Dungeon World First Impression

[Afgncaap5]

I was just able to sit in on a game that a friend ran of Dungeon World! I definitely liked the game, but there was a weird part of me that didn't want to like it, and all in all I'm kind of confused about my own confusion. This is mostly talking out loud, but I wouldn't mind other people's thoughts on it.

So... we covered a lot of ground. I'm not sure if our GM was following a pre-made thing or if he was making it up on the spur of the moment. He frequently talked about it in terms of being "Better because there was no prep time" and "So much more free" than D&D because of the shenanigans we got up to, and I wanted to be defensive because, well, there's no reason the exact same things couldn't happen in D&D games.

However, and I think the important issue is, people *don't* feel that free in D&D games.

I mean, I do. I'm fine with asking my DMs "Hey, can I just use Spellcraft and a few spell slots to try turning that wheel into cheese?" (or whatever is more plot relevant.) And it's great... but at the same time, I know that not everyone plays with that kind of narrative license in their D&D games.

But in Dungeon World, people (after initially getting over the "Should I ask permission before doing mundane things?" hang ups) really started getting into it. Which was another thing: my friend said that D&D makes people feel like they need permission to do things, which... I guess I can see? I've never felt that way, but I can definitely see that sort of thing developing.

Ultimately, I don't think he was wrong in what he said, but I also feel like D&D (here speaking up for mainly 3.5 and 5e since those are what I have the most experience with) should have a little more defense than that.

I think the only real thing I can compare it to is the Mac vs. PC issue; PCs generally take a higher degree of system capability but ultimately yield stronger possibility, while Macs tend to have a lot of streamlined options that work, but don't necessarily have as much capability for tinkering beyond those capabilities, numerous though they may be.

That weird little neurotic issue aside, I definitely enjoyed my time in the game and look forward to getting back to it for the next session.

[Yora]

While it may look very similar on the surface with it's character classes, ability scores, and monsters, it actually works completely different in the underlying mechanisms.

D&D 3rd to 5th edition are extremely mechanics based games. They are games that could be run entirely by a computer with the only needed addition of an AI that decides which abilities from a list NPCs and monsters are using and what PC they are targeting. If you play on a grid with a properly detailed map, you can run the game without the GM ever having to make a judgement call. This strongly encourages players and GMs to play in a style that consists of taking any actions by looking at your list of available actions and chosing the one that seems to be the most helpful. Why would you take one action over another? Because it's mechanically and statistically speaking the most efficient thing to win.

Dungeon World is based on a fundamentally different approach to playing an RPG. It's using a system where the first thing you do is to ask yourself what you think would be the most interesting and appropriate action for your character in that situation and moment. And once you made that decision, you look at the different options for resolving actions with a dice roll and pick the one that matches the most. And these actions are mostly kept really generic. Except for the special cases dealing with healing and avoiding death and so on, the whole game really comes down to 8 basic moves.
And another big difference is that these 8 moves don't tell you what happens when a certain number is rolled. The moves provide guidelines for which direction the GM should take the story that is unfolding in the current scene. There also is no fixed turn order. Everyone, both PCs and NPCs, act whenever it seems dramatically appropriate. And it's left entirely up to the GMs personal judgement to allocate screen time for all participants as the scenes are happening. There are no formulas or equations that tell you what can be done and what happens. It's a game that relies very heavily on everyone playing agreeing what direction the developing story should take. The rules exist only as guides to help keeping the game feeling somewhat fair and ordered.

In D&D, the GM is often regarded as an impartial arbiter who checks the math on whether the players have success or fail with the actions they want to take. In Dungeon World this approach is impossible. The GMs have to get very heavily involved in making arbitrary decisions on what they consider would make for the most enteraining scene.

[Airk]

I think your "Mac to PC" comparison doesn't really hold a lot of water.

Unlike in the computing world where more little dials and adjustments mean that you can really tune something, in the RPG world, making something more complicated actually tends to reduce flexibility, because the more little modifiers you have on your rolls, the more the expectation is that if something is important, it should get a little modifier. A computer only understands all the little configuration points. A person can understand a fictional space.

D&D is basically responsible for the "inflexible" feeling you get - not because it comes out and says it, but because all the little dials and knobs make you feel like the way things are supposed to be represented is by one of those little dials and knobs, and that if there isn't a little mark on the dial that says "Set this here for situation X" you start to feel like situation X doesn't matter or can't exist.

There's one defense for D&D - and it's that all those little knobs and dials are TONS OF FUN for people who really like turning little knobs and dials (i.e. if you're really into building a mechanically optimized character, D&D is a great game for it.) but if you're more interested in just imagining a fictional space and allowing the dice to help you along, they just get in the way.

[daniel_ream]

Dungeon World has much more in common with OD&D or the old B/X line, where you had minimal mechanics and most things were determined by saving throws or characteristic rolls.

You're not wrong about D&D 3.5+ feeling less free. It's really no more and no less, but the presence of all those rules and the subtextual optimization game does send a strong message about What The Game Is About, and people respond to that subconsciously.

[Airk]

Dungeon World has much more in common with OD&D or the old B/X line, where you had minimal mechanics and most things were determined by saving throws or characteristic rolls.

You're not wrong about D&D 3.5+ feeling less free. It's really no more and no less, but the presence of all those rules and the subtextual optimization game does send a strong message about What The Game Is About, and people respond to that subconsciously.

I would argue that, no, it is definitively LESS free unless you are discarding rules - because there are places where the book says "If you beat target difficulty blah, you get blah" - so that is what is "supposed" to happen. And if you are discarding rules a lot, then you are using a system with too many rules for your game.

[Ninja-Radish]

My group had quite the opposite experience. It's so difficult to succeed at rolls without complications, that we ended up not making any progress at all. Two characters died, we got nowhere, and we all quit (including the GM).

It got to the point where we were afraid to try anything. As soon as the GM asked for a roll, we backed off and said "OK we don't do that". Just because we were so sick of dealing with complications.

For my part, I hate systems that operate on the assumption that constant failure is fun. It isn't. I hate 5E for the same reason; it keeps modifiers artificially low and thus fail rates very high. I want my character to be awesome, not pitiful. That's just me though, and I don't claim to speak for anyone else.

[flond]

My group had quite the opposite experience. It's so difficult to succeed at rolls without complications, that we ended up not making any progress at all. Two characters died, we got nowhere, and we all quit (including the GM).

It got to the point where we were afraid to try anything. As soon as the GM asked for a roll, we backed off and said "OK we don't do that". Just because we were so sick of dealing with complications.

For my part, I hate systems that operate on the assumption that constant failure is fun. It isn't. I hate 5E for the same reason; it keeps modifiers artificially low and thus fail rates very high. I want my character to be awesome, not pitiful. That's just me though, and I don't claim to speak for anyone else.

I admit while this is a failure state that happens...I think that it's a failure state of the system rather than...playing as intended. The thing is that there should IMO be a trade off between the complication rate of PbtA and...the actual intent of the rolls. (That is, the gm should be fairly liberal with rewards/giving you what you want. Because you'll usually be earning it in dealing with the complications. Indy should get the golden idol, because he's going to be dealing with a rock.)

(I also think this is...a fault of DW. It tends to be I think a little too granular, as opposed to say AW, where big sweeping rolls happen)

[Psikerlord]

I like how DW encourages narrating more, describing what you do more.

I get the impression however - note I havent played it - that PC death is arbitrary. Sometimes the GM can impose damage, other times a sword breaks, or you fall over, or whatever. I REALLY dislike this (assuming this impression is correct).

It just sucks all the danger out of the game for me. And you can get plenty of adlibbing/description in usual D&D, it just isnt as enforced as in DW.

Also, I feel like "moves" restrict what you can do. In a gmae that's supposed to be about improv and freedom. I dont really understand why they;re needed.

[ImNotTrevor]

I like how DW encourages narrating more, describing what you do more.

I get the impression however - note I havent played it - that PC death is arbitrary. Sometimes the GM can impose damage, other times a sword breaks, or you fall over, or whatever. I REALLY dislike this (assuming this impression is correct).

It just sucks all the danger out of the game for me. And you can get plenty of adlibbing/description in usual D&D, it just isnt as enforced as in DW.

Also, I feel like "moves" restrict what you can do. In a gmae that's supposed to be about improv and freedom. I dont really understand why they;re needed.

The moves are very broadly worded. Hella broadly. And their outcomes are similarly broad. Hence why they are used and are considered flexible.

The "what happens on a failed roll" comes from a list the GM has, and has the caveat that it needs to make sense.

It can also be frustrating if the GM fundamentally misunderstands what a 7-9 result is, and how it should be handled. A 7-9 is, fundamentally, a success. A hard bargain, ugly choice, or lesser outcome are all fine so long as, in essence, the character succeeds. If the GM only skimmed and thinks of a 7-9 as Failure-Lite, you'll hate it. Because they're doing it wrong.

[Psikerlord]

The moves are very broadly worded. Hella broadly. And their outcomes are similarly broad. Hence why they are used and are considered flexible.

The "what happens on a failed roll" comes from a list the GM has, and has the caveat that it needs to make sense.

It can also be frustrating if the GM fundamentally misunderstands what a 7-9 result is, and how it should be handled. A 7-9 is, fundamentally, a success. A hard bargain, ugly choice, or lesser outcome are all fine so long as, in essence, the character succeeds. If the GM only skimmed and thinks of a 7-9 as Failure-Lite, you'll hate it. Because they're doing it wrong.

Yeah actaully I was just reading another thread, nad looked at some playbooks, and better understand moves now. Some are common actions, others are special abilities (class/race like abilities). Mixing the two together threw me (why designer, why!)

Anyhoo I think I understand what its strengths are and I'd be glad ot play it to see how it runs, see what might be yoinked for more traditional d20 games.

[Cluedrew]

My group had quite the opposite experience. It's so difficult to succeed at rolls without complications, that we ended up not making any progress at all. Two characters died, we got nowhere, and we all quit (including the GM).A "weak hit" should still be a net gain, success with complications is still a success after all. Strong hits are more like critical successes in the d20 system.

Although yes, there will be problems. D&D is like an episodic show, with the state of the world rotating between the status quo and the threat of the day. Powered by the Apocalypse system plays like an action movie. You might see the status quo at the beginning and the end, but that's it, even if that.

[Airk]

My group had quite the opposite experience. It's so difficult to succeed at rolls without complications, that we ended up not making any progress at all. Two characters died, we got nowhere, and we all quit (including the GM).

It got to the point where we were afraid to try anything. As soon as the GM asked for a roll, we backed off and said "OK we don't do that". Just because we were so sick of dealing with complications.

For my part, I hate systems that operate on the assumption that constant failure is fun. It isn't. I hate 5E for the same reason; it keeps modifiers artificially low and thus fail rates very high. I want my character to be awesome, not pitiful. That's just me though, and I don't claim to speak for anyone else.

If you weren't getting what you wanted everytime you rolled a 7-9, you were playing the game wrong. Literally.
7-9 is "YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT" <but also a new problem arises>

So you should absolutely be making progress everytime you roll 7-9. If you weren't, that was operator error.


Yeah actaully I was just reading another thread, nad looked at some playbooks, and better understand moves now. Some are common actions, others are special abilities (class/race like abilities). Mixing the two together threw me (why designer, why!)

Because move just means "thing you roll for"? Did you actually read the game or are you just going on hearsay?

[Haldir]

I guess I never really felt all that constrained by D&D. Even 5e, which it's detractors claim is "too simplistic to build what I want :frown: -crybaby noises-," gives me every tool I need to adjudicate just about any situation fairly. I guess I don't see the need for something like Dungeon World (which, Gods help you if you get a bad GM in that system) because I want tools to objectively decide situations. I can already do whatever I want as the GM and my players have elasticity in the system because I'm not a rules-lawyering grognard- if a player wants to do something, I have the tools to make it happen.

tl:dr- Dungeon World seems like it causes mroe trouble than it fixes by adding dumb ambiguity and consequences that are entirely dependent on the Game Master. This for a fun and fair game usually does not make.

[Airk]

I guess I never really felt all that constrained by D&D. Even 5e, which it's detractors claim is "too simplistic to build what I want :frown: -crybaby noises-," gives me every tool I need to adjudicate just about any situation fairly.

Curiously, this is still entirely dependent on your sense of fairness.



tl:dr- Dungeon World seems like it causes mroe trouble than it fixes by adding dumb ambiguity and consequences that are entirely dependent on the Game Master. This for a fun and fair game usually does not make.

So where do you stand on GM rulings? What if there isn't a rule in the book for something? UH oh! Now the consequences of this action are entirely dependent on the Game Master! Actually, the consequences for failure are almost always already entirely dependent on them.

And heaven forfend you get into OSR territory.

[Haldir]

So where do you stand on GM rulings? What if there isn't a rule in the book for something? UH oh! Now the consequences of this action are entirely dependent on the Game Master! Actually, the consequences for failure are almost always already entirely dependent on them.

And heaven forfend you get into OSR territory.

1. It is fair to judge a system based on how often I have to make off the cuff decisions. D&D, even if it doens't have a specific rule for something, usually has something close enough. I've almost never run into a situation that can't be adjudicated by an ability check or creative use of a skill/spell. This is my experience.

2. In D&D, if the DM gives you what you consider to be unfair consequences for failure, you have at least some recourse in the system. In Dungeon World, "consequences" as a balancing mechanic gives the DM too much leeway. There is no recourse nor sense of fair play. If the consequence of casting a spell is my leg falls off, in D&D I can say "Hey! That's not fair because x, y, and z." In "Dungeon World" you'd basically have to whine about the vague suggestion that Gm's shouldn't go overboard. No thanks, gimme something concrete so I can reference it and move on.

Fairness, of course, being decided by a concensus between the player and the GM and validated by some kind of objective application of the system. I don't trust myself, or anyone else for that matter, to be objective the way a rules-system can. Too many DM horror stories out there.

[daniel_ream]

If the consequence of casting a spell is my leg falls off, in D&D I can say "Hey! That's not fair because x, y, and z." In "Dungeon World" you'd basically have to whine about the vague suggestion that Gm's shouldn't go overboard.

"You're being a ****. Stop it."


Fairness, of course, being decided by a concensus between the player and the GM and validated by some kind of objective application of the system. I don't trust myself, or anyone else for that matter, to be objective the way a rules-system can. Too many DM horror stories out there.

Don't play with ****s.

[Haldir]

"You're being a ****. Stop it."

oh yes, I do love a system which may encourage having to argue about things.

I will admit, I'm slightly biased, because my only experience with Dungeon World is from someone who "wants to play a character whose power is arguing with the DM."

And the system may even lend itself to arguments the other way, there players are incessently whining about the bad things that happen to them because I, as the GM, always have to be punishing them for some reason...

Yes, your bandaid solution of good communication is valid, but not 100% applicable.

[Airk]

oh yes, I do love a system which may encourage having to argue about things.

I will admit, I'm slightly biased, because my only experience with Dungeon World is from someone who "wants to play a character whose power is arguing with the DM."

And the system may even lend itself to arguments the other way, there players are incessently whining about the bad things that happen to them because I, as the GM, always have to be punishing them for some reason...

Yes, your bandaid solution of good communication is valid, but not 100% applicable.

This sounds like a group that would ****ing ruin any RPG, so I don't really see how this counts as a criticism of Dungeon World.

And no, I don't think you're really entitled to criticize the game based on what "may happen" if you have "incessantly whining" players, either. >.<

Anyway, how is ANY of this different from an OSR game where the players don't even have the recourse of "No, I rolled a 7-9, that's supposed to be SUCCESS with complications"

[kyoryu]

This is generally a trade-off I'm willing to make.

I don't play with bad GMs. A bad, abusive GM will find a way to make you miserable, no matter how tight of a lock the system puts on them (unless you go to something as structured as Descent: Journeys in the Dark).

So putting restraints on bad GMs has no value to me. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[kyoryu]

And no, I don't think you're really entitled to criticize the game based on what "may happen" if you have "incessantly whining" players, either. >.<

To be fair, I do think that some people are inclined to argue over every little thing and will not accept the judgement of another person. I do think that for those people, it's fair to say that a game where everything is spelled out explicitly is a better fit.

I do not think that's a "failure" of less explicitly defined games, however. Just a statement that those groups are not the target audience. Ferraris are really bad at off-roading. That doesn't make them bad cars. It just makes them bad cars *for certain things*.

[Cluedrew]

I will agree that Powered by the Apocalypse systems can make a bad GM worse, but I also say "why are you playing with a bad GM".


Yes, your bandaid solution of good communication is valid, but not 100% applicable.Really? I would call putting constraints on the GM the bandaid solution. Out of all the games I have played of Powered by the Apocalypse I have only disagreed with an MC's call, as in thought it should have been something else, once. The description of what should happen in the rules is vague, but it provides enough direction that once it is narrated, it feels quite natural.

[kyoryu]

And I would actually say that PbtA games can make a mediocre GM, that wants to be a good GM, better.

[daniel_ream]

Yes, your bandaid solution of good communication is valid, but not 100% applicable.

"A [Powered by the Apocalypse] game is a conversation."

If you can't have a conversation with your fellow players without arguing, you can't play a PbtA game.

[ImNotTrevor]

Also, Dungeon World by RAW has exactly 1 allowed GMing style. If your GM isn't doing that, you can point out that there is no Rule 0 and they are GMing incorrectly.

Speaking from about 3 years experience with PbtA systems nearly nonstop, about 6 total campaigns now, GMs in these games are not as free and loose as most people who have only skimmed or heard about the rules believe. They are much more dree as far as required prep time, but valid behaviors as reactions are limited by the system. (If you're doing it right.)

I'm sensing that most people who have a problem with Dungeon World have not read it, have not read the GM sections, and/or haven't played it. Dungeon World isn't really meant to be "walk into room and destroy everything as Ultimate BAMF Supreme" simulator like D&D 3.5 and beyond want you to get to after a couple levels. If you find yourself making progress butbwith a lot of minor problems at first, good. Things are working as intended. If you are making no progress at all and only adding problems despite mostly 7-9s, make your GM reread the GMing section so he can fix his problem. That one is on him.

The system is obviously not for everyone. If you want to be BAMF-Supreme then you will likely not enjoy this game. If you want tactics to reign supreme over descriotion in combat, you won't like it. If you like having a dictionary worth of crunch to play a game, you won't like this game. (Dungeon World is not, however, rules-light. It's just rules-medium from a different direction. Like FATE Core.)

Sorry if this is rambling or coming off harsher than I intend. People criticising a system they've never played nor read thoroughly as if they have already diagnosed all of its problems it is my pet peeve. :P

[Ninja-Radish]

If you weren't getting what you wanted everytime you rolled a 7-9, you were playing the game wrong. Literally.
7-9 is "YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT" <but also a new problem arises>

So you should absolutely be making progress everytime you roll 7-9. If you weren't, that was operator error

The problem was the complications. Simply put, the modifiers were too low in that system to have very many unqualified successes. Most of what we rolled were either failures or successes with complications.

But then we had to deal with the complications, which led to more die rolls, which generated more complications, which slowed us down even more. It was a vicious cycle.

[kyoryu]

Speaking from about 3 years experience with PbtA systems nearly nonstop, about 6 total campaigns now, GMs in these games are not as free and loose as most people who have only skimmed or heard about the rules believe. They are much more dree as far as required prep time, but valid behaviors as reactions are limited by the system. (If you're doing it right.)

Agreed 100%. Yes, the GM has areas where they are free to make decisions and judgements - but those areas are fairly strictly defined. There's just as many areas where the GM is very constrained.


Things are working as intended. If you are making no progress at all and only adding problems despite mostly 7-9s, make your GM reread the GMing section so he can fix his problem. That one is on him.

.... sorta.


The system is obviously not for everyone. If you want to be BAMF-Supreme then you will likely not enjoy this game. If you want tactics to reign supreme over descriotion in combat, you won't like it. If you like having a dictionary worth of crunch to play a game, you won't like this game. (Dungeon World is not, however, rules-light. It's just rules-medium from a different direction. Like FATE Core.)

Good description of DW's non-audience.


The problem was the complications. Simply put, the modifiers were too low in that system to have very many unqualified successes. Most of what we rolled were either failures or successes with complications.

But then we had to deal with the complications, which led to more die rolls, which generated more complications, which slowed us down even more. It was a vicious cycle.

So... this is what I meant by "sorta". In PbtA games (and most "narrative" games in general), the usual setup is not "here's the linear thing that we're going to go through." The general setup is "here's a situation, you can make progress, but doing so will cause complications, which will then snowball and then those complications and their snowballs become 'the story'".

PbtA games really aren't very good for "adventure paths" and the like.

[Airk]

The problem was the complications. Simply put, the modifiers were too low in that system to have very many unqualified successes. Most of what we rolled were either failures or successes with complications.

But then we had to deal with the complications, which led to more die rolls, which generated more complications, which slowed us down even more. It was a vicious cycle.

Yeah, I guess I've lost track of what the problem is at this point? You do stuff, and exciting problems happen, and eventually you roll well and you solve them. Complications should not ALWAYS lead to multiple die rolls for resolution - if you accidentally open a dark portal to somewhere, you can probably close it again with a successful ritual roll or something. If it happens to summon a crankypants demon while you're at that, eventually you'll kill it.

I actually have problems with Dungeon World when my players roll too many 10+s, because it's like "Uh, okay, you solve the thing. Uhm... good job?"

[Friv]

The problem seems to be that the complications were largely speed bumps to the plot, rather than being integrated into it.

This is kind of a failure state for Dungeon World - the GM is supposed to be making the complications part of the story and what's going on, so that the plot advances but new situations arise. Instead, based on the 'slowing things down' comment, complications in Ninja Radish's game seem to have been external impediments that kept getting in the way of the plot they were trying to work through, creating cascading side stories that no one was interested in but the GM kept insisting needed to be resolved?

[Thinker]

Yeah, I guess I've lost track of what the problem is at this point? You do stuff, and exciting problems happen, and eventually you roll well and you solve them. Complications should not ALWAYS lead to multiple die rolls for resolution - if you accidentally open a dark portal to somewhere, you can probably close it again with a successful ritual roll or something. If it happens to summon a crankypants demon while you're at that, eventually you'll kill it.

I actually have problems with Dungeon World when my players roll too many 10+s, because it's like "Uh, okay, you solve the thing. Uhm... good job?"


The problem seems to be that the complications were largely speed bumps to the plot, rather than being integrated into it.

This is kind of a failure state for Dungeon World - the GM is supposed to be making the complications part of the story and what's going on, so that the plot advances but new situations arise. Instead, based on the 'slowing things down' comment, complications in Ninja Radish's game seem to have been external impediments that kept getting in the way of the plot they were trying to work through, creating cascading side stories that no one was interested in but the GM kept insisting needed to be resolved?

These might both be a symptom of a larger problem - too much dice rolling. If you're coming from a 3.5 background, you're used to rolling for just about everything. In PbtA games, that's certainly not the case. You're an archer with a bead on a goblin trying to flee? You shoot and kill it. No need to roll. You only roll when the outcome is up in the air and the result would be interesting (for various definitions of interesting).

[Cluedrew]

To Ninja-Radish: I'm going to double up an they might have been too harsh. Requiring a whole roll to resolve the complication could be considered a "neutral" outcome instead of a positive one, so even that might be too much for your average complication. The other that the complication doesn't have to be immediate, although it doesn't work for every move there are some where the complication can come up in the next scene or similar.

There is nothing like getting a complication (or miss) that makes the MC go: "OK" and nothing happens.

[Airk]

These might both be a symptom of a larger problem - too much dice rolling. If you're coming from a 3.5 background, you're used to rolling for just about everything. In PbtA games, that's certainly not the case. You're an archer with a bead on a goblin trying to flee? You shoot and kill it. No need to roll. You only roll when the outcome is up in the air and the result would be interesting (for various definitions of interesting).

I don't really see how my description indicates too much dice rolling. The first part is basically the game operating as intended - it snowballs for a while, but eventually you get enough "success" to clean it up. The second part is the opposite of too much rolling - it's calling for a roll at that dramatic moment and then have everything go smoothly and the situation resolve.