Has anyone tweaked the resolution system at all for this game? For example, expanded the range of partial success, raised the threshold of total success, used different dice with different ranges (i.e. 2d8 or 1d12). If so, how did it work for you?

I'm toying around this system for a campaign for my group. Two things that I am focused on are the partial success element and the skill range element. Specifically, I think partial successes are far more interesting and am considering broadening the range. As for skill ranges, this is for a longer term campaign I'm concerned that the players will be all but immune to failure once they get to higher skill levels (i.e. eventually a +5).

Has anyone hacked their system along these lines? I'd appreciate any input. Thanks.

They 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.

Does 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. So, the character with Strength +3 is stronger than the character with Strength -1. When I'm doing a Strength test, it's because the task at hand requires Strength. Nevermind comparing wrestling a dragon to wrestling a puppy. These are both pretty common sense situations. 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.

The multiple check thing is a bad idea, not because of the narrative constraints, but because of the math. For the sake of simple mathematics, let's say we have a character who is average at everything that needs to be tested for the check and has no modifiers from anything else. For a single check, that character has a 58% chance of success. If it's a little complicated and they need a follow up check, then their odds drop to 34%, add a third check and we're down to 20%. If you did this with flat modifiers for each difficulty, your odds would go 58%, 42%, and 28%, respectively. It's less harsh and gives you more play to account for the external environment with which the characters interact.

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". 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. :P

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?"

I ask (and usually answer) that question all the time. But I'm also asking, "What does this roll say about the world in which my character exists?" Every dice roll isn't just a beat in the story. It's also the in-game universe telling you, "I know what you want, but this is what you are going to get, because that's the way the world works."

I roll a 1d20 to determine how many 50 mile hexes (1 day of travel by foot)

o.O

50 miles a day on foot? Do your characters have nuclear-powered cybernetic legs? :D

Games like Fate or those using the "Powered by the Apocalypse" engine tend to place the premium on the story over the crunch.

I get why people would say that, but I don't think that's necessarily how things have to be in a rules-lite system. PbtA has a lot of crunch potential with its Moves mechanic. Hell, you could make a pretty elegant tactical wargame out of it.

Side note, I really, really like the Moves element being at the core of action in DW. That alone cuts through so much of the crap you see in something like d20.

The irony is that the less crunchy games are often easier for players new to RPGs to pick up and harder for "veteran" gamers.

I'm not surprised. Veteran gamers, particularly those who have primarily played rules-heavy games, are more accustomed to having an objective system to negotiate obstacles. Many develop a preference for it over time. New gamers are a clean slate and are easier to mold to other play styles.

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? :D

Are you kidding? He totally should try.

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.

Do you have any idea why an AV would flag that link? I can read it fine on my Linux computer, but Windows does not like that site.

And thanks for clarifying on the less than positive results. I was aware that some moves still helped you at ]7-9 results, but I was under the impression that was  a rare thing.

Why roll at a negative modifier?  Because in Dungeon World at least you get experience for failed rolls.

XP is good, I don't see how it's worth it for a move that you're going to fail more than 50% of the time. I would think that one would get more than enough XP from failure with moves in which one is proficient. Even with a +2, you're still failing 1 in 6. That could be a decent bit of XP over the course of a session, and failing 1 in 6 is going to take a much smaller toll on your resources than failing 2 out of 3. Right?

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 didn't know that about the starting stats, thanks for that info. For some reason, something I read had me thinking it was along the +3 to -3 range. I don't see negative modifiers as a big game over for the system. 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.

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?

I just heard about this game recently and thought I'd check it out. I've been reading what I can about it online, but I think my information is incomplete. There are a couple things I'm wondering.

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.

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?

Thanks.