Cool.

There's two parts to that comment though. The first is simplicity and the second is how much the action is codified by the rule set. The trend from old style to modern style is more in the later as there are plenty of old style complex RPGs and plenty of modern style simple RPGs.

In terms of the codification of action, DW is definitely a modern style RPG. However, a fair few of its codifications ultimately  include the same discretions that are associated with old style RPGs. I think this is why it is a useful transition game and is an attractive option for diverse groups with a range of styles and experiences.

Quote from: Old Geezer;729328Well, it goes back at least as far as CHAMPIONS.  But I can forgive CHAMPIONS because of the source material; it really really does a great job of emulating a Silver Age comic book, where the "main fight" would be most of the book.

It comes down to familiarity. I ran a Champions game (well, Fantasy Hero, really) with a samurai, a spaceman and his robot assistant and a Xena knockoff (hey, it was the 90s). Only one of the player had ever even played an RPG before. It was great, they were doing all sorts of crazy thing. I never had to check the rules as I had been playing Champions for years and the only time the players ever even looked at their character sheets was to see what damage they did. [damage is wonky in Champions/Hero]. This was the campaign that sold me on a universal mechanic. No matter what they tried, they'd roll 3d6 and try to get a high number. They'd roll as they were telling me what they were doing, there was no hesitation or need to ask for permission.

It's also why I'm hesitant to try a game with codified "moves".

Quote from: hedgehobbit;729342It's also why I'm hesitant to try a game with codified "moves".

They're just chunks of rules. It's a presentation thing more than anything; they don't limit what you can do, you can't "only do these moves:"; it's that when the trigger happens, the move occurs.

If you are in melee combat with someone, for example, that's the Hack and Slash move, roll to see who comes out of it the best. You can't be trading blows with someone and it not be hack and slash, because that's what hack and slash is, that's the melee combat system.

If you just walk up and shiv someone, that's not hack and slash, that's shivving a dude. It's much easier when they're not fighting back.

I think there is slight misconception here. As Labybird says, "moves" are in essence just a different term for "rules". The use of term "moves" is because no rules are applied in DW without being initiated by specific player or GM narration*. Now, that's probably true of most RPGs, though its not as explicit or absolute as it is in DW, hence the change of name.  

Dungeon World's core mechanic is just like Champions. Its:

QuoteRoll 2d6+STAT. On a 10+, you succeed. On a 7–9, you succeed, but with complications or trouble. On a 6-, the GM says what happens and you mark XP.

Moves provide specific examples of that core rule being applied in different situations, the same way the text of the combat chapter or skills do in Champions or D&D.

IME where the codification of action comes in more is around the specific text of certain Moves and the concept of GM Moves. This is where a old style GM tends to have greater issue.

*This is a good example where DW detractors are likely saying either "Of course you should do that! Why are you telling me!" or "Don't tell me what I should do in my game!" at that comment

One of my preferred aspects of DW is that it doesn't differentiate between "combat" and "role play". Combat, action, drama all use the same basic rules, you're playing one contiguous game as one streams seamlessly to another.

The only extra mechanic that's obvously present in combat is damage dice, and I think the creators kept that simply for genre emulation and because they like rolling funny dice.

I've found that players new to RPGs remain incredibly creative problem solvers during a combat or action scene, using the environment and props to their advantage, whereas more traditional players will look for their combat abilities and stick pretty close to them - until the new guy says "is there a barrel of powder on the pirate ship? Can I shoot it?" And I say "yeah, there is. Defy danger+dex to hit it." And their eyes go wide as the guy with d4 damage kills 4 pirates in the explosion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;729184For some "D&D on Training Wheels" is a feature, not a bug.

For some, it's neither feature nor bug; it's been there, do that.

Quote from: The Butcher;729182I think you can't go wrong with B/X or its retro-clone, Labyrinth Lord (legal free download). But Swords & Wizardry (also a legal free download) is great too.

I'll second both of these.

LL is essentially B/X with a couple tiny changes and different art; S&W is a great OD&D clone and my particular favourite among clones I think.

Quote from: J ArcaneI saw this when I ran Hulks and Horrors for the first time, more or less.

There's only like 4 fuckin' things on the character sheet, and they're just bonuses to rolls mostly.

So everyone immediately started thinking in terms of 'well, what can we do to it.'

One gal got ambushed and almost killed by an alien housecat, and her response after the end of the fight was to start plotting to chase one of the ones that escaped down and make it a pet.

I would've let her too, if she'd ever found it. because that's the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that makes games fun.

You sound like my kinda GM!

And yeah great point. I've come to hold this view myself. Having 20 abilities on your sheet is actually more restrictive than having 3, because in the end there's still more abilities and you won't think of doing them or their equivalents, etc. Pre-WotC D&D games I've been in have certainly been more imaginative than WotC D&D games I've been in, that way. In the latter case there's way too much rules-mulching.

Quote from: LadybirdYep. Time looking up rules is time not spent in play. It's boring and it's rubbish, but it's what the dominant game engine of the last decade (A skirmish wargame with rules and prestige classes for pretty much anything that anyone may have ever wanted to do) has trained a generation of players to want, and a generation of bad GM's to provide.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Agreed so very, very much.

Especially as a GM, WotC era D&D feels SO. GODDAMN. RESTRICTING. Way way wayyyy too much time spent looking up rules or overdone monster stats leeches the fun outta my GMing like some hyperactive vampire or something.

Quote from: Justin AlexanderHalf of them spend a lot of time trying to convince people (including themselves) that their completely non-traditional RPG is, in fact, some sort of retro-clone because it has a fantasy milieu.

That one's really getting to me too, as in it's really irritating.

Quote from: The Ent;729393That one's really getting to me too, as in it's really irritating.

As I've said a lot, it's just a fun, fast-playing rules-light fantasy adventure game, and if you like that style of game you'll probably enjoy it, along with a lot of other games. It's a market segment that's been very well-served recently.

This is how I end up running DW, usually:

"Want to play Mutants & Masterminds or Hero?"

"No, don't like superheroes in tights."

"But it doesn't have to be superheroes. It can run fantasy, sword&planet, whatever."

"Don't care. Saw superheroes on the cover, lost interest."

"How about Dungeons & Dragons, then?"

"People still play that?"

"Alright, how about Dungeon World?"

"Cool, I'll go download the wackiest, most non-sequitur third party playbook I can find."

Quote from: Shauncat;729476This is how I end up running DW, usually:

* snip *

"Alright, how about Dungeon World?"

"Cool, I'll go download the wackiest, most non-sequitur third party playbook I can find."

Perhaps this is because tone doesn't carry well on the internet, but the entire exchange sounds like "players don't want to engage with any premise," and concluded with "player(s) going out of their way to be Fishmalks."

Why do you play with those people?  Or at some point why don't you say "Fuck you, then, YOU run a Goddamned game."

Quote from: Old Geezer;729486Perhaps this is because tone doesn't carry well on the internet, but the entire exchange sounds like "players don't want to engage with any premise," and concluded with "player(s) going out of their way to be Fishmalks."

Why do you play with those people?  Or at some point why don't you say "Fuck you, then, YOU run a Goddamned game."

That's what I do, pretty much (the latter). I haven't ran anything in a while.

Quote from: Ladybird;729473As I've said a lot, it's just a fun, fast-playing rules-light fantasy adventure game, and if you like that style of game you'll probably enjoy it, along with a lot of other games. It's a market segment that's been very well-served recently.

Hm, cool.

Quote from: The Ent;729604Hm, cool.

As I said upthread (um.. I think I did, anyway... short term memory is the first thing to go and I forget the second thing...)

ANYhow, the thing I'm gonna out and out swipe from DW is their explanation of "Defy Danger."  It's what I've always done anyway, but it's a quick and easy way to say "Anything not covered by the combat system or the saving throw chart will be resolved this way."