David LaFreniere and I are pleased to present Episode 50 of Discern Realities! Fifty episodes is a pretty exciting milestone for us. We weren’t sure if we could get this far talking about one game. Looking back on the show, however, I realize it’s more than just one game; Dungeon World is simply the vehicle we have used to have a broader conversation about good gameplay, and many of the things we discuss on the show are applicable to all kinds of situations.
I want to express a huge amount of gratitude to our listeners. Knowing you folks are out there, following along with, and contributing to, this ongoing conversation about Dungeon World has been really encouraging, and it gives me life every single day.
Enjoy!
.
.
I’m on episode 35 with a 4 hour flight and 3 hour layover today. I’m excited about getting caught up! Great show guys!
I’m on episode 35 with a 4 hour flight and 3 hour layover today. I’m excited about getting caught up! Great show guys!
Congrats dudes.
Congrats dudes.
I’m excited for the next 50! You two and the rest of the Gauntlords are an inspiration to the community.
Ps. Thanks for the mention, David LaFreniere!
I’m excited for the next 50! You two and the rest of the Gauntlords are an inspiration to the community.
Ps. Thanks for the mention, David LaFreniere!
That was another great episode. Thank you for all the thoughts, talent and time you spent on producing such a fantastic podcast. So much food for thought it has brought to my RPG life.
I specifically have some thoughts on the Alignment discussion.
Funnily, I had exactly three DW characters in my life, a Druid, a Ranger and a Psion. And they had exactly the alignment statements you mentioned as challenging: free somebody from bonds, upset a relationship and destroy a symbol of civilisation. Indeed, they are challenging if you and / or the GM are not building the character / the story around these statements. I chose them purposefully since I like to be challenged (and like to challenge my GMs) – and honestly because most alignment statement are pretty boring. My druid for example had a worm with him which he considered as his god and which told him to destroy civilisation. So I was always out to get something down or to burn to please my god. My Psion wants to understand human behaviour, so something he doesn’t really get yet. So upsetting relationships is sometimes accidentally, sometimes for “research purposes”. I obviously try to avoid at any personal cost to ruin anybody’s game experience while doing so.
In terms of comparing Alignment / Drives with Flags I have to say that I sometimes think that keeping an eye on three flags per other player is a bit too much for me. That is 1 (alignment / driver) + 3×3=10 statements to watch out for in play. I would prefer two drives, i.e. inward looking, and two flags, i.e. outward looking behaviour statement per player (2+3×2=8).
That was another great episode. Thank you for all the thoughts, talent and time you spent on producing such a fantastic podcast. So much food for thought it has brought to my RPG life.
I specifically have some thoughts on the Alignment discussion.
Funnily, I had exactly three DW characters in my life, a Druid, a Ranger and a Psion. And they had exactly the alignment statements you mentioned as challenging: free somebody from bonds, upset a relationship and destroy a symbol of civilisation. Indeed, they are challenging if you and / or the GM are not building the character / the story around these statements. I chose them purposefully since I like to be challenged (and like to challenge my GMs) – and honestly because most alignment statement are pretty boring. My druid for example had a worm with him which he considered as his god and which told him to destroy civilisation. So I was always out to get something down or to burn to please my god. My Psion wants to understand human behaviour, so something he doesn’t really get yet. So upsetting relationships is sometimes accidentally, sometimes for “research purposes”. I obviously try to avoid at any personal cost to ruin anybody’s game experience while doing so.
In terms of comparing Alignment / Drives with Flags I have to say that I sometimes think that keeping an eye on three flags per other player is a bit too much for me. That is 1 (alignment / driver) + 3×3=10 statements to watch out for in play. I would prefer two drives, i.e. inward looking, and two flags, i.e. outward looking behaviour statement per player (2+3×2=8).
Frustration with the alignment statements caused me to shelve my Immolator.
Frustration with the alignment statements caused me to shelve my Immolator.
Congratulations on 50 episodes!
I loved the in depth discussion around alignment, flags, and drives for DW. When I was creating my 3rd party playbooks, I switched to drives as well (along with background styles as opposed to the traditional races.)
I found Drives, (while they had the same limitations of being too specific, too vague, or creating weird player behavior if poorly written) felt more flexible in players eyes.
Drives feel like a less all-encompasing concept than Alignment, and something that can be changed regularly, or that players may even have multiple drives that may or may not conflict. They also feel very hackable – which a lot of these additional “character flag” parts of a DW playbook already feel. It’s very easy for a player to brainstorm with a GM to come up with a new alignment/drive/flag statement, a new race/background move, or new Bonds.
I definitely agree that with many of these statements, it’s worth drilling down with GM and players about what they mean, what they look like when in civilisation, and when in the wilds or a dungeon. Ideally these things are flags for the GM and other players to angle towards with unique challenges and conflicts of interest.
Congratulations on 50 episodes!
I loved the in depth discussion around alignment, flags, and drives for DW. When I was creating my 3rd party playbooks, I switched to drives as well (along with background styles as opposed to the traditional races.)
I found Drives, (while they had the same limitations of being too specific, too vague, or creating weird player behavior if poorly written) felt more flexible in players eyes.
Drives feel like a less all-encompasing concept than Alignment, and something that can be changed regularly, or that players may even have multiple drives that may or may not conflict. They also feel very hackable – which a lot of these additional “character flag” parts of a DW playbook already feel. It’s very easy for a player to brainstorm with a GM to come up with a new alignment/drive/flag statement, a new race/background move, or new Bonds.
I definitely agree that with many of these statements, it’s worth drilling down with GM and players about what they mean, what they look like when in civilisation, and when in the wilds or a dungeon. Ideally these things are flags for the GM and other players to angle towards with unique challenges and conflicts of interest.
After the previous DR episode where drives were discussed, I went through and assembled a set of 5 (?) drives-instead-of-alignments for each core DW playbook, along with some thoughts on what makes a good one. Then Jason Shea formatted them nicely.
You can find the original thread below. Jason’s reformatted drives are here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ww75p_BgQaoxVU0TzhUjWwAQLpp4I41hi_ela6itz70/edit?usp=sharing
plus.google.com – A thread over on the Gauntlet community was asking for example Drives (as re…
After the previous DR episode where drives were discussed, I went through and assembled a set of 5 (?) drives-instead-of-alignments for each core DW playbook, along with some thoughts on what makes a good one. Then Jason Shea formatted them nicely.
You can find the original thread below. Jason’s reformatted drives are here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ww75p_BgQaoxVU0TzhUjWwAQLpp4I41hi_ela6itz70/edit?usp=sharing
plus.google.com – A thread over on the Gauntlet community was asking for example Drives (as re…
And here I though Fear of a Black Dragon was the name because it formed the acronym, “Foab’d” you know, like phobia … I won’t quit my day job.
And here I though Fear of a Black Dragon was the name because it formed the acronym, “Foab’d” you know, like phobia … I won’t quit my day job.
In Fourth World, my drift of Dungeon World to the setting of Earthdawn, I changed the alignment space to instead connect characters to the setting’s Passions (which are a pantheon of kinda-sorta deities). So, rather than choosing “Good” or “Chaotic”, the player chooses a Passion to “follow the most”, such as Floranuus, who embodies “energy, victory, motion”.
I realized while listening to this episode that, while this basic notion works for this setting, I screwed up how I implemented it by making it very alignment like, with specific statements of action (e.g. “endanger yourself to heal another”).
All of the problems this episode mentions with the alignment system stem from these specific statements.
By changing the focus from alignment to Passions (religion, basically), Fourth World doesn’t need those specific statements at all. Instead, you choose your Passion (this has a few other benefits I won’t go into here), get rid of the statements. Then, you change the part of the End of Session move that deals with alignment to instead start a conversation about the character’s relationship to a higher power and that power’s implied philosophy.
Importantly, you don’t ask “did you do this thing that follows your Passion”. Instead, the question at the end of the session is “What did you do this session that pleased or angered your Passion?” and, no matter what the answer is, they get an xp. The alignment xp is a gimme generally anyway, so the idea here is less “dance for your xp, ha ha ha!” and more about just adding some depth to the character’s inner life.
God dammit, now I have to revise the fucking thing again.
In Fourth World, my drift of Dungeon World to the setting of Earthdawn, I changed the alignment space to instead connect characters to the setting’s Passions (which are a pantheon of kinda-sorta deities). So, rather than choosing “Good” or “Chaotic”, the player chooses a Passion to “follow the most”, such as Floranuus, who embodies “energy, victory, motion”.
I realized while listening to this episode that, while this basic notion works for this setting, I screwed up how I implemented it by making it very alignment like, with specific statements of action (e.g. “endanger yourself to heal another”).
All of the problems this episode mentions with the alignment system stem from these specific statements.
By changing the focus from alignment to Passions (religion, basically), Fourth World doesn’t need those specific statements at all. Instead, you choose your Passion (this has a few other benefits I won’t go into here), get rid of the statements. Then, you change the part of the End of Session move that deals with alignment to instead start a conversation about the character’s relationship to a higher power and that power’s implied philosophy.
Importantly, you don’t ask “did you do this thing that follows your Passion”. Instead, the question at the end of the session is “What did you do this session that pleased or angered your Passion?” and, no matter what the answer is, they get an xp. The alignment xp is a gimme generally anyway, so the idea here is less “dance for your xp, ha ha ha!” and more about just adding some depth to the character’s inner life.
God dammit, now I have to revise the fucking thing again.