Pic related

>pic related
>lightweight
>no rules bloat
>player driven
>fast and fun
>no initiative system
>easier to GM

Why are you still playing 5e user? Do you hate yourself?

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/#!l0sklbIb!EENzF_pMdD2Nlv9CUWT7RIZu1sFndNFs6Z_dXFEQJRY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Looks nice

the system has some issues as well which bear mentioning
>the hack and slash moves don't create interesting consequences
>there's no particular reason for having separate stats and modifiers except nostalgia
>the game's mechanics and reward structures fail to make it distinctly about anything more than another generic fantasy adventure game (although the Perilous Wilds splatbook does a good job helping that one)
>the defy danger move being too general in its definition and thus having some overlap with other moves

I play Dogs in the Vineyard.

Never even tried 5E.

>the hack and slash moves don't create interesting consequences
The interesting consequences are your job as the GM - it even says so in the book. I guess it's the pro and drawback of PbtA games: Some jobs the rules do for you in other systems, the GM has to do in PbtA games.

>the game's mechanics and reward structures fail to make it distinctly about anything more than another generic fantasy adventure game
The game is somewhat targeted at generic fantasy, that's right. Though, if you start a new game you should definitely ask your players what they think their setting should be. Maybe they'll surprise you, and come up with something interesting.

>the defy danger move being too general in its definition and thus having some overlap with other moves
That's somewhat intended again. You can fight with the hack and slash move, but you can fight via defy danger too. It makes small differences in the narration, to the same effect.

All in all it requires some rethinking, but once you embrace it, it's awesome (if you're in for a rules light system that is: pick the game which suits your needs).

You haven't looked at other PbtA. Look at how Fellowship handles combat. It's absolutely superior to Dungeon World in that, to the point porting over Fellowship's combat fixes a ton of problems just by itself.

DW makes other PbtA shit look bad.

I've read The Sprawl, Apocalypse World and had some glances at Uncharted Worlds and World Wide Wrestling …
Yeah, fair enough, the choices other games offer you on a partial hit help you.

I still stand by my point though, that the GM can bring interesting consequences into the mix. It especially says "attack" for the partial hit instead of "deal damage" (and elaborates on that, on the same page).

It's my group's preferred system ('though I keep trying to get them to play FAE). The game's far from perfect, and maybe because it's narratively driven and rules lights, but I also tend to feel that it's shortcomings bother me more than 5e's.

Doesn't help that I think one of the game's co-creators is a massive douche and a very shitty GM. Especially when it comes to DW, of all things.

I wish I liked FAE but having skills just makes more sense and the whole Skill Column thing is so clever

I'd rather play Blades in the Dark with a few tweaks.

I guess I just kind of find FATE's skills a bit pointless, especially when the game works perfect well without them, if not better in some cases.

I mean, so would I, but I don't always want to play scoundrel or crook. Sometimes I just want to be a half-troll wizard, ya know?

But the classes for the most part are pretty much fantasy classes with a name change.

You really should look at Fellowship's. It's better than Apocalypse World's even, at least the first edition of it.

I had a very quick scan of the Fellowship rules and the battle move didn't seem as clear to me as Dungeon World's Hack and Slash or The Sprawl's Mix it Up.
Do you mean "Overcome"? Because if yes, this seems to me like a defy danger Dex/Str/Con thing in dungeon world.

Dungeon World roolz

Threads 1,2,3 and 4 not enough for you?

Alright, I've run two DW campaigns and played in three more so I feel like something of an expert on this system and it's frankly just mediocre.

Pros: Task resolution is easy and players immediately know if they succeeded, failed, or something in between. Getting XP for failed rolls is great fun but should be limited to one or twice a session. The six core stats are fairly well balanced against each other. Getting improved stats and new moves is fun and a nice change of pace from games with 'dead levels'. Equipment is dead simple and the Tag system is really good. Classes having a set HP and Damage is good for helping the ones with weaker Class Moves. Enemies are dead simple to run and you can improvise their abilities easily without needing a full page in a monster manual.

Cons: The original book is way longer than it needs to be and is terrible at explaining the system. No initiative system makes the loudest players the ones who get to do the most and therefore level up the fastest. Characters reach the maximum level extremely quickly. The game leans heavily on GM as arbitrator instead of giving more specific guidelines which can be rough on newer GMs. A lot of Classes and Advanced Moves are very poorly balanced. Some of the basic Moves are likewise poorly balanced; Volley is almost always better than Hack & Slash. Defy Danger is way too broad a catch-all. Combat takes just as long as my D&D 5E game. The mechanics where players drive the plot / action are few and limited so it doesn't live up to that premise. Fronts are practically worthless and a huge waste of space.

No I still play 3.5e cause I hate my friends.

>No initiative system makes the loudest players the ones who get to do the most and therefore level up the fastest.
>The mechanics where players drive the plot / action are few and limited so it doesn't live up to that premise.

These are also my main criticisms, and they're significant problems.

My Solutions: Re-write the basic moves and put them on two pages at most. Add an initiative system so quieter players aren't left out. Level cap increased to 20, stat bonuses at odd levels, new moves at even ones. Alternatively increase Xp require to level up to 7 + twice your level. More guidelines for exploration, social interaction, combat, etc for the GM. Rebalance classes, nerf OP stuff, give weaker ones cool stuff. Buff Hack & Slash. Give loads of examples & consequences for Defy Danger, don't just leave the GM hanging. Give all classes a default Move that lets them influence the plot or alter the scene in some way. Throw Fronts in the trash and give common sense adventure building tips.

In summary, Dungeon World is a functional game if you want low-powered fantasy heroics and dungeon crawling. It could be better, it could be worse. It's surprisingly bland which always makes me wonder why these threads keep popping up. It's not a mad fever dream like Nobilis... I guess it's just the memes.

Me too. I use simple initiative (2d6 + highest of Dexterity and Wisdom, descending order) and it fixes that problem like a charm. Enemy initiative ranges from 3 (incredibly slow or surprised) to 15 (lightning fast or ambushing the party).

For plot mechanics I gave everyone a special ability they could use once per session. Depending on the class they could add, subtract, or change something to the scene, find a solution to an obstacle before the party, get outside help or information, and so on. The Fighter could use incredible physical ability to do physically impossible things. The Wizard could perform a mystic ritual to solve a problem so long as it fit their kind of magic they used. The Rogue could temporarily bluff just about anyone for a short time. The Cleric could call upon divine intervention at the cost of a future service or penance. It was all good fun and gave the players more control while fitting with their class' identity. Unlike a game like Fate or Savage Worlds where you spend plot tokens and just tell the GM what you want to happen.

Don't be such a beta bitch and speak up

Wait, don't they say in the actual book to rotate "initiative"?

Overall decent criticism, aside from the "driving the plot".

>and yes, Felloswship is still better

My understanding was that here is no 'roll for initiative' to see who goes first in a fight. That is up to whichever player has some narrative initiative, i.e. an idea. They get to go first, and from there the turns rotate. You can go around the table in order, or just naturally keep track of who hasn't had a turn for a while.

>Why are you still playing 5e user?

Only running it for "tournament" play.

>Do you hate yourself?

yes

Its stuff like this that makes me wonder why more developed versions of dungeonworld with some load and unload modules haven't been prominent.

I always liked the system core beliefs and mechanics. With the right approach your can do some great stuff

>playing arbitary world
>character is approaching a 10 foot pit
>I elect to jump over the pit
>LOL YOU ROLLED A 6 A CYBORG T-REX JUMPS OUT THE PIT ROFL
>ok... I run away I guess
>LOL YOU ROLL A 12, the T-REX EXPLODES AND YOUR ARM FALLS OFF
>truly the height of rpgs

Anyone who plays it can hack it, that's true of D5D as well. Anyone who likes the game as is can play it as is, anyone with a few niggles can modify it a bit. It's all good.

>It makes small differences in the narration, to the same effect.
This is a stupid thing to do at all.

5eggot detected

Exact copy of a pointless spam thread I've seen here before. I'm honestly disappointed in Veeky Forums that it's working.

>The interesting consequences are your job as the GM - it even says so in the book. I guess it's the pro and drawback of PbtA games: Some jobs the rules do for you in other systems, the GM has to do in PbtA games.
The PbtA system is all about consequences. And any remotely decent PbtA game has its Moves provide interesting consequences. DW only has to tell you to make the consequences interesting because it is an abject failure as a PbtA game.

>That's somewhat intended again. You can fight with the hack and slash move, but you can fight via defy danger too. It makes small differences in the narration, to the same effect.
You're selling another bug as a feature. The Moves of a good PbtA game have triggers that cover all the genre-appropriate actions a character can take, where each action can be easily attributed to a single trigger.
DW is bad at covering genre-appropriate actions, so it introduced the catch-all abortion that is Defy Danger. Now, for almost every action you can't go straight from fiction to mechanics, you first have to pause to decide between two equally applicable Moves at random.

This is how you fix DW's problems. Fellowship's Finish Them move makes it so instead of shouting Hack & Slash to try and get some damage in and end the fight, you spend the fight describing the fictional situation and trying to reach a point where you have advantage, at which point you can end it. PbtA is better served by this, because the fiction should build up to a move, not be stalled by HP counts.

>lightweight
>no rules bloat
>fast and fun
>easier to GM
translation: for bainlets or gamers suffering from ADHD

>player driven
translation: your sessions will be confined to trite gonzo-style adventures

>no initiative system
translation:
translation: in this "game" you don't play a game, you play the GM

>Task resolution is easy and players immediately know if they succeeded, failed, or something in between.
Because the game has no fucking modifiers.

>Enemies are dead simple to run and you can improvise their abilities easily without needing a full page in a monster manual.
The simpler NPC statblocks are the more similar combats against different NPCs are. And, no, the way describe what is happening in the fiction does not count as significant difference. It's akin to reskinning a 3d model in a video game: it's all veneer.

Actually you don't have to be anything other than a narrativistpleb to arrive at this conclusion.

This is what retards actually believe.

>all enemies are equally easy to defeat
>the only difference in difficulty comes in due to the GM arbitrarily deciding how many moves it takes to get advantage
Truly, PbtA is the epitome of game design.

You've stepped so far into the contrarian side... look at what you're saying. In what universe is playing a numbers game against inflated numbers better than the opponent being stronger in the actual fiction of the game? It's not like a player can just call a move. If they're doing something that wouldn't give them advantage, they don't get advantage, period.

Do you actually think DnD is the epitome of tabletop combat or something?

Got a PDF?

>Because the game has no fucking modifiers.
your stats are modifiers

Truly an intelligent poster who understands roleplaying games, right?

You fucking moron.

mega.nz/#!l0sklbIb!EENzF_pMdD2Nlv9CUWT7RIZu1sFndNFs6Z_dXFEQJRY

Circumstantial modifiers are not necessary for a roleplaying game. That you bought into the """REALISM"" other designers sold you makes you more retarded, not less.

Play something other than mainstream shit, you pleb.

So are Dungeon World fans now officially more up their own asses than GURPS fans now?

I'm just saying that there are modifiers, since your stats are, in fact, modifiers. I know you meant shit like "charging downhill with the sun behind me while using power attack with a two handed weapon should give me -5 to hit but +20 damage" sort of inane shit, I just don't see how that is relevant.

Literally nopthing is necessary for a roleplaying game.

but if you think DW is good, try something that actually has some thought put into it and play Amber Diceless. At least you KNOW the GM is making shit up from the get-go.

DW fans don't claim their game is good for everything.

They also aren't disgusting simulationist swine.

>In what universe is playing a numbers game against inflated numbers better than the opponent being stronger in the actual fiction of the game?
The numbers represent a contract between the GM and the players, newfag. Ideally, they stand for mutual agreement that the NPC has a fixed level of strength and that the GM will not change or choose to reinterpret it at a whim during play. The result is that the ensuing fiction will be an expression of the strength level assigned during scenario design, based on what image of the NPC the scenario designer had in mind.
You're playing the scenario, not the GM.

>your stats are modifiers
they're no CIRCUMSTANTIAL modifiers

Get off you're high horse. DungeonWorld is just 400 pages added to FUDGE dice mechanics.

... that's FATE, isn't it?

>Circumstantial modifiers are not necessary for a roleplaying game
No, they're not. But they improve the experience by providing consistency and therefore immersion instead of making RPGing into Calvinball Lite.

Crunch is the difference between RPGs that feel like a dream sequence versus RPGs that feel like acing in a different, real world. PbtA comes down on the wrong side of that divide.

Enjoy your Calvinball.

You mean like Amber Diceless, Legends of the Wulin, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, Dark Matter, or TORG?

You're an ignorant idiot who bought into DW's "we're cool because we have simple mechanics" nonsense and paid $50.00 for a 470 page book of FUDGE gaming rules. You need to get your head out of your ass and realize you're playing into a true sunk-cost game.

Fate has more rules, but basically yes.

And if you think you're not playing FATE when you play DW? You're ignorant of how the system truly works.

Are you stupid enough to think I paid for DW?

>Crunch is the difference between RPGs that feel like a dream sequence versus RPGs that feel like acing in a different, real world. PbtA comes down on the wrong side of that divide.

>Enjoy your Calvinball.

PbtA has crunch.

What you are missing simulation, not crunch. Easy mistake to make, since most simulation necessitates crunch.

You're absolutely not playing Fate. You're the one who doesn't understand narrative mechanics and the difference between how Fate uses them and how PbtA does.

... which?

I like both FATE (well, more like a houseruled FAE, really) and PbtA, and they don't really work similarly, aside from both distancing themselves from simulation.

Well, you're stupid enough to claim that it's a good game, so probably.

Except we're not discussing PbtA, we're discussing DW, which is not at all like other PbtA games.

Why don't you just play Labyrinth Lord?

>why are you still playing 5e
because dungeon world has some issues that makes it suck
>monsters have such low HP that a fighter who's only optimizing a little can kill anything in 1 to 2 hits
Removes tension when the fighter wanders up to the boss and hits him so hard it dies. It only gets worse if the bard (ranger multiclass into cleric) sings him a sweet song so it does even more damage, has bless up so the fighter have a much better chance of hitting, and has magic weapon cased on his sword so it just destroys everything.
>clerics are the worst class in the game because everyone can just get the cleric spells by multiclassing into ranger which gets you all cleric spell casting
Sure you miss out on some cleric options but you're gaining the most important part of cleric ontop of a good class, like bard.
>consequences are made up by DM, which is super swingy based on who's DMing, the mood of the DM, and the quality of a DM
>spells stack so everyone should just multiclass into cleric to cast bless on the fighter to cast magic weapon on the fighter's weapon so he kills everything
5e has issues with caster martial disparity and other garbage, but atleast it's not playable

>I bought into the Stormwind Fallacy so hard I'm going to shill a game even worse than D&D

400+ pages is no rules bloat for a game that is supposedly run on 2-6 doing EVERYTHING?

I was responding to

This may seem petty but the main reason I don't like it is because classes and races are locked together thus forcing you to take a specific option, and most of the homebrews I find to fix this so you can mix and match are pretty mediocre.

Also it's worse than other PbtA games and thus caused a stigma where people won't even try them despite being pretty okay, so I can't even get my friends to try shit out despite it being dirt simple.

AND FINALLY how the fuck is not having initiative a good thing? Sure I love not having direction and leaving it to people arguing who should get the next turn instead of just rolling a dice or seeing who has higher Dexterity.

Because Dungeon World and 5e try for completely different things. You spout those words as if they're objectively better, but they're no more than just a descriptor of the system which might fit a campaign and might not.

Our group started out with Dungeon World. It was fun, yeah, but we did want something with a bit more substance and concrete rules. Not necessarily something rules heavy like Pathfinder (which we tried, and ended up not liking), but not something minimalist either. 5e was a good middle ground for us.

Also, something being player driven has it's place, but with the players having so much narrative control, we found the system not well suited for the kind of adventures we wanted to run/play.

And for our group, we ended up having to use some kind of homebrewed initiative system, as the game got too chaotic without it, and ended up being dominated by the most outspoken player.

I'm not saying Dungeon World is bad. I'm not even saying 5e is better. They're just two different kinds of games, and which one suits your group/campaign depends on what exactly you and your players want to run/play.

>AND FINALLY how the fuck is not having initiative a good thing
t-those are rules though, it b-bogs the game down

Hey now. FUDGE is actually pretty decent. It's not its fault that derivates went off the deep end.

..but I thought that players thinking in rules and Moves was verboten?

>AND FINALLY how the fuck is not having initiative a good thing?
It would be, if DW was a functional PbtA game, because it would let the action shift naturally from character to character, with NPCs only ever getting a "turn" if none of the characters are willing to act, because the moves already contain the NPCs' reactions.

That was rather my point.

This.

Its fine if you want to the play the game of "I do awesome thing I saw in this movie", "Yes, you do that."

I've leaned towards OSR because I'd rather play a real risk/reward game in strange dungeons where characters come and go. OSR is closer to X-Com or Darkest Dungeon.

How about you not play Rpgs like an autistic, powergaming spaz? People like you fucking ruin every game when you show up to the table with no backstory, no idea about character, no investment into the fiction.

Just go fucking play poker or some shit where you can analyze statistics all day to your little hearts desire and stop ruining everyone else's fun so you can stop play for 20 minutes while you map out which skills to take when you level up.

I don't know why this made me so angry, I think it's because you sound just like this 500 lb sack of smelly shit that used to stalk myy FLGS and criticize people's 40k army lists. Nobody ever wanted to play with him because of his nonstop rules lawyering and his Grey Knights Army of Ultimate Cheap Faggotry.

Fuck you.

You're just mad because all your systems are trash when put aside the all mighty GURPS!

HAIL!

>DW only has to tell you to make the consequences interesting because it is an abject failure as a PbtA game.
This. Apocalypse World actually had rules for the "consequences" and have actual content to the moves. The stats mattered too.

>Circumstantial modifiers are not necessary for a roleplaying game
Neither are stats, or dice in general.
Dungeon World just draws an arbitrary line in the sand like any other game.
It's no better.
Deal with it.

There are the general MC moves, which you should play out on a miss "Prepare for the worst" … Yeah, that's helpful.
Why does using the MC moves work on a 6-, but not on a 7-9? Just use softer moves on a partial hit instead of harder moves on a miss.

... feel free to follow the chain of posts back to the point where a poster indicates that it is, however, worse because of it.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to act smug and tell people to "deal with it" when you entirely misunderstand the context of a reply (or alternatively, are dumb).

>optimizing to a harmful extent is playing a fighter
the basic skills to get bonus damage breaks the game, it doesn't take that much effort to just break the game. That's my main problem when I DM'd it, that the fighter just killed everything and anything I used that more than the suggested amount of HP was a chore for the party to kill.
>implying I don't care about backstory/character/fiction
>implying I'm the guy who wants to optimize when I'm just a DM who had to endure a party where the players, who don't normally optimize, realized they could just kill everything by buffing the fighter
>getting this mad because I triggered you

sounds dead simple

Rolling a 7-9 is still a Hit, not a failure. The moves already give a diminished or limited succesful effect.
Rolling a 6- means that the MC makes a move "as hard as he likes". Not always as hard as possible, but what the MC considers would be an appropriate and interesting consequence.

>simulationist swine

I don't get the hate on simulationism: playing a rulesystem wich translate transparently actions into game mechanics without the need on switching in or out a first person pov is a bad thing? Simulationism doesn't need per se to be crunchy, it can be as light and narrative as you like since is all about perspective.

Simulationism always ends up having the same amount of social negotiation narrativist approaches have, it's just instead of discussing appropriate curves of the narrative or cool scenarios, you end up with a bunch of unwashed morons discussing numerical bonuses and penalties, because simulationism always compromises with gamism and only the people who can't tell the difference like it.

>compromises with gamism
But that's a thing that every game has to deal with. Yes simulationism can't be applied to every game, like one in wich the overall story trumps realistic expectations, but that's not a reason to discard it tout court

>Simulationism always ends up having the same amount of social negotiation narrativist approaches have, it's just instead of discussing appropriate curves of the narrative or cool scenarios, you end up with a bunch of unwashed morons discussing numerical bonuses and penalties
That's pretty true.

There's some major differences between games with a narrativist agenda vs simulationist ones, in that regard. In a narrativist game it's much more likely that at some point or another you'll do something that "hurts" your character because it makes the narrative better. In a simulationist game, with its focus on bonuses and penalties and realism over anything else, the vast majority of people go at it with the intention of optimizing their strategies, mitigating risks, etc. These approaches are not really compatible.

Adventurers want to optimize their chances for survival so will try to choose the optimal choices. Simulating adventurers is different then simulating peasants that grow food every year. Simulationist play is fine with adventurers running across monsters they can't beat and needing to flee, gamist would be upset that they can't beat the unfair challenge.

Narrative adventurers don't really have to worry about random death, they would rather monologue about how they are the only survivor of their village being burned or wanting to boost their relationship bonus dice pool towards the big boobed princess.

As exemplified by this guy , who made my point for me.

Degenerate scum. Go pore over a pivot table you made for your Diablo 3 character.

>with the intention of optimizing their strategies, mitigating risks
My point exactly: simulationism works wonderfully with, for example, a game about survival and immersion but sucks balls in a game about the psychological effects of survival. It's all about the game premises

Debatable. I'd much rather play an immersive game about survival and the psychological effects of it using a system with narrative elements than wank over a system full of pointless numbers that only pretend to actually help tell those stories.

>Degenerate scum.
Feels good.

>a game about the psychological effects of survival

If the desired outcome is a good story I don't see how dice help. Or else every script writing session in Hollywood would open up their rule books and grab dice.

If you think suicide would be best for the story, do you have to spend fate points against the GM to see if you are allowed to commit suicide?

> I choose to Finish Him. I have the High Ground.

>That's my main problem when I DM'd it, that the fighter just killed everything and anything I used that more than the suggested amount of HP was a chore for the party to kill.
You're a shit GM then. I mean sure, DW is a pile of garbage on its own, but this is your own failure.
If a fighter just walks up to a fucking dragon and starts swinging his sword, he doesn't roll Hack'n'Slash, he rolls a new character.

There was more to it than that, the party had to get through a small army, then he had to dodge out of the way of dragon fire for awhile, which he passed because the cleric+bard had blessed him several times mixed with good rolls
>insta kill players for fighting things, no rolls
come on now

Not that user, but DW does rely on fictional positioning. You can't roll a move unless the circumstances are appropriate. If you think the moves the fighter was using were too advantageous, you should've made a custom move for avoiding dragon fire that can't deal damage.

>easier to GM
I want this meme to end.

Yeah but there's only so much "the fighter climbs the dragon while making defy dangers" you can do before he just kills her in one hit. He'll pass it all if the players realize that bless stacks and/or he has good strength.