I just got Dungeon World today, it makes me feel all warm and

File: 1457904265374.jpg (13KB, 552x414px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 552x414px

>>47568347
I got super drunk when me and my friends played maids.
Played a trap character and was laugning my ass off.
everyone was taking the game seriously.

File: Princess Rev4.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568347
I've had quite a few sessions now with different players and enjoyed it thoroughly. In my analogy, DW is closer to improv theater with dice than a videogame with pen and paper.

> a dragon taking a turn
Do you mean this literally? Because there are no turns in DW.
>special moves
If I have time to prepare special moves or it seems intuitive to make them up on the spot, I'll have them. But mostly this all falls into defy danger. If it seems like something needs to be rolled for but it's not entirely obvious what, defy danger is probably the answer.

>this question got complex
Yeah, hope I answered it but I can't really tell.

>preferred setting
I mostly start making a setting with just the player-races. No need having an elf-themed setting when nobody is an elf. (If I want all characters do to be in a society of whimsical creatures, I like to think I can do better than pointy ear humans).
I'm also getting together with a game group and I want to play a present-day fantasy game. All regular character sheets, swords and magic, but with skyscrapers and smartphones.

File: raziel.png (54KB, 406x424px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 406x424px

>>47568407
>They were secretly gay for you and afraid to show it

My friends and I once got drunk and stoned and roleplayed a game of Shadows Over Camelot. It's a cooperative board game about the Knights of the Round Table trying to stop the fall of Camelot to dark powers. Unfortunately, one of you might be a secret traitor. Suspicion festers in the air.

We ended up treating it more like a medieval version of "Blazing Saddles" than "The Usual Suspects" and it was fantastic. Works best with just four players.

>>47568482
That Princess is fantastic.

I would 100% allow this in my games.

File: Artificer.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568602
Yes Princess is awesome. A buddy of mine is playing in an early game and I've recently noticed his character sheet said 'alignment: evil', so I'm very curious to see where he'll go.

You know what, I've got a selection of extra characters that I allow my players to pick from. I'll dump them and see what you guys think of them

>>47568482

File: Assassin.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568648

File: Horde.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568663
This one. This one is crazy.

File: Illusionist.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568699

File: Immolator-V1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568720
This is the most bland of the bunch.

File: Inquisitor.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568745

File: Marksman.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568756
This list is longer than I remembered.

File: Mastermind.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568776

File: Mentor.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568791

File: Merchant Prince.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568823

File: Ogre 2.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568848

File: Psion.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568883

File: Slayer v2.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568893

File: Summoner.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568904

File: Witch.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568917
That's the lot.
What do you think? Any favorites? Any I missed?

File: Dungeon World Guide (v1.2) (print).pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47568347

I got a good 20+ session campaign a while back, and my advice: Read the rules carefully, and don't slouch on using the GM rules. (except maybe for the steading stuff, that didn't really work for me)
The GM moves stuff is really important. When they fail a roll, or when they just say something and look at you to see what happens, MAKE A MOVE. Doesn't have to be hard and nasty, just make sure to keep the pressure on.
My worst sessions were the ones where I kind of faded the whole GM moves and principles and ran DW like I would any other game. It felt mushy and aimless. The sessions where I pushed those rules hard were tightly focused, dangerous and exciting.

Also fronts. I thought they were silly until I just went ahead and used a few, now they're one of my favorite GM tools, good for any system.


Seconding that other guy -- monsters don't have turns. Things don't proceed in an orderly fashion, but rather a free flowing cinematic style. Move the focus of things around the fight, stopping here and there.
Enemies can act whenever it feels appropriate. The more they act to threaten the players, the more dangerous they'll be. You can ramp up difficulty by increasing the number of rolls between players and what they want, breaking threats up into stages. Conversely you can push things together into fewer rolls to lower difficulty.
Here, have the guide, it goes over some of the parts of the system that trip people up when coming from other systems.

I was recently introduced to DW and found it a refreshing breeze after Pathfinder. The easy playstyle and focus on fun makes it great to play and GM.

I have a group with four players and we took turns GMing, so that the first guy had a setting and story, which he ran. Then it was my turn and everything that happened was canon but everything else, including explanations for things that happened, were left for the next GM to expand upon. Works amazingly well.

/tg/, we really, REALLY need to talk...

It's shit. A 400 page core manual and the combat is still mostly just whatever the GM wants it to be; when things happen and when who does anything is arbitrary. The players are super powerful compared to the stock enemies, but there are no rules regarding how to handle combat between the player and more than one enemy. Also no support for PVP (and by extension, NPCs as character classes). There are moves which let the players just make shit up about both the setting and their immediate surroundings. Mundane items which are literally whatever the player wants them to be. The currency fluff is more broken than even the likes of pathfinder. Any two members of the same class will play almost entirely the same, and despite the fact there are only 8, they aren't very well balanced.

>>47568994
Thanks for the advice. I'll add something on to this: Ask questions. Always, all the time. (almost)

Always consider asking 'what does that look like' or 'how do you do that' when a player attempts an attack, an action, finds a new item, does some social stuff. If your players know what it looks like they'll appreciate it more, but you can't always make that stuff up yourself.
If you look at the princes, you'll see she has a move that allows her to call upon some followers that come out of hiding. If you can't figure out on the spot how a bunch of servants suddenly appear out of nowhere in an isolated prison cell (happened to me recently), it's up to the player to explain it.

I feel like, since exp is rewarded for story progression, asking questions also justifies certain strong moves. The druid for example can turn into any animal native to some environment. Which means, in a fantasy setting, a druid can easily pull some new animal out of his sleeve and say it was part of the environment all along. But if you ask questions about that animal, you'll be able to justify that animal in your setting and use it later on.

>>47569112
Oh, are you going to shitpost?

>>47569112
about socialism?

>>47569112

>the vocaroo is kill

I'm still sad about the loss of that bit of audio hilarity.

>>47569158

>didn't read the book/10
Good job, anon. We can't very well have a Dungeon World thread without groundless shitposting.

File: 1446999143864.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47569158
>A 400 page core manual
All moves fit on a few pages. The manual is there to give you an understanding of them, but the basic moves are literally one page. Here, have a shorter manual.

>but there are no rules regarding how to handle combat between the player and more than one enemy
But there are. They're in the GM manual if I'm not mistaking.

>There are moves which let the players just make shit up about both the setting and their immediate surroundings
That's the entire beauty of it. That is what makes the game. It's not a D&D campaign where you prepare each encounter, it's a story you tell together.
I understand not everyone likes to play this way, especially on /tg/, but it is a valid playstyle that people enjoy.

>Any two members of the same class will play almost entirely the same
Bullshit, you either don't know how to role play or you've never actually played DW.

>they aren't very well balanced
It's not about numbers, it's about role play. You can and will utterly break the game if you play it like you would D&D, but like I said, it requires a different play style.

>>47569199

I not only read the book, but took part in a campaign that lasted 8 sessions, and only quit because of schedule synchronization falling apart.

We had fun. But not during the combat, which is the meat of this system. Because the rules are all in the wrong places, leaving what should be controlled at the discretion of players or GM, and applying excessive minutia to concepts which could easily be determined simply by the context of the story (what immediately comes to mind is rolling to determine the effects of negative reputation upon entering a town. That kind of thing SHOULD just be left up to the GM)

When will people stop playing this shitty meme game. It's bad. It's not even the best PbtA fantasy game.

>>47569158
This is probably bait.

>>47569224

>But there are. They're in the GM manual if I'm not mistaking.

Those are guidelines on how to leverage fiat contextually. Not actual rules to the game, which the players would know and be able to use on their end as well.

>That's the entire beauty of it.

It's stupid. The story emerges from the players deciding how they think they should react given a scenario presented to them, not from them constructing their own maze to solve.

>Bullshit, you either don't know how to role play or you've never actually played DW.

Explain to me how to make a cleric in DW that doesn't end up as a healbot necromancer

>It's not about numbers, it's about role play. You can and will utterly break the game if you play it like you would D&D, but like I said, it requires a different play style.

You don't even have to TRY to break DW, it's broken from the getgo. A level 1 fighter can kill dozens of enemies in a row that would individually kill half of the other classes. Which is kind of a problem in a dungeon crawler!

>>47569228

Well, you guys must have ran it poorly, because some of that shit is not right according to the rule book.

>there are no rules regarding how to handle combat between the player and more than one enemy.

For each extra enemy in a group, damage is increased by +1. Page 24. It's even in the index, under Damage, from multiple creatures.

>Mundane items which are literally whatever the player wants them to be.

Adventure gear is literally 5 pieces of whatever mundane item the player wants to have bought, when they pull it from the bag. When you've picked your five items, that's the five things you've got, and you can't swap them out or anything.
That's very different from what you just said.

>There are moves which let the players just make shit up about both the setting and their immediate surroundings.

Depends on whether the GM is using the principle "ask questions, use the answers." Strictly by RAW, Discern Realities and Spout Lore merely allow the player to get info from the GM.
But letting the player answer when the GM can't think of anything, or just doesn't care, is common, and what's wrong with it?

>Any two members of the same class will play almost entirely the same,

At first level, yeah. Which is why the book specifically tells you you're not supposed to have two PCs of the same class at first level. After a couple of levels, different advanced move selections will cause them to play differently.

>>47569158
I was going to inquire about what there was to like about the game, as I own a copy. But this about sums it up.

>>47569334

>For each extra enemy in a group, damage is increased by +1. Page 24. It's even in the index, under Damage, from multiple creatures.

Huh, so it is, my bad. Not exactly robust though.

>That's very different from what you just said.

No it's not. It just "only" works 5 times. The bag of books is the same way

>But letting the player answer when the GM can't think of anything, or just doesn't care, is common, and what's wrong with it?

Because you're literally not playing a game at all at that point. Which is fine if that's not what you want to do, but not exactly premiere content for a gaming system

>At first level, yeah. Which is why the book specifically tells you you're not supposed to have two PCs of the same class at first level. After a couple of levels, different advanced move selections will cause them to play differently.

Every player ends up with close to half of their advanced moves, strongly limiting lateral differentiation. If the classes had larger skill pools this would be okay, but that isn't really the case.

>>47569329
>Explain to me how to make a cleric in DW that doesn't end up as a healbot necromancer
Spellshield defender. There also such a thing as multi-class moves and compendium classes.

>It's stupid
I don't know what to tell you man, it clearly just isn't for you. It's not about the players living a story that the GM constructed for them. They get to have (limited) input and it's the GM's job to do something with this input. And if you are able to do this, it is FUN. It also allows you to build a richer world.

>You don't even have to TRY to break DW, it's broken from the getgo
But I told you, it's not about numbers. Don't play it like you would play any other dungeon crawler. Instead you should aim to 'experience' the dungeon and the characters in it, rather than beat it.

File: Wandering Scholar.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47569402

>No it's not.

A bag of potential items that could be whatever mundane object you want is not the same as "a mundane item which are literally whatever the player wants them to be." That's implying that once you pull it out of the bag, you can change what it is from moment to moment as if it was magic.
The purpose of the adventuring gear, OTOH, is just to avoid stalling the adventure while Dave figures out if he wants candles or chalk.


>literally not playing a game

That's literally not making an argument.

>If the classes had larger skill pools this would be okay,

What are compendium classes? Here, have an example.

>>47569402
>Because you're literally not playing a game at all at that point.
You have a very narrow definition of what a game should be. You are still playing, with imagination and involvement and whatnot. Only the hard rules are lacking at that moment.
You know how kids play on a playground? You are basically doing that.

>>47569423

So a shittier version of the paladin, got it

>I don't know what to tell you man, it clearly just isn't for you. It's not about the players living a story that the GM constructed for them.

You seem to have the misunderstanding that not being able to make shit up about the setting means that you aren't taking part in the story. Obviously, denying player character agency is bad and defeats the purpose of roleplaying. But for the players to construct their own world to follow removes all possible elements of suspense or intrigue, except, ironically, the result of dice rolls.

>But I told you, it's not about numbers. Don't play it like you would play any other dungeon crawler. Instead you should aim to 'experience' the dungeon and the characters in it, rather than beat it.

Dungeon cralwers aren't ABOUT characters. They're about figuring out how to circumvent or defeat the challenges in a dangerous place to get the valuable shit. Dungeon World itself introduces itself as such! And that's also why it has like 150 pages of enemy stats instead of an actual geographic setting.

>>47569472

The hard rules are what separate a game from free form.

>>47569454

>The purpose of the adventuring gear, OTOH, is just to avoid stalling the adventure while Dave figures out if he wants candles or chalk.

The problem with that is that those kind of decisions are actually really good moments for role play, that get tossed to the wayside. WOULD your character pick rope or a lantern to bring with them, and why would they pick what they do? But such material options are strongly limited in dungeon world.

>>47569518

But 90% of those times are just sitting around the table waiting for someone to finish picking stuff off a list, with nothing to do with "role playing".
And if you have some role play in mind, you can still do that if you want to. Just buy the equipment directly instead of the pack of adventuring gear. This is a non-problem.

>>47569518

If the gear is that important to you, there are plenty of OSR games. Or even better, something like Torchbearer. That's a game that hugely focuses on equipment being meaningful.

Other games, like PbtA ones in general or Fate, don't really care about equipment except as means to an end. Surprisingly, different games focus on different things.


It's sad, there was almost a good discussion thread about Dungeon World. We got about 20 posts or so before the trolling and shitposting started. I guess that's something.

>>47569563

Disagreeing that the things dungeon world focuses on are actually worth striving for isn't shitposting, faggot.

I'm going to bed.

>>47569585

Good, you posting here won't be missed.

>>47569488
Yeah man, I'm going back to work. It's a different game bruh, if you want to play it you should let go of what you think a dungeon crawler or a story-based game should be. DW is about the characters, and you are stubborn if you can't let that go.
The game holds itself.

>>47568994

>(except maybe for the steading stuff, that didn't really work for me)

That's interesting, I've wondered about how other people felt on those. Generally, Dungeon World has a great framework for GMs IMO, and it's actually one of the best systems for teaching you how to run an RPG well. Fronts for example are a tool that can be easily adapted to really any game.

But steadings stuck out as a strange, easily ignorable thing, despite the amount of space they get in the book. I'm pretty sure the GM in the campaign I'm in now ignores them.

Anyone have thoughts on Grim World?

File: Spellcaster Truly Final.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47569638

I kind of wish they would do a second edition, and steadings would either get cut or improved. For one thing, why don't the steading rules have a case for dungeons? Tracking dungeon populations and stuff, like what groups of monsters are moving in, what they're doing there, etc.

>>47569563
>It's sad, there was almost a good discussion thread about Dungeon World.

I miss the days when we had good DW threads, with discussion of classes and homebrew and sessions, and not the perpetual "prove 2 me ur shit game isn't shit, faggots" stuff that clogs the threads now.
PDF related, this was posted to /tg/ by the guy who was developing it; we helped him iron it out.

>>47569495
Alright so dw is just a variety of freeform. Good shit. Whatever.

Would you like to join our free form session?

>>47569658

I've skimmed it, but haven't got around to using it or anything. I like the class selection, though, it's pretty flavorful and well designed, IMO.

>>47569683
Seems like an improvement on the witch. Ever tried it?
I actually just want to discuss classes, so if you've got more, share em.

>>47569683
Does this use the same spells as wizard?

>>47569867
It doesn't use a list, you make spells up by combining tags. Seems interesting.

>>47569748

The class selection is something I like, and while including all the races would make it a bit of a strange kitchen sink, I do like them and the takes on some of the classic fantasy one.

Though strangely, my biggest criticism is that I think the idea of death moves actually undermines the point of making a "grim" version of Dungeon World. One of the hallmarks of any kind of grim fiction is that death is cheap and meaningless, and can happen to anyone. The death moves are sometimes great and flavorful, but what is does practically, is ensure that you can't have a "meaningless" death. In a way, it's less grim than default DW.

>>47569272
wich one is?

>>47569272

>meme game

What does that even mean?

File: Grim World Playbooks.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47569658
Here, anon. And the playbooks too:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lc5d5pxeldq48sn/Grim%20World.pdf?dl=0

>>47569941
SCUP or City of Judas. Fellowship also looks okay, man in drag besides

>>47570000
I mean that its mostly popular because of its constant shilling. Nearly every "what system should I use for X fantasy game" thread, I see several people pushing DW really hard as some kind of savior of ttrpgs, and that anyone who doesn't think it's good is just a grognard/power gamer/hates player agency/etc

>>47570051
Damn, these look fun. Thanks anon.

>>47569658

Started reading it expecting Warhammer, got Dragon Age. Kinda skewed my opinion of it.

>>47570093
>Nearly every "what system should I use for X fantasy game" thread, I see several people pushing DW really hard as some kind of savior of ttrpgs, and that anyone who doesn't think it's good is just a grognard/power gamer/hates player agency/etc

That's funny, because I see a cranky anon who came into a thread called "tell me about your experiences with Dungeon World" just to post about how he doesn't like how popular it is.

>>47570093
>nearly every "what system should I use for X fantasy game" thread, I see several people pushing DW really hard as some kind of savior of ttrpgs

It's probably the best narrative focused fantasy RPG we've got (not that there's much competition), and every single DM should give a read to the DM-ing guide at least.

Have you ever considered that maybe it's an honest fucking recommendation?

>>47572719
Well to be fair, that is still an experience with Dungeon World.

It's a pretty mediocre ripoff of basic d&d.
With the latter I can play the same thing but better without shoehorned AW mechanics, "ironic" class descriptions and Forgefag lingo, with a ruleset of about 25 pages.

>>47568347
Played it 3 times. All of them were awful experiences, with people trying to recreate D&D and shouting "AWESOME!!1!" every fucking time someone gave an idea; and no, I'm not exaggerating.

My city has one or two groups that play it exactly like foreign ones (I live in a non-American country), shouting the equivalent to "AWESOME" in our language every time someone gave an idea. It got annoying really, really fast.

>>47568482
>DW is closer to improv theater with dice than a videogame with pen and paper.
So dungeon shit is closer than Cops & Robbers than D&D 4e?

> Because there are no turns in DW.
This is a lie.

>All moves fit on a few pages. The manual is there to give you an understanding of them, but the basic moves are literally one page. Here, have a shorter manual.
And why you need another book to understand the core? Falied design.

>This is probably bait.
"People don't like what I like! BAIT!"

>I'll add something on to this: Ask questions. Always, all the time.
Slowing/halting the game everytime you want to add unnecessary details to the world is always a waste of time. No one cares what is the tavern keeper dreams and hopes when you have to defeat a dragon or stop a lich before he executes the princess.

>It's probably the best narrative focused fantasy RPG we've got
You, americans. Don't bundle the rest of the world on your delusion.

>>47572961
I like dungeon world and I'm inclined to agree that the worst design decision they made was by essentially trying to use PbtA to play D&D instead of trying to make a PbtA fantasy game from the ground up

>You don't even have to TRY to break DW, it's broken from the getgo. A level 1 fighter can kill dozens of enemies in a row that would individually kill half of the other classes. Which is kind of a problem in a dungeon crawler!
The point of dungeon world is to be THE CLASS, not "another fighter/wizard/rogue." You're special, unique, THE ONE. Yeah, it's a "game" for special snowflakes.

>Well, you guys must have ran it poorly
Standard answer. It also shows how elitist are some fans of this... game.

>>47569658
I don't like the idea of generic race moves. I understand wanting more races for the different classes, but I think it would be a lot better to create unique race moves for all the different classes as opposed to a one-size-fits-all race move for all the classes. It's just a lot more flavourful to have a move defining a dwarven fighter or a dwarven cleric as opposed to one move that represents all dwarves of any kind. You can't sum up an entire race with a single move. Keeping it class based means you don't have to, you just need to help define that class of that race. You're simply adding some definition to the character in top of how the class has already defined them.

Personally, I'm okay with classes being race-locked because I think that tells you something about that race and makes race more meaningful. I think that if you want something that isn't covered you should make a new class to achieve it. For instance, if you want an elvish paladin, it's more interesting to me to make a new class that is an elvish equivalent of a paladin rather than just slapping on an elvish race move to the human paladin. But obviously making a new class is a lot more work than just a new race move.

Still, if it was me, I'd make more race moves for all the classes, not just a single move for each race.

>>47573197
>I like dungeon world
How does it feel to be a foot soldier/ignorant pawn in the conspiracy to destroy tabletop gaming?

>>47573155
Ignore this pleb. If you look anywhere else on the web in RPG communities you'll see /tg/ has a shitty taste in RPGs. They all beat their meat off to Pathfinder and D&D, ignorant that a million other system exist and many of them better. It's like they are trapped in some temporal rift of the early 2000's and refuse to abandoned their dying d20 system, kept alive exclusively by pop culture weight of D&D's name.

>Ignore this pleb.
The ones I answered?

> web in RPG communities
Now r/rpg is a good place to be, with people with good taste in RPGs? I hope that's sarcasm or plain trolling.

>They all beat their meat off to Pathfinder and D&D, ignorant that a million other system exist and many of them better. It's like they are trapped in some temporal rift of the early 2000's and refuse to abandoned their dying d20 system, kept alive exclusively by pop culture weight of D&D's name.
Maybe that's because - oh, no - they LIKE Pathfinder and D&D! Who would think?!

>>47573317
r/rpg? Ew no. And you like shitty systems? Your Casul status confirmed.

And

>>47573333
>And
He died! Call the cops!

>>47568347

i did not like my experience with dungeon world. to be honest it did not gave me the gaming feeling that I like on my RPG.

and as one poster say is an improv theatre with dice. (why dice? I don't think its needed at DW role-playing levels)

moving back to DW though. here are the things that i think you should avoid as a GM.

most of the time you get a result of 7 which means success with complications. try to avoid making the game feel like a hedgehog dilemma. that every time you try to do something you end up hurting yourself. in all honesty id made me not want to do things because everything hurt my character. try to give options to the players and let them choose their own complications unless you feel you should be specific about one.

try to give more variety to combat. the way I experienced it everything felt the same. sword, fist, lance, whips,

not much that I can ad the system felt pretty mediocre to me so I could never give it much attention.

>>47573355
Weep for me.

>>47573397
No need for that: no one cares with dungeon world and its fans, anyways.

>>47573464
You certainly seem to care enough to shit on it and whine about the players for the last 12 replies.

>>47573464
>>47573479

Yeah, maybe Dungeon World Hater Sana is secretly jealous that his group has GURPies and is forced to play terribadpoop rpgs. He longs to be one of us.

>>47569563
>It's sad, there was almost a good discussion thread about Dungeon World. We got about 20 posts or so before the trolling and shitposting started. I guess that's something.

What fucking retardation do you have, no one is trolling.

One dude is justifiably irritated that a game calling itself a dungeon crawler is actually a free form narrative game and one guy is making a good case about how (item) granularity supports RP.

Maybe if your game does not cause valuable debate it is because there is little to debate, not because of some ebul troles who hate freeform.

>>47572885
>narrative focused
What does that mean?

>>47573628
That the game never lets you kick back and lay down some sick banter while the dice do all the fighting.

>>47573639
Huh?

New poster here. My group played a couple of sessions of DW and had fun with it.

I did a Hyboria adaptation that I'm thinking of putting up on Roll20.

I can see how some of the things that make it different might not appeal to those who feel they have mastered more traditional systems.

>>47573238
>Standard answer. It also shows how elitist are some fans of this... game.

The guy had several complaints which are actually deviations from RAW. If you play the game not according to the rules but according to your homebrew version of it, and then get pissed off about the parts you homebrewed, then you ARE playing the game wrong.
This goes for ANY game, not just DW. Changing a game to be less fun to play is always doing it wrong.
Complaining that you changed it to be less fun is dumb.
Calling people who point it out to you "elitist" is outright stupid.

File: 1460034520600.jpg (105KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x562px

I find it reminds me of when we were little neckstubble children who though dungeons and dragons was like this and nothing else.
Would I run it myself? Not really, I have other games that can do it better (d6-lite, simple six, mini six stuff like that.) And I can teach kids wit games like Hero Kids. But it still is pretty good for the FATE crowd.

Black Hack and White Hack both succeed at what DW fails to do.
Mainly because those authors actually enjoy D&D and aren't married to the GNS school of thought like DWs are.

>>47575598
>black hack
>white hack
>GNS school of thought
help me out.

>>47575741
>Black Hack and Whitehack
OSR games meant for super streamlined 1970s style games.
>GNS
A retarded theory of games courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forgescum that the authors of DW subscribe to.

>>47575808
>that the authors of DW subscribe to.

[citation needed]

I have never heard Adam Koebel expound on it. I've heard him say he has a lot of problems with the Forge and a lot of the stuff that came out of it, but never mention GNS explicitly.

Not that it matters, since you're just doing guilt by association bullshit anyway.

>>47575990
> still trying to justify your freeform social justice simulator

File: VirtHearsPeopleStillLikeDW.gif (963KB, 389x219px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 389x219px

>>47576767

>>47576767
>social justice simulator
>dungeon world
Don't you mean Urban Shadows?

"Oh boy, long day of work. I wonder if that DW thread is up and there has been any fun conversation or perhaps even some new pdf's"
>Fellow fa/tg/uys still feel the mighty urge to debate anything they hate about the game
>Fellow fans still feel the mighty urge to defend anything they love about the game

WHY? I don't go around on theads I didn't enjoy telling everyone it's shit. Can't we just have our threads?
Fuck this.
I feel genuinely beaten down.

File: aw yiss.png (117KB, 452x303px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 452x303px

>>47568347
Currently in a 20+ session Dungeon World campaign. The party includes an Arcane Duelist (on the SRD I think), a Marksman (really just a re-skinned Fighter), a Ninja (re-skinned Rogue), a Captain and a Golem. The last two are from the Inverse World book, which is pretty solid and professional looking.

The main house-rules our GM added were the following:

- Maximum level raised to 20, with characters getting +1 to an attribute on even-numbered levels, and a new Advanced Move on odd-numbered levels. Leveling up still requires the same amount of experience. Advanced Moves available at levels 2-5 are instead available at 3-9, and ones available from 6-10 are instead available from 11-19. We did this mainly so that we could run a longer campaign without maxing out our characters early. The party's between level 11 and 14 right now, and we're getting into the Third Act of the adventure, so we'll probably get to 18 or 19 by the end.

- Initiative turn order. Yes, this isn't how DW's supposed to work, but we had problems where the louder / more vocal players would talk over the others and try to take several actions in a row, while the quieter ones wouldn't get to contribute much at all. So, everyone gets to make one move each round, then everyone gets to make another move, and so on.

- Combat grid. We use Roll20 and the GM makes excellent maps, so we basically just decided how many meters Hand / Reach / Close / Near / Far represented, then let players move a certain distance whenever they make a Move. They can also just dedicate their turn to movement only and go farther, though they may need to Defy Danger if there's a hazard in the way.

- Random loot tables including magic items, most of which either work like better versions of standard equipment, grant a bonus to an existing Move, or grant an extra Move a limited number of times per day.

Overall it's a great campaign and as someone who's run DW before, I appreciate these little adjustments.

Fate/GUMSHOE/PbtA is the holy trinity of engines /tg/ can't rationally discuss and it hurts me.

File: The Dashing Hero.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47576987
I understand how you feel, anon, but try not to let this kind of thing spoil your mood. Instead, why not discuss about how people feel about the compendium classes, including experiences with them in the table?

Also, share playbooks. I have a good collection, but I lack some, so I was wondering if anyone has the living star, and want to know if any anon wants some specific playbook.

>>47577117
can't /tg/ discuss GUMSHOE? I don't remember ever seeing that problem

>>47569683
Oh hey, I made that. Glad to see it still floating around.

>>47577096
Those do seem like real nice adjustments.

>>47577254

Oh yeah, it gets shit too. "HURR IT SOLVES A PROBLEM NOBODY HAS" is the usual one.

>>47577096
>Overall it's a great campaign and as someone who's run DW before, I appreciate these little adjustments.
That's a complete different game, I could call it DW20 because of it's similarity with... you guess.

>>47577096

Sounds like fun. Doubling the level cap is an interesting idea for intentionally longer campaigns. I guess you'd have to halve the damge that Defend allows, to compensate for doubling character levels. "Spend one hold to deal 20 damage" would be pretty OP.

I can not for the life of me ever find a time or a place for the Parley move. Maybe I don't understand it but the wording of the move makes its seems so worthless.

>>47577999
Like the rest of this shitty game?

>>47577999

It's used whenever players want something from someone, and have any kind of leverage over them. Say the players want passage through the goblin caves, and they hold out a sack of gold and say "We'll give you all these shinies if you let us pass through unharmed."
That's manipulating an NPC, via the leverage of gold that he wants, but is afraid to fight you big scary humans for.

>>47578084
Yeah but why would there need to be a roll for this? The goblin wants the gold the players want passage. There is no conflict there.

>>47578145

You then roll to see if, for example, the goblin will happily wait until you've been led through to the other side before getting his gold (10+), if he demands you give him some of the gold now so he can be reasonably assured of getting something if you get to the end and say "later, short-legs!" and book it with the gold, (7-9), or if he decides that while he might not be able to kill you, he might be able to snatch that sack of gold and have his buddies fend you off long enough to escape with it. (6-)

This is what it means when it says "think dangerous." In every situation, you have to look for ways that things might go tits-up, and if there is such a way, then roll for it. It keeps the pressure going, which is the strength of the engine.

>>47578145
You roll to see if there will be a conflict. Maybe the goblin doesn't just want gold. Maybe this will spark into an elaborate goblin encounter with multiple plotseeds.

File: Dungeon World Distribution.gif (8KB, 263x245px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 263x245px

So all the people saying this game is crap, is it from personal experience playing it or is it just general feel? Because I haven't had a chance to try it, but I've read the rulebook to see if I would want to, and it kind of just FEELS incredibly shit. The way skill checks are done, the way the cooperative storytelling is implemented, the fucking 2d6? Get used to rolling 7's all day every day, I guess. Which in Dungeon world usually seems to mean "succeed with some kind of penalty" if low skilled, and "succeed all the time" if high skilled, making the whole thing seem like it has no real longevity as a system.

But is this what other people are experiencing?

File: Number Appearing.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47577175
Compendium classes haven't really come up in my campaign yet. I've got a few saved, but I'm wondering how I should apply them. If a player just happens to move into a certain situation, I whip out a compendium class when I put one and two together? There must be a chart for this or something.
I'm also up for more compedium classes, share them

<- monster races. Fun times. The included compendium classes only apply to the race, so that makes it clearer.

>>47577999
>>47578084
>>47578145

The goblin that's scared of the big scary humans is probaly a bad example, like any roll it needs to be something that the result is in question.

Like bribing a guard to look the other way as you pass buy. He wants the gold, but he also dosn't want to piss off his boss so it could go either way.

>>47578248

It's basically the same engine as used by Apocalypse World. The goal of the dice distribution is to create a sense of escalating tension. 7-9 results give you a complication, which leads to more rolls, more complications, and a feeling of things spiralling out of control, until you can start to get some 10+ rolls and unravel the problems, or you hit the 6- rolls and things start to become disastrous.
Most characters by higher levels will be excellent at a couple kinds of rolls, and poor-to-middling at others, so a lot of DW strategy is maneuvering to get the right character in the place at the right moment to do a thing, to ensure you'll be successful. Those 7-9 rolls threaten to derail that process at every step, though, and suddenly your Fighter is occupied and it's the scrawny wizard who's trying to hold the gate open by main strength, and everything could hinge on a (likely terrible) roll you didn't plan on having to make.

What was the point of using the stupid D&D stats, with slightly changed modifiers?

>>47578373
>The goal of the dice distribution is to create a sense of escalating tension.
A false sense. Actual tension and uncertainty comes from 1d20, because you could massively succeed, or spectacularly fail. A 2d6 with 7-9 meaning "succeed with complications" just means "You will likely succeed with complications, and continue to" Once you figure that out, you realize you're just a slave to that "spiralling out of control" style gameplay.

>>47577366
They work great for my group, I recommend them whole-heartedly.

>>47577776
It is not, in fact, a completely different game. Slower level gain, initiative, a combat grid, and loot tables don't disrupt the core mechanics of the system whatsoever. They merely build upon them, as a good homebrew should.

>>47577857
Yep, anything that adds your Level instead adds half your level, rounded down.

>>47577999
It's like using Diplomacy in other games but requires you actually have something to give/trade instead of just rolling dice and making the person do what you want.

>>47578248
The random distribution is actually perfectly fine when modifiers are between -1 and +3. Never had a problem with it.

>>47578248
>he whole thing seem like it has no real longevity as a system.
You are correct in this.
No Dungeon World campaign should last more than 6-7 sessions.

>>47578499
>The random distribution is actually perfectly fine when modifiers are between -1 and +3
hence
>>47578248
>no real longevity as a system

>>47578478

To space out modifier increases on level up, without needing a big table or something. "Put four level up advancements into CON to bring it up to +1, then 3 to make it +2, then 2 more to make it +3" would just suck.

>>47578488

What?

>>47578510
>No Dungeon World campaign should last more than 6-7 sessions.

Plenty of people have done it, and it worked out fine. I ran about 25 sessions, guy upthread ran 20+.

File: Path of Ghosts.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47578293
Here are the ones I have. I never got to use them on the table too, so was wondering if anyone has used and what were the results. Most of them seem very interesting, which leads me to think it would be more interesting a hack that dismiss the playbooks idea to make room for several smaller more thematic and customizable classes.

https://mega.nz/#F!jws3HZzT!13LxsDmAHIJKqL66fwnblg

>>47578610

Have you looked at Class Warfare?

>>47578575
>What?
The 2d6 distribution makes it very likely you will land in the "succeed, but with a caveat" area. You said it's supposed to create a sense of escalating tension. But I'm saying, it seems very difficult to create any real tension in a situation where you can almost count on that result. The whole system seems geared toward the illusion of risk.

File: Herbalist.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47578610
Hmm, seems different from the ones I have. They aren't heavily tied to fixed events after the first move.

>>47578533
Longevity isn't tied to how big the numbers get. DW is more about lateral advancement than vertical ones, and you don't need a higher strength score to get better at combat, or to have more options in battle.

>>47578669
>The whole system seems geared toward the illusion of risk.

Honestly, isn't that true for pretty much every RPG that isn't GM'ed by a "I want to win" GM? In general the GM of anygame is supposed to make the game seem tough but ultimatly be doable, afterall if everyone dies there's no more game.

>tfw you really like DW's constant back and forth but hate story games
h e l p
e
l
p

>>47578575
>To space out modifier increases on level up,
Oh

>>47578575
>guy upthread ran 20+
With some pretty heavy rule changes.
Playing RAW the game quickly becomes stagnant.

>>47578669
>it seems very difficult to create any real tension in a situation where you can almost count on that result.

Try playing it with a good DM. That 7-9 result brings in complications and means threats aren't fully resolved, they get extended, or new threats added. It's more a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire" while a 10+ pulls your ass out of the fire.
The escalation comes from the fact that you probably chose your best stat to roll for that initial roll where you got a 7-9, but the new situation might call for you to roll something else, that you didn't expect, increasing your odds of rolling a 6- and getting into serious trouble.
7-9 feels like skating along on a razor's edge. Sooner or later you'll fall one way or the other, and it's more likely you'll end up with a 6- the more times you get a 7-9, as a character has more poor stats than good ones.

>>47578761

Maybe get a dm who downplays the "ask questions, use the answers" principle? Strictly by RAW, the GM controls the world and what's in it, it's just kind of customary to take that principle and ask the players to help worldbuild stuff. I find it's a good way to get players invested in the world, but YMMV

>>47578756
That sounds right, and I guess that makes it so the system is doing the GM's job for them, which is maybe what I'm not too keen on, and ties in with it's approach to action difficulty in general. Come to think of it, I thimk I figured out what the system's for: casual several-session games that don't take much prep, remove some burden from the GM, and have a more "cooperative storytelling" feel than something intended for a long game. And I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, it just feels very "I want to play a Dungeon crawl with some friends, but not learn a lot of rules, or really get into the hobby long-term".

>>47578729
>Longevity isn't tied to how big the numbers get.
I think you crucially misunderstood my point.

>>47578937
>casual several-session games that don't take much prep, remove some burden from the GM, and have a more "cooperative storytelling" feel than something intended for a long game.
This is exactly my take on things.

It's not a good thing, nor a bad thing. Just that's how it is.

>>47578984
>I think you crucially misunderstood my point.
Well, how about clarifying instead of saying "lol you don't get it"?

>>47578478
Ask any osr game the same.

I ran a session of it once. My players enjoyed it, but it really didn't click for me. I honestly cannot articulate what I didn't like. I think it was kind of mushy, mechanically, and didn't provide a satisfying level of either success or danger for rolls. It's sort of hard to explain. I also didn't like how restrictive characters were.

It's by no means a bad game. As I said, my players enjoyed the time we spent on it. I just think that I'm more comfortable as a GM and a player in different systems.

I'm willing to try other PbtA games, though. Both the original game and a game about social roles in early Scandinavia which I can never remember the name of. I've heard Dungeon World is one of the weaker versions of the game because it's so tied to D&D ideas that don't gell with the system, so I'd like to see for myself.

>>47579076
>a game about social roles in early Scandinavia

Saga of the Icelanders. If you like social-oriented games, it is awesome.

Do people who dislike the rigidity of Dungeon World classes compare it to a character building minigame of 3.x?

>>47579379
What are you even talking abut?

>>47579294
>So then the game gets fucked after you get beyond that.

You can't get more than +3 on a stat. To get a +4 and a near guarantee of success (~2% chance of a 6) you need to get an extra +1 from some outside source, which is usually a limited resource.
At level 10, you can have a +3 in no more than 3 stats maximum, at which point your other 3 stats will be +0, +0, and -1. -1 means you're downright terrible at any rolls with that stat, and will get a disastrous result on most of your rolls.

Most smart people will want to mitigate their low stats, so you get maybe 2 +3s and 4 okay stats.

The 7-9 complications mean you may end up in situations where you have to roll stats you're not good at, too. Level 10 characters are good, but not omnicompetent.

>>47579379
No. I was one of the people who disliked it, and I also dislike 3.x's character creation. It relies far more on choosing the best choice rather than actual options.

>>47579428

Mind if I ask which character generation systems you like?

>>47579401
>You can't get more than +3 on a stat.
Then what was "The random distribution is actually perfectly fine when modifiers are between -1 and +3" supposed to even mean?

>>47579851

I dunno, maybe he's high? OP did suggest it.

>>47569112
>STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!

I don't care for it I've been the forever DM since 1986. Dungeon World is Story telling, rules light trash as far as I'm concerned. To each his own but you'll never see that filth at my table. Gygaxian it is most certainly not.

>>47580084
>Gygaxian it is most certainly not.

Yeah, it's way more Arnesonian.

>>47580120

Arneson added more narrativist elements. Which complimented Gygax's simulationist core. You can't have one without the other which is the problem with DW. All narrative, rules way too light.

>>47578634
Yes, and the material seems to be very interesting and allows a lot more freedom that the base system. Unfortunately, not all my old group knew English well enough, and they stopped playing because of college and stuff. Overall, I'm interested in DW more for introducing me to PBtA, and because I like the community ideas that formed around him.

>>47580084
>>47580283
> I don't care for it
> Shitpost anyway
Ok.

>>47580283
I think this is part of why so many people dislike it so bitterly. It's not a bad game for what it does. It's just that it's selling itself as a throwback to classic dungeoncrawling, but doesn't have any mechanical decent from those games. Oldschool fans pick it up expecting something derived from AD&D 2e, but get something built more along the lines of FATE. They do not take well to this perceived bate and switch.

>>47580685

I don't know, it's always been kind of billed as "Old School Dungeon Crawling, but with Modern Narrative Rules," even back when it was in beta. If you didn't expect it to have weird narrative rules, I could see how you'd be surprised, but that's kind of its whole deal.

(I personally prefer DW to Fate though, because it doesn't require all the metagamey stuff that you get with aspects, where everyone drops out of character and works with the world around you in a sort of directorial way. In DW it's best to stay as in-character as possible, as much as possible.)

>>47573292
3.PF is widely shit on, tho

>>47575990
>[citation needed]
DW uses a lot of Forge-specific lingo like "the fiction" and Koebel becomes a whiny bitch the second anyone doesn't think systems are the most important thing in the world or that good GMs are way more important.

>>47581215
>Forge-specific lingo like "the fiction"

For one thing, that's all inherited from Apocalypse World. For another, seriously? That's your complaint? You sound like a tumblrite, all wound up about "problematic" terminology.

>Koebel becomes a whiny bitch the second anyone doesn't think systems are the most important thing in the world or that good GMs are way more important.

>This guy disagrees with my POV, therefore he's a whiny bitch

>>47568926
I like horde a lot.

>>47581258
>That's your complaint?
That's one complaint with the guys behind the game.
The game itself I just consider a vastly inferior clone of Apocalypse World and D&D.
>therefore he's a whiny bitch
No, i'd say it's because he'll spend hours trying to convince newbies to the hobby (the only ones that'll credit his ilk) that heavy narrativist systems matter and that everything would be so much better if we were all just community theatre actors running Burning Wheel, in the spaces between our gay sex orgy sessions, in response to someone pointing out that any given retro D&D game achieves DW's supposed systems goals within 50 pages or less.

I've only played once and I won't play it again as grid based tactical combat decision points and strategies are some of my favorite aspects of tabletop.

DW is Too lacking in rules for me. Pathfinder is can be a swing too far far in the other direction of rules bloat unless your playing with a dedicated veteran group that knows the rules.

DW seems more geared to younger neu-gamers that's didn't grow up with the hobby in the 80s and 90s.

>>47580084

That's the reason you are a Forever DM, m8. No, really, shitposting aside, if you think rules-heaviness is more important than giving some fictional powers on the oother players, you're gonna be a FDM.

>>47578248

You can't be "highly skilled" in DW. At least not enough to not have 6- results.

>>47581409

I abide by the rules just as the players do. What I don't do is hand wavium fiat rulings like this shitty hipster system.

>>47581487

The same rules that tell you to break them as you wish, I assume.

>biggerbait.jpg

>>47578248
I've played it and it's great in that it's INCREDIBLY fast paced. Gameplay works very well, although I was skeptical at first it's very fun to play if you have a good dm who knows how to use the system.

Th problem is that character advancement isn't really a thing. There just isn't enough numerical room to mechanically distinguish your character much.

Would work well for a different setting I think.

The fanboys are strong here. Not my cup of tea but play what you like.

>>47581567
>Would work well for a different setting I think.
Like...Apocalypse World?

>>47580084
>>47580283
>>47581487
If you are the same game, for someone who says they aren't bothered by Dungeon World, you sure seemed pretty bothered by it.
I dont like it myself, but I wouldn't go out of my to call people who like it is destroying the TG market.

>>47578248
The difference here is that they're not "skill checks"--they're rolls that come up on certain narrative triggers. One of the things that really grinds Dungeon World to a halt is treating Discern Realities as a Perception check, when it's actually for putting together the bigger picture. The GM is supposed to just honestly describe everything the character sees--Discern Realities is there to let you ask the GM questions about how those things fit together.

Similarly, Hack-and-Slash isn't an attack roll. It's the move that comes into play when you attack something in melee combat that is fighting back and that it makes sense for you to fight in melee combat. You'd never roll Hack and Slash against an impossibly huge monster that doesn't care about your sword, or against a target that can't fight back or won't.

And yeah, the game is intentionally slanted towards rolling 7-9s as much as possible--succeeding with a complication is what drives the story forward. And you're almost never going to get more than +3 on a roll, in which case 7-9 is still the most common result (you'll outright fail almost never, though).

>>47582365
>One of the things that really grinds Dungeon World to a halt is treating Discern Realities as a Perception check, when it's actually for putting together the bigger picture.
Just interjecting here, but if that's the case, how does stealth work?

>>47582518
>Just interjecting here, but if that's the case, how does stealth work?
When it comes to rolls, it generally becomes Defy Danger rolls of Intelligence, Dexterity and possibly Charisma.

>>47582518

If it's a PC, they generally automatically succeed (or automatically fail, as makes sense for the narrative) unless they or the environment does something that would trigger another move, like Defy Danger (Dexterity) to leap out of sight before a guard sees you.

If it's an NPC, the DM generally decides whether the characters spot them or not, with the ultimate difference being what sorts of moves the monsters can make when they first actually do something.

>>47582518
Do you mean for players or NPCs?

For players, it's going to depend on circumstances. I'd say the player narrates what he's doing to be stealthy and when someone's about to see him, maybe he Defies Danger with DEX to quietly and quickly hide (the danger being "getting spotted") or perhaps with INT to remember the building blueprints he studied and find a safe hiding place.

For NPCs, you'd want to offer clues that something is hiding nearby. If there's a huge spider hiding high in the cathedral ceiling, maybe there are the remnants of a large spider web in the corner, a rat that looks like it's been sucked dry. The player rolls Discern Realities and asks "What should I be on the lookout for?" (one of the question options the move provides) and the GM tells him that he can tell the spider is still in the area.

But it's also one of those things where the rules aren't necessarily the physics of the world. As a GM in DW, I'm not rolling stealth checks for some kobolds trying to sneak up on the party. If they're sneaking up and I know it, I'll offer clues in my descriptions and let players put them together with Discern Realities, or I'll use the GM move to "reveal an unwelcome truth" when the players notice an imminent ambush.

>>47582518

Discern Realities does allow players to ask "What here is not what it appears to be?" and "What should i be on the lookout for?" both of which can reveal hidden things, including a skulking enemy.

A lot is up to GM adjudication, a la OSR sensibilities.

Anyone here tried Fellowship? It's a Dungeon World-derived game made by the guy who made the Inverse World setting and it's all about capturing the feeling of Lord of the Rings, but in a new setting that the players and GM come up with together.

Plus, the GM's role is explicitly as "the Overlord"--you're not just the GM, you're playing Sauron, with your own set of Overlord rules and lieutenants, and you're encouraged to have the players have bonds with the Overlord representing their personal stakes in saving the world.

It seems pretty cool but I haven't gotten to try it yet. It does race-as-class pretty extensively, but that also makes sense if "literally Lord of the Rings" is what you're going for.

>>47582717

Sounds pretty boss, is there a pdf yet?

File: ep52-ss05-1920.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>47582618
Good answer. This is one of the things that new players (and DMs) have a hard time wrapping their minds around. Threats come at you differently in DW, and piling on complications on a <7 roll takes some getting used-to, especially if you're coming from Pathfinder or D&D where you're used to succeeding all the time.
>You are on a ledge and there are guards below. (rolls <7) you bump into a flower pot, do you want to possibly lose your balance and risk falling to catch the pot? Or do you want to let it fall?

this is what makes DW fun. Players can be just as awesome and heroic and great, but ....they sometimes gotta deal with circumstances beyond their control.

And min-maxed "builds"-players don't like circumstances beyond their control.

File: brawler.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Dumping some playbooks

File: Clock Mage.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584202

File: Dragon Mage.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584212

File: Masked Mage.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584240

File: Star Mage.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584255

File: Winter Mage.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584274

File: shifter.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584292

File: Brute v1.1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47584311

>>47568347
I haven't had a chance to play it but I think I know a bunch of people that would enjoy it.

It's very very different from typical tabletop rpgs. If you're looking for a replacement, this isn't it. If you're looking for something different this may be it.

Having done a couple passes of the rules, I feel like it would play a lot like Everyone is John but with some more structure.

File: Stolen V5.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

What do you guys think of this one? The mechanics seem ok, the flavor... I'm not too sure about

>>47572885
>(not that there's much competition)

That's exactly my problem with it. There IS a lot of competition, but this game gets pushed so hard, no one even bothers look for other systems.

>>47570093
>Nearly every "what system should I use for X fantasy game" thread, I see several people pushing DW really hard as some kind of savior of ttrpgs
I've literally never seen this.

>>47587292
Such as?

Call me a pleb, but the only system off-hand that's narrative focused and I'd use it for fantasy is FAE (which probably isn't worse than DW, but isn't a fantasy system, as it's a generic one).

>>47587292
I'd love to know what other systems accomplish similar things, other than FATE (which is good, but not as specialized as DW).

File: redraw_screenshot__21_and_dr__mrs__the_monarch_by_klar_jezebeth-d8maejc.png (625KB, 900x525px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 900x525px

>>47587199
Reads more like a story unto itself, but I think it's interesting.

I prefer players show up with more "classic" fantasy characters, but that's me.

I like all the different characters people invent for DW, but many of them are just too weird to live, or aren't realistic enough to be believable -- as someone pointed out above with the "Princess" class. Some of them are also woefully incomplete, having not really been thought-through or playtested, imo.

>>47587641

I've seen obvious anti-DW fags playing "le obnoxious DW fanboy" a couple of times. (One time it was actually virt, and he accidentally left his trip on while arguing that DW was the greatest system ever for everything. It was hilarious, not that he was fooling anybody in the first place.)

>>47588511

Well, Burning Wheel is a fantasy narrative RPG, but it's not exactly competing with Dungeon World. It's way more Tolkien than dungeon crawl, and it's very rules heavy. DW focuses on external threats, while BW is largely about character drama and challenges to character's beliefs.

>>47590479
I feel you, I also like the fantasy archetypes more. But on the other hand I also like to give the players a lot of options during character creation, because no matter what characters you have in your party, you'll get your story straight during the first session.
The dump of pdf's at the top of the thread are my current selection, but I'm still debating if I should include the 'stolen'. I'll probably include some new ones from this thread as well.