|
So for the past few hours I've been reading this excellent summary of the DW rules I found on the AW forum. Turns out it was written by goons! Good job! I think I'm going to have a go and run a game of this. I'm pretty new to RPGs and so are my friends, so a rules-light game like DW seems to be a smart fit. That said, I'm still a little intimidated by the prospect of having to improv so much. I hope I'm up to the task.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Harrow posted:I do like the villain-accomplishing-a-potentially-good-goal twist. She's definitely doing what she's doing for a "good" end goal already, but if it's appropriate I can definitely change up her motivations to keep the adventure more interesting. Right now she's using powerful time magic to erase people from history who had a hand in destroying her home city in a recent galactic war, hoping that she can tear causality in half and undo her home's destruction. In the process, she's... tearing causality in half, and causing anything those same people protected or built to suddenly be destroyed or blink out of existence. She stole the PCs' mementos because she can use the memories attached to them to power her time-twisting magics. You have a really good point, though, and I'm absolutely going to be flexible about her goals/motivations depending on what the PCs do and what the PCs' goals end up being. Sounds like you have a good idea then! I think one of the key takeaways here is that it's fine to pre-plan a story at a high level, but it generally not okay to railroad your players into that story 100% of the time. Some railroading is okay depending on the group you are running with, especially with new players that don't understand their degree of agency in a primarily narrative-driven game. However, if you are going in depth and using a full four hours of game time for exposition on your cool fantasy city - without letting the players participate - then you've likely overplanned your story. The concept of "don't preplan" has come from running the first session, where the book notes that your machinations will likely work against you, and also from the GM agenda in Dungeon World. If anything, you should make open-ended plans that explicitly drive players to make interesting choices, then find out what happens when players start making those choices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:So for the past few hours I've been reading this excellent summary of the DW rules I found on the AW forum. Turns out it was written by goons! Good job! Was it the beginner's guide to Dungeon World by Scrape? Without that thing, I would not have been able to run my first game so well. That guide comes from the first Dungeon World thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:Some railroading is okay depending on the group you are running with, especially with new players that don't understand their degree of agency in a primarily narrative-driven game. This is why I went a little heavy on the "look how dangerous this person is" stuff at the end of the first session with that NPC. Two people have roleplayed before, but the rest never have, and while a couple of my friends are really getting into the spirit of it (especially the Dashing Hero, who is on the surface the least "nerdy" of us all), a couple still have to be (gently) prodded to speak up and take any action in-character at all. While they're absolutely free to fly off in any direction they choose on their Treasure Planet-style spaceship, in practice, without a single, clear narrative hook, they'd probably all just do what the Survivor's player wanted at any given time. Teonis posted:Was it the beginner's guide to Dungeon World by Scrape? Without that thing, I would not have been able to run my first game so well. That guide comes from the first Dungeon World thread. That guide sold me on Dungeon World. I didn't really grasp what the system was about and thought it was confusing and something I didn't at all want to have anything to do with until I read that guide. It's so good that I wish it was included with every PDF and printed copy of Dungeon World.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I'm a few sessions into running a game for a couple friends and I'd appreciate some advice for some potential larger scale threat ideas. We started with the Indigo Galleon adventure, and the party (currently a human fighter and a dwarf arcanist with a voidtouched floating around someplace) is more or less wrapping thing up by going to the ancient abandoned Dwarven mine on their way out of town. In the tunnel leading through the mountain to the mine, they accidentally triggered a cave in, which lead to them being split up and forced to find a way back to each other in the maze within the mountain. The fighter, in his infinite and hilarious wisdom, figured that 'big iron doors with several locks and strange markings always have something valuable behind them,' disturbing the specter of the mine's former priest of the Iron God and his skeletal dwarf minions, eventually necessitating the reluctant arcanist to breach the 'Keep out, doom inside' doors as well to enact a rescue. Eventually he dragged the fighter's body back to safety after he was knocked out by a combination of slamming one of the iron doors that he was using as a weapon into his own face in an attempt to crush the incorporeal specter between him and the door, said door being animated and biting him, and charging a giant animated statue while a few hp from death. I think from talking with them they want to not just come back and whup this specter, but also delve deeper and find out what evil forced the mines to be abandoned, and that's where I'd appreciate any suggestions for what kind of Big Bad would make sense for the ancient dwarves to have unearthed. I'm thinking something that would emit or cast some sort of necrotic fog that corrupted and reanimated the dead until at last they were sealed in, but I'm flexible, just looking for interesting/thematic ideas. They might well decide to go chasing other plot hooks next week anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Dug too deep and accidentally reached hell, maybe? If anybody plays Dwarf Fortress in your group they'll appreciate the nod. EDIT: sealed off because killing a demon just sends him back to hell. Not even the finest beards in the kingdom could stop them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Why assume this Iron God is benevolent? Mayve the translated dwarvish tales were mistaken? Maybe this god wasn't one to be worshipped, but instead a great evil to be shut away and guarded? Or maybe the Iron God was a nickname for a gigantic magical construct, snd those shades were a last line of defense before unleashing this walking apocalypse? And the ending of the words is Numidium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
The Iron god isn't evil but it is dangerous, because its pantheon is incomplete. Its purpose is to build an army, and it will have its followers fell trees, mine ore, and build forges. But without the god of Wisdom, it won't know to stop. Without the god of War, it won't know how to use it. Without the god of Plenty it won't know to keep its subjects fed. It'll just keep on building and building until the world is one enormous strip-mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
it's a mistranslation and the god is actually one of metal. it was sealed away because mere mortals couldn't survive the facemelting force of its glory
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:it's a mistranslation and the god is actually one of metal. it was sealed away because mere mortals couldn't survive the facemelting force of its glory Dungeon World: Brutal legend
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
What they thought was an I was actually a lower case L. Now Xenu is free from his magnetic prison to reawaken his army of Thetans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
I have to admit, I hadn't even thought of the Iron God playing into what happened here since he has been established as one of the big existing deities among the dwarves, but the idea of unearthing some sort of giant iron construct with unfathomable powers sounds really neat. Perhaps the priest realized too late the new object of his worship was not an avatar of the true Iron God, but something perverse and evil locked away eons ago, and his last act before being driven mad was to order himself locked inside as he attempted to put what they had awoken back to sleep. Afterwords, abandoned by the true Iron God, he turned in his madness to the goddess of undeath and was transformed into his current state. This probably WILL turn into a Brutal Legend type scenario by the time we're done. It's the kind of thing that seems to keep happening in a party of basically Iron Man and a fighter with clockwork arms and rocket fists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
An Iron God could also be the enemy of a Sun God, as Iron is involved in stellar death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
FromTheShire posted:This probably WILL turn into a Brutal Legend type scenario by the time we're done. It's the kind of thing that seems to keep happening in a party of basically Iron Man and a fighter with clockwork arms and rocket fists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, do any of you take D&D settings/adventures and play them in DW? I wonder how that process is like given that the players are so involved in world-building.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:Out of curiosity, do any of you take D&D settings/adventures and play them in DW? I wonder how that process is like given that the players are so involved in world-building. We borrow poo poo from wherever. If people want to play in Eberron or whatever using DW it's super easy. And then make up poo poo about it/add to it. Same as what we did with settings when we played D&D. I don't usually end up playing with people who go "Wait, that's now how [setting] is supposed to be!" anyway, 'cause my friends & I don't really give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Here's an updated version of the redone layout of the playbooks for my sci-fi setting, and also a preview of The Officer playbook I'm working on. The Officer I stole a bit from the Noble and the Pirate, just trying to make a very "Leader-ey" guy, or just a guy who makes things happen and motivates his/her/it's crew to get poo poo done. As for the playbook layout, I figured everyone always has a scrap of paper laying around to detail their character's items, like what kind of healing stuff they have, or important items like maps or tokens, so I added in an extra sheet at the end just for all the stuff your character has. Includes sections for taking down quick notes on your mounts and even reminders for any property you may own or political connections you might develop during your adventure. Not going to be a complete replacement for extra sheets going into specifics, but it's a start, right? Might add a 4th page, in front, a "Cover Sheet" with an area for your character's portrait, with just the name of the playbook and the hack's logo for text. E: Aaaand I've already made some changes. Added in a missing comma, and added this bit to Commanding Presence: "If the result of your ally's roll would have them mark XP, you mark XP instead." Babe Magnet fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Would people be interested in a supplement for Dungeon World that facilitated solo/small group play through the introduction of bit characters? Each Companion would be a single-sheet playbook with a couple of moves that the main character could hire/befriend/create and run alongside their character, with the suggestion and encouragement to make your own and reflavor what's there, including ideas on how to pare down existing playbooks into Companions. Sort of similar to the Mounts and Vehicles book. For instance, a Frost Mage and their iceshaped buddies, or a Warrior working alongside some mercenary pals. I'm kind of going for something similar to what Sine Nomine's Scarlet Heroes does for OSR, but more Baldur's Gate and less Diablo. It'd be good for when there's the DM and only one or two players, but could probably be scaled up for regular-sized group play as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Spincut posted:Would people be interested in a supplement for Dungeon World that facilitated solo/small group play through the introduction of bit characters? Each Companion would be a single-sheet playbook with a couple of moves that the main character could hire/befriend/create and run alongside their character, with the suggestion and encouragement to make your own and reflavor what's there, including ideas on how to pare down existing playbooks into Companions. Sort of similar to the Mounts and Vehicles book. For instance, a Frost Mage and their iceshaped buddies, or a Warrior working alongside some mercenary pals. Considering how often I end up looking at a roster or 3 or less for a game, that sounds like a wonderful idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Sounds like an Expanded Hirelings supplement, which I am all for as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Yeah something like that would work great for me as well, I'm typically running sessions for 2 players, sometimes 3, so it can feel a little sparse. We've been talking about each person running two characters each but I like the idea of giving them their own companion. Edit: We have also been playing around with using Paul Taliesin's Apocalypse Harm moves, where you basically end up with various somewhat narrative conditions as you take more and more punishment. Generally this has been working well without needing any fiddling, but one of the options that can happen to you under 'serious poo poo' which also includes things like losing limbs, bleeding heavily, going unconscious, etc, is being blinded. Normally, this also gives you +1 weird, which doesn't really have a Dungeon World equivalent. Should I come up with something to replace it or just let being blinded remain the way it is, as another serious condition with mainly narrative effects? FromTheShire fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Spincut posted:Would people be interested in a supplement for Dungeon World that facilitated solo/small group play through the introduction of bit characters? Each Companion would be a single-sheet playbook with a couple of moves that the main character could hire/befriend/create and run alongside their character, with the suggestion and encouragement to make your own and reflavor what's there, including ideas on how to pare down existing playbooks into Companions. Sort of similar to the Mounts and Vehicles book. For instance, a Frost Mage and their iceshaped buddies, or a Warrior working alongside some mercenary pals. Yes. This might also even be good for the odd-ball solo game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:Here's an updated version of the redone layout of the playbooks for my sci-fi setting, and also a preview of The Officer playbook I'm working on. I don't particularly like Commanding Presence. What are actions? Those don't exist here. Did you see Gnome's FellowShip-based move-sheet? It's only a taste, but it talks about "spotlight." Spotlight is a good thing that maybe would make sense here, even if it's not well defined as a game term, it can fit the fiction. "When you have the spotlight, then you can issue orders," or something of this nature. Of course, having a case where assuming another player will take the action you give them is a weird situation. Maybe give a bonus if they actually take the command?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Yeah, it's meant to be if they actually follow the order. Also, actions are just that. Not referencing a game term or anything. I use "move" for that. Just the character acting on the whims of another. If this case, you're sacrificing your "action", basically instead of poppin' some fool with a dinky little pistol, you're going to sit back and tell the Trooper next to you with a plasma cannon to hit him instead, even if just a second ago he was lobbing off orbs of hot death at something completely different, or he'd otherwise be distracted. Some of the advanced moves augment this, such as giving that ally a bonus for when they do something on your command, or allowing them to bump a 6- to a 7-9 (sacrificing the XP if they choose to do so, of course). The way the Officer works in my head is kind of like the middle-man between the player and the game, at times. Like, instead of just being one of the pieces on the chess board, he can also be a little bit of the guy playing chess himself. Assuming you choose these options as Advanced Moves, as the Officer, if you succeed at something with a 10+, the next ally to do something similar gets a little bonus to it. If you're making a big show of standing up against overwhelming opposition, anyone that can see you being a stubborn hardass is inspired to do just the same, or at least hindered if they wish to act against and try and cut-and-run or something. There's also minor aspects, like being pretty ace at working over a crowd and starting up riots or talking down a bunch of angry mercenaries or whatever. As well as stuff regarding navigation and being a star pilot, but that's all minor stuff compared to the focus of manipulating your own crew to advance a common goal. E: I mean, yeah, it works a lot better in systems that have "turns", and even though *World games do not, I still find that everyone acts in accordance to some vaguely-defined turn order anyway, if only for the sake of fairness and time. E2: You know what, it is kind of weird. I'm going to retool it, and move the new version into the Advanced Moves, replacing it with something I think fits the "Captain/Navigator" theme a little better. Babe Magnet fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
I might be getting into a Dungeon World game soon, and if I do, I'm going to try to make a character that I've had the concept for for a while. I noticed that in the Princess playbook, for My Dear Friends, you can choose for the form to be "things far stranger by far". So basically, I'm using that to make a Princess who is the daughter of a world devouring Cthulhu monster from beyond time and space, sent to the world as a harbinger of its destruction. Other than that, she's the sweetest, most naive thing you could meet, and absolutely the archetypal Disney heroine. I really hope the group is on board with my idea, because I've been wanting to do this for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
V2, updated with some Starting Moves switching and the first version of the advanced moves. Expect spelling errors and weird formatting because I'm really tired
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Hoping to run an experimental/exploratory one-shot on Sunday. I did an ongoing campaign with DW last year, and I'm wondering if the current rules are the state of the art for PbtA high fantasy. Any interesting hacks or mods I should review before I tell my players to dive in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:V2, updated with some Starting Moves switching and the first version of the advanced moves. Expect spelling errors and weird formatting because I'm really tired Considering that was my only issue, loving it. Can't wait to see more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:Out of curiosity, do any of you take D&D settings/adventures and play them in DW? I wonder how that process is like given that the players are so involved in world-building. I don't play a lot, but I'm probably starting up a game that it going to borrow a lot on the ongoing story arc, "Tyranny of Dragons" from the new DnD 5e. The basic map/cities/landmarks will be classic Forgotten Realms / Sword Coast. Rather than be super-involed in that story arc, however, the players will be acting on a much more local level doing their own thing and that Tyranny of the Dragons part will act more like an outside threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Strontosaurus posted:Hoping to run an experimental/exploratory one-shot on Sunday. I did an ongoing campaign with DW last year, and I'm wondering if the current rules are the state of the art for PbtA high fantasy. Any interesting hacks or mods I should review before I tell my players to dive in? Dungeon World's still the big PbtA high fantasy system, yep. Vincent Baker's making his own fantasy PbtA game, but it's low fantasy--it's hugely different, as you'd probably expect, though definitely pretty cool. My big suggestion would be to throw out all the classes that come with Dungeon World and use the playbooks listed in the OP. The Grim World and Inverse World playbooks are all awesome, anything else by gnome7 is absolutely worth a look, and there are some other really great gems on that list, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
On that note, our group is likely starting a new campaign using the Grim World playbooks. Is there anything we should know about them? Any warnings for certain classes or tweaks that should be made?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Their Slayer isn't as good as my Slayer 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Dungeon World's still the big PbtA high fantasy system, yep. Vincent Baker's making his own fantasy PbtA game, but it's low fantasy--it's hugely different, as you'd probably expect, though definitely pretty cool. Also AWDA is a fantasy version of AW and shares similar themes and mechanical emphasis (the classes have social standing and responsibility, there are large-scale conflicts, there's settlement management and resource scarcity), whereas DW is PbtA murderhobos and does not cope well with anything outside of that. Boing posted:Their Slayer isn't as good as my Slayer This is Correct, but then your slayer is a shoo-in for top 5 DW playbooks ever made. The Grim World playbooks are just not very good (too mechanistic, not fictional enough).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Boing posted:Their Slayer isn't as good as my Slayer I do actually like their slayer better. It's very good to be a bloodthirsty murderous rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
incogneato posted:On that note, our group is likely starting a new campaign using the Grim World playbooks. Is there anything we should know about them? Any warnings for certain classes or tweaks that should be made? What Boing said. Their Slayer is not particularly good, the Thirst mechanic is self-defeating and honestly annoying to use. I don't particularly like the Templar either, although it's been so long since I looked at Grim World I couldn't tell you why. All of the other playbooks are really really good, though. Also, while Death Moves are cool in theory, I find that DW runs better without them. Giving a huge reward for doing the one thing you never want to do doesn't make people want to kill off their characters most of the time, and it makes it so that when they DO die, you just completely derail what was going on to let their big flashy Death Move trivialize everything. They're cool to read and fun in theory and I wrote 40 of the things while I was hyped with their shiny new coat, but I have never enjoyed them in play at the table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
The Grim World playbooks all have some sort of cool mechanical gimmick attached, which are kind of cool and do make them all feel distinct, but I never thought that they were especially well handled. The playbooks don't seem to quite do what I want them to do. For example, the Necromancer can basically only have one zombie out at a time and while admittedly that zombie can become pretty pimp after a few advances, the inability for The Necromancer to have a zombie horde is pretty unforgivable. Also, the Templar gets an ability that knocks back everything within Reach which is Evil. The Templar is allowed to be Evil. The guy playing the Templar when I ran GW used it to send himself flying into second storey windows. I dunno, it's not terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it never really caught me the same way Inverse World did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:The Grim World playbooks all have some sort of cool mechanical gimmick attached, which are kind of cool and do make them all feel distinct, but I never thought that they were especially well handled. The playbooks don't seem to quite do what I want them to do. For example, the Necromancer can basically only have one zombie out at a time and while admittedly that zombie can become pretty pimp after a few advances, the inability for The Necromancer to have a zombie horde is pretty unforgivable. Also, the Templar gets an ability that knocks back everything within Reach which is Evil. The Templar is allowed to be Evil. The guy playing the Templar when I ran GW used it to send himself flying into second storey windows. The only one I've had the chance to see in action has been the Battlemaster, and it feels more like a D&D class ported over. My biggest beef is that a lot of the gambit-related mechanics don't have much tie to the fiction- why does someone getting hurt let you give someone else +1 to a roll? What does getting a 6- on changing tactics mean? A good GM could cover for that, but I've always thought the point of DW is that they shouldn't need to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Handgun Phonics posted:The only one I've had the chance to see in action has been the Battlemaster, and it feels more like a D&D class ported over. My biggest beef is that a lot of the gambit-related mechanics don't have much tie to the fiction- why does someone getting hurt let you give someone else +1 to a roll? What does getting a 6- on changing tactics mean? Honestly, speaking as someone who has only read the Grim World playbooks and never seen them in play, the Battlemaster's main source of fun seems to be thinking of justifications for your gambits. If the Battlemaster doesn't want to spend time talking about how the kobold warleader gave Rurik a prime opportunity to roll past him and start picking the lock when he stabbed the Battlemaster in the gut and all that jazz the playbook is going to be really weak fictionally, just because it gives you mechanics to hang fiction from instead of mechanics that create fiction by themselves. Lurks With Wolves fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback about my Companions idea! Good to know that there is interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Honestly, speaking as someone who has only read the Grim World playbooks and never seen them in play, the Battlemaster's main source of fun seems to be thinking of justifications for your gambits. If the Battlemaster doesn't want to spend time talking about how the kobold warleader gave Rurik a prime opportunity to roll past him and start picking the lock when he stabbed the Battlemaster in the gut and all that jazz the playbook is going to be really weak fictionally, just because it gives you mechanics to hang fiction from instead of mechanics that create fiction by themselves. Yeah, but that's sadly underrepresented in the book itself. I'd like it if the moves involved less bookkeeping and more on the ability to explain how everything up 'till now was part of some incredibly convoluted half-logical plan, leading to this exact opportunity. Probably with a generous helping of something like the Dashing Hero's "there's always a dramatically appropriate prop for you to use in your stunts."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:38
|
|