I feel like I'm better for roleplaying and worldbuilding than for designing encounters inside and out of my generally...

The problem with DW is that it's just D&D with different rules that are more limiting than D&D.

I've been playing semi monthly with some friends, and it's actually pretty good. It's easy to pick up and you have a lot more room for creativity than more rigidly defined systems like D&D. The thing to keep in mind with this game is that it plays more like a conversation between DM and players in its establishment of the setting, world history, characters, etc. As opposed to D&D, where the DM is God and has all of the power to control the setting. For this reason, everyone feels more engaged because everyone helped to build the setting and the story.

If you're gonna play it, don't do any world building before the first session aside from the bare minimum. Let your players fill in the rest.

>you have a lot more room for creativity than more rigidly defined systems like D&D.
I'd argue that this is false. DW is very rigidly defined in the character playbooks. They make for very specific characters that can execute very specific actions. That collaborative world building can apply to any game and it's not specific to DW. The specificity of DW is my biggest gripe with it.

yeah op, basically DW tells you "hey you want to be a cleric? here are all the things clerics are and don't break the rules" and even gives you a list of names of what you can name your cleric. it's basically about running someone's idea of D&D as a storygame.

>Your characters start out with the same HP as an elder dragon
But they're nowhere near as tough.
Attacking a dragon requires about four Defy Danger rolls, and/or is impossible for starting characters. The DM should force you to deal with the wings, claws and fire breath before you ever get a chance to Hack and Slash.

>The DM should force you to deal with the wings, claws and fire breath before you ever get a chance to Hack and Slash.
The thing is nothing about that is represented in the rules of the game. You can do that stuff with any game ever made because GMs can come up with stuff on the fly. The rules itself are just a mediocre representation of D&D crammed in a PBTA framework and then then the GM is supposed to make them work by freeforming things while the restrictive rules are actively making winging stuff harder.

It's not rules light, but I'm going to suggest Burning Wheel as a good narrative fantasy game. It's something interesting and different, even if Luke Crane is batshit crazy. If you want an easier version of it, Mouse Guard is good too. Don't play Torchbearer though, it's almost as bad as Dungeon World.

>Attacking a dragon requires about four Defy Danger rolls
Please tell me where it says that in the book?

Dungeon World works great if your DMing meshes with the system. Just be sure to read those GM rules and follow them, they're an excellent guide to how to run the system right.

Don't listen to Veeky Forums on this one. Years of memeing have made it impossible to talk about here. I ran a long campaign of DW and we had a good time with it, and all the various theorycrafted """problems""" that Veeky Forums goes on about showed up less often than your average Roll20 player. (And in my experience, your average Roll20 player doesn't show up. Fuck 'em)

Like, okay, one of my players minmaxed his Paladin's armor up to like 5. That was slightly annoying, because it meant I had to throw gangs of enemies at him, but it kept him busy and made him have to Defend the squishier players, which was cool. But yeah, that was an actual weak point of the system.
But otherwise it was great, and we were all pretty happy with how the system ran.

I'm not a fan of DW, as it lacks most (if not all) of the Apocalypse Engine's strong points, but this is completely wrong. Every PbtA game presents sample names and playbook moves, but they're suggestions, not constraints. Every group is free to come up with their own moves for their playbooks, or even core moves; hell, they even teach you how to build your own moves in the book. Vanilla DW is absolutely dreadful (see: ), but it's just as modular as any PbtA game. Doesn't mean I'd recommend it, though.

>Like, okay, one of my players minmaxed his Paladin's armor up to like 5. That was slightly annoying, because it meant I had to throw gangs of enemies at him, but it kept him busy and made him have to Defend the squishier players, which was cool. But yeah, that was an actual weak point of the system.
>But otherwise it was great, and we were all pretty happy with how the system ran.
You're playing the game just as if it's D&D. There's plenty of good and valid criticism of the game in this very thread. OP asked for games supporting roleplaying without being tied to mechanical baggage and DW definitely is not that.

Veeky Forums has never had any theorycrafted problems about Dungeon World. This isn't D&D 3.5, no one is complaining about "oh shit you can minmax this and that." The problem with the game is that it isn't rules-light, it isn't fast, it's almost as complicated as D&D in its own way, and it only functions if the DM is really good at his job. It's also a great way for a power-tripping DM to fuck over the entire party. It takes a lot of things like race/class restrictions and no ability score customization, and doesn't compensate for it with anything good. These restrictions are literally meaningless. There is not a single reason to play Dungeon World. If you want a narrative game, play FATE or FAE which is better. Or play World of Dungeons if you really like the 7-9/10 mechanic. Or play B/X or BECMI if you want a watered down D&D game without powergaming.

I've never had any of these problems while playing. The story has always advanced faster and has always had more opportunities for creativity than most other systems that I've played. Especially D&D, where a fucking encounter can take hours. I really don't know where the complaints about DW's restrictiveness are coming from.

Congratulations on winning today's Retard Sweepstakes!
Let's look at the Apocalypse Dragon from the SRD.
>26 HP; 5 Armor
Not exactly starting tier, but I accept this doesn't look very scary.
>Bite (b[2d12]+9 damage, 4 piercing) Reach, Forceful, Messy
The bite attack stats mean that - assuming you have a sword - you must Defy Danger to close and attack. Failing that roll and admitting a hit means taking close to one-shot damage AND the DM fucks you with Messy and Forceful to fling you off a ravine with your arm torn off.
> Special Qualities: Inch-thick metal hide, Supernatural knowledge, Wings
The rules for Hack and Slash state "Attacking a dragon with inch-thick metal scales full of magical energy using a typical sword is like swinging a meat cleaver at a tank: it just isn’t going to cause any harm, so hack and slash doesn’t apply. Note that circumstances can change that: if you’re in a position to stab the dragon on its soft underbelly (good luck with getting there) it could hurt, so it’s an attack."
So you need to deal with that somehow. The DM is being KIND by allowing a simple DD to put you under the beast. In real terms, it should be harder. Assuming the fucking thing doesn't just fly, in which case you are shit out of luck. Ranged attacks get broadly the same greased fuckpole of a hard No.
>Moves: Set a disaster in motion Breathe forth the elements Act with perfect foresight
Oh boy. Now, on a failed Defy Danger the DM can make any of these moves. So they're within their rights to inflict deadly harm on more or less any 6- or "golden opportunity" when the dragon is on the scene.

>You're playing the game just as if it's D&D.

No, I'm playing it the way it's meant to be run according to the DM rules. I know D&D and I know DW and half a dozen other systems, and if you run DW like D&D you will have a bad time.

Like the guy upthread who's mad about monsters having low HP, he actually is trying to do things like D&D. Combat is asymmetrical in DW, monsters and players don't just walk up to each other and take turns rolling against each other, if you run it that way, your monsters will be squishy and your game will turn out badly.

Well, you know, you're not allowed to write a name on the sheet.....

>Combat is asymmetrical in DW, monsters and players don't just walk up to each other and take turns rolling against each other, if you run it that way, your monsters will be squishy and your game will turn out badly.
Again, DW doesn't give you any tools to handle monsters or combat. It's left for the GM to wing it. It's not a pro, it's a con. This is also the reason why so many people are playing the game wrong, because the book doesn't tell you how things are supposed to work. The PBTA engine is also very bad for detailed moment-by-moment combat and DW is full of that. DW is a confusing game trying to be many things at once but ultimately falls flat in pretty much every aspect.

>Again, DW doesn't give you any tools to handle monsters or combat

All the tools you need are in the GM rules and the dungeon/monster moves. There is literally nothing else you need to run it properly. You just have to read the book carefully and apply what it gives you. Most of the problems I see people have come from ignoring the GM rules 'cause "I know how to run games, man" or from otherwise applying preconceptions from other games instead of looking at how DW wants to be run.
The Dungeon World guide is a good appendix, however, which does clear up a lot of people's misconceptions.

>The PBTA engine is also very bad for detailed moment-by-moment combat and DW is full of that.

Apocalypse World is not geared towards moment-by-moment combat, but it is absolutely not true that the engine can't do that. DW did it beautifully for my group, and plenty of ther PbtA games do it as well, like World Wide Wrestling, which is probably the best wrestling game around. This is just another Veeky Forums meme.

>Again, DW doesn't give you any tools to handle monsters or combat.
See >It's left for the GM to wing it. It's not a pro, it's a con.
That presumes that, say 4e D&D combat for a random example is more fun than freeform.
>This is also the reason why so many people are playing the game wrong, because the book doesn't tell you how things are supposed to work.
Yes it does.
>The PBTA engine is also very bad for detailed moment-by-moment combat and DW is full of that.
That's arguable, and mostly comes down to how much action you put in a round. For a minute-long round like old D&D it works fine.
>DW is a confusing game trying to be many things at once but ultimately falls flat in pretty much every aspect.
It's not perfect, but I couldn't even say it was bad, let alone "falls flat in every respect."

Now explain how any of this helps roleplaying or narrative gaming compared to other games. Why even have those mechanics and stats when the "advice" in the book basically says "these mechanics and stats don't matter because you need to use narrative positioning to run this monster"?

There's a difference between having stats plus narrative positioning versus just freeforming everything.

It's possible for players to "minmax" fictional positioning, to carefully set themselves up for success. It's not easy to do that with pure freeform because it's hard to tell where you need to be to do the thing you want, when nothing is nailed down. Having a hard interface of rules and numbers somewhere gives you a place to grab hold of.

DW is all about the fictional positioning, and the more you apply it the better the game gets IMO.

If you've ever had clever-clever players run a train on your Tarrasque, you'll understand the lure of forcing narrative engagement with boss monsters. More seriously,
>how any of this helps roleplaying or narrative gaming
>you need to use narrative positioning to run this monster
You kind of answer your own question. Stupid mechanical cheese is not an option here. Dumb roll-to-hit play is not just doomed by the numbers but specifically ruled out and you can just tell your players it won't work. Not in a wheedly 'come on, guys' way but because it's like trying to shoot down the moon with a handgun.
Dragons (specifically) have a stat block that says they wreck the joint and the players, and the best case scenario - wailing on the dragon's actual weakspot - still gives it more HP than a starting fighter and 5 armor into the bargain. It's a HARD monster. That's what dragons are supposed to be!

>This is just another Veeky Forums meme.
No. DW with it's tightly codified combat actions and on the other hand the game's desire to cater to narrative game style are contradictory.

>DW is all about the fictional positioning, and the more you apply it the better the game gets IMO.
Except where it is super specific about lots of things in a mechanical sense. E.g. character moves. DW as a whole is very mechanically specific and that is a stark contradiction to narrative gamestyle.

>Except where it is super specific about lots of things in a mechanical sense. E.g. character moves. DW as a whole is very mechanically specific and that is a stark contradiction to narrative gamestyle.
Those two things are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

>complimentary
Not really, no. Any system that’s so far up its ass wth pretentiousness that the act of applying XP to your character is its own “Move” that has to be described to the players is anathema to narrative gameplay. I don’t want to play “Mother May I” with every thing my character does, and I would be surprised if scratching your balls OOC is its own “Move” in DW.

How do super specific moves with builtin outcomes like volley or social moves that force certain actions from the recipient help reinforce and facilitate fictional positioning? They bend the fiction to fit whatever is prebuilt into the moves.

>Mother May I

Ah yes, the Forgeist's nasty, dismissive term for the old school DMing style, aka "trusting your DM because he's your goddamn friend and it's just a game, you autist."

* Maintain tight genre cohesion
* Eliminate the wishy-washy no-risk freeform bullshit
* Standardise the resolution of common actions e.g. firing arrows
* Structured, easily hit triggers (lol) ensure players can't skate out of using rules, but also that they can't ignore the fiction.
Declaring you use a Move flat out is invalid. Firing your bow without engaging rules is invalid. However, taking fictional action that do not require the moves does not force you to contort into them - it just happens. Yes, that means players can abuse fictional circumstance to avoid risky rolls. That is good play and worthy of encouragement.

>That is good play and worthy of encouragement.
Encouraging fishing for mechanical move triggers and/or trying to actively avoid triggering moves by fictional positioning is bad game design. It's a metagame.

This is my second biggest gripe with DW. In the end it always comes down to those specific moves and their triggers and that makes for a restrictive system. Yeah, a player isn't supposed to directly call for moves by their name but that's what playing the game boils down to: trying to trigger moves. Nothing in the game happens without triggering a move.

OP, Dungeon World is easy to learn, highly open to customization, more narrative than mechanical, and more engaging to the players. Not to mention there's only one fucking book to read. It's a comfy game that won't scare away normies. Give it a try.

>highly open to customization
It's as open to customization as any game. You need to replace the game's mechanics with your own and it's not a small deal.

>more narrative than mechanical
Not really. The game is actually very mechanics-focused. Everything that happens is a clearly defined, mechanical move.

You might like the game but please don't spread false advertisement about it.

>Encouraging fishing for mechanical move triggers and/or trying to actively avoid triggering moves by fictional positioning is bad game design. It's a metagame.
I swear you're doing this on purpose. Getting players to avoid risk to their character by engaging with the current narrative rather than by surfing TO boards is a good thing, user. All games have a metagame. That's not good or bad.
>This is my second biggest gripe with DW. In the end it always comes down to those specific moves and their triggers and that makes for a restrictive system.
FATE always comes down to fate points. Everyone is John always comes down to bidding wars. 3.5e always comes down to being a Tier 1 caster. That's a fucking non-argument. ALL games come down to their rules at some point.
>Yeah, a player isn't supposed to directly call for moves by their name but that's what playing the game boils down to: trying to trigger moves.
This is fucking wrong. If that's how you're playing, you're a mong.
>Nothing in the game happens without triggering a move.
False.
Let's hit up the SRD again and get an example. "If the enemy isn’t prepared for your attack—if they don’t know you’re there or they’re restrained and helpless—then that’s not hack and slash. You just deal your damage or murder them outright, depending on the situation."
More broadly, you always say what honesty demands. If there's honestly no chance of something working or failing, then there's no move to be had. Plenty of important things can be done by the right person in the right place, no roll required.

It really is a small deal. There's a section of the book that talks about how to create custom moves. It's not that hard. Also, the mechanics exist to support the story, but they're not intrusive like in D&D where everything takes a back seat to combat. The game isn't perfect, but it's hardly the rigid slog that you're making it out to be.

>FATE always comes down to fate points. Everyone is John always comes down to bidding wars. 3.5e always comes down to being a Tier 1 caster. That's a fucking non-argument. ALL games come down to their rules at some point.
Yeah, but some games have bad rules and some games have good rules. I argue that DW is poor in the rules department.
>This is fucking wrong. If that's how you're playing, you're a mong.
Then why are there dozens of moves with very specific triggers? It very strongly encourages players looking at their sheets to try to activate all those cool moves they've got. All the cool stuff is a move and most of them have so specific triggers you either have to flat out say "I'm using move X" or try to fish for the GM to acknowledge you're using move X by "roleplaying" the specific trigger and hoping that your GM knows that it's a trigger that's written on your character sheet.

>I argue that DW is poor in the rules department.
I argue that your mother's loose cunt is bad for the ozone layer. What now, fagmunch?
>try to fish for the GM to acknowledge you're using move X by "roleplaying" the specific trigger and hoping that your GM knows that it's a trigger that's written on your character sheet
If I didn't already know you were beneath contempt, the fact you put scare quotes around the word 'roleplaying' would be proof positive. If you can't confidently roleplay through firing a bow or owning a signature weapon, and you can't trust your DM to understand what you mean, then there's no hope for you. You serve no purpose to the hobby.

You provide no arguments to defend your points.

You eat shit and fuck reluctantly.

Now now, there's no reason to be angry.

Quite right, I shouldn't have called you a fagmunch. You asked me to defend my points with argument and I owe you that much.
The major decrease in stratospheric ozone occurs around Earth's polar regions in springtime. Given the extreme looseness of your mother's cunt, wafting emanations reaching both poles simultaneously seems the logical assumption. The event happens most strongly in springtime as strong westerly winds start to circulate around the continent. I assert that this is the time in the year your mother has saved enough welfare checks to run her nuclear-powered vibrator; the phenomenal horsepower of this machine is sufficient to disrupt the Earth's climate.