Somebody explain to me all the ways that Dungeon World is a bad system

In my opinion what PbtA games are generally good at doing is creating a 'conflict cycle' where every option the players can take leads to even more problems for them.

In Apocalypse World this is due to resource scarcity, when danger happens you either lose something (and have to fight more to get it back), or you gain something (and either other people want the thing, or you now have another thing which need maintaining) so you get pulled into more conflicts as a result. This is supported by the moves as they all focus on losing/securing resources, allies, and safety so there's a constant tug-of-war between the players and GM.

Monsterhearts does the same thing with a social system. Whenever you enter a conflict you'll come out of it having gained leverage over someone (incentivising you to get into more conflicts with that person in order to use it) or you'll lose some power to them and have to deal with the pressure they put on you. As such the social standings of the characters are constantly moving in relation to each other and everyone's trying to climb, so no matter what the PC's do there will still always be conflict.

In Dungeon World however, the moves don't really have you fighting over anything, rather the focus of moves is on threat elimination. The ability of the PCs to travel also means that they're never stuck in their situation, they can move somewhere else and start a new scenario if shit hits the fan.

That last point is actually why I think Perilous Wilds supplement actually makes DW an ok game. The moves still aren't great but the new travel rules mean that wherever you go you have a good chance of running into something weird, so you're always in conflict by virtue of being in a hazardous world, it's not great but it's a definite improvement.

>The ability of the PCs to travel also means that they're never stuck in their situation, they can move somewhere else and start a new scenario if shit hits the fan.

That sounds wrong.
How are DW characters more mobile than AW characters?

it's not a matter of mobility, wherever AW characters go their problems follow them since nowhere has enough stuff, if they go to the next town over (assuming there even is another settlement they know of) their access to water/guns/petrol/whatever will still make them just as big targets as anywhere else

In DW you get into a fight with an orc tribe, move to the next city over, you're fine

...

>In DW you get into a fight with an orc tribe, move to the next city over, you're fine
That's just the GM being a pushover/idiot, not a fault with the mechanics or the setting.

I don't like dungeon world but most of that is just stupid

This is some premium virt memes.

Which makes me think virt is busy bumping his own thread.

Assuming all this is true...
>It is literally just "roll 2d6, on a 7-9 you win but feel bad, on a 10+ you win"
This is very simple but fine.

>It encourages players to define the setting rather than being part of it - stuff like letting them decide what rumours they hear in town.
This would infuriate me as a GM.

>The sense of entitlement this creates is then exported to other games.
This sounds like baseless assumption, but I don't play with a lot of randos.

>In DW you get into a fight with an orc tribe, move to the next city over, you're fine
>"Surely the GM will just let me run away from my problems"

Some of you players just make it too easy you know?

Good, now tell us how it is inaccurate.

Because it isn't even slightly inaccurate.

I'll explain to you why people think that Dungeon World is a bad system.
There is a preconception that players should not participate in the creation of the game world.

Somehow, the general agreement among core RPG gamers became that "players are just exploring and interacting with the world created by the GM - they can't influence it beyond the actions of their characters".

Games like Dungeon World challenge this concept.

Does stupid mean inaccurate now?

(Sorry for English, not my first language)

Bitching about it not being rolled stats but instead an array seems very much like 'I am saying my opinion on how this works is an objective quality'. Many people like arrays.

This is entirely incorrect, because there are many, many games that have GM and Players assist one another in creating the world, and many more that say "you should get your base ideas from your players".

This is such an old concept that claiming it's new shows how ignorant you are of how many games there are out there.

Pick fucking related.

Only on Veeky Forums.

>This would infuriate me as a GM.
Luckily, that's a load of bull.
PbtA games encourage the GM to turn to the players for inspiration. That means the players only get to define the setting if the GM asks them to. Or if they play a Barbarian, in which case they get to detail a part of the setting that the campaign may never even touch upon if you so choose.

Wait is he complaining about an array.
I mean i prefer point buy but not offfering rolled stats is very much worth it rolled stats are a blight on gaming.

I'm not claiming it's a new concept. I'm not even claiming it's the first or the only game that hardcoded it into the rules.

But a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction whenever you deviate from a norm.
>"Oh, in this game of political intrigue, you don't control the mayor as a person, but the city itself instead? And you give it stats?! THAT'S NOT AUTHENTIC!"
>"You can retroactively influence the facts about the world?! WHY DO YOU EVEN NEED A GM IF YOU'RE GONNA BE A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE AND ESTABLISH THE WORLD DETAILS ON YOUR OWN"

Etc. - basically, anything that brings the grognard outside of his comfort zone (that has been maintained by generations of games, mind you - how many games there are that allow players to influence the world directly instead of through the character's actions? And how they relate to how many games there are overall?) will generate an outcry.

He's complaining that you have zero control over how your character is built.

One of the authors is kind of a dickweasel, but I can't speak for the system.

Isn't it supposed to be vague so as to allow storytelling/do whatever you want/rule of cool? Can someone give me a rundown on how it's shit?

It's a pretty good system if you want to play low-level adventurers handling more 'mundane' threats. Basically, if you have a D&D module or adventure that's designed for level 1-10 characters, Dungeon World works great. I'm a fan of how Bonds and Alignment encourage you to explore your relationships with other characters, which can be a nice break from the slog of a dungeon crawl.

That said, it's not a great system for high-level adventurers. Characters really don't improve vertically very much. Your hit points, damage, and chance of success with most of your actions will not rise substantially. Characters instead get broader as the game continues, so you'll have more tricks and tools at your disposal but that's about it.

The system also has problems if you diverge significantly from the classic adventure style of old D&D modules and dungeons. It requires a solid balance of exploration, social interaction, and combat - if you ignore one and focus on another, some characters are going to feel left out or suddenly take the spotlight. It's a game that works best when you rotate between puzzles, fighting, exploring, and talking with people.

I think a lot of people's complaints with Dungeon World stem from them trying to use the system in ways it wasn't intended. You could theoretically use Call of Cthuhlu to run a slice-of-life romantic comedy game, but you're sorta missing the point. Dungeon World is designed for quick, fairly simple dungeon romps where tactical prowess takes a back-seat to speed and ease of play. It's very good at handling once specific style of game, and very bad at handling anything else.

>URRR you don't roll ability scores!

This is a problem?

Please, stop.
I hate it when idiots like yourself troll by assuming the absolute worst in people, and then act like you said something profound when it's really just you performing mental gymnastics to avoid the truth.

We're not talking about just grognards. We're talking about the overwhelming majority of players. Now, you have to come up with a theory that explains why they might not like what you like, without you somehow assuming that you are smarter than all of them.

Fail to do this again, and the only thing left to do is call you a troll and wash our hands of you.

It sucks at being an Apocalypse World hack and it sucks at being a love letter to D&D.

More detailed complaints by grognards, trolls and PbtA players are already in the thread.

How do we tweak the dice mechanic to have varying difficulty? subtracting a modifier seems easy enough but detracts from the 'elegance' of the system.

You don't tweak the dice mechanic.
You limit effect and do harder moves if you want more difficulty.
If you want proper difficulty in DW, you have to unfuck the moves.

Not OP, haven't read AW, can you elaborate on this a little:

>AW's moves always significantly change the situation that prompted them and almost never give you an optimal result, even on a 10+.
>Three of DW's moves only do numbers instead of consequences (which are incidentally tied to the three combat-only stats), and many of them give you a perfect outcome on a 10+, with nothing left to be desired.

What are some AW moves that don't give you what you want on a 10+? How does the MC react to successes on these moves? Are they more like DW where some moves present a list of bonuses you can take, those you don't take becoming how you failed? Or does the MC simply get an opportunity to make a move in response?

Get ye behind me virt.
Darken Veeky Forums no more with your shitposting.

Actually, the reason why people don't like Dungeon World as a system is that it takes Apocalypse World, a system focused on simplified crisp combat that emphasizes consequences over tactics and PvP play, and tries to messily convert it into a PvE game, with tons of moves for a combat system without any defined initiative or turn order so it's just gibberish cargo cult design that amounts to nothing.

Let's take a look at some of these points:

>Difficulties
While it's true that the difficulty of individual obstacles is the same, the point isn't overcoming individual obstacles: it's about the lead up and the consequences for failure.

In the example given, picking the farmer's lock is easier because you presumably had an easier time getting there in the first place and failing to pick the lock probably won't have terrible consequences. Picking the king's lock, however, probably required you to succeed at a lot of additional challenges, like sneaking past guards or battling knights. And assuming you get to the king's lock, the consequences for failure could be much more dire; the guards could turn the corner, the lock could be booby trapped, etc.

>Character Creation
I won't bother commenting on rolling for stats, but it's ironic that having an ability score and modifier is "bad game design" (which it is) but rolling for stats is an absolute necessity (when it is also bad game design).

>Character Advancement
I think you've missed the point. You can grab moves from other classes (and become an entirely new class at level 10). Ability scores aren't the end all be all of character advancement and letting them get too high jeopardizes the core mechanic.

>Moves
Again you've missed the point. The moves are supposed to be broad. Characters are supposed to be able to overcome obstacles using the moves. I don't really understand this criticism.

>Monsters
If you can't remember what words mean then I'm sorry. "Near, far" should be pretty self-explanatory, especially in relation to "hand", "close" and "reach". It's able to attack at range, that's it.

I didn't say inaccurate but whatever
>The legendary lock of the king is equally hard to pick as the old farmer's shitty barn
There are two rules involved in stopping this idiocy, first you only roll if you have a reasonable chance of both success and failure, two the consequences the GM gives you on a partial or failure depend on the situation, in a less dangerous situation it doesn't matter as much if you get a partial or fail

>fixed race-class combinations
This is kind of stupid, it at least has the advantage of being easily fixed (race moves take about a minute to make up) although this does make it even stranger they're not already there

>Lack of advancement
Much like PbtA games in general advancement in DW is supposed to be horizontal, not vertical (I say supposed because this is one of the things DW doesn't do as well as AW). What this means is that you don't really get better at stuff, you just get better at more things. Your fighter's probably as good at hitting things as he's going to get relatively quickly, so you make him really observant and a skilled smith or something. AW still does it better.

>Lack of opposed rolls
Aid/Interfere

>The moves limit your actions
You don't have to do a move, you perform any action you like, if the action counts as a move then you roll.

>You could dodge a fireball by being charming
no you can't, this goes back to what I said about there needing to be a chance of success for you to roll in the first place

>The stakes questions are just busywork
They're meant to be a tool to help you think about how to develop the world and characters you've introduced. If you don't find it a helpful tool then fair enough, some people do though

>Amber is the mainstream norm
Please, stop.

Because it overcomplicates things that shold not be complicated, forces your cherecter into a very set skill pool and because there is so much of it, it is piss easy to break if you know your way around a rule book and have a calculator. It's not a bad system per say, it's just not a very smart system. I still like it, but never will it be my first choice anymore

Required reading for anyone posting in this thread. A lot of these criticisms are based on understandings of other games instead of taking Dungeon World for what it is.

Even understanding the game for what it is, I still think it's only 'okay'. I tries to do something interesting, but doesn't execute it particularly well. I think a second edition that distances itself even further from AW to be it's own thing could be a great game. Something inbetween what it is and World of Dungeons.

It is fairly telling that a fan-made guide is required reading for running DW.

It's not really, it's just that a lot of people who didn't like it were making misleading statements in their criticisms (unnecessary since it has many actual problems but you know what Veeky Forums's like) which were giving people some ideas about it which warranted correcting.

The game's rulebook itself actually includes almost all the information in that guide

Actually, a lot of people complaining about it have played it, which is why they complain about it.

The whole "you never played it" meme from D&D 4e was only a meme started by outraged fanboys who didn't like the idea their game couldn't possibly be the best thing ever.

Just like DW. It's babby's first RPG and it teaches you how to be a very mediocre gamemaster and a terrible player.

>reading
So basically, it's DM's Training Wheels: the Game? Just like what I've said in every thread about DW I've posted about? I guess it's good to have validation.

Also
>there's no mechanical benefit
>but here's some possible mechanical benefits!
This guy writes like a fag and enjoys self-contradiction.

I don't even like 3e and I can tell you've not played it either

>The game's rulebook itself actually includes almost all the information in that guide
In a form that requires external clarification.

A friend of mine had a dwarf fighter that had a large variety of talents simply because he was just trying to pull stupid shit so he could fail for free exp.
One of his most common tricks was to randomly backflip every so often, such as when we were stuck trying to get through a door. It never helped.

It's simplistic and easy to play, like Ryuutama.
But unlike Ryuutama, it's not comfy, and so it loses the benefit of the doubt on my end.
It might be one-shot material, but if I wanted to play Fighting Fantasy, I'd play Fighting Fantasy.

I prefer a system based off of generally "realistic" (abstraction is needed but you get the idea) premise, so I can use it as a tool to decide if things characters or NPCs do succeed or not, in a believable circumstance. I don't like systems dictating anything other than success or failure (or whatever in between). I also like my players to be on equal terms, rules wise, with the NPCs, which DW does not do. It also abstracts some things that personally as a player, I would like more control of, such as ammo.

This makes me someone completely out of the dungeon world demographic, yes, but I guess it's a reason why it's subjectively not that hot of a system.

Though one thing I do kind of like about it is emphasizing what a character can do over what the player knows. This becomes very apparent in something like GURPS, where one may be a tactical genius in real life, but no be playing one. Though this could be remedied by enforcing the use of tactics skill rolls, if the player doesn't RP.

Some of the moves that have you pick from a list of outcomes limit the amount you can pick even on a 10, so while this might represent a total success in some rare situations, most of the time it means you have to use part of your success to buy security instead of securing your objective.

Which means the GM can then use a hard move to pull it farther away the next time things go sour. It's an interesting give and take.

>What are some AW moves that don't give you what you want on a 10+?
Almost all of them.

If you go aggro, they can still force your hand.
If you seize by force, you either don't take definite hold of it, suffer great harm, inflict little harm or don't break their will.
If you seduce or manipulate, you still need to make a promise, or a PC can still refuse.
If you read a sitch or a person, you can never just ask what you really want to know.
If you open your brain, you get something interesting, not a solution.

Act under fire is the odd one out, but only because you've already failed to get what you want if you have to roll it.

So there's primarily one move per stat, and when you approach a problem using that stat you roll that move in particular?

Or is it more like DW where there are moves not necessarily 1:1, like Defy Danger (which has you roll any stat depending on your approach) or Last Breath (wherein you roll without a stat)?

>Luckily, that's a load of bull.
It sounded like a slanted oversimplification.

>PbtA games encourage the GM to turn to the players for inspiration. That means the players only get to define the setting if the GM asks them to.
See, this has been unspokenly used in gaming forever. Attempting to codify it is fine, if not really necessary.

>Or if they play a Barbarian, in which case they get to detail a part of the setting that the campaign may never even touch upon if you so choose.
This sounds bad to me.
Like the the player can dictate the history of their clan to the GM.
But if I wanted to run Dragonlance, I would remove or modify Kender.

I would only have issue with a system if it established that the players have power over the setting (beyond their characters already accepted by the GM) that the GM is powerless against.

Even Strike! is a better system than Dungeon World.

>Even Strike! is a better system than Dungeon World.
>Even
>implying
Here's your (You).

>Or if they play a Barbarian, in which case they get to detail a part of the setting that the campaign may never even touch upon if you so choose.
>This sounds bad to me.
The idea of the DW barbarian is they're from 'somewhere far away', since the campaign will never go to their homeland the system sees no problem in giving them a certain level of freedom to decide things about their home culture instead of the GM

What is the point of this comic? That playing Dungeon World is comparable to playing D&D with an incompetent GM?

Defy Danger and Last Breath are two of Dungeon World's major failings and have little basis in Apocalypse World.

AW's stats each have a clear-cut purpose.
Hard is for violence (go aggro and seize by force).
Cool is for getting out of sticky situations (act under fire).
Sharp is for perception and intuition (read a person and read a sitch).
Hot is for the personal angle (seduce or manipulate).
And Weird is for, well, weird shit (open your brain).

>See, this has been unspokenly used in gaming forever. Attempting to codify it is fine, if not really necessary.
But that is precisely why it needs to be codified.
It's all fine and dandy if every seasoned roleplayer understands it without saying. But what about those who didn't have the benefit of being tutored by an experienced GM? Like myself and everyone else I got into tabletop RPGs?
One reason that DW has hailed as oh so revolutionary was that many people who didn't know about these unspoken rules read about them in DW for the first time.

There are two main issues with Dungeon World that come to mind, above and beyond other PbtA games (which, I think, is largely a matter of taste):

1) Its combat is dogshit. Take an extremely simplified combat system, designed to resolve violent confrontations quickly so that play can move onto the consequences rather than dwelling on tactics... then add back in a bunch of special moves, but don't bother to add in things like "initiative order" or "enemies rolling to attack" (or players rolling to defend).

2) Its experience point system is retarded. In AW, it's a competitive game with a lot of PvP and operating at cross purposes, but DW is supposed to be a largely PvE, cooperative game. Yet, you get XP at rates that differ between players. Moreover, rather than the experience point system clearly encouraging aggression and conflict, it winds up being a lot more "find an opportunity to tick the XP box" than "create an opportunity to tick the XP box."

Basically, it's a stupid mish-mash of two different schools of design (D&D's cooperative, tactical, mechanics-driven focus, and AW's competitive, consequence-oriented, story-driven focus) that understands neither and acts to the detriment of both.

>the campaign will never go to their homeland
>The system is telling the GM where the campaign will go
Technically still a bad thing in my opinion, but in a "you can use dozens of different colored crayons but not this particular shade of yellow-green" kind of way.
Negligible non-issue level bad.

>But that is precisely why it needs to be codified.
It depends entirely on how well it's codified.
I'd have to read through it to be certain of how well they did it, which I have not done because the idea of simplified rules don't appeal to me.
If a codifying of such unspoken rules were done really well, it would be best served as a role-playing resource rather than a specific and separate system.

Although, now that I'm thinking about compiling all of tg's quality universal gaming resources into one book, if it were done, you would naturally want to include an example of a simple, rudimentary rpg system, based on one resolution mechanism or something.

>That entire picture
Saying that Dungeon World is better than 3.5 is setting the bar very low. You are better off playing something like GURPS. It has clear rules for everything and has rules that actually encourage roleplaying, but without the bullshit. Dungeon World is barely a game.