(whatever)-World: Finally read it, here's my veredict

[Dogbert]

Okay, after some hours reading Dungeon World's SRD (Thanks, mr. Hreist)... I really, really fail to see what is it everyone and their brother sees in this system (both for love and hate).

I see nothing innovative or praise worthy in the system, just your run-of-the-mill slave-to-the-dice OSR comedy of errors (given how you have on average 1/4th chance of actual success at any given task, and how you get XP on failure). By the same token, other than the intense exercise in demagogy that is its overly verbose prose, I see nothing particularly atrocious (all moves have clear descriptions of what happens on a 7-9, and I failed to see anything close to "bear" or "he hits you in the girlfriend and your pet dies for no reason"... so if a GM tried that on me I'd have legal grounds to go Dr. Facekicker on his ass). "Success at a cost" is a pyrrhic victory and so technically a failure, but it's still not such a crime as to call "storygaming."

The bonds idea isn't half bad, but we already had the more evolved concept of metagame currency since 2003. Also, any game that warns me to roll my "replacement character" in advance strikes out with me then and there (but then "old skool" and its red-shirt parades, so nothing I wasn't expecting).

Making a long story short: All I see when I look at *-World is a garden-variety OSR game that for some reason gets all kinds of unwarranted attention. Not particularly good nor particularly bad, and no concepts I'd cannibalize for use in other games. Mediocre at best.

Sorry for the lack of a drunken review, I usually walk on the thin red line between health and gastritis, so I avoid heavy drinking.

[Kaelik]

DungeonWorld is actually a lot more ruley than Apocalypse World, but even still Bears is an express thing that happens.

Specifically for Dungeon World we went over several of the 7-9 things and talked about how stupid they are, like Carousing is either "get information" or "not get mind controlled" on a 7-9. So really, all 7-9s are just failures.

[hogarth]

You don't get it dude. Apocalypse World is the only RPG ever invented where the GM can act like a dick and screw you over. It's a fact.

[Chamomile]

Dungeon World is a horrible hack. Apocalypse World is better.

Also, I'd like to request that people start appending "silva keep out" to these threads. I would like to talk about this game but they always turn into silva threads, and those are not worth my time.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

You don't get it dude. Apocalypse World is the only RPG ever invented where the GM can act like a dick and screw you over. It's a fact.

The idea of "bears" isn't that the GM discks you over, it's that the rules TELL the GM to dick you over. If you don't have a quantum ogre prepared, you damn well better think one up when the dice and moves tell you to.

I've also played several varieties of AW and its hacks, running them often enough. And never had complains that my "bears" were a non-sequitur, or that I was overly harsh (by RAW). So all I'm doing here is parsing the "bears" argument in good faith.

[8d8]

Dogbert, this is pretty much the same impression I got after playing once. It's not utter crap, but it's also not that interesting a system, and the games the system produces seem watered down and overly full of plot devices as opposed to player choices.

I mean, it's not as bad as something like AD&D or Vampire so if a friend were running a game and invited me, I'd play it. But overall I'd give it a pass.

[Username17]

I've also played several varieties of AW and its hacks, running them often enough. And never had complains that my "bears" were a non-sequitur, or that I was overly harsh (by RAW). So all I'm doing here is parsing the "bears" argument in good faith.

How can you be overly harsh by RAW? The literal examples in the actual book include:

• Player rolls to see what's going on. Player rolls high success. Interpretation: Quantum Bear Attack and you automatically fail the entire mission. You "successfully" see that there are now an unbeatably large number of enemies, but because you were so successful you get a +1 bonus on any rolls you subsequently make to escape with your fucking life.
• Player rolls to sneak into an enemy base undetected. Player rolls intermediate success. Interpretation: player character fails to sneak in undetected, but if they choose to murder a child they can sneak into the base without anyone else detecting them at the moment (obviously, when the death of the child is eventually discovered, evidence of them having broken into the base will be rather hard to ignore).

Really. Those are in there. The actual fucking examples in the actual fucking book include both intermediate success and high success being interpreted as colossal failure. So seriously, by RAW, what could you possibly do that would be too dickish as a GM? Literally any roll can make the player fail the mission, by RAW, no matter how "successful" that roll is.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Don't forget, the result of 9 on a check to hide from enemies results in them seeing you.

[unnamednpc]

I have seen threads where fans of the system were discussing some splat with a bunch of new moves. And it was basically as-close-as-you-can-get-to-actual-circle-self-bukkake-without-it-being-literal-circle-self-bukkake about how "I am already thinking of awesome ways to fuck my players overwith this and that teeheehee," with everyone shaking their scrotums in agreement.

Also, I made the mistake of buying Dungeon World sight unseen and I hate it. Reading it feels like being spat on. I'll be damned if the thing wasn't written by someone literally sucking his own dick. With his dick. While sucking it. It's just very, very unpleasant.

[gamerGoyf]

The thing about Dungeon World is that it's not even an RPG, it's just a set of prompts for the GM to mess with you. It's mother may I all the way down and the "move" system is literally the most player disempowering thing ever as the range and arbitrariness of failure states makes a mockery of player agency. Going over the PDF fills me with such mind bending rage that I can't think of anything witty to say, so I'll just post the relevant passages.

Making Moves
Once they players start telling you what they’re doing, tell
them the results of their actions, but be on the lookout
for anything that’s a move. When a player says something
that’s a move, they have to roll the dice. If they didn’t
mean to make a move, they can back down, but they can’t
do the same thing and not make a move.
“Oh, hack and Slash? If he’s fighting back that hard I’m
not doing it” is fine. “Oh, Hack and Slash? No, I’m just
roughing him up a little” is not cool.
Your moves are a little different. The only time you make
a move is when the players fail a roll (2-6), or when they
give you a really great opportunity to. You never tell
the players the move you’re making, just tell them what
happens.

...

Moves
Moves are what you do when the players fail a roll, or
when they hand you an opportunity. Unlike the players,
you don’t roll for your moves, you just say what happens.
But be careful to never tell the players what the move is!
Just describe something that fits the move.
✦✦Take away their stuff
✦✦Split them up
✦✦Introduce a monster or NPC
✦✦Roll on a random table
✦✦Make the monster’s special move or activate a trap
✦✦Put someone in a tight spot
✦✦Inflict harm as per the situation
✦✦Announce future trouble
✦✦Announce trouble off-screen
✦✦Negate their advantage
✦✦Give them a tough choice
✦✦Reveal an ugly truth
✦✦Use up resources (like torches, food, ongoing spells)

[Red_Rob]

8d8, that's the second homophobic post I've seen from you today. That shit is not cool, want to lay it off?

[unnamednpc]

It was written by a guy who literally loves sucking dick. Maybe you're picking up on that. Is it possible to "write gay"?

Well, that's a bunch of provincial small-town crap right there.
For the record, I am all for people sucking as much dick as they like. If you have a craving for the taste and texture of throbbing manpop, by all means, knock yourself out. And the thought of somebody living in the 21st century suggesting a correlation between a person's appetite for his fellow man's junk and the quality of his creative output is baffling to me.

tl, dr: No, I am certain that it is not possible to "write gay." It is, however, possible to write atrociously shitty. And that is something Dungeonworldguywhosenameicantbearsedtolookup excels at.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Best that you not remember his name. He is as easily summoned to any board, no matter how backwater, as Z@k $.

[fectin]

In an effort to forestall thread derail, this:

What are the characteristics PuckerWorld would have if it operated as intended?

[silva]

Dogbert, as chamo said Dungeon World is the most uninspiring and flavorless hackt. Or at least this how I see it. Perhaps this explain your uneventful view of the matter ? I would recommend reading the original Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts, which is considered by many the best implementation of the rules. I think these would radicalize your opinion more (for good or for bad).

[TiaC]

And the thought of somebody living in the 21st century suggesting a correlation between a person's appetite for his fellow man's junk and the quality of his creative output is baffling to me.

If you were going to stereotype, doesn't it usually run the other direction anyway? With gay men being more creative?

[Josh_Kablack]

Okay, after some hours reading Dungeon World's SRD (Thanks, mr. Hreist)... I really, really fail to see what is it everyone and their brother sees in this system (both for love and hate).

Mainly that we have a couple posters who are incapable of talking about any other system.

Those guys go way way beyond the typical system allegiance (such as the 3E edition warriors, Frank's inexplicable fascination with SR4 or my own irrational belief that everything is best done in either Feng Shui or Champions.) and are well over the line into purely disruptive. A number of other posters have responded to this by nitpicking every single flaw in the system repeatedly to try to get the Worlders to expand their horizons, but to no avail.

This results in the ___ World game getting a lot of discussion here, but not much of actual interest, and I've been tuning out such threads (as well as ignoring some of the people who were loudest in them) for a while:

tl;dr:

[silva]

...or my own irrational belief that everything is best done in either Feng Shui or Champions

Well, thats not that irrational. Both games are good at what they setup to do. IMHO, of course.

[Koumei]

Beer World looks like a good game to LARP.

(Until you realise it's Bear World)

[Cyberzombie]

How can you be overly harsh by RAW? The literal examples in the actual book include:

• Player rolls to see what's going on. Player rolls high success. Interpretation: Quantum Bear Attack and you automatically fail the entire mission. You "successfully" see that there are now an unbeatably large number of enemies, but because you were so successful you get a +1 bonus on any rolls you subsequently make to escape with your fucking life.

Was there any indication that those enemies weren't there before and only got created by the success?

If the enemies were already there, then spotting them successfully is pretty reasonable for a spot check.

[silva]

Dogbert, as chamo said Dungeon World is the most uninspiring and flavorless hackt. Or at least this how I see it. Perhaps this explain your uneventful view of the matter ? I would recommend reading the original Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts, which is considered by many the best implementation of the rules. I think these would radicalize your opinion more (for good or for bad).

[Username17]

How can you be overly harsh by RAW? The literal examples in the actual book include:

• Player rolls to see what's going on. Player rolls high success. Interpretation: Quantum Bear Attack and you automatically fail the entire mission. You "successfully" see that there are now an unbeatably large number of enemies, but because you were so successful you get a +1 bonus on any rolls you subsequently make to escape with your fucking life.

Was there any indication that those enemies weren't there before and only got created by the success?

If the enemies were already there, then spotting them successfully is pretty reasonable for a spot check.

In Apocalypse World, there is no concept of "already there." Things are quantum until introduced. There is no map, there is no enemy list. There's just moves and exposition. That's the whole game. So at the moment the MC announces that you're surrounded by an army and automatically fail the mission, that is by definition the first those enemies were written into the story. Planning things in advance is one of the few things the MC could do that actually is against the rules.

It really is "that bad." The actual example in the actual book is that the player rolls a high success on a perception test, and then the MC is allowed to introduce something to the story in response to that, and the MC choose to introduce "Mission Failed." There aren't a whole lot of examples in the book, and a really shockingly high number of them are so amazingly dickish that they would make me pick up my dice and fucking leave the table.

-Username17

[schpeelah]

Was there any indication that those enemies weren't there before and only got created by the success?

If the enemies were already there, then spotting them successfully is pretty reasonable for a spot check.

Short reiteration of the whole debate we already had on that:

The MC is not supposed to plan scenes or situations ahead of time - if the players are unexpectedly attacked, the *World general rules are that the enemies did not exist in any concrete fashion 5 minutes ago. The MC can prepare 'fronts', meaning working out that an enemy faction the Water Temple has has such-and such goals, motivation, armed forces (Water Temple Guards in that case) etc. But the specific fact 'the Water Temple Guards are closing in on your location which they know because they are fucking psychic' (the specific example in question) is supposed to be total improv on the part of the MC which expressly did not happen in the version where the players had failed the check - then they just accidentally divulged some information to the guy they were interrogating. That was an example of the possible consequences of interrogation checks and the player's reactions int them support the attack being caused by the check.


In other news, silva just managed to double post with a 12 hour gap between posts, as well as multiple posts from others and even one from silva. I believe this is some kind of record.

[John Magnum]

There's a very specific amount of planning you're supposed to do in advance. You're supposed to write down Fronts and factions and shit, so that there is some kind of notional structure and content to your game, and to ward off any accusations that the enemies you introduce on a successful spot check are coming anywhere but your own asshole. But if you write down too much stuff in advance, that's ~~railroading~~ and is very evil.

[silva]

Was there any indication that those enemies weren't there before and only got created by the success?

If the enemies were already there, then spotting them successfully is pretty reasonable for a spot check.

Yup, a cult was already established in the previous session, as per the example cited (notice though, it wasnt specified exactly how large the cult was, nor exactly how well equipped were they - these were voids filled by the GM). Then, when the players hit the "Read the Sitch" (analyse the situation) check, the MC is forced to respond showing the strongest guards over there (a couple psychic cultists). Its all on page 133 of the book, on the MC diagram.

Two important principles in Apocalypse World are: 1) the GM must respect the fiction internal logic and causality the best as he can, and 2) the motto "Dont Prep Plots!" - all important factions/NPCs the group interact with must be created beforehand in the "First Session" in a kind of directed brainstorming where the GM makes questions to the players ("Hey Jeff, where do you take all your ammo from ?") and notes on the answers ("hmmm... from the slavers stronghold in the north!") in this specific form here:

So, the GM could note "Slavers to the north" in that form and keep developing it with more questions like "Jeff, whos their leader ?", "Do they look rich or poor ?", "Savage or civilized?", etc. And then, when the group tries to invade their fort, the GM uses that info to present the opposition, be it with info exactly given by the players ("the front gate looks techknowlogical or somethin - electronic locks, cameras, even weird some red beams crossing it") or through improvising/creating upon players details ("there are a couple guards patrolling the perimeter, one carries a clean and pretty gun - prettier than anything you have on you - and the other has a weird head full of tattoos - that sure look like a brainer, dude").