I dungeon move that I ended up scrapping. Maybe you’ll find it useful?
When you study the runes on the menhirs, roll +WIS.
10+ Your vision blurs briefly but then you can read the runes just fine.
7-9 You forget what you’re doing and wander off for a few minutes.
6- Mark XP and give the GM a notecard with your character’s name on it. After that, you can read the runes just fine.
When the GM gives you a notecard with your name on it, read the course of action they wrote on the back. If you do what’s written on the back of the card, mark XP. If you resist, roll +WIS.
10+ You shake it off and act as you want. Tear up the index card.
7-9 Choose 1 from the list below.
6- Mark XP, and follow the course of action written on the card to the best of your ability.
• Do what the card says, but then tear it up
• Drop to your knees, clutch your head, take 1d6 damage (ignores armor), then tear up the card
• Shake it off, for now. Give the card back to the GM.
I like a lot of what’s going on here. But I feel like you’re being way to nice with all the XP marking and ways players can ignore the implanted command. I’d just have it be something like:
When the GM gives you a notecard with your character’s name on it, read the card and choose one:
– do what’s written on the card to the best of your abilities;
– drop to your knees, clutch your head, and take d10 damage (ignores armor).
Why a secret notecard and not open conversation?
When you … The GM holds 1. They may spend that hold to have you do X. When you resist …
I agree with Chris Stone-Bush; “Shake it off” is okay for Katy, but not for DW…
I don’t have such a problem with “mark xp/roll + wis”, its very like Apocalypse World’s seduce&manipulate rules for players.
However the results of the roll are pretty kind, on a miss (supposed to be a move as hard as the GM likes), you just have to do the thing, that’s not so bad. The roll is supposed to be a gamble, sure I might get off scot free or instead I might roll a 6 and make the situation worse.
Also the 7-9 is weird, I doubt that a player will be in a position where 1d6 damage is worse then what they have to do, if it was then they’d probably just take the xp and do it, don’t bother rolling.
I’d be tempted to just make the roll defy danger with wis, simpler than this and I’m not sure its any worse.
I LOVE it, but I think the second roll is unnecessary.
When the GM gives you the card
If you do it, mark XP.
If you don’t do it, the GM makes a fictionally appropriate hard move against you.
This is a fantastic insanity mechanism!
Mentioning GM moves on player facing moves isn’t normally done though.
Tim Franzke Good point, but I would think it could be very thematic for the other players not to know what may have gone down. In my Cowboy World hack I sometimes text players info that are not available to others, because I want to increase the potential for PvP conflict.
Kinda love it but it’s a but complicated. Also shouldn’t 7-9 be more of a “success with a price”? As it is failung allows you to read it .
Tim Franzke the reasons for the notecard are many, mostly psychological but a few practical.
First, I wouldn’t tell my players the trigger for the second move (“When the GM hands you a notecard…”) until the first time it was triggered. If I was planning to have this in a dungeon, I’d write out the trigger on a little notecard itself, and hand it over with the command.
With that in mind… writing your name down and giving it to the GM, without knowing what that means, is really creepy. Much more so than the GM holding 1. Knowing that the GM is holding something with your name on it? Also creepy.
Practically, the GM now has a physical reminder of the hold. It’s sitting there, with the characters name on it, begging to be used. Much more tangible thing than “1 hold.”
Giving the player a command in secret heightens the drama a bit. I suppose the player could read it aloud and spoil the fun, but I’ve found that when you pass a note to a player, their first instinct is to read it quietly and keep it to themselves. Now you’ve got tension as the other players watch this players face as they decide what to do about the command. And if other players have given cards to the GM, they get even more tense, right?
Chris Stone-Bush & Mario Ambrosetti… I hear you on the “resisting is too kind” angle. But I do want the opportunity to give the card back. So perhaps…
When the GM hands you a notecard with your name on it, read the command on the back (to yourself, don’t discuss it with others). Then choose 1:
– Do what it tells you to the best of your abilities. Then tear up the card
– Drop to your knees, clutch your head, and take 2d6 damage (ignores armor) plus a debility of the GM’s choice. Then tear up the card.
– Stop for a moment swaying in place, take 1d6 damage (ignores armor), and cross off the command. Give the card back to the GM.
(And maybe that’s too brutal. I don’t know! Someone should try it out.)
Lauri Maijala The initial move (reading the menhirs) is basically a saving throw vs a trap. I wrote to be outside the entrance to a dungeon, in the woods but otherwise a particularly dangerous place. So wandering off is sort of a success. You don’t suffer lingering compulsion, but don’t read the runes either.
I think you’re right, though, that on a miss they should just write their name on the notecard and the runes should stubbornly refused to come into focus.
There is a need for a move related to mental control/manipulation. I’ve tinkered with this sort of thing before, and I think you need both a carrot and a stick in this situation. Taking away control of a PC is awkward at best, but you need to be able to apply some kind of pressure to give in, as well as a reward if you do.
That said, I think the note card is a clever innovation, both for the tangibility and the mystery.
What +Peter J said. You should never take away player agency. But you can make it expensive not to comply… Difficult but meaningful decisions is wat gaming is about