Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;810660It's possible that some people may not like the collaborative world building aspect of Dungeon World. From the srd: When a player says, "Who is the King of Torsea," say, "I don't know. Who is it? What is he like?"

I didn't know this was so in DW, not having played any *world games. It wouldnt' stop me from playing the game, but it would be a deal breaker if I just sat down and this was sprung upon me all of a sudden. I just wouldn't be in the right headspace for it.

Quote from: Bren;810668One other thing that seems odd to me from the descriptions of DW play. As I understand it, the rules lay out some "moves" that have clear mechanics for the GM to use. But the players aren't supposed to reference the moves.

Hmm, true. Might as well hand the character sheet back to the GM after going through chargen, and maybe keep a biography of sorts.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;810698I didn't know this was so in DW, not having played any *world games. It wouldnt' stop me from playing the game, but it would be a deal breaker if I just sat down and this was sprung upon me all of a sudden. I just wouldn't be in the right headspace for it.

Yeah, I've found it weird when stuff like that was pulled on me.  Minor stuff like just declaring the name of a local inn or whatever actually helps me get into character, as I don't have to stop and ask the GM.  But coming up with significant plot details is a bit odd.

I've done a few things like that in games before, but when I ask someone for details, I'll almost ask the non-active player, not the guy that's actually doing stuff.  Still, I usually don't do that kind of stuff often.

Quote from: Certified;810587Can you provide links to the other APs? (I listen to these whilst at the office.)

Also, In case you can't handle real-time APs (who could blame you?), here's a link for a pretty good PbF example.

Quote from: Bren;810667Whenever I see threads like this I notice this odd thing. The OP says their group played game X and hated it. Lots of fans of game X post add nasueum that the OP must have played game X wrong because reasons. Usually I reckon those people want to defend a game they like and don't want people to dismiss it out of hand based on a bad description and be open to trying game X. Yet almost every time, I am left with such a negative impression by the fanatics that I don't want to try game X because I'm afraid it will be a game session with fanatics. I find this negative impression much harder to dismiss than the OP's original rant.

This.

The stickler for me is the insistence by fans that since the OP's group didn't like the game, they must have been playing it wrong. Personal taste doesn't get to enter into it.

Quote from: jeff37923;810721This.

The stickler for me is the insistence by fans that since the OP's group didn't like the game, they must have been playing it wrong. Personal taste doesn't get to enter into it.

No, it was the OP's insane descriptions of the game that bear no resemblance to the game as written that convinced people he played it wrong.:rolleyes:

"I sure hate bicycles. They suck. When you have to insert the ovometer into your mouth and the wheels tickle your spine, I don't like that at all!"

"Sounds like you werent riding the bicycle correctly"

Jeff: "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!"

Quote from: jeff37923;810721The stickler for me is the insistence by fans that since the OP's group didn't like the game, they must have been playing it wrong. Personal taste doesn't get to enter into it.

You are experiencing serious reading failure.

It is not being suggested that they didn't like it BECAUSE they played it wrong.

It is understood and accepted that they may very well not like it even if they played it right. That is not where the cause and effect relationship in this is.

It is being pointed out that they played a particular GM's hack of it AND THEREFORE aren't in a position to know whether they like the original game or not.

Basically, the OP is saying, "We played game B and it sucked, and therefore we don't like game A."

Quote from: jeff37923;810721This.

The stickler for me is the insistence by fans that since the OP's group didn't like the game, they must have been playing it wrong. Personal taste doesn't get to enter into it.

That's why I specifically talked about people having *different* experiences with games than I do.

I mean, Bren really doesn't seem to like the idea of not just directly picking moves.  Cool.  DW's probably not a good match for him.  To use my hockey analogy, that's "I don't like hockey because I hate skating."  Hard to argue with that.

Some of this stuff is more like "I don't like hockey because what's with the three digit scores, and why does everyone move so slowly?"  Which has exactly zero resemblance to anything I've seen in hockey.  I'm still not going to say "they're doing it wrong", but I do get curious about exactly what their experience is like, because it's so utterly the opposite of my experiences.

Quote from: robiswrong;810735I mean, Bren really doesn't seem to like the idea of not just directly picking moves.  Cool.  DW's probably not a good match for him.  To use my hockey analogy, that's "I don't like hockey because I hate skating."  Hard to argue with that.

Well Natty Bodak indicated my impression was incorrect. In which case I'd play it, but I doubt I would run it. Conceptionally I prefer rules that treat NPCs the same as PCs. As a GM I like rolling dice. So a game that makes everything player facing neither interests me nor helps me when I am the GM.

Regarding the OP, I already parodied what they posted.

Quote from: Bren;810476BUT WHY!?! WHY!?!

Why is it possible for a game that I don't like to even exist. How can people like things I do not! Oh, cruel cruel world that has such games in it. Oh woe is me! Woe is me!!

To quote the rules:

Quote from: Dungeon World, page 18When a player describes their character doing something that triggers a move, that move happens and its rules apply. If the move requires a roll, its description will tell you what dice to roll and how to read their results.

So, yeah, you're supposed to describe what your character is doing, and that triggers the move.  That's kind of the premise of the mechanics.

But, yeah, it doesn't sound like your cuppa.  That's great, and I'm not going to say it should be, or that you're wrong if you don't like it, or anything dumb like that.  Because I'd have to be an asshole to do so.

And when I was talking about triple-digit hockey scores, I was pretty specifically not referencing you, as I actually used you as an example of someone that's probably not a good fit for the game.  Sorry if that wasn't clear, especially since you've been pretty level-headed about "I don't like this, but that doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, it's just not for me".

Quote from: robiswrong;810757Sorry if that wasn't clear...

No you were clear. Not wanting to play hockey cause you don't like skating is a good analogy to what I said earlier. I have no problem with what you said. I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Honest question: Did it seem to you like I was disagreeing with you or that I did take issue with what you posted?

Quote from: apparition13;810690Yet another example of why you're better off coining a new word or using existing and established terminology than redefining an existing word in a non-intuitive way and expect people to get it and not object to the redefinition.

We've had this discussion here before: This isn't some newfangled definition of the word "fiction". It's literally the primary definition of the word: "Imaginary shit." The specific meaning of "literature which deals with fictional stuff" is self-evidently derivative.

Quote from: Bren;810749Well Natty Bodak indicated my impression was incorrect. In which case I'd play it, but I doubt I would run it. Conceptionally I prefer rules that treat NPCs the same as PCs. As a GM I like rolling dice. So a game that makes everything player facing neither interests me nor helps me when I am the GM.

Regarding the OP, I already parodied what they posted.

I don't care for the GM-doesn't-roll-dice thing, and I gnore that myself.  The PC / NPC asymmetry is off the charts, and there's just no getting around that. A skilled GM can veil that from the players, but it's always there for the GM. That's been one of the biggest deal-breakers for folks, in my experience.

Quote from: Bren;810667Whenever I see threads like this I notice this odd thing. The OP says their group played game X and hated it. Lots of fans of game X post add nasueum that the OP must have played game X wrong because reasons. Usually I reckon those people want to defend a game they like and don't want people to dismiss it out of hand based on a bad description and be open to trying game X. Yet almost every time, I am left with such a negative impression by the fanatics that I don't want to try game X because I'm afraid it will be a game session with fanatics. I find this negative impression much harder to dismiss than the OP's original rant.

This happens all the time, especially with RPGs that have a new school or narrative aspect to them, even if that aspect is authorial tone.  Someone who doesn't really like any narrative or new school elements in their RPGs is going to not like the game at all, and if they're not really into gaming theory or been following the discussions about the game, they are not really able to put a finger on what caused the negative reaction.  Call it the "narrative allergy" for lack of a better term.

People who like narrative elements in their games probably like that game or at least that playstyle, so as a result, don't like the OP's rant at all, and so comes the cascade of narrative supporters that you will see in almost.every.single.thread about a Fate or Xworld game or other games that have had similar controversies in the past.

But yeah, the overenthusiastic "you didn't understand it, get it, do it right, etc" gets really old, when in reality it's that the person doesn't like the non-traditional aspect of the game, period.  So, tell them to play something different, next thread.

Of course, this place was practically built on the concept of people going to the mattresses over not admitting the slightest difference between a traditional RPG and a new school one, so expect a high page count if anyone (like me) decides to actually engage further in this.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;810762I don't care for the GM-doesn't-roll-dice thing, and I gnore that myself.

I rolled damage dice when I MC'd, because I liked doing it (And my players seemed a bit perplexed by "roll to see how much damage your guy takes!"). Who handles the randomisers doesn't change any actual mechanics, it's just a psychological thing.

Of course, there's nothing stopping the MC from rolling as many dice as they like; there's just nothing that mechanically requires it. It kinda assumes that the MC will know their NPC's, their capabilities, and play them "appropriately".

For a game that people say restricts the MC, it puts a lot of faith in them to know their stuff and make sensible calls, without mechanics to fall back on. I'd say it's less restrictive than other games.

Quote from: CRKrueger;810767But yeah, the overenthusiastic "you didn't understand it, get it, do it right, etc" gets really old, when in reality it's that the person doesn't like the non-traditional aspect of the game, period.  So, tell them to play something different, next thread.

"You're doing it wrong, and that is why you are not having fun" isn't a concept exclusive to some types of game, though. There's another thread right now about playing superhero games wrong, frex.

I'd agree that narrative games and *W games probably have a higher learning curve than most games, though, due to their approaches being slightly different to other games.