I heard this was released under the OGL. Is there a pdf or hypertext srd available? I checked out the beginners guide link on the top of the forum and requested access to whatever that is, though I think I need to wait a bit for a response.[I think it's creative commons. I think the SRD can be found here. http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/
Based on what I've read. You basically roll 2d6 for an action and anything 10+ is a success, whereas 7-9 is a success, but it's going to cost you something (probably serious). So, basically, characters have only about an 8% chance to just succeed at anything without costs and a 41% chance of something really bad happening? It seems kind of harsh. Is there something I'm not understanding?You're way oversimplifying. First, there are a list of moves and they often specify what happens on a 7-9, like so:
| Discern Realities When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis. ?On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below. ?On a 7–9, ask 1. Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers. • What happened here recently? • What is about to happen? • What should I be on the lookout for? • What here is useful or valuable to me? • Who’s really in control here? • What here is not what it appears to be? |
Why roll at a negative modifier? Because in Dungeon World at least you get experience for failed rolls.
It's worth noting that the six stat modifiers for a starting character will be +2, +1, +1, +0, +0, -1. The player will normally want to arrange to play to his strengths (e.g. INT +2 for a Wizard, who uses it on his Cast A Spell roll), but sometimes circumstances will require them to make a move with one of their worse stats.
I'm picturing a Wizard with Strength -2 trying to push a troll or whatever off a cliff. Naturally, the odds should be against the Wizard in that situation. But all the same, there's a lot of action happening in the +/-1 to 2 range considering the distribution of 2d6.A wizard with a -1 STR shouldn't try push a troll off a cliff. He should trick him with his +2 intelligence.
Side note, is there any way to account for task difficulty? For example, scaling a dangerous cliff vs. scaling a dangerous cliff in the middle of a blizzard without proper equipment. Do you just throw a modifier into the mix?Using a modifier would be creating your own custom move. It can be done, but it's pretty boring and most people don't bother with that. Instead, GMs modify the number of times they trigger moves and the effects those moves have on the fiction when they want a task to be more difficult.
I'm picturing a Wizard with Strength -2 trying to push a troll or whatever off a cliff. Naturally, the odds should be against the Wizard in that situation. But all the same, there's a lot of action happening in the +/-1 to 2 range considering the distribution of 2d6.A wizard with a -1 STR shouldn't try push a troll off a cliff.
Games like Fate or those using the "Powered by the Apocalypse" engine tend to place the premium on the story over the crunch.
The irony is that the less crunchy games are often easier for players new to RPGs to pick up and harder for "veteran" gamers.
Are you kidding? He totally should try.
As for me, I will always want some crunch in my game. It's not that I think story is irrelevant, but I also want the "chess game" with it. Really, I want everything. That's not too much to ask, is it? :DNo....but...there really isn't lot of crunch in DW.
lmao...ok, so one of the gameplay podcasts I watched had a weak Wizard try to push a companion down a shaft to "scout ahead". He got a marginal success, and so the companion got a defy danger check, in which he got a marginal success. The result was the klutzy Wizard fell down the pit and the companion slid down a bit, too, but manage to grab something part way down to keep from hitting the bottom.
Yeah, I'd have had both of them at the bottom of the shaft too. It's just funnier that way.
Side note, is there any way to account for task difficulty? For example, scaling a dangerous cliff vs. scaling a dangerous cliff in the middle of a blizzard without proper equipment. Do you just throw a modifier into the mix?
but there's no task difficulty modifier in the RAW
Maybe the GM says "there's no way you can climb this cliff face without any equipment" and someone else has to Spout Lore to think of a way to improvise some gear or Discern Realities to find an easier way up.
What's RAW?Gamer shorthand for "rules as written."
Does this help?
But in the abstract, the question you should always be asking yourself when structuring these situations is "what is this roll accomplishing in the story?"
Sure. The important bit is to focus not on the wrestling itself, but rather on the context in which it takes place. Wrestling a goblin to the ground might be relatively easy. Or not, because the goblin might have the slippery little bastard custom move, which means that attempts to hit him use roll+DEX instead of roll+STR. And the troll might have crazy-long rubbery arms, meaning that the character needs to defy danger to get close enough to inflict damage.QuoteDoes this help?
Somewhat, but feel free to take a crack at the wrestling hypothetical I posted above. :)
I get the whole what's-it-matter-to-the-story thing, but there's a bit of an inconsistency here that I'm having trouble negotiating. On one hand, I've read plenty about how this isn't a sim system. But on the other hand, it actually is. The aspects you're testing aren't your character's propensity for trouble, bad luck, drama magnetism, etc. It's Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, etc. The character breaks down into some pretty sim elements.Yeah, that's actually why I like Apocalypse World better. Cool, Hard, Hot, Sharp, and Weird are much more anchored in the drama and less in the simulation.
But, if I'm wrestling a GM char that's a little stronger than myself vs. one that is a little weaker, according to the RAW(:D), I have the same odds against both. It's a GM char, so there's no opposed check. My roll doesn't get a modifier. You might have this multifaceted narrative potential in front of you, but the player only has a single port of entry, their own simulated and static measure of general competence.And this is where custom moves come in. Wrestling a puppy is almost certainly going to be easier than wrestling a dragon because the puppy isn't fucking terrifying, forcing you to defy danger with roll+WIS if you want to do anything other than soil your armor or run the hell away.
I think the idea of the narratively-driven follow up checks is clever, especially if you have to tap into different moves to pull off a combo. But the math really bites you in the ass. There's actually a pretty easy fix for this. Add in a "combo bonus".And that is exactly why acting on information gleaned from discern reality lets you take +1 forward into your next roll.
All these skills working in synergy give you +1 to your follow up checks until the larger task is done. So average (+0) for the first check, and +1 for checks 2, 3, and so on. There your odds go 58%, 42%, and 30%. You're actually getting pretty close to the mechanical effect of the flat modifier, but you're using the multi-check narrative approach. The only odd thing about it is that your narrative approach takes three times the dice rolling as just giving someone the -2 to the first roll. And, you're still modifying rolls. So, really, I haven't accomplished anything here. :PWhich is exactly why you should be asking yourself what this roll means. Is it there to heighten the drama? Is it there to punish the players for attempting something stupid or crazy? Or is it there to offer an opportunity with some associated cost? And most importantly, do the consequences of either success or failure substantially alter the course of the story? Completing a difficult or costly task gives a sense of accomplishment, which is fuel for the furnace of character development, which in turn is why many of us play these games in the first place. It's all about giving the players an enjoyable and memorable experience.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need to go full sim here (god forbid). And, sure, the subjective categories for success/failure gives you some wiggle room, but I'm not sure it covers the full scope of potential environmental variables.It's really not trying to do that.
Yeah, that's actually why I like Apocalypse World better. Cool, Hard, Hot, Sharp, and Weird are much more anchored in the drama and less in the simulation.
Wrestling a goblin to the ground might be relatively easy.
The world works a certain way, by following the fiction and the GM principles
The classic six stats are being used because they're iconic. It's a nod to classic D&D, rather than an attempt to measure with any rigor.QuoteYeah, that's actually why I like Apocalypse World better. Cool, Hard, Hot, Sharp, and Weird are much more anchored in the drama and less in the simulation.
That makes more sense. The system should measure what it's supposed to measure.
The latter and former are two very different and usually unrelated elements. In terms of the fiction, it doesn't even matter how the world works, the fiction is going to happen regardless. However, by using in-game abilities to check for metagame elements, you can easily end up with a stream of fiction that can only be held together with non-sequitur.Have you read the game yet? From your OP it sounded like you had just heard about it. When Munin says you follow the GM Principles, do you know what he means?
This is what I'm starting to think.
Exactly, and that is why in my previous post I said:QuoteWrestling a goblin to the ground might be relatively easy.But it might not, and that's what I'm trying to get at.
So, say you have a surgery skill/check, and an appendectomy is your middle ground.No. No, no, no. That's not how it works.
You can run multiple checks for brain surgery, but what if you're just stitching up a bad knife wound?Exactly. Quit trying to simulate the difficulty of things directly. If something is easy (i.e. stitching up a minor knife wound), don't even bother to roll, because whether the knife wound gets stitched or not probably doesn't matter to the overall story. Roll for things that are consequential, and contextualize the results of that roll based on the fictional position of the characters in question.
Of course, this example is invalid because the system is supposed to be used not for the task at hand (despite that being what it's measuring), but for the narration of the task at hand.
The point is that in the PbtA engine, they are not different and unrelated elements. They are the same element. If the fiction dictates that a task is very difficult or dangerous, then the consequences for failure (or even for success) are more dire than for a task that is easy. If the fiction dictates that dragons have iron-hard scales a foot thick, then no amount of success on a simple Hack & Slash is going to produce damage. That is "how the world works." The GM then uses the principles to convey this to the players clearly and truthfully (say by revealing and unwlecome truth: "As the dragon rises into the sky, you watch in horror as it shakes off the arrows and quarrels from the militiamen like water from a duck's back. Even the ballista atop the tower is unable to pierce its metallic scales...").QuoteThe world works a certain way, by following the fiction and the GM principlesThe latter and former are two very different and usually unrelated elements. In terms of the fiction, it doesn't even matter how the world works, the fiction is going to happen regardless. However, by using in-game abilities to check for metagame elements, you can easily end up with a stream of fiction that can only be held together with non-sequitur.
They serve to guide the story, not model the physics of the gameworld.
You wrestle the Orc. We really don't need to figure out how difficult the orc is to wrestle. If you make your roll, it wasn't too difficult. If you blow the roll, the GM makes a move from the list of moves.
Almost but not quite exactly right!QuoteThey serve to guide the story, not model the physics of the gameworld.
So, the system, whose elements are modeled on the physics of the game world (Strength, Hit Points, Load), aren't actually used to model the physics of the game world.
Here's a Paladin move. What physics is it simulating?QuoteThey serve to guide the story, not model the physics of the gameworld.
So, the system, whose elements are modeled on the physics of the game world (Strength, Hit Points, Load), aren't actually used to model the physics of the game world.
Here's a custom threat move. People new to the game occasionally ask me for this one. It's general, it modifies nearly every other move:
Things are tough. Whenever a player's character makes a move, the MC judges it normal, difficult, or crazy difficult. If it's difficult, the player takes -1 to the roll. If it's crazy difficult, the player takes -2 to the roll.
Several groups in play test wanted this move or one like it. All of them abandoned it after only one session. It didn't add anything fun to the game, but did add a little hassle to every single move. So it's a legal custom move, of course, and you can try it if you like, but I wouldn't expect you to stick with it.
I resisted AW for several years
In some sense Strength isn't actually how strong you are, it's how good you are at doing heroic things in which being strong might play a factor.
Here's a Paladin move. What physics is it simulating?
Several groups in play test wanted this move or one like it. All of them abandoned it after only one session. It didn't add anything fun to the game, but did add a little hassle to every single move.
OK, so you understand what people are talking about when they are referring to GM moves, GM principles, etc. That's good, because that's pretty much the core of how the system works.QuoteI encourage you to read through the sections of DW about...I've read the entire hyptertext SRD, twice.
Yeah. I have a friend who is serious into hippie indie games. He's all the time buying random weird crap and wanting to get us to play it. He first suggested Apocalypse World right after it was released (late 2010, I think). But so many of the games he'd recommended had left people cold (e.g. Diaspora, which is somewhat based on FATE and has some kinda cool elements but is mostly clunky) that it wasn't until late 2012 that he managed to talk us into trying it (with one-shots of first Dungeon World, and later its parent Apocalypse World). And even then it wasn't until we got into a deep discussion about a player's agency (or lack thereof) over character actions that I became more intrigued with how AW cleverly handles this situation (c.f. seduce or manipulate in the AW rules). Once I was able to grok what the system was trying to accomplish, I understood why it is structured the way it is. And it is impressively elegant.QuoteI resisted AW for several yearsSeveral years?
What I'm saying is that all other variables being equal, puppy wrestling and troll wrestling have the same average results. So, the story is that puppies kick your ass as often as trolls. You can mitigate this somewhat with subjective success levels and throwing around custom moves. But even then, the story is, puppies kick your ass as often as trolls, unless we throw some excuses into the mix.Of course puppies kick your ass at wrestling - I mean, you get them pinned and think you have them defeated and broken, but then they start yipping and licking you and looking at you with those big puppy-dog eyes, and the next thing you know your wrestling match has turned into a big smooshy cuddle. And you want to get away, but you can't because they're just so darn cute. You're pinned! ;)
I'm not sure how much I can buy into the whole "homage to D&D" thing. There's a saying in fictional writing that goes, "learn to slay your darlings" that also applies to game design.Amen, brother. I think the goal was to appeal to players coming from AD&D by giving them something that felt familiar, but when you get right down to it it's not the same and the use of that legacy terminology is in some cases unhelpful and misleading.
Whether the NPC is really supporting you or just there for the paycheck the results are the same on average....unless you cover it up with custom moves.Custom moves aren't a cover-up. They are fundamental to how the game operates. They are what distinguishes fighting an Orc from fighting a Displacer Beast. In that sense, they are no different from different Armor Classes, hit dice, attack types, damage dice or any other stat you care to pull out of the Monster Manual. They just tend to be more abstract and compact.
Funny you should say that, because there are some indie games that are essentially that. But that is another matter entirely.QuoteSeveral groups in play test wanted this move or one like it. All of them abandoned it after only one session. It didn't add anything fun to the game, but did add a little hassle to every single move.Let me guess. It got in the way of the fiction. The "game" of a roleplaying game got in the way of people wanting to generate stories. I don't understand. Why play an RPG then? If one wants to engage in collaborative fiction, why not just get everyone together and write a fantasy adventure book. Then it would really be all about the story.
I appreciate all the elucidation, and I think DW has some cool elements, but I don't think this is the game for my group. Thanks again.No worries. Games are about having fun, so if your group is having fun doing what you're doing, you should keep doing it! This has been an interesting discussion, and might help someone else who has similar questions down the road. Thanks for being inquisitive.
What I'm saying is that all other variables being equal, puppy wrestling and troll wrestling have the same average results. So, the story is that puppies kick your ass as often as trolls. You can mitigate this somewhat with subjective success levels and throwing around custom moves. But even then, the story is, puppies kick your ass as often as trolls, unless we throw some excuses into the mix.
But even then, the story is, puppies kick your ass as often as trolls, unless we throw some excuses into the mix.Nope. Puppies can't kick your ass. But it is true that if the GM calls for a Defy Danger roll they have the same chance of having an opportunity to make a GM move whether you are wrestling puppies or trolls.
Exactly. Consequence of failing to Defy Danger when wrestling puppies? Errant puppy-tongue up your nose. Eeew. Consequence of failure when wrestling trolls? You weren't actually using that arm for anything, were you?But even then, the story is, puppies kick your ass as often as trolls, unless we throw some excuses into the mix.Nope. Puppies can't kick your ass. But it is true that if the GM calls for a Defy Danger roll they have the same chance of having an opportunity to make a GM move whether you are wrestling puppies or trolls.
This is a mindset adjustment, but it really does work great in play. And I'm convinced that, at least for me, it makes for a more satisfying game, where the fiction feels believable and I don't have to constantly be worrying about modifiers. Personally, I trust my ability to intuitively reflect the difficulty through the fiction more than I trust my ability to consistently set modifiers right.Yes. But the funny thing is that if we assume the GM does none of this, never tries to reflect difficulty in any way, and instead just focuses on the GM Agendas, portray a fantastic world, fill the characters' lives with adventure and play to find out what happens, the game will do this for you. You come up to wrestle the goblin and roll a...6! Difficulty!!! The GM reaches into his bag a tricks and pulls out something interesting and adventurous and you're off to the races (take an XP). You come up to the Ogre and roll a 10! A stunning blow! You fell the terrible ogre with an epic swing of your mighty axe. The GM sells your epicness and then you move on to the next adventurous thing...