Just Arrived – Monster of the Week by Michael Sands

Posted on July 20, 2012 by takeonrules

Awhile ago, I sponsored the IndieGoGo campaign for Monster of the Week by Michael Sands. Monster of the Week is a part of the burgeoning Apocalypse World hack ecosystem.

Monster of the Week

I was pulled into the IndieGoGo campaign with the one-two punch of Apocalypse World engine and “It models seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

And today it arrived.

I’ve read a good portion of the PDF, but didn’t finish it. I find game books are easiest for me to read in physical form – in fact most books remain easier for me to read if I have a physical copy.

To my knowledge, this game is the first RPG I’ve purchased from a New Zealander.

I’m looking forward to reading this book and giving it a try. I’m going to run at least one session before GenCon so I should have this in my repertoire of games that I can run at Games on Demand.

More importantly, when I mentioned that the game was partly inspired by Buffy the Vampire Slayer, my kids immediately perked up – they love Buffy, Xander, Willow, Giles, Spike, and company.

The challenge remains not enough time for all the games. At least we got a few hands of Tichu in this evening.

Who Knew the Apocalypse Would Spawn So Many Games

Posted on July 7, 2012 by takeonrules

I’m fascinated by Apocalypse World and its progeny (i.e. Dungeon World, Monster of the Week, Apocalypse Galactica, The Regiment etc.).

The core rules of the game are easily accessible. The tone and scope are encoded in the moves…and each table is encouraged to create custom moves appropriate for their session/game.

The games mandate that lots of questions be asked and answered – after all everyone is there to play to find out what happens. This strongly discourages isolated world building, and instead pushes towards defining the world through play.

But, most importantly, my fevered fascination with the game comes from the well defined Failure, Partial Success, and Success of a move. Certainly this isn’t the first game with three (or more) possible results for a roll. But it is the concrete definitions of Success and Partial Success that ignites my brain.

Another interesting thing, when I’ve GM-ed one of these games, I rarely want to see a move Fail. After all, Failure means that I can make a hard move. I am on the hook to come up with a response on the spot. In this way, the games naturally steer me towards “Being a fan of the characters” because the other path is more work.

Contrast with a Partial Success for a move. The Partial Success of a move provides a framework to work within. Even with a set of well defined GM moves, Failure is more involved than the other two outcomes.

That isn’t to say I won’t do my job and make a Hard Move. In fact, the hard moves are my time to shine and inject more into the story. Separate them, dissolve their sword, bring in reinforcements, and in general push them hard. This then makes their success all the better.

Another tangentially related reason for my fascination is that the games are very quick to pick up and start playing. The moves are right there for everyone to see. Each game has different conflict resolution systems – Dungeon World’s the least like the others. So I can quickly pick up each of these games, knowing that the Agenda, Principles, and Moves are the Cliff Notes of what the games will be about.

Thank you Vincent Baker, and the entire Apocalypse World hacking community. You’ve created some great games that I look forward to playing.

Floundering Around the Burning Wheel

Posted on April 1, 2012 by takeonrules

Presently I’m running one Burning Wheel campaign and playing in another. I feel both of them are circumventing portions of the game.

First, we rarely do proper Artha awards. Instead of setting aside time at the end, we prefer to play until the last minute. By the time we wrap up the session the kids are tired or others need to get to our next obligation, we only do a very simple Artha awards sequence. Typically, we hand out 2 Fate and 1 Persona, then look for anything exemplary.

It’s not rules as written and it certainly feels awkward and shameful. Ultimately, I believe we do these shameful things because character’s beliefs are not tying into the game. This is a group failing.

In the case of Bloodstone, I provided the introduction for everyone to tie into. I didn’t work as closely with all of the players to make sure their beliefs tied into the game. We don’t have a laser-like focus. As such, there are some characters, namely Remy and Holden, who are typically more peripheral to the game. Granted, negotiating beliefs for 5 characters of differing experience and age is challenging to begin with.

In the case of the Butcher, Baker, and Candlestick Maker, we had a vision of how our characters were connected, but those characters were made in a knowledge vacuum. We certainly knew about the Crypt of the Slug Mother, but as players we didn’t know where the campaign was going.

These failings leave us in a somewhat jumbled mess, as some characters are floundering for their spot in the story.

One notable difference that I’m seeing between the two campaigns is the concept of complications.

I am perfectly content letting my players come up with many things…if they succeed on a test; Let them scavenge for anything, make Dark Secret-wise tests, attempt to console their companion…but I hope they know that a failed test will give me ammunition. Sort of like roll a 6 or less in Apocalypse World, I now get to make a Hard Move.

Contrast with the Butcher, Baker, and Candlestick Maker, where several test failures are met with “Nothing Happens.” And in a handful of cases, success could be distilled to “Nothing Happens.” Which sucks.

The key thing I’ve learned is, let the characters propose actions. If you don’t want to see it happen, make a high Obstacle. Let the players then figure out how to reach for it. If they succeed, give it to them. If they fail…make a Hard Move.

Personally, a test should change the state of the game, and I believe other game players would agree. Apocalypse World and it’s brilliant derivative Dungeon World, hard-code this in the moves. In order to truly change the state of the game, you have to make a move – in Burning Wheel it would be make a test. Think about it…in Settlers of Catan the state of the game changes when the dice are thrown…some people get new resources, others might get robbed.

It has taken a bit for me to more readily see the possible complications of a test. It’s not that I wasn’t doing it before, its just now, I’m willing to throw things out there and let a player decide how hard they want to push for a success. Its a calculated negotiation between players that directly impacts their characters.

What I’ve found to be best for running my Burning Wheel game has been to review the agenda, principles, and moves of Dungeon World (Get the Basic Rules PDF for $5).

In short, follow these guidelines, in order:

What the rules demand
What the adventure demands
What honesty demands – be open and honest
What the principles demand
- Draw maps, leave blanks
- Address the characters, not the players
- Embrace the fantastic
- Make a move that follows
- Never speak the name of your move
- Give every monster life
- Name every person
- Ask questions and use the answers
- Be a fan of the characters
- Think dangerous
- Begin and end with the fiction
- Think offscreen, too

I’ve already illustrated the moves of Dungeon World and Apocalypse World. It’s not that I didn’t do those things before, its simply that the above outline is sort of like a liturgical invocation; a chance to set aside other thoughts and consider what the players demand; An enjoyable time with friends.

What Should the Game Master Fight For?

Posted on March 12, 2012 by takeonrules

I have kicked off lots of campaigns as a GM, and none of them have been completed to my satisfaction. Some campaigns withered as I grew disinterested, others collapsed as integral players left, and to my recollection none of my campaigns have completed.

I want to run a long-standing campaign, at least 15 sessions, to it’s conclusion.

Typically I spend quite a bit of time thinking about where things should end up – in 10 sessions – and much less focused on the present situations.

I don’t prepare adventures but prefer to act and react with the players and their characters. Certainly I could create more challenging “set pieces” for the player characters, but I don’t know if that’s in my gamer DNA.

Burning Wheel builds on the assumption that you will “Fight for what you believe.” And the question hit me – What if this imperative is not just for the characters’ players but is for the Game Master as well?

What should a Game Master fight for?

First and foremost, we are all playing a game, and as such all participants should fight for enjoyment. The short-term enjoyment of a single in-game moment, the medium-term enjoyment of a resolving story-arc, and the long-term enjoyment of character development and narrative closure.

A Game Master should fight to challenge the players and characters. Guaranteed success is boring. In fact, my most memorable sessions are inevitably where situations spiral out of control, ala Fiasco-style, because success wasn’t guaranteed. Typically these sessions are also very combat-lite. A thinly veiled threat of splitting the loot 2 ways comes to mind.

Most systems I’ve played have two possible outcomes for a given roll…Success or Failure. If I succeed, I am given narrative control. If I fail, the GM is given narrative control. There is no negotiation. No compromise.

I believe Apocalypse World gets it so very right by codifying that moves have a third possible outcome: Partial Success. Partial Success is a negotiated success…I get something that I want, but with a cost. In the case of Apocalypse World, I’m negotiating with the rules. In the case of Burning Wheel’s Duel of Wits, I’m negotiating with the table.

And lastly fight for what the characters and players believe in. I struggle with engaging everyone’s beliefs. In part this is a natural consequence of my failure to help shepherd character creation by not successfully conveying my campaign vision. Also, beliefs are adjusted and change according to developing goals. Keeping this information up to date is a challenge…especially if you can’t get confirmation from your game group that you are even playing that weekend.

In summary, understand what your players want then challenge and engage them via the story and the system.

Survey of Methods of Advancement

Posted on January 22, 2012 by takeonrules

The other evening I had an interesting RPG conversation concerning character advancement. His opinion surprise me. However, I’ve since started thinking about the various systems of character advancement that I’ve seen – this is not an exhaustive list, only ones that I’m more familiar with.

Level Only

In this method, when a character levels up, everything about them gets better. They are better at hitting, resisting, enduring and doing things within the narrative. The classic example would be the earliest editions of D&D and Labyrinth Lord.

One of the key points of this method is that all elements of a character improve with level regardless of the actions taken to achieve that level. Namely, if I raised my level solely by treasure and role-playing rewards, I’m still better at fighting. In this method, it is likely easiest to “balance” characters against each other.

Points

In this method, there are no levels, instead, characters advance each statistic independently. Dresden Files, and if memory serves ShadowRun. In ShadowRun you get a certain amount of Karma after each session and when you simply pay to advance a statistic.

When points are part of advancement, there is typically a graduating scale regarding point cost. That is to say Rank 1 costs 1 point, Rank 2 costs 3 points, Rank 3 costs 6 points, etc. It is a non-linear advancement cost for a linear statistic.

From my limited exposure to these systems, use of the skill is not a requirement for advancement.

Points per Level

In this method, character’s still track levels. However, upon achieving a new level, they receive a set number of points to improve their character – but again regardless of the skills used during the sessions. Rolemaster and Alternity are the best examples, although the D&D 3E skill sub-system also applies.

In Rolemaster it is possible to create a 10th level fighter that is no more competent in combat than a 1st level fighter – or a 1st level wizard. This would be done at each level by having the fighter’s character invest their points not in sword and hit points, but in other wilder fancies.

Points & Level Hybrid

In this method, character’s track levels. But it is an amalgam of the above. The potential areas of development – the character statistics if you will – are broken into sub-systems. And each of those sub-systems operate a bit differently, and may overlap (i.e. D&D 3E/4E Feats overlap with the D&D Combat and D&D Skills sub-systems).

By breaking the sub-systems into different advancement methods, the game system can tinker with balance across the sub-systems ensuring that one character classification is stronger in one sub-system than the other. That is to say a fighter is better in combat than a rogue but a rogue has a wider range of skills.

Test-Based

In this method, a character using a skill advances that skill. If you want to get better at something, you had better do it. In this way, characters evolve based on the ongoing narrative. Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, TechNoir and Hârnmaster are some examples.

This method requires a bit more attention to any goals that you as a player have for your character. Do you want your character to defeat some alluded to master swordsman? Then practice your combat skills.

Potpourri

One could argue that Apocalypse World and Dungeon World are point per level. Each time you “level” you get one point to purchase some advancement.

Diaspora fixes your total possible talent, but allows you to rearrange your statistics within those constraints. So if you want to get better at something, you’ll need to get worse at something else.

In Do: Pilgrims of the Flying Temple your monks don’t get better but instead changes how and why they interact with the ongoing narrative.

Any others? In particular, how would you categorize Dogs in the Vineyard, InSpectres and Lacuna Part I, but the advancement mechanisms aren’t registering.

Personal Preference

I like to see characters that are mechanically different. I like the idea of advancement through use. I also understand that as players we are not necessarily seeing every action of our characters – I know I don’t follow my character into the bathroom – and therefore arbitrary advancement is acceptable.

What Makes a Game So Hackable?

Posted on January 10, 2012 by takeonrules

Mouse Guard, by Luke Crane, and Apocalypse World, by D. Vincent Baker, seem to have more than their fair share of hacks. While there are lots of OGL games derived from the d20 system and Fate, I’m excluding those for the time being.

Mouse Guard has Realm Guard, Mouse Run, Song of Fire and Ice Hack, and others from the hack message board.

Apocalypse World has the Lovecraft World, the full-blown Dungeon World, and others from the message board.

What Makes them So Hackable?

First and foremost, Luke Crane and D. Vincent Baker are at the top of their game. They are both highly regarded game designers. Their works are well defined and tightly designed.

Mouse Guard is a game about small frail mice fighting, against their nature, for what they believe in. The system is a distilled version of Burning Wheel, infused with the essence of David Petersen‘s “Mouse Guard” comic.

Apocalypse World is a game about fragile humans fighting to survive and hopefully thrive in a hostile world not of their making. The core of the system is very simple, but D. Vincent Baker masterfully applies layers to the core, crafting an inspiration game system.

Both of the above systems provide a fundamental conflict resolution and then masterfully decorate that mechanism with the essence of their design.

Character Creation

In Mouse Guard, there are a handful of questions that you answer to slowly build up your mouse. Once you are done, you have relationships, a few odd skills (i.e. Apiarist, Weaver, etc) and some core skills for being a member of the Mouse Guard.

In Apocalypse World, you choose your Playbook (i.e. archetype), and check off a few boxes to customize your character, then establish your relation to the other characters.

Both systems are very quick on character creation, yet focus on giving your character a place in the world. The skills of Mouse Guard are easily exchanged for different ones (hence the hackability). The playbooks of Apocalypse World are meant to be hacked – take a look online and you’ll find plenty of them.

Resolution

In Mouse Guard, the resolution mechanics are roll some dice against a target obstacle. You can get bonus dice from those willing to help; Or by FoRKing your own skill into the test; Or by tapping your mouse-like Nature; Or by spending Artha.

In Apocalypse World, the resolution mechanic is roll 2d6, and add some small modifier (-2 to +3); On a 10+ you get what you want; On a 7 to 9 you get what you want at a cost; On a 6 or less the Master of Ceremonies (i.e. GM) gets to make a move.

The Guts

Personally, I believe the fundamental component of Mouse Guard is Nature. Much like Burning Wheel’s Faith, Hatred, Greed, and Sorrow, it is a mouse’s nature that defines him.

As such, any hack of Mouse Guard must first and foremost consider what does a character’s Nature represent, and it needs to run contrary to what the character would normally be attempting.

In other words, a mouse’s nature is to run, hide, and climb; Those are contrary to being a member of the Mouse Guard.

The fundamentals of Apocalypse World, on the other hand are encoded in the moves; Both MC and Player moves. In customizing the moves, you define the nature of the game.

Opinionated Design

Mouse Guard and Apocalypse World set out to create a particular game, and do it quite well. In doing so, however, the designers have each created an excellent core framework. With a bit of elbow grease, and plenty of posts to forums, a hack can be created.

Apocalypse World moves in the Fellowship of the Ring

Posted on January 7, 2012 by takeonrules

Earlier I wrote about Dungeon World’s moves as seen in Empire Strikes Back. This time I’m going to look at the Lord of the Rings through lens of the Apocalypse World moves. (Yes, Lord of the Rings might be better for Dungeon World and Empire Strikes Back might make more sense for Apocalypse World, but what’s done is done.)

Apocalypse World Moves

Separate Them

Frodo Breaking the Fellowship

Frodo chooses to leave the Fellowship, thus separating the group. Later, Frodo is left for dead by Samwise.

Capture Someone

Merry and Pippin are Captured by Orcs

The Uruk-Hai capture Merry and Pippin.

In the above MC move of “Separate Them”, a follow-up move made by Tokien is the Orcs capturing Frodo.

Put Someone in a Spot

The hobbits first encounter a Nazgûl

Who and what is this black rider about? What do the hobbits do?

Trade Harm for Harm

Boromir's Last Stand

Borimir fights valiantly attempting to save the hobbits, but in the end, the enemy is too much for him (i.e. a single person is in deep shit if they take on a gang).

Announce Off-Screen Badness

Get off the Road!

In the movie, other off-screen badness includes Gandalf riding into Minas Tirath and seeing Mount Doom erupting; The black riders traveling from Mordor through the free lands.

Turn Their Move Back

Seeking Shelter and Lookout at Weathertop

Weathertop may have been a good place to seek shelter, but lighting the campfire was a bad move on the hobbits’ part. Lighting the campfire summons the Ringwraiths.

Inflict Harm

Frodo attacked by the Ringwraiths at Weathertop

Frodo attacked by the Nazgûl at Weathertop

In this sequence, Inflict Harm builds quite nicely from the campfire on Weathertop.

Take Away Their Stuff

"Fly you Fools"

In most Lord of the Rings games, Gandalf is viewed more as an item than a character.

Make Them Buy

Pippin blowing Mr. Underhill's Cover

The currency most precious to the hobbits is remaining inconspicuous. Throughout the movie, buying something represents giving up inconspicuousness for other gains. (i.e. seeking shelter at the inn, take the high pass)

Activate Their Stuff’s Downside

Frodo putting on the Ring at the Prancing Pony

The ring comes with tremendous power, but a horrific downside. Likewise, Pippin’s curiosity could be construed as a downside.

Offer Opportunity With or Without Cost

Strider at the Prancing Pony

Strider was an unknown agent whom the hobbits’ need not have trusted.

Make a Threat Move

Nazgûl Riding out From Minas Morgul

Not everything can occur on camera; Advance a countdown clock.

RPG Bucket List Or Gaming Resolution for 2012

Posted on January 1, 2012 by takeonrules

Recently, I subscribed to the Evil Machinations blog and read through Jade’s RPG Bucket List. The idea is to list the RPGs that I would like to play or run. Below is a list of RPGs that I have not played. There are others that I’ve only played once or twice and would love to play again (Fiasco and Do for example).

Technoir - A gorgeous presentation with the awesome Transmission concept. I’m still working my way through this book, but it’s at the top of the list, especially given it’s high marks.
BattleTech - This is certainly influenced by Fear the Boot‘s rabid fanaticism, but I’ve always had a soft spot for miniatures combat. Throw in a feudal society and I’m seriously interested.
Burning Empires - I love Burning Wheel and am fascinated by the concept of a truly adversarial game master and rules to enforce it.
Lacuna Part I – Role-playing agents who delve into the shared “dream world” and unraveling what it means. The dungeon is the waking world? Or is it the dream world?
Apocalypse World - 2011 Golden Geek winner for best RPG, the systemic layering of moves is fantastic. I’ve played Dungeon World and really enjoyed it.
Dogs in the Vineyard - The conflict escalation pressure cooker is very intriguing.
Lamentations of the Flame Princess - D&D stripped to what I consider to be it’s core. Many of the obscenely powerful spells have been stripped away.
Microscope - Collaborative world/epoch building engine.
Reign Enchiridion - I love Birthright and the idea of having agency at the macro-level. Reign appears to handle this quite well.
Inspectres – A Ghostbusters type RPG with the confessional couch.

I should probably lay out a plan for making this happen, but knowing is half the battle. Of the above Microscope, Inspectres, and Lacuna Part I appear to be the easiest to bring to the table. Followed by Technoir, Dogs in the Vineyard, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and Apocalypse World. Then Reign Enchiridion, with it’s unique mechanics. And finally BattleTech (no minis, no rulebook) and Burning Empires.

And herein lies the challenge. I want to play in long running campaigns (8+ sessions) that see characters develop and events unfold. I also want to experience via play the different game systems. All of this is in tension with finite time for my hobby.

So my New Years Resolution for 2012 is to play two of the above games face to face with my friends.

Cribbing Ideas from Apocalypse World and Dungeon World for Bloodstone

Posted on September 5, 2011 by takeonrules

Apocalypse World, the indy-game darling, is a wonderful ruleset that breaks down what it means to be the master of ceremonies (e.g. the Game Master). Dungeon World, a hack of the Apocalypse World rules, takes the post-apocalyptic system and rewires it for old school dungeon crawls.

Like it’s predecessor, Dungeon World provides a list of the Game Master’s agenda, principles, and moves. The agenda defines the goals of Game Mastering. The agenda informs the principles which in turn lead to the moves.

I’ve already broken down the Dungeon World moves into scenes of the Empire Strikes Back. So I’m going to step back and highlight the agenda, so I can talk about the principles.

In short, the Agenda of Dungeon World is as follows:

Make the world fantastic
Fill the character’s lives with adventure
Play to find out what happens

From this agenda, come the principles:

Draw maps, leave blanks
Address the characters, not the players
Embrace the fantastic
Make a move that follows
Never speak the name of your move
Give every monster life
Name every person
Ask questions and use the answers
Be a fan of the characters
Think dangerous
Begin and end with the fiction
Think offscreen, too

In both Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, there are lots of lists of possible names to use. This helps with the principle of Name every person. So in that vain, I’m going to

Name Every Person

Below is a list of names that I intend to draw from, both as suggested names for characters as well as names for the various NPCs that will inevitably exist in a village.

Damaran Men: Garlen, Garvin, Curtis, Olaf, Baird, Jamison, Felix, Stephan, Harad, Harald, Geoff, Caden, Wally, Kelsey, Sandford, Grover, Rayner, Reynolds, Lachlan, Shel, Sumner, Barrett, Elwyn, Power, Audley, Sigmund, Stroud, Lemoine, Maxwell, Patton, Quin, Horace, Samuel, Braeden, Ricki, Pearson, Errol, Eldon, Norris, Gallagher, Rylan, Underwood, Rube, Randall, Trask, Barclay, Jolyon, Sappington, Carson, Barry, Green, Ariel, Brenton, Rier, Laurence, Adrian, Knaggs

Damaran Women: Winifred, Raquel, Charlotta, Anna, Katrine, Delia, Becky, Hailee, Bristow, Justice, Kaylie, Garrard, JoBeth, Joetta, Thomson, Ione, Lizzy, Rowbottom, Yolonda, Skyler, Taylor, Pam, Maureen, Cropper, Izabelle, Abby, Tatham, Joi, Dulcie, Neville, Georgie, Danni, Ware, Lucia, Flannery, Samson, Tarah, Faithe, Gilliam, Roslyn, Davinia, Tipton, Estelle, Jemima, Shepard, Maxene, Queen, Freeman, Clemency, Esme, Irving

Vaasan Men: Marko, Toivo, Valto, Karppinen, Edvard, Mauri, Tähtinen, Pietari, Tuomo, Harmaajärvi, Jalo, Niilo, Partanen, Aki, Juuso, Jarvi, Jalo, Matias, Ruoho, Lauri, Reko, Lehtonen, Ilari, Arvo, Virtanen, Anselmi, Valtteri, Ruotsalainen, Maunu, Hannu, Seppä, Juhana, Tero, Laukkanen, Pertti, Ilari, Pajari, Kaapro, Jaska, Ruotsalainen, Valto, Ale, Ruoho, Oliver, Joni, Seppä

Vaasan Women: Annika, Siiri, Eerika, Kulmala, Maarika, Marika, Nurmi, Anne, Satu, Saari, Ansa, Riitta, Partanen, Mirja, Annukka, Takala, Fanni, Lydia, Lehtonen, Arja, Lyyti, Jokinen, Lilja, Suoma, Pentti, Brita, Piritta, Linna, Erika, Ilma, Rautio, Kirsti, Johanna, Jokela, Kata, Senja, Ruotsalainen, Eleonoora, Raakel, Lahti, Inka, Pinja, Wuopio, Tiia, Kielo, Pajari

Dwarf Names: Nelin, Goimli, Hasil, Dimli, Boifur, Kinus, Roirin, Segan, Sirin, Glagan, Molir, Menus, Nolir, Hoisil, Kabur, Gognus, Boran, Bonar, Lolir, Gelir, Nelir, Hignar, Labur, Koili, Misil, Morin, Telir, Kilir, Folir, Rimli

Wild Elf Male Names: Banefox, Banewolf, Bladebuck, Cairnbull, Coldsword, Doomwise, Earthhare, Earthweasel, Emberdog, Embereye, Firehare, Firestar, Grandmouse, Hotboar, Lightsmile, Pathshot, Rootbane, Sadwind, Smiledrum, Songsting, Songwise, Stormpanther, Stronglance, Waterwhip, Zephyrroot

High Elf Male Names: Aniorion, Thril-Galas, Elvararil, Elvithraril, Nilmang, Thril-Gandil, Galólith, Glilmandel, Pil-Gan, Delung, Elóndel, Golith, Galumir, Celithralith, Belorfind, Elárion, Cólas, Fáriand, Tándir, Elil-Gal,Thráriand, Anuldor, Tinól, Hériand

High Elf Female Names: Unelia, Calil-Gania, Elrebridien, Elvioviel, Glithradia, Elvédith, Celil-Galia, Calówen, Cithrawien, Legaviel, Caléviel, Febriviel, Delinia, Galalia, Belong, Isaniel, Cadrielindë, Galaniel, Uradriedien, Uraradien

Ran my First Game of Dungeon World

Posted on August 8, 2011 by takeonrules

For the final “Hoorah” of my GenCon vacation, I ran a game of Dungeon World for my son and his friend. They decided to play 2 characters each; They quickly rolled up a fighter, wizard, bard, and paladin.

We hurried through back-story and quickly got to the adventure site. The party burst into the dungeon and found the main entry room had two other barricaded exits. A gruesome combat ensued.

This was my second time playing Dungeon World, though it was my first as Game Master. It went remarkably well. I made sure to quickly explain the basic idea of Dungeon World — Roll 2d6 plus a number, if the result is 10+ then good, 7-9 is mixed results, and 6 or less is bad.

With a hastily drawn map and the initial stage set, I opened with the ever so popular “What do you do?” In no time, my son and his friend were engaged with the system.

The wizard was constantly weaving into and out of danger. The fighter always in danger, laughed as he hacked his foes. The paladin protected the bard and smote the infidels. The bard was always fleeing danger and firing arrows into the fray.

We ended up playing for about two hours. We had three engaging combats, some interesting parlays, and a quick return to town for purchasing equipment.

Dungeon World is very easy to run. My entire energy is spent responding directly to the players moves.

If they get a 10+ they just keep on rolling. Once the 7-9 shows up, I interject with a “tough bargain” and they retain initiative. And when they roll a 6 or less, I get initiative to further complicate the situation and follow up with the “And what do you do?”

Midway through the second combat my son said “This is more fun than Dungeons and Dragons [4th Edition].” And I couldn’t deny him that. There was something liberating about drawing the combat map on a small sheet of paper and slowly filling things in as the combat progressed.

Both my son and his friend quickly grasped that the GM wasn’t going to be rolling to hit and damage. Instead, I was going to be giving their character hard bargains (i.e. “To get a clear shot, you’re going to need to move deeper into the unexplored cavern. What do you do?”).

What I found as I was playing was that while the one-shot can work quite well, I still need to understand the forces acting against the players. And the reason for this is that I need to have options for off-screen hard moves, so as to not overly tax the players with each and every 6 or less.

So congratulations to Sage LaTorra and Adam Koebel for making such an excellent adaption of Vincent Baker‘s ever so wonderful Apocalypse World. Tonight’s world was fantastic, full of adventure, and we had a grand time playing to find out what happened.