New To DW, just read it, question about examples.

Hey folks, brand new to DW. Quick resume: 35 years old, played about 20 years of D&D, took a very long break, started dabbling in indies (SoY, DitV, PTA, etc) then fell in love with Burning Wheel. I own Apocalypse World, read a little of it but never got around to doing anything with it, certainly haven't studied the game. Was intrigued by DW last year but I don't follow the gaming forums very closely so knew only the basics about. Grabbed an episode of The Walking Eye this week and it was the Sage/Adam interview. Told a gaming bud from the group about DW, we both bought the pdf yesterday and I've now read it once.

I made that as quick as possible but wanted to give an idea of where I'm coming from. I've listened to or read no APs of DW. I am absolutely a virgin mind/eyes to the work. I'm very excited about this because, for the first time in about 2 decades I get to be a player in the group and not the GM! That said, I still read the rules as if I'm going to be the GM/facilitator. Which leads to my actual question.

I read everything except for the adventure so as not to spoil anything. is it intended that the adventure serves as example/explanation to GMs about what they should be doing? As I read throught he GM stuff, I have a loose idea of what the GM should be doing but its hard to really know without examples. Keep in mind, I've read it only one time so this is only very preliminary feedback. But for example, when I read stuff like "put them in a tough spot, give them a hard decision" I feel sort of adrift. I can come up with any number of things that that could mean and maybe its intentionally vague. It just feels like there are some ideas that maybe we're expected to have in our head (posssibly carried over from AW?) to apply to these instructions.

As a player, i think I'm very clear on what I'm supposed to be doing. But the sorts of stuff that the GM should be doing with his Moves are not firm in my mind. Would it be more clear if I read the example adventure?

Damn, that was just a wall of text, sorry.

1. Was it the intention of the rules to depend upon the example adventure as further instruction on the GM's role and how to utilize his Moves?

...if you're into brevity.

G'day Don, Welcome!
What a wonderful thing, you get to play a single character for a change :)

Don't stress about it too much. The flow of play is just a 'codified' set of principles with an overriding agenda that describes the conversation of roleplay that you are already familiar with. The only real point of difference (especially in combat) is that conflicts do have 'turns'. Folks take turns to talk in the conversation, but there is no set 'order' to who says what when.

That said, the GM's job is to jump in with some form of obstacle or impending antagonism / situation when there is a blank space in the conversation and the 'uncomfortable silence' of what happens next?

In answer to your question, I can't speak for Sage and Adam, but the Bloodstone Idol is a rather extensive example of a sample dungeon 'front'. From what Sage has said it is at the 'very well prepared' end of the spectrum. It doesn't really 'instruct' the GM on what to do, but rather gives a load of detail and narrative hooks to bolster your group as you play to see what happens. Thus the groups in the dungeon and the dangers within and the needs / instincts are well detailed, as is what will happen if the PC's don't do anything to thwart or change these 'Impending Dooms'.

The best instruction for the GM's role is the GM's chapter (supplemented by the chapter from AW), so it wont break the game as a player if you read these chapters, far from it. It will give you a much greater appreciation of the GM's roles and responsibilities and what the GM will be doing when you play the game. The example of a 'moves snowball' is particularly informative.

I would avoid reading the Bloodstone Idol though. Its like any Indie GM prep - its not about 'hiding secrets from the players behind the screen', but notes to what they want to bring into the game.

I'm sure you are going to have fun! What playbook takes your fancy?

Hey Nathan, thanks.

So yeah, I've read all the GM section too. The only thing I've skipped was the stuff directly related to the adventure.

And I definitely picked up on the vibe that the text we simply codifying what we typically just do without thinking too much about. It's just that I didn't, after one reading, have a good vibe of what exactly the GM is doing with his moves in DW. Part of that was must a lack of examples I think, which is why I was wondering if the adventure also served as examples for that.

I'm going to be rereading tonight so I'll be able to assess what I just missed all together, didn't grok, or what may be missing for me. For example, your mention of moves snowballing, I have no immediate recollection of that example. I vaguely recall mention of moves leading into other moves, I think in the very early section about the conversations that are taking place in the game. But no literal examples of snowballing moves.

That's why I wondered also if there's some expectation to bring some AW knowledge with you into the game. Just wondering if the DW rules are designed to carry themselves or if contact with AW is beneficial. It's not a biggie, I've got AW can read through relevant sections of it if needed.

But first, I wanna spend some more time in the DW text. I'm sure I'm just not catching it all. Will post back later with more thoughts.

Oh yeah Chris, for sure. The Beta ruleset is almost done, and has a far more detailed chapters than the basic ruleset on GMing, front creations, steading rules & creation, examples of mistake and correction in the Moves chapter, and a whole section on 'Advanced Delving' which guides you through tweaking the game. All good stuff.

The end result will be a totally independent game that just utilises the AW engine, somewhat in the same Style of production as Monsterhearts.

Hahaha, okay, I've doen two more read thru's since my first post. And I'm pressed for time right now so I cna't get too detailed.

So my condensed interpretation, as of now is: DW does all the adventuring stuff that you remember from your old D&D days but now GM fiat has been made official via the rules.

I see all the GM moves and they're all sort of stuff that we all did as DM's anyway right? But now the rules tell us that we do those things: whenever they players want to know what happens (like the old days), when the characters do something that's not a move, or when the characters fail on a move. The first two should be followed by soft GM moves, whereas the last can be either soft or hard. And since the moves cover everything from adding fictional threats to dealing damage.....the GM is sort of free to narrate how you slipped and tumbled down into that hole, destroy your backpack and its contents, or just kill you via the Ogre's swat.

It sounds cool, really does. I'm just glad that my buddy will be trying GMing for the first time and I'll be taking up a character. The GM's role feels very loose and open to his whim as long as it all fits reasonably in the fiction. This isn't very different at all from how we played as kids. It even seems like it lends itself to be questioned by the players, "Oh come on, why'd the ogre smash my mule?!?!?!" Except now the GM can point and say, "Using up your resources."

Gotta run. More thoughts later.