Dungeon World is terrible and Sage LaTorra is charlatan

[silva]

They weren't there, they could plausibly be there

The place was a fucking temple. The Water Cultists temple. That it had cultists is only reasonable.

Look dipshit, the only way the foreshadowing argument could work is if it wasn't just established that the goddamn temple has guards, but if it was already established that that the guy had the psychic guards linked to him but the players fucking forgot. That is the only way you could argue that the specific guards linked to Tum-Tum and closing in on the players did in fact already exist prior to the roll.

You´re forgetting that the whole paragraph is just a small example of the Read a Sitch move, not the whole session AP or description. And the fact that the Read a Sitch move cannot - by its very description - introduce new elements things to the world (only give hints to who is stronger/weaker/best escape route/etc), then one must assume the GM had already framed the scene beforehand.

I suggest you guys try and actually read the book, and specially look at all the other examples. They make it very clear about how the game work. Looking at only one example in isolation, and without previous knowledge (like the Fronts created beforehand) will really cause confusion. Its like looking at an example on page 200 of a book without having read anything up until that point.

[Atmo]

I just have one question: can i play with a tentacle monster?

[silva]

That is what the PBtA games bring to the table: a robust set of prompts for the MC to make a story with, where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative.

Except the very author contradicts you on the most central motto of the game - "Dont preplan plots!". Which can be understood to mean as not preplanning any sort of story/narrative/script beforehand like could happen in a traditional railroading game.

But if you rephrase your point to..

That is what *World games bring to the table: a robust set of prompts for the players to add input and shape a narrative while the MC reacts building on those inputs to "see what happens"

Now THAT would be more accurate and faithfull to the author´s own words and instructions on how his game should be played.

[Mask_De_H]

Silva, the result of the game you are playing, the shared happening between the players and the MC, is a story.

You don't need to have a preplanned plot to have a story. For things to make sense, a narrative will be developed in play. The MC, by dint of the results curve, the MC Agendas and Moves, and the way several of the basic moves are written, has most of the narrative control. Players provide ideas and prompts via their rolls and the shit they want to do and the MC works with that. And for fuck's sake, the preplan chestnut is for the first session. After that, you have fronts, you have character motivations, you have fuckery. You have premade, preplanned material to work with. You have to preplan for every session after the first unless you only run one-shots or rob the players of even more agency.

Nothing you said contradicts my point. You're down to arguing semantics, which means you've exhausted all other options and this discussion needs to die.

E: Yes Atmo, you ecchi motherfucker. You can play with a tentacle monster.

[silva]

Mask, I agree with you there.

(I just felt it was important to make a point to differentiate between "the story that develops in actual play" and "the story the GM brings to the table for the players to follow", since the later is called railroading in my book, and has nothing to do with the kind of gameplay the AW book promotes. )

I just have one question: can i play with a tentacle monster?

You pervert.

[Atmo]

I just have one question: can i play with a tentacle monster?

You pervert.

E: Yes Atmo, you ecchi motherfucker. You can play with a tentacle monster.

You two have a very dirty mind; i would create a Chef tentacle monster on Dungeon World and try to find my place in the world. Of course i would "eat" some girls, but everyone have to eat, don't we?

[Foxwarrior]

Is it really necessary to reach so hard with the Cultist scene? Wouldn't pointing out that the DM normally needs to use a Move to introduce the Cultists, and the Read a Sitch move essentially worked to give the DM a move for free, be sufficient?

I got tired of that Dungeon World campaign because it's so much more work to DM according to the guidelines than a normal TTRPG, but no more rewarding (well, okay, PbP does at least get somewhere, which is an accomplishment). Every time someone takes an action, the DM has to come up with an interesting logical consequence on the spot; in a "tradgame" (man that word sounds dumb), the DM can set up an interesting situation, and the players' actions and the game engine itself will do most of the work of converting that into a glorious disaster. There's not really any point in Dungeon World where the DM can just sit back and bask in the chaos.

As a DM Guide for a better RPG, the stuff on Fronts is pretty educational.

[Mask_De_H]

Is it really necessary to reach so hard with the Cultist scene? Wouldn't pointing out that the DM normally needs to use a Move to introduce the Cultists, and the Read a Sitch move essentially worked to give the DM a move for free, be sufficient?

Yes and no; it's still unclear if the MC is making a Move when she shouldn't (which violates the spirit of the contract), if the MC is revealing a part of the Front that just happens to coincide with a Move (Reveal Unseen Badness) or taking the "golden opportunity" chance to make a Move (which can translate to "whenever the fuck I feel like").

It's not the specific Move that's the problem, it's the fact that the player, vis a vis Frank, has no idea what is going to happen based on their roll. Since all the work is on the MC, it's more likely they'll make a contradictory call or there will be a difference in opinion between player and MC. Since the players don't have a consistent player-side way to take mechanical control of the narrative (a la FATE Points or a talking stick or just saying "nah, it went like this"), the players are ultimately beholden to the whims of the MC.

This is intensely untenable to most Denners.

[Cyberzombie]

Dungeon World seems to be based on an entirely different principle of gaming than D&D.

D&D is fundamentally based around conquering obstacles. It's considered bad DMing to dynamically create obstacles in the PCs way because the game involves critical thinking to beat things in your path.

Dungeon World on the other hand is more about just getting together with friends and making up a crazy story. It tries to create tension at every turn, and you probably never know if the stuff you encounter happens to be part of the original story or if it just happened because you rolled to create a complication. In fact, I recall reading in the DMing advice something about never actually having a concrete plotline in DW for that reason.

I don't really see a problem with the DW method of doing things if you're not looking for tactical/strategic challenges. DW is all about keeping things exciting and keeping the action moving. It's a style people can enjoy, but frustrating for those looking for a thinking man's game.

[Foxwarrior]

It's a style people can enjoy, but frustrating for those looking for a thinking man's game.

That's the thing though, Cyberzombie. If you're DMing and trying to follow all the many guidelines that people in other threads claim are somehow meaningless, Dungeon World requires too much more thinking.

[Atmo]

It's a style people can enjoy, but frustrating for those looking for a thinking man's game.

That's the thing though, Cyberzombie. If you're DMing and trying to follow all the many guidelines that people in other threads claim are somehow meaningless, Dungeon World requires too much more thinking.

Only to those that aren't used to it.

[Torko]

Ever since I was molested by my DM as a kid, the sight and smell of an RPG book that includes DM agency floods my heart with terror and rage.

[silva]

I agree with Fox that *World games put a certain burden into the GM shoulders with all those agendas and principles and soft/hard moves and improvisations, etc.

But I think its hard by the fact that this "play to see what happens" philosophy is a very different from traditional games like Shadowrun and Gurps. Once one beings to internalize this way of GMing, the pieces should begin to fall into place.

[Cyberzombie]

It's a style people can enjoy, but frustrating for those looking for a thinking man's game.

That's the thing though, Cyberzombie. If you're DMing and trying to follow all the many guidelines that people in other threads claim are somehow meaningless, Dungeon World requires too much more thinking.

Depends on the DM. Some DMs are terrible with mechanics but great at coming up with random story elements on the fly.

Others are very precise and mechanical but can't spontaneously create anything during play.

I've seen DMs who come up with a bunch of interesting plot lines on the fly, but can't manage a 3E/4E combat for shit. It just stresses them out. And I've seen DMs who can only run modules but are great with rules and managing combat. But ask them to come up with their own stuff and they just can't do it.

Every DM has strengths and weaknesses. My main weakness is coming up with good descriptive text on the fly. I just can't do it, so I try to write out my descriptions of places beforehand.

[Judging__Eagle]

For me, the only new lesson I'm seeing about *World is this:

The entire point is that Bears is always perfectly logical and casual in all situations.

After making this earlier today; the idea of totally logical, casual, bears doesn't seem that outlandish. Possibly bears in jeans and t-shirts playing Star Trek multi-plane chess.

While reading the actual *World books has been something that I found at the least, broadening in experiences; I was initially hesitant to use the engine ever. The fact that any action is an opportunity to make an other enemy show up is honestly... counter-narrative; and too... "video game" like something out of the 1970's.

On the other hand, the gameplay from Space Invaders may have possibly been an inspiration for Apocalypse World.