I posted this on the DW Tavern, but figured this might work well for Freebooters as well.

I posted this on the DW Tavern, but figured this might work well for Freebooters as well.

I posted this on the DW Tavern, but figured this might work well for Freebooters as well. It feels appropriately old school to me.

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 and take +1 forward to act on the answer

Reaction Check

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

Finally had cause to use this Scout Ahead move in play last night, and it worked wonderfully.

Finally had cause to use this Scout Ahead move in play last night, and it worked wonderfully.

Finally had cause to use this Scout Ahead move in play last night, and it worked wonderfully… though we only saw two 10+ results in play.

I was particularly happy with the way it framed the conversation around the scouting action. The PC who triggered it (both times) has often taken up huge amounts of spotlight time sneaking forward and escalating the situation.

By establishing the hit result as “you return safely” and giving the player an option of “you get away clean,” it totally avoided all the players usual curiosity-killed-the-cat instincts that cause him to keep taking risks until the dice betray him and things go south.

Five stars. Will use again.

Has anyone else used this in play? If so, how’s it worked out for you?

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

You know what sucks, in pretty much every game system? When the sneaky/stealthy/social character sneaks off ahead of the party into some dangerous situation, and you follow that character’s actions and play that out while everyone else sits and twiddles their thumbs.

It can be particularly bad in Dungeon World because of the 7-9 results’ tendency to escalate situations, and because of how you GM: describe the situation, make moves, ask “what do you do?”

One of the best experiences I can recall having with this was playing D&D, where the party’s rogue was an NPC with very little personal initiative. He’d scout ahead if we asked him to, and he’d disappear for a bit and then the GM would tell us whether he returned and what he found.

That got me thinking… is there a way to frame “scouting ahead” in such a way that the scouting happens off-camera, and the details come out as what happened? (Rather than playing them out as they happen.) And that led me to this:

SCOUT AHEAD

When you go off on your own to explore a dangerous area, tell us how you do it and add…

…+DEX if you rely on stealth and agility

…+CON if you rely on patience and endurance

…+CHA if you rely on blending in with the locals

On a 7+, you make it back safely and the GM will describe what you encountered. Then, on a 10+ pick 3; on a 7-9 pick 1:

* Ask a question from Discern Realities about what you encountered (you can choose this more than once)

* You were able to sneak something out of there; ask the GM what

* You made some preparation or created some advantage to exploit upon your return; work out the details with the GM

* You got away clean: leaving no trace, rousing no suspicion, etc.

On a 6-, mark XP and choose 1:

* You make it back to the others but with trouble hot on your heels! Ask the GM what follows you.

* You’ve been captured, trapped, pinned down, or otherwise stuck out there. We won’t know how or where until the others come looking for you.

* You’re missing in action; the details will be revealed later

(Edited that last bullet based on discussion in comments.)

If you were going to tweak the questions you can ask with Discern Realities, how would you tweak them?

If you were going to tweak the questions you can ask with Discern Realities, how would you tweak them?

If you were going to tweak the questions you can ask with Discern Realities, how would you tweak them? What questions would add or remove? What questions would you reword and how? Why?

For example:

I might rephrase “Who is in control here?” to “Who or what is control here?” Why? Because I like the idea of being able to answer that question with something impersonal, like “His fear of failure is totally in control here” or “These people are gripped by despair.”

Another example:

I might add a question like “How could I learn more?” Why? I like the idea of the player being able to ask the GM for a path forward.

I’m not sure about either of those two examples… I’m just starting to roll this around. But whatchya got?

A second draft a revised Parley for #Stonetop. Comments and questions appreciated!

A second draft a revised Parley for #Stonetop. Comments and questions appreciated!

A second draft a revised Parley for #Stonetop. Comments and questions appreciated!

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

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!

https://goo.gl/oyof9n

Second Draft: Parley (Revised)

Second Draft: Parley (Revised)

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

Kicking around a rewrite of Parley for #Stonetop. Feedback appreciated!

Kicking around a rewrite of Parley for #Stonetop. Feedback appreciated!

Kicking around a rewrite of Parley for #Stonetop. Feedback appreciated!

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

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

Draft: Parley (Rewritten)

Draft: Parley (Rewritten)

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

The Singing Sword

The Singing Sword

The Singing Sword

Solitary, small, magical, amorphous

HP 19 Armor 5 (made of metal, quick)

Cutting, thrusting, and slashing: [b]2d12 damage (hand, messy, 2 piercing)

Qualities flies; made of Maker-fine steel

• Make strange music in the dark

• Strike a warning blow, deft but nonlethal

• Block their way with a razor’s edge

This naked blade needs no wielder. It dances about the air, making music as it moves: every bob a hum; every slice a whistle.

It was set here long ago as guardian of this crumbling hall. Those who forged it fell and for ages it has kept its vigil. Yet, this is not some mindless thing waiting to cut down foes. It remembers, longs, yearns for the days in which this hall was filled with light and laughter and–joy of joys–music!

And so it waits. In the dark. Singing songs to itself that have been not been heard by any living mortal ear. It waits, dutiful, and worries that it has misremembered the songs it once knew. It waits. In the dark. Alone.

Instinct: to defend the hall, to ease its loneliness

If they make noise: respond with strange music

If they enter the hall without making music: try to scare them off

If they flee: let them go

If they persist: draw blood

If they sing or make music: respond enthusiastically

If they then make to leave: wail, moan, and stop them

#Stonetop