I just realized tonight that I’ve been using Spout Lore incorrectly. I’ve had it reversed, where the player uses the move to introduce a new information about a situation or setting detail. I thought this was awesome because it gave players a way of regularly collaborating on the setting bits.
It hasn’t been abused or problematic in any way. I know this isn’t official DW, but can anybody argue why I shouldn’t allow Spout Lore to be used either way, GM or Player input (player’s choice)?
That’s how I’ve been reading it, and frankly I think it works great like that. Rather than leaving it to the GM or the player in question, I’d leave the player who’s Spouting Lore to define the core of it and then throw it over to the rest of the table to negotiate it, add cool tidbits and so on. The GM would have veto power over anything which couldn’t be reconciled with any other facts of the game.
That’s how I’ve seen it played and I have played. This is where the bard has his wheelhouse, but other players too. It gets all the players involved in building a shared story.
The move says one thing and the text in the Rulebook says another. I guess this is where my confusion comes from.
Move:”When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful.”
Rulebook: “You spout lore any time you want to search your memory for knowledge or facts about something. You take a moment to ponder the things you know about the Orcish Tribes or the Tower of Ul’dammar and then reveal that knowledge.”
The move and rulebook are saying the same thing. “When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something…” and “Searching your memory for knowledge or facts about something…” are different ways of saying the same thing.
Basically the player is saying “My character might know about this thing. GM, do I remember or know anything about this? And if so, what do I remember/know?”
We made this misinterpretation on the bard move in our table, but It was pretty fun!
Christopher Stone-Bush Right, but the GM can then say “You tell me, what have you heard?” and if the player’s information makes sense, then fine. If not, the GM can say “A few of the more outlandish tales might say that, but since you rolled 10+, you know the truth is…” and the GM relays the info. I allow players to choose if they want to ask questions or state “facts”, and if they choose “facts”, I reserve the right to over-rule their statement.
You can always turn to the player with any move. I would just try to make it a leading question, so it just adds personal flavor to something that already makes sense.
I use both methods — info I have to impart, and info they want to impart.
Burnng Wheel has this codified in their wises. Player proposes a fact, GM vets it for sanity/compatibility, sets difficulty, and if the player succeeds, it’s true and the PC knows it.
That move changed a lot during playtesting too, as I recall. Having the players come up with the lore is totally cool. Disclaim decision-making!
It’s fun to use it both ways, depending on the setting and the players. If you’re not using an existing setting, and they’re comfortable with worldbuilding (without getting too gonzo for their own tastes), go forth and invent lore!
J. Walton has it. Technically, the move goes;
Avon: I must know something about owl bears, I went to owlbear academy!
GM: Roll Spout Lore
Avon: I got a 10+
GM: Owlbears are weak to lasers because they’re actually from space.
But you can swing it a different way, if you want. We used to have it act as the players introducing facts to the world, but that stomps all over the GM’s authority the way we set it up. The GM can very easily ask questions whenever they want to, but it’s their choice when to disclaim those decisions, not a basic move. Changing Spout Lore bends the authority model pretty dramatically, but it’s possible.
I always wanted to go to Owlbear Academy…
Don’t forget the trigger, it says “when you consult your accumulated knowledge about something”… So I like to let folks prattle away a fair bit before I say “hmmmm, sounds like you are spouting lore, roll +Int.” I lot of the world building can come from that prattle. If they happen to bungle the roll? Well, things DO get interesting when what they think about their subject are not quite what they expected. In fact that is the best time to ask ANOTHER player what’s the worst thing the’ve heard about said subject? Then apply that knowledge to the situation 🙂
> Changing Spout Lore bends the authority model pretty dramatically, but it’s possible.
See, I think that’s a strength, really.
Some of my players would work great with Spout Lore being run that way. Some… really rely on the GM being the authority in the game. It depends on the group and the individual player, too.
Thank you for the feedback guys. I’m running the game with my wife and two little boys, 8 and 7. It was really great to see my wife come out of her shell last night when she started introducing some new information (unintentionally) and I said that sounded like spout lore. A smile crept over her face and she rolled an 11. She said “HA! Now its a fact beeotch.” You know somebody is having fun when the smack talk comes out =P
It worked perfectly for her but my boys were a little tougher. They kept trying to introduce facts about each others PC’s. Though my younger son caught me by surprise when he introduced tree markings in another language, that ended up being a border marking and warning, which in turn led to an exciting combat. My other son was happy to get free information from me. Simply awesome =D