So, we have people playing them and running them, so how are you playing them and running them?

Mostly one-shots or do you have a campaign, if so, how many sessions has it been going and what are the plans long-term?

I've heard the criticism, even from fans of the game, that the moves structure can get "stale", which is one of the reasons I assume for the proliferation of playbooks on DTRPG.  Have you felt the need to incorporate new playbooks or have you houseruled new moves yet?

Have you created a generic "Catch-All Move" or moveless roll where the middle range is pretty much GM tells you the consequences/complications?

(BTW these are straight up questions, I don't play that transparent Corley bullshit)

I agree that since we're fundamentally speaking of a spectrum people will identify different components of games to categorize them. Personally, I consider the primary purpose of the game to be a critical component helping me to understand what the game is designed to achieve.

A game like O/AD&D is specifically designed in order to emulate a functioning campaign milieu which then the players' characters will explore. James Bond 007 is specifically designed to emulate the world of the James Bond. A game like RuneQuest is designed to emulate a world where magic and myth are part of its multiple cultural fabrics. A game like Warhammer has a purpose to emulate a world, its own universe made of Skaven and Chaos worshippers and pseudo-late-Middle-Ages Europe trappings. A game like Call of Cthulhu emulates a world where the Mythos exists and is a positive force moving behind the scenes. All these are role playing games.

Dungeon World has a purpose to build a collaborative narrative. There is no actual world that is being emulated at all, its components only existing as narrative devices to serve the primary purpose of the game: to tell an entertaining story, "find out what happens next", to use the jargon of the game, collaboratively. The dungeon for instance does not positively exist in an emulated world, since vast areas are purposefully left blank in order to serve the narrative first, to be able to fill in those blanks in the most entertaining and drama-oriented manner possible. Here we see that these elements as a sole purpose of decor, of color, and are supplanted by the overriding needs of the narrative. Building a story/narrative together is the primary purpose of the game. Hence, not a role playing game, to me.

I love the longer games.   Curious as well.

Played in 3 sessions of DW. it was fun, but it would have lasted longer if it wasn't a d&d rift. I grew out of dungeoncrawling, as it were,  in my teens and my group feels likewise. We prefer games with an investigative focus or involving political motivations with complex, well-defined setting, and honestly combat is my least favourite part of an rpg if it lasts longer than 15 minutes and breaks up the pace of the game. So, while I enjoyed the system, even after all this time class level games about killing monsters with antisocial subterranean tendencies and ocd treasure collecting habits kinda irk the method actor in me. Did steal a few rules innovations for my house system though, plan on trying out one of them in my upcoming Dark Heresy hack.

I ran a 5 session campaign of DW using Sentinel and Gauntlet and the PCs achieved 3rd level. Not a long campaign by any means, but long enough to get a feel for how longer play might look.

I found that game was modifiable to longer play almost entirely on how soft or hard the GM made their moves. In a shorter game, the moves tend to be hard (often to the point of building on top of each other) to increase the pacing and force quick development.

In longer games, moves tend to be soft to allow the story to develop more naturally. By not necessarily building on top of every previous GM Move, this allows for long stretches with just roleplaying.

The experience has made me interested in running Red Hand of Doom with Dungeon World, which I would estimate as being around 20 sessions and the PCs getting close to 7-8th level. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon  

As written, the ceiling cap of 10th level would likely make very long campaigns problematic. I would probably look at capping the XP from failures (perhaps by move) to reduce PC advancement.

I've played a six-session campaign of Dungeon World recently, that we dropped just recently.  I don't think it's inherent in the moves mechanics, but rather just not a lot of interest in the material of the campaign.  I think that was clear from the first session.  

We started on a game of Monster of the Week, another game based on Apocalypse World.  I hope this one will run longer, but we're only two sessions in so far.

EDITED TO ADD:  I've also played 8 or 9 one-shots using systems of this family - Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Monsterhearts, and a playtest game called Guns & Glamour.  They worked fine for one-shots.  

I haven't felt any need for a catch-all move.  I suspect the proliferation of playbooks is for the same reason as the proliferation of splats for most traditional games - some fans like tinkering and more options.

Played 3 sessins of Apocalypse World plus a couple of Shadowrun (using AW system). Didnt felt any different from other light-to-medium-crunch games out there.

The thing we noticed regarding longevity is that, if you play with just one or two players, characters tend to improve really fast. I would recommend highlighting just 1 stat on 1-player campaigns. (but then the game wasnt made to be played with such a small number of players, I think)

Quote from: silva;669402Played 3 sessins of Apocalypse World plus a couple of Shadowrun (using AW system). Didnt felt any different from other light-to-medium-crunch games out there.

The thing we noticed regarding longevity is that, if you play with just one or two players, characters tend to improve really fast. I would recommend highlighting just 1 stat on 1-player campaigns. (but then the game wasnt made to be played with such a small number of players, I think)

I know a guy who is wanting to us AW for SR. How did it turn out for you?

I'm 1 session in to AW, but I don't think it's going to last very long. The system is just a bit too lite for my tastes. I don't want a heavy system, but I do need something that will offer a bit more crunch.

Quote from: Skywalker;669366I found that {DW} was modifiable to longer play almost entirely on how soft or hard the GM made their moves.

What does this mean? Could you define what a hard or soft move is exactly, for those with no knowledge of Dungeon World's mechanics?

Quote from: Skywalker;669366As written, the ceiling cap of 10th level would likely make very long campaigns problematic. I would probably look at capping the XP from failures (perhaps by move) to reduce PC advancement.

How many sessions would it take to reach that cap? What is the suggest rate of advancement, and does it slow down through the higher levels like D&D?

Quote from: K Peterson;669515What does this mean? Could you define what a hard or soft move is exactly, for those with no knowledge of Dungeon World's mechanics?

The immediacy of the impact, sometimes mechanical impact. Soft moves usually set up something else and can be avoided. Hard moves have unavoidable and immediate impact. Doing damage is an example of a hard move. Showing signs of a far of danger or telling the PCs the requirements of what they want to do are soft moves.

GM's have lots of discretion and flexibility in DW. For example, say a PC is trying to learn a magic ritual. A hard move on a failure would be that the ritual goes awry and causes damage. A soft move would be the PC learning they need a dragon's horn from a far off kingdom. By switching from one to the other you can more appropriately pace the game.

Quote from: K Peterson;669515How many sessions would it take to reach that cap? What is the suggest rate of advancement, and does it slow down through the higher levels like D&D?

Advancement is roughly 1 level every 2-3 3 hour sessions, though it slows down at higher levels. You don't just get awarded set XP at the end of a session. It's a little more like a hybrid of CoC and D&D in its approach to XP.

Quote from: Andy Day;669497I know a guy who is wanting to us AW for SR. How did it turn out for you?

Using AW for Shadowrun was a breeze. Most archetypes translate directly to the default playbooks (Sammy = Battlebabe/Gunlugger, Rigger = Driver, Face = Skinner, Mage = Brainer, Fixer = Operator, etc). And its easy to find new playbooks for the other archetypes here. (Covert Specialist = Turncoat, Shaman = Tribal/Beastmaster, etc).

Besides it, the Barter concept meshes really well with SR (assuming a street-level gaming, dont know how it would fit with hi-level gaming).

Quote from: silva;669548Using AW for Shadowrun was a breeze. Most archetypes translate directly to the default playbooks (Sammy = Battlebabe/Gunlugger, Rigger = Driver, Face = Skinner, Mage = Brainer, Fixer = Operator, etc). And its easy to find new playbooks for the other archetypes here. (Covert Specialist = Turncoat, Shaman = Tribal/Beastmaster, etc).

Besides it, the Barter concept meshes really well with SR (assuming a street-level gaming, dont know how it would fit with hi-level gaming).

Barter is where things seems like they'd break down. And how detailed do you get with spells and cyberware?

We abstracted cyberware and spells to just color, and assumed some moves were derived from it (the Battebabe impossible reflexes, the Brainer mind probing, and the Driver bonuses on the wheels, for ex).

About the Barter, its really useful - I would say more than anything SR ever presented - to establish a metric for the cost of the different jobs. In our table we assumed 1 barter = 5000 nuyens.

Quote from: Skywalker;669534GM's have lots of discretion and flexibility in DW. For example, say a PC is trying to learn a magic ritual. A hard move on a failure would be that the ritual goes awry and causes damage. A soft move would be the PC learning they need a dragon's horn from a far off kingdom. By switching from one to the other you can more appropriately pace the game.

Except you can't really switch whenever you want to.  Hard is only an option in certain cases, practically every single move's example comes with a player correcting the GM about not being able to do that move in that instance.

Quote from: CRKrueger;670709Except you can't really switch whenever you want to.  Hard is only an option in certain cases, practically every single move's example comes with a player correcting the GM about not being able to do that move in that instance.

Nothing defines how hard or soft a GM's Move is, or what GM Move must be taken, even when it is a fail on a die roll. So, the GM always has discretion here.

The rules do say that a hard move is generally not advisable on a "The players look at the GM for what happens next" situation, which is just good advice. This advice is not presented as a "rule" and the GM can make a hard or soft GM Move, and whatever GM Move they want, at their discretion.

So, my comment stands that the GM can accommodate for longer games almost entirely by softening the GM Moves they chose.