The Dungeon World Tavern: Custom Moves – Page 12 – Dungeon World Tavern G+ Archives

What should a custom move for starving accomplish?

Okay. Trying this one on for size.

When you call your ancestors with a haka, state your intent and roll +Cha, adding plus one if you actually do the haka at the game table.

On a 10+ the spirits are with you, hold three until your stated action is completed or until the next sunset. Spend hold for plus one to any roll.

On 7-9 hold one but choose one

* you draw unwanted attention from the spirit realm

* the spirits demand a sacrifice, choose a stat debility that lasts until you can be cleansed

* the spirits of your enemies also hear your invocation and help them as well – the party takes -1 forward .

On a miss… The GM makes a hard move governed by the spirits’ displeasure

A player character of mine has gained a dragon breath weapon but I’m not sure how to write it. Anyone got any ideas

I remember some blog post from a few years back where someone was discussing how to design custom moves for Dungeon…

I remember some blog post from a few years back where someone was discussing how to design custom moves for Dungeon World. The main example the author was giving concerned creating a custom move for a pirate/corsair to “dangle” from a rope and land on the floor and then follow that with an attack. Does anyone by any chance remember this? My google foo failed me and there were some elements to that post that I’d like to check again.

Preparing for the final showdown in my Strahd’s Salvation campaign (if you haven’t seen it here before, the…

Preparing for the final showdown in my Strahd’s Salvation campaign (if you haven’t seen it here before, the characters are Strahd’s friends and allies, attempting to lift the “curse” and free Barovia). Within the next 2 sessions the party should have accomplished everything they need to make sure when they kill Strahd, he stays dead and the mists surrounding Barovia lift for good (allowing them to die and stay dead as well).

Here’s the move, which is nearly identical to Jason Cordova’s Labyrinth Move (and, in true G+ fashion, I’m not able to tag the correct Jason Cordova, so if someone can I’d appreciate it). I have a Strahd Encounter on 3- because Strahd likes to play with the party to learn about their capabilities and then escape.

When you search Castle Ravenloft for Strahd von Zarovich, describe your path and how you search, and roll + STAT. The GM will tell you which STAT to use based on your description.

12+, Hold 2

10-11, Hold 1

7-9, Hold 1, plus Ravenloft Encounter

4-6, Ravenloft Encounter

3-, Strahd Encounter, plus lose all Hold

Any time you are not engaged in an encounter you may spend 1 Hold to discover a Ravenloft Treasure (describe the room you found it in) or 4 Hold to find Strahd for a final showdown (describe the room you found him in, and how you were able to track him here).

This works for Strahd’s allies searching the castle as well as anyone else because, while they know the castle very well, they don’t know where Strahd will be in the castle.

All tweaks and comments welcome!

I’m looking to hack the HP system.

I’m looking to hack the HP system. I intend removing HP entirely and replace it so that each time a character takes damage suffer a debility of his choice instead.

Although, I’m wondering what I could do with the paladin’s Bloody Aegis which lets him take a debility instead of suffer damage.

Any idea?

Spout lore theory question. I GM it like this:

On a 10+: You may make a ‘truth’ on the subject, tell the GM how your PC knows it to be true.

7-9: You propose a ‘truth’, but the GM gains +1 hold against you to make a move from the GM list.

The player may also just do the regular spout lore move, but I feel that this allows for more player fiat. I’ve never had it ruin a game, but I could see that a rambunctious could really take this and run.

Would you ever run this move this way? Is it bad, good, not important, etc.?

A possible rewrite for Spout Lore

A possible rewrite for Spout Lore

When you declare that you know something about the topic at hand, roll +INT: on a 10+, the GM will either tell you something useful and interesting about the subject relevant to your situation, or ask you to make it up; on a 7-9, the GM picks 1:

* They tell you something interesting about the subject (it’s on you to make it useful ~~interesting~~)

* They ask you to make up something interesting, and then they tell you what else you’ve heard that complicates things

Regardless of the roll, the GM might ask you “How did you learn about this?” Tell them the truth, now.

==============================

So, the wording feels a little cumbersome, but here are the design goals:

1) Empower players to trigger the move more freely

2) Make the move look more like you are, y’know, spouting lore

3) Make/encourage more collaborative world building in the move

4) Maintain the GM’s ability to either maintain authority over a topic, if it’s something that they’ve prepped or have a strong idea about

I’m not at all sure these goals are even necessary, or that this move accomplishes them. But I’ve noticed that I have to prompt my players to Spout Lore more often than they instigate it themselves, and I feel like that’s related to both the wording of the trigger (“consult your accumulated knowledge”) and the somewhat blurry line of “who gets to establish facts” in Dungeon World.

Thoughts?

The shrine to Himinglæva

The shrine to Himinglæva

This came about because of the Gauntlet’s shrine competion. I never got it finished in time, and it’s way over the word-limit, but I thought I might share it here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13MtwkdxxJ4U9niq_9ItkP85cdIh6DvrPhEMC9bQ4XmQ/edit?usp=sharing

In my home game/Stonetop, I’ve been toying with changing the Ranger’s Hunt and Track move to this:

In my home game/Stonetop, I’ve been toying with changing the Ranger’s Hunt and Track move to this:

HUNT AND TRACK

When you spend a few moments to scan your surroundings, you can ask the GM “What tracks or other signs of passage are present here?” and get an honest answer.

When you Discern Realities by studying tracks or other signs of passage, take +1 and add “Where did they go?” to the list of questions you can ask.

==================

By contrast, here’s the original move:

HUNT AND TRACK

When you follow a trail of clues left behind by passing creatures, roll+WIS: on a 7+, you follow the creature’s trail until there’s a significant change in its direction or mode of travel; on a 10+, you also choose 1:

* Gain a useful bit of information about your quarry, the GM will tell you what

* Determine what caused the trail to end.

==================

Reasoning:

The original move is… okay. I like that it’s a move where 7-9 gives you a full success and a 10+ gives you something extra. The things I dislike about it, though, are:

1) It sorta implies that you need that move in order to follow a creature’s trail. But really, you could get basically the same info by closely studying a set of tracks, triggering Discerning Realities, and asking “What happened here recently?” “Well, there was a fight, and this guy got killed, and then the victor skulked off down this tunnel.”

2) Nothing about the Hunt & Track move makes you particularly better and noticing that there are tracks in the first place. I guess that the fact I have the move, as a player, makes me more likely to ask the GM “Are there any tracks here?” and the GM should then be a fan and think about it and be like “yeah, totally, tracks!”

But I’ve see too many players not do that, or just forget that they have the move until I as the GM offer an opportunity fitting a class’s abilities and then prod them a little.

3) It doesn’t really lend itself to that scene in The Two Towers, where Aragon’s like “A hobbit lay here…” and then recreates the events in his head based on the tracks. Yeah, that’s totally Discern Realities and not really “following a trail,” but that’s the kind of thing I wan the ranger with this move to be able to do. They should be able to Sherlock the place up.

4) In Stonetop, rangers don’t automatically start with the Hunt & Track move unless they pick the “Mighty Hunter” background. So it’s pretty important to me that the move be “worth” the choice and that it not imply you can’t track creatures without this move.

Anyhow… interested in opinions! How do you like the proposed revision vs. the original move? How heavily does Hunt & Track get used in your games? Have you had parties without rangers that followed tracks? How’d you resolve it?