Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9636338" data-attributes="member: 18">Wow, reading the DW blog, why on earth is this being called Dungeon World 2?Literally everything they're proposing mechanically runs directly counter to Dungeon World's design, ideas, and functionality in those spaces. There's nothing they're proposing so far that ties it to the original game at all. At this point, it just looks like a name re-use in order to potentially better market another, essentially unrelated, PtbA Fantasy RPG.The designers say they "don't think we've seen the best possible PtbA fantasy RPG", and I actually totally agree! But using Dungeon World's name for attempting that when you're not building on anything DW did, is weird and slightly gross.One of the key traits of DW was that you could literally just take an old D&D/AD&D adventure, 1:1 replace the monsters with DW ones, and run it. That sort of design was part of why it diverged from "purist" PtbA designs. But this seems like complete PbtA purism. Which is fine as a design principle generally, but bonkers for Dungeon World. The whole point was that wasn't purist.This already shaping up to be a much larger change than the largest D&D shift, which was 3.5E to 4E.I don't think that's fully true when you re-use a name. That's the key issue that causes so much conflict and caused 4E to sell a lot worse than expected (and perhaps than it deserved). And from we've seen, this is a much bigger move away from DW than 3.5E to 4E was.I think this is literally the only thing they've said about DW2 so far that is positive. DW didn't play like OSR, it played more like a modern D&D derivative (indeed even the classes and their abilities seemed modern), so it was weird that it insisted on a ton of OSR trappings.I'm reserving judgement on whether they're making a good RPG or not until we see the whole - I suspect they might actually make a very good one.But I don't think it'll have anything at all to do with DW1, so why use the name? It seems like a fairly cynical marketing usage of the name with the level of change they're suggesting. It's not a cash grab or w/e because they are actually trying to make a good game, but it is just very odd to reuse a name to make a game that is at odds with the previous edition in fundamental ways.</blockquote>

Verification