Anyone interested in playing Dungeon World? I have a *very* broadbrushed setting in mind, basically just a bare frame for the group to fill in as we play. I'd like to do this game in conversational mode.

To me, that means that the moves are organic to the roleplay, and our gameplay will look more like a transcript of a tabletop game, or the examples in the DW book, than like the careful separation of narrative from mechanics that is the norm, at least in the games I've played here.

Thanks for reading.

In reply to Orvallon (msg # 1):

Somewhat interested. Note that what you describe is how Dungeon World is intended to be played. It took me a while to learn that, but it's not intended that people say "I 'hack and slash'" or "I 'defy danger: dexterity.'" They're supposed to describe what they do and roll when required.

Any thoughts on what playbooks would be allowed? Note that I have a little over a hundred of them and would be more than willing to share those that I legally could.

In reply to Orvallon (msg # 1):

I am definitely in this.

Potentially interested. I love the ideas of DW, but haven't had much luck with sustained games here.

I haven't really given any deep thought to what playbooks to allow. I guess I've had the ones in the main book in mind, but there's no inherent reason that others couldn't be used.

And yeah, the main reason I'd like to run a game is because I've tried a few times to play DW, and each time the game has stalled out before really getting any steam up.

Excellent reasoning!

The option of dozens of playbooks makes it sound like 3.5 edition craziness rather than more classic early editions. What kind of characters are they for?

I didn't realize  there so many out there, but a lot of ones outside the book are definitely niche oriented.  I did pick up a pdf of Class Warfare, it looks intriguing, but it may be that it adds too much crunch to a very elegant game.

In any case, playbooks are something we can nail down once we get a table together for the game.

I'd be up for a game, but I only have the core book.

In reply to engine (msg # 8):

Every kind. I have more than a hundred of them. Necromancers and gladiators... monks and templars... eaters of the dead and noblemen with courtly graces... mages who play with time and living golems... captains of airships and collectors of the strange... there are a lot of playbooks. Not all suitable for every campaign but enough to provide variety to any campaign beyond just the basic DnD archetypes.

Personally I've played DnD (and the like) so long that the basic classes don't interest me too much anymore because I've played them. All of them. Many, many times. So having options that aren't just mechanically different but thematically different is a big plus to me.

As a provisional point to work from, I'm not going to worry too much about a list of usable playbooks. I do want to have a game that is thematically consistent, but there are a lot of extant playbooks, plus fifty odd thousand potential combinations from Class Warfare, so that's a glut of choices.

If the mechanics hold up, and we use a bit of discernment, the standard classes should have just as much utility as one of the other playbooks. DW doesn't seem to reward the "perfect build" like DnD 3+ does, and also doesn't seem to punish sub-optimal builds as hard.

In reply to Orvallon (msg # 12):

Exactly.

I see. You have my sympathies and a bit of my envy as I haven't had the opportunity to really play more than a few of the core classes to any great depth or detail. The appeal of Dungeon World was, I thought, that it recreated the simple, original game for people who still hadn't had enough of it.

Engine, what I am hoping to see with DW is an opportunity for those who want to enjoy an iconic character type from DnD's to do so, potentially right alongside a character who thematically might seem more like something more recent.

I don't want to compare crusty old gamer cards, but for what its worth, I've got a good many years in, and I still get all excited at an opportunity to play a vanilla fighting man/fighter killing monsters and taking their stuff. :)

I have a few of the supplemental playbooks, but it doesn't matter to me much either way.

Yes, theme is one concern. I don't necessarily want to see a gunslinger, for example, in a standard sword-and-board type game. Even a necromancer doesn't necessarily fit every game. Characters should be picked because they fit, not because they're different or new. All the characters in the book fit by default, everything else is questionable.

And that's even assuming all of those playbooks have been tested against the other classes and are approximately as powerful. A living golem sounds fun, but if it automatically doesn't eat, sleep or breathe there might be disruption of the standard expectations and extra power and ability where it wasn't intended.

I'm excited about playing a bog-standard character, though I do look for slightly more interesting in-game situations these days.

Could be this isn't the game for me.

I was never going to put forth something that did not fit thematically.



They have been playtested. They are not more powerful. Mostly because they really can't be. Dungeon World is a thematically driven game. All the playbooks can do is add a new aspect to the story. A character not sleeping, eating, or breathing would be a hge deal in DnD but it's a blip in Dungeon World. The game is about the story and not power mechanics.



That being said if my desire to play something other than the same 6 or 7 classes that I've played for nearly 30 years is too distracting I'll withdraw my interest.

In reply to engine (msg # 17):

To clarify what I said above, I also very much enjoy a more nuanced game with a deep story and engaging characterization. The door kicking fighter is an example, not a definitive statement of intended exclusive theme for the prospective game.

Added to that, I find it fun to take a basic sort of character and flesh them out into something beyond their primary function in a party of adventurers.

Good to know. I assumed it was going to be sort of an open array of options.

I think that's true if that's how the players think of it and approach it, but from what I've seen and played it's just as prone to players trying to squeeze out extra advantage (if that's what they're accustomed to doing) as any other game.

Frankly, given how similar the spells seem to original D&D and how much of an issue that game had with them, I'm not sure even the original classes are all that balanced.
This message was lightly edited by the user at 17:41, Mon 23 May 2016.

You literally cannot powergame Dungeon World. It's a narrativist game. Trying to squeeze mechanical advantage is pointless as it does nothing. Everything in DW is based around driving the story forward. All the moves and mechanics are based around that. You can't powergame moves that act as story levers.

In reply to deadmanshand (msg # 21):

I've only played it a few times, but I could definitely see where it could be squeezed by people who were after being better than others, rather than making an overall interesting story. If you're interested in that perspective, send me rMail and I'll explain what I mean.

I'm interested!

Game is up in the Players Wanted forum.

edited to include a link:

link to a message in another game
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was in need of a minor tweak, at 02:45, Tue 24 May 2016.