Dungeon World - Any opinions?

[Ice9]

As I understand the rules, at the moment the MC gives an answer, it becomes the truth. At the moment the MC answers "the best way of escaping is taking an hostage", it becomes the best way of escaping. Any idea the PCs may have is automatically worse, because the rules say so.

At that point, what is the point of playing ? The only input from the players is asking what they should do, and doing what the MC suggest.

Again, like with the guards showing up, it depends on how the GM arrived at that conclusion. For a situation like this, there are really three options:
1) Any plan the players come up with will work.
2) The GM determines enough of the situation parameters in advance that a plan can be evaluated against those to see if it works.
3) The GM decides (either in advance or on the spot) a set of plans, and then those are the plans that work.

I prefer #2, obviously. But all we can say from the AW example is that it isn't #1. Maybe the GM ass-pulled that plan and is now declaring it good, or maybe they gave that as advice based on evaluating the situation they'd already constructed, and it would have been the best plan regardless of whether that roll was made.

That said, I don't think I'd recommend *W for a game with careful planning and mental chess. The times it's been successful IME, it was more the "things getting fucked up in entertaining ways" type of theme.

[Longes]

Among the miriad ways in which Dungeon World is bad, I'd like to point out this one

Spout Lore
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int.

✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation.
✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.

You spout lore any time you want to search your memory for knowledge or facts about something. You take a moment to ponder the things you know about the Orcish Tribes or the Tower of Ul’dammar and then reveal that knowledge.

The knowledge you get is like consulting a bestiary, travel guide, or library. You get facts about the subject matter. On a 10+ the GM will show you how those facts can be immediately useful, on a 7–9 they’re just facts.

On a miss the GM’s move will often involve the time you take thinking. Maybe you miss that goblin moving around behind you, or the tripwire across the hallway. It’s also a great chance to reveal an unwelcome truth.

Just in case it isn’t clear: the answers are always true, even if the GM had to make them up on the spot. Always say what honesty demands.

Fenfaril: The floor was illusory? Damn those gnomes. Damn them straight to wherever gnomes go when they’re dead.

GM: Heh, yep. You’re in a murky pit, and there’s a shadowy humanoid shape, mottled and eyeless, moving towards you, mumbling.

Fenfaril: Mumbling shape, huh? What is that thing? Is it going to attack me? I’m sure I’ve read about them somewhere before, maybe at school?

GM: Could be. Spout lore!

Fenfaril: Bestow your knowledge upon me, brain. I rolled an 8.

GM: Well, of course you know of these things—the name escapes you but you definitely remember a drawing of a creature like this. It was in a hallway, standing guard over something. You know there’s a trick to get it to let you pass but you can’t quite remember. Why not?

Fenfaril: Obviously I was hungover that day. I was a terrible student. A trick, you say? Hmm

Vitus: I got a 10 on my spout lore about this gilded skull.

GM: You’re pretty sure you recognize the metalwork of Dis, the living city.

Vitus: and? I did get a 10!

GM: Right, of course. Well, you recognize a few glyphs specifically. They’re efreeti, marks of a fire spell, but they’re different, a kind of transmutation magic. I bet if you cast a spell into the skull, it’ll turn it into a fire spell.

Vitus: Magic missiles of fire—hurrah!

Look at the example number one. Notice how 7-9 is a complete failure.

Or lets consider this Paladin ability:

I Am the Law
When you give an NPC an order based on your divine authority, roll+Cha.

✴ On a 7+, they choose one:
Do what you say
Back away cautiously, then flee
Attack you

✴On a 10+, you also take +1 forward against them.

✴ On a miss, they do as they please and you take -1 forward against them.

Notice how "success at a cost" could mean that the NPC flips out and attacks you.

[Kaelik]

Notice how "success at a cost" could mean that the NPC flips out and attacks you.

Also, apparently "Success without a cost" is that you get a bonus to (attacking rolls?) against them when they flip out and attack you and/or run away from you.

[nockermensch]

Or lets consider this Paladin ability:

I Am the Law
When you give an NPC an order based on your divine authority, roll+Cha.

✴ On a 7+, they choose one:
Do what you say
Back away cautiously, then flee
Attack you

✴On a 10+, you also take +1 forward against them.

✴ On a miss, they do as they please and you take -1 forward against them.

Notice how "success at a cost" could mean that the NPC flips out and attacks you.

So, what this ability actually does is to give a +1 in some kind of check some times, and a -1 in [more] times.

[Orca]

Not quite thad bad Nockermensch. If you're going to use this ability you'd have at least +2 cha, likely +3. That skews the probabilities in favor of the +1 forward.

It is kind of useless at actually getting people to do what you tell them though.

[Occluded Sun]

I don't disagree with the idea that the subject can choose various ways to respond to the power. But the options they presented are... well, dumb. In a hostile confrontation, those are pretty much the options available to respond to ANY command.

[Mask_De_H]

That said, I don't think I'd recommend *W for a game with careful planning and mental chess. The times it's been successful IME, it was more the "things getting fucked up in entertaining ways" type of theme.

"Things getting fucked up in entertaining ways" is not only something you can do in any system (or the lack of a system), it is only (sort of) the stated goal in AW, and antithetical to several other PbtA hacks.

It's cool you had fun with the PbtA games; I have too. That does not invalidate the points being made, nor does it absolve the game's mechanics. What the point is continues to be this play experience has nothing to do with PbtA games mechanically (at best) or is working in spite of the rules (at worst). It is of a similar strain of bullshit to the OSR (DW is basically OSR: the Storygame) and is castigated for the exact same reasons.

There is no reason to play a PbtA game over Fiasco or Fate or Lasers and Feelings or really anything outside of the Playbook structure and maybe the Threats/Fronts system.

[Voss]

What? What?
Now, my opinion of shitWorld is that they're terrible and that you'd have to argue pretty hard to even convince me that they're games at all, but... what the serious fuck?

Making a lore check and only mostly succeeding result in the DM forcing you to justify your background? And failing lore can put you in a physical trap as an actual example? (the tripwire across the hallway) What the actual fuck?

I've had better experiences with freeform interactive storytelling (entirely MTP) on bus trips as a kid. This is just fucking awful.

[phlapjackage]

I'm actually sort of onboard with the "justify your background" bit. I think it encourages a little more creativity and "role-playing" on the players part...

...but this lore example is, to me, yet another example of DW being wrong turtles all the way down. Things like lore/knowledge rolls seem like prime candidates for the MC to roll for the player (or let the player roll with an unknown difficulty set by the MC). This would help stop any meta-gaming about whether the roll succeeded or not, which I think is important for this kind of roll.

[Longes]

I'm actually sort of onboard with the "justify your background" bit. I think it encourages a little more creativity and "role-playing" on the players part...

...but this lore example is, to me, yet another example of DW being wrong turtles all the way down. Things like lore/knowledge rolls seem like prime candidates for the MC to roll for the player (or let the player roll with an unknown difficulty set by the MC). This would help stop any meta-gaming about whether the roll succeeded or not, which I think is important for this kind of roll.

FATE is a game where Lore checks are handled well, because you can make a Lore check to create an advantage and say that the creature is weak to fire/loves riddles/has bad eyesight. You, the player, can do this.

[Voss]

I'm actually sort of onboard with the "justify your background" bit. I think it encourages a little more creativity and "role-playing" on the players part...

...but this lore example is, to me, yet another example of DW being wrong turtles all the way down. Things like lore/knowledge rolls seem like prime candidates for the MC to roll for the player (or let the player roll with an unknown difficulty set by the MC). This would help stop any meta-gaming about whether the roll succeeded or not, which I think is important for this kind of roll.

FATE is a game where Lore checks are handled well, because you can make a Lore check to create an advantage and say that the creature is weak to fire/loves riddles/has bad eyesight. You, the player, can do this.

That also sounds terrible, from the stance that it means every monster is inexplicably vulnerable to <thing loremaster character can do>


@phalpjackage- eh. It depends what you consider role playing. Shitworld seems to think off the cuff bullshit with no consistency or lasting effect is roleplaying. I tend to think of it as someone with a little more depth, that does fall apart if the players or DM can't rattle something off on the spot and it matters if it comes up later.

[Ice9]

So IIRC, in the original AW, each move had its own things that happened on a fail, rather than the ubiquitous "GM makes a hard move" result that's been used since then. And the failure result for "Read a Situation" was just that you didn't notice anything.

Personally, I liked that better - the asymmetry between moves is what gives it mechanical texture, and as a bonus it avoids some of the stupider results.

I think that the lack of such asymmetry might be why I can't get into Fate. On a theoretical level, I think it's a better system, but when I've played it it's fallen flat. Partly because it is so transparent about the fact that the fiction is completely fungible, and the mechanics under that fiction are very simple.

[SlyJohnny]

BREAKING NEWS: Den disdainful of/confused by low-mechanics game that prioritizes collaborative storytelling informed by mechanics rather than mechanics with extensive level progression. FILM AT 11

[Leress]

BREAKING NEWS: Den disdainful of/confused by low-mechanics game that prioritizes collaborative storytelling informed by mechanics rather than mechanics with extensive level progression. FILM AT 11

Translation: The Den hates shitty rules.

[Omegonthesane]

BREAKING NEWS: Den disdainful of/confused by low-mechanics game that prioritizes collaborative storytelling informed by mechanics rather than mechanics with extensive level progression. FILM AT 11

Translation: The Den hates shitty rules.

This. Collaborative storytelling is not something you have to pay for nor something that frankly requires any particular skill if you're only trying to entertain yourself and your mates instead of getting published.

[erik]

SlyJohnny. You are one disingenuous mother fucker.

[Kaelik]

SlyJohnny. You are one disingenuous mother fucker.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the politics thread, or you'd have known that much sooner.

[Mask_De_H]

So IIRC, in the original AW, each move had its own things that happened on a fail, rather than the ubiquitous "GM makes a hard move" result that's been used since then. And the failure result for "Read a Situation" was just that you didn't notice anything.

Not quite: making a hard GM move is always permissible on a miss, as long as it follows the fiction. Move-specific stuff happening on a failure is only on Playbook moves, and even then not completely. The basics (which Spout Lore is with DW) only have specific triggers on 10+ and 7-9.

[Dogbert]

BREAKING NEWS: Den disdainful of/confused by low-mechanics game that prioritizes collaborative storytelling informed by mechanics rather than mechanics with extensive level progression. FILM AT 11

BREAKING NEWS: Apologist disdainful of/confused by the fact that MTP is FREE and without an actual clue of what collaborative storytelling actually means climbs on imaginary moral high horse to condemn those who see no point in paying money for MTP. Connections with Nestle's CEO under investigation.

[Username17]

So IIRC, in the original AW, each move had its own things that happened on a fail, rather than the ubiquitous "GM makes a hard move" result that's been used since then. And the failure result for "Read a Situation" was just that you didn't notice anything.

How come literally every single thing you say about Apocalypse World is stupid and wrong? I mean, for fuck's sake, momo posted a screenshot of the Read A Sitch page from Apocalypse World on this fucking thread. It's on the first page, you can go look at it. A character misses a Read A Sitch roll and the MC makes a move as hard as he likes. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked.

Every time you talk about things you like about the Apocalypse World Rules, and I do mean every single fucking time, you praise things that are not in the rules and condemn things that are. You haven't mentioned one solitary actual part of the actual game that was actually printed that you actually like ever. Which is fucking impressive, because you've stepped up to defend this piece of dogshit in like five threads.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

What the fuck is a narrative game?
If you're used to playing D&D, you are probably used to having the actions available to you enumerated on your character sheet and for those actions to have defined mechanical effects. This obviously isn't always true; nobody writes "thumbs" on their character sheet, nor is the complete list of actions you can perform with thumbs listed in any manual. But consider things like spells, or even basic attacks with a sword; move action into range, standard action swing, roll dice, if hit roll damage, reduce target hitpoints, that's it. It's very formal and mechanical; specific inputs map to specific outputs.

A narrative game is a game that does not do that mapping. Specific inputs (such as the action you take and the result of your roll) do not map to specific outputs; whereas in D&D the narration is fluff layered on top of a rigorous mechanical output, in narrative games the narration itself is the output and as such the outputs are always being generated on the fly.

And *World is a narrative game?
Yes, *World is a narrative game by this definition. It does not map specific inputs to specific outputs. You tell the DM your action, he looks at your roll, and he generates an output on the fly.

So, the Den just hates narrative games?
What the fuck? No, the criticisms of *World are not broad criticisms of narrative games in general. They are specific criticisms of *World. There are other narrative games out there, you know. I doubt there is anything even remotely approaching a monolithic consensus on the genre as a whole. I personally don't care much for them. The whole point of a narrative game is that the participants are introducing narrative elements as-is (until modified later) and as a result the author's voice shines through pretty hard - and to be blunt, very, very few of you are anywhere near as interesting as authors as you think you are, and even less of you are disciplined enough to pull off an impromptu 4-6 man collaborative project. Narrative games just don't produce interesting stories I'd want to tell people after the fact; the results aren't emergent, they're scripted, and that's just less satisfying than that time everything went wrong (or gloriously right) in a way no one - not even the DM - predicted.

Well, what does the Den hate about *World then?
In *World, all outputs are generated by the DM. All outputs are generated by the DM. If you fail, the DM gets to narrate the consequences of your failure. If you succeed, the DM gets to narrate the consequences of your success. Playing *World is like being an audience member at an improv comedy show. You shout your prompt and you're done. There are narrative games out there with actual balls that give partial or even complete control of the narrative to the player on a success. Those are games in which players get to be real participants instead of audience members, and that's infinitely better than *World's "DM is god" approach.

*World is a bad narrative game because the players don't get any narrative control. That's it. That's the whole complaint. The rules arguments people are having are about how Ice9 (and probably some others) are idiots who refuse to admit that the rules give the DM arbitrary authority and tell him to make shit up and encourage railroading, but the point of that rules argument is to substantiate that *World is a "collaborative" narrative game that isn't actually collaborative because the DM is the only one with any narrative authority - which is pretty bullshit for the other 3-5 people at the table.

[spongeknight]

DSMatticus, I am just going to quote this post the next time any Ass World shill comes by, because it is brilliant.