Dungeon World is...

I dunno, I think one good thing about DW is its broad range and all the ways you could take it during that first session.  You could totally take DW to grimmer, more serious, places if you were so inclined.  The game is pretty robust.

I think I read the damage numbers and from them assume that the game is supposed to be lethal and gritty. It seems like other people assume it's a wahoo game and from that conclude that you're almost never supposed to actually do the damage that the numbers call for since they're so lethal. I'd really like to know if one or the other approach is wrong, or if the game is supposed to encompass both.

On the Podgecast, Josh talks a lot about using attacks to change the fictional state of combats and the fictional positioning of characters within them, rather than doing damage with them. Josh is clearly in the "damage is the most boring hard move you can make" school. I think this is the specific disconnect that Dan is talking about.

I certainly take the same position as Josh, but like Dan, I'm interested to hear what the designers' position is. Is this addressed in 2.0?

mease: Yeah, of course, but we want to provide a clear idea of the starting point. It can drift grimmer or more humorous (see The Walking Eye) easily, but the default is a point right in the middle. We're not doing anything to block you taking your own stance, if anything we're making it clearer how to do that. We're just showing you how we run the game, and how we know it works.

A lot of this comes from my personal gaming style. We have a lot of humor, usually out of character but occasionally in character. The in character humor is usually played straight by the characters but laughed at by the players. I think I've had a character quote Ghostbusters with a straight face ("If someone asks you if you're a god you say yes!"). It wasn't a joke to the characters, in fact it was totally appropriate, but we all got a good chuckle out of it.

A lot of the time the humor is just player to player. John played a rather commanding sorcerer who ordered around another player's character, who kind of became his sidekick. We quoted Futurama Kiff/Brannigan lines A LOT, but that game still had great drama when the time came.

Even with that humor things occasionally get more serious, usually around the connections between people. Sometimes someone ends up having to make a hard character choice and the answer just makes everyone go "woah." The Kiff-like character ended up burning his Bible to start a fire after praying for miracle that didn't come, that was a moment you don't forget.

Anyway, that's the way Adam and I both tend to play, and we want to make it clear that that's what we can speak to, the way to game was designed. You can drift it a ways to each side easily, and further with a little work. People are asking about what Dungeon World is and Adam and I want to have an answer, if nothing else so that you know when you're doing something a bit different.


Anarchangel: Since you're quoting from something I've said I think you know where I stand, but now that I search the text it actually isn't in there. Mea culpa!

Josh is totally in line with my own feelings: damage alone is boring stuff. Monsters have so much they can do, use it.

What it does say in the rules is that damage is a very hard move. Be careful with it.

In Beta 2 we've added a section on dealing damage along with other effects of a move. If a monster inflicts damage incidentally, say by throwing you against a wall, they deal half their normal damage if the circumstances dictate. The damage stat is used when the intent is primarily to do harm (which will also include the effects of the monster's tags), half damage is for when the intent is something else and the damage is a consequence.

This rule helps the GM use damage effectively. Before it was binary: you deal damage (maybe with some tags that affect the fictional situation) or you affect the fictional situation with a move, now it's a bit more blended.

A few direct answers to Dan: I don't quite know what the definition of Sandboxy is here or how in media res runs counter to it.

The way I'm using the term involves players always deciding where their characters go and what they do. Starting play in the middle of a dungeon or other action scene involves the GM making decisions for where the characters have gone and what they've done before play begins. An in medias res opening seems to be more focused on crafting the experience of a scene, which isn't what I normally think of as a sandbox approach.

Actual play is sandboxy, I guess? I'm still not quite sure what that means. Sandboxes are boring, they just sit there. In Dungeon World there are bad things happening, things which the GM is going to make evident. You're going to stop them for gold and glory, or they're going to get right in your face.

To me sandbox doesn't read as "static". The things you say about bad stuff happening in the world is totally consistent with how I read the term. The most important things for my conception of sandbox play is the causal consistency of the fictional world (this is in contrast to something that is more story-like, where the consistency of the world merely has to be good enough to provide plausibility for the narrative to hang together). Once something is established in the fiction (either because it's prepped or explicitly comes up in play), it proceeds on its own course whether the players interact with it or not. The focus of play follows the PCs, so stuff may get more "clock ticks" in their vicinity then the rest of the world, but the world isn't there to provide a specific experience (and definitely not a narrative) for the players or the characters. You don't prep "adventures" so much as you prep interesting places where adventurous stuff might happen if the players go there. Most of the principles, etc., of DW seem to me to be entirely consistent with this (which is why I assume this is the way the game is meant to be played) so the few things that don't kind of stand out to me.

I don't see where the Front rules say anything about making them relevant to the players

Maybe I'm reading too much into the first session section? Personally I have a really hard time understanding what I'm supposed to do with that section. I'd much prefer the game to just tell me to prep an interesting dungeon for the first adventure and find ways to hook the player contributions to what's already prepped, but I got the impression that the game doesn't want me to do that.

It'd be great if you could explain what you find vague. I've edited the hell out of the GM chapter again, but I didn't find much vagueness to begin with. What's not clear?

I don't have any specific ideas in mind right now. Maybe I'm reacting more to the fact that I see conflicting interpretations that aren't compatible but which don't necessarily outright contradict the text? I could maybe reread the text and find some things that are contributing to my sense of vagueness, but that seems like it would be kind of a questionable use of time since you've already got a new version about to come out.

I haven't had a chance to list the The Podge Cast yet and likely won't get to it for a bit, could you give me some ideas what you heard that doesn't mesh?

Some of it is about tone. Josh seems to think the game is way more over-the-top than I do. The damage thing is definitely part of it (I'm not fond of the "most boring" characterization of damage -- I hate it when games want me to walk a social tightrope about when I'm supposed to use certain options that the game presents to me as valid. I want to use damage when it's fictionally appropriate to do so, and not feel like I'm being boring, or ruining someone's fun, or doing anything else that I ought to feel guilty for when I do it). He seems to really dislike the idea of using the mechanical moves as starting points for player decisions, but I think that's half of the game (i.e. it's perfectly fine to use the mechanics to inspire you to do something in the fiction, or to do something in the fiction that may or may not translate directly into a mechanical move -- both are valid, neither is privileged). He seems to think that "player narrative authority" is the killer app for the game but I think that's kind of incidental and the most important thing is how the game structures interactions. There might have been other stuff. Basically, he was totally gushing about DW, but the game he was describing seemed to be dramatically different from the game I'm familiar with so I had that "maybe I'm the crazy one" reaction.

It reads a fair bit like the Bloodstone Idol, actually.

There's a good chance that I'm the odd one out here, but there was a lot of stuff about the Bloodstone Idol that didn't make a ton of sense to me, like the armies of lizardmen and goblins. It seems like your vision of a dungeon might have a "crazy beehive of activity" element, whereas my mental prototype of a dungeon is a lot closer to something like the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Thanks for sharing your definition of sandbox. I find that interesting, but I'll get to that in a bit.

Why are you starting in the middle of a scene, or the middle of a dungeon? The game says to start with a "tense situation" not in the middle of something. In fact the first example is "outside the entrance to a dungeon." Of course we'll make it more clear since it may not be, but you don't have to start in the middle of something (you could, though) you just start with action. It doesn't matter if that action is impending or underway, you start with something for the players to react to.

This is how the game starts because the inverse is "start without something for the players to react to" which is the classic "you meet in a tavern" cold open. In my experience it kind of sucks.

Why are you as the GM telling them why they're there? Again, this could be more explicit (I'll make some changes now) but you're supposed to be asking questions, right? So you tell them the situation and ask what you need to. The point is not to ask them questions where one answer results in not having an adventure, like the tavern open: "A mysterious old woman comes up with a mission for you, do you take it?" If the players say no I guess we're done for the night.

This is all important because the first session isn't like the others. After the first session you make fronts (I've made this clear in Beta 2 since some people were making fronts before the first session). That's when the world really starts whirling away on its own. Before that you're just kind of thinking of some cool stuff to happen (and to see what happens) after that you're showing an entire world in motion.

By your definition of sandbox, sure, Dungeon World is sandbox. The Front system is designed for that kind of living world idea. This isn't in conflict with the first session because in the first session there is no sandbox yet: the first session fills the sandbox with sand. Then you go play in it.

I'll give the first session another hard revision today because your impressions are the exact opposite: preping a dungeon and hooking in player contributions is EXACTLY what you do in the first session (with various values of prep). For me personally prep usually means a Tony Dowler map and some ideas for monsters/big bads.

Overall this discussion has pointed out some omissions in the first session section. In particular:

• Don't make fronts (already fixed)
• The first scene needs to be something to react to, action happening or about to happen
• Prep some, tie in player answers, run with it
• Start by telling the players what your prep is, more or less: "There's a goblin camp that's been raiding the village, you're going to deal with it" or "The wizard Grundloch is up to no good, you're going to be tracking him down."

On contradictory plays: I don't know that I've seen two play reports that are contradictory. They run on a scale, certainly, but they as long as they're consistent with the rules I don't see too much variation. Hell, Adam and I have different styles that both work with the rules. What seems contradictory to you?

Like I said in my last post, we're presenting a default tone that mixes two elements so naturally some people take more of one or the other. Some games are more drama-oriented, some more gonzo, but I don't think I've yet heard two that both played by the rules and yet still seemed like different games. I'm curious about that for sure.



There is no social tightrope to damage. Use it as often as you please. The reason we emphasize non-damage GM moves is that people tend to forget about them in the heat of battle. Especially if you're used to 4E you can easilly default to damage. Don't! Default to looking at the situation and seeing what could happen, then pick out an element and realize it. If damage is the clearest response, do it. If there's another option, do it. Just don't think of damage as the default GM move, it's not. And don't use damage as a soft move, it's not (instead present the damage as incoming and Show Signs of Doom).



I'll have to listen to the podcast eventually, or maybe Josh can stop by and talk to us about it, but here are some things from the rules that answer your questions:

A move can start with naming the move or with the fictional action, but the fictional action is REQUIRED. Direct quote (as of Beta 2, but I'm 90% sure this is unchanged since Red Book): Dan can't just say "I'm Hacking and Slashing!" [...] The GM's response should be "okay, how do you do that?" or "what does that look like?"

Players have narrative authority in what their character says, thinks, and does; the GM has narrative authority over the world ("The players get to say what their characters say, think, and do. The GM describes everything else in the world.") However, some moves give authority to one person or another about certain things. Additionally, the GM can ask questions of the players, especially when they don't know an answer ("You don't have to know everything. If you don't know, or you don't have an idea, just ask the players and use what they say.") I have no idea how this lines up with Josh's ideas or what he said. Compared to, say, 4th Ed D&D this is a lot of player narrative control.



The Bloodstone Idol was deliberately a Big Deal dungeon. That said, it's in the tradition of other dungeons that have had competing factions, multiple bad things going on, etc. Caves of Chaos to Temple of Elemental Evil, its something that I like in D&D dungeons and it makes for a nice showcase of a number of things. The Bloodstone Idol is a complex with many people in it, but that's not the only way to go.

The opening scene to Raiders isn't a great example of a dungeon (or a Dungeon/Adventure Front). It's entirely linear and there isn't much to it. That said, even there you could see multiple Dangers in the front: the doublecrossing assistant and the tomb itself.

A better Indiana Jones example might be the entirely of the Temple of Doom. That is a big place, with many things going on, and many types of danger, firmly situated in a landscape. That's a pretty decent Adventure Front right there. (Though yeah, the movie ain't that great.)

For the first session the dungeon is largely left to you, though I will buff up our guidelines. Taking a first shot at writing some: think of an interesting location, one that you can immediately describe in a number of ways. Think of something dark and dangerous that could be happening there either intentionally or as the confluence of larger events. Think of what bad things could come from this if left unchecked. Finally, think of one additional danger orthogonal to the main threat, something that complicates stopping it.

I'll let Josh speak to his own work, but from what I read it's smaller scoped than Bloodstone Idol, nothing quite so huge. Maybe that's more what you're looking for? I don't quite see how the size and complexity of the dungeon is a defining feature of the game.




A final note on playstyles: Dungeon World has been pretty popular and we've encouraged a lot of posting about it, so you're sure to hear of other people's games. Sometimes they won't be to your preferences: some people find The Walking Eye too gonzo, for example.

It's down to you to think that through and play the game according to the rules and your style. We're not arbiters of what you can do with the game, we're here to provide a solid consistent foundation. If you take it a little more serious, go for it, just make sure you're abiding by the agenda and principles. If you want to go back to your teenage wacky games, go for it, but keep the agenda and principles in mind.

There are a multitude of tones you can take while still presenting a fantastic world, filling the characters lives with adventure, and playing to find out what happens. Go for it.

Of course there could be some people who don't play by the rules. That's fine too, you can ignore them or use them as inspiration for your own play. If you want to be sure you're playing the game "right" just play by the rules as written.

Adam and I say what we want about the game through the game text. Other people's contributions, either though play reports or projects like Beyond The Devil's Reach or Planarch's Guide, are entirely up to them.

Why are you starting in the middle of a scene, or the middle of a dungeon?

I'm not, because those rules didn't make sense to me and I couldn't think of a way to follow them. "In the middle of a dungeon" doesn't seem wildly out of place to me in the context of the examples you offered in the text. Maybe I'm wrong to read it that way.

Some games are more drama-oriented, some more gonzo, but I don't think I've yet heard two that both played by the rules and yet still seemed like different games. I'm curious about that for sure.

That "played by the rules" is the tricky part for me, since I can't definitively know whether or not what different people are doing lines up with the intent of the game. When I hear something that seems "wrong" from my POV I have to consider the different permutations of which interpretation is correct since I know it might be mine. Since you guys know what you meant (at least to a degree, since you're collaborators rather than a single author) it's probably much easier for you to parse things like this than it is for me.

There is no social tightrope to damage.

If there was a more gradual gradation in the hardness of the moves I would agree (and I think the half-damage addition sounds like it might address this issue) but when I feel like my choice of moves is equivalent to "should this character live or die?" then I do feel the social tightrope. The idea that "good GMs always prefer narrative moves over damaging moves" (an oversimplification, obviously) or that "damage is the most boring thing you can do" feel like they're the kind of statements that build a social tightrope (I don't want the players to think I'm boring, do I?).

Especially if you're used to 4E you can easilly default to damage. Don't! Default to looking at the situation and seeing what could happen, then pick out an element and realize it. If damage is the clearest response, do it. If there's another option, do it. Just don't think of damage as the default GM move, it's not. And don't use damage as a soft move, it's not (instead present the damage as incoming and Show Signs of Doom).

That's all fine. That's how I've been playing it, I think (my podcast is out there if people want to give me their own observations on how I've been GMing). This reads to me as very different from saying that the non-damaging moves are better. They're softer, that's not the same thing.

A move can start with naming the move or with the fictional action, but the fictional action is REQUIRED.

I know how moves work. What I was reacting to is Josh's apparent preference for people not considering their moves at all. There was a story-games thread about not giving players access to the character sheets -- I think that's the kind of thing he would prefer. To me that seems like a misguided approach to *W games, since part of the point of moves is to prime your mind and frame your expectations to guide you to act in particular ways. But maybe I read too much into what Josh was saying.

I have no idea how this lines up with Josh's ideas or what he said. Compared to, say, 4th Ed D&D this is a lot of player narrative control.

Sure, but if we put all games on a spectrum DW would end up much closer to the traditional end (near DITV and Burning Wheel, as opposed to something like Fiasco or roll-to-declare-a-fact games), so I have trouble wrapping my head around why the narrative authority issue seems to loom so large for some people.

The opening scene to Raiders isn't a great example of a dungeon (or a Dungeon/Adventure Front). It's entirely linear and there isn't much to it.

I wasn't offering it up as an ideal to copy in all particulars, but trying to give a tone or feel reference.

I'll let Josh speak to his own work, but from what I read it's smaller scoped than Bloodstone Idol, nothing quite so huge. Maybe that's more what you're looking for? I don't quite see how the size and complexity of the dungeon is a defining feature of the game.

I don't know anything about Josh's adventures. I was mostly reacting to his comments about the game in general. My issue with the Bloodstone Idol isn't necessarily about the size, or even necessarily the complexity. To me it seemed like the amount of activity from all of the other active agents made them the focus so the exploration of the dungeon itself took a back seat. (But my impressions are filtered through the game I played in, so maybe the way our GM ran it had a big impact).

Quote from: sage on March 06, 2012, 04:08:44 PM

Why are you starting in the middle of a scene, or the middle of a dungeon?

I'm not, because those rules didn't make sense to me and I couldn't think of a way to follow them. "In the middle of a dungeon" doesn't seem wildly out of place to me in the context of the examples you offered in the text. Maybe I'm wrong to read it that way.

You're not wrong, I just can't figure out the step that takes you from that text to "oh, I guess I have to start in the middle of something, in media res." It specifically talks about starting just outside a dungeon, which sounds more like what you'd like to do, so go for it!

Quote

Some games are more drama-oriented, some more gonzo, but I don't think I've yet heard two that both played by the rules and yet still seemed like different games. I'm curious about that for sure.

That "played by the rules" is the tricky part for me, since I can't definitively know whether or not what different people are doing lines up with the intent of the game. When I hear something that seems "wrong" from my POV I have to consider the different permutations of which interpretation is correct since I know it might be mine. Since you guys know what you meant (at least to a degree, since you're collaborators rather than a single author) it's probably much easier for you to parse things like this than it is for me.

The best advice I can give is to stop worrying who's playing "by the rules" and play the rules as written as best you understand them. From there you may find out, yeah, those people weren't playing by the rules (and maybe you like that better, and can use it). Or maybe you figure out yes, they are playing by the rules, but they have a slight difference in style.

What other people are doing with the rules has nothing to do with your relationship with them.

Quote

There is no social tightrope to damage.

If there was a more gradual gradation in the hardness of the moves I would agree (and I think the half-damage addition sounds like it might address this issue) but when I feel like my choice of moves is equivalent to "should this character live or die?" then I do feel the social tightrope. The idea that "good GMs always prefer narrative moves over damaging moves" (an oversimplification, obviously) or that "damage is the most boring thing you can do" feel like they're the kind of statements that build a social tightrope (I don't want the players to think I'm boring, do I?).

That's why we don't use the word "boring" in the rules :). I get your point, and I'll be more careful about what I say on that topic.

As to the tightrope, again my best advice is not to worry about it. If a character dies, they die. There's nothing in your agenda or principles about keeping them alive. (There's nothing about killing them either, of course.) You're there to present a fantastic world, if that world happens to kill a few unlucky adventurers so be it.

Quote

Especially if you're used to 4E you can easilly default to damage. Don't! Default to looking at the situation and seeing what could happen, then pick out an element and realize it. If damage is the clearest response, do it. If there's another option, do it. Just don't think of damage as the default GM move, it's not. And don't use damage as a soft move, it's not (instead present the damage as incoming and Show Signs of Doom).

That's all fine. That's how I've been playing it, I think (my podcast is out there if people want to give me their own observations on how I've been GMing). This reads to me as very different from saying that the non-damaging moves are better. They're softer, that's not the same thing.

They're not always softer. Putting someone in a hard spot can be MUCH harder than doing damage. After all, there's a spell that just undoes damage, there's no spell that just automatically gets you out of any spot.

Moves other than "do damage" have more varied effects. It's easy to call that "better" but I'll avoid that since it sews confusion.

Quote

A move can start with naming the move or with the fictional action, but the fictional action is REQUIRED.

I know how moves work. What I was reacting to is Josh's apparent preference for people not considering their moves at all. There was a story-games thread about not giving players access to the character sheets -- I think that's the kind of thing he would prefer. To me that seems like a misguided approach to *W games, since part of the point of moves is to prime your mind and frame your expectations to guide you to act in particular ways. But maybe I read too much into what Josh was saying.

That sounds like a disagreement with Josh. Some people find fiction-first preferable, that's fine. I don't see why the game needs to be any more clear about this: you can always be in the fiction and never use the move names or you can name the move, then describe how you do it. Both work.

The game tells you to print the moves sheets and give them to the players. That's the default. Consider playing without them to be a hack, it's not something you'll ever see in the main game.

It is, however, something I find very cool. For some groups it probably even works better. If you (meaning anyone reading this) have played with the moves sheet and think that your group would be better without it, do that, please.

Quote

I have no idea how this lines up with Josh's ideas or what he said. Compared to, say, 4th Ed D&D this is a lot of player narrative control.

Sure, but if we put all games on a spectrum DW would end up much closer to the traditional end (near DITV and Burning Wheel, as opposed to something like Fiasco or roll-to-declare-a-fact games), so I have trouble wrapping my head around why the narrative authority issue seems to loom so large for some people.

I don't know of many other games in the same fantasy adventure mode that have the same amount of player narrative control. BW is similar, but not quite the same, and is a rather dense system (which I personally LOVE, but some people hate).

So I guess the problem is people are excited about it but it's not something new? Again, I can't quite see the issue that needs to be addressed. The rules say who has narrative control over what. Some people find this new and different. Others won't.

Quote

The opening scene to Raiders isn't a great example of a dungeon (or a Dungeon/Adventure Front). It's entirely linear and there isn't much to it.

I wasn't offering it up as an ideal to copy in all particulars, but trying to give a tone or feel reference.

That's cool, I'm just offering a counter example for why our dungeons tend to be more hives of activity. An empty dungeon is really boring.

Fun fact: Bloodstone Idol was originally about 50% as full of stuff. I'd run the adventure and it was entirely boring. Maybe we went too far, but it's meant to be a busy place. It's essentially a guarded underground complex converted from an ancient magical landmark, I'm fine with that being busy.

If you want your dungeon to be less bust that's within the rules, but there are limits. An Adventure Front has at least two dangers because one danger is boring, it's a straight line. Two mean there's interaction, priorities, all that good stuff.

If you want an adventure more about exploration I'd suggest making lots of use of the Cursed Places Danger type in your fronts. That brings the place itself to the forefront, instead of the inhabitants. Then you support that with one or more other dangers about who wants to control it, who already has it, what is being spawned by it, etc.

Quote

I'll let Josh speak to his own work, but from what I read it's smaller scoped than Bloodstone Idol, nothing quite so huge. Maybe that's more what you're looking for? I don't quite see how the size and complexity of the dungeon is a defining feature of the game.

I don't know anything about Josh's adventures. I was mostly reacting to his comments about the game in general. My issue with the Bloodstone Idol isn't necessarily about the size, or even necessarily the complexity. To me it seemed like the amount of activity from all of the other active agents made them the focus so the exploration of the dungeon itself took a back seat. (But my impressions are filtered through the game I played in, so maybe the way our GM ran it had a big impact).

It sounds like you have a different vision of the dungeons you'd like to run. Awesome! The full game has all the tools to make that. Or is there something in your vision that you feel is contradicted by the rules?

Thanks Sage, I don't know you could be more clear about your vision (and Adam's) for DW. Not that I was confused or uncertain anyway, but your post is succinct and definitive. Thank you for all your hard work and feedback to your 'audience' (and informal playtesters). It is well and truly appreciated.

I'm interested in helping Dan come to grips with the discrepancies he sees in the rules 'guidance' too. So hopefully after a read through of the beta 2.2 you'll be able to point to specific queries that you have?

The best advice I can give is to stop worrying who's playing "by the rules" and play the rules as written as best you understand them.

For a released game I would probably be better able to ignore people who are "playing wrong" (from my POV). Since the game is in beta I think that changes things a bit, since I assume it's useful for the designers and the community to understand how different people are interpreting the text. If this were a released game I'd probably not bother posting thoughts like mine in this thread since it would seem like a moot point to me.

As to the tightrope, again my best advice is not to worry about it. If a character dies, they die. There's nothing in your agenda or principles about keeping them alive. (There's nothing about killing them either, of course.) You're there to present a fantastic world, if that world happens to kill a few unlucky adventurers so be it.

I agree with that to an extent, but saying "I didn't tell you to worry about that!" isn't the same as crafting a game in which it isn't one of the psychological factors weighing on my mind. Generally I don't have a problem because I don't keep track of player HP (they do that themselves) so I have no idea if the damage is lethal or not, but if the damage per hit is high enough it sort of becomes obvious whether I'm deciding if they live or die and it starts making me feel guilty. But that's probably best discussed in a different thread.

That sounds like a disagreement with Josh. Some people find fiction-first preferable, that's fine. I don't see why the game needs to be any more clear about this

Yes, it's a disagreement with Josh, not something you need to address. Remember that you asked me to expand on where I differed with Josh, not where I differed with you or with the game. This was one of the places.

So I guess the problem is people are excited about it but it's not something new? Again, I can't quite see the issue that needs to be addressed. The rules say who has narrative control over what. Some people find this new and different. Others won't.

Problem? Addressed? I wouldn't frame it like that. But when I hear people gushing about how the player narrative authority in DW or AW are so mind-blowing it makes me think that they have a very different take on the games than I do.

The full game has all the tools to make that. Or is there something in your vision that you feel is contradicted by the rules?

Contradicted? Maybe not. I found it difficult with the current Fronts rules, but a lot of my understanding of the current Fronts rules were based on inference and assumption rather than a robust understanding of the procedures. I know those have been updated for beta 2 so I've been waiting to see the new text before trying to articulate my thoughts about dungeon creation.

Quote from: sage on March 06, 2012, 07:17:35 PM

The best advice I can give is to stop worrying who's playing "by the rules" and play the rules as written as best you understand them.

For a released game I would probably be better able to ignore people who are "playing wrong" (from my POV). Since the game is in beta I think that changes things a bit, since I assume it's useful for the designers and the community to understand how different people are interpreting the text. If this were a released game I'd probably not bother posting thoughts like mine in this thread since it would seem like a moot point to me.

Your thoughts are very useful, thanks for posting them! That said, we've sold a version of the game for about half a year now (wow, time flies!) and the player base is pretty broad. I'm am more than happy to clarify rules as needed in the text, but there's just so much play happening already that I can't speak to how others play.

Quote

As to the tightrope, again my best advice is not to worry about it. If a character dies, they die. There's nothing in your agenda or principles about keeping them alive. (There's nothing about killing them either, of course.) You're there to present a fantastic world, if that world happens to kill a few unlucky adventurers so be it.

I agree with that to an extent, but saying "I didn't tell you to worry about that!" isn't the same as crafting a game in which it isn't one of the psychological factors weighing on my mind. Generally I don't have a problem because I don't keep track of player HP (they do that themselves) so I have no idea if the damage is lethal or not, but if the damage per hit is high enough it sort of becomes obvious whether I'm deciding if they live or die and it starts making me feel guilty. But that's probably best discussed in a different thread.

Those are some great thoughts. I'll make sure we address them in the text to some degree.

Quote

That sounds like a disagreement with Josh. Some people find fiction-first preferable, that's fine. I don't see why the game needs to be any more clear about this

Yes, it's a disagreement with Josh, not something you need to address. Remember that you asked me to expand on where I differed with Josh, not where I differed with you or with the game. This was one of the places.

Oh yeah, sorry, it's hard to keep track of which issues have to do with this thread and which had creeped in.

Quote

So I guess the problem is people are excited about it but it's not something new? Again, I can't quite see the issue that needs to be addressed. The rules say who has narrative control over what. Some people find this new and different. Others won't.

Problem? Addressed? I wouldn't frame it like that. But when I hear people gushing about how the player narrative authority in DW or AW are so mind-blowing it makes me think that they have a very different take on the games than I do.

I haven't listened to your much of either podcast, but I think the root issue is just different people have different bases for comparison and different interests. There's also the chance that some GMs ask more questions, which would lend more weight to that kind of play.

Quote

The full game has all the tools to make that. Or is there something in your vision that you feel is contradicted by the rules?

Contradicted? Maybe not. I found it difficult with the current Fronts rules, but a lot of my understanding of the current Fronts rules were based on inference and assumption rather than a robust understanding of the procedures. I know those have been updated for beta 2 so I've been waiting to see the new text before trying to articulate my thoughts about dungeon creation.

Mostly we've provided a better idea of how to pull Danger ideas out of a larger Front idea. I think that'll help a lot, it'll help you pick out what to make Dangers and how to make those Dangers serves your vision of the Front.

Ok so I just got all caught up on this discussion and I really have very little to contribute. My attitudes towards damage come from two things, first I don't like killing off PCs unless they really earn it, and second I find narrative damage gets my players engaged and motivated a lot more than, "take seven damage". 

Dan I would recommend you either figure out a front for Death or stop killing your characters. If Death is going to play a big part in your game (likely in your game) then Death needs some end goal. Or stop sending them to Death, send them to some other god or daemon. DW can be gleefully gritty if you want it to be but with Last Breath you need to prepare for it. 

Playing by the rules in *W games is a little more seat of your pants than Polaris or even Burning Wheel. You need to find the groove that works for you and your players. It is all about interpretation. My two groups play the game differently and that is ok by me. I know you like to "play by the rules" Dan but you need to make the calls for how to interpret those rules for what is best for your group not for what the designer intends. The truth is that the designers intend for you to interpret for what works for your group. 

Every other issue about "What DW is" comes down to the fact that the feel of Dungeon World is somewhere between what your group wants it to be and your ideal of what D&D should have been. 

Moves are not powers like in 4e they are not limiters of a player's ability it interact with the fiction, rather they are triggered by the fiction that the players create. Players don't need to play their characters into the moves but instead act like the archetype they have in their head for a Fighter or a Thief or whatever and by acting that way they will trigger moves. Play where the players are playing off their sheet is often more limited than play where the players inhabit their characters and just go with their guts. I would never take away my players sheets because they help inform the archetype but I will do all I can to draw their attention away from the mechanics until the fiction requires it. 

In a sandbox too much is set down, each grain is accounted for so that when they move you know which ones start rolling and which ones get buried. Dungeon World focuses all that down into fronts. Everything in the world is a front in a sandbox but in DW only the things that matter get to be fronts. What matters? The things that the GM creates and the things that the PCs take notice of. Thats it. If you have fronts outside of that you are wasting your time. 

Ok I'm done mouthing off for now. Peace and love. 

I like your take on dungeon world Josh :)

Dan, I hope that the way in which some of use the rules don't get in the way of you and your group playing the way you intend. That's all that really matters. Are you having fun? Is the system giving you the game you expected? If no, come back and share why and I'm sure the friendly forum will endeavour to help you get the most out your interaction with the ruleset.

Let us know how your game progresses Dan. I've really appreciated the way you 'get to the heart' of the matter in your observations and the potential ramifications to your ability to GM the game as Sage and Adam intend as conveyed by the rules, and the potential disconnect therein.

Quote

A move can start with naming the move or with the fictional action, but the fictional action is REQUIRED.

I know how moves work. What I was reacting to is Josh's apparent preference for people not considering their moves at all. There was a story-games thread about not giving players access to the character sheets -- I think that's the kind of thing he would prefer. To me that seems like a misguided approach to *W games, since part of the point of moves is to prime your mind and frame your expectations to guide you to act in particular ways. But maybe I read too much into what Josh was saying.

FWIW. I have a similar conception to Josh of how DW works, but I'm totally with you on this point. I give every player a copy of the move sheet and would object to having them taken away from me as a player. The clause I have highlighted in bold is very well put.

Sure, but if we put all games on a spectrum DW would end up much closer to the traditional end (near DITV and Burning Wheel, as opposed to something like Fiasco or roll-to-declare-a-fact games), so I have trouble wrapping my head around why the narrative authority issue seems to loom so large for some people.

I think of DW as having a lot of player narrative control because of the way the gamma edition discovery moves (Spout/Discern) gave explicit narrative control to the players. Now I have gamma edition brain damage and my conception of DW has not kept pace with development on this issue. :D

You make an excellent point about the "damage is the most boring move" line, Dan.

Thanks also for revealing the different ideas people have about the term "sandbox"! My understanding is exactly in line with how you describe it, Dan; it didn't occur to me that it might be a disputed term.

first I don't like killing off PCs unless they really earn it

Could you (or anyone who has a similar outlook) talk about how this perspective relates to the agendas or principles? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but "really earn it" makes it seem like the GM is deciding what characters deserve, like you're sitting in judgment of them, which conflicts with how I interpret "Be a fan of the characters".

Dan I would recommend you either figure out a front for Death or stop killing your characters. If Death is going to play a big part in your game (likely in your game) then Death needs some end goal. Or stop sending them to Death, send them to some other god or daemon. DW can be gleefully gritty if you want it to be but with Last Breath you need to prepare for it.

I don't kill the characters. The monsters do. When characters take damage it's because that's the most fictionally consistent thing to happen based on the moves we've been making.

Personally I don't have a problem with the way Last Breath has been working in my game. I was stumped for a bit when Death had to make a second deal in the second session but it all worked out in a really fun way, and I've now got a campaign front related the the deal in the first session and a (secret) custom move related to the deal in the second. The biggest death-related issue I've had was whether or not to do enough damage to kill a character for the third time in the first session, but to me that issue was about the monster damage and the healing powers available to characters, not about the way Last Breath works.

I can not recommend the Jank Cast enough to anyone and everyone and their discussion on their most recent episode helped me understand your play style a bit better. You play Dungeon World in a "step on up" manner where you are a fan of the players overcoming challenges that are probably too big for them but when they do overcome they feel like Big Damn Heroes. I play for the story, to see how the players will handle the challenges of the world on a personal level. I am a fan of the players making setting-shaking decisions as well as personal decisions. Both of us read the "Be a fan of the players" and say "hell yea, I'm a fan of the players!", and then go about being fans of the players in two totally different ways. Dungeon World works for both playstyles.

I say that you are killing your characters because you are making moves that deal damage. Having the cultists run off deeper into the pyrimid is a great hard move, putting a knife to the throat of a character is a great hard move, having the lizard shove it's head into the hallway and drag a character out is a great hard move. There are lots of fictionally relevant moves you can take that don't do damage. But that isn't your playstyle and thats cool. Just understand that by dealing damage at every opportunity is going to kill off characters, make Death an important part of your game, and set the tone for how play is going to go.