Innovation in RPG-Land (Part 1?)

Alright, let's talk games. I've been carrying this post with me for some time now. However, it's a difficult one to tackle (as you would assume, reading the headline), and it took me a while to get to the point where I could sit down and write this. As always, this is very situational, or momentary, as I'll explore where I stand on the topic as I write this, so it is what it is right now ... Here we go:

This is how it starts, people. For real. [source]

Origin Story (of a post)

DISCLAIMER: I will critique some thoughts I heard on a podcast. I know we are talking opinion here. To a degree. I think they address some intreresting questions in that talk and I like Mark a lot. Doesn't mean I can't disagree and put my argument forward as best as possible. No hard feelings. Keep on fighting the good fight, as they say. Thought I'd put that up front.

So I saw this talk about value with Cavin DeJordy, Mark Abrams and Cameron Corniuk. It's an interesting talk about how to provide value in the hobby, so feel free to see or listen to the whole thing (here). At one point, though, they segue into the question why we just can't reduce all our efforts to ONE game (or at least the established) and be done with that part to create content about that with a unified gamer base to address (Mark starts the topic here).

And I get it. If you only have one game or a couple of games, you have a broad base of consumers to address and the pie is big enough for everyone to get a piece (in theory). However, I had to pause right there and stare at the monitor for a bit. To be entirely fair, Mark brushes on what kind of games should still be written, and he is quite clear about what games shouldn't be written any more, but it doesn't take long for them to agree that anything imaginable is already done, and we don't need the redundancy produced by all those designers out there. I definitely do not agree with that.

For one, they seem to say that system doesn't matter. You can play a game about pirates with D&D just as easily as with 7th Sea is the argument they are making. It completely misses the point that we would be talking about two VERY DIFFERENT playing experiences, and that is no trivial distinction. Honestly, I get frustrated by stuff like this*.

I also get frustrated by people saying they always play the same game, even with different sets of rules, because it only proofs one thing: they didn't care to learn the intricacies of the games to begin with (not saying it is the case in this talk, but it reminded me of that bullshit as well).

[source]

Okay, okay, I'll chill. I'll focus. Again, it's a segue in an otherwise enjoyable talk, and if nothing else, it made me think and share my thoughts, so there you go: more value. We also have to consider who we see talking here. It's a performer, a content producer and a guy with a marketing background, and they argue that they need something to riff off of. Fair enough.

It is not their place, however, to state that what already exists, is enough. Them saying that it's already enough disqualifies them right there. If thinking like that would prevail, we would have no progress at all and we'd have a fight in some cave somewhere in the wilderness right now ...

They also neglect that the only way to learn this craft (analogue game design), is by actually doing it and learning from opinions out there ... Well, a bit more than that. There's some crossover with theatre, media and language theory, for instance, and computer game design did some of the work. However, we are a far stretch from getting something like a widely acknowledged university treatment. So, what else are people going to do if they aim to learn writing games? It also needs saturation to allow innovation ... but more on that further down below.

Long story short, what's missing in that discussion is an innovator, someone who explores the outer rims of what is conceivable and pushes that boundary everyone else is comfortable with. You know those people. It's the ones that will tell you what kind of fringe topic they are dedicated to and what they are working towards. 'Artist' might be another good term for that.

I barely fit that bill most days, but I dare to think that I have an idea or two what innovation is and where it comes from and where our hobby is at in that regard. Or rather, I'm willing to give it a shot to talk about all that.

There you have it, an origin story. Just took me a couple of weeks to finally sit down and write that damn post (might end up making that a series, actually ... as usual, there's a lot to talk about).

Innovation, wtf's that supposed to be?

Definition-time. I'd say innovation is the process of pushing the boundaries of the accepted towards something conceivably better. Depending on your approach to the topic, you'll find different definitions and foci. It'll touch on subjects like ingenuity, inventions, creativity, art, chaos and design and the different philosophical, economical and psychological interpretations of said subjects.

Innovation be like ... [source]

Doing just some preliminary research will show you quite fast that this is a bottomless barrel, so I need to set some borders in this regard. A special focus, if you will. Since we are talking games here, it's a good idea to take a close look at design philosophies like this one, for instance.

Language is another strong contender, or rather, how we tell stories effectively. The design of roleplaying games always aims to manipulate language with rules and behavioural patterns to achieve specific psychological effects, so I'd like to add a psychological perspective to this. Several, actually. To give you an idea where I see a connection , I'd point your attention towards the Big Five personality traits model, and especially the implications of the trait 'Openness to Experience'.

There also is a spiritual aspect to this (which the psychological touches on, for instance via Jung's idea of the Collective Unconscious). Since I did some reading into Daoism and Zen, I'd focus on that for now. I have talked about how DMing (for me at least) has a lot to do with the principles of wu wei (to name but one example), but there's also a lot to say about how mastering a craft will open a person up to the possibilities of a craft (like you'd learn in all Zen disciplines). In that sense, I'd argue that if a craft is adjacent to innovation, following said principles would lead to innovative results on the way to enlightenment ...

The Collective Unconscious and the mind. [source]

In summary I'd say, that innovation in rpg land has a craft aspect (the game design), a personality aspect (the creativity, intelligence and ingenuity the designer can muster) and a spiritual aspect (the goal to permeate a craft towards mastery and enlightenment). The further down you are those roads, the more you'll be perceived as a designer, as an artist even (if someone cares enough to take a look).

There's one last dimension to this that I believe to be absolutely crucial: attempts on innovation will fail more often than succeed. It is a process or thrust of not one but all individuals of the social sphere that makes a hobby (or the part you interact with) and all of it is trial and error.

The exchange of ideas, and even getting it wrong, helps creating the necessary surroundings to create. Innovation isn't possible without it, and although we clever monkeys are able to do some of that by playing with ourselves, it's all the little impulses we can get that really help innovation along. It's the saturation I was talking about above.

The true measure of innovation, however, is undeniably success. It's just important to stress the elements that are necessary to not only innovate, but innovate successfully. There's lots of other factors that play into it and they all are necessary to form the basis for allowing an innovative process.

[source]

Other than that rpg designers aren't really restricted by the/a market, as there isn't much of a market to begin with. The few attempts of "manufactured" or "guided" innovation we see the Wizards of that Coast and the like trying their hands on, are weak at best (I'd consider them failures ... maybe I can get into that a bit later on).

This medium (rpg) being as new as it is, it is still a bit wild west out there and while we can already see some waves of innovation in the last decades, the next big wave seems to take its time. But more on that in the next chapter. For now, that's what we are working with.

The Innovation of Roleplaying Games (short history)

The best example for successful innovation is that first game that started it all and how it came to be. D&D was such a huge success, it made its creators figures of history, if not rich (although there was plenty of that). The only reason (I'd wager) that TSR wasn't a success story, is maybe found in the idea that innovators are great at creating, but not so great at conserving and keeping a business afloat. It's different mind sets, and nothing you switch between easily**. Most Start Ups will fail because of that.

Funny story, partly true ... [source]

Anyway, they kicked something off, and while TSR wasn't necessarily a success as a business, the idea of the game they created went, for lack of a better word, viral in the war gaming community. People all over the place took the ball and started writing their own games. A couple of the big ones (like GURPS and Call of Cthulhu) are still around, others had a huge impact on that SECOND WAVE OF INNOVATION (mainly Prince Valiant and Over the Edge, there sure are others).

What's the second wave, you ask? I'd say it was Vampire: the Masquerade, for the simple reason that it hit a nerve in the Zeitgeist of the 90s and switched what roleplaying was about from an outer exploration to a more intimate form of exploration (Vampires, the monster in us, that kind of jazz). That little change of perspective fueled by some actually innovative approach to the game design (storyteller driven, a more literary approach) open the hobby up to a whole lot of new people and games. 

The third wave, while we are at it, was more a technological innovation: it was the rise of desktop publishing and internet communities. It allowed for a whole different kind of saturation, with impulses coming from all over the place: The Forge, to name an early one, D&D forums went strong and started the retroclone movement, the OSR should be named here as well, in it's early phase a number of highly prolific bloggers. To an extent, it gave the hobby back to the public, which, again, led to some growth.

Arguably, this spawned a fourth wave, as a very strong scene evolved around one specific (and innovative) approach to game design. It's something that originated in the Forge, as far as I'm aware, and has it's strongest contender with the Powered by the Apocalypse games. The goal of those games is not so much immersion through exploration as it is about projection. Players are encouraged to bring their experiences to the table and share them with the other players while the games themselves step back and provide just background noise (I talked about the difference in a post, please go here for an in-depth exploration of that difference).

It is debatable if we experience a new wave right now (or the beginning of it?), as WotC enforces and encourages restricted innovative growth through commercialisation of all aspects of the hobby to achieve higher customer dependancy. It spawns a somewhat money-driven sub-culture to the hobby that consists of entertainers playing for an audience, DMs for hire and a heavily restricted  scene that publishes third party material. It goes hand in hand with the assimilation of the NERD into mainstream culture.

The whole fucking problem in one picture ... [source]

 I'd argue that we don't see an actual wave here, but it puts the pressure of commercialisation on the established and that might lead to some SUCCESSFUL innovative responses (we are not there yet, though). If I where to make a guess, it'll go away from rules-light and makes games complex again, just to make entry and participation a little bit more difficult. It seems like the natural response to protect the hobby at it's core (but that might be wishful thinking).

And that's it for Part 1?

This is a new one: I'm actually not sure if I said it all, or if there's more to say about this topic. I could go into that definition a little bit more, I could take a closer look at the difference between achieving saturation and producing innovation and having success with innovation. I could even take a stab at how to handle successful innovation? Not sure.

What I definitely haven't done yet is giving an assessment of where we are at in our hobby. At least not in detail.

For now, however, I'd leave it at what is written here. Spoiler alert: I don't think that we are done exploring in this new form of media. Not by a long shot. The difficulty is in growing it all into an innovative direction. It needs to be accepted as an art form on so many levels, maybe it needs to a sport, too. It also needs to be distinguished from other forms of entertainment, it needs a proper academical treatment, also on so many levels (studying game design, doing research on the benefits of gaming ... there is some, but the list goes on).

We'll see if I can come up with another part and make this a series. To a degree I'll let this depend on the feedback I'll get on this post. So what do you guys think? Did I miss something? Is my assessment in aspects wrong? Please share your thoughts.

Also, you can now read on with Part 2 and Part 3 ...


* ... and, just as an aside, there is only one way to add value to an endeavour: know your craft, share your knowledge and grow. Anyway, I digress.

** So, incidentally, running a business will restrict innovation, unless you find a place for it, which makes Hasbro (or Disney, or ... end of list) no good environment for the growth of our hobby, as the growth they'd like to innovate in is customer dependancy (which actually contradicts the original spirit of D&D quite a bit and keeps harming the hobby, although more and more people seem to flock towards it).

Aphorisms about Game Design Theory (lazy blog post)

I haven't forgotten. One blog post per month, at least. Here we go ... So I have a group on MeWe that talks about philosophy and game design. It's basically me collecting ideas (for now, that is). You are welcome to join, of course. However, since I suspect the overlap to be minimal (to say the least), I thought I'd share a little something I wrote over there.  It's a random collection of thoughts on design. Enjoy!

Day 1:

I need to apply some discipline here to keep going. So I thought it'd be nice to share some of the observations I had while tinkering on games. Small sprints on a daily basis. This is social media, so let's keep it random as well. Fell free to chime in while we are at it.

 

Here goes: Something I try to do as often as possible, is feeding my subconscious with all sorts of different patterns. It's not as much about reflecting new content, it's just taking it in and trusting that it somehow helps shaping whatever I'm working on. To enhance that, I try to follow my "whims" as much as possible as well. If I'm in the mood for some victorian drama, it's what I'm following up on, if it's true crime, I'm all over that. Doing so helps finding an understanding of what you like and you'll seek and collect that with more care. It also helps finding connections between patterns that are not that obvious. It's also something my girlfriend hates, because she sometimes just wants to watch stupid tv.

Baseline is, feed your brain not for immediate benefits but for building a frame of ideas to draw from when you sit down designing stuff. Sorry if that was too obvious ... Is it something you guys experience as well?

There was a short argument that this can't always be achieved, and my answer to that fiat was:

Time definitely is a restriction, as is compromise ... What I wrote is more like something a designer should aspire to, if that makes more sense.

[source]

Day 2:

There is no game out there that fully realizes what a role playing game can be, but there are some that come close, if only in different areas or aspects of that nebulous new media. Seek those games and push the boundaries they found. That said, don't make the mistake assuming some game or another is better than other games just because it's newer. That's not how progress works. They are all forays into the dark to see what sticks and what doesn't. Knowing that should encourage you to create and look at all games, old and new, for inspiration. There's also no way to know if something is "right" or "wrong" that way. Tinker, publish and play to find out.

Day 3:

A feeling (or measure?) for scope is one of the most crucial skills a game designer needs. It's not only about knowing what it means if a game checks "all the boxes", it also means to be able to extrapolate that for the game being written. This relates not only to the level of detail a game might need (or not), it also entails how different manifestations and interpretations impact a game on all levels of resolution (immediate, midterm and longterm implications, for instance). Power levels, tact regarding the terms a game uses ... All of that needs scope to be integrated properly.

Day 4:

When you write rpg rules, you basically do so for at least 4 different readers with just as much different assumptions. You'll have those intending to DM the game and they'll focus on how to use the game for what they had in mind or for the inspiration of the next campaign. While understanding the game is necessary for the first reader to get in a position to use it for the next campaign, it is the sole reason for the second reader, which would be the players. They (ideally) want to learn the game and (maybe) learn how to exploit it as well. For both readers the game needs the structure to be read front to cover as well as being an easy reference during the game and preparation phases. The third reader is the collector. They can transit to become reader one or two, but the main reason for a purchase would be the look of a game, which would be (in order of significance) artwork, production value (is it coffee table worthy?), layout and whatever could be gained from short pieces of text (interestingly enough, this works well with clones of well known games, as it mostly proposes variants to a known set of rules and thus allows directly going into referencing). The fourth reader might be an odd mix of all other possible readers (optionally split into several new readers, obviously, but they form very small groups, so ...). Here you'd have those just reading games for the fun of it (a rare breed), reviewers and critics as well as other designers looking for inspiration (or checking out the opposition). All those readers need to be addressed to some degree and there's definitely some overlap. Depending on how you aim to market your product, you'll have to make some decisions. Can you think of other readers?

[source]

Day 5:

This one is about playtesting new rules. Actually, you might say, it's about why games need to be played to be evaluated, because rules that might sound well on paper (and you will have those), might actually fall short in the game. Sometimes simply for having the wrong dynamic in play. So for one, if everyone at the table is not using a new rule repeatedly (even the one who wrote it), you might need to do some changes. That's not to say the rule is worthless and needs to be ditched, but it will need readjustment. Realizing that taught me not only to "read" games, it also showed me how to manipulate the flow I want in my games by using, for instance, the right markers at the right time and in the right place. Character sheets are a huge part of this, but information design in general is crucial ... That's why games have phases in combat and similar structures. Rules are carried by mnemonic patterns like that and applying those patterns is part of the design process.

Day 6:

People can work their way around processes with between 3 and 7 steps. Everything below that is boring as fuck ("My attack roll also resolves damage and endurance AND the enemy's attack! "Slow down, bro, this isn't always about efficiency."), everything beyond that will have people ask you about the rules (for instance) constantly. Having three steps to everything is a save bet (3 classes), but going 4 or 5 can work, if it's not overdone or rules that get frequented regularly (because routine helps a lot) and 6 or 7 will stretch it and most likely only appeal to those people into more complex games. Incidentally, that is the reason for having all those little sub-systems in OD&D and AD&D, because once you play and you decided for (race and) class, you reduce your choices from "unlimited"* to "manageable". It's also why THAC0 is brilliant just because it is counter-intuitive: it's a clear distinction to the other number systems in the game and therefor better to be remembered (and it has, what?, 3 steps?). So if people get easily bored with your game (applies to mid- and long term as well, like campaign play, for instance), think about adding a couple of steps to it. If people tend to re-read rules a lot although they are into the game, categorize a bit more. Not necessarily ditch some rules, just group and differentiate by the ratio outlined above (races, classes, spell-types, combat phases, you get it).

That's it for today. Tell your friends. I'm here all week.

*Btw, common mistake is to think a game like AD&D is too complex, often enough because just reading rules from cover to cover definitely makes it look that way (ironically just for the reasons discussed above). However, and I really want to stress this point: where it matters, when playing the game, if designed properly (with little sub-systems and the right groupings, with steps between 3 and 7 for everything, all that jazz) it'll feel never too complicated (might include a learning curve, though, but I, for one, always appreciated that).

This, as well, provoked a comment (and I really provoked it with my comment on games being light on combat in the beginning there). The argument being made was, that while it might be true for most (if not all) areas in game design, it might not apply in combat, to what I wrote:

I think we mostly agree. I can't dismiss your argument as anecdotal, though, as there is something to it that needs to be addressed (still anecdotal). An easy way out would be to say there are different preferences and reduce this to a matter of taste. It can be that, as you could say that it's what works at your table. The counter argument would be that it is possible to make every game work with the right people. One is about reducing your selection of games to the whim of the folks you want to play with, the other is reducing the people to the whim of the game you want to play. Both work, both have merit. That's not what it's about, then. I've actually seen a couple of games that offer (at least) two ways to handle combat, but that's just as an aside.

The argument that I'd be trying to make here, is, that there are two kinds of role playing games out there: those that let you explore (AD&D, as an example) and those that offer a room where you can express yourself (the PbtA games, as an example). The first works with critical hit tables and dungeons to loot, the second not so much (or at least not in the same way) but it offers a frame or a couple of frames . Consequently, both games will come with a very different set of conditions to work properly, and they don't mix well.

With that said, I'd add that the principles discussed above still apply with combat as well. All preference changes is that you'll most likely shun games that allow levels of detail you won't need if it is inventing funny shit when opportunity arises. Stuff like that would get in the way and as far as design goes, the difficulty would be to adhere to those conditions (I'm not sure, but moves might do something like that in Dungeon World, right?). Still, the choices you'll have in those games reducing combat to just a blip in the game, will (if done right) offer just a couple of choices or phases in order to not overwhelm. Another example: how many special powers have the monsters you use in your games? More than 3? Maybe the well-known ones like dragons. More than 6 or seven? Would that even work? 6 or 7 might work for an end boss or something like it, but beyond that? I don't think so. The rules apply.

As well as:

Addition: there's a whole subset of arguments connected to how the advent of D&D 3e with it's streamlined rules led to the simplification of rules down to that bare minimum that fuels the games where people play to express themselves instead of exploring a (for lack of a better word) 'simulated' fictional world. Consequently (or so I'd argue), it's simplification what you provoke if you are not distinguishing rules to bring them to full effect (said sub-systems). Some of it is (maybe) that it's nowadays just as easy (and maybe enjoyable) to mimic those original games without going through all those motions. However, it's different vantage points and I'd go as far as saying different gaming experiences with different needs to cater to.

That's a lot and I hope you all find something worth your while in it. There'll be more of the same in the days to come. However, I'll probably write something else here first. Join us over at that social media place, if you want to. You'd be most welcome. Either way, share your thoughts :)

[source]

 

Some ideas about alternate resource management in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia (and I just thought this title isn't long enough ...)

There is this German blog I like to read, Tagschatten, and this guy, +Tag Schatten, seems to be writing a D&D retroclone (Hic Sunt Dracones and I can't tell you how happy that title me makes). A few days weeks ago (it's been weeks already, goddammit) he also wrote a post asking what ideas people have for resource management systems that don't require lots of buerocracy and character sheet abuse (it's all in German, of course, so you have been warned). Got me thinking, too. It is not an easy question to answer and I think I got at least two proposals and waaaay too much text for just a comment. So here we go. I hope he doesn't mind.

Preamble

I like to think that I know a bit about the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, so this is where I will go looking for inspiration. I also believe that we should check what is already done before we start inventing new rules, so I will loot that game relentlessly. Another fine aspect of an approach like this is that those rules are already tested where they were used, so we have an idea how they could work when used somewhere else. It will also mean that the results should be highly compatible with other D&D games out there (Hic Sunt Dracones seems to emulate Mentzer, so it should work without any problems).

1. That thing about the Mystic

I wrote about this in 2012, but it bears repeating: the mystic's acrobatic ability is flawed for many reasons, but the concept itself might have merit in the game. Since Resource Management is a bit more complex than just affecting one Ability Score, I'd go and use 2 instead: Constitution (two times) and Wisdom (one time). So the formula for that additional ability a character could have (we could call it Survival, for lack of a better term) would be:

[(Constitution x 2) + (Wisdom) + (level x 2)] vs. d%

is the Survival Test

Or something like that. A group could decide for someone taking care of it (the roll) or the one with the lowest percentage is the one to check if stuff went sour. This being a percentage roll, allows for some shenanigans with bonuses and so on. They could look something like this:

• add 2 for every factor that could have a positive effect on the groups resources during their travels or night camps (well equipped, well traveled road, being in an area full with (natural) resources)
• add 5 for every class or skill that could be useful to the group, but never more than 30 (having a cleric, a hunter, a field medic and/or a cook)
• reduce by 1 for every negative effect on the groups resources during their travels or night camps (no fire, wet, fear of being hunted ...)
• reduce Survival by the number of days since the last time the group restocked their resources completely
• reduce Survival by (3 x Dungeon Level) if they have camp there
• reduce by 1 for every additional non-player group member they have with them (horses, henchmen, dogs ...)
• and so on ...

That's basically what the DM needs to keep track of. If he has a modifier for that Survival roll, he'll be able to interpret the result as he sees fit according to the circumstances. As a guideline I'd say, the greater the gap between difficulty (that is: Survival +/- modifier) the harsher is the effect on the group.

This could mean just the loss of some of the resources with a low gap (moldy food, damaged oil containers, wet torches or ruined cloths, resulting in another modifier to add to the next roll) or real damage to the resources with a middle high gap (horses or NPCs get sick or really unhappy, also resulting in another modifier and adding some in game difficulties, like not regenerating any hp) or in a worst case scenario real consequences for the group (critical failure or a gap bigger than 90, here the characters get sick, maybe from food poisoning, lack of fire, wet cloths, stuff like that).

Damaging Con or Wisdom would have a direct effect on the Survival ability, of course. And if a player describes something exceptional for a night, like sharing his precious brandy with the others or doing something entertaining, it could end in something extra for the roll ...

I'd have this checked every time they make camp or once per travel. A DM doesn't need to know what exactly the characters have in their backpacks and might even come up with the results of a failed roll as he sees fit, but the trade-off is (might be) that it's not very precise.

Example: Buckaroo, the group's fat level 4 Halfling, is the one managing the resources and really gets busy when they set up camp. He has a plan what needs to get done and when, so he sends people into he forest for fire wood, tells the henchmen to take care of the horses or raising the tents and cooks a nice, warm meal for the others to get in their stomach. His Con is 16 and his Wis is 12, so he has a Survival of 52 %. They are well equipped, travelling through a forest in late summer, met some travelers on the road and the weather has been very pleasant, netting a +10 there. They also get the +30 for having other useful people in the group. So that's a 92 they have going for them right now.

It's been 12 days since they last had a chance to refill their supplies, they have 8 horses, two donkeys, a dog and three henchmen with them and think someone is following them ... so I'd end up reducing that by 30 (26 plus the four for being extra cautious that night). That means Buckaroo needs to make a roll of 62 or lower. Seeing morale is a bit low since they haven't seen proper lodging for almost 2 weeks now and see monsters in every shadow, he decides to make his favorite biscuits for the group and takes care that everyone gets a good sip of that Elven wine they found a few days ago, getting another +8 for the roll (or 70 %) ...

2. That thing about the Cleric

And that would be re-purposing the Turn Undead Table, of course. It's basically the above but with 2d6 instead of 1d100. I think it might end up being even less precise, but it'd fit all into one nice table, so that's certainly something. It could look something like this:

This is how one could re-purpose that Turn Undead Table from the D&D RC (p. 15, changes by me)

It is untested, of course. But I imagine a DM could make it work. Still no bookkeeping and the group could actually die from exposure and all the other fine things characters die from if they aren't taking care of their equipment ...

Example: A group with an average level 2 is in over their head. They are deep in the Dungeon (level 3) and their cleric died, leaving them with only a cook and too many mouths to feed and as they lay down to sleep, they are at severity level 7. No roll. The lack of a proper fire and the damp air will have them all lose 3 Constitution and it will get worse if they don't manage to get out of there ...

Some loose ideas

I had the vague idea to re-utilize the D&D combat system. Something like using the Severity levels from 2 as hd and environment (like Dungeon Level, et cetera) as AC and have each of the characters roll their attack (as per level) and for damage. But it feels a bit excessive to have a group fight it out every time they make a rest, so I'll just mention it as a road not taken (in this post, at least). I still believe it could be done. Maybe if people just where to roll damage and if they overcome the severity, nothing happens. But if they don't ... Anyway, just food for thought here.

The lazy answer, by the way, is to bridge this stuff with the Dungeon World set of rules (a page with all the rules can be found here and Truncheon is a PWYW pdf sporting the same rules and can be found here). The DM tools are easily enough ported into D&D and they are in the cc, so they could be used in a D&D retro-clone, for instance. Well, whatever that's worth, I thought it couldn't hurt to mention it.

This is it. I hope I was able to show some possibilities how resource management could matter without having a huge amount of bookkeeping in there, too. Those ideas are untested and merely pointing the direction.

At least there would be almost no character sheet abuse, right? :)

Review: Dungeon World Part 3 B (Exalted Tinkering and Looting)

Still true, if it's too long to read, here's the whole thing in a nutshell:

Dungeon World delivers a fast and elegant set of rules to play a (very!) scripted D&D-themed role playing game. If you think this is D&D, you'd be wrong. It's another game (Apocalypse World) wearing a mask that looks like D&D. But anyway, D&D could be played like this and a Dungeon Master could learn a lot by reading (and understanding) Dungeon World. Or just loot what he can carry and be better for it ...

Part 1 can be found here.

Part 2 is here.

Part 3 A is here.

Extensive Review Part 3 B (Introduction)

Here I go again. This time it really is the final installment of this series of posts. I'll write a few words about how I'd house-rule Dungeon World and talk about some ideas how parts of DW could be salvaged and used in another game. Still a lot, but Dungeon World offers a lot, so that's just fair.

In closing I'll give my overall impression of Dungeon World and an outlook what I intent to do with it in the future.

Another colored illustration (b/w in the DW book) [source]

House-Ruling Dungeon World

There is a chapter in Dungeon World on how to alter those rules called Advanced Delving. In it you get told how to build new moves and how to change aspects of the rules to adapt them to a different campaign. I don't like this chapter, as it mostly tells me what I can't or shouldn't do, most of the time using empty phrases to explain why it shouldn't be changed. An inexperienced DM will be intimidated by this and that's just wrong.

If you tinker with a game and it breaks, you've learned a far more valuable lesson than by learning how to obey the system. A Game Master is not the slave of the system he uses and if a set of rules tries to tell me otherwise, it gets the finger. Then it gets tinkered with until it breaks and what is left gets looted ... Anyway, let's be constructive about this.

The first thing I'd drop would be the 2d6 (plus bonuses). Every move a character makes will be at least partially successful with a result of 7. The bell curve results of 2d6 will make it very likely that this comes to pass and every bonus a character might be able to add will make this already-too-easy-to-reach result even more probable. I don't like those chances.

So I'd either change it to a d12 or think about how to alter this in connection with a character's level:

• levels 1 and 2 = 1d8 (make them work for the success)
• levels 3 to 5 = 1d10 (should work most of the time)
• levels 6 to 8 = 1d12 (by now they are experienced adventurers)
• levels 9 and 10 = 2d6 (very unlikely to fail at anything)

This would make beginning characters somewhat weaker and keeps a linear distribution of results up to a level where it is just another small boon for already powerful characters. No such thing is mentioned in the rules as an alternative. It's not even touched.

The next thing I'd probably change is "Be a fan of the characters." I know, they write this can't be done without destroying the game, but I'd rather "be a fan of the players" and make the deaths of characters a bit more likely (and less hard on the players).

That's all I got, though. More ideas maybe after giving Dungeon World a few runs at the table.

Dungeon World in D&D

By now I've read often enough that D&D and Dungeon World as games couldn't be further away from each other. And that's somewhat true. But both system will also result in a very similar gaming experience. Not only because of some overlapping terminology (which certainly helps), but also for using the same tropes. A Dungeon World player and a D&D player could talk shop and understand each other easily without the need to explain the rules (in most cases, anyway).

And this is what makes me believe that parts of the rules in Dungeon World could almost with no effort fall into the cracks the D&D rules offer. For one thing, Dungeon World is not that intrusive. The system itself is fast and easy and most of the narrative tools could really improve any game for a DM.

Another reason would be the modular nature of most role playing games. There is no part of the rules in D&D that couldn't be changed or altered. It has been done often enough, even between editions. Those are the "cracks" I'm talking about.

Take the DW rules for henchmen, for instance (can be found here, but you need to scroll down a bit, in the book it's on the pages 34 - 37). They are defined by 3 scores: skill,cost and loyalty. A hireling may have one or more skills that will help the characters one way or another. Where the hireling comes from determines how high his skills are (a village will give a DM less points to distribute than a city, etc.). A cost might be money, but might as well be "The Thrill of Victory" or "Fame and Glory". Loyalty changes according to how they are treated and if their costs are met. Reaction roll is 2d6 + loyalty. Easy as that.

Example (Priest):

Priests are the lower ranking clergy of a religion, performing minor offices and regular sacraments. While not granted spells themselves, they are able to call upon their deity for minor aid. 

Ministry—When you make camp with a priest if you would normally heal you heal +skill HP. 

First Aid—When a priest staunches your wounds heal 2×skill HP. You take -1 forward as their healing is painful and distracting.

You could take that as it is or change a bit to reflect that characters on higher levels have more hp, but as it is, it won't be more than what would be given anyway under the described situations. It's good as it is. Using those rules gives a DM an elegant little system to handle hirelings in the game.

Same goes for travel and making camp (read about the special moves in this chapter to get an impression). Many good ideas to keep the focus on the adventure and not just narrate the interludes, but give them some significant randomness with just one roll.

Or take the bonds (here, pretty much in the middle of this page):

Bonds are what make you a party of adventurers, not just a random assortment of people. They’re the feelings, thoughts, and shared history that tie you together. You will always have at least one bond, and you’ll often have more. Each bond is a simple statement that relates your character to another player character. Your class gives you a few to start with, you’ll replace your starting bonds and gain new ones through play. 

Resolving Bonds 

At the end of each session you may resolve one bond. Resolution of a bond depends on both you and the player of the character you share the bond with: you suggest that the bond has been resolved and, if they agree, it is. When you resolve a bond, you get to mark XP .

A character's bonds to illustrate (Thief):

I stole something from _______________.
_______________ has my back when things go wrong.
_______________ knows incriminating details about me.
_______________ and I have a con running.

I'd maybe give 50-100 xp per level for a resolved bond. Easy cut and paste job, works for all games that not already have something similar (which means most D&D variants). It's just a minor narrative twist, but it should help enriching a game.

But the true gems are in the GM section, especially the chapters about building fronts and building a world are full of genius. With this alone a DM gets everything he needs to build a structured living and breathing environment for the characters to roam. The ideas how settlements interact, grow, etc. are inspired.

Most of the things a DM can do in Dungeon World will also work in other games. In most cases enhancing the gaming experience, too.

Final Conclusion:

Dungeon World is a good game with some seriously brilliant ideas in between. It captures the feel of the older editions of D&D (and 5E?) mostly by using the terminology, tropes and mimicking the character creation process (3d6 per ability score, etc.). The game does a good job in emulating all that into a narrative that will in almost all aspects mirror that of a game of D&D, although it takes a very different (and easier) road to get there. In my opinion a good game for a DM to have for those moments when you are in the mood for some D&D fantasy role playing, but too lazy to prepare a game of D&D.

The strong focus on the narrative while playing it is weakness and strength at the same time. Depending on your skill as a DM it might be a breeze to referee this game, but the very structured and ritualized set of rules gives just the illusion of freedom (especially regarding the players) for what is in reality a very restricted and scripted game. Again, it works very well to produce the feeling that you are playing D&D and if you are in the mood to take it easy, this is a good way to get it done.

Parts of the game are easily enough ported into other games. Here, again, helps the narrative focus of the game. So many nice ideas for aspects of D&D that either just get narrated or are burdened by clumsy subsystems and in a game that's for free, it's almost a crime not to read it at least for that reason.

Two of the main problems I have with Dungeon World are the rhetoric and the presentation. Some of the arguments they make how this game is supposed to be played reduce the DM in my opinion to an entertainer, just channeling the awesome ideas someone else had. Game Minion, not Game Master, as I wrote in part 2. It's bad and not something a beginning DM should start with. And the presentation (in the printed version, anyway) makes it worse, as this book is just too hard to navigate and impractical to use at the table. A changed order of topics and some serious editing would have been in order with this one. Both weigh heavy on an otherwise excellent system and make for a very bad first impression. In that regard, I don't believe it suitable for newbies to the hobby.

To sum it up, I'd say, go and read Dungeon World, if you haven't done so already. I believe there's a lot to gain from it. Buy the book, if you want to support the creative talent behind those rules. But don't expect more than an artifact. Avoid the pdf or get Truncheon World for free (a shorter edit of the same text with an additional class and another order of chapters). And don't let them tell you that you are not allowed to do with this as you please.

I will definitely give this baby a spin or two, maybe I'll even write a bit more about it as soon as inspiration hits. And I hope bits and pieces of this huge load of text (way too much, I know) helped getting you all some ideas about Dungeon World and what it could be used for. If you read all or part of this, I hope you found at least some enjoyment in this series of posts about Dungeon World.

Review: Dungeon World Part 3 A (Exuberant Converting)

Started writing the third part and it went on and on (and took an eternity ...), so I had to split it. Sorry about that, but I want to do both systems justice and there is a lot to say. So if it's too long to read and you didn't see the other parts yet, here's the whole thing in a nutshell:

Dungeon World delivers a fast and elegant set of rules to play a (very!) scripted D&D-themed role playing game. If you think this is D&D, you'd be wrong. It's another game (Apocalypse World) wearing a mask that looks like D&D. But anyway, D&D could be played like this and a Dungeon Master could learn a lot by reading (and understanding) Dungeon World. Or just loot what he can carry and be better for it ...

Part 1 can be found here.

Part 2 is here and part 3 B is here.

Extensive Review Part 3 A (Introduction)

This is the first part where I try to dissect Dungeon World and offer it's parts for free. In other words, in this part I'll describe how I intend to use the game and part 3 B will be about what I would house-rule (impossible!), what I intent to borrow for my personal Frankenclone of D&D (insolent!) and why I believe that D&D could really benefit from Dungeon World the way Dungeon World benefits from D&D (outrageous!).

Took me some time to wrap my head around this one. It was way more complex than I'd have liked (I have seen several posts/etc. online where people state conversion from one game to another was a breeze and I have to say, well ... they are all lies). Here now is the first half of the third part of this series. If there's anything else I can come up with or found online or problems I see (or whatever), it will be either in this post or in the second half (short of a play-report, that won't happen until after Christmas).

Let's get to the gutting ...

Dungeon World RAW 

I can't imagine using this for a campaign. As I wrote in part 2 (I think?), the game does a stellar job emulating D&D up to what would amount to the levels 6 to 9, but that's not enough for me. Or at least, that's not D&D for me, as there's also a domain game and an epic-level game as a big (but often neglected) part of D&D that I'd like to explore in the future.

I know, I know, some would say Dungeon World is not D&D, so a campaign in DW would be something completely different than a campaign in D&D and that might be (to some degree) right. If you where talking about the rules of the game. Not so much when you talk about the result of the game (which is the narrative that is left after the game is finished, for those wondering ...). And here, DW falls short. After level 10 the game is over. So (arguably) a campaign in Dungeon World stops when the D&D Rules Cyclopedia merely finished the introduction (didn't Gygax say somewhere that character development is something that happens on the first 6 levels of a character's existence?).

Where it should work, though, is emulating some of the classic modules that have been collecting some dust on my shelf by now. I decided to make a test run with the first level of Rappan Athuk (first print-run, back then it was still 3E), because I know the piece and re-reading it should be a breeze. It's also a beautiful dungeon and meat-grinder in D&D and I'm curious how it translates to Dungeon World.

In this context, I'd use the game RAW.

Dungeon World Conversion (Intermission)

The Dungeon World Conversion Rules make it sound quite easy: (1) reduce the map to the necessary information (2) create/copy all the monsters (3) a list and notes of magic items (4) write down NPCs and Organisations (5) structure all that by using fronts/dangers/etc. (6) repeat. Turns out, it's not that easy. First obstacle: navigating the book is a pain in the arse (Cave Rat lists "swarm" as a tag and no such thing exists; thought the text implied "aggression" was a tag and was wrong; could go on). And the funny thing is, for a game that's called "Dungeon World", there's quite the lack of rules how to DM dungeons. Also, don't get me started about fronts in an dungeon environment ...

It didn't take me long to realize that converting a huge dungeon like Rappan Athuk came with it's very own sets of difficulties. For one, there's a lot of crunch and specific fluff in the original books, but the biggest problem is regarding it's deadliness. There are no light decisions in this. Done wrong, it's either a fast way to kill the players or way to easy for them. Finding that sweet spot in between might be hard for someone new to the game. As stated in the introduction, it took me some time to wrap my brain around this one.

So the main problem (in my opinion, anyway) is that converting anything from another system to Dungeon World will not only warrant a deep understanding of the rules, but also an understanding of what's happening and how it translates to Dungeon World as a game. In other words, a DM needs to see how a module is supposed to work (express itself?) at the table when using the original system and then needs to decide how that could be done in DW. I'll show how tricky this can be with an example how I would kick off a Rappan Athuk Campaign with Dungeon World.

Dungeon World (First Session) vs. Rappan Athuk (Ground Level)

Let's quote part of the chapter about how to run a first session in Dungeon World:

"Start the session with a group of player characters (maybe all of them) in a tense situation. Use anything that demands action: outside the entrance to a dungeon, ambushed in a fetid swamp, peeking through the crack in a door at the orc guards, or being sentenced before King Levus. Ask questions right away—“who is leading the ambush against you?” or “what did you do to make King Levus so mad?” If the situation stems directly from the characters and your questions, all the better." [digital source]

Semantics first. The whole book is written like this, by the way. But that's not the main focus here. The first thing I'd like to point out is that this shows how much influence the players really have regarding the world and the session, which all in all amounts to ZERO. Yes, you got that right, I think the players influence on the adventure and a campaign as a whole is not at all affecting the DM's preparations.

The DM decides where to put the players. They are in the middle of the action (which needs to be prepared) and all the moving parts are already in motion and labeled (fronts, dangers, individual monsters). What are the players allowed to decide? Why they are hunted and by whom. BIG decisions right there. I'm joking, of course. In the best of cases this is just rhetoric, but taken at face value it's trying to substantiate the illusion that an adventure is about the why and the who, instead of the how.

Let me elaborate. I'll try and keep it short ... The main impulse in the example above is that King Levus has some beef with the characters. The question for the players is not "Who is King Levus?" but "Why is he so mad?". See the difference in the quality of the questions allowed? To put it a bit different, if the DM is allowed to ask the questions as he sees fit, he'd be quite stupid to not limit and manipulate the possible answers by governing the questions he will ask. Dungeon World gives a DM tools to manipulate the outcome of a situation on a semantic level instead of by a set of rules.

I'm not quite sure if I like this or not. It makes things way easier for a DM, though.

Back to converting Rappan Athuk (this will contain minor spoilers). Getting them directly into a tense situation will mean they already arrived at the entrance and the surroundings decided to act against them. Okay, this cuts down the whole bit about gathering information and getting there, as it is reduced to a part of the Flavor Text introducing the players to the campaign. Again, I take what is already there (a few rumors about the dungeon, a description of them arriving there and what it looks like) and ask them some "unimportant" questions like why they went there and what they are feeling about this etc., etc..

So far, so good. But it's action they want and it's what they should get. But where to start? The Ground Level of RA is a rat-infested graveyard with some mean Gargoyles, a well and 3 mausoleums. Way too much room for the players to navigate. If I put them under attack in the open, they are most likely to retreat and start with a new approach under their conditions. There also are several ways to get into RA, but DW is not about exploring the surroundings, it's about exploring the narrative. If I want them in there, I need to put them in there, which leads to me deciding which entrance they chose and how they entered.

Won't happen ... [source]

Close, but no cigar! [source]

This, again, reduces the whole Ground Level to Flavor Text (that's a lot by now) and puts them into the mausoleum, which is the entrance to Level 1.

And a death trap.

It's where things get complicated. Using D&D it's the players' skill that decides how and where they enter the dungeon. Not only in general, it's every aspect of the rules that either helps or hinders how well they do in getting there at almost every step. If and how they enter the Mausoleum has decided the fate of many groups. Lots of decisions, many mistakes to make. All that needs to get hand-waved at this point if I want to use Rappan Athuk with Dungeon World rules. At this point I'd call it a castration, not a conversion ...

Anyway, on we go. I decide they didn't find the key to the mausoleum. If they had free access, it wouldn't put them on the spot. Because, if I led them to this point in the narrative and describe a mausoleum with no obvious entry to a dungeon as the starting point to enter the dungeon, they will do two things: (1) they'll check the sarcophagus (which could at least trigger an encounter) and (2) check for secret doors (which would make them find exactly that).

Using DW means using moves, which would mean the thief would use the Trap Expert move and the rest would follow with the basic move Discern Reality. In both cases a success would make (1) somewhat unlikely to happen, which leads to them just finding a secret door to the dungeon without meeting any resistance.

This cannot happen.

No key for the players means they forced their entry. Which triggers the death trap: the ground will start to move upwards and will meet the ceiling in 5 minutes. The secret door will be blocked after one minute. The entrance will be blocked instantly (the door moves inwards) and the sarcophagus would allow enough room for 3 small characters, but there is a mean skeleton in there that gets animated as soon as someone does as much as lifting the lid. And fight would make discovering and opening the secret door more unlikely.

That should do the trick, I suppose.

But still, there are at least 4 moves the characters could use to get out of there quite easy. A roll of 7 or better with 2d6 will save those hides (which has a ridiculously high success rate, considering the bell curve results), so it's not really a challenge. If they disturb the skeleton, they really might die right there (with a good chance that up to 3 players manage to survive the encounter by getting into that sarcophagus somehow ... the trap would reset after two days). Still, most likely too easy.  And I'm talking level 1 characters here, not no less than six characters of at least level 3 (or higher) when using 3E D&D.

When I started doing the converting, my first thought when reaching this point was "And all that thought and consideration was just for one room ...". Yeah, I could go on like this. The level of detail needed when converting this is, if done right, excessive.

The first level, for instance, has one very intelligent and dangerous monster the characters can't fight directly, many, many rats and the holes (and tunnels) in the walls to match them. The rats, in turn, work for some wererats that protect the stairs to the second level (which makes them very well informed and prepared ...). A priest from a lower level comes on a regular basis to check on some of the traps (there are at least 3 of those) and the random encounter table also indicates some ghouls/ghasts and gelatinous cubes. To make this work properly, a DM needs to know how the deeper levels might interact with level 1 and how fronts could be used to explain it.

Conclusion 3 A:

As I stated above, if I where to do this in a way that I end up with something that at least resembles the original and works somewhat like that massive and evil dungeon, it would be a lot of work. I'll leave it at that. Maybe converting Rappan Athuk to Dungeon World would be a nice exercise for another series of posts in the future, but for now this is more than enough to get a first impression (I hope).

Is it worth the effort? Hard to say. Contrary to my initial impression, Dungeon World seems not really suitable for conversions from other systems. It can be done, but if a DM wants to catch what an adventure did in the original system, he really needs to put in the work to get it done. And that on a level of detail that goes way beyond what the source had to offer. And having to navigate the book was frustrating, so that's not good.

I'm still waiting for my copy of The Red & Pleasant Land. Maybe a sandbox might agree better with what Dungeon World does. And I have to say, it helped me getting a new perspective on what dungeons can be in the game. Details do matter and how they translate from the system to the narrative at the table is worth pondering on. Dungeon World did encourage this and it is potentially useful in all fantasy role playing games.

But more on that in Part 3 B.

Review: Dungeon World Part 2 (The Rules)

If you think this is too long to read, here is the short of it:

Dungeon World delivers a fast and elegant set of rules to play a (very!) scripted D&D-themed role playing game. If you think this is D&D, you'd be wrong. It's another game (Apocalypse World) wearing a mask that looks like D&D. But anyway, D&D could be played like this and a Dungeon Master could learn a lot by reading (and understanding) Dungeon World. Or just loot what he can carry and be better for it ...

Part 1 of this series is here.

Part 3 A is here, part 3 B is here. 

Extensive Review Part 2 (Introduction)

I appreciate flexibility in a set of rules for a role playing game and if I take the time to read a whole book full of rules, I'd really like to be inspired by it. Not by some horrid game fiction (which I already hated on in part 1), but by examples what the rules can do and clever little ideas where I get to think "Yeah, I'd really like to have that on my character sheet/in my game ..." or "This would be perfect for a setting like ...".

It's like the difference between a board game and a role playing game. One needs to be confined and ritualized to achieve it's intended goal (which is fine and mostly doesn't need that much rules), the other one excels in giving rules that are more like a vehicle, with the players being free to choose their destinations and the way to get there (which usually goes with a more complex set of rules).

Dungeon World forces me to reconsider my position on this. At least as far as flexibility and complexity go. Actually, Dungeon World is, in my opinion, a very confined and ritualized version of a role playing game. Just not by restricting the action with a board, but by restricting it, say, in the mind ...

Colored (that is: better) version of an illustration from the book
(page 218)! [more of the same at the source]

Anyway, the Rules

See, it ain't much. Take the D&D trappings, strip them down to some of the terms (like the six ability scores, HP, spells and class names) and use a fast and easy system to resolve all possible situations: roll 2d6; everything 10+ is a win (sometimes with an additional advantage), 7-9 is a win associated with some sort of disadvantage and everything below that is a disaster (ability score/class/level modifiers do apply).

In the beginning it sounds very much like D&D (up to a 3d6 in a row character generation) and I started to ask myself where the difference might be. Turns out, it's not D&D at all the further one gets with reading. Your ability scores, for instance, will be used for 3 things: to generate a modifier, a characters HP (Con) and to get a better price for wares (-Cha). You won't need them anymore than this (which makes their use rather cosmetic). The rest is moves and tags and bonds.

This is where the whole thing starts to shine for me. Up until page 154 I really loved what this game proposed to do. It is very narrow in what it does and heavily structured, but I think I would have a blast playing this. So many fun ideas, like the "bonds" for instance (which give a group almost instantly opportunities for role playing) or how every ability score is associated with a move.

There are two sides to this, of course. Alignment is an example that might help illustrating how those are really nice, but also very constraining rules. After choosing a class, a player is confronted with a choice for up to 3 available alignments for that class. Every alignment is associated with a certain action that grants a character xp (neutral fighter: defeat worthy opponent, etc.). It has a nice effect on the game that fits the alignment, it's easy to remember and it pushes all the right buttons in offering xp for using it. It's also just the one thing you can do to express your alignment. Everything else is wasted breath, as the rules do not support it.

Character creation is the same. You'll end up with a very nice character, but the process of creating a character is very formulaic with very few choices (or just enough, that's a matter of perspective, I guess) and a very narrow understanding of what they mean in D&D.

All this is fast and easy to grasp. Perfect, it seems, for one-shots and conventions. This certainly emulates the feeling early D&D produces on the first 6 to 9 levels and converts every published module for D&D easily enough to consider using it to run, say, the Against the Giants-series (or whatever) ...

The GM section ain't that much, though, ...

I got a bit excited right there and already thought about using Dungeon World for the Red & Pleasant Land. Then I got to the DM section of the game and they started with restricting the DM the same way they restricted the player. It's just not that much fun. Instead of saying "The DM is always right!", they say "The agenda is always right!". The "agenda" is a set of rules a DM is to follow to make this thing work. They are:

• Portray a fantastic world
• Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
• Play to find out what happens

This is divided in some principles and associated with some moves a DM is allowed to do. Seeing this as only advice might have some merit, but as they present it, it is set in stone. There is a chapter in the end with some ideas how to change those rules, but it falls short on the DM, basically saying that changing this will be too much work, if not impossible.

All this might be helpful for a beginner DM, but it also gives the impression that the game is always right. It's not the DM that decides how it's played, he's just a vehicle for the rules. I disagree with that and I really don't see where the fun for the DM is to referee this game. It couldn't be building a setting, because the third point of the agenda really forbids it and there are several passages in the book where they state that the game will "resist" attempts to avoid this part of the agenda.

"Game Master" is reduced to "Game Minion", I'd say.

Anyway, a DM is not to have his "own world". Let's go with that. It's something that emerges from play and the players are a huge part of this process. This has huge implications, to say the least. And it has definitely nothing to do with D&D, where the story emerges from the decisions made by the players (as in: the complete opposite to what DW proposes).

But wait! Turns out, it's not at all that dire and it takes about 30 pages ...

... until they start talking about Fronts and Steadings

I wouldn't say they lie to you with the agendas, but they go to great lengths to tell you that you have to follow "The Rules", especially when you're creating a world (which, following the third agenda, wouldn't amount to much, since the world is created during play ...). Then they go on about how to create a world in sketches, starting with some fronts. And that's some good stuff right there.

"Fronts" are exactly what you would expect: the front ends of campaigns the characters are aware of. They are like doomsday devices, ticking down as long the characters don't do anything against it, changing the world for the worse, should they come to pass.

"Steadings" are places the characters may rest, heal and buy stuff. A nice collection of ideas how to shortcut everything between adventures (same goes for travel, resource management, making camp, all that jazz). Those rules help not only facilitating those intermissions, but also produce a living environment for the players to interact with and form a nice narrative around it in the process. Without much fuss, I might add.

The Devil's in the Detail (Narrative Control and Combat)

So what are they trying to do here? The main focus of the game is the players. The world around them emerges as they discover it and a DM doesn't really need much more information than that. Sometimes they only see the tip of the iceberg and the DM has a sketch of the whole thing. Or they had only heard the name of another steading nearby and the DM already has all the data needed prepared. I can get behind this sort of thinking. It's actually not that far away from how I prepare my games, just more structured (which I can appreciate).

Seeing it like this means, in the end, that the narrative control is still with the DM. The rules don't "resist" attempts of a DM to enforce a story (nice try, guys), but they show how much is too much. And that's good advice for every DM in every role playing game. And to give the players an opportunity to help developing minor details of a setting, is good advice too (and something most DMs allow anyway, one way or another). But the context - the big picture, if you will - is still part of the DM's job, even in Dungeon World.

Combat is an odd bird, now. As far as the rules are concerned, aspects of a combat are just moves that help figuring out where the narrative goes. There are tactical elements to combat, but they are very limited and mostly related to a class (a fighter is good at killing stuff, of course), tags (what weapon exactly is used, etc.) and the situation (if the opponent is not aware of the attack, it's not combat, but just doing damage and if the enemy is too strong, it's only combat if the players find a way to harm it in an effective way). So combat is focused on enemies that fight back and can be defeated.

Depending on how serious you take the advice to ignore (or "re-interpret") damage that could kill a character (to keep the narrative going, etc.), you'll either have a game where fighting is like visiting town (read: part of a nice but harmless narrative) or a game as deadly and tactical as you like that still holds an engaging narrative (I'll take option number two, thank you very much).

The rest is with the dice. A character may, for instance, decide to reduce his ammunition (and still do his damage) when coming up with a result of 7 to 9 in his attack (so ammunition is a rather abstract resource that gets depleted as a result of the narrative, not something you count down as you use it ...). Or he decides to put himself into harms way instead (still doing his damage). So the result of the dice may decide movement (and other factors) instead of the simulative approach of our beloved, war-gaming-haunted D&D. I like this approach as an alternative, but it's still one more aspect that creates a significant distance to D&D (and friends).

Conclusion 2:

It's not all said and done yet. The third part of this review will shine a light on some other rules I really liked (Hirelings and travelling, for instance), as they beg to be hacked and stolen for ported to D&D. And I've written enough for today as it is.

Dungeon World is a mixed bag, but I've seen more I like than I dislike. I really don't care much for rules that protect players for the sake of a "story". I've seen that a lot in storyteller games (and ignored it every time). Death can be an interesting part of a narrative and the possibility of dying is an effective tool to produce tension in a game. That's how it should be, in my opinion.

What really makes me flinch, though, is when a set of rules tries to tell me it's mechanics are the game and the DM is just the vehicle to enforce them. That's just plain wrong and reduces the DM to being an entertainer.

There's also some redundancy (like a chapter about how to DM a first session and one chapter in the end about how to teach the game), the order they arranged the rules in is a bit screwed (especially in the second part of the book, Weapons and Equipment are a good example for this) and there are some contradictions (you either "play to find out" or you sketch a chain of events that still comes to pass, even if it's ignored, etc.). But those are minor quibbles, because it really ain't that complex a game.

That being said, I have yet to find a role playing game I could not misinterpret up to a point where it worked for me and I believe I could DM Dungeon World RAW. Again, the game is "rail-roading" a very specific way to emulate the fantasy tropes we all love and learned to associate with D&D. To explain it with a metaphor: if D&D is like driving a bike, than Dungeon World would be like driving a bike with training wheels. If you can dig that, it might just work for you. I'm certainly often enough in the mood to mix it with something fast and easy that gets the job done well ...


Anyone interested enough to check it out, but still hesitating because of the redundancies and contradictions and messed up order and the bloat (etc.) I wrote about, should give Truncheon World a look (thanks again to +Joel Bethell for pointing it out). It's basically the same text (minus the monsters, adding the barbarian class), but better arranged and only 128 pages (same format, by the way). The monsters can be found here (among other places, I'm sure).