“How is DW different from D&D?” I like the response I wrote to answer this question, so I sent it over to my players. They liked it, so I think it might be worth making a simple PDF out of it. Nothing much, just some formatted text with bits of the GM’s Agenda thrown in. Who knows, it might sway a few skeptical D&D players.
UPDATE:
Thanks to feedback, I’ve realized that there is a pretty big mistake in the writing.
What I wrote is actually very incorrect on an important detail: items on the list are the GM’s Agenda; they are goals, not rules you apply to the entire game.
If your players want complex traps in the game, that is absolutely allowed by the core rules of the game. However, if having players solve complex traps becomes your main goal, then that is against the rules.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_JdH0Si6SYcSGZ4NUlSc25YRUU
The tone of this starts off a little aggressive. I don’t know if DW is literally the “opposite” of D&D. That doesn’t seem to ring true to me and I would worry about putting off people who enjoy playing D&D.
I agree with most of this post, but its not forbidden or required the GM follow a strict set of rules. It is however recommended against changing the rules, but again not out of the GM’s limitations.
Page 343-350’s.
Advanceed Delving
-Changing The GM’s Side Of The Rules
-This includes agenda, principles, etc.
So if he doesn’t like a rule or wants to change the agenda, principles, and moves. Advanced Delving describes how you can accomplish these things.
I do not change rules often, but to say they are required to obey the rules (Which again are guidelines given the option to change them) is not accurate. I do recommend not changing anything drastically, but it would be within your Dungeon World right to make that call and it should be discussed prior to playing with any DW group since they might not like the changes.
Edit: I will admit the book contradicts itself a little in this matter. Since in GM they describe them as rules to be followed, but then say you can change them later on in the same chapter and in-depth in advanced delving.
To Dawit Thepchatree – I appreciate where you’re coming from on this and basically agree with what you’re saying in the essay. However, I do agree that, given the goal of the essay, you might want to focus more on how DW still does all of the good D&D stuff you love, but changes a few things to make the game run more smoothly, more creatively, and less mechanically. That might prevent the often inevitable knee-jerk rejection to “This game is better than you one you love.”
RidersOfRohan – I don’t think it’s a contradiction exactly. I think you’re supposed to follow the rules as written. With thoughtful consideration, you may want to adjust a rule or create a new. That’s fine, but you’re still expected to follow the rules during play for consistency.
Dawit Thepchatree, a lot of this is great, but I agree with Ray Otus that it seems pretty aggressive, and is also not the opposite of D&D. It’s similar to D&D, but the most important thing about DW is that it is a conversation between the GM and Players, not a contest between them.
RidersOfRohan, yeah it is a little contradictory, but they are rules to be followed and rules you can change at the same time.
Here is your Agenda, and here are your Principles. Follow them. Now, if you need to change them you’re allowed to, but whatever the Agenda and Princples are, follow them.
Listening with interest
Zack Wolf Everyone is expected to follow rules and guidelines thats not the argument, but the option to change agenda and principles means that its not forbidden (Which was the argument).
Brian Holland Yeah I agree 100% I like most of what Dawit Thepchatree puts out and use some of his recent material direclty in my game. It called constructive criticism. To make sure accurate information is being portrayed.
The Advanced Delving section is not really part of the rules, but rather, guidelines on how to change them. To play Dungeon World, there aren’t any rules to follow from there. Yes, you can change the heart of the game and replace it with something else, but as the GM’s Agenda is absolutely crucial to how the game works, it is more likely to lead to poor experiences.
That’s what happened with my group in our first few sessions. We got burned pretty bad, because we chose to play DW just like D&D, only using the DW moves. We did the very things the GM’s Agenda prohibits us from doing, and it didn’t go well.
The sad truth it, warnings like “the moves will fight you at every turn” and “you’ll be playing a pale imitation of D&D” from around the Internet don’t really sink in unless you actually try to play DW as D&D yourself. And I’m sure that a lot of criticism for DW is undeserved because it was played the wrong way. There are also comments like “DW is easier to understand if you never played D&D before,” which is absolutely true. My group and I went through all of that.
So if this primer comes off as a bit bitter, well, it should. It’s a dire warning against playing this game the wrong way and then walking away from a very wonderful, unique experience without realizing what they really miss.
RidersOfRohan I agree, I was supporting your point. They are rules, but they’re not hard and fast because they can be changed is all I meant by that.
The whole piece also seems to be based on an assumption that everyone plays D&D the same way. While it may be true that what you are talking about is a common way that D&D is played, it is far from the only one. For the players that don’t play D&D that way, this seems like it is more confusing than helpful.
Dawit Thepchatree That’s opinion based. I understand you worked hard on this and may feel it difficult to be criticized, but the larger spectrum wasn’t changing the games entirety . The best i can do is provide an actual situation.
My players wanted diverse puzzles and traps to spice things up a bit. (Most veterans of the game).
– Do not challenge the players to solve a complex trap.
Should my answer be: Don’t play Dungeon World? No.
We played everything the same as usual, but since they desired this one thing to be involved in our game. I as the GM with the power to change this minor situation and rightly mind you, did so.
Now I don’t do that with every game, because I do follow the basics, but It was nice to provide that option and change while still fully enjoying the experience. That is just one example of many.
+RidersOfRohan I might be coming off as a bit too defensive, true, but it’s not in defense of “hard work” as you put it. That comment is already there and only took a few minutes to write. It’s not much.
I still don’t agree with what you said, but not for the obvious reason. You’re not entirely correct, but I do admit that I’m wrong.
What I wrote is actually very incorrect on an important detail: these are the GM’s Agenda; they are goals, not rules you apply to the entire game.
If your players want complex traps in the game, that is absolutely allowed by the core rules of the game. However, if having players solve complex traps becomes your main goal, then that is against the rules.
This means the GM is allowed to do all of those don’ts, but they cannot become the GM’s goals. It is a thin and dangerous line to walk, however. For example, the moment the GM forces the players back onto a “railroad” for the sake of telling his or her story instead of the players’ story, that is a violation of the rules (play to find out what happens).
What I mean is that the rules are more robust than we both think.
Now, that begs the question: what if the players want to just solve complex traps and nothing else? In that case, I don’t think forcing them to play Dungeon World just for the GM’s sake is a good idea. There are far better systems out there. But of course, the guidelines does allow hacks to be made to deal with that situation.
+Zack Wolf Except it doesn’t. Not really. That was how Dungeon World was sold to us in the beginning – a more streamlined D&D experience to save time. For newbies in the group, it was fine. For the D&D veteran, there was a lot of bickering and moaning, constant bashing of DW rules, etc. DW is not trimmed-down D&D. Trimmed-down D&D would be something like the 5e Starter Set. Everyone at the table was frustrated, including the GM (wasn’t me). We were ready to chuck the game away and consider it “not for us,” when I decided to do more research. Then play it properly and realize how awesome it actually is.
That’s because some D&D players love the puzzles, the constant research, the huge number of written options, the map grid, the specified ranges, the meticulous exploration, the book-keeping, the official books of endless lore, and the “simulationist” approach in general… none of which is what DW offers without making a lot of changes.
Where I’m coming from is this: if we had read a more direct (or more aggressive) primer about what Dungeon World really is, we wouldn’t have had such a negative experience with this game.
I am stealing this so hard that Google drive is getting embarrassed. Great explanation!
BTW, I like the emphatic approach. I had the same problem than Dawit Thepchatree had with his group (trying to play DW as D&D). It’s better to cut the crap and say it like it is. It will turn away those people that are not interested in playing this type of game but it will excite those that are looking for something exactly like DW. In any case, it will save the first group a lot of time.
Matías Brossard Thanks, but in hindsight, it’s definitely not suitable for a primer that should be applicable to a wider audience. Not to mention that the text actually wrong.
Dawit Thepchatree I heartily disagree. In that document, you strike the core of what can make a D&D-to-DW-transition difficult. I find that is too easy to waste time approaching the game with the wrong expectation in this specific case. Please notice that I consider your document “emphatic” and not “aggressive”. Maybe you find the text too harsh but I think you added the right level of honesty.
Dawit Thepchatree it’s true this primer isn’t for everyone and to some a blatant turn off. However this community was build to support each other in one thing “Dungeon World”. I may not like this approach of introduction, but do not mistake that I like a lot of your stuff and use some of it as direct tools reference. (Picture below is my gm screen which 2 of 4 slots are your GM tools).
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Ksa_Ck7HHftlYgwcmMc57KfrEQE_MkAlj5m5W8MLkNANlNZeQ-OcbTyIUyHaJk2Z70Oa9unua9yvq8_N35DHzBapzGegtnFhL2c=s0
While I understand where Dawit Thepchatree is coming from and his frustration based on his experiences with D&D, I’d say that his Primer above suffers from some misconceptions.
One of the problems with DW starts with its name: DUNGEON World. It sends the message to prospective players that the game has a strong emphasis on dungeon exploration, when in reality the game uses dungeons as little more than window dressing for character and narrative exploration. The game would have been better served by being called Classic Fantasy World or some-such. The name of the game was, and is, misleading to prospective players.
The marketing behind the game didn’t help either, and was disingenuous, by saying that it was “a game with modern rules and OLD-SCHOOL STYLE” and ” a game of TREASURE-LOOTING, monster-fighting, DUNGEON-CRAWLING action” (my emphasis):
kickstarter.com – Dungeon World: A Game with Modern Rules & Old-School Style
It’s therefore hardly surprising that many people tried the game thinking, understandably, that it was chicken and got salmon instead. The game simply doesn’t correspond to what was marketed as.
What it does deliver is an adaptation of PbtA rules to the flavour of classic fantasy games. If you really like classic fantasy tropes, don’t care much for detailed dungeon exploration, like PbtA games, and want all the benefits of a “story-game”, than chances are you may like DW (if you like the particular way in which PbtA was adapted in DW is another question that doesn’t concern us here). It doesn’t surprise me that so many people here like it. It’s a good game. But it’s NOT a good dungeon crawling game if exploration is what you want as opposed to dungeons as window dressing for telling cool stories.
Regarding creativity: DW doesn’t require anymore creativity than D&D does. The difference is that the creativity required works on different levels. In D&D creativity would be about players coming up creative solutions to fictional problems. In DW it’s about players creating content based on description and cool dramatic scenes. None of these versions of creativity is better than the other.
There are also some straw-men in the above Primer. Claims that D&D is about pre-determined stories, or that it’s about the GM “beating” the player etc. seem to me to reflect more the personal experience of the author of the Primer than anything specific about D&D. I was playing D&D more than 25 years ago and I didn’t have any scripted stories, pre-determined story endings, stories for the players to follow railroad-style, nor was I trying to “beat” the players. There was also no passion for complicated rules and math, nor was there 50 pounds of setting books to read about Forgotten Realms. In fact, much of the OSR movement is precisely about ditching the post AD&D 1E miserable heritage and go back to sandbox-gaming, no scripted crap, rules-light systems, etc. It seems to me that the problem you had playing D&D that led to all that bitterness patent in you Primer is the same that led so many people to join and thus give raise to the OSR as a movement.
Now, there ARE differences between DW (a game veering towards “Narrativism”) and D&D (“Gamism”). D&D is about player skill. It’s about beating a challenge. It’s about exploring that dungeon, enjpying it for what it is, or crossing those wilds and surviving, and having fun along the way and creating survival stories to tell and write APs about. It’s very satisfying, but it’s not a drama exercise. There’s nothing wrong with D&D the same way that there’s nothing wrong with DW. The real question is if it’s your thing.
With that said, I’m a big fan of PbtA games. I like Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, and Monster of the Week, and I’m anxiously waiting for Zombie World and specially The Long Orbit by Rachel E.S. Walton (hear that Rachel?). But DW leaves me cold. It leaves me cold because without the focus on dungeon crawling all it leaves me with is a PbtA game doing vanilla fantasy with a levelling system and hobbits. If the dungeoneering is going to be just window-dressing and little more than “pull shit of my ass as I go” , and “Adventuring Gear 5 uses, 1 weight” and “bag of books” to help me come up with an excuse to roll “Spout Lore”, than I’d rather play Sorcerer & Sword by Ron Edwards and go “narrativist” all the way. But that’s my personal preference. Just play what you like. But making a caricature of D&D gameplay isn’t helping DW.
My two cents.
I totally get where you’re coming from.
To me, though, DW is D&D, Pathfinder is D&D, D&D0, 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 5 & AD&D are D&D.
DW is just MY D&D.
Who is this for?
Prospective players/GMs of DW are going to fall into 4 categories.
1: Played D&D and didn’t have a good time.
2: Played D&D and had a good time.
3: Haven’t played D&D, but have RPed.
4: No RPG experience.
This write up seems geared towards people in category 1 and only people in category 1. All the trash talking about D&D is very off putting to people in category 2 and meaningless to the people in categories 3 and 4.
I think it would be best written focusing on why DW is awesome without belittling the most popular RPG ever or the people who enjoy it.
Nitpick: There’s nothing wrong with elaborate traps in DW. There’s a class with moves just for traps. They are discussed in the “Dealing with Common Situations” section. You can be as “Grimtooth’s Traps” crazy as you want. You just solve them differently than in D&D. (Note, I’m not a fan of them in general, but if a thief is around, part of being a fan is giving them traps to show off with)
Well written!
Before I begin, I will say I played a long-term DW campaign that ran about a year before we shelved it (due to me pending move out of state). I liked a lot of the games elements, and we had a great deal of fun. There was plenty of awesomeness to go around. That said, I don’t quite buy the notion that running DW is more or less anathema to running D&D. The two are very similar in promoting a certain style of play that has been around since the early days of the hobby. In fact, much of how DW is run, from a GM perspective, feels to me like a more codified version of this (preview of the longer work): http://slyflourish.com/lazydm/lazy_dm_preview.pdf
Beyond that, I feel that the ideas that drive DW are not new. Dynamic campaigns featuring a world in progress, utilizing player agency, and a world that reacts to what characters actually do, have been around since the days of Gygax. “What do you do?” is the basic question every GM asks, over and over again, in every session of every good campaign. GMs that react appropriately according to what characters do, rather than reacting according to a script, are utilizing the same ethos upon which DW’s foundation is formed. That foundation was inspired by elements of what came before. The mechanics simply reinforce the foundation by being directly tied to it via the various moves.
So, to me, DW identifies what I would describe as solid GM approaches, and reinforces them by making the game about the moves, and the results of those moves. That said, in every game I’ve ever run, or played in, for that matter, the same moves occur, though they have no name (indeed, DW stresses NOT saying the name of your move). In this way, DW is a really great tool for both new GMS to get a feel for how to run a campaign, as well as a nice system to reinforce good GM habits for veterans who may have strayed into the dark lands of over-preparation and scripting (i.e., railroading). It’s a fun system, though, if I run it again, I’ll likely run the Freebooter’s version of it, which is a bit more dangerous.
Thanks for reading,
E
P.S. Interestingly enough, DW demands a great deal of trust between players and GM, much like the rules light, old school systems, such as ODD, S&W, and the like. There are more similarities than differences — IF the GM isn’t heavy into plotting everything themselves.
Apologies to Dawit Thepchatree. You put this out because it was helpful for your players and it was unlikely you intended it to generate discussion. So, thank you for the kindness.