and I wouldn't do so again. There's no initiative system, so everything comes down to whatever a-hole decides to shout the loudest.

This is one of my points of concern with the game because this is a significant deviation from most games that I play.  Luckily, there are only four of us (including the GM) that play in this game and we've all been playing together for a while now so the 'loudest A-hole' was not really a factor for us.  

In fact, it was sort of the opposite for us because we play online via Skype and there is an inherent courtesy when playing online not to shout over someone else talking and to wait to speak so as not to drown out another person's voice.  However, our GM correctly identified the situation and drew us into the combat and action with direct questions.

However, if one were playing with strangers or new players then I could easily see how the loudest person in the group could dominate or control the action and flow of the game.

Quote from: Drohem;642235However, if one were playing with strangers or new players then I could easily see how the loudest person in the group could dominate or control the action and flow of the game.

Like many systems in many games, it really comes down to two things, yes? (1) The GM should handle traffic control, making sure no one is neglected and no one dominates; (2) the players should not be dicks.

Quote from: Zachary The First;642199We played it once, and I wouldn't do so again. There's no initiative system, so everything comes down to whatever a-hole decides to shout the loudest.

I also didn't like the limitations on players picking the same class in a group (everyone has to pick a different class), the asinine practice of picking a character's name from a provided list, or the relative high starting power level of characters.

I don't think "shout the loudest' is an issue with my local groups, because generally I let someone go and then circle the table most of the time--using either group initiative, or their planning, to decide who goes when.

I am also fond of the picking different classes because it does a good job of keeping each character unique before personality is added, plus a little more of that works great for some groups--especially since my local group that players Pathfinder tend to pick classes that differ from everyone else if they can. (I think of it like much of the other stuff as a very "Basic" way of doing things, and that Advanced Dungeon World, would be full of add in material, and ways to tweak classes/moves to customize further.)


As for names, well, I didn't use a name they gave me--it was very optional way to speed play. Along with the description elements outside of moves.

Quote from: gleichman;642198I wouldn't be. In my case I'm of the opinion that choice (beyond the decision to make the attempt in the first place) has no part in resolution be given to the player or the GM.

WTF does that even mean?

Quote from: Technomancer;642259WTF does that even mean?

What is said. A mechanical game resolution should tell me what the result is, not turn around an ask me what the result was.

Now I don't think that always has to be the case. Fluff descriptions that don't mean anything mechanically but expain what happened are always good. And extreme fumbles are fair game for some consideration and decision on the part of the GM.

But as the common case for normal success, partial success, or failure? No thanks. The system should provide all the answers because that's it's job and we don't get to decide such matters (i.e. I don't decide to between tripping or dropping my weapon in combat for example, I'm working to make sure neither happens).

By the way, just opened another thread inspired by this one:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26164

Im wondering how easy it would be to use Dungeon World with D&D modules and adventures ( like Keep on Borderlands, for example). What do you guys think ?

Quote from: silva;643595Im wondering how easy it would be to use Dungeon World with D&D modules and adventures ( like Keep on Borderlands, for example). What do you guys think ?

I see it perfectly feasible and very interesting.

Quote from: gleichman;642275What is said. A mechanical game resolution should tell me what the result is, not turn around an ask me what the result was.

Now I don't think that always has to be the case. Fluff descriptions that don't mean anything mechanically but expain what happened are always good. And extreme fumbles are fair game for some consideration and decision on the part of the GM.

But as the common case for normal success, partial success, or failure? No thanks. The system should provide all the answers because that's it's job and we don't get to decide such matters (i.e. I don't decide to between tripping or dropping my weapon in combat for example, I'm working to make sure neither happens).

How about thinking of it as a frozen moment in time? Let's say you are guarding an entrance against an orc in order to protect the children in the room. On a full success, you hit the orc, hold it off, and take no damage. On a partial, you choose one of the three. On a failure the orc gets by you, you do no damage, and get hit.

Roll 10+: full success.
Roll 6-: failure.

Roll 1-9: frozen moment. If you've done sports, or driven a car, you've had these moments. Whatever it was you were trying to do has just gone pearshaped, and you have a bad choice ahead. Hit the dog, or the parked car. Let the forward through on goal, or foul. That kind of thing. So the narration would be "you try to block off and attack the orc, but it has ducked under your blow and and drawn even with you. If you jump into the room, it won't be able to hit you, but you won't be able to hit it, and next round it will attack the children. If you step forward and slash backwards you will be able to hit it, but it also has a free shot at your ribs and will be able to attach the children next round (unless you kill it, but you would still take damage). If you throw your shoulder into it, you'll be able to stop it from getting into the room, but it has a free shot at your belly. Which do you choose to do? Option one, selfish choice, no risk to the PC, fail the mission. Option two, gambler's choice, risk to the PC, may fail the mission. Option 3, altruist's (hero's) choice, risk to the PC, succeed at the mission.

Player makes the choice, the round continues and is resolved.

Now personally, the thing I don't like is get all three, get one, or none, since sometimes there may only be one sensible outcome, and others there may be a dozen, but that's an implementation rather than conceptualization question.

Addendum: personally I would allow the player to pick more than 1 for partial success, at some cost. For example:

Do damage and avoid damage: I jump back and throw my axe at the orc, but the orc is in the room and can attack the children (if it survives the axe) AND you are disarmed next round;

Do damage and block the orc: I throw my dagger to pin the orc to the door, but the orc attacks you AND you are disarmed next round,

avoid damage and block the orc: I dive under the orc's weapon and tackle it to the floor, but you do no damage AND you are prone, carrying a penalty forward into the next round ("tripped").

Do all three, but after jamming your sword into the orc and tackling it to the ground, you are unarmed AND prone in the next round.