13 thoughts on “Trouble Ahead”

  2. I had to re-read this a few times and I’m still not sure whether TIm is suggesting the move needs re-written or prompting for a fictional response.

    I think the language could maybe get tightened up some. Something like:

    Trouble Ahead

    When you declare, from what you’ve heard, a potential foe’s most dangerous spell, technique, piece of gear, or hireling, the GM will tell you a weakness this foe has.

    That’s a bit wordier but I think it’s more precise. Maybe there’s a way to better phrase that, though, while maintaining some fictional concreteness.

  4. I think tightened up language could help with that, then. Whatever it turns out to be. Hopefully you don’t have people who will engage in that kind of behavior with other players at a table but you can’t predict every group will be at top form all the time or that everyone will know each other and so forth.

  5. This definitely has potential, as something beyond what Spout Lore is capable of.

    But as it is, it seems a bit over the top. What if I’ve got plans for my villain to have a laser beam? But then the player says, “Yep, his sword with the soul of a god in it is his most dangerous thing. What’s his weakness?”

    Then not only do I reveal the chink in the armour, but I also lose the big cannons.

    This needs some sort of regulation. I’d suggest something like the following:

  6. TROUBLE AHEAD

    When you //make a declaration, from gathered knowledge and rumour, about a foe’s most dangerous spell, technique, piece of gear, or follower// roll+INT. On a 12+, hold 3. On a 10+, hold 2. On a 7-9, hold 1. On a 6-, everything you’ve heard is hearsay, but the GM will tell you honestly what one of their weaknesses are.

    You may spend your hold one for one, on the following options.

    Their spells, techniques, gear, or followers are:

    *Messy. Some minor boon of preparation goes here.

    *etc

    *etc

    *etc

    In this way, you only have to tell them a weakness when they fail, as a consolation prize, but when they succeed, they give you extra stuff to work with.

    What do they get out of it? Say they choose for their enemy’s attacks to be messy. In exchange for making their foe more dangerous, they get a +1 forward to Defy Danger when enduring a messy attack.

  7. Kinda like how in John Wick’s Dirty Dungeons, the players are the ones making the dungeon dangerous, but they also get preparation points for it, sort of.

  9. The idea behind this move is the GM would give a weakness that is generally in proportion to the strength of the danger proposed. If someone said something troll-y like what Tim Franzke suggested, the GM should respond with something obvious or general like “being decapitated”.

    Also, the character’s knowledge of their foes weakness is limited to “from what you’ve heard.” The rumors  probably have some element of truth, or at least a plausible reason for the rumor to exist, but the GM shouldn’t feel like they need to take the what player says as a limit to what the foe can do.

    For example, if someone said the most dangerous thing a foe can do is “swing a sword”, then maybe that’s because she’s such a good sword-fighter, no one has seen a fight go on long enough where she needed to use her true most dangerous technique.

    That being said, I’ll concede that it could be worded better to make my intent a bit more clear. I sort of typed this move up as a spur of the moment thing.

  10. I think this would do something similar, while providing both incentives and danger – and not tying the GM’s hands:

    When you announce a significantly dangerous ability a potential foe is rumored to have, roll + WIS.  

    On 10+, that rumor is probably true; should you ever find that it is, your foreknowledge lets you take +1 when acting in response.  Meanwhile, right now the GM will tell you a weakness that foe also has; you take +1 acting on that knowledge, too.

    On 7-9, that rumor is probably correct, but your foreknowledge will let you take +1 if you ever have to act in response.

    On 6-, who knows how reliable that rumor is?  Moreover, right now the GM will reveal an unwelcome truth.  

    +++

    My thinking here is that this move allows the GM to use the player’s idea if it works well; and if a player makes a Troll move, the GM can just say “that’s not a significant danger” (the move only triggers when you say something that makes it happen).  The 7-9 option still gives you a bennie, but only if it turns out that you also gave your foe a bennie.

  11. Why not use this Bard move as a chasis

    Reputation

    When you first meet someone who’s heard songs about you, roll+Cha. ✴On a 10+, tell the GM two things they’ve heard about you. ✴On a 7-9, tell the GM one thing they’ve heard, and the GM tells you one thing.

  13. Sean Fager

    I used, “the most” instead of “a terribly” so you’ll only be able to trigger it once for each foe. Otherwise, I’m afraid players would “spam” the move to pump the GM for weaknesses.

Comments are closed.