Quote from: Drohem;641754Here is the the Dungeon World Character Sheets PDF.

It contains the classes of Dungeon World and the Basic Moves for the class, as well as other class specific information.

Right, that's exactly what I was saying earlier, a few skills referenced from tables or descriptions. It's Joe Dever's Lone Wolf, the gamebook/RPG, circa 1984. They've stripped down the skills, options and equipment to the bare minimum and put them on a character sheet.

And why not, it seems to work and I love gamebooks, but the tradeoffs are there alright, plain as day, mostly gaining granularity by losing variety.

I like how it lets you carry semi related bonuses forward, as with Discern Reality, but is it revolutionary? Not really, no. Definetely the best attempt I've seen yet to bring gamebook style play to an open ended tabletop environment though, it could really work well.

Quote from: The Traveller;641760And why not, it seems to work and I love gamebooks, but the tradeoffs are there alright, plain as day, mostly gaining granularity by losing variety.

The number of people on this forum willing to regularly post, "I'm completely ignorant, so lemme tell you what I think." is amazing to me.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;641802I'm completely ignorant, so lemme tell you what I think.

Thanks, but maybe next time.

Well the whole concept of moves strikes me as Forgist, in the sense that it basically codifies into rules basic decisions and actions that should really be open-ended and up to the participants of the game (you know, what makes an actual role playing game what it is: the open-endedness of it all). It creates limits, instead of creating a normal collaboration and dialog between the players and GM. And if the creation of a specific rule for each "move" is not a self-imposed limit and hair-splitting of putting basic actions into their own little rules boxes with specific effects and the like, then what the fuck is the point? Why make every action or decision or event a game unit, instead of just, you know, cut the middle man and get directly into the situation and describe what you do organically, without the need for rules clutches to tell you what to do or how to run the game?

It all sounds rather pointless and "edgy" for the sake of it from a (Forgist) theorist's standpoint, IMO.

There is a saying, "Restrictions Breed Creativity". I believe that the goal is to provide just enough restrictions to cause this.

The intent of my Move: "Fuck This Shit!" was to show how a frequent occurrence could be codified to establish game world expectations. (Maybe some sort of "Rebel".) This would most likely be used to quantify a specific character and not be a "Basic Move".

A framework of expectations help a game to flow smoothly.
=

Quote from: The Traveller;641329That's just offloading the mechanics onto the GM though, in a freeform way. If I have this right, in a standard game the player decides to bug out, then make a kick down doors roll.

In AW, the player decides to bug out, makes a roll to determine how successful that idea was, and it's up to the GM to interpret that roll.

That sounds like combat and 'saves' in OD&D, and how a lot of other things were done as well in the 1970s, in my experience.

Like a lot in FRPing, it's a matter of degrees along a spectrum, and calls for careful playing by ear. Ideological theorizing about when to make assumptions or who should 'narrate' so much tends to overlook the details that matter on the scene.

Quote from: Phillip;641814That sounds like combat and 'saves' in OD&D, and how a lot of other things were done as well in the 1970s, in my experience.

Agreed, it's definetely old school, antediluvian old school, but in terms of encouraging roleplaying? Depends on the group I'd say.

I can't make heads or tails of this shit.

First I have a question about this combat thing. So Drohelm? hit a dude and took damage because he wasn't quite good enough. So far I'm fine with that (staged successes and all that.  I seem to recall something similar happening to me in Soveriegn Stone in the Pre-3E days), so really my question is how does that work when turned around? Do the NPC's make attack rolls (or whatever... I'm going in order here to clarify my understanding so don't go all semantic on me yet) and suffer damage too from inadequat success? Or is it one of those games where its pretty much Passive NPCs who never/rarely roll against the players type of deal (That is the onus on actions/dicing is on players, and their relative successes and failures determines the NPC actions?)


Second:  Pulling back the focus from 'tactical' actions (I kick down the door!) to 'Strategic' actions (I enter the room boldly?) seems like a poorly thought idea wrapped in a marketing gimmick to me. Maybe I'm taking offense to the words chosen?  Maybe I'm not picking up what you guys are putting down, so I'm reluctant to wade into a discussion/debate/arguement on this topic since I'm not at all clear what's actually going on.

Third: Re: Fuck this shit.

One of three things is true. Maybe more than one, but lets start there.

Fuck this Shit is, in fact, an action in the game and is so written in the book.
Fuck this Shit is an example used by Justin to explain stuff without needing to reference and/or argue actual mechanics to make a point. A glib, useful, example
Fuck this Shit is, like most/all actions in the game defined and named by the player (a la fudge?) by some arcane mechanics. THat is Drohelm, when making his character invested creation resources (levels, points, poker chips... whatever) into a skill he called Fuck This Shit, and mechanically added abilities to it that made it explicitely useful for bugging out.

One is cute but probably obnoxious in the long run (see also: HoL)
Two is useful for people familiar with the game, but as discussion has grown it is making it hard for guys like me to actually grasp what the fuck you all are talking about
Three is.... well, I think it sounds (in this thread) like a terrible mix of 4E's powers and Fudge(?) player defined free-form nonsense.






I will admit to not really knowing Fudge or any of its spinoffs. I have been recently invited by a non gamer to run the Dresden Files, which I have since learned is a Fate game, which I BELIEVE makes it a Fudge clone... and why I didn't buy the book when I saw it recently. I haven't made up my mind about the game (seeing as person in question is highly flakey and hasn't brought it up again, I'm not feeling any pressure...).

I've played a couple games of Dungeonworld and I quite like it.

It's very much a Storygame as I understand them. It gives a lot of the control of the narrative to the players, the GM has their own specific set of moves etc. I think it's confusing people because it's a Storygame set in a dungeon crawl setting. That and it calls it's action resolutions "Moves", which is a name that belies the very broad scope of action and resolution that the Moves cover.

For example, there is a standard move "Defy Danger", in which you as a player can use any idea you've ever thought of to defy danger. For example: A goblin archer fires an arrow at you. Do you knock the arrow away with your shield? Dodge behind a wall? Pray the arrow misses? Do you charge the archer, confident in their lack of marksmanship? All these are valid Defy Danger actions. On a high roll, you get exactly what you want, maybe more. On a middling roll, you get what you want, but it gets more complicated. On a low roll, you fail.

That said, I think it's awesome. Playing the game felt very reminiscent of my first games of AD&D, where it seemed like anything was possible and I was willing to try anything as a character. I'm not much of a storygame guy, but I had a great time playing this one.

In traditional rpgs pc actions and therefore adventures ought to be spontaneous.
Dungeon world is definitely not a traditional rpg as it forces a certain kind of pc actions. Actions based on the outcomes of the cliche adventures and actions of the d&d genre.

I would not call its rules a story game. I would rather call it a d&d game emulator, which is something totally different than playing traditional d&d itself.

Quote from: Drohem;641754Here is the the Dungeon World Character Sheets PDF

That looks informative. Thanks!

Quote from: Benoist;641808Well the whole concept of moves strikes me as Forgist, in the sense that it basically codifies into rules basic decisions and actions that should really be open-ended and up to the participants of the game . . . It creates limits, instead of creating a normal collaboration and dialog between the players and GM.

If you choose to treat things so rigidly, you can do it in D&D as well! How about those OFFICIAL AD&D rolls for boxing and wrestling moves, for example?

It's really up to you, though, isn't it?

I suspect the main problem here is that the mode of presentation is not a copy of old familiar D&D-ese.

If the DW folks tell you that you MUST scrupulously go precisely by the book, or else you're playing something other than DW, then let them take such blame as may be due.

Otherwise, I think the RPG convention that all 'rules' are mere suggestions should go without saying.

Quote from: PhillipI suspect the main problem here is that the mode of presentation is not a copy of old familiar D&D-ese.

Bingo!

Quote from: Phillip;641822If you choose to treat things so rigidly, you can do it in D&D as well! How about those OFFICIAL AD&D rolls for boxing and wrestling moves, for example?

You're projecting that rigidity yourself. Besides, that misconstruction sounds eerily familiar, in the same way "dissociated mechanics" triggered outcries of "but all rules are abstract!" in previous conversations.

Comprenne qui pourra.

Quote from: Spike;641817I can't make heads or tails of this shit.

First I have a question about this combat thing. So Drohelm? hit a dude and took damage because he wasn't quite good enough. So far I'm fine with that (staged successes and all that.  I seem to recall something similar happening to me in Soveriegn Stone in the Pre-3E days), so really my question is how does that work when turned around? Do the NPC's make attack rolls (or whatever... I'm going in order here to clarify my understanding so don't go all semantic on me yet) and suffer damage too from inadequat success? Or is it one of those games where its pretty much Passive NPCs who never/rarely roll against the players type of deal (That is the onus on actions/dicing is on players, and their relative successes and failures determines the NPC actions?)


Second:  Pulling back the focus from 'tactical' actions (I kick down the door!) to 'Strategic' actions (I enter the room boldly?) seems like a poorly thought idea wrapped in a marketing gimmick to me. Maybe I'm taking offense to the words chosen?  Maybe I'm not picking up what you guys are putting down, so I'm reluctant to wade into a discussion/debate/arguement on this topic since I'm not at all clear what's actually going on.

Third: Re: Fuck this shit.

One of three things is true. Maybe more than one, but lets start there.

Fuck this Shit is, in fact, an action in the game and is so written in the book.
Fuck this Shit is an example used by Justin to explain stuff without needing to reference and/or argue actual mechanics to make a point. A glib, useful, example
Fuck this Shit is, like most/all actions in the game defined and named by the player (a la fudge?) by some arcane mechanics. THat is Drohelm, when making his character invested creation resources (levels, points, poker chips... whatever) into a skill he called Fuck This Shit, and mechanically added abilities to it that made it explicitely useful for bugging out.

One is cute but probably obnoxious in the long run (see also: HoL)
Two is useful for people familiar with the game, but as discussion has grown it is making it hard for guys like me to actually grasp what the fuck you all are talking about
Three is.... well, I think it sounds (in this thread) like a terrible mix of 4E's powers and Fudge(?) player defined free-form nonsense.

I will attempt answer these based on my personal belief.
1) Do the NPC's make attack rolls (or whatever...
In DW there are Fronts. These are GM defined and drive the NPCs/world. These fronts are things the occur to further the goals of NPC factions. They are intended to be something that the players would not want to be successful. Therefore the NPCs will attack the player characters if they stand in the way of the NPCs goals. Most Adventure Fronts will contain immediate dangers to the PCs so to answer the question, NO. It is assumed that unless the PCs actively resist, the NPCs are successful.
Does that mean the NPCs will harm or kill the PCs of they don't resist? YES.
"The thug has drawn his sword and is moving closer to stab you. What do you do?"

2) ??

3) The example "Fuck this Shit" was given as a triggered event that is expected to have a few predefined results.
In normal play the character either automatically succeeds or if someone/thing was attempting to stop them then, declare how they were avoiding and roll Defy Danger. On 7 or higher they succeed but with a cost. On 10+ they just straight up succeed.

If for some reason a GM actually created a Move "Fuck this Shit", then this would be done to provide consistent characterization (or easy reminding for a GM if a World Move).
=