I’ve been working on a series of quick GM tools (generators) that work straight off the book text.

I’ve been working on a series of quick GM tools (generators) that work straight off the book text.

I’ve been working on a series of quick GM tools (generators) that work straight off the book text. Here is the test flight of my Steadings Generator. Yes, it increases and decreases population, prosperity, and defenses based on the results of rolls. 🙂

Feedback welcome. I’ll give out a more permanent link in the future.

http://www.jellysaw.com/share/steadings.html

http://www.jellysaw.com/share/steadings.html

So … the intelligent tag for monsters. I don’t think it’s always applied consistently in the book.

So … the intelligent tag for monsters. I don’t think it’s always applied consistently in the book.

So … the intelligent tag for monsters. I don’t think it’s always applied consistently in the book.

At first I took it to mean any creature that was intelligent enough to pick up skills. But it seems to mean more than that; it’s defined as “It’s smart enough that some individuals pick up other skills. The GM can adapt the monster by adding tags to reflect specific training, like a mage or warrior.”

So its about differentiation too. It’s applied to creatures that might be differentiated from one instance to the next by their skill set. Nearly all of the Ravenous Hordes have the tag, for instance. Also, some solitary creatures have them, e.g. Medusa, Angel, but we might take this to mean the monster is one of many but only appears one at a time, so the tag still makes sense.

But … Dragon whelps are intelligent while your typical dragon (or even the Apocalypse Dragon) is not. And Chokers, Banshees, Devourers, etc. are intelligent? An Ettin isn’t. A hedge wizard is not, but a bandit is?

I’m confused. I feel like a lot of times the tag is unnecessary. I think you should only apply the tag if it’s not obvious or to indicate that the creature is a whole species and there is skill-oriented or major personality differentiation among them.

Thoughts?

My proposal for a simplified monster stat block.

My proposal for a simplified monster stat block.

My proposal for a simplified monster stat block.

Originally shared by Ray Otus

STAT BLOCKS REVISITED

In the process of writing DW supplement material, I have spent a lot of time thinking about a better way to do monster stat blocks. Better than the core book, that is. I won’t get into why I don’t think that’s a great format unless people ask. Here is my proposal for a streamlined stat block and why I chose to list the information in the manner that I did.

The Format

Proposed standard for a simplified monster stat block for the text of DW supplements:

Creature Name: (terrain-optional) tag1, tag2, tag+, special quality. Instinct: to whatever Moves: move1, move2, move+. Weapon: damage, tag1, tag2, tag+. n HP. n Armor.

The following is the explanation of how I settled on this format. If you don’t care about that, please skip to the end to catch a full listing of core book monsters in the above format.

The Breakdown

1. Not Listed

I do not think the terrain type or description belongs in a streamlined stat block. But I left in a position for the terrain if you want it.

2. Instincts First

I personally feel that moving the instinct and moves to the front accomplishes three things. It frontloads everything narrative. It emphasizes instincts and moves, which I think are incredibly important and underutilized by many GMs. It also makes the combat stats easier to find, ironically. Moving them to the end seems like it’s a way of making them less important, but because they are the last thing listed your eye can quickly focus on them.

3. Tags and Qualities

I don’t see any real difference between the way tags and special qualities are used. (Why is “burrowing” special but “planar” not? And does it make any difference in the mechanics or fiction whether it’s a tag or special quality?) So I stuck them all in one place, but recommend italicizing special qualities in case someone cares about the difference.

4. Moves

I put all the moves in one sentence rather than a separate sentence for each. The only place I noticed this was a problem was for Black Pudding, because both of its moves included lists with commas in them. As I am separating moves with commas, I put those lists in parentheses. In general, a move shouldn’t be so long that it needs a comma in it! 🙂

5. Combat Stats

The combat stats seem to have weird and unnecessary formatting in the core book. Why put damage in parentheses? What’s with the semi-colons? I simplified the way they look, putting the weapon tags right after the damage. I considered “8 HP/1 Armor” instead of “8 HP. 1 Armor” but that made for weird line breaks in paragraphs. You would often get “8 HP/1” at the end of a line and “Armor” on the next.

6. Graphics/Purpose

Many people want to use icons for attacks, armor, etc. That’s cool, but it’s hard to deal with in text. This format is my proposal for a standard, simplified monster block for use in the text DW supplements. If you were designing for, say, a deck of monster cards, things like graphics and white space, line breaks, etc. would be more important.

The Listing

To see how this looks, or if you want a resource you can cut-and-paste from, I put all the creatures from the Dungeon World core book in the simplified format here:

http://www.jellysaw.com/rpg/dw/monsters/monsters.html

My other DW resources can be found one step up (see the DW Codex breadcrumb at the top of the linked page). I don’t have a lot there, but there is a GM move randomizer you might like. And a simple suggestion for assigning default damage (rather than always rolling creature damage).

http://www.jellysaw.com/rpg/dw/monsters/monsters.html

The + 1 in Dungeon World is deceptively powerful!

The + 1 in Dungeon World is deceptively powerful!

The + 1 in Dungeon World is deceptively powerful! It is better than a + 2 in D&D and sometimes close to + 3. Just think about that when you design moves and such. 

On 2d6, to get at least 7 = 58.33%, to get at least 10 = 16.67%. When you roll 2d6 + 1 your chances go up 13.89% to get a 7+ (to 72.22%) and 10.11% to get a 10+ (to 27.78%).

In D&D, obviously, each +1 increases your chance of hitting any number by 5%, since the curve is flat. So +2 is +10% and +3 is +15%. 

An early gift for you!

An early gift for you!

Originally shared by Ray Otus

An early gift for you! Sinister Solstice, a free holiday-themed Dungeon World adventure. Brave the Frozen Waste, escape the clutches of the Ice Elves, and uncover the secrets of Kringle’s Castle! 

http://www.jellysaw.com/dw/sinister-solstice.pdf

(Re)share as much as you like!

Marshall Miller did you “invent” the idea of the one page Dungeon Starter?

Marshall Miller did you “invent” the idea of the one page Dungeon Starter?

Marshall Miller did you “invent” the idea of the one page Dungeon Starter? What was the first one to your knowledge. Any theories on how they should be composed?

Based on some discussion in another thread I made a quick web app to give you a random GM move.

Based on some discussion in another thread I made a quick web app to give you a random GM move.

Based on some discussion in another thread I made a quick web app to give you a random GM move. (It has a “re-roll” button too.) Might make it look nicer later. You could put a link to it on the face of your smartphone and use it at the table.

http://www.jellysaw.com/dw/gm-moves.html