It’s crude, incomplete, and very, very broken right now, but I want it to be better. So, I came to you guys.

26 thoughts on “It’s crude, incomplete, and very, very broken right now, but I want it to be better. So, I came to you guys.”

1. That looks really mechanical, which I’m not a fan of. The triggers for the moves also don’t really have that much fiction attached to them. They feel kind of like skill checks.

2. Okay, so more narrative-based stuff, less crunch. Cool, I’m down. Does that mean, in addition to changing the triggers around, there need to be less numbers, or less rolls as well?

3. That’s hard to say. There are mechanics I feel don’t fit. Such as spending a move or a free action. Those things don’t exist in DW.

4. My bad. I’ll change that. Which others?

5. What’s the point of listing all the conditions the strings can be severed by? Especially in bullet point form. It takes up a lot of space, and doesn’t really seem that important to me. It feels like you’re just listing ways for the the GM to say “No, sorry. Your cool thing doesn’t work.”

6. Most of my reasoning behind why weird stuff like this was added is to give an answer to imaginary scenarios I imagined frustrated players and DMs arguing over. In this case, “What happens to the strings when the puppet turns a corner? Do they go through the thing? Do they bend?”. 

   I see your point, though. I was just worried about stuff like that. 

   I feel like there should be some sort of range limit still.

7. Like “You control it if you can see it”.

8. Well, remember, in DW a valid answer to a player’s question is “You tell me.” Also, you just let the fiction dictate what happen.

   Can the puppet walk around a corner? Sure. The strings will just bend. But can the puppeteer see around the corner? If not, how do they know what to make their puppet do?

   Why do you need a range limit?

9. 1. Those are good points. 

   2. Something irks me about the puppeteer being able to just control it from miles away on a clifftop, completely disconnected from the action. Sure, rangers can do that too, but in the puppeteer’s case, there could be a Large-sized Messy behemoth down there instead of volleys of arrows. The Puppeteer feels wholly disconnected from it all.

10. Sure, sure. And if someone cuts a string, or tangles a stick in there, bam. No more Large Messy Behemoth.

11. Argh, true.

12. I feel like you’re overthinking things or worrying about them too much. Lots of problems solve themselves when the fictional situation takes precedence over mechanical rules.

    Like the range thing solves itself when the puppeteer has to see what their puppet is doing.

13. Okay, no more range. How about replacing Alignment and Race with Drive and Origin? Should I switch it back?

14. Yeah, I worry about a lot of stuff. This is my first time posting something like this. I guess it shines through, huh?

15. Out of curiosity, are you coming to Dungeon World from another game, like Pathfinder or D&D? I asking because those games tend to have a lot more rules.

16. Yeah. I’ve played D&D 3.5 for the past year or so, and that was my first experience with ttrpgs. I like playing Dungeon World more than I did playing 3.5, but it’s choc-full of very alien concepts to me. During the first handful of sessions, I forgot to speak up in combat half the time because we weren’t playing with any initiative order.

17. Yeah. I hear you. It took me a while to truly “get” how to run an AW-based game.

    I haven’t made any Dungeon World classes, but I’ve made playbooks for Monsterhearts, and it’s hard. Your instinct says to write the playbook in such a way so that other people play it exactly as you envision it being played. That doesn’t work.

    What I feel you should be doing is highlighting what’s cool about the class or capturing the spirit of the thing. But letting the player fill in details and push it in different directions.

18. Thanks! I’m really grateful you’re offering your advice on this.

    Okay, I’ll try to do that. I’ll post this again when I feel it needs a second time around. Any thoughts on the puppet enhancement page?

19. I used to give the choice of picking a defect, like “Noisy” or “Faulty”, if you wanted to get an extra point or so to spend on enhancements. The defects were completely narrative-based, and came into play at the DMs choice. Should I add those back in?

20. I’ll have another look when I’m in front of my PC again. I’m honestly not familiar with the source material (I’ve never watched an episode of_Naruto_ in my life), but the second sheet looked way too mechanical for my tastes.

21. Okay, sounds good.

22. I wanted to do a puppeteer class but gave up due to lack of inspiration..

23. Wynand Louw I tried to make it for D&D 3.5 Ed. once, but that system is heavily based around number-crunching. DW seems like it’d work a lot better with this class.

24. I’ve started a G doc with my thoughts on all the elements M. Stewart. It’s not done yet, but I’m sending you a link. 

25. There’s nothing about manipulating other’s actions? D:

26. Em0srawk  I wanted it to be more puppet combat and less manipulation. That’d make an interesting Expert move, though. I’ll look into that.

Comments are closed.