JustaPlayer
First Post
I did a review on DW. Ack! Like other people, I liked the concept but there was just toom much wrong with it to be of any great use.
Dungeonworld any good?
- Thread starter Dog Moon
- Start date
Particle_Man
Explorer
If one completely ignored the mechanics and some of the silly rules (like clerics losing a level? huh?) and used, say, C&C (which is meant to be useful to quickly adapting other stuff to its simpler rules), would it be worthwhile?
Mystaros
First Post
Wow, does this thread bring back some memories!
Dungeonworld was one of the first products I ever wrote for as a freelancer. A major learning experience, both good and bad. I've learned a lot about RPG design for publishing since then...
A few notes...
One of the reasons the setting seems disjointed is that each level was designed by a different author. We each received the basics, "Duergar Level" or "Atlantean Level" or "Undead Level," maybe a few minor points (such as, "major good magical sword found on this level"), plus the info on the Caretakers and the overall nature of the setting, but otherwise, each setting was pretty much up to the designer.
I wrote the Duergar and Undead levels. I'd have to dig the book out of storage to rememebr what I wrote... heh. Been a while.
I thought it was altogether a neat idea, with an interesting concept, but with the disjointed nature of the setting overall, it just didn't really work. With a stronger editorial direction, a real book of canon, and fewer authors all "on the same page," I think it could have been a much better setting.
That said, I'd say it is worth $10, just to mine it for ideas. Most layers would make for interesting dungeons, minus the caretakers and such. As with any pre-3.5 book, of course, you'd need to convert stuff anyway, even without the FFE'isms.
Oh, one thing I do remember from the duergar level is that the treasures I put in, which were all based on 3E system standards, were bumped up to really weird levels in editing; poorly, as it seems they added a variable number of zeroes on to each coin count, without making sure that the numbers made any sense. Not that it mattered, anyway, as what would you really do with coin-based treasures in a world where jsut finding food was a major problem? I remember adding in the giant fungal caverns as the true treasure of the duergar level... a giant, succulent cavern full of food! Forget the gems and coins, the mushrooms where where it was at!
The undead level I wrote was just pure evil, in a fun way. The "good guy" was an undead priest... all that was left of him was his skull, which had to be carried around by his followers. He led the only region of the living in a *huge* cavern filled with zombies, skeletons, shadows, and other undead. Probably as deadly, if not more so, than my Lost Tomb of Kruk-Ma-Kali adventure, though far less subtle.
I had more fun working on the Wondrous Treasures book; I wrote up two daggers, as I recall, one a dagger of Ra or something like that and the other an elven dragon dagger. An interesting experiment in fluff for me.
If I can dig the books out, I'll add more comments...
Dungeonworld was one of the first products I ever wrote for as a freelancer. A major learning experience, both good and bad. I've learned a lot about RPG design for publishing since then...
A few notes...
One of the reasons the setting seems disjointed is that each level was designed by a different author. We each received the basics, "Duergar Level" or "Atlantean Level" or "Undead Level," maybe a few minor points (such as, "major good magical sword found on this level"), plus the info on the Caretakers and the overall nature of the setting, but otherwise, each setting was pretty much up to the designer.
I wrote the Duergar and Undead levels. I'd have to dig the book out of storage to rememebr what I wrote... heh. Been a while.
I thought it was altogether a neat idea, with an interesting concept, but with the disjointed nature of the setting overall, it just didn't really work. With a stronger editorial direction, a real book of canon, and fewer authors all "on the same page," I think it could have been a much better setting.
That said, I'd say it is worth $10, just to mine it for ideas. Most layers would make for interesting dungeons, minus the caretakers and such. As with any pre-3.5 book, of course, you'd need to convert stuff anyway, even without the FFE'isms.
Oh, one thing I do remember from the duergar level is that the treasures I put in, which were all based on 3E system standards, were bumped up to really weird levels in editing; poorly, as it seems they added a variable number of zeroes on to each coin count, without making sure that the numbers made any sense. Not that it mattered, anyway, as what would you really do with coin-based treasures in a world where jsut finding food was a major problem? I remember adding in the giant fungal caverns as the true treasure of the duergar level... a giant, succulent cavern full of food! Forget the gems and coins, the mushrooms where where it was at!
The undead level I wrote was just pure evil, in a fun way. The "good guy" was an undead priest... all that was left of him was his skull, which had to be carried around by his followers. He led the only region of the living in a *huge* cavern filled with zombies, skeletons, shadows, and other undead. Probably as deadly, if not more so, than my Lost Tomb of Kruk-Ma-Kali adventure, though far less subtle.
I had more fun working on the Wondrous Treasures book; I wrote up two daggers, as I recall, one a dagger of Ra or something like that and the other an elven dragon dagger. An interesting experiment in fluff for me.
If I can dig the books out, I'll add more comments...
Treebore
First Post
I'll use DungeonWorld one day. I was planning on using it in my last Ravenlfot campaign as how the dead struggled to get back to life, however only if I had a TPK. That is so all the players would be "on the same page". I never had a TPK, so I never got to do it.
I'm thinking the next time I start a Ravenloft campaign, really any campaign I am inclined to try it with, I'll have them make up level 3 characters with a backstory that has them adventuring together. They get into this nasty fight, all remember going unconcious, and then all wake up in this cavern. Have them go from there, figuring out that they are dead, where they are, and figure out how to get "back to living".
I think it will be fun and just a neat new experience.
I'm thinking the next time I start a Ravenloft campaign, really any campaign I am inclined to try it with, I'll have them make up level 3 characters with a backstory that has them adventuring together. They get into this nasty fight, all remember going unconcious, and then all wake up in this cavern. Have them go from there, figuring out that they are dead, where they are, and figure out how to get "back to living".
I think it will be fun and just a neat new experience.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
DM_Jeff said:
See, I don't understand why people raise such a fuss over stuff like that. Hell, there were no clerics at all in Dragonlance. I fail to see how just giving an orc a -10 ac is any different than finding an "official" template that does the same.
The product may indeed be crap, but the above "mechanical flaws" seem moreof a style issue than error.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
Well, it goes beyond how DM_Jeff describes it. And it wasn't just the stats, it was a jumbled mess, more like someone publishing a collection of notes written on cocktail napkins while drunk. Only if they actually published the cocktail napkins, it would look better (especially the maps).
DM_Jeff
Explorer
>>Oh, one thing I do remember from the duergar level is that the treasures I put in, which were all based on 3E system standards, were bumped up to really weird levels in editing; poorly, as it seems they added a variable number of zeroes on to each coin count, without making sure that the numbers made any sense.
That was another of Jim Ward's editorials: Monte Haul isn't bad; it's good. "I love giving my players +5 holy avengers of soul-sucking at 3rd level and 25 ioun stones each the next, because I'm the DM and I'll just throw gods at them to teach them smackdown" is basically what it came to.
>>The product may indeed be crap, but the above "mechanical flaws" seem more of a style issue than error.
A lot of it WAS just style, I agree. And I was one who used to not get too preturbed at it knowing thats what it was. But pushing your personal play style on the reader isn't cool, let the reader do that for themselves. I still wonder if some poor n00b DM now has a game table with 2 dozen ioun stones among 3 or 4 players loosing complete control of his game because of 'forced style', that's all!
-DM Jeff
That was another of Jim Ward's editorials: Monte Haul isn't bad; it's good. "I love giving my players +5 holy avengers of soul-sucking at 3rd level and 25 ioun stones each the next, because I'm the DM and I'll just throw gods at them to teach them smackdown" is basically what it came to.
>>The product may indeed be crap, but the above "mechanical flaws" seem more of a style issue than error.
A lot of it WAS just style, I agree. And I was one who used to not get too preturbed at it knowing thats what it was. But pushing your personal play style on the reader isn't cool, let the reader do that for themselves. I still wonder if some poor n00b DM now has a game table with 2 dozen ioun stones among 3 or 4 players loosing complete control of his game because of 'forced style', that's all!
-DM Jeff
DM_Jeff said:A lot of it WAS just style, I agree. And I was one who used to not get too preturbed at it knowing thats what it was. But pushing your personal play style on the reader isn't cool, let the reader do that for themselves. I still wonder if some poor n00b DM now has a game table with 2 dozen ioun stones among 3 or 4 players loosing complete control of his game because of 'forced style', that's all!
-DM Jeff
I can't speak to the specific passage you're referring to, but in Jim Ward's defense, I never read anything by him that said a Monte Haul style is "the" right way to play the game, just that it is "a" right way. And he's right about that.
I've played everything from a GM who thought being a good GM meant giving out a few coppers to 4th level characters, to a GM who gave everyone in the party max psionics - 1E psionics
. One guy had hammer of the thunderbolts (with belt and gauntlets, of course). Another had a ring of vampiric regeneration and a belt of storm giant strength. The wizard had a staff of the magi. And it was fun. I wouldn't want to play in that type of game all the time, but I also won't suggest that someone shouldn't do it, so long as they have fun.As for Jim Ward, his company earned a lot of bad press through a combination of poor implemenation, an incredible disregard for the requirements of the OGL, and a very thin skin toward criticism. Unfortunately, all that has led to a bit of a knee-jerk reaction against anything he has said or done, which is a shame - and understandable. In many ways, he was his own worst enemy.
The_Old_one
First Post
Andre said:
It's a shame really, because I recall quite liking a lot of his 2e stuff back in the days of TSR. It might have been a better decision for him to be an 'ideas man' and have somebody well versed in D20 provide the mechanics.
Still, he did bring back Metamorphosis Alpha, and I'd like to see him get back in the saddle again.
Similar Threads
