Originally shared by Yochai Gal
We are proud to announce the first ever public playtest of Worlds of Adventure!
What is this?
Worlds of Adventure is an ongoing project to present a simplified, tightened ruleset for Dungeon World that builds on the strengths and themes of the original game, while incorporating newer ideas and designs made popular since the game’s original release. In Worlds of Adventure, we try to enhance those rules that facilitate roleplay, simplicity, and flexibility, while keeping true to Dungeon World’s’ roots. The ruleset for Worlds of Adventure is meant to both supercede and take precedence over those of Dungeon World.
You can read a summary of these changes in the Introduction section of the document.
Please remember that this is just an early playtest; many of these rules are expected to change and adjust based on community feedback.
Thanks, and please send us your comments & suggestions!
Our team: Muggins AU, Nicolas Derom, Greg Soper, & me, Yochai Gal
64 thoughts on “We are proud to announce the first ever public playtest of Worlds of Adventure!”
Technically this is the second view and announcement with a new title xD. But I like’d it the first time. Sure I’ll like it the second.
Well, it wasn’t called Worlds of Adventure before… so it’s still the first ever post, which makes my post technically correct, the best kind of correct!
Glad you liked it. It’s gone through a week of changes so check it out again!
Nice! Might I suggest a small wording change to the Discern Realities trigger that fits the same “charged” wording as AW?
Aaron Griffin we love suggestions, and will be watching this post (and our nascent community) for them very closely. Please feel free to suggest, comment, criticize, whatever – we’ll take it all in and refresh after a short while!
Aaron Griffin That doesn’t sound like a bad idea!
Discern Realities does see some different use in Dungeon World than Read a Sitch does in Apocalypse World, though. I’d like to know where you think we should put the line between “search the room, triggering Discern Realities, to find a secret lever behind the bookcase” and “the GM just tells the players there’s a secret lever behind the bookcase.”
Looks good at first glance. It took me a while to find the Invocations and Spells because they’re in an appendix rather than the appropriate playbook. Consider placing them with the play book, or at the very least adding their location to the table of contents (maybe with bullet points or something). Or even in the playbook saying “spells on page X
Brian Holland believe it or not we discussed this in depth, and couldn’t come up with a “perfect solution” – until now. Putting a remark in the playbook itself makes total sense. Thanks!
‘ sever their bonds’ might be a cooler name for the gm move ‘break their bonds’. I just prefer the severing/cutting imagery, plus its a common idiom i.e. sever all ties. 🙂
Lu Quade Good call.
Looking forward to taking a look! Ducking after I point out that Vincent Baker has been working on a game called “World of Adventure” for quite some time now! 😬
Jason Tocci, are you serious? Daaaaamn.
Also: good on yas. Looking forward to checking it all out!
Yochai Gal Not sure if he’s promoted it beyond his Patreon yet. Looks like more of an all ages game, I think.
Yeah, I don’t back him, and it is only discussed in his online forum (which you have to back to login).
Sigh. Well, maybe it’ll be OK.
Jason Tocci That’s actually hilarious. We’ve been struggling for a name, too.
If anyone has ideas for what this supplement SHOULD be called, we’re all ears.
Muggins AU, Fiendish Undergrounds, Villainous Brutes. Is it too ungrateful? 😉
Deep Six Delver maybe we should just call it Dungeons Unchained 😀.
Muggins AU little bit of soap boxing here, but I believe that DR, much like Read a Person/Sitch, doesn’t make sense unless there’s some outside pressure. If there’s no pressure, searching a room is just a series of GM moves.
Ex: if there’s a hidden lever behind the bookshelf, they can a) spend three days searching without pressure and eventually find it, b) they can ask a bunch of questions – what’s in the desk, what’s under the carpet, what’s behind the shelf, etc c) they can hurridly search the room because it’s going to explode… Now’s where DR shines – you can learn 3 things, that’s it… What do you choose?
I like what I see and I would love to discuss on my show? You free sometime on Saturday?
I compiled a long list of comments from reading the previous release. Is there a better way to send you feedback than in this thread?
Andrew Huffaker we’ll be in touch.
Nick Nunes we created a G+ community (see shared link in post) for that exact purpose. You can also join the DW Discord server, where we all hang around.
Discerning Worlds, Dungeoneers Guide, Spout Worlds, Story Dungeon, Path Of Adventures. (Just spouting random titles xD. Don’t know if any of them are good, but I like em).
Maybe see if any of the crowdsourced name suggestion finalists Ray Otus didn’t use for Plundergrounds might be fair game!
I’ll get my file out later and dump the names in here. Still reeling from time lag this morning. 7:30 in Ohio but 4:30 body time. 🙂
We voted on names in the Discord server before coming up with this one…
Yochai Gal Cool. Then I’ll not do that. Just following up on Jason Tocci’s suggestion.
Ray Otus no, I really want you to do that! I just thought I’d show you guys what we already did!
Still reading. Initially noticed:
o the gear section replaces “ammo” with “uses”, but the volley move does not
o some uses of “Revised” remain
o hate the title. I’d just pick some totally new word to make it is own thing and stop worrying about the title being a callback to the source.
Ahh here it is! I caught it when it first came out (Dungeon World Revised it was called I think?) then seconds after I grabbed it, it disappeared. I wanted to give feedbacks, especially kudos cuz it’s awesome, but I couldn’t find who posted this.
The closest thing to Dungeon World Second Edition! 🙂
I think you might cease this opportunity to change some of the Drive moves that are boring/hard/nonsense. From what I can see, right now they’re just renamed Alignment moves.
What I mean is, for example, the Barbarian’s Triumph – Defeat a mighty foe to prove your worth. You don’t need to play out your character to do this. That’s a thing you’ll always do no matter what. Same goes for Wizard’s Discovery – Uncover something about a magical mystery. Again, this is something you’ll do no matter what drive you pick. That’s what you do as a Wizard. While these would probably be checked EVERY session, others are a bit hard to do or depends too much on the GM (set the right context). Ex. The Ranger’s Nature – Help an animal or spirit of the wild. The GM has to give you the opportunity to check this one. What if he planned a whole session in a dungeon without animals nor spirit of the wild? And meanwhile, the thief Leaps into danger without a plan. every session.
Jason Cordova spoke about this in Discern Realities podcast.
I think you have a great opportunity here to improve the otherwise a bit defective Alignment moves.
Just my 2 cents!
Addramyr Palinor thanks for the input! Drives are gonna get a major overhaul in future releases; just yesterday we discussed creating a “master list” that is playbook-neutral to go along with the final release.
Have you seen Greg Soper’s excellent Minimal Playbooks Plus? They come with a great supplement with Drives, Flags, Bonds etc.
When I get some time I plan on rewriting the flavor text for each playbook as well.
Not sure about the title either. Adventure World is pretty evocative but it’s also a bit bland.
I really like the “Unchained” adjective from the survey.
We can’t indeed call it Dungeon World 2.0 for legal reasons. But we are working to make it this way. We take all the good bits from supplements and hacks, and throw it into one complete system. The final goal is to make it a standalone thing that does not require DW to play. We make the barrier to start playing RPGs even lower (for example d6 only) and are planning to write a GM guide to replace all the blogposts and other articles that were must reads like the famous 16HP dragon. It is a communityproject, in the future you can expect class templates, ‘official’ supplements that integrate completely into the rules (first will be sci-fi probably), a new rulebook, GM guide, and maybe a monster guide or a collection of dungeon starters/campaign setting. We are very open to new ideas or suggestions, again, it’s a community thing. We are mostly active on the DW discord if you would like to follow the development (https://discord.me/dungeonworld). We will put regular updates here and on the subreddit so nobody misses out.
Some quick feedback:
-I think some folks might be confused by the way Hack and Slash is now worded and miss that you do not avoid their attack against you on a 7-9.
-I think this a good opportunity to revise the -1d6 damage option on Volley. Even with the 1 damage minimum I think it would be a rarely taken option. I am a fan of changing this to 1/2-D6 rounded up, and I know others use w[2D6] instead.
-I am not a fan of allowing Parley against other PCs as it takes away player agency.
The Volley option and Parley vs. player agency have been discussed elsewhere on the Tavern.
Robert Finamore Hmm it’s not the first time I see moves worded like that. It’s even part of some RAW DW moves.
When you attack a surprised or defenseless enemy with a melee weapon, you can choose to deal your damage or roll+DEX. ✴On a 10+ choose two. ✴On a 7–9 choose one.
• You don’t get into melee with them
• You deal your damage+1d6
• You create an advantage, +1 forward to you or an ally acting on it
• Reduce their armor by 1 until they repair it
It is clear to me that if I have the option to not get into melee, it means if you don’t pick this option you’re into melee.
How about “High Fantasy Gaming”
for a name? Would include the slogan “Low level danger, Epic level Action!”
Addramyr Palinor I have seen other moves written like that and they can be counter intuitive, especially for those not as familiar with PbtA games. Backstab is probably not a good example as it explicitly states to pick one on 7-9 and two on 10+, whereas the revised Hack and Slash merely indicates you do your damage on a 7+ and pick one on 10+. This requires the reader to draw a conclusion that since you can choose to avoid the attack on 10+, you wouldn’t be able to do that on a 7-9 since it is implied you can’t choose any.
Robert Finamore ahh yeah, right!
These names are more “zine” like, but here are the ones I didn’t use. (I left out 3-4 that were non-starters.)
Grappling Hook Gazette
Ray Otus Dungeonaut is fantastic, and not necessarily for this – I just think it’s an awesome name.
Also, if I ever do produce a Zine… I’m totally using Dungeon Rations. Or Bag of Books.
Dungeon Rations and Grappling Hook were both close seconds for me.
Robert Finamore Thanks for the feedback.
The wording on Hack and Slash seems explicit to me – you open yourself up to their attack, and on a 7-9, you deal your damage, and on a 10+ you have the chance to avoid their attack. It’s something we can look into though.
Perhaps “you only deal half damage (rounded down)” could replace that Volley option? We’re already using a similar mechanic with Defend.
The Parley move explicitly gives the player agency by giving them the power to say “no, what you’re offering isn’t good enough, I won’t do it.” We tried our best to prevent any possible mind control scenarios, and this was the best approach we could come up with.
Pocket sized play has a AP of a pbta version of burning wheel for mouse guards in which there is move much like Parley specifically for use with other PC. Anyone has the actual text for this?
Basically if the other pc agrees to the term the pc takes +1 forward. If the pc disagree you take condition. So both pc have an incentive to work out terms that will be agreeable by both parties so that it can benefit all.
Muggins AU It’s just my opinion, but I think Hack and Slash could be worded more clearly for the 7-9 result. Most other moves are more explicit about the results.
I think the -1d6 (min. 1) is too harsh on a 7-9 Volley result. Rolling a d6 for damage, you are getting a 1 damage over 70% of the time and rolling a d6+1 around 50% of the time, not including armor. The 1/2-d6 rounded up has a much more reasonable damage curve for a partial success on an offensive action. I’d rather see Defend round down since it is a defensive action.
Sorry, I wasn’t reading the Parley correctly; however, since the PC can just say no, why even bother to roll – just let the players role play it out (or see below).
Addramyr Palinor The Seduce or Manipulate move from AW 2E also has the penalty/reward mechanic for a Parley type action without taking away any player agency. You can see it on the downloadable Basic Move sheet: apocalypse-world.com – apocalypse-world.com/ApocalypseWorldBasicRefbook2ndEd.pdf
Addramyr Palinor Perhaps this is what you are looking for:
drive.google.com – Legends of the Guard.pdf
Robert Finamore Addramyr Palinor We’ll be looking into the Parley rules. It’s either this, or a system similar to other Apocalypse Engine games. If we go with the latter, though, we’d like to have a system to Apocalypse World’s “give them the carrot, the stick, or both” approach, since that’s what gives it impact; any ideas for what our stick could be?
I’ll make the appropriate changes to Hack and Slash and to Volley.
Enjoying reading through this! Some thoughts so far:
Hack and Slash: Just to be contrary, I really like your wording. I especially like that the trigger explicitly includes that you “open yourself up to their attack”… the DW Hack and Slash implies that, but is clearer in the WoA version. It makes it crystal clear that when you stab something that can’t attack back, H&S doesn’t trigger.
I also think it’s clear you don’t avoid your enemy’s attack on a 7-9, especially given that the 10+ option to avoid it exists.
I prefer the “choose 1” wording you’ve used – it makes H&S consistent with many other moves, and opens the door to other options on a 10+, such as “You force your enemy back a short distance”.
Volley: if you keep the “take what you get” option, IMHO the wording should either say “your attack deals -1d6 damage” or “your attack deals 1d6 less damage”, i.e. it shouldn’t combine a minus symbol with the word “less”. I’d prefer the “your attack deals 1d6 less damage” phrasing.
However, as others have said it’s not a particularly strong option. What are some other more interesting ways that attacking from range could go wrong?
* Your ranged weapon malfunctions after the shot (e.g. your bow string breaks or your musket jams, presumably requiring time for you to repair)
* Your shooting endangers an ally or innocent (e.g. perhaps one of your shots goes astray, ricochets or passes clean through the enemy and travels on. If it’s a PC ally being endangered, they might need to Defy Danger; if it’s an NPC I guess it’s in the GM’s hands.)
Navigate: I’m not sure about the stipulation in the first option that the scout missed the thing you happen upon. If the scout rolls well but the navigator rolls poorly, it seems to reflect poorly on the scout.
In Perilous Wilds, that option is split into two – you can come across a discovery missed by the scout, but since it’s a discovery it’s not so much that the scout failed to find a safe path. The option where you encounter something dangerous says “whether or not you’re surprised depends on whether the scout has the drop on it” which seems to play more nicely between the two roles.
Forage: I’m probably being too pedantic, but the option “roll twice and use the lowest roll if the area is dangerous” doesn’t make it clear whether it’s the +WIS roll or the 1d6 rations roll that you’re rolling twice.
Also, the move seems pretty generous in the number of rations acquired, especially since if one party member is foraging and thus not travelling, the others may well be foraging too.
Robert Rendell Good points all around. We’ll be looking into the dimensions of the Adventure Moves, and even barring any wholesale reworks, I’ll be implementing those changes.
Muggins AU was that meant to be @ me? 🙂
Robert Rendell I don’t know what you mean! Of course it means you. 😉
Muggins AU Ah, silly me – I must have mis-read your post. Also, four legs good, two legs better 🙂
I’m not sure I like that move :
When you Aid someone, you may erase a bond you have with
them. If you do, instead of giving them +Forward:
■ On a 7+, they treat any result of a 6- as a 7-9.
■ On a 10+, they also treat any result of a 7-9 as a 10+.
When you Interfere with someone, you may erase a bond
you have with them. If you do, instead of giving them Forward:
■ On a 7+, they treat any result of a 10+ as a 7-9.
■ On a 10+, they also treat any result of a 7-9 as a 6-.
So basically you make a Aid (or Interfere) roll+Bond, then erase that bond, then he makes his check for whatever action he was about to do and your result will updgrade his fail into a 7-9 and a 7-9 into a 10+.
I’m not convinced that it’s statistically fun.
With +1, probabilities of rolling (rounded up):
6- is 28%
7-9 is 45%
10+ is 28%
Upgrading the result means (if you roll 7-9):
6- is 0%
7-9 is 73%
10+ is 27%
If you roll 10+:
6- is 0%
7-9 is 28%
10+ is 72%
Basically, what you are doing is “stealing” the spotlight from the person you Aid and if you succeed, the person you aid is sure to succeed and could not even roll for what it matters. I really don’t like that.
I think giving +1 or +2 is much better although I think it’s even better to have the helping/interfering person roll a single d6 and the person rolling can swap any of his dice for yours. Statistically, I’m not sure how it goes (might ask Jeremy Strandberg) but I think it doesn’t steal the spotlight as much, and represents way better “helping/interfering”.
There’s something great in the fact that you can replace a bad die with a better die from your helper, feeling much more as if his help made a big change. And you’re still the only one rolling for the result of your move, which makes you feel like you still have the spotlight.
It’s also faster at the table because you’re not having the helping character make an actual check. Plus it can be applied even AFTER the roll was made.
Like, the character is holding the door (HOLDOR!) and you see he will not be able to hold much longer, you rush in at his help, roll a d6 and suddently, his fail check becomes a success.
I dunno, to me it feels lot more fun!
Brainstorming, but how about this for Hack and Slash, which adds slightly more flexibility to the move and makes it more explicit?
HACK AND SLASH
When you engage an enemy in melee and open yourself up to their attack, roll+STR. On a 7+, choose one. On a 10+, choose one more:
■ You deal your damage to your target.
■ You avoid their attack against you.
■ Your attack deals an additional +1d6 damage.
Ooh I like that!
Although I prefer the wording: “Choose 2” as sometimes when I roll 10+, I don’t read the 7-9 results.
Also, I think usually, DW moves always state the 10+ result before the 7-9.
Also, I can see some confusion could come from the “I choose the deal +1d6 and avoid their attack” Do I need to deal damage to be able to chose +1d6? Especially if my damage die is d6.
Muggins AU In regard to the Parley “carrot” and “stick,” here are some options:
■ +1 Forward
■ Add a Bond
■ Mark XP
■ Owed a Favor by Requester (too nebulous?)
■ -1 Forward
■ Break a Bond
■ Mark a Debility (too harsh?)
■ Owe a Favor to Requester (too nebulous?)
My first choice would be “Mark XP” for carrot and maybe “Break a Bond or -1 Forward (GM chooses)” for stick.
GM would need to watch abuse on this for Marking XP, but I don’t think it comes up enough that it will be a problem.
Don’t think a Debility is too harsh. Debilities are underused generally in DW. It’s essentially the same as a -1 ongoing, which isn’t that impeding in the first place and it’s relatively easy to get rid of a debility.
Addramyr Palinor For 10+, that’s why I put “choose one more,” but it works just as well saying “On a 10+ choose 2, on a 7-9 choose 1.”
I originally wrote the third option as “If you dealt you damage, your attack does an additional +1d6.” It seemed wordy, and since minimum character damage is 1D6 anyway, I thought keeping it simple would be ok.
Are the debilities in WoA going to simply apply -1 ongoing? When I read the debilities list in the quick reference, it didn’t mention -1 and I thought “Ooh, they’ve gone for purely fictional debilities!” But I see on the character sheets that it says “When a debility is marked, you take -1 ongoing to that stat.”
Perhaps the character sheet text could instead read “When a debility is marked, you take -1 ongoing to that stat, in addition to the fictional problems it causes.”? Or is that calling out something that everyone feels is implied by the rules anyway?
Also, I came up with an alternative name for the CHA debility: “Disfigured” rather than “Scarred”. I feel it’s a more general term which covers a wider range of socially-impairing problems, such as having a black eye, looking gaunt due to starvation, being visibly diseased or having an unnerving magical affliction. Of course, the debility names are only indicative anyway, but I still feel it’s a better fit.
On an unrelated note, does anyone else get confused between the weapon range tags “Close” and “Near”? I find they blur together in my head unless I have the full list of weapon range tags in front of me. It might be nice to rename one of them… perhaps Near could instead be “Ranged”? Hand, Close, Reach, Ranged, Far?
Agreed generally I find debilities not generic enough and they are often awkward for that matters. You’re exhausted, mark… Sick?
I’m always struggling with Scout Ahead’s “you get the drop” vs “you discover beneficial aspect of the terrain”.
Isn’t discovering an advantageous tactical terrain give you a drop on what lies ahead?
I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, but there are some key differences. “Getting the drop” gives you advance notice of the danger ahead and it is up to you to determine how to best to address it. “Advantageous terrain” focuses on the tactical benefits of your surroundings, but it is up to you to determine if/how to use it. Examples:
You get the drop on what lies ahead:
■ You approach a large cave mouth and inside you hear the sounds of a creature snoring.
■ From the hilltop, you see an Orc encampment off in the distance, and their sentries haven’t spotted you yet.
■ The narrow forest trail ahead looks like a perfect ambush spot, and you catch glimpses of movement among the brush.
■ You spot a wild fire ahead with the winds currently pushing it in a south-eastern direction.
■ As you make your way through the Jungle, you notice sandy patches of ground at various locations. You watch as a jackalope wanders into one of these areas and is quickly sucked beneath the sand.
Discovering advantageous tactical terrain:
■ You find a small copse of trees in an area of grasslands. (The perfect spot to make camp in cover while having open sight lines in all directions.)
■ You find a road that cuts through a narrow gorge that would make a perfect ambush spot. (You just need to figure out how to get the King’s treasure convoy to take this road.)
■ You find a cave complex with relatively low ceilings. (The local goblin patrols would not be able to ride their wargs inside and would be forced to proceed on foot.)
■ You find the ruins of an old wall ringing a hilltop. (A defensible spot to fall back to if the attack goes wrong.)
■ At the fork in the road, you notice that the northernmost path has very dense tree cover. (Perhaps this will help protect you from the prying eyes of the Witch’s patrols of flying monkeys.)
■ The cliff side cave mouth gives you a perfect view of the castle and protects you from being spotted from below. (Giving you the opportunity to study watchtower and guard patrol patterns from relative safety.)
Although, there’s definately crossovers when you select both “you discover something dangerous” and “you get the drop on what lies ahead” or “you discover something dangerous” and “you discern a beneficial aspect of the terrain”.
Comments are closed.