New #Stonetop playbook: The Fox, Stonetop’s thief/rogue analog.

New #Stonetop playbook: The Fox, Stonetop’s thief/rogue analog.

New #Stonetop playbook: The Fox, Stonetop’s thief/rogue analog.

I’m really liking the approach of using bonds to reinforce the out-of-towner backgrounds’ connection to Stonetop. I might have to go back and redo some of the others like that, especially the Ranger.

Not so happy about the Tall Tales section… it’s just not coming together. Any suggestions there would be appreciated.

Also, I’d really like feedback on the moves in general. I feel like there are too few and that something is missing, but it’s hard to add anything because many of the moves take up so much space.  So, any of them that you’d cut? Or tighten up?  Anything that’s clearly missing?

Thanks in advance!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0lFq3ECDQDQdHMyZkJvX3YzT28/view?usp=sharing

11 thoughts on “New #Stonetop playbook: The Fox, Stonetop’s thief/rogue analog.”

  1. Very nice work. About “All in the wirst”, I think “some day” or “a week” could suffice to replenish the “ammo”. Also, explain what a dirk is.

    About “Worldly”, is it necessary to specify “Requires: level 2+” ? Almost all the moves you start to get from level 2+.

  2. Andrea Parducci “dirk” is the wrong word. I’ll change it. Should just be “throwing knife.”  As for timing… yeah, you’re right.  Should just be “days or a week.”  I was thinking longer to imply that the Fox was crafting new ones. But they’re the Fox. Best not to ask where they all come from.

    As for Worldly, yes, I think the level 2+ requirement is important. Otherwise, you’d be able to pick multiclass move as one of your starting moves and that’s not something I want.

  3. Peter Johansen Light Fingers is intentionally very vague, but maybe too much so?  My goal with it is to prompt the Fox’s player to think “what can I do here?” whenever they roll a 12+. The “circumstances allow” is meant to imply “be reasonable,” but otherwise I want it wide open.

    Like, you get 12+ on Parley? Maybe you slipped that pin off their lapel. You get a 12+ while Discerning Realities? You plant some evidence or nick something that wasn’t yours.  You get 12+ while Spouting Lore?  Yeah… that’s gonna be tricky to justify. 

    Does that answer your question?

  4. Two questions, Jeremy Strandberg : Did you create a folder collecting all the #Stonetop material you published? Can the classes be mixed with the standard DW classes?

  5. Paride Papadia They would mostly work alongside other classes, but there are three main problems I foresee:

     

    1) Some of them make use of/refer to custom moves I’ve introduced (the Ranger is the big culprit here; I can’t speak to the others without looking closely).  Tweaking them back to using core moves shouldn’t be too hard.

    2) Starting gear is all assuming the Stonetop gear list, which is significantly different from the standard DW list. Related, these playbooks assume characters will be able to use the Outfit steading move before they head out on any given adventure. Their starting gear lists, therefore, don’t include stuff like rations or bandages or things I expect they’d get from there.  They’ll probably feel much less prepared than standard characters.

    3) The backgrounds, bonds, and names are extremely specific to the core concept of “PCs are heroes of a small town.”  You could pretty easily replace “Stonetop” with another small, isolated village and without too much trouble. But I can’t promise that they’d integrate well with the race/background/bond moves from standard playbooks.

    I’ll post a link to full folder as it’s own thread.

  6. Cool.  I especially like Danger Sense, Escape Route, and Irresistible.  Just straight-up asking “is there a trap here” is frankly pretty sweet.  And I think it avoids the flip-side too-powerful version where the DM has to say whenever there’s a trap and the player doesn’t even have to think about it.  So simple.  I’m definitely stealing that.

    I’m uncertain about Light Fingers.  For one, it’ll require quite a bit of negotiation about when “circumstances allow” — like, does it seem reasonable in the middle of a Hack & Slash?  That’s too cinematic for me, but I can see a player wanting to do it.  More importantly, though:  how about if you primarily want to pick someone’s pocket?  Can you not do it on less than a roll of 12+?  And “write it down to reveal later” is asking for trouble if the DM disagrees with whether circumstances allowed.

    I’m also uncertain about Perfect Instincts.  It’s a cool idea, but I worry how it will work in practice.  Will it prompt so many extra Discern Realities rolls that it slows the game down?  And it seems hugely valuable  for any time you have to make a roll that you’re bad at – get a high INT so you hit Discern most of the time, and then you can never fail a CHA roll no matter how low your stat.  (The “treat a miss as 7–9” in Slippery seems less worrisome because the player is not in control of the trigger.)

    With Plan Ahead, I’d hate as DM to be in the position of knowing the player’s prediction and then having to decide if that’s what the monster is actually going to do.  But, it might be fine if we just were careful about procedure.  Fox: “I’m going to Plan Ahead about the guard’s reaction”.  DM: “Ok, let me think about what’s happening next.  Got it.  What’s your prediction?”  Fox: “He’s going to try to hit that gong, and I’m going to tackle him to prevent it.”  I’m not so much worried about dishonesty or changing my actions, as of getting caught not having thought it through yet, then being stuck already knowing the player’s prediction.

    With Sneaky, “unless you or your allies give you away” almost goes without saying, if you want to trim.  But, the wording implies you can get past any guard no matter how bare or well-lit the hallway is. That seems too strong.

    Couple typos:  “Irresistable” for irresistible, “discretely” for discreetly.

  7. Just posted an update. 

    Updated All in the Wrist per Andrea Parducci’s comments.

    Rewrote Light Fingers to be more of a straight-up sleight of hand move; I think colin roald and Peter Johansen were right that it was too unclear.

    Rewrote Sneaky. I wasn’t intended it to allow for “I walk quietly down the 50 ft corridor and the guard has no chance f noticing me,” but I can see colin roald’s point.

    I’m not too worried about Plan Ahead; it’s basically the same as any old “ready an action” mechanic from D&D3e+ or similar games. That said, I can see how the wording made it feel like something other than that, so I renamed it and reworded it.

    As for Perfect Instincts, imma leave that one alone for now. AW proper has a “get +2 instead of +1 when you Read a Sitch” move, and it works fine. This is arguably less effective: a +2 bonus is huge and pretty likely to result in 10+ results. Turning a 6- into a 7-9 just turns full-fledged misses into complications. And the player doesn’t have that much control over the trigger; they have to act on the answers.

    Interestingly, I found that the Tall Tales section worked for me when I looked at it again. So, no changes there for now.

Comments are closed.