Initial thoughts after 2 days reading

I have perused the DW beta rules for about 2 days and have some initial feedback. Please forgive me if some of the issues raised here are based on faulty understanding of the rules.

- I love the overall approach to the game, especially the 10, 7-9 break. It adds
tremendous roleplaying opportunities to both combat and non-combat scenes.
- the presentation of the various classes is wonderful; very easy to get
through. The reader is guided very gently and confidently through the process.
- big thumbs up for class/race restrictions. Adds flavor to the game. That said,
the differences between a dwarf fighter and a human fighter, for example, are
negligible. I would like to see more variety so that races of the same class are
truly unique from one another.
- Moves: way cool. Great choices offered, yet still simple and easy to use. The
various races gain different benefits to certain moves, which is again is
terrific. The balance between these benefits varies widely; the dwarf fighter's
starting move is far less useful than that of the elf, halfling, or human.
- Races generally don't seem very flavorful. They get a starting move and access
to classes that other races don't, but that's about it. A halfling fighter
carries the same weight on his back as an elf, dwarf, and  human. There are no cultural moves apart from that offered by their class. I would like to see races given more attention.
- weapon damage determined by class. LOVE it! Again, I would like to see race
play a bigger part.
- I don't see stealth attempts addressed anywhere.
- Leather and chainmail offer the same protection values. Just curious... why?
In general, armor offers less protection than other games. This could be a
feature rather than a problem.
- My favorite spellcasting class has always been a druid type. Can't play that
here. Perhaps elven wizards gain options for wilderness spells?
- The spell system is great and I really appreciate the brief descriptions
given.
- The tone and writing style of the entire game is very pleasing to read.
- no choices for low rolls? What about a dismal failure  with a 2 and a lesser
failure with a 3-5, perhaps offering the PC choices they receive when rolling a
7-9?
- attributes are chosen from an array. I like this, but it would be nice to have
a choice of 3 or 4 arrays.
- interesting alignments. I would love to see racial or class moves based on
alignment.

Actually, Druid is on its way. It was one of the stretch goals on the kickstarter, and rumors say we should see the play book at some point in the near-ish future.

Couple of things:

Stealth: This is usually a Defy Danger with Dexterity if there is actually a danger.

Armor: I agree, there should be some difference between leather and chain, but it hasn't really mattered in games I've run or played in. Armor is like damage reduction in DW rather than "Armor Class." It works.

Druid: Available to you if you back the Kickstarter.

Low Rolls: Anything that's a 6 or less that isn't already specified is a Golden Opportunity and a good chance for the GM to throw in interesting complications.

In regards to stealth, you could defy danger with:
Cha to blend into a crowd of travelers at the city gates
Dex to dash between trees without breaking branches
Int to navigate a ship unseen into the enemy's port in the fog
Str to hold a guard's corpse in front of you until the others pass by
Wis to sneak through prince's dreams without him remembering you
Con to tolerate the poison well enough to appear dead for an hour

You could defy danger with:
Cha to blend into a crowd of travelers at the city gates
Dex to dash between trees without breaking branches
Int to navigate a ship unseen into the enemy's port in the fog
Str to hold a guard's corpse in front of you until the others pass by
Wis to sneak through prince's dreams without him remembering you
Con to tolerate the poison well enough to appear dead for an hour

This is fantastic.

You could defy danger with:
Cha to blend into a crowd of travelers at the city gates
Dex to dash between trees without breaking branches
Int to navigate a ship unseen into the enemy's port in the fog
Str to hold a guard's corpse in front of you until the others pass by
Wis to sneak through prince's dreams without him remembering you
Con to tolerate the poison well enough to appear dead for an hour

And the dangers are, of course, indicated by the situation and the fiction setup.  The great thing is that there are other ways to do those same things with other stats, too.  It's pretty damn cool to see how players justify their rolls, etc.

Leather & Chainmail: well, if it really bothers you, I think it's ok to have a full suit of chainmail with the same stats as other heavy armors. But it works without problems as it is. The only classes that can start with a chainmail are the cleric and the fighter, and the others will usually stick with the armor they get.

Glad you like the rules Frodo, hope you back the kickstarter!
In regards to races, I think Adam and Sage left them intentionally 'blank' mechanically, as one of those spaces you can fill in during play. In my Dungeon World, elves are mortal, diminutive and slaves to disco, whereas in someone else's they may be tolkienesque. The details are left up to you.

Glad you like the rules Frodo, hope you back the kickstarter!
In regards to races, I think Adam and Sage left them intentionally 'blank' mechanically, as one of those spaces you can fill in during play. In my Dungeon World, elves are mortal, diminutive and slaves to disco, whereas in someone else's they may be tolkienesque. The details are left up to you.

That being the case, I would suggest including clarification in the rules as to what the assumptions are about each race. As it is, there really is nothing that details the races in any way. Perhaps some advice on creating your own racial variants and moves?

Declaring the details of the races is part of the game as per the questions the GM asks to the players since the start of the game—IF it's something everyone cares about.

For example, two days ago I started a new game with an elven ranger in the party—the only non-human character—and I asked him how and why there are so few elves, why does he wanders around so far away his home, and he created, answering, a lot of interesting details about the setting: there were two races of elves, wood elves and lake elves, their lands protected by strong illusions, governed by an actual democracy with a senate elected by the people and a president elected by the senators, and so on.

In my pdf, it's all in the chapter "the first session", page 139.

Don't think that differences between characters are all about moves. Every existent move it's already something that is produced by the fiction—by YOUR fiction. Mechanically it's all hack'n'slash, but surely the fighting style of a elven ranger is completely different from the one of a dwarven fighter, and that counts a lot when you actually describe what your character is doing.

Moves don't tell you what you have to do; moves simply tell you what general direction the story takes in particular situations.

Declaring the details of the races is part of the game as per the questions the GM asks to the players since the start of the game—IF it's something everyone cares about.

Ah, I see. I would suggest this aspect of the rules be addressed earlier in the manual. As it is, character creation really doesn't address race at all. Classes are wonderfully evocative, but races are just names in the rulebook. It needs more meat, IMHO.

What assumptions does the game make about dwarves and elves, for example? Clearly they make some assumptions, based on the fact that they receive different starting moves and class restrictions. You can hazard a guess that, based on their unique moves, elves know a lot of lore & history (and thus might be long-lived or academically inclined) and are at home in the wilderness, and dwarves are 'at one with stone' and hardy drinkers. These sound a lot like classic Tolkien models. But the game really doesn't express this.

Don't get me  wrong -- I like the idea of flexibility, especially when it encourages roleplaying. But the rules are too vague IMHO. If they assume the GM and player will collaborate on racial traditions and assumptions, this needs to be presented a lot earlier than page 139. IMHO of course.

The setting of Dungeon World is strongly implied but never stated.  We give hints, but it's up to you to ask questions of your players and fill in the gaps!

When the rules are totally done, I'd love to see a list of all the people, places, and things that are explicitly mentioned in the text - I'd make sure that some or all of them found a place in every game!  (e.g. Battlemoor, Spanterhook, Dis, etc.)

The setting of Dungeon World is strongly implied but never stated.  We give hints, but it's up to you to ask questions of your players and fill in the gaps!

That's cool. For dullards like me, I suggest making that philosophy more explicit. For example, most old school fantasy roleplayers are used to the notion that each race receives bonuses and penalties to various attributes (dwarves might bet +1 to CON and -1 to CHA, etc). DW doesn't do that, which is fine; I would just recommend a small sidebar which mentions these notions and perhaps suggestions about crafting your own house rules for racial variants. That's what I would like to see anyways.

When the rules are totally done, I'd love to see a list of all the people, places, and things that are explicitly mentioned in the text - I'd make sure that some or all of them found a place in every game!  (e.g. Battlemoor, Spanterhook, Dis, etc.)

The monster descriptions are rife with this stuff.