Some significant updates made this bad boy in the past few days.

Some significant updates made this bad boy in the past few days.

Some significant updates made this bad boy in the past few days.

There’s now full sections (moves, design notes, variations, and example GM moves) for the following:

* Drowning

* Falling (major updates!)

* Scouting Ahead (newish!)

* Mind Control

Moves, but not explanation for:

* Burning

* Chases

* Working Together

* Reaction Checks (new!)

Planning to add stuff on:

* Sneaking

* Starvation/Exposure

* Navigation

https://goo.gl/ZTZ4e4

Deal Damage is a Crap GM Move

Deal Damage is a Crap GM Move

Deal Damage is a Crap GM Move

slightly heretical musings

When I’ve played DW with less-experienced GMs—and certainly when I started GMing DW myself—I’ve seen this sort of thing happen a fair deal:

“Okay, you got a 7-9 to Hack & Slash the orc? Deal your damage. 3? Okay, he’s still up. But he stabs you back. Take 1d8+1 damage. You still up? Okay, what do you do?”

The strawman GM in my example is making the GM move deal damage, but they aren’t following the principle of begin and end with the fiction. As a result, the whole thing is flat. The player reduces their character’s HP total. We vaguely know that the PC landed their blow, and the orc landed one back. But we’ve got no sense of the actual fiction, the details, the momentum. Who hit whom how? When? And Where? Is the PC’s axe still stuck in the orc’s shoulder? Does the orc up close and personal, stab-stab-stabbing you with his rusty knife? What the hell is going on?

Now, you can blame that on the GM (obviously: they aren’t following their principles). But you’ve got literally a dozen principles always competing for your attention, and it can be tough to keep them all straight.

You can also lay a lot of blame at the feat of the Damage and HP and “down at 0 HP” system that DW inherited from D&D. But if you start tinkering with any of those things, you end up changing basic moves, and class moves, and how you make monsters, and equipment, and spells, and pretty much the whole mechanical economy of the game.

So what about the GM move itself: Deal Damage. I’d like to argue that this move—its name, its description, the fact that it exists at all—is part of the problem. And maybe an easier one to fix.

Of all the GM moves, it’s the only one that maps most directly to a purely mechanical outcome. “Take 1d8+1 damage.” The GM must evaluate the fiction a little to determine how much damage you should take, but not much… you can just look at the orc’s damage die and say “you’re fighting an orc, take 1d8+1 damage.” And because the result of move (the roll, losing HP) is so mechanical and abstract, it’s easy to forget to return to the fiction and describe what that damage actually looks like.

(You don’t see this issue nearly as much in Apocalypse World, even though it basically has HP and has basically the same move: inflict harm as established. I think there are two reasons. First, the way NPCs suffer harm is much more handwavy than in DW… each level of harm corresponds to a rough description of trauma, and it’s GM fiat to determine if the NPC is still standing. Thus, the GM has to decide on the specific trauma, in the fiction, in order determine if the NPC is still a threat. It’s pretty brilliant. Second, against PCs, there’s the Suffer Harm move, which can generate all sorts of interesting fiction.)

Compare deal damage to use up their resources. When the GM uses up resources, they must decide which resources to use up. If they decide to “use up” your shield, then the natural thing to say isn’t “you lose your shield, reduce your Armor by 1” but rather “it smashes through your shield!” or “you feel the strap on your shield snap and the thing goes flying, what do you do?” Even if the GM uses up an abstract resource (like adventuring gear or rations), it’s pretty easy and natural for everyone to visual your pack getting smashed or torn open or whatever. HP are such an abstraction that it’s easy to just decrement them and move on.

Every now and then, the conversation crops up that you just shouldn’t use the Deal Damage move, or that you shouldn’t use it very much. Other GM moves are more interesting, etc. etc.

Another relevant detail: on page 165, there’s this gem that often gets forgotten:

Note that “deal damage” is a move, but other moves may include damage as well. When an ogre flings you against a wall you take damage as surely as if he had smashed you with his fists.

With a sidebar of:

If a move causes damage not related to a monster, like a collapsing tunnel or fall into a pit, use the damage rules on page 21.

So… could we just remove “Deal Damage” from the GM’s list of moves? If it just flat-out wasn’t a choice, and instead you always had to make a different GM move (or monster move), one that might also happen to deal damage, would that help GMs begin and end with the fiction?

Or would it just confuse things? Or not make a difference? After all, you’d still have the GM move Use up their resources, and you HP are really nothing more than a resource.

It’s entirely possible that I’m just overthinking this, and the “solution” to this “problem” is just learning to “begin and end with the fiction.”

Discuss!

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

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

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

Fourth Draft: Parley (again)

Fourth Draft: Parley (again)

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.

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

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 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).

Questions and feedback welcome & appreciated!

https://goo.gl/gpB94t

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.

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:

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Draft: Parley (Revised)

Third Draft: Parley (Revised)

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