Quote from: RandallS;693837This describes how I've ran and played D&D since 1975. Perhaps this is why I don't get Dungeon World. It took this simple process and made it more complex (at least from my POV) with all sorts of formal process like restricting actions to moves, restricting what the DM can do to those moves, etc.

It really, really isn't restrictive. If what a player wants to do isn't a codified game move (And there aren't many of those), then it either works, or it works a little, or it doesn't, depending on the GM's call. It's an "everything not forbidden is permitted" game, not an "anything not permitted is forbidden" game.

From the GM side, the "GM moves" are vague and flexible, and they're so flexible you could do pretty much anything you'd usually want to and still be within the loose boundaries of "using up their resources" or whatever. They're just a reminder of basic GM-y things to do, and if you ever need to do anything else, make it up and say to yourself "it's a new GM move", if you really care.

There isn't an explicit mechanism for stuff like "rocks fall, everyone dies"... but that is a "this particular combination of game and table has irrevocably fallen apart" situation. You don't need a rule for that, because that's a discussion for the group to have.

QuoteIn my games, players simply describe what their characters are trying to do in the game world in normal terms (no gamespeak required) and I either just tell them what happens (sometimes rolling dice) or tell them what to roll (if they need to do so). I don't really under the "in the fiction" phrasing since I run sandbox campaigns that lack a fiction-like plot, but if I treat the phrase as somewhat equivalent "in the game world" I don't much real difference between what I do with D&D and what Dungeon World does other than terminology and the mechanics implementing play.

To be honest, it sounds like you'd be right at home in Dungeon World, and your players wouldn't even notice the change. But if you're perfectly happy playing Microlite 74 or whatever, why switch? One's a fun fantasy adventure game, and so is the other. They'll play slightly differently, sure, but not so much that anyone watching would really notice the difference.

Quote from: estar;693840Nor does that occurs in the classic D&D you were using in your example. I was assuming in the first example that the classic D&D referee rolled a surprise check for the Ogre and it succeeded.

If your assumption was that it was a arbitrary call then your D&D example is incorrect.  If it wasn't then BOTH example needs to reflect the result of a successful surprise. As it stands now the D&D example shows the result of a combat encounter where surprise was achieved. The DW example shows the result of a combat encounter where surprise wasn't achieve.

They are not examples of the same situation in combat.

Surprise was achieved. The party wasn't aware that the Ogre was there, and it acted before them. They were surprised.

Dungeon World doesn't have a specific "surprise mechanic" like other games, because it doesn't need one. If you lay a good ambush, and someone blunders into it, then they're going to get ambushed. Sucks to be them, but it's their own fault; this is a situation the GM judges on it's own merits.

QuoteAbove and in the sections I omitted are played out the same way in various editions of D&D. I am not seeing the difference here aside from the type of rolls you make. D&D has a surprise check, DW has a dex check, GURPS has perception check, and so on.

No, in my gravel field example, the player was rolling to see if they snuck up on the stabbee ("Defy danger", the danger being that they might be heard). If they just said "I walk across the field and stab him", they aren't going to surprise anyone, stabee is going to hear them and act.

QuoteWhat I getting at is what I am doing different in Dungeon World?  For example compared to a miniature less game of OD&D using the original three booklets only. Or if you don't much about that a miniature less game of Mentzer's Red Box D&D.

I don't know much about either game, but if you play like RandallS, probably not very much different at all!

Quote from: Ladybird;693843It really, really isn't restrictive. If what a player wants to do isn't a codified game move (And there aren't many of those), then it either works, or it works a little, or it doesn't, depending on the GM's call. It's an "everything not forbidden is permitted" game, not an "anything not permitted is forbidden" game.

You do realize that OD&D is explicitly a everything not forbidden is permitted game.

Also that if you read the DMG of every edition of D&D they all give advice on how to handle things not specifically covered by the rules and encourage the referee to "make up shit" in this regard.

The mentality of "anything not permitted is forbidden" is an understandable but unfortunate side effect of having a lot of detailed rules. This afflicts not just 3.X/4e D&D but GURPS, Hero System, and other system with a lot of detail. This persists despite advice to the contrary.

The difference between Dungeon World and later D&D is not the rules, but the culture that surrounds the rules. Gamers go into DW expecting to be able to attempt all kind of crazy shit.

It is my belief that the "characters can attempt anything" attitude spread by Matt Finch's Old School Primer is a major reason why the OSR has much of the audience it does. Why my own mantra of "Characters can do anything, just some are better as some things than others." helps sales of Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Ladybird;693846Surprise was achieved. The party wasn't aware that the Ogre was there, and it acted before them. They were surprised.

Dungeon World doesn't have a specific "surprise mechanic" like other games, because it doesn't need one. If you lay a good ambush, and someone blunders into it, then they're going to get ambushed. Sucks to be them, but it's their own fault; this is a situation the GM judges on it's own merits.!

In the second example the fighter either surprised or not. The way you written it, he make a dex check thus able to intercept the Ogre. He is not surprised. Resulting in a completely different outcome. If you wanted to correctly show the same situation then rerun the second example with the fighter FAILING the dex check and thus is surprise as he was in the D&D example.

Quote from: Ladybird;693846No, in my gravel field example, the player was rolling to see if they snuck up on the stabbee ("Defy danger", the danger being that they might be heard). If they just said "I walk across the field and stab him", they aren't going to surprise anyone, stabee is going to hear them and act.

How that different than any particular edition of D&D, GURPS or Fantasy Hero?

If a player says I walk across a gravel field in all of them they won't achieve surprise. If they say "I attempt to sneak across the gravel field" then that is resolved accordingly with a good chance of failure due to the difficulty.

Quote from: estar;693851The difference between Dungeon World and later D&D is not the rules, but the culture that surrounds the rules. Gamers go into DW expecting to be able to attempt all kind of crazy shit.

No more than they would any other kind of rules-light, not-forbidden-is-permitted game (ie, that's a player problem, not a game problem), and even if they did, DW would get that out of them soon enough. It assumes that the GM is going to tell them that sometimes they just fail - in fact, it's in one of the mechanics examples (It's not Hack and Slash - the "you and me are trading blows" move - if you're trying to stab a great dragon with a dagger, because you'll just fail; you poke at the dragon, you don't do any damage. Now, if you're got yourself to a position where you can get a weak point, or if you have a different weapon, then you'd have a chance, and it might be hack and slash, or you might just get to stab the dragon. It would depend.).

You could quite easily use most "here's what to do when you run out of mechanics" suggestions with DW. Or you could just make a judgement call and move on.

Quote from: silva;693721Estar, if we are gonna discuss game systems, we must consider what they do/promote, not what people do at their table.

Otherwise one can consider chess a great roleplaying game just because he likes to roleplay a rook while playing chess.

No, that's a view based in theory and politics.

Table play, the causes and effects there of and how people can enjoy themselves is the be all and end all of any practical discussion of RPGs. Otherwise it's theoretical doctrine placed masturbation, done by arm chair gamers who care more for political positions than actual gaming. The intent of the author is really only important when executed at the table.  The author, especially when it comes to games, is dead, dead dead because gamers will hack the game for their own uses regardless of authorial intent.

Estar, please, let's talk about the hows and whys of fun.

Quote from: estar;693855In the second example the fighter either surprised or not. The way you written it, he make a dex check thus able to intercept the Ogre. He is not surprised. Resulting in a completely different outcome. If you wanted to correctly show the same situation then rerun the second example with the fighter FAILING the dex check and thus is surprise as he was in the D&D example.

I think the examples are getting mixed up, because I don't think I made any reference to DEX with the Ogre (And the Ogre example wasn't even mine to start with). I'll get back to this later this evening.

QuoteHow that different than any particular edition of D&D, GURPS or Fantasy Hero?

It's probably not any different at all? Because all Dungeon World is, is another fun rules-light fantasy adventure game, and that's all it is trying to be.

One of the over and interesting developments of the World games that bypasses the whole nar vs sim thing is the 'fail forward' attitude - the trinary resolution states of of 'no','yes,but' and 'yes'.  When applied to older games and action resolution, I find that it's a good way of moving the fun forward.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;693684As someone raised on D&D 3e, I feel abused.

Would you say you were... brain damaged???

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;693860No, that's a view based in theory and politics.

Otherwise it's theoretical doctrine placed masturbation, done by arm chair gamers who care more for political positions than actual gaming.

Say hello to Silva. :rotfl:

What I've gotten from this discussion so far: because Dungeon World explicitly says so, the players are more empowered than when playing D&D and are, in fact, roleplaying.

So all I have to do is include a rule in a D&D-like game that says the same thing and I'm done, right?

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;693862One of the over and interesting developments of the World games that bypasses the whole nar vs sim thing is the 'fail forward' attitude - the trinary resolution states of of 'no','yes,but' and 'yes'.  When applied to older games and action resolution, I find that it's a good way of moving the fun forward.

This BS had a thread of its own.

Quote from: Brad;693883What I've gotten from this discussion so far: because Dungeon World explicitly says so, the players are more empowered than when playing D&D and are, in fact, roleplaying.

So all I have to do is include a rule in a D&D-like game that says the same thing and I'm done, right?

Sadly, that does seem to be the case.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;693862One of the over and interesting developments of the World games that bypasses the whole nar vs sim thing is the 'fail forward' attitude - the trinary resolution states of of 'no','yes,but' and 'yes'.  When applied to older games and action resolution, I find that it's a good way of moving the fun forward.

Been there, done that.

Talislanta, d20 Action Result Table:
1-5 failure
6-10 partial success
11-19 success
20+ critical

I really like this kind of rule but it's hardly new.

My criticism with Dungeon World would be that the "mixed" result is so frequent. This just shows the obsession of story games with "putting characters in tight spots".

Quote from: Iosue;693758And yet, if you look at the examples of play in the AD&D DMG and Moldvay basic, they look exactly like the latter example, and nothing like the first.

D&D has certainly changed over the years, and it's hard to really pin-point when and where, but the original model was that players operated almost entirely by their description of what they were doing, and the "rules" were handy pre-fab structures to aid the DM in adjudication.  With OD&D only the DM would refer to the rules, beyond character generation.  In AD&D, a player doesn't even know his THAC0 -- it's not listed in the PHB.  

I find it hilarious that RPG hipsters are just now discovering a mode of play that has been around since 1975. But at least music hipsters will acknowledge their influences. RPG hipsters who praise Dungeon World as a cool and innovative game are often the same ones who deride early D&D as "mother may I" and "magical tea party."

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;693891Been there, done that.

Talislanta, d20 Action Result Table:
1-5 failure
6-10 partial success
11-19 success
20+ critical

I really like this kind of rule but it's hardly new.

Yep, the other great 'innovation' of dungeon world has been around for decades as well.

Dungeon World sounds like good fun, and it offers some excellent models for enemies and campaign threats. But the "ZOMG it's so innovative" stuff is comical. It just shows how many RPG mavens and forum wonks have little experience with anything from before about 1998.