I've recently acquired a copy of Dungeon World and I have to say, while I don't care for the game rules itself...

Because Shills gotta neg first to pretend they're not shills.

It's always "[thing I'm advertising] has [commonly cited greivance], but you should still buy it because [exaggeration of how good an ignorable feature is]."

I want to live in your land of make believe pillow-forts and false flags.

I got it too, but I haven't looked at it. People on here were pretty negative about the whole thing. I just wanted to branch out a bit.

Ah well. It isn't like I'm gonna find a group either way.

hahahaha
holy fuck man you almost had me

Some of us haven't played it. Entirely possible he's sincerely asking why it's so bad.

I'm kindof curious myself.

My quick skimming makes me think it's apocalypse world (a game I've read but not played) as a dungeon crawler.

What's wrong with it ?

It is the same guys. Hence the name.

No it isn't, retard. It's two guys who took Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World and made their own homebrew with it. There's dozens of AW hacks out there.

The setup of AW works with characters pulling in different directions, with NPCs adjusting the ropes to ensure dramatic conflict. DW is the PCs all pulling the same way, with NPCs on the sidelines. The rules system doesn't work well for that.

Also combat is garbage and takes way too long and is way too clunky for a 'narrative' game.

Cliff's Notes: It tried to unite D&D's dungeon crawling and traditions with AW's narrative framework, mangling both in the process.
They completely failed to understand why and how AW works and just tacked on token D&Disms that fail to evoke any of its positive qualities.

Wrong. Apocalypse World is by Vincent Baker.
Dungeon World is by Sage LaTorra and Adam Koebel

Cute damage control.

That is a reasonable contention. I just really like the idea of roleplaying in a traditional DnD dungeon. I know most people don't like the whole dungeon ecology aspect and focus more on the XP and loot, but I love shit like mimics and oozes and dungeoneering guilds and whatnot. This splat may have been useless, but I loved reading it.

You guys seem smart and not just angry. Is there really nothing worthwhile in a narrativist take on this sort of thing? I always thought this sort of setting can create great stories.

Maybe there is a good narrativist dungeon crawler. Personally I think that's the wrong frame of mind for a dungeon crawler game to be in -you need few but hard rules so the PCs can use their wits to get through, not just handwaving narrative fiat because 'you're the heroes'. The story emerges from the way the PCs survive, not starting from them surviving and making a story about how awesome they are.

I'd play any one of a thousand OSR games before I'd try to actually run a dungeon crawl in DW.

The adventure structure and making moves as a GM is a great read for any game. The player side can be swapped for any system and the GM side is still really good.

I really like the way gameplay flows (once you figure out how it's supposed to work).
In fact, I think the stuff you mentioned are my least favorite parts of the game.

>mangling both in the process.
I think it covers the dungeon exploring OSR style pretty well.

Also, DW sucks as a dungeon crawler. It's really only supports a wilderness sandbox style play.

It does it terribly. It's good for exploration, but the moves are built for "you travel X days and find Y thing"

Dungeon World is good at making me feel like I'm in a (usually cheesy) fantasy movie. There's a lot of nondescript action, characters that are tied together and with clear goals, and there's a set 'flow' to the story. I appreciate this quality of DW, and its also pretty easy to play quick.

But other systems I've played, like GURPS and WHFRPG, make me feel like I'm actually in a fantasy world. I'm not just playing a character, I'm actually in a living, breathing world, with serious consequences for all my actions (in and out of combat). DW and more narrativist games don't immerse me like that.

I don't understand the love for Apocalypse World.
The differences between AW and DW are the exact reason why I find DW enjoyable and AW boring and arbitrary (AW has no sense of challenge, no sense of gameplay, ridiculous and pointless design decisions like the sex moves, the annoying and occasionally ambiguously worded way the rulebook is written, etc.)

Someone told me to go to the OSR thread for advice regarding what I am aiming for and they recommended DW to me, not even kidding. Or the Wheel of Fire or whatever books.

They said they were more narrativist and any OSR game is gonna be more rulesy.

I dunno. I should really look at the book and learn to make my own opinions.

I think you'll have to elaborate on that. I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

The travel moves are built for long travel, condensing down the oft boring days into a couple rolls.

But why would the dungeon need its own moves when you don't actually want to skim over stuff? Every minute/hour/day spent inside should be packed with encounters and things to do, so it shouldn't need any more moves than the ones you can always use anyway.

This is the most OSR-like aspect of DW. It's great for over the top silly action, and metal head murderhobos with little to tie the setting together. I'd compare it to a fantasy anime - the action is flashy but shallow, the characters all have their drama, and nothing needs to go because it's about characters doing cool stuff.

I play RuneQuest, so the ideas of cultures and careers and hand-picked fighting styles and passions add a lot more to the world and the story. I like players as a small but important cog in the setting and not he center of its universe.

>AW has no sense of challenge, no sense of gameplay, ridiculous and pointless design decisions like the sex moves
You have shit taste

Well, if I wasted 30 bucks, I wasted thirty bucks. No big deal. But I don't want to make the same mistake again, so I need to know what to avoid.

Sure, but that's complaint with the genre, not the system, isn't it? Simulationism is fun to DM, but I've found that people just don't give a shit.

Could you go into more detail? Isn't exploration all there is to this sort of thing?

Dang. You could go with huge vast caverns, I guess?

I'd put DW, OSR games, and Burning Wheel in three different camps. The last is not really a narrativist game as I understand it, but it is a very good game.

>t tried to unite D&D's dungeon crawling and traditions with AW's narrative framework, mangling both in the process.
>They completely failed to understand why and how AW works and just tacked on token D&Disms that fail to evoke any of its positive qualities.

Could you elaborate? I'm currently building an AW hack and I don't want to make the same mistakes. From what I've read of DW so far, it didn't seem that horrible, but that's probably because I haven't run it yet.
What are some good pbta games? Monsterhearts?

They should rename the game Arbitrary World for how meaningless and insignificant player choice is in the system. At least when a DM railroads me I can find a better DM. When a system railroads me I can do naught but abandon the worthless system.

It's not really a complaint at all, there are good things about both styles of play. I've had a lot of fun with DW.

But in my experience, the more a system focuses on meta-mechanics, the more it feels like you're just watching something as opposed to being in it.

Yeah, but it operates as the "signpost" method of storytelling. In DW you should be spending a session raiding a dungeon and then moving on, period. A single session sized dungeon is not an old school dungeon it's better as an interesting ruin set in an exotic wilderness - a few rooms, a puzzle or two, some consequences from the choices.

Then the travel is nice and things can happen as a couple rolls and the detail of exploring the dungeon, encountering what is inside and returning triumphant and moving to the next one.

Even the adventure advice in the GM section supports this style play more, and it's why something like Friends at the Table works - the base story is "go to place, explore, things get complicated, keep pushing forward."

Making it a more elaborate dungeon or a large dungeon is super boring in DW compared to using an OSR game to begin with. That was my mistake and why I disliked DW at first.

>you need few but hard rules so the PCs can use their wits to get through,
Yes, in DW, this is what's referred to as the "moves". Hard and fast rules that happen under specific circumstances.

>not just handwaving narrative fiat because 'you're the heroes'
This doesn't happen in DW. In fact, it's very clear about this.
In fact, if you're talking this way it seems to me that you never took the time to actually understand how DW operates.
The players and GM do describe the character's actions and the world (same as in all other games) - and this causes Moves to trigger whenever specific circumstances happen, and then hard-and-fast rules decide what has to happen.
And when it comes to how the GM decides to run the world of the game and interpret those actions/events, DW also has an extra layer of rules that other games don't have - those rules tell the GM exactly what he's allowed to do and why (GM moves and GM principles) and none of those are "make sure the PCs win because they're heroes". The game makes this crystal clear a hundred times: you must've missed that. Ever single time.

>The story emerges from the way the PCs survive, not starting from them surviving and making a story about how awesome they are.
This assumption is incorrect. DW is meant to be fairly lethal, and has plenty of opportunity for player character death. In fact, as opposed to something like D&D as it's commonly run, DW allows the PCs to get maimed, receiving lasting and debilitating injuries.

It also focuses on very gamey resource management of things like food and ammo.

Yep, I agree with you. What DW is really good for, imo, is a palette cleanser between long, arduous campaigns. A fun one-shot or two that's easy to set up and play

Sorry, I just don't like ERPing with my fat neckbeard friends, in a game that's basically just pattycake with no sense of danger or challenge.

>A single session sized dungeon is not an old school dungeon

A lot of the old school dungeons were single session sized, if for nothing else then tournament/con play.

Burning Wheel is the closest I've found to what seems like a perfect combination of narrative and simulation. Some of the rules are clunky (the detailed fight rules are strange), but if played properly, everything comes together so well.

This.

The Burning Wheel is one of the thickest games out there, and offers spectacular crunch. I would compare it more closely to RuneQuest or something like that where there is a deep background to characters and they develop organically. I would love to do a War of 1812 type setting in Burning Wheel.

If the GM is railroading you, he's acting against the GM principles and moves and thus you're not playing Dungeon World.

The rules for how the GM runs the game are not a Dungeon Master's Guide: they're Rules. Capital R.

It says this in black and white in the rulebook.
If anything, DW protects MORE against shitty GMing than other games, though that's arguable because of how stupid difficult it is to learn how to actually GM it properly.

Regardless: if your GM doesn't follow the rules, don't whine about the game.

Yes, but to me the most famous stories in an OSR would be the Temple of Elemental Evil or Island of Dread or Castle Ravenloft.

Actually Castle Ravenloft is a great example of a terrific setting and story DW would not be a ton of fun to play with.

Jesus. I don't know what to think. I'll look into it. Learning a new system is always daunting, especially when you are likely to be DMing the thing, but this is some universal praise.

Man, maybe I should just do fucking 5E and be done with it. The 5 or so sessions I DMed of that went fine, of a bit dull.

Not that user, but as someone who did his own hack, read the section on NPCs in AW over and over.

The heart of AW is scarcity of loyalty. Everyone can either start with a gang, or get a gang during play, and even without a gang you're supposed to build PC-NPC-PC triangles. You put people into the care of your players, and then those people ask to be cared for. The PC needs to make the hard choices of how he takes care of them, and who he is going to take from to care for them. You might be a Chopper who wants to secure food, one of your riders is the brother of the Hardholder, the Hardholder has food. Do you try and get this rider to turn on his own brother to feed the entire gang, do you look for another target and let the Hardholder keep a potential subversive in your ranks, etc? You can try for peace, but there's not enough for everyone, and it stretches loyalty to the breaking point.

Monsterhearts does the same thing. Everyone wants to be accepted, loved, and popular because they are teenagers, but there's not enough room at school for everyone to be on top. People go up and down on the wheel of life, and each downswing for one person automatically creates an upswing for another.

The mechanics support this. A hard move shouldn't be 'everyone is fucked equally.' It's 'Something goes wrong for someone, or they don't get exactly what they want, how are you going to turn this situation to your advantage?' In DW, failures tend to pile on top of each other, and they had to put in that stupid 'bank a hard move' kludge otherwise one 6-or-less would tank the entire party. In AW and all good hacks, the hard moves happen freely as the dice and fiction demand, and they don't bring the game to a halt, they create opportunity for someone else.

>The 5 or so sessions I DMed of that went fine, of a bit dull.

This seems to be the 5e experience in a nutshell.

5e is a solid "classic style" RPG. I actually took the time to figure out how to GM dungeon world properly, and I'd 100x rather play 5e D&D than play Dungeon World under a GM who doesn't completely understand how to run it (and, say, runs it like a D&D game, or like Apocalypse World for that matter, which I also hate.)

The DW moves aren't hard and fast. They are specifically lose. You only need to take 3 seconds with the game to realise that 'defy danger' is literally the only move necessary, because absolutely everything can key into that. The moves are soft to be shaped to the fiction, and the results are equally soft. Can something happen? Play to find out.

It's not a wrong approach in all games, but it's wrong for dungeon crawls. You can't tell people to track the weight of their arrows, but then leave whether or not they can lift a door totally to chance.

And don't bullshit me or yourself. DW has a strong emphasis on the PCs being the heroes of the story. Banking failures to not crush the party are just the most obvious example. You're the one who did not read the world- you swallowed Kobol's bullshit when he stole the principles of AW and slapped them onto his game, not realising the changes of the rules rendered those principles invalid.

>and they had to put in that stupid 'bank a hard move' kludge
I was following along until this point. What?

BW requires players buying into the system. Most systems do, but with BW, they really have to play to their traits and their beliefs, and be prepared to make sacrifices. It can really stall a campaign when people play a BW with a very 'I want to win' attitude, because the game is primarily about asking you how far are you willing to go to get something you desire.

If you want a less narrativist system with largely the same crunch though, I'd recommend Torchbearer.

The Burning Wheel is a terrific game that I will never get to play because it's like 800 pages and my players won't read that much unless they want to play the system. It's sort of the ideal indie system - well made and rigorously playtested with strong mechanics and a fan base that helped it develop into something even better. If you want the most "hardcore" role playing game that demands acting, thinking tactically, and developing complex and interesting fantasy stories then you should play The Burning Wheel. I mean, it is literally the favorite game of both creators of Dungeon World and highly praised by the creator of Apocalypse World.

I would run 5e myself because it's niche is being everyone's second favorite system, so it's super easy to make enjoyable games. It also helps that there are a lot of rules customizations and homebrewing or improv is super easy to do so I don't break the flow of the game.

Somewhere in that book, it says you can, instead of acting immediately on a 6-or-less, you can save it and use it later (can't recall the page at the moment). Which is dumb, because MCs are already supposed to use hard moves when the fiction demands and when there's an opportunity.

It's sloppy design and I dislike it.

Ugh. That sounds miserable. I get that it creates tension, but that's so much stress.

Eh. I just am so used to crusading for player agency and then I get a party of half-orcs standing around wondering what to do. I gave them hooks upon hooks, but they were just faffing around. It was my fault, I know, but I still am a bit bitter.

Torchbearer! That was it. That was what was recommended.

Also, I'll be honest, I literally have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to BW. Is it just a heavy lore game?

>literally the only move necessary
No, it's not. You could in theory make a low-crunch game that didn't have the other moves, but that wasn't the point or intention.
Creating unique moves for a long list of common situations allows the designers to create interesting gameplay, resource management, and ensure better balance. It's crunch. It's there for the same reason that D&D (and DW) has classes: they're not strictly necessary but they add depth.

>The moves are soft to be shaped to the fiction
Only insofar that a move can only happen once its trigger occurs in the fiction. It's a basic reality check: is this possible? Okay. Did the trigger happen? Okay.
The same stuff happens in D&D. Players still narrate what they want to do and the GM still narrates what happens in the game world; it's just that in D&D, the reality check isn't put in front and written into the rules of the game. It only happens when something so ridiculous occurs that the DM has to go "wait, no you can't do that".

There's nothing inherently soft of wishy-washy about narrating what happens until a rule triggers.

>I get that it creates tension, but that's so much stress.

There's a reason that AW campaigns tend to be short (5-10 sessions is a good length). When my group did a 25-session campaign, we had to share campaign logs with some people to prove we did it. It works well to ramp up the tension, then fly apart spectacularly.

>pointless design decisions like the sex moves,

Yeah you didn't even begin to understand the point of the game. Go back to killing an elder Dragon with half as many hit points as you have, faggot.

>If the GM is railroading you, he's acting against the GM principles and moves and thus you're not playing Dungeon World.

What a weak game. Even DnD can be fun with a shitty DM. Dungeon World literally needs to railroad the DM to keep its horrific design together.

Not that Adam and Sage had to do anything except copy parts of Apocalypse World and go through it with a motorcycling thesaurus. "Discern Realities"?? Sounds like shit a middleschooler would write.

I didn't just mean the workload. I meant having to roleplay in a setting like that where stakes are so high and people are so unhappy.

I don't see the appeal.

I'm not that guy, nor do I really have a horse in this race, but I am curious what you mean. I can't imagine any game needing rules for sex unless it was erotic.

What does motorcycling mean in this context?

DnD honestly isn't fun with a shitty DM. At least, it hasn't been for me. High School DnD was an uphill battle. I remember my DM once pulled me aside and said "I didn't expect you to be able to fly yet, so uh, could you not?".

Why don't you try a NON FANTASY system you dumb fucker, sounds like you're just bored of fantasy in general. Dungeon World takes a tightly designed game and puts crap from D&D like hit point bloat and race-class restrictions because the devs are just grabbing things from the AD&D rulebook to make their game seem like OSR when it is anything but.

"sex moves" are an unofficial term. AW and monster hearts has moves that trigger when two characters share an intimate moment to reflect that sharing an intimate moment in that world means that something has changed in their relationship with each other and the world.

The "sex" part of the "sex moves" has no mechanical representation/bearing/whatever.

>You only need to take 3 seconds with the game to realise that 'defy danger' is literally the only move necessary, because absolutely everything can key into that.

Then why do the others exist? Another example of bad design.

>I would run 5e myself because it's niche is being everyone's second favorite system

Holy shit you are literally parroting carp you heard on Veeky Forums without understanding what the fuck you are talking about.

Of course, you're enough of a dumbass to defend Dungeon World so I'm not sure if I should take that statement literally or figuratively.

I meant the stakes as well. The 'workload' is nothing- you don't need to stat out NPCs, just play them like people who actually want things instead of mannequins the PCs push around.

And the appeal is that the stakes are high. It's like Alien, or No Country For Old Men, or a game of Dread- the tense situations are the draw. It's also why short campaigns are better- you can build tension, then let it release, then you move on to another game.

>Is there really nothing worthwhile in a narrativist take on this sort of thing?
There is. There definitely is. But DW is an utterly failed attempt at doing so, because its creators did not think about the game in terms of narrative. Just took two things and mashed them together without any proper thought.

My main complaints boil down to three points:
Stats, Moves and Experience.

In AW, each stat equates to a different approach to a problem because they are each tied to distinct moves. Hard is for engaging in violence, Cool is for putting yourself in danger beyond your control, Sharp is for thinking things through, Hot is for working the personal angle and Weird is for Psychic Maelstrom fuckery.
In DW, STR, DEX and CON are all used for violence. CHA is iffy because you're not expected to encounter fellow humanoids most of the time. INT is Weird without the Maelstrom. And for whatever reason, putting yourself in danger beyond your control was spread among all stats.

AW's moves are all about tangible consequences and not getting exactly what you want. No matter what you roll, if you roll, your situation changes meaningfully. This works with "just" taking harm, because you only have three segments before you're seriously fucked. And for most moves, you have to take a compromise, even if you roll a 10+.
DW's moves are mostly okay if they're lifted straight from AW, but its original creations are... meh. Hack 'n' Slash, Volley and Defend all do numbers, not consequences. Forget about the 14 HP Dragon, I'm talking about what's written in the rules. Of course you can add narrative flourishes, but the rules themselves, unlike AW's, do not give you consequences. Also, Hack 'n' Slash, Volley and Cast a Spell all give you perfect outcomes on a 10+. No drawbacks at all.

(cont.)

What? How did you get that impression? I literally don't like any other setting. I'm the guy talking about how formative Dungeonscape was for my idea of a perfect RPG setting.

Like, "X will remember that."?

Now Experience is an incentive system. You want to gain Experience, so you take actions that give you Experience.
AW gives you experience for rolling one of the two stats a fellow player and the MC have highlighted at the start of the session. That means that your group has a way to mechanically reward you for doing what they want to see you do. Because, as previously established, stats are tied clearly to a particular approach. This gives most of, if not the entire group a way to naturally direct the tone of the session.
DW gives you experience for... failing. Usually, you don't want to fail. But the system tells you to. This is not a useful narrative tool, it's a nuisance.

>DnD honestly isn't fun with a shitty DM

I stand by the statement that D&D4e can be fun with a DM who actively hates you, so long as he follows the rules for encounter design.

In BW, all the players have a set of beliefs that are supposed to be the primary engine for the drama in the game. These can be things that the player characters want to do (avenge my brother, romance the princess) or things that are a deep part of their philosophy (i am loyal to the king).

The GM, when he sets up the campaign, is ideally supposed to take all of these disparate beliefs of the PCs and use them to create scenarios. (E.g. you find out its the son of the king you are loyal to, the brother of the princess you love, that betrayed your family). Engaging with this tense scenario gives the PC fate points, and drives the impetus for further drama.

Running away from tough choices and negative consequences tends to stall player development, which can be frustrating.

That was a lame example to use, and I'm not sure if I've explained it any better, but you should download the pdf and see if you like it.

No it means the failure can set up a threat that shows up later on in the episode. This is a common storytelling technique. I'm looking for an example in Firefly (which Apocalypse World is based off of) but I can't find one right now.

>I stand by the statement that D&D4e can be fun with a DM who actively hates you, so long as he follows the rules for encounter design.

No wonder, it was literally designed with that in mind.

>Alien or No Country for Old Men

As in movies that are literally painful and terrifying to watch? I don't think I want to mimic that sort of thing for my Saturday nights.

I constantly feel as though I am somehow crazy because I don't derive pleasure from this sort of thing.

I see your point. After all, people watched Breaking Bad, but it just doesn't work for me. I would probably end up in hysterical tears before the session ends.

>Ugh. That sounds miserable. I get that it creates tension, but that's so much stress.

........

It's a fucking game. Just because it demands more creativity and improv than the powerwank bullshit you play right now, doesn't make it a bad game. It's not stressful at all because as usual you people act like building tension requires you to be Alfred fucking Hitchcock. It doesn't, every GM does it, and you can do it too.

Or go back to Tumblr and go "ugh" at everything that seems like too much for your frail little heart. I honest don't care.

The GM in Dungeon World/Apocalypse World is forced to railroad and is railroaded himself by the arbitrary move mechanics. He can choose to do nothing outside of the list of moves. Hence even if he wants to not railroad the players he cannot do so without breaking the rules of the game and comitting the rule zero fallacy.

It's not the GM's fault its the systems fault.

>, it has one of the best written GM sections of any RPG I've ever read
You have my attention. Elaborate, OP.

Dude, the rulebook literally lists the mechanical advantages players can give each other by having sex with one another.

>I can't imagine any game needing rules for sex unless it was erotic.

Holy shit you are definitely a virgin, AND you never read books or Tv shows.

It doesn't have rules for sex, fuck cunt, it has rules for the results of sex. It changes the character's relationship.

Yes. That is what I said. They are not "rules for sex" as mistakenly thought.

Could the angry 12yo troll please put on a trip or leave?

We are having a discussion here.

It has the same GM advice as Apocalypse World. Adam Koebel ripped it off wholesale cause he's a fucking Jew hack. I wish he'd visited Nice a few weeks ago.

>The "sex" part of the "sex moves" has no mechanical representation/bearing/whatever.

Not true. The explicit narrative tag that triggers the move is 'you have sex'. That's as close to mechanics as anything in AW. The broader reading of 'intimate moment of any kind' is popular, but absolutely not what the book says in the majority of the special moves in playbooks (I don't know about all the limited collector ones and whatnot).

is a lot closer to what is written. They are not moves for sex, but they are moves about sex.

> a bloo BLOO someone interrupted my circlejerk

It lists the mechanical consequences (because quite a few of them are negative) of sharing a moment of strong intimacy, i.e. usually sex, and therefore making yourself vulnerable in a miserable dog-eat-dog world.

What? I meant as a player. You are getting angry for no reason. Don't go all tumblr boogeyman on me. Of course it isn't a bad game. I wasn't saying it was.

Not OP, but I agree that DW does an excellent job at codifying what you usually do as a GM.

This is great since it teaches new GM what they should be on the lookout for. Of course, I also think you can graduate from DW's GM:ing and that you don't really need it.

I may as well be a virgin. Haven't had it since college.

I don't get why you would ever want to make your character have sex though. Sure, their dynamic would change if they do have it, that makes sense. But you could also have it change for literally any other reason. Why bring sex into the mix?

Because AW is a game about a post-apocalyptic world where society has broken down and people act on their desires and about the consequences thereof.

Now what very powerful desire with big consequences that most people share can you think of?

>Why bring sex into the mix?

Because, amazingly, people have sex. So you can continue playing dickless androids if you'd like, other people prefer to explore the range of human experience. And sex and violence are about as primal as human experience gets- AW addresses the last one in spades, reminding people that the former exists is not a bad idea.

You can choose not to have sex in AW, but it reminds you that is a choice, not the default for how people behave.

>game about a post-apocalyptic world where society has broken down and people act on their desires and about the consequences thereof.

This whole argument seems to sum up why this system, despite apparently being amazing will never appeal to me. And I'm not saying DW either.

I want to play a game to relax and have fun. I don't want to be reminded of my primal nature. That sort of thing quickly becomes awkward, gross and bizarre.

I just don't understand why you would ever want to pretend to be a character acting on their worst, basest instincts as part of a hellish world. It just doesn't make sense. Why would you want to describe how "you" succumb to temptation and lust to a bunch of ugly twenty somethings? I get it creates a cool and sexy narrative that works on TV and whatnot, but I don't get why you would want a game like that.

I know you're probably trolling, but yeah, credit where credit is due. The book does tell is a great introduction introducing new place to role-playing and simply encouraging old role-players to think about approaching the game from a more narrative open angle.

This really is a book that DMs and players old and the new alike should read and think about applying to a much better RPG.

>I want to play a game to relax and have fun.
Me, too. I play AW to relax and have fun.

And I don't pretend to be a character acting on their worst, basest instincts as part of a hellish world. I play characters that interest me.

>I want to play a game to relax and have fun. I don't want to be reminded of my primal nature. That sort of thing quickly becomes awkward, gross and bizarre.

It's not our fault you have shittons of sexual hang-ups. Also, fucking ANY book or movie has sex scenes and violence in it. AW includes those because it is meant to mimick that drama and narrative. Watch the TV show Firefly for an example of what kind of drama Apocalypse World is going for, that is LITERALLY what inspired the game.

Just because you are too sexually and emotionally repressed, immature little twat to enjoy a game, doesn't mean it's a bad game. Go play 5e, then, for your worthless low-effort fun.

>I just don't understand why you would ever want to pretend to be a character acting on their worst, basest instincts as part of a hellish world.

Or you could be a good husband and father who cares for his family. As a Hardholder, you need to be firm and hard with everyone to stop people from pulling apart the society you built with your own two hands. But with your wife, you can be kind, even generous.

>Hardholder Special
>If you and another character have sex, you can give the other character gifts worth 1-barter, at no cost to you.

As a rule, AW is a brutal game. A lot more people are going to die than in your D&D, because the GM is explicitly told not to pussyfoot around with the consequences of actions. As well, you don't get to ride off to another town if Hommlet gets destroyed by an evil cult. All your friends and family live in Hommlet, and now the survivors need help.

Personally, I find it very fun, I don't understand how you conclude that concept that people's actions often are motivated by or involve sex or violence is awkward, gross and bizarre, that being a human being instead of a cartoon character is not necessarily awkward, gross and bizarre, or that any story involving those will inevitably be awkward, gross and bizarre. Obviously different personal preferences.

I just don't get how you can relax given what you described.

I am aware that I am a complete pussy when it comes to this sort of thing. But the idea of roleplaying a character about to have sex is terrifying to me. You want it to make sense within the narrative and you want your character to seem authentic, but you don't want it to get awkward and weird.

Plus, even outside of the sex taboo thing that western culture engrained into me, you have scenarios like described. How can that be relaxing? How can a dog eat dog world be calming? Does it not just fill you up with disgust and distrust and paranoia?

I haven't seen that anywhere. But I have my own personal pet peeves with it, such as when players fail spout lore or discern realities when in relative safety (city library, etc.) and the rules call for something dramatic to happen, but it's nearly impossible unless there's some sort of immediate threat or risk.
Given the way the game wants you to run it (GM moves and principles etc.) there will often be some sort of immediate threat or risk, but patently not ALWAYS, which leads to stupid shit (some people advocate "spawning monsters" elsewhere or advancing the BBEGs plot, and I simply won't have that: i just don't give out XP on those rare failures.)

Lots of TV shows and movies and whatnot are bad. They use sex as a gimmick and makes that usually ruins narrative just for the sake of titilation.

I get you want to insult me and whatnot, but spoiler alert, most people don't want to talk about sex in public. Because it is a private matter.

Being a human being sucks. It is a miserable experience that I despise. That's what escapism is all about.

I don't know. I don't get why you guys are upset with me or why I am getting treated like an idiot for not wanting to go into hysterics at game night when I roleplay my daughter being murdered by gang members