The Dungeon World Tavern: Custom Moves – Page 15 – Dungeon World Tavern G+ Archives

Yet another stab at rewriting Parley for #Stonetop. Comments on the original thread, please!

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

Fourth Draft: Parley (again)

So, I said I was done with this and I even changed my moves sheet to use a boring old crib on AW 2e’s Seduce/Manipulate. But then this happened.

It’s actually much closer to the root inspiration (Freebooting Venus’s Demand Something move, as described Johnstone Metzger) than any of the previous drafts. And it gives up on the Petitioner/Granter framework I was going for.

In the Demand Something move, the trigger is easily met (“When you demand something of someone”) and doesn’t require any leverage. The result then determines if there’s 1 requirement (on a 10+) or 2 (on a 7-9). But what goes unstated in the move is that the requirements can have already been met in the triggering of the move. So on a 10+, the GM could decide that they’ll do it if you have and apply leverage over them but you already did that, so whatever, they do it.

In this version, I tried to make that an explicit choice for the GM on a 10+. And on a 7-9, there will always be at least 1 requirement, no matter how well positioned you were before hand.

So, we keep the open trigger (“press or entice someone into a course of action”) without requiring the “do you have leverage” conversation, but keep the move from being mind control by allowing the GM to decide on a requirement on a 10+. And while there’s overlap in the 10+ and 7-9 results (e.g. in both cases, the GM could choose 1 requirement), I think this frames the decision for the GM in such a way that the results will feel different.

As always: feedback and questions appreciated!

https://goo.gl/dWDtqP

I’ve been tinkering a lot with the basic and special moves recently, for use in #Stonetop.

I’ve been tinkering a lot with the basic and special moves recently, for use in #Stonetop. Figured folks might like to see where I’m at. Questions & feedback appreciated.

High-level changes, for those who don’t feel like poring over it in detail:

– Aid and Interfere: replaced with two separate moves; no longer tied to bonds

– Defend: unchanged

– Defy Danger: slight tweaks to descriptions on when you use each stat; removed the “stumble, hesitate, or flinch” statement

– Discern Realities: super minor tweak (“Who or what is really in control here?”)

– Hack & Slash: rephrased the 10+ for clarity; mechanically unchanged

– Parley: no more talk of leverage or promises; very close to the AW 2e Seduce/Manipulate

– Spout Lore: you have to explain where you could have learned this before you roll (as opposed to asking you after the fact), so that the GM can couch their answer in those terms… this is very Stonetop specific; I wouldn’t necessarily advise it for most DW games)

– Volley: rephrased the trigger to apply to thrown/non-aimed weapons; changed “take what you can get” to roll twice and take the lower; removed the descriptive “have to take multiple shots” from the lose 1 Ammo option (because reconciling that with reload sucks)

– Struggle as One: new basic move, for defying danger as a group

And more changes to the Special moves than I care to write out. Plus the Follower Moves (originally seen in Perilous Wilds, but originally written for Stonetop).

(Layout by the esteemed Jason Lutes!)

https://goo.gl/gpB94t

We just tried this variant of End of Session last night, instead of resolving a bond to mark XP:

We just tried this variant of End of Session last night, instead of resolving a bond to mark XP:

“Describe how your opinion of or relationship with another character (PC or NPC) has changed. If everyone at the table agrees, mark XP.”

It worked great. It prompted a lot of interesting conversation and ruminating about the session, and the sessions before it. Unexpected stuff, too! Like two of the 6 players realizing that this was the first time their characters actually bonded, and one of the PCs realizing that the antagonistic relationship with their long-term rival had finally turned a corner.

The really nice part was: everyone felt that they could be involved, even if they didn’t have any bonds that got addressed.

It does lose the “motivation factor” that bonds have, where a player specifically drives play towards resolving a bond. But honestly, I can only think of 1 player that I’ve ever noticed intentionally doing that.

I recommend trying it out!

I have the skeleton of an idea for doing DW summoned creatures something different than the summon monster spell,…

I have the skeleton of an idea for doing DW summoned creatures something different than the summon monster spell, more of a ritual.. I only own the core book so keep that in mind I’m not familiar if this is already done.

Player rolls and gets x number of holds based on the roll. The player then can spend holds to summon a type. Weaker cost less and strong creatures cost more.

So for example a necromancer could spend 2 holds to summon 2 skeletons or spend 2 holds to summon a single zombie.

On subsequent turns holds can be spent to activate the summoned creatures to attack and do other things. When the last hold is spent the creature leaves/blink sout/falls to dust.

On a failed roll maybe something is summoned but it attacks the summoner.

Yes this idea is based on the druids shape shift in a way.

I need some help with some custom moves.

This first one is for a Fey. Originally I was just going to use to use “Grant a wish, with a twist” as a monster move but I was wondering if you guys could help me come up with a custom to replace it. Maybe something like

When you ask a Fey to grant a wish, Roll+Cha. On a 10+, your wish is granted. On a 7-9, you wish is granted but with an unforseen twist.

Second one is for traveling through a forest where Fey trick travelers.

When you travel through Fey infested forests, roll+Int. On a 10+, you find it with little issue. On a 7-9, choose 1

-You finally made but the journey left exhausted. Take -1 ongoing until you make camp

– The Fey led you into the path of a hostile creature or into an environmental hazard.

Another one I was work on was a custom move for a Dryad. This is what I have currently but it seems uninteresting.

When you look upon a Dryad’s beauty, roll+Wis. On a 10+, you steel yourself and manage not to fall in love with her. On a 7-9, you manage you resist her partially but you’re still bedazzled. Take -1 ongoing as long as you’re in her presence

Any ideas on how I can improve these?

Changed quite a bit (adding something to every section and completely redoing damage).

Changed quite a bit (adding something to every section and completely redoing damage). Thought it deserved a whole new post.

Hi there!

Hi there! I’m new to Dungeon World, just got it today, and I noticed something a bit surprising. In the base classes, there doesn’t seem to be an option for Orc or Half-orc characters/race moves. I found that a bit surprising.

Is there a reason for this? Or alternatively, are there some custom Orc Race moves? I’m asking because I’m sure my players in my upcoming game who are old dnd pros might want the option.

Hi everyone!

We have issues deciding scene about gambling of two PC characters. Basically they were playing card game. Scene was very anticlimactic because we could not come up with interesting moves to decide who is winning. Do you have any ideas for a general gambling move. I looking for a move that can be used for playing poker, dice, chess etc. Probably Wisdom would be the best attribute to use.

Draft #3 of my Parley rewrite. Feedback welcome & appreciated!

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

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

Reaction Check

Reaction Check

When you approach a wary or hostile NPC and try to communicate, roll +CHA: on a 10+, they’ll hear you out and choose 2; on a 7-9, they’ll hear you out and choose 1.

• They are impressed, intrigued, or amused by you, as the GM sees fit (otherwise, they remain wary or hostile)

• You’ve got their complete attention, for now at least (otherwise, they remain alert)

• You glean a valuable insight; ask a question from the Discern Realities list at take +1 forward to act on the answer