>>45311204 People seem to think its shit for being simple or something. I played it as one of my first RPG's and loved it but we got tired of it pretty quick and moved to D&D 5E and haven't ever looked back
Not bad for getting people into rpgs because fantasy is the most easily digestible thing around. Has some decent dm/story telling advice. Takes a pretty specific and well made game system and tries to do some stuff it wasn't built for and suffers for it. Makes some autists really angry.
From what I've read of its rules and governing philosophy, it seems by turns overly simplistic, bland, and poorly thought out. I'd play a session of it on Roll20 or something to try it out, if there was nothing better to do, but I wouldn't impose it on my friends at this point.
>>45316552 What's so difficult about it? The move bascially says that you can use the sheer power of nature to accomplish anything you want, but it's going to fuck you over either way. You just get to pick how.
DW does some stupid shit with the mechanics. Mostly HP, but also the stats division, move bloat, bonds and alignment to xp, monster manual design, taking a game made for interparty drama and making it about dungeon slogs, stuff like that.
Lots of people on tg dislike AW because it has the sex in it.
Both are disliked because of the writing methods, coming off as too much for a lot of grogs who think their own preferences are the base neutral of language.
tg can't agree on what colour the sky is, let alone if they like or dislike a thing and why.
Anyone ever think sometimes the mods made a DW bait thread just to out virt&imitators and ban them?
There are a fuckton of hacks, most of them aren't very good. The Regiment is not bad at space marines ala Aliens, World Of Dungeons is a funny thing but actually works much better for OSR than dungeon world, World Of Shadows is a decent cyberpunk hack, World Of Warhammer is an interesting take inbetween warhammer fantasy rpg2nd ed and the AW engine, Monster Hearts is actually good if you're into highschool monsters, I like World Wide Wrestling but I'm white trash as fuck sometimes. I'm interested in Worlds In Peril for super heroes but I haven't tried it yet.
>>45320567 AW isn't really praised that much. More often, some fa/tg/uy loses his shit over it because it provides a rule for the consequences(!) of sex and he accociates it with FATAL.
That said, AW works. It was created with a cerrtain purpose in mind and just sticks with it. DW was intended as an hommage to DnD, using the PbtA engine as its base. Unfortunately, the author didn't quite figure out exactly why AW works the way it does. As a result, a lot of DnDisms were simply tacked onto the AW base, without properly fitting in. This in turn hampers the entire system to a very noticeable degree.
Overall, DW is not necessarily a bad game, especially if you're trying to show some rather bullheaded players that DnD is not the be-all-end-all of fantasy, but it leaves a lot to be desired.
>>45311204 Game's fun but short lived. However, the DM organisation tips are actually pretty handy, and it does have some interesting ways of clarifying and streamlining things. Reading and understanding the DM moves list is a good thing too. I actually have a bulletpointed version on the inside of my screen and I glance at it whenever I think "what the fuck do I do now?"
>>45311204 It's a good homebrew of Apocalypse World, and Apocalypse World did some pretty revolutionary things (although I didn't like it very much because I'm not really into Mad Max).
Dungeon World itself is fun enough and reasonably well made (since it copied something that was well made, then bolted on D&D bits and pieces sort of at random). You can do a lot with it, and what you can't do you can usually houserule or homebrew. It also really rises or falls to the level of the GM, so as a long-time GM I really like that.
If you look at it too deeply though it can get a little whacky in terms of the mechanics and their implications, and there are a few things it's just not ever going to be good at doing.
/tg/, we really, REALLY need to talk about the recent surge in popularity of "Dungeon World" around here, especially the trend of recommending it as a good system for "introducing" players to our hobby.
I understand that there is an obsession with being subversive and finding the most super specialest alternative to D&D possible, but having finally taken the time to read into Dungeon World and the reasons why this game has caught on around here and other forums I feel the need to be frank: this NEEDS to stop. I try as hard as I can not to be a "badwrongfun" style curmudgeon, but this is not a role playing game. Full stop. This is not a role playing game, and this disingenuous promotion of it as such is legitimately dangerous to this hobby. This is an exercise in self-congratulatory free form group storytelling.
This is a "game" where the danger of literally any challenge is by design arbitrary, not just from encounter to encounter, but from action to action. There's no actual combat or tactics at play, everyone takes turns basically describing a "cool fantasy battle" and resolve everything through "dodge danger" and "hack and slash" rolls triggered at the GM's whim. This is a game proud of being anti-structure, where the goal is to explain to the GM how many cool things your players do instead of actively overcoming any challenges in your way.
It's chaos. Consequences of certain failures are decided collaboratively. The GM is encouraged to be more of an antagonistic player than an actual referee of any rules. At /tg/'s suggestion I watched a few videos of people playing this. At one point the *GM* asked the *PLAYERS* what rumors they had heard in town.
I get that the people involved in this game by admission shill it everywhere, but please stop pushing this as a system for beginners. It's dangerous to our hobby and the behaviors it promotes encourages entitled players with disruptive expectations for how parties are meant to work.
/tg/, we really, REALLY need to talk about the recent surge in popularity of "socialism” around here, especially the trend of recommending it as a good system for "introducing" workers to the economy.
I understand that there is an obsession with being subversive and finding the most super specialest alternative to captialism possible, but having finally taken the time to read into socialism and the reasons why this idea has caught on around here and other countries I feel the need to be frank: this NEEDS to stop. I try as hard as I can not to be a "badwrongfun" style curmudgeon, but this is not an economic system. Full stop. This is not an economic system, and this disingenuous promotion of it as such is legitimately dangerous to this country. This is an exercise in self-congratulatory, centralized planning.
This is a "system" where the setting of any price is by design arbitrary, not just from five year plan to five year plan, but from month to month. There's no actual market incentives at play, everyone takes turns basically describing a "proletariat economy” and resolve everything through "production” and “consumption” plans triggered at the party’s whim. This is a system proud of being anti-freedom, where the goal is to report how many boots you made instead of actively overcoming any challenges in your way.
It's chaos. Consequences of certain failures are decided collaboratively. The party is encouraged to be more of a CEO than an actual referee of any rules. At the state department’s suggestion I watched a few videos of planning sessions. At one point the industrialists asked the *GOVERNMENT* what the market needed.
I get that the people involved in this game by admission shill it everywhere, but please stop pushing this as a system for workers. It's dangerous to our economy and the behaviors it promotes encourages entitled workers with disruptive expectations for how markets are meant to work.
>>45324193 This is something a lot of the sorts of people who hang out on /tg/ don't really understand about PbtA system games.
They keep looking for exception-based rulings that explain the benefits of using two swords, for instance. But there is no exception-based rule for using two swords, since using two swords is (barring a few cases) not an exception to the core principle of the game: do whatever makes sense.
So if you want to find out what the mechanical benefit of wielding two swords is in a PbtA game, you just have to ask: what is the real life benefit of wielding two swords? The answer to that question is the answer in most cases in PbtA games as well.
This is why the game rises and falls to the level of the players at the table. If you know the real life benefit of having two swords, then the game accommodates this. If you don't, however, the game won't tell you what that's supposed to be. And when people lack guidance, they tend to get upset.
Hence a lot of people on /tg/ hating PbtA games, setting aside stuff like sex moves.
>>45324584 >what is the real life benefit of wielding two swords? No one is playing a narrative game for real life decisions: they want to be heroes capable of incredible feats. By using two swords they want to be capable of attacking more and defending a little better than with only one, something that needs too much training in real life to be feasible on a real life battle. And remember that a *fantasy* game don't use *real life* all the time. Or are you going to say that magic and dragons are real?
>>45324668 If I got DW right (and I didn't have a chance to play it yet, and been a while since I've read the book), it works something like this:
If you can think about an advantage two weapons would give, and it isn't something mechanically minded like "can attack twice as often!" it'll work in DW.
You could have something like "split attention" making it good for multiple foes or "dazzling display" if your character is using it to be confusing and flashy, or "off hand parry" with parrying dagger+rapier, or... really, as long as you have any idea why and how TWF would work for your character, it works.
A quick note on why I'm not particularly fond of AW is that I can't really stomach the writing style of the rules. I get that it does what it's trying to do in its raw, dirty format, but it makes it staggeringly unpleasant to read.
I found DW as a book much better to read, and I tend to prefer systems and games that are biased more towards whimsy than grit. That said, DW is 100% reliant on how good your group is.
In 3.PF style games you can get by with a few bad members because the game is kept going by the rules in a very mechanical and structured way. In DW, if even one person is a shitter, the game grinds to a halt because the actual mechanical running of the game relies on people being cooperative with each other, the GM, and the concept of the story.
>>45325759 What people don't seem to understand about DW is that there isn't really a reason for it to be mechanically different from normal fighting. The move is Hack and Slash: you attempt to deal damage to a foe. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. Damage is fixed based on class, even between two handed and one handed weapons.
Like the other guy said: if you tried to make a move that intrinsically relies on having two weapons, THAT's the only distinction between wielding one weapon and wielding two.
>>45325484 >You can't stab two guys at the same time if you only have a knife. In GURPS, you can.
>>45325153 >If you can think about an advantage two weapons would give, and it isn't something mechanically minded like "can attack twice as often!" it'll work in DW. It still is an advantage. You are just trying to disappoint a potential player.
>>45325727 >That said, DW is 100% reliant on how good your group is. I'd say that every other game is at least 95% reliant on how good your group is. Even if the rules are good, there's not much they can actually do to keep shitters from being shitters.
>>45325882 GURPS isn't DW, and GURPS isn't real life. How could you possibly simultaneously stab two guys with a single knife?
>>45325917 Oh no, I know that. Many a game of PF has been burnt into the ground by shitters; however the very strict ruleset keeps said shitting stuck in the realm of wrecking up the story. In DW there is no vast, immutable frame like PF and the game *mechanically* relies on cooperation. Eg., you have a shitter being uncooperative in PF you could still run a combat encounter (although ti would be terrible, slow, and bad). In DW if a shitter is being uncooperative, you're sorta stuck until they stop being a shitter. At least, moreso than you would be in PF.
I've heard some sessions people have put online - it seems fun, and I'd like to give it a go. >>45320646 I played a Monster Of The Week one-shot at a convention; I had fun playing a burly Cockney thug who hated another player's guts for using his psychic powers to read the thug's mind and was overly respectful to another because he knew she was smarter than him (and wasn't a jerk about it).
>>45326369 >If your character doesn't feel more powerful, then how do you feel you've advanced at all. They don't want to advance, anon. They want to "tell stories" and upload them to Twitch or Youtube.
>>45326430 What the fuck kind of kitchen do you work in? Assuming you use a knife that has a blade length of a foot, stabbing an adult male through the chest would leave maybe an inch or two on the other side? Not enough to seriously wound, let alone kill. I mean I suppose you could go for the neck but that's an even more extraneous situation.
Regardless, you could, technically, stab two guys with a single weapon (like a sword or spear) if you can make a feasible request of your GM.
>>45326566 >And if I have to barter all the time for what I can or can't do with the GM
You really don't, you should know by now that people complaining or boasting about systems on /tg/ is always only half the story. Often a gross misrepresentation of what playing the games in real life is like.
>>45326566 Fellow cook here. You couldn't stab two people at once with an 8in sabatier. You could push the blade between two hands or other extremities but I have no idea how you'd manage short of wrapping the two people together in duct tape head to toe. You could maybe, MAYBE slash and hit two necks, but you'd have to be a ninja or they'd have to be tied in place.
That being said, when I was playing DW deal damage against two targets was the kind of thing the DM might hand you on a 10+ so... maybe?
>>45320757 >Monster Hearts is actually good if you're into highschool monsters
It's really good if you want to mix that sort of modern fantasy stuff with literally any closed environment, where people will inevitably start forming cliques and banging each other. One day I will run a workplace sitcom one-shot with Monsterhearts, and it will be great.
>>45320567 >Why does /tg/ praise Apocalypse World so much but hates Dungeon World? Apocalypse World has identity. Dungeon World is OSRshit with d6s trying to be Fate Accelerated while completely missing the point.
>>45338989 Fair enough. I'm no fan of DnD, but I played it for many years, long enough to be very aware of its many failings. DnD already abstracts too many things, and DW takes that even further, and I think that's going in the wrong direction for the dungeon crawl genre. If I wanted to play a narrative-based game, there are many better ones available than DW.
>>45339036 I'm curious what your narrative game top 3 list looks like. I don't think DW is the best narrative focused game ever, but I do think it fills the niche of "narrative game with dungeon crawls" pretty adequately considering the two were traditionally considered hard to merge.
I'm stating that DW is a narrative game that tries to merge narrative and dungeon crawling but fell flat in both areas because it tried to adapt the apocalypse world system into a DnD clone which it wasn't meant to run in the first place.
Think about it, the entire reason for why people say you should play DW is because it supposedly allows you to get away with doing shit without having crunch getting in the way, which is only really a problem if the GM is anal-retentive and isn't an issue that applies just to DnD.
You can't do long term dungeon crawls with DW, which defeats the entire purpose of dungeon crawling in the first place since there's little to no advancement.
>>45339912 >which it wasn't meant to run in the first place.
Nonsense. Apocalypse World's math doesn't differentiate between these things. The only thing it does is reinforce the idea of escalating tension, where threats to the player ratchet up and up until they either die or begin bringing it back down. It will function perfectly well for any genre where tension is supposed to rise suddenly, and bad news piles up unexpectedly. So for post-apocalyptic weirdos fighting a bizarre world's inhabitants (and each other) or for a team of heroes crawling a deep dark dungeon where the upper world's rules don't apply and danger lurks all around, it works fine. It's only inappropriate for something like a battle of the bands or a Golden Sky Stories tale where things don't continually go from bad to worse.
>You can't do long term dungeon crawls with DW
How long term are we talking? I ran for nearly 30 sessions over nine months and my PCs hit level 6. That seems more than sufficiently long term for me.
>>45340017 > I ran for nearly 30 sessions over nine months and my PCs hit level 6.
Did it not get boring?
As others have said, it seems fun for a one-shot or short series, but something as "concrete" as dungeon crawling could do with more crunch. You could just add the narrative and GMing ideas from Dungeon World into Dungeons & Dragons.
Nope, everyone was having a great time up until two of our group moved and got new jobs that precluded our weekly sessions. Though I'll grant that after our paladin minmaxed his armor pretty hard, it became tricky to threaten his HP, so that single enemies were a bit of a cakewalk for him. Still, I had plenty of other ways to get at him than just HP, and throwing mobs of enemies at them so he has to take the defensive is great fun too. He gets to feel like a badass driving back a horde, and I get to wail on him good. Fun times.
>You could just add the narrative and GMing ideas from Dungeon World into Dungeons & Dragons.
You could, but it won't feel the same. And you can do that with any two systems if you put enough work into it, just like you can run literally any game concept with any system, it's just that the system may fight you along the way. Running a high-school romance game in Dark Heresy, while possible, is going to take a ton of work and feel weird at the table.
Not that guy, but top three narrative top three are Dogs In The Vineyard, Carnage 3:16 and Chris Perrin's Mecha. The Quiet Year and/or parts of Beyond The Wall's map making for any game should be in there too.
For dungeon crawling I actually prefer World Of Dungeons. Takes out a lot of DW's bloat, retains the mechanics from AW, moves are easy to make on the fly and it ports into OSR modules without much fuss.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.