Category: Stonetop

Here’s an experiment with Introductions instead of Bonds. (Also, the most current draft of the Seeker playbook.)

I’m hoping that this approach:

1) Gives better guidance on how to introduce each PC, reveal their “backstory” stuff, and generate ties

2) Makes the village -building part of introductions/character creation more communal

3) Makes it harder to create “loner” PCs with no ties to the village

4) Keeps some of the flavor of the relationships that the bonds provided.

Strongly interested in feedback.

https://goo.gl/X8t1Z0

Third Draft: Parley (Revised)

I’m not quite ready to give up on this approach to Parley.

We used draft 2 (https://goo.gl/oyof9n) in play quite a bit in a recent session, one that was very socially-oriented (trying to convince 20 or so enslaved Hillfolk that they freed to settle in Stonetop, and then dealing with the inevitable issues of integration).

The trigger felt much better than standard Parley. Not having to judge whether they had leverage in advance was great.

However, Paul Taliesin’s concerns about the move proved to be correct. The move really didn’t give me as the GM more structure than simply free-forming the interactions. That’s partly because of the fuzzy distinction between the 10+ “reveal what it’ll take” and the 7-9 “make a counter offer” (which many people commented on). But it’s also because the 7-9 result was so damn wide open. It really didn’t structure play like I thought it did.

So, new version: same trigger, same 10+ results, but cut the 7-9 result down to “rebuff but still engaged.”

This gets rid of the overlap between the 7-9 and 10+ results, and it relegates unforeseen complications to the 6- result, which I’m okay with.

The biggest argument I expect to see is that the 7-9 result doesn’t move things forward and results in a stalemate. I guess my counter to that would be that it’s like getting a 10+ to Hack and Slash and not rolling enough damage to drop the foe–you’re still fighting, you’ve reduce their staying power, the situation isn’t resolved. With this case, you’re still talking/arguing, but you’ve ruled out one approach, and can still find one that works.

Anyhow, as always, comments, questions, and thoughts appreciated!

https://goo.gl/jM2iVc

Second Draft: Parley (Revised)

Here’s an attempt to tighten up both the trigger and the language, and to make the 7-9 results more interesting. Also added examples.

A lot of my thinking on this was inspired by the essay “Improvising Dialogue Sequences” by Robin Laws (in Unframed). It talks about how in movies and books, sharp dialogue scenes involve a petitioner and a granter. The petitioner uses a tactic (like pleading, threatening, appealing to reason, etc.) to get something from the granter. The granter then uses tactics to resist or rebuff the request, and they continue until it gets stale or there’s a definitive outcome.

As always, questions and feedback appreciated!

(Edit: original draft is here: https://goo.gl/1gFU2u)

https://goo.gl/oyof9n

Draft: Parley (Rewritten)

Short version: Here’s my stab at rewriting Parley to be more applicable, flexible, and useful in Dungeon World. Comments and feedback appreciated!

Longer version:

A few weeks ago, Johnstone Metzger posted a really insightful discussion of how Parley has problems:

I end up having to think about whether a PC actually has leverage or not. … [N]ot considering leverage very thoroughly can result in NPCs doing things for reasons that don’t actually make sense, but if I actually take the time to think about whether or not the weird, inhuman NPC could be swayed or not, rolling for parley feels like an extraneous obstacle because I’ve already decided what should probably happen. In essence, it asks for a great deal of decision-making to happen in the time right before the roll, instead of after. And then I’ve already decided the leverage is either no good, or enough that the NPC should just say yes, and either one can make Charisma seem like an extraneous, useless stat.

You can read the whole thing here (and if you haven’t already, you should!): https://plus.google.com/+JohnstoneMetzger/posts/1aGUjQTU6Nc

Sure enough, I’ve had plenty of trouble with Parley myself. I’m consistently finding that it doesn’t trigger when we think it should, or we just decide that it’s Defy Danger with CHA, or we struggle to resolve the promise/concrete assurance outcomes.

I’ve tinkered with alternatives before, but never found anything I though was substantially better. But the idea from Freebooting Venus, of using a Ritual-style list of requirements/consequences… that struck a cord. And the idea that the attempt to provoke a reaction could reveal said requirements… that really got me thinking.

Plus, I wanted it to be clearer that the PC’s attempt to persuade the NPCs, the thing that triggers the role, it might be enough by itself.

So, here’s an attempt at doing that. Feedback appreciated!

Bonus: this revision still works with playbook moves like “When you Parley using threats or intimidation, roll STR instead of CHA.” (It doesn’t really work with moves that are like “your approval always counts as leverage,” but I’m okay with that because I think moves like that are bad.) It also keeps moves like I am the Law or Charming and Open still viable. I am the Law provides a specific, reliable way of provoking specific reactions from anyone, and Charming and Open lets you learn things without trying to manipulate someone.

Bonus 2: You could make this move work PC vs. PC pretty easily, just replacing the GM with the target PC’s player. The target PC’s player would have to play their character with integrity, but I think that’s a fair assumption to make.

https://goo.gl/1gFU2u

When you first start a game of Stonetop, you’ll make characters and do introductions, establishing details about the village and the NPCs who live there. But then you’ll make the Seasons Change move to let spring break forth.

The result of that move should end up with a valuable insight or interesting news (on a 10+), threats abounding (on a 6-), or a boon plus a threat (on a 7-9). I’m intending to include “adventure starters” for each result.

This is the 10+ result for “valuable insight into a threat that’s been plague the steading.”

https://goo.gl/RRDWUr

Draft of the Steading Playbook chapter. I’ve posted various versions of the actual playbook before, but herein you’ll find explanations of the stats and moves, along with substantial examples of most of the steading moves.

I’m sure it needs a bunch of editing, and I’d definitely appreciate feedback and questions. Like, for reals. Typo hunts are good, too!

(The layout is also a draft, something for Jason Lutes to eventually professionalize, and the art is all placeholder.)

https://goo.gl/NjOqCS

Updated version of the GM Playbook, with threats from my home campaign. (If you happen to be one of my players… don’t read this!)

I wanted to see how well the threat types of instructions would work for the stuff we already had established. Mostly it worked well! But it led to a little bit of rewriting. For example, a threat doesn’t need to be active for it to have an Impending Doom/Grim Portents. It needs a trajectory. That’s a slight, but important difference.

Anyhow: comments, questions, and feedback appreciated!

https://goo.gl/ze0XvH

I’ve been playing with GM moves, “fronts,” and how to organize them, and it’s led me to here: the GM Playbook.

The intent is that this would be a booklet, 3 sheets of paper, with front & back cover and 5 internal spreads.

I’ve pretty much decided that I won’t be using Fronts for Stonetop. They just don’t work. The AW2e approach to Threats is much more appropriate. You’ve got threats, and threat types, and moves that come with them, and a countdown clock (grim portents) if they need them.

So, yeah, here’s my go at it. I’ve also made some tweaks to the core DW moves, ported over my Monster Creation Cheat Sheet, and added a few miscellaneous things I’m always looking up.

Questions or comments about the format, the approach to moves, or anything else? I’d love to hear them.

https://goo.gl/vggJcT