Is this a good system?

>>52500094
Nobody knows. It's too memed on /tg/ to be discussed seriously.

PbtA is a good system. DW is a game that doesn't use PbtA very well.

>>52500094
No.
It's not.
It is built worse than fucking 3.5

>>52500139
This.
DW doesn't use its engine very well. Whether that engine is even good to begin with is subjective, but the fact that DW doesn't use it well is clear.

>>52500094
It's an awkward combination of old school DnD mechanics and narrative gameplay; despite this it works well for classic low fantasy adventuring with a narrative focus.

It's not as tight or well written as other PbTA games but it doesn't have as many conflicting systems as 3.pf

Does story better than 5e but is less focused on combat and is not very detailed in that area, more focused on exploration and adventure.

>>52500138
The fact that /tg/ tends to think of the maker as a SJW libtard doesn't help the games rep either.

>>52500464
This.
Compare
>Normal games made by non-retards
I want to DO THING to NPC
>Roll DO THING
I want to DO THING to PC
>Roll DO THING
PbTA
I want to DO THING to NPC
>Roll DO THING
I want to DO THING TO PC
>????
>You don't get to roll, uh, something, something, overly complex explanation that is generally retarded as all fuck of why having the DM work by different rules is somehow not idiotic as all fuck and a waste of time, so the game ends up basically being "players roll random dice DM says if they do good, rules are irrelevant might as well do freeform at this point"

>>52500094

I had a roughly year long campaign with it, run with some veterans of pathfinder and WoD, and a newbie who'd never played before. In that year we got up to about level 7 or so.
It ran great and we all had a good time. Near the end the minmaxer was feeling a little frustrated by the lack of mechanical stuff to exploit, but was still happy with it overall.

I'd agree somewhat with the opinion that there are better Apocalypse Engine games, but I wouldn't call it bad by any stretch. It runs well provided you follow its GM rules and guidelines carefully -- in hindsight, I can see our favorite sessions had me following those rules carefully, making moves and really putting the pressure on the players, which is what the Apocalypse Engine experience is all about IMO. The worst sessions we had were ones where I kind of set the GM rules to the side and ran it like D&D or some other non-PbtA game, and as a result things felt kind of squishy and dull.
The best thing about Dungeon World is all the stuff built for it, though. Class Warfare and Perilous Wilds and Funnel World and Number Appearing and all the weird and interesting classes.

It's barely a game

>>52501206
Can you explain better the adavantage of strictly following rules I often find generical and unspecified? And give some example?

Does any DW GM use any kind of house rules to streamline the game (not to clobber it, like 20 tables for weapon and shit)?

>>52501189
Considering PvP is a special case and risk socials problem, I think the rule are pretty wise: just talk about it, but some risks and caveats.

>>52500094
Basically, what the thread had been saying; it's not the best PbtA game by a longshot, missing a lot of its strengths, but it's still pretty servicable, has very good GM guidelines (I even found that settlement growth thing kinda useful and fronts are very nice in general).

If you like old school, I think you totally should give it a try, even if you are leery because it's a "story game".

>>52500544

Could you give some examples?

I'm not doubting you, but I've heard this stated elsewhere and wanted to know more.

>>52501330
Not that guy, but planning ahead too much is a thing I've seen and done that doesn't work. If you don't ask enough questions about the setting as you go and don't build on those it feels clunky and less reactive. An example could be the difference between deciding ahead of time what is in a cave and just narrating vs asking the player who finds it what's in it and going from there, asking a different player what the significance of the weird bones are, etc. Sounds silly, but it makes a significant difference in how the game plays.

Might also be talking about the distinction between hard and soft moves, snowballing and sticking to the mc/gm principles. When they fail, make an actually difficult situation based on your moves, remembering to think off screen, not worrying about keeping secrets from the players, stuff like that. An example of a time I fucked that up would be getting stuck on everyone in a combat I-go you-go situation and could have easily made it more interesting by having the local guards show up, the player's sword getting wedged in the wall, falling out the window brawling into the street, stuff like that. I've found DW's combat moves to be not super interesting though and much prefer apocalypse world as is.

>>52501656
Not him, but there's 2 big "whoops" imo:

-using the D&D stat system and HP.

PbtA stats are supposed to be very specific for what they can be used for. Straight up combat is usually 1 stat. Meanwhile 3/6 stats in DW are for combat and some other stuff. HP is also pretty ill fitting, but it still sorta works

- Bonds.

AW used bonds to make players have conflicts of interest. DW uses bonds to... get extra XP occasionally? And for like 1 move (hinder) that is useless, because it's not like you'll be having conflict, since D&D relies on being a group.

XP is also not handled as well as AW imo in general, but its still passable.

>>52501656
The pairing of a system where every roll should have meaningful effects and hit points doesn't work particularly well.

>>52501812
I fear changing and inventing everything after every roll could quickly become too chaotic, "everyone is john" style.

>>52501847
>>52501862
HP are problably needed because pcs have to fight monsters everyday without getting killed outright. Post-ap pcs should fear conflict.
Maybe using a more tough AW clock may be a solution.

>>52501189
>I want to DO THING TO PC
>>????
>>You don't get to roll, uh, something, something, overly complex explanation that is generally retarded as all fuck of why having the DM work by different rules is somehow not idiotic as all fuck and a waste of time, so the game ends up basically being "players roll random dice DM says if they do good, rules are irrelevant might as well do freeform at this point"

The "Aid or Interfere" Move is not exactly rocket science, Anon.

>>52502038
If it was going for a proper old-school feel, combat should never be a good solution.

>>52501189
But in PbtA, if you want to DO THING to PC, you just roll DO THING.

>>52500094
Is there a different apocalypse world hack that does dnd better? Just curious.

>>52502097
Depends on what you like about D&D, sadly. So, maybe.

>>52502097
Yeah, the fantasy 2e of the original game.

>>52501847
DW's XP is downright inexcusable compared to the original.

AW uses XP and highlighting as an incentive for players to choose actions other people at the table want to see them choose.
DW's XP just incentivize ignoring what you're good at in favor of doing some bullshit you don't face serious consequences for, because consequences in this game tend to be inconsequential anyway.

>>52502038
HP are not needed. HP are an excuse for not coming up with actually interesting consequences for moves.
Combat can have serious consequences both over its course and afterwards without being outright lethal.

>>52502038
Its not that you invent and change everything after every roll, its that you ask players to help come up with ideas, bounce them off yours, etc. But talking to everyone about what kind of tone game you want to have is important. Meshing that between players is key.

>>52502281
You actually have consequences with tags and hard moves, but there has to be some kind to mathematical framework to put a limit to consequences and to differentiate the playbook.

>>52502097
Good question. I tried Streets of Marienburg but it's too bare.

>>52502083
I think DW points to a mixed editions feeling.
Anyway fantasy heroes need to be more durable than post-ap anti-heroes, for most people.

>>52502097
What do you want dnd to do?

>>52502461
I liked Streets of Marienburg but it really helped that everyone who was playing knew about Mordheim and we ran it like that so it had some direction.

The Dark Age playtest looks interesting, but maybe too many moves/parts. Haven't tried it though.

>>52502461
The moves themselves do not have properly defined, thematic and useful consequences, unlike AW's.
Sure, the GM can make up for that, but that veers very close to the Rule Zero excuse.

And HP, as they are in DW, are a horrible, horrible mathematical framework.
In AW, each segment is signficant and damage is fixed, making it a tangible measure of threat.
In DW, HP feel mostly insignifcant and damage is random, which can basically turn what should have been a success into a failure and make what should be a minor scratch a gaping wound.

>>52502726
>The moves themselves do not have properly defined, thematic and useful consequences, unlike AW's.
The GM moves framework should be enough. A list wouldn't comprehensive in the slightest.

>And HP, as they are in DW, are a horrible, horrible mathematical framework.
Not horrible, just mediocre. Big advantage: simple. I too would like to see a clocl rehash.

>damage is random, which can basically turn what should have been a success into a failure and make what should be a minor scratch a gaping wound
Yes. I need a good houserule for this.

>The Dark Age
If it's like the pdf I read, it's just a bit of paint. Not d&d/fantasy like at all.

>>52502915
>The GM moves framework should be enough.
No. If that were the case, you might as well remove every move from the game except Defy Danger.
Moves exist to mechanically contextualize the actions and consequences common to the game's genre. The GM moves are there to supplement player moves and solidify the setting/genre/tone beyond the immediate scope of player moves.

>Big advantage: simple.
Except AW's is even simpler and works much better.

>>52502467
High magic fantasy adventures with faction/guild conflict

>>52503057
>remove every move
That was not my point. HP and consequences seem to go in parallel on DW,
When you constestualize a fantasy battle you need generic rules because everything may happen. Then you need something limiting to avoid infinite conquences.
(That is my interpretation,)

>Except AW's is even simpler and works much better.
Not for fantasy, necessarily. For example, accounting differences among playbooks.
A modfied version may prove useful.

>>52503330
>HP and consequences seem to go in parallel on DW,
HP pretend to be consequences when they're really not.

>When you constestualize a fantasy battle you need generic rules because everything may happen.
No, you only need rules for the things that are most likely to happen.

>Then you need something limiting to avoid infinite conquences.
Yes. That something is abstraction and genre.

>For example, accounting differences among playbooks.
Are you trying to tell me that AW's playbooks are all the same?

>>52503465
>HP pretend to be consequences when they're really not.

This is just plain silly. HP are a resource that gets used up, the consequences are that you're closer to Last Breath than you were before.


>>52503330

Your interpretation is a pretty solid reading of what the system's doing, IMO. You seem to have a pretty good handle on it.


You guys having trouble with HP's existence could splice in a harm clock to Dungeon World, just watch out, because it might get stupidly lethal if you're not careful.

>>52500094

Yes, I ran my first game with this system the DM's guide in the back has some awesome tips and you cam make your own mosters/NPC's quite easily. Plus it is very fun to run

>>52504321
>This is just plain silly. HP are a resource that gets used up, the consequences are that you're closer to Last Breath than you were before.
If DW suffers from HP bloat to the same extent as 3.PF D&D, losing HP is practically the same as losing life in MtG.

The only point that matters is the last one, and every point beyond the last one is just a safety net that determines how much you have to pay attention during combat, which is generally why most high level games become slogs, as both you and the enemy you're facing are powerful enough to survive several rounds of just straight up beatdowns, which ends up being the most optimum strategy in cases where you can't just skip encounters through magic.

Then again, never played, so I have no idea if that's the case or not, just offering my two cents.

>>52501189
Even in normal games, the mechanical PC vs PC interactions are severely limited(not to mention that often PvP is considered off-limits entirely). If the GM allows one player to roll diplomacy to convince other PCs of something, for instance, you know that they're doing their job wrong.

>>52511394
>Players rolling diplomacy and sense notice against eachother is bad.
I know if no GMs who don't do this. If your diplomacy rules aren't good enough to use on other players, then they need work.

>>52511701
Sorry, but if your GM tells you "You really like and trust this guy for no reason" in absence of actual mind control abilities(which diplomacy isn't) then he's someone who shouldn't be allowed to GM.

>>52511701
If you can't resolve diplomatic disputes without having to roll a charisma check against another player, chances are you're more interested in rollplay.

>>52511752
>>52511751
If you're trying to convince a PC of a course of action, after making your case, a diplomacy roll let's you decide how convincing you actually are, rather than the player's metagame wants.
If you roll low the player does what he wants, if you roll high enough to convince him, he cooperates with you.

If it's unreasonable to be something which can be resolved with a single check, then don't resolve it with a single check.

>>52511800
>If you're trying to convince a PC of a course of action, after making your case, a diplomacy roll let's you decide how convincing you actually are, rather than the player's metagame wants.
Metagaming shithead detected. If you're trying to convince a PC of a course of action, you ROLEPLAY the situation out. There's no need to make any rolls at all.

>>52511800
Why the fuck would anyone do that when you can already resolve diplomacy through roleplay?

>>52511825
>preventing metagaming makes you a Metagaming shithead.
Are you on crack?

>>52511838
Of course you roleplay it out. Then you roll, so the other player *can't* be a metagaming shithead, who ignores both the strength of your argument and how convincing your character is to do whatever he feels like doing in a super metagamey fashion.

>>52511838
IE:
You add the roll at the end to prevent Metagaming.

>>52511850
NEEDING to prevent it in such a manner makes you metagaming shithead. If that's an actual problem you regularly encounter, you need to find a better group.

>>52511850
>>52511856
If the player/character doesn't trust you then forcing low-key mind control on the person that you're trying to convince isn't going to make you sound any more convincing.

In fact, now I'm obviously on edge because you forced me to make a roll to not believe you, when otherwise it'd come down to my personal judgement as a player as to whether or not my character would believe you.

So by adding in bullshit to stifle meta-gaming, you've effectively created a situation where meta-gaming is more likely to occur, because now I'm thinking "why would I need to roll that diplomacy check unless he's trying to fuck me over somehow."

It's the same shit as asking for a perception roll.

>>52511868
>Having encountered people who metagame and preventing it from happening in the future makes you a metagame shithead.
This claim is absolutely retarded.

>The game would be better if you had a group of players who never metagamed.
Great. Many of us have to work with what we have in the city in which we live. Not everyone lives in a huge city with an endless supply of other gamers.

You go with the best group available.

>>52511909
>This claim is absolutely retarded.
Your premise is absolutely retarded.
>"Y'know what would really help to prevent meta-gaming, forcing rolls that will only cause meta-gaming."
>Great. Many of us have to work with what we have in the city in which we live. Not everyone lives in a huge city with an endless supply of other gamers.
No game is better than dealing with shitheads who ruin games anon.

>>52511890
You don't selectively roll diplomacy.

If *anyone* tries to convince *anyone* (PC vs PC, PC vs, NPC, or NPC vs PC) else to do anything, it's roleplayed, and then rolled (if there is any possibility the character could be convinced to do the thing in question), with any penalties the gm seems appropriate based on the reasonability of the request.

On a failure, the character does whatever they want, which may include going along with the idea.

On a success, they cooperate with your request, through whatever justification they have for cooperating.

Any diplomacy rules that are "mind control" shouldn't be allowed to be used on anyone, PC or otherwise. No diplomacy roll should allow you to butcher your loved ones or change your whole personality or whatever the fuck.

If they distrust you, penalties to the roll. And if someone isn't willing to talk to you at all, no roll allowed.

As for perception? I agree. The only time a player rolls perception, is when they state they're searching for something. Otherwise the GM should roll vs passive perception scores.

>>52502038
There are way less rolls than in DnD, so "every roll is to have a consequence moving story forward" rule doesn't turn it in complete chaos. But it is more fast-paced without doubt.

>>52511966
Based on your posts, I don't think you actually know what metagaming is.

Metagaming is when you act out of character based on information you have as a player, which shouldn't affect your characters behavior.

Like using knowledge of a monster manual your character wouldn't know, or acting on information which was not shared with you that took place in a scene where your character wasn't present.

Cooperating when a convincing character successfully convinces your character to help them with something, is the opposite of metagaming. It's in game information (the diplomacy check to convince you) influencing in game actions (whether your character cooperates).

>>52511967
>Any diplomacy rules that are "mind control" shouldn't be allowed to be used on anyone, PC or otherwise. No diplomacy roll should allow you to butcher your loved ones or change your whole personality or whatever the fuck.

What is "On a success, they cooperate with your request, through whatever justification they have for cooperating." if not mind control?

>>52511967
Why do you need a roll if you've already roleplayed the scenario out though? If the person you're trying to convince to do a thing doesn't trust you because of something OoC that was mentioned, stop fucking mentioning shit OoC that you don't want other people to know.

We had a fella a few years ago who was playing an evil character and one day he was talking about this super serious plan to totally backstab the party, to which I responded with "cool, any more secret plans you want to blab in front of the rest of the party?" to which his response was "don't meta-game." He would later get bludgeoned to death for trying to kill the party cleric during combat but that's besides the point.

If someone knows something, anything they do from that point further is meta-gaming. If you don't want people to know something, keep it between yourself and the DM. If you do this, there will no longer be meta-gaming because there will be no information to meta-game with.

>>52512016
>Cooperating when a convincing character successfully convinces your character to help them with something, is the opposite of metagaming. It's in game information (the diplomacy check to convince you) influencing in game actions (whether your character cooperates).
Wrong! You're not cooperating at that point, you're basically forcing a will save vs. suggestion.

>>52512026
Your character being convinced through persuasion, to assist in a task.

If it's something your character could not be convinced to do, then no roll will allow him to be convinced to do it - that distinction is what determines what counts as mind control or not. Kill your friends, give me all your money, etc.

If it's something that he could be convinced to do, then a roll is allowed, with penalties if the thing would be a hard sell.

>>52512046
And when it has nothing to do with trust, or ooc information, and is just a player deciding "nah I don't feel like cooperating just because I want to go do whatever else instead" even though it's a highly convincing character trying to convince them to do something entirely reasonable?

>>52512076
If it's mind control when used on PCs, then it's mind control when used on NPCs.

If there is any circumstance where you get to roll to convince someone, then it works both ways.

I am fine with either approach, but not both selectively applied as bullshit.

Either you can roll to be persuasive, or you can't.

>>52512084
>And when it has nothing to do with trust, or ooc information, and is just a player deciding "nah I don't feel like cooperating just because I want to go do whatever else instead" even though it's a highly convincing character trying to convince them to do something entirely reasonable?
Then that's his decision as a player/character. Some people are just naturally stubborn or averse to listening to other people and if he doesn't want to cooperate for whatever reason, well tough titties.

>>52512084
>Your character being convinced through persuasion, to assist in a task.
No, they're being mind controlled. If you want to persuade a player to do something? Then PERSUADE them. This is like GMing 101, you don't get to tell players how their characters feel(unless there's some weird shit going on, like a spell cast on the PC). If you tell a player "Thanks to the silvertongue of Mr. Smith, you walk down the street, convinced of his innocence" then you've just railroaded them in the worst possible way.

>>52500094
sjw propaganda garbage

>>52512114
>If it's mind control when used on PCs, then it's mind control when used on NPCs.
>Either you can roll to be persuasive, or you can't.
Or you can just, I dunno, roleplay the scenario out and ignore this bullshit entirely.

>>52512124
>>52512120
See >>52512114.

Either the characters can roll to be persuasive, including rolling against eachother;

Or they can't, and all social interactions have to be simply roleplayed out.

Double standard mechanics are bullshit retarded and kill any impression that your characters actually exist in the world they're running around in.

>>52512114
>If it's mind control when used on PCs, then it's mind control when used on NPCs.
For NPCs, it's a sometimes necessary abstraction. For PCs, it's taking the control of their character away from them. Different standards exist for PCs and NPCs for a reason. Something that's fine and reasonable when it happens to an NPC(like dying off-screen) can be completely unacceptable when done to a PC.

>>52512141
So then, option B) diplomacy/deception/etc are not mechanical options that exist in the game, and you just talk them out?

I'm good with that too.

>>52512157
Dying offscreen due to things which the PCs are not involved in is completely different than giving the PCs mind control powers then crying foul when they use them on eachother or when an NPC uses them too.

I'm back again.

>>52503465
>HP pretend to be consequences when they're really not.
As I've explained I don't think so. Where is this written?

>No, you only need rules for the things that are most likely to happen.
Like? Give me an example of a complete hack and slash rules you'd deem ok, pls.

>That something is abstraction and genre
Now you're incoherent. You criticize HP for being generic and you want to use "abstraction". Is there anything more abastract than dnd style HPs?

>Are you trying to tell me that AW's playbooks are all the same?
Pls stop allucinating what I write. I think HPs are a very simple way do differentiare playbooks in a fantasy context.

>>52504321
Thanks.
Lethality is a big issue with the clock, I fear it0s too much even for post-ap.

>>52511368
>If DW suffers from HP bloat to the same extent as 3.PF D&D, losing HP is practically the same as losing life in MtG
If there is a bloat, you can adjust the numbers.
Same problem about 4e, math tinkering helps a lot.
Furthemore it's not like dnd hps or magic life. Because damage is part of the moves, so things happen while you give and take it (using tags and maneveurs).

>>52511394
This.
Even in 3e you cannot bypass player agency.

>>52512133
ty, virt

>>52512171
Sorry, "mind control". Forgot the air quotes.

>>52512147
All-or-nothing isn't a good position to be in when making a case for why others should listen to your argument.

When it's between players, use roleplay because the people controlling those characters are not being controlled by the DM, so their agency as a player takes precedence over anything else within the game.

On the other hand, you may roll against an NPC to convince them of something because an NPC has no agency and likely won't exist beyond that brief interaction due to the party moving on to a different part of the world.

Is it a double standard? Yeah, but at the same time, PC's aren't NPC's and carry more weight within the context of the campaign's narrative and pretending that they're in any way, shape, or form equal is doing a disservice to what a PC is supposed to represent.

>>52512196
>Disservice to what the PCs are supposed to represent
Yet another troupe of gold hungry mercenaries taking on whatever work they can manage for the most cash/gold/political power they can manage, just like hundreds or thousands of other such groups running around in the world?

I mean, maybe if you're running a campaign where the PCs are blessed demigods, or everyone else is supposed to be a simple ai program or something, then it might make sense to have the PCs be double extra special.

>>52512171
>Dying offscreen due to things which the PCs are not involved in is completely different than giving the PCs mind control powers then crying foul when they use them on eachother or when an NPC uses them too.

No it isn't. The exact same principles apply. The GM doesn't have to flesh out every event, every location, every NPC in the whole world. The PCs are trying to get information/discount/whatever from a random shopkeeper who has a name and maybe a randomly rolled quirk(but no detailed stats or personality or background)? Rolling diplomacy allows you to keep the game moving without the GM either making up something random on the spot or pausing the game to create those things. The PC already has established personality and background, and the player controlling them knows what's going through his mind at any given moment and knows how the PC would react in a given situation, thus rendering the abstraction unnecessary.

File: 1491127640936.jpg (65KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 728x546px

>>52500094

>>52512196
My position isn't that you need to allow PCs to control eachother with diplomacy, or not.

My position is that the PCs are *not* special, they're supposed to exist in the world like any other character, and any abilities they can use on others are just as reasonable to use on them.

My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.

>>52512261
>My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.
No, it's completely idiotic. PCs are special by the virtue of being PCs. If this is not the case, you're not playing a game but watching a GM tell a story.

>>52512261
>My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.

>My position is that my absolutist position is the only reasonable one

This is what radicals are made of.

>>52512232
PC's can easily survive blows that would kill any peasant, which is why they get more HP than the average person. They also have access to class levels, which can give them special abilities and access to spells while peasants are only really proficient with gardening tools.

Beyond that, an NPC is only expected to be relevant for the scene they're involved in while a PC is expected to be relevant for the entirety of the campaign. If that wasn't the case then literally any random schmuck could defeat the ultimate evil and save the land, rather than these particular schmucks who happen to be controlled by players.

>>52512277
They're only special in that they are what the story is focused on because they are the PCs.

But if Jimmy the fresh out of training amateur hour brawler decides to take on the army? Jimmy is going to die, just like any other idiot.

IE: he's not special. He isn't bound to succeed, and (unless we're playing a game where he has luck points for a pulpy feel), he does not have any plot protection. If he lives or dies, succeeds or fails, is based on his skills, what he attempts, and his luck.

If he has Divine Providence or is a superhero God among men, well, that will be called out in the campaign premise as an exception. But it's far from a universal constant, and is not the standard scenario by any stretch.

>>52512261
>My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.
An oxymoron if I ever saw one. There are always exceptions to the rule and believing otherwise makes you irrational.

>>52512340
Does Jimmy have character levels or is controlled by a player?

If either are yes, he's special.
If both are no, he's not special.

It's not rocket science anon.

>>52512319
Depends on the setting.

The assumption that PCs are gods among men is far from universal, even in dnd land.

As for being relevant for the whole campaign, you mean: unless they are perma-dead.

>Any schmuck could save the world
Any schmuck strong enough to save the world is welcome to try. The PCs aren't unique in their power levels, 99% of the time.

I've read through the rulebook, it's built so normies can pretend they're playing D&D without learning any actual ruleset.
Just play D&D 5e.

>>52512340
>They're only special in that they are what the story is focused on because they are the PCs.
Wrong. They're special because they're being controlled by the players and not the GM. IF THIS IS NOT TRUE, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A GAME, YOU ARE JUST WATCHING THE GM TELL A STORY.

>>52512370
If we're playing in a game with class levels, anybody can have them. Odds are the only people without a class level equivalent are small children and dumb beasts.

And being a PC just means he gets the screentime.

Screentime is what makes him special. It's all that makes him special.

>>52512413
>>52512374

>If we're playing in a game with class levels, anybody can have them.

>The PCs aren't unique in their power levels, 99% of the time.

These a pretty fucking huge assumption to make, especially when neither of them are true for the game being discussed.

>>52512374
Nobody is claiming that PC's are gods among men, I'm just saying that PCs are special as far as the story is based around them and their exploits.

Luke isn't special because he's actually Darth Vader's son, he's special because the story centers around him and his exploits, going from a simple farm kid to a rebel soldier to a Jedi on the cusp of the dark side.

Also, you're making a lot of assumptions as far as power levels are concerned. Even within D&D land, characters with more than maybe 5-6 levels are rare and characters with 10+ levels are legends that literally have their name listed in the book, such as Tasha or Bigsby.

>>52512404
>Angry greentext paraphrase what you just said and tell you you're wrong and act like I'm saying something different!
>>They're controlled by players.
>>They get the screentime.
>>The story centers on their choices.

That's it. Full stop.

>They are not automatically gods among men.
>They are not predestined to succeed. >They can fail. If they can't fail, there's no game, and no tension.
>They can die.

And thus far, I've yet to see a compelling argument why they should get special PC mind control powers other than "it means they don't have to interact with NPCs", which to me seems like a very stupid reason.

>>52512444
>Anyone with more than 5 levels in dnd is super special
Depends on the setting/campaign/etc

>>52512431
The thread asked if DW was any good.

We have long since wandered into generic RPG opinions on what makes a game good or bad.

I showed up to hear people pick apart the game and see if it was worth actually looking at, because the OP was relevant to my own curiosity.

Does DW require that the PCs be far more powerful than everyone else? Is that built in?

That's not a requirement in D&D, by any stretch.

>>52512444
So, are you saying one has to assume that the PCs have to succeed, like in a movie, because they're the protagonist?

If so, I think I need some sort of justification, because I'm not convinced that's a requirement.

>>52512456
Just because you're too stupid to understand the difference between what you said and what I said doesn't mean there isn't one.

The GM controls NPCs. He is the ultimate arbiter for anything that happens to NPCs. He can, if he chooses, call for a diplomacy check to influence how the NPCs act in a particular situation. He can also choose to NOT call for one if the situation does not warrant it in his opinion(even if in another nearly identical situation earlier he did call for one). It ultimately does not matter whether he calls for one or not, because in any event he still maintains control of those NPCs.

The players control PCs. They do not always get to decide what happens to the PCs. However, they DO get to decide how the PCs feel or what they do. Diplomacy checks are called by the GM, and thus infringe on the players ability to control their PCs. This is taking the control of PCs away from players, because they no longer get to choose how the PCs act or feel. This DOES matter and is a BAD thing, because by doing so the GM becomes the arbiter of the PCs actions, not the players.

Now fuck off and kill yourself.

>>52512456
They get "special PC mind-control" because most GM's don't have the time, motivation, or energy to come up with a unique personality for every single NPC that the party interacts with, especially if they're never going to see that particular character again.
>>52512477
It's a general assumption that the game makes. Crack open most rulebooks and they'll say something to the effect of "this is the point where you're capable of defending kingdoms and large settlements" or some shit.

>>52512508
>Does DW require that the PCs be far more powerful than everyone else? Is that built in?

The PCs are more powerful than many of the monsters they encounter (goblins, etc.) by default. "Rusty dagger shanktown" of low level D&Ds doesn't really exist.

They can be defeated, and they can easily die if they are stupid.

They are, however, supposed to be fairly unique; the base assumption of the game is that characters who can have class levels are rare enough there's only one of each class in the party (although you can optionally remove this limitation).

>>52512524
>So, are you saying one has to assume that the PCs have to succeed, like in a movie, because they're the protagonist?
No, but the story should be driven by the decisions that they make along away, for better or for worse.

>>52511967
This.
All rolls belong to "has some palpable chance of happening" category. Convincing one to go against his character and/or desires by words alone usually lies in "fuck no" category if your GM is not a twat.
And whether a character can be convinced without a roll, needs a roll to convince or can't be convinced at all is up to one that controls the character, be it PC or NPC.

>>52512549
Ah. Then we are very much in agreement on this.

>>52512544
Huh. Good to know. I hadn't realized the PCs were so much above the average guy in DW. I thought it was supposed to be like level 2-6 D&D, from how I had heard it described in the past.

>>52512613
>I thought it was supposed to be like level 2-6 D&D

That's... pretty much the powerlevel I was trying to describe.

DW characters aren't incredibly strong, but they are competent enough that a group of goblins (in a fair fight) won't be a big problem. What makes them unique is that they are, well, unique.

>>52512147
Player: my character does X

A) X is impossible - no roll, may describe attempt
B) He has almost no chances of failing - no roll, may describe how it is done.
C) There is some chance of success, but no guarantees - roll and describe result.

And when character A does a thing to non-magically affect character B's mind, it is usually the one controlling character B who decides where that attempt falls.

>>52512527
Aww. He's buttmad.

>PCs don't roll diplomacy unprompted.
What kind of rock do you live under? They do that all the time.

And I'm all for preserving player agency. I'm just not for giving them mind control powers and then having them off limits for everyone else, or having the arbitrary distinction of "doesn't work on other players" for any ability they have.

Being PCs does not mean they need special powers that enemies can't have. That's a retarded position to take. No, you can kindly go fuck off and kill yourself too, since you're incapable of civility or reasonable discussion.

>>52512640
Sure, I don't see an issue with mechanics like that.

I'd be fine with that approach, hypothetically, and it can be done without being "PC vs NPC only mind control".

Before the roll to influence a character, you have it's controller (be it dm or player) state what category the attempt is in and why, and then if applicable, a roll takes place with modifiers appropriate to skill and situation.

>>52512652
By your retard logic, you should give every class access to monster abilities since being monsters should've mean that they need abilities that PCs can't have either.

In fact, there shouldn't be anything like monsters or classes or magic because nobody should have special powers that certain other people can't have.

Yeah, just make every human peasants who each use the same weapon and have the same stats, just so everyone is equal and without any distinction.

>>52512681
This rule is present in most rulebooks. You don't roll to stop a moving train with bare hands or tie your shoelaces if you play as a regular person.
You just have to remember that it applies both to physical and social activities.

>>52512699
>Ridiculous strawman.
Nah.
Characters of the same type should have the ability to take the same things.
If you have special gnome magics, any other gnomes could have the same things.
If you're a wizard, any other wizard could have the same abilities.

It's not rocket science, not is it a difficult position to understand. You're just being deliberately dense.

>>52512538
>The GM isn't going to give the NPCs the players interact with personalities or motivations or goals because that takes effort.
Sounds like the GM in question needs some random tables or an app that will spit out NPC motivations and personalities for him quickly, giving him a good variety of different NPCs which he can then just play out.

>>52512740
The debate in this thread is whether option C is ever okay to use against PCs, by other PCs or by NPCs.

Some say "no, never, it's mind control, and only PCs have mind control", and I'm saying "turnabout is fair play. Mind control or no, if the PCs can get it, so can the NPCs."

With the point of "it saves the dm from having to roleplay or flesh out the NPCs the players interact with" as a standalone counterposition.

Not one that justifies player vs npc only mind control, IMO, but better than the other ones.

And I get the argument of "player agency is important". But the players play characters in the world, and in most games they may be competent, but they aren't unique creatures unlike anyone else in the world.

>>52512753
>Characters of the same type should have the ability to take the same things.
What about situations where playable races includes shit from the monster manual?
>If you have special gnome magics, any other gnomes could have the same things.
What if I'm a human and I want to learn gnome magics?
>If you're a wizard, any other wizard could have the same abilities.
What if I'm an evocation wizard and I want to gain the powers of a divination specialist?

>>52512652
>What kind of rock do you live under? They do that all the time.

Then tell them to stop doing that, retard. Honestly, just kill yourself.

>>52511368
>If DW suffers from HP bloat to the same extent as 3.PF D&D, losing HP is practically the same as losing life in MtG.


It doesn't. It might seem a bit high at level 1 if you just compare it straight to a monster, but it doesn't go up my more than five points or so by level 10, and PCs need more points than monsters do because combat is not turn-based and symmetrical. There's no reason an enemy couldn't strike the players 5 times before the players roll well enough to hit back.
Also if the DM follows the agenda (Fill the Characters' Lives with Adventure, and especially Think Dangerous) then it may be difficult for them to disengage from various threats and set up a safe place to rest; also healing magic incurs risks of its own, as it requires rolling, and the DM makes a move any time they roll a 6-.

The bigger problem is if you have a player who tries to stack armor. A paladin can get up to 5 DR if he really tries. That can be canceled out by throwing groups of enemies at him, though.

>>52512508
>Does DW require that the PCs be far more powerful than everyone else? Is that built in?

They are more powerful than the average, yeah. DW essentially starts you at level 3 or 4.
For lower power DW, there's an expansion called Freebooters on the Frontier. Also Funnel World, which starts you off with a gang of flimsy peasants rather than a single PC and the one peasant who survives will gain class levels. If one survives, that is.

>>52512613

One thing to point out is that the DM in DW can easily adjust the danger level up or down on the fly based on how many rolls you throw at them. A swordsman who walks up to you and just engages you in a fight will probably result in a single Hack'n'Slash roll, and only one opportunity to flub it. A skilled swordsman who approaches you in a whirling cloud of spinning blades will probably generate a Defy Danger before you can get past his onslaught and engage him, increasing the risk.

I've been running DW as a longform game this year and I find that it works pretty well as a narrative-driven dungeon crawling system. I think that hacking in HP instead of the traditional harm clock is the weakest part of the system, since harm clocks end up being a lot more intuitive for the flow of combat AW games.

It gets a bit finicky at higher levels too, but I can't figure out if that's an intentional function of the system or not. It doesn't matter how fictionally powerful a 16 hit point dragon is when a level 6 fighter buffed by a bard can not only roll 1d10+1d8+1d4 on any given attack roll, but also completely negate the effects of a damage roll 4 times by damaging their armor and breaking their shield.

Once a player gets a stat to +3, they tend to over rely on it too. People recommend mitigating the issue I mentioned above by forcing several "Defy Danger" rolls in a row before allowing Hack and Slash to be made, but once a fighter can reliably know that they'll rarely if ever hit the 6- on a STR roll every "what do you do" starts to get "I power through/push it aside/bash it with my shield/punch it away" in response

>>52516521

Yeah, that can be troublesome. I had that become a bit of a nuisance when my players started to get level 6 or so.
I just try to get creative with the 7-9 results and give them tough choices, and try to maneuver them into spots where they can't just "power through" it with their best stat, but where they're threatened in a way that will require one of their other stats.
Also don't let them cheese that "power through" idea, if it sounds fishy make them explain how that's supposed to work in the game world, or it ain't happening.

>>52512819
>What about monstrous PCs.
If you allow mindflayer PCs they should have access to all the iconic mindflayer abilities that mindflayer NPCs would have access to.

>What if I'm a human and I want the racial abilities of something else, like gnome magics.
If it makes sense in setting, Then you can probably find a way to learn them. If it doesn't, then you can't.

>What if I'm an evocation specialist and I want special divination specialist abilities?
Then you talk to your GM and on a case by case basis he figures out if he is willing or able to help you swap out access to what you want for access to other stuff.

>>52519742
>Monsters
If minotaur NPCs in your game are large creatures with an immunity to maze, scent, 10 foot reach, a gore attack, and a direction sense, then if your minotaur PCs don't at least have the *option* of having all those things, they're not minotaurs at all, and I can understand your PCs being dissatisfied with the fakeout.

>>52519994
>an immunity to maze

WUT

>>52520094
He's using the 3.5e minotaurs in the example. They all have outright immunity to that specific spell in that game.

>>52520094
>>52520242
Minotaur stats
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/minotaur.htm

File: James T. Kirk.png (466KB, 704x522px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 704x522px

>>52520242

That's ridiculous! The whole point of King Minos putting the Minotaur into the Labyrinth in the first place was so that the monster couldn't find his way out and eat people!
I knew 3.5 did some really stupid things, but this is just asinine!

>>52501330
>Considering PvP is a special case and risk socials problem

What if the character was hit by a mind control spell?

Dungeon World is a bad game because it uses Apocalypse World's system and just throws D&D mechanics like hit points into the mix. The "moves" are not narrative pieces, rather they are a mix of those and combat maneuvers, and other adventuring actions. if you read Apocalypse World you will see a stark difference between it's class moves (which are about how the character effects the story) as opposed to Dungeon World where the moves show how the character effects combat (such as having separate melee and ranged attack "moves"). Damage is damage: there is nothing interesting about it. Apocalypse World had a harm move, where getting hurt *meant* something. You'd roll that same mechanic (there are no dice rolls in AW that aren't the 2d6 core mechanic, whereas DW has to drag in polyhedral dice for damage rolls to get in on that sweet D&D cred) to see how the Harm effected you. It might be worse (+1 harm) or better (-1 harm) than expected, but it could also make you drop something, stagger, or get distracted. Characters died in one or two hits, combat had CONSEQUENCES. Whereas in Dungeon World all the characters start out with as many hit points as an elder dragon (which only has 16 hp) and the only way to make the battle challenging is to literally lie about the HP and use DM fiat to have the dragon rip a fighter's arm off. The 16 hp dragon story that is used as wank material by enlightened reddit GMs, is entirely based off of (1) lying about the dragon being down 65% of it's HP, and (2) using DM fiat bullshit to have the dragon bite the fighter's arm off. You could do the same thing in D&D, except D&D at least tries to be balanced.

There really is nothing good or interesting the game offers. You can't say out right that it's bad because people have fun playing it, but from a game design perspective, it is only good because it steals all of its good parts from a much, much better designed game, one written by someone who actually understands how narrative games work.

>>52512172
Hit points aren't consequences because they never have been. In Apoc World getting hurt meant something. In Dungeon World you start out with 10+ hit points and it's near-impossible to die when played as intended.

> I think HPs are a very simple way do differentiare playbooks in a fantasy context.

If you think different amounts of hit points constitute effective class differentiation, then you are too far gone to be helped.

>Lethality is a big issue with the clock,

You're a fucking imbecile. Not every game is the GM sucking off the players while they do whatever retarded bullshit they want. Some people like gritty games and in fact the consequences are what make it compelling. You scoff at that while saluting a game whose mechanics are designed to accomplish that EXACT goal.

>If there is a bloat, you can adjust the numbers.

Or I could play a better game.

>Even in 3e you cannot bypass player agency.

I can roll to hit another player, though. Also in 3e there is at least a difference between attacking a 1st level orc and attacking a master swordsman.

You want to stray into D&D territory? You either play by it's rules, or you stop bastardizing D&D mechanics and tacking them onto a competently-made game, while disavowing the entire tone said original game was meant to evoke.

>>52521009
>In Dungeon World you start out with 10+ hit points and it's near-impossible to die when played as intended.

Nonsense, if it's near impossible for players to die, then the GM isn't abiding by the rules. I've not only had players die, I've had the party come very close to having a TPK on two occasions.

>the GM sucking off the players while they do whatever retarded bullshit they want

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

>>52521287
>anecdotal evidence
>selectively replying to one part of the post while ignoring the rest

Yeah you don't have a counter argument. Nice try.

>>52521346

You're not presenting an argument, you're trolling and calling people imbeciles and shit. If you wanted a discussion you should start by engaging with people honestly and calmly. Until then there's no reason for me to treat you any better than you're treating the other guy.

>>52500094
I don't like it. Not at all. It's not granular enough to let you create custom characters, ala Shadowrun or D&D 3.5/5e, and yet it's not open enough to let you create your own characters, ala M&M or Fate.

What if I want to make a dwarven wizard? What the fuck then? I can't, that's what. What if I want my dwarven wizard to wear a fine tunic instead of the three 'glitter robe', 'ragged robe' or 'boring robe' choices? I can't.

Also, bonds are a waste of time. A clever idea, but Fate does it better.

>>52521443
>whining

>>52522362
This. DW fans are yet to explain why you aren't allowed to play a dwarf wizard without homebrewing? Why did they base the game around autistic class/race restrictions from AD&D days?

File: DW-Baseclassracialmovescomplete.pdf (73KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1x1px

>>52522362

Your complaints are weird. Have a thing.

File: Pagurus_bernhardus.jpg (100KB, 800x630px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x630px

>>52503146
Your D&D is a hermit crab.

>>52523088
Explain?

>>52523058
>Have a thing

Go back to Rddit. In the meantime, I will play a game that lets me do what I want. You have fun playing your game. But I will never say it is "good."

>>52523088
D&D works pretty well for that.

It does the high magic, and has rules for conflict. What more do you need to run that kind of game?

>>52524316
>its not good because I can't do everything I want

>>52524900
Not that guy, but I can see the argument of "why would I play that game when you even admit the game I want to play delivers what I want better?"

>>52524925
You're more generous than I am.

>>52525046
Let me rephrase, I think you misunderstand. That's my own position as well.

If I want something out of a campaign, why would I choose a system that can't deliver it? (Regardless of what system that is)

For instance, If I want "freeform build your own characters", I'm either going to avoid a system with classes, or choose one with classes so watered down you can make them into whatever you want.

If I want associative game mechanics, or a single resource pool, or no resource pools, I won't choose 4e.

Etc.

So if he wants a game with more flexible character creation than DW offers, why would he play DW?

>>52524466
"TSR D&D was a nautilus, WotC D&D is a hermit crab."
d20 /does/ what you're looking for, I'm not disagreeing with that.

>>52524006
WotC made d20 system for an RPG intended for use with the Fallout intellectual property.
Mid-development, TSR fell through and WotC bought them up for all their juicy IP.
Then they stapled the far more valuable Dungeons & Dragons IP onto their game.

D&D, as it was for 26 years prior was, was a lot of things. But it very decisively could not, and did not try to, run High Fantasy.
It only aimed at the Swords & Sorcery genre. And the first word in the name is Dungeon because that was pretty much the whole game.
All tomb robbers, all the time.

>>52525483
>D&D didn't do high magic fantasy before 3e.
2e Realms and Planescape seem to suggest otherwise to me. What am I missing?

I mean, sure, really old D&D may have been all tomb robbing but it was capable of more than that before 3e.

I didn't know d20 was initially designed for fallout. Wait... Wasn't fallout initially designed for GURPS, and then that fell through?

>Nautilus vs hermit crab.
Still don't understand the analogy.
Maybe I'm just not sufficiently familiar with sealife to get it.

>>52525561
>Maybe I'm just not sufficiently familiar with sealife to get it.
A nautilus is pic related. It's a weird deep sea creature with lots of spindly bits, but it's shell grows outward in a perfect Golden Spiral.
A hermit crab is >>52523088, it's a weird, distorted, lumpen thing that scavenges and wears shells from dead sea life.

File: nautilus.jpg (2MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2816x2112px

>>52525642
Whoops.

>>52525241
>I will play a game that lets me do what I want.
>You have fun playing your game.
>But I will never say it is 'good'

>I will never say its good because I can't do what I want.

If you can't connect those dots I can't really help you.

>>52525642
And how would one deliver "high magic fantasy centered on guild/faction conflict" that isnt a "weird distorted lumpy thing scavenging shells from other sea life"

>>52525725
What makes anything 'Good' is subjective, anon. That's why you need to quantify why you think something is or is not good.

For instance, I think any food with cilantro can't be good, and think cilantro ruins the taste of everything. Other people apparently enjoy the taste of a bar of soap.

>>52525799
>>52525725
I know quite a few people who consider highly flexible character creation to be a critical component to a good RPG. That's not even that weird a view.

>>52525739
Off the top of my head, I would recommend:
• Powered by the Apocalypse
• Ars Magica
• Maid RPG
and possibly even
• Ryuutama

I could give more or better suggestions if you got a bit more specific.
What aspect of "guild/faction conflict" will your characters be involved in?
What else will the players spend lots of time on?
What exactly are you looking for, gameplay wise?

>>52526410
They're involved in different hierarchal organizations:

Mercenaries/thieves guilds, knightly orders, settlements, etc, possibly building their own.

They *might* get involved in the MGMT of a faction, or they might just act as individual agents interacting with them, at the players discretion.

They could stay independent, but that likely means having far less support than allying themselves with a cause.

As for what they would probably do, pursue their own idealogical or selfish goals, mostly. They might fight over territory or trade routes. They might go on a crusade. It's really likely 5o be rather sandboxy.

But mostly, they try to make the world how they want it to be.

Probably not a huge political focus, and more direct intervention and action. If they were controlling other agents from behind the scenes, I'd probably have them play the agents, too.

Best media example I've got is game of thrones style house conflict.

>>52526650
But again, in a high magic world.

>>52502088
Not in DW at least.
ALso
>Let's mix pretty important crunch tags with fluff crunch tags

But again, the average DW tard has it's brain rotten any discussion is hence impossible.

>>52512808
>Player is investigating a murder
>Player has evidence that suggests NPC is the culprit, but it is not conclusive
>Player decides to confront NPC with the evidence
>NPC: "It wasn't me."
>NPC rolls Diplomacy at a massive penalty, but passes nevertheless
>GM: "NPC has convinced you of his innocence, you have no reason to suspect him."
>Player: "But the evidence clearly indicates him!"
>GM: "Sorry, he passed his Diplomacy test."
>Player: "Fuck that, I arrest him anyway."

What do you, as the GM, do in this situation? Do you tell your player "No, your character doesn't do that," or do you allow your the PC to make the arrest and thereby invalidate Diplomacy checks for everyone? How do either of these result in a satisfying gaming experience?

>>52529215
>any discussion is hence impossible

Oh and I'm sure the reason why nobody will discuss things with you has nothing to do with your approach, huh?

>>52529713
*Assuming we are playing a game where such rolls are a thing*
>1. NPC would need to present his evidence before getting a chance to roll.
"Wasn't me" isn't enough to make a roll at all. He only gets a roll if the claim is at least a vaguely plausible defense. If the players want to gloss over the interaction, then we summarize his case, and I tell the player if they think the defense seems plausible based on the roll which they cannot see the numbers of (to avoid metagaming).
>2. After making his case and rolling the successful check (where the PC can't see what the roll was) I tell the PC:
"his alibi seems solid. He was at such and such when the crime was committed. he didn't do it."
>3. If the player decides to attack him anyways, then yes he is doing so out of character, because his character thinks the alibi is solid.
He will then be treated as the deranged hazard to society he is behaving as. If he killed the "innocent" man just because he didn't like him, when the alibi checks out, he will likely be tried for murder and hanged by the neck until dead.

Personally I'd prefer no diplomacy rolls in the game at all, and just roleplay it out.

>>52500094
PbtA is a good system but DW doesn't play to its strengths very well. Inverse World does a better job of steering the system back into its strong points.

>>52529856
This still does not answer the question of whether this creates a satisfying game experience. Anything the player did to gather his evidence was invalidated because something out of his control determined what his character felt and that limited the in-character choices that the player could make. That he was allowed to make an out of character choice is also problematic. Because we are working off the premise of "if PCs can do it, NPCs can do it too," NPCs are no longer obligated to act in any specific way regardless of whether they were "convinced" or not. This makes any future attempts at Diplomacy a PC might attempt useless, which takes away from the player's ability to impact the narrative.

This is why there is a double standard for NPCs and PCs: the game is more fun that way.

Perhaps people should read the book (Dungeon World) before commenting on Diplomacy versus Mind Control.

The Move is called "Parley", it only can be used against GM characters, and the PC must have Leverage (something the NPC wants or needs) before attempting the Move.

Shit. I should add:

On rolling the dice, on a 10+ the GM character will do what you ask if you first promise what they ask of you, on a 7-9 they will do what you ask if they have concrete assurance of your promise right now.

I.e. they still might not do what you want if you cannot promise something in return.

>>52530334
If the information gathering was solid, the guy wouldn't be able to alibi his way out of it.

The only way he's getting to roll is if the PCs don't have a good case to determine how guilt. If they know he's guilty no roll is going to convince them otherwise, without real proof.

And as such, the information given to the player will be filled based on a combination of the situation and the roll.

If the PC thinks the NPC is innocent, then so should the player.

If the player is going to have his character murder an npc whom he believes is innocent, he is doing so on a whim, and has lost his mind, and will be treated accordingly by everyone.

If an NPC is doing the same thing? That also means the NPC is deranged.

If the NPC has evidence to back up his existing beliefs, the PCs will need proof to change them, not a diplomacy roll.

I'm not convinced the double standard is useful, but I am convinced you didn't really understand how I'm suggesting such abilities should work across the board.

Does it make sense now?

Do you have any counter points to this?

>>52530411
>I clearly didn't follow the thread of discussion and haven't the slightest idea what is being discussed.
Hint, it's not a discussion of how diplomacy works in DW.

But it should be.

>>52530476
>If the PC thinks the NPC is innocent, then so should the player.

What if they don't, though? Are you really trying to tell us that all your arguments are always really convincing and your players always nod sagely at your wisdom while waiting to see if the dice agree? Or that you'll never provide an insight that completely changes the PC's minds on the matter, but oops, he rolled a 6, pretend you didn't hear any of that? Come on, anon, this is absurd, stop trying to side-step the point.

>>52531379
I'm saying you roll behind the screen, and then use the result to determine what you tell the pcs.

But sure. Hypothetically, the players may not believe you, whether you told them the truth or not.

In which case I suppose the disconnect between what the character would 5hink and what the PC thinks would be less than great.

Nothing I perfect, I guess. But I still prefer it to double standard. I would rather no diplomacy mechanics at all.

>>52520799
Special case, use the rules for spells or similar.
But that's a fake cop out. PvP is a big problematic special case independently from the abilities used.

>>52521009
You really are a faggot.
Stop virtiposting.

This thread is being hijacket by people "pretending to be retarded".

>>52532496
>PvP is a big problematic special case independently from the abilities used.

Try reading AW where PvP (not necessarily violent PvP, just characters taking actions against each other) was meant to be par for the course.

You don't know anything about the source material thus you don't understand why we are calling DW shit.

>>52524900
More like, it's not good because I can't do ANYTHING I want. AD&D gives me more freedom than Dungeon World does. For a "rules light" game it sure is restrictive as fuck.

File: 1399345838227.jpg (23KB, 555x368px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 555x368px

>>52500139

>>52512232
>Yet another troupe of gold hungry mercenaries taking on whatever work they can manage for the most cash/gold/political power they can manage, just like hundreds or thousands of other such groups running around in the world?

You're thinking of Torchbearer, not Dungeon World.

>>52534257
Yeah. Rules light doesn't mean freeform. Many, most, and arguably the only good light rulesets of the indinarrativewhateverthefuck scene are ones with tight focus on what you play and why. Its not for being anything you want.

>>52535356
>play this shitty game where you can't be a dwarf rogue
> wait why?
> uhhh because I said so and because it makes the game more focused shitlord, stop being entitled
>how does it make it more focused?
>uh....uh....

>>52539324

>why can't I play this?

>but you can play this

>why can't I play this?

It's like "why can't I dual wield?" all over again.

>>52500094
Its like freeform forum rpg from 2007, please never play it

>>52500094

It's nice. You just take half of it, throw into trash and fill with homerules. I did D&D, L5R, Cthulhu and shitloads of other systems but this one is my favorite. Of course alcohol is mandatory.

>>52539588
Yeah, that's a good point. Why can't I dual-wield? Oh wait I can if I am one of two specific classes. There's nothing interesting to the chargen in this game. It doesn't have particularly interesting combat. It isn't a good narrative game by any means, it offers nothing unique. You cannot give me ONE reason to play Dungeon World over another game, besides "it's fun" which is a non-reason, because other games are just as fun.

The only way Dungeon World looks good is when compared against 3.5 as if they are the only two RPGs in the world. Then I can see someone liking it for having (fewer, at least) autistic rules. Other than that? There is no reason to play the game.

>>52544672

Anyone can dual weild. If you wield two weapons, you get the benefit of both weapon's tags. A sword (close) and dagger (hand), for instance means a dagger-wielder can't get inside your sword's range and start triggering Defy Danger rolls not to get shanked -- instead you can continue to Hack'n'Slash.

Dungeon World's particular niche is low to zero prep pick-up-and-play narrative dungeon crawling. There is no other system that can do this as well, not that I've ever found. If you want a billion character building options and stuff, it won't
handle that (unless maybe you use the Class Warfare splat) but in its niche it's the best there is.

World of Dungeons is a close second, but it lacks... almost everything, because it's more an outline of a system that you have to fill in on your own.

>>52544793
So wielding two swords is pointless? Gotcha.

>Dungeon World's particular niche is low to zero prep pick-up-and-play narrative dungeon crawling.

It's barely a narrative game. Most of the "moves" have gamist results and the move results aren't about influencing a narrative, half of them are HP damage bullshit.

You can run a pick-up D&D game with no prep, there is nothing that Dungeon World does that specifically caters to that, besides telling the DM "don't plan anything" which you can do in another system and has been done for decades. Just not by the 3.5 grognard strawmen you use to justify this shitty game's existence.

>If you want a billion character building options and stuff, it won't handle that (unless maybe you use the Class Warfare splat) but in its niche it's the best there is.

I wrote a game whose niche is being the best RPG about taking a shit, but that doesn't make it a good game by any stretch of the imagination.

>>52544931

>So wielding two swords is pointless? Gotcha.

If there's nothing special about them, yeah. If you really want to do that, use a cross-class move and take the Ranger's dual wielding moves.

As a side note, most of the actual dual wielding done historically was a sword and dagger, specifically because wielding two swords is silly IRL. (The only historical example I can think of involving someone wielding two of the same weapon was that supposedly berserkers wielded two hand axes rather than using a shield like a sane viking. I say supposedly because the sources are sagas, not archaeology, and they're not entirely reliable)

>half of them are HP damage bullshit.

Here it sounds like you haven't read the book. Deal damage is only one option out of dozens, and doesn't trigger automatically outside of a 7-9 result on Hack'n'Slash. Otherwise it's up to the DM to select whatever moves are appropriate.

>You can run a pick-up D&D game with no prep

Have you ever done it? Stat blocks in D&D are too complicated to come up with as you go. I've done it both ways, and DW is way easier to run like that. For D&D you at least need a monster manual open if you're going to go on the fly. DW I don't even need that.


>I wrote a game whose niche is being the best RPG about taking a shit

I'm getting the impression you're not here to talk honestly, just to shitpost.

>>52520242
>He's using the 3.5e minotaurs in the example. They all have outright immunity to that specific spell in that game.

2E minotaurs also.

>>52545218
No one gives a fuck about what was done historically you autistic fuck. Are you going to try to pretend Dungeon World is even close to realistic when the characters start out with shittons of HP?

The moves are either vague as fuck and basically nothings, or they have direct consequences. AW gave all the moves direct consequences and made damage interesting, instead of an HP bloat thing, or relying on the "messy" tag and DM bullshit to give out the consequences.

>>52545218
>I'm getting the impression you're not here to talk honestly, just to shitpost.

I'm making a point. Just because a game fills a niche, does not make it a good game. I'm sorry if my example was too crude for you.

>>52545218
>Have you ever done it?

Yes.

>Stat blocks in D&D are too complicated to come up with as you go.

You don't need to.

> I've done it both ways, and DW is way easier to run like that.

Okay...

>For D&D you at least need a monster manual open if you're going to go on the fly. DW I don't even need that.

So you're just bullshitting the monster stats then? Again, not special or unique to DW, you can do that in D&D. Otherwise, you need the book for the monster stats. Else you're just bullshitting which you can do in D&D as well.

Not to mention, D&D 5e has got a load of NPCs in its monster manual which is really the only time you might need to make your own stat block. You don't need to do this with 5e. You can literally pick it up and play it. And you know what else i can do in 5e? Play a dwarvish ranger.

Not to mention, Pathfinder has a ton of NPCs in its GM's guide. Like, at least 30. I ran an entire campaign without making up a single stat block, and it included powerful NPCs and BBEGs. I *prefer* to make my own NPCs because I enjoy doing so but I certainly don't need to.

Savage Worlds is another game you can bullshit the stat block as you go along. What does Dungeon World provide that Savage Worlds does not?

It's not really relevant, either, but "pick up and play" is usually a red flag for when the GM doesn't want to do shit or create any actual content for the game, so he just bullshits for 4 hours and constantly delays so he can come up with something new.

Okay let's say:

* I bought the book
* I have a group that's slightly bored of D&D
* I'd like to try a story game
* I haven't played/read Apocalypse World

Is Dungeon World fine?

I've read it and it seems okay, although it took a few read-throughs to "get" it. I just don't know if it'll be fun to run at the table.

Also it got a lot of praise on /tg/ when it came out (which is why I bought it), what's with the backlash in the past 2-3 years?

>>52546626
>It's not really relevant, either, but "pick up and play" is usually a red flag for when the GM doesn't want to do shit or create any actual content for the game, so he just bullshits for 4 hours and constantly delays so he can come up with something new.
Fucking this!

It's the same shit as DM's who ask for detailed backstories for everyone at the table just so he has plot important NPC's to throw into his narrative without having to do the legwork on his own.

If you're unable or unwilling to dedicate at least one hour of free time towards planning the major beats for your campaign, don't bother being a DM. It's going to be obvious as fuck that you're playing by the seat of your pants and I'd rather just kick rocks than sit through 4 hours of the DM throwing at a wall in the hopes that something sticks.

>>52500094
Super easy to modify. My friend blended Black Crusade with Dungeon World, and it works a hell of a lot better then the actual Black Crusade: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5YFWXuYbtXbRUFjazItWTF4TVU

>>52546647

4chan is contrary, so when the game was new and unknown, it was great, then when it became successful, it's shit.

>>52546891
DW is actually pretty shit though if you've played AW or games that also sell themselves as being inspired by old-school D&D dungeon crawls.

The one thing I'd say about DW and HP, is that aren't moves supposed to change the situation of the fiction in some way?

So you've defied danger to get up to the Orc Warchief, and then hack and slash to deal 4 damage, leaving him with 6.
What has actually changed in the fiction as a result of the hack and slash roll? If HP are supposed to be plot armour/not meat points, you're still right beside the Orc, the Warchief is still fighting fit, so nothing's different.

I think Dungeon World would have been better served with a condition system, something like Torchbearer or Masks.