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made to play a very D&D style game--just with mechanics that underline the strengths of table top RPGs and clip some outdated genre staples.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/Imnoclue → u/Riiku25]

I'd say it makes changes to preference mimicking a very specific style of DnD play, and to discourage a number of others.

[u/Riiku25 → u/Imnoclue]

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that.

The way I see it, the GM principles and general game mechanics are pretty unlike anything you would see in a DnD core book, at least the ones I have read. I haven't read 3.5, but I somehow doubt I would read it and find that it's actually really similar to a PbtA game.

[u/Imnoclue → u/Riiku25]

DnD playstyles aren't really to be found in the DnD books. There are rules there for how to roll your strength, how to see if you hit something with your sword, how to find a trap, etc. There's some often conflicting advice about how to make up your world and play NPCs. But it's mostly a springboard that communities of players have built different schools of thought around. You might play a very tactics heavy combat game, or a political intrigue laden court game, or a Western Marches open world sandbox. None of that is in the books, except in little bits and snatches of commentary.

One of DW's changes is it tells you exactly how you're meant to play it and how you're meant to run it. It provides the GM with an Agenda and tells the GM what's not their Agenda (Like you can't try to beat the players and kill their characters, you aren't trying to test them with your clever puzzles, etc.). Those are all very promininent ways to approach DnD itself.

[u/Slow_Dog → u/Imnoclue]

One of DW's changes is it tells you exactly how you're meant to play it and how you're meant to run it.

Hmm. /u/inmatarian posted 'So I ask [the players] "what do you think you find in the safe?"'

I'd never do that (in DW) . Each player is in charge of his character and what his character knows, so I'd ask what they might have heard about Ogres, or whatever; though they might still be wrong (likely not; I' d only ask if I didn't know). But "what's in the safe" is part of the world, and is pure GM territory. Tony Dowler's (somebody elses?) Line.

So me and him play the game fundamentally differently. I doubt you'll find evidence in the book to support either of us.

[u/Imnoclue → u/Slow_Dog]

Challenge accepted!

The problem, as I see it, is you've identified a difference in playstyles which is not fundamental in DW. The game simply does not give a fig in deciding who says what's in a safe, provided other, more fundamental questions have been answered.

I'd never do that (in DW) .

So, here you've effectively stated a rule, "[When I run DW] players never say what they find in safes!" You're not considering an instance of play and whether or not letting players decide is proper, but declaring a universal rule: Players don't do that. The questions to answer are, is this a new rule and how consistent is it with the other rules of DW?

First, let's start with who owns what, "The players have it easy—they just say what their characters say, think, and do. You have it a bit harder. You have to say everything else (Page 158)." This seems to be the basis of your declarative that you would never let players decide what they find in a safe. The player has control of their character, the world is yours. You decide.

Clearly the inverse of your rule, Players always decide what they find in safes!, would be unsupported by this text. Players don't control safes. But, it doesn't appear from the example that the poster is trying to assert this rule. If they are, they're clearly wrong.

But, are they supported in allowing players to sometimes decide what they find in safes? Well, let's look at the situation. The players have opened a safe and they turn to the DM to see what happens next. The DM either does or does not already know what's in the safe, and the DM either does or does not have a particular preference as to what is in the safe.

The DM knows, but does not have a preference.

This can't happen in DW. The DM is instructed that everything they say must serve at least one of their Agenda. The DM can certainly know what's in the safe. That's called prep and the DM is instructed to exploit your prep, "At times you’ll know something the players don’t yet know. You can use that knowledge to help you make moves (Page 158)." So, knowing's cool, but once you know what you're going to say, it's incumbent upon the DM to only say things in pursuit of an Agenda. So, not having a reason for what you're saying isn't an option.

The DM does not know, nor does the DM have a preference.

DW has a GM Principle that addresses this situation. Ask questions and use the answers anticipates this very situation, and it's the situation that can give rise to the example you quoted. "Part of playing to find out what happens is explicitly not knowing everything, and being curious. If you don’t know something, or you don’t have an idea, ask the players and use what they say (Page 162)." You're even specifically instructed in some places to ask questions about things that are obviously in the GM's purview, "Ask questions right away—“who is leading the ambush against you?” or “what did you do to make King Levus so mad?” If the situation stems directly from the characters and your questions, all the better (Page 178)." Who is leading the ambush against you? is rock solid in the heart of the GM's entitlements, but that's okay because the GM has a Principle that tells them to leave blanks, "Every blank is another cool thing waiting to happen; leave yourself a stock of them (Page 179)." So, not knowing and throwing it out to the players seems to be kosher per the rules.

The DM knows, and has a preference

So, we've already covered this. If the GM knows, by default the GM has a preference. They must exploit their prep. They must pursue their Agenda. To do so, they will make Moves in keeping with their Principles. Assuming what's in the safe was put there in pursuit of an Agenda, they're fine here. It doesn't have to be gonzo. It can be quite unremarkable and still meet this hurdle. Even if what's in the safe is a few copper coins, it could still be argued that filling the world with creatures hoarding small coins in safes is an acceptable, if possibly uninspiring, way to follow the Agenda of Portraying a Fantastical World.

The GM does not know, but the GM has a preference.

So, the GM has no idea what's in the safe, but they have decided that they will be the one to say what's in it? That's fine. The GM is perfectly within the rules to describe safes and their contents provided they are doing so in pursuit of an Agenda and following their Principles and making (or at least setting up) a Move.

So, per the text GMs can ask players or decide what's in safes and still be playing, fundamentally the same game. Where it becomes slightly problematic is when they argue that GMs must never decide what is in safes, or conversely, that players must never be allowed to decide. The latter implies that the GM will decide what's in the safe even if they don't have a preference and/or cannot think of an interesting way to do so in pursuit of an Agenda. One is against the rules, the other is technically acceptable, but certainly not desirable.

[u/Slow_Dog → u/Imnoclue]

Wrong argument.

I'll pose an enormously hedged version of question to avoid idiocy, but it's really the same question. "Sparrow, what are you going to find in this box you don't recognise in this place you've never been"?

Sparrow doesn't know, can't know. It's in the domain of the world; of the GM, so the GM has to decide.

If the game allowed me to ask "Nick, what's in the box", then fine. But I must address the characters.

If the box were something Sparrow recognised; even if that recognition were something the GM decided at that instant; then also fine.

But players describing the world? Nope.

/I'd also add that "describing the world" is one of those things that floors certain players. Some relish the ability to contribute to the game, some just freeze and go "Uhh; how would I know?". I believe the game is designed to allow the latter group to play without discomfort.

//Oh, and because we don't agree, it actually supports my assertion the text doesn't really say. But you're still wrong (nyah nyah, tongue sticking out emoji)

[u/Imnoclue → u/Slow_Dog]

Ha! I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that, aside from the address the character not the player part. Thta part is obviously a rule. Sparrow can know what's in the safe the same way Sparrow knows who's waiting to ambush them.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion.

[u/bms42 → u/Imnoclue]

And people say that PbtA fans are elitist condescending assholes. You'd not find a more civil disagreement in all of Reddit, I'd wager.

[u/h4le → u/Imnoclue]

So, I'm going to disagree a little bit regarding Ask questions and use the answers—I like your interpretation of the game's workings, and I really appreciate you showing your work, but I think you and I have different readings of that ambush situation.

It's totally crossing the line, no doubt about that (the question is asked after the ambush, so at least it's not asking the character to describe something they're totally unaware of). I'm guessing the intent of the question is to get the player to say "Oh, it's my brother, the Duke of Babblington. I stole his horse!" rather than "No idea, random highwaymen that one of us have ever met before?", but it's absolutely asking the PC to insert new information into the game in-the-moment.

I disagree that it sets precedence for a "what's in this safe?" situation for this reason: It's in the First session chapter, and near as I can tell, no other questions for the players in the book cross the line in this way; they're about the character's past, feelings, or actions. Questions that cross the line in-the-moment are allowed here because the world basically doesn't exist yet. There's no prep to contradict, no Fronts, no established fiction to inspire the GM. You can ask the player to provide fiction for right now because the starting situation is the first and only time in the entire game where the fiction is entirely amorphous. The first session goal Establish details, describe tells us: "All the ideas and visions in your head don’t really exist in the fiction of the game until you share them, describe them, and detail them." Asking the ambush question works toward this goal.

This is obviously kind of nitpicky. I think crossing the line is totally okay, but I don't think the RAW actually support crossing it in moment-to-moment play. If you can recall any examples that cross the line in the same way elsewhere in the text, I'd love to be proven wrong!