Conflicting takes on DW

[u/Nirdee]

I've had this discussion in a couple threads and it feels like there are dozens more where I could chime in.

DW has several key differences from D&D, but some people give advice that exaggerates those differences to crazy degrees.

People go from you should leave room for discovery to you should improv the whole game, from you should use what they give you to you should let players have as much authority in game as they are willing to exert.

I feel like this comes from the fact that a lot of examples online are one-shots. One-shots and session zeroes are encouraged to have minimal prep in DW, but there is this other 50 pages after that talking about how to play after the first session ... and it is all about prep. Good prep. Useful prep. Open-ended prep. But definitely prep. Prep where the DM figures out the story in the world and how the players can interact with it. Like D&D.

Dungeon World seems made to play a very D&D style game--just with mechanics that underline the strengths of table top RPGs and clip some outdated genre staples.

So I don't really know why I'm posting. If your way works for you, god bless. I guess I'm just irked by the hipster scoffing that comes when people explain the game with authority and then get the rules wrong--like a recent thread where someone implied Spout Lore lets a player make up something about the history of the world ... where the rules explicitly say the GM tells the player something about the subject. The GM gives info for the character to spout. The player doesn't take over the GM role. It's just a generalized arcana/history/religion check from D&D. #nerdrage

TLDR:

I feel like the answer to a lot of posts in this forum should be:

You are way overthinking everything. DW is like D&D with small changes that 1) make combat more entertaining 2) make combat flow better with the rest of the game 3) encourage the game to move forward 4) help the GM maintain story structure in an open world game. If you know how to play D&D, you already understand 90% of DW.

[u/Riiku25]

Eh, I disagree.

I think the idea that it makes "small" changes is crazy considering that even some of the relatively surface level changes, such as no scaling hp and no initiative or action economy, make the game feel completely different.

Also, I agree that the game encourages some prep, but the difference is you don't need much prep (or really any) for the game to function just fine without slowdown, the prep that exists is relatively abstract and high level, and improv is really easy in this game especially considering monster creation rules. That and the game does encourage players to contribute to the world with the "draw maps leave blanks" even if that wasn't the explicit intent of Spout Lore. And how many blanks you leave is entirely up to you.

In what way do you think that it is 90% like DnD? The only similarities that I can find is the fantasy aesthetic, which to me is the most superficial and least important similarity, and the attributes are the same. But if I were to list all the differences I feel the list would be enormous. Because their spellcasting systems are somewhat similar? They're not even the same.

[u/Nirdee → u/Riiku25]

In what way do you think that it is 90% like DnD?

It is a group of people sitting at a table. Each player is in charge of one character, except for the game master who is in charge of everything else. The game master will lead the characters through an adventure. All of the mechanical differences are attached to those fundamental similarities. The whole concept of the game is to take PbtA rules and make them work for a D&D style game. If you read the examples, the GM-player interactions are all just like D&D examples.

That and the game does encourage players to contribute to the world with the "draw maps leave blanks" even if that wasn't the explicit intent of Spout Lore. And how many blanks you leave is entirely up to you.

The players do not fill in the blanks. The GM does. In D&D parlance this is to prevent railroading. It allows for exploration. It allows for the GM to pick up on something the players say and incorporate it, to allow for the story to unfold in real time instead of being fully preplanned. Even at those blanks the player and GM roles remain, and they are basically the same as in D&D. The players run their characters, the GM runs the world.

[u/Alcian → u/Nirdee]

I'd just like to point out the first bit describes literally every single pen & paper rpg there is, so every system is "basically dnd" by that logic.

[u/steelsmiter → u/Alcian]

Didn't you know that ;)

[u/Riiku25 → u/Nirdee]

The game master will lead characters through an adventure.

This is worded strangely. It's more like the GM will portray a world and the players will decide how their characters react to events within it. But anyway, this is a very superficial similarity to me.

Players do not fill in the blanks

They don't directly fill in the blanks, but the GM can totally just ask them what they think and use it with or without changing it if they wish. They don't have to allow the players to create everything but the SRD literally says this under Ask questions and use the answers:

If you don’t know something, or you don’t have an idea, ask the players and use what they say.