|
Tom Scutt
United Kingdom
Matlock
Derbyshire
-
The Caveats:
I haven't played it yet. Maybe that's unforgivable in a review, but I just don't feel confident enough in the rules for the the reasons given below.
Many year's ago I used to play a lot of RPGs (mainly WFRP, CoC & D&D). Now I play boardgames. But for years I've been looking for the perfect RPG to get back into roleplaying and to play with my kids (ages 9, 12 & 14)
Though I've written lots of reviews for BGG, this is my first for RPGGeek. Be kind 
The Good:
A low-prep, low-complexity game with a classic D&D feel - that ticks all the right boxes for a time-poor parent (is there any other sort?) who wants to introduce their kids to roleplaying
Seems to be aimed perfectly in the middle between the pure narrative style of Fiasco and the dice-heavy D&D spinoffs like Pathfinder. Reading through the rules, it all sounds like a lot of fun, and the easy style of the writing helps that feeling.
The tri-fold playbooks are truly inspired. In the same way that Fiasco playsets just make you want to create your own; the single-sheet character and scenario sheets look great and really encapsulate the low-prep, low-complexity feel of the game. You can hand a sheet to a player and say "these are all the rules you need to know". And I think that once the Dungeon World Community takes off there will be a large amount of user-generated content. After all, anyone can put together 2-sides of adventure or character class, right?
It's only $5 for the PDF!
The Bad:
It clearly states that this doc is the basic game...which is why you only get character progression up to level 5. Fair enough, it's only $5. But large amounts of the doc are just the material from the playbooks with extra padding, and it really feels like this was rushed to get to a deadline and the doc develops big holes towards the end. The only list of magic items and monsters is in the "What Lies Beyond" section at the end....4 monsters, and 5 items! Given that there was far more than this in the "Hack" version of the rules, why weren't they included here? I know that some of this extra content is apparently available in the 'Adventurer's Guild' part of the website, but really it should have been in the rulebook.
For someone like me that's not played Apocalypse World (or any of the more narrative RPGs), it's really difficult to get a feel for how the whole thing hangs together. The rules desperately need an extended example of play (like you get in Fiasco) just to show you how all this stuff works in practice. I kind of get the theory of it, but I know that I'll be flailing when it comes to actually GMing it. It would help if there was a suggestion for the failure (6- roll) for each move. I realise that the rules don't want to be prescriptive, but it would help get the idea across just to say if a player fails a "Hack and Slash", you will commonly (though not always) use a "Deal Damage" hard move on them (tell me if I'm getting this wrong... I had to read the rules twice to work even this out)
Some of the rules just don't feel that well thought through (though again, I haven't played it yet, so maybe all will become clear). Examples of this include gaining XP (in a town-based adventure maybe I'll earn good XP from my CHA... but in a dungeon?); Signature weapons (what if it's lost/destroyed? Is there any point having magic weapons in the game if a Fighter always uses their original signature weapon?); the amount of Foreshadowing (it's everywhere! Spout Lore, Discern Realities, Divine Guidance, Heirloom, Show Signs of Doom...I realise that part of the ethos of the game is "Always be honest" but this is ridiculous)
The Ugly:
The huge, detailed scenario of the Bloodstone Idol is completely at odds with all the advice in the rulebook about not over-preparing. Why, oh why didn't they spend this time on a good, detailed play example instead?
The Bottom Line:
Despite all these issues I think this is great value for $5. It has so much potential and I can't wait to play it. From reading other forum posts it looks like people who have experience with Apocalypse World are having no problems with the rules. For someone like me, however, with no such experience, there are issues that really need to be dealt with before the next version, and there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Can't wait for the full version to come out next year.
As I said in the title, this review is unfinished... I shall amend it as soon as I've played the game.
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
I'm a big fan of DW. The issues you raise are real ones - the game is incomplete and clearly meant more for those familiar with Apocalypse World. The full game promises to be much more detailed, based on what I've seen from the samples provided to those who join the adventurers' guild (you should send them a link to the review so you can get in to the guild). I also agree with the Bloodstone idol example from the book - the one sheet playbook version of the adventure is much more of a match to the game's philosophy and style. I get the feeling that the bloodstone idol was included in the basic game because it makes the game complete - it's a "one adventure" type of game in which you play through the scenario in the book. Those that want to keep going would just build the rest themselves, but the average person is likely to run in to problems.
I also think there are a few other niggling issues with the game, as written, in the basic game. Specifically, XP doesn't function like it should because the system they use is exactly what AW does except that the way AW uses rolls is very different - DW is more "task" oriented while AW is "conflict" or "scene" oriented.
Another issue is that the damage rules, as written, actually put too much in the hands of the GM in the form of fiat: AW solves this problem by using the "inflict harm" roll which essentially creates the possibility of suffering damage, but not the guarantee, when the GM using the "inflict harm" move. In DW, you only roll saves when dealing with enemies with a higher level than the character - otherwise the GM simply "inflicts harm" and the hit points are deducted from the PC. That bit I really dislike since it creates a situation where I'm constantly having to arbitrarily assign damage to PCs - the lack of the roll is just a bit too much fiat for me.
All that said, I really love DW and we've had a lot of fun playing it, especially with the few tweaks I've introduced to fix the issues that I perceive. I've also been converting classic AD&D adventures, starting with U1 and now moving on to I3.
-
Marshall Miller
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
-
Ditto on emailing them the link. The last draft of the full rules that they released to the guild provided a lot more explanation and may make you feel more comfortable running the game.
I've really enjoyed both Dungeon World and Apocalypse World. If this game appeals to you even a little, then I wouldn't hesitate to get Apocalypse World as well.
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
AW definitely isn't something you play with your kids though.
@OP - Any chance you'll be at IndieCon this weekend?
-
J. K.
United States
New Mexico
-
I got to play DW at GenCon and really loved it. Finally got my group to play it, and they...didn't love it. I think AW looks tighter somehow. I also think that Bloodstone Idol is overworked. I would have preferred a collection of adventure outlines like the old "Hook, Line, and Sinker" articles in Shadis, with the addition of a cool monster, trap, or puzzle thrown in for each one.
But still, I had fun running the game and I think my group will play AW now that they've had a taste of the system.
I still love DW and think my $5 was well spent.
-
Tom Scutt
United Kingdom
Matlock
Derbyshire
-
MJ Harnish wrote: AW definitely isn't something you play with your kids though. @OP - Any chance you'll be at IndieCon this weekend?
Yes, I've had a look at AW and it does look a bit sweary, with maybe a hint of 'adult situations'
Unfortunately I won't be going to IndieCon - I'd love to try out some of these games with people that know what they're doing, but Dorset is a bit too far for me...
-
Kevin H.
United States
Crescent City
California
-
I would like to reiterate my desire to see someone, quite possibly MJ, Marshall, or both, do DW as a Share-A-Game ASAP.
The game looks awesome but I feel like a lot of it, especially the GM parts, exists somewhere out in my peripheral vision and I can't quite focus on it. I've also never played or read AW, so that might be a factor for me as well.
-
Marshall Miller
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
-
While I'd be happy to Share-A-Game or Co-Share-A-Game for Dungeon World, I wonder if the game wouldn't be better served by waiting until the full rules come out. (...or maybe it gets shared twice)
-
Marshall Miller
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
-
Steerpike wrote: Yes, I've had a look at AW and it does look a bit sweary, with maybe a hint of 'adult situations'
AW is definitely an adult game, both in terms of the content (I'd rate it R but not NC-17) and, well, I think older gamers may be able to unlock more of the game's potential in terms of powerful, dramatic, and nuanced narratives (there are definitely deep reserves of awesome in the game).
DW, in my opinion, has a bit of a lighter tone that pulls the story toward more of a fantasy romp than a gritty drama. I think this makes it much more appropriate for younger audiences. In DW I think your mandate is more to play a real world hero in fantasy land and less to make a real adult in a living hell.
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
Mease19 wrote: While I'd be happy to Share-A-Game or Co-Share-A-Game for Dungeon World, I wonder if the game wouldn't be better served by waiting until the full rules come out. (...or maybe it gets shared twice)
I would completely agree. I honestly love DW but also think that the Basic version is too basic for most people, especially if you're not familiar with AW. AW is definitely tighter (even though the writing style is looser) but it's using the actual mechanics in a subtly different way which I think is why DW has issues - as I mentioned, XP simply doesn't work very well IMO, and the bonds & basic moves also don't function the same way as they do in AW. I've been planning on writing a long email/forum post on the DW forums as soon as I've played the game enough to be sure what I think actually reflects play at the table.
I've run DW for 3 different groups so far (2 groups of teens & my adult group) and everyone loved it. The real trick is that as a GM you need to be able to wrap your head around the GM moves to get the most mileage out of them. I'm planning on running a one-shot of I3 - Pharaoh this weekend at IndieCon and will report back how that goes when I get back.
-
The Harnish
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
Cult of The Harnish Leader
-
A quick update: I ran DW for 5 players, 4 of which are also GMs and were familiar with AW, and all like DW but voiced the same issues with the mechanics as I had been left with:
1) XP doesn't reward the same thing as it does in AW and almost begs to be "gamed" to maximize rewards.
2) The game is too roll heavy - AW is generally about conflict or scene resolution, whereas DW it's all about task resolution which doesn't work nearly as well in terms of narrative "juice." This also interacts with the XP issue.
3) Long term play seems much more hollow and mechanical than AW.
All enjoyed the game and thought some of the issues in fact stayed faithful to "old-school" D&D, but at the cost of making it a less powerful long-term, story-heavy game like AW.
-
|
|
|
