I’ve run DW twice this week, first time I’ve done it in a while.
I’ve run DW twice this week, first time I’ve done it in a while. And I was pretty strict at hewing to the DW conversation model as I see it:
(1) The GM describes the world state, and what’s just happened
(2) The GM asks the players, or one player in particular, “What do you do?”
(3) One player (GM’s choice) gets to be the one that acts
If they described plausible action corresponding to move trigger, execute the move
If the move fails (roll of 6-) and no special handling of that is given in the move text, the GM makes a hard move
If they describe a golden opportunity for the world or an NPC to fuck them up, the GM makes a hard move
If neither of the above, the GM makes a soft move
(4) Loop back to (1)
This meant that I was making a lot of moves, and doing very little else. This kept things interesting, but felt too intense at times. I’ve heard one of the players talk about another GM’s DW game as being “like being on a rollercoaster”, with threat after threat and no peace.
1) Do you think my model of above is right? I think I’ve captured the RAW, but they express this procedure vaguely, across several locations in the text.
2) Do you, in practice, use extra moves a bit like these:
a) Let Them Succeed – just let them do what they’re trying to, without opposition
b) Rest – describe the situation, narrate events, without (knowingly) saying anything dramatically significant
I suspect that in the past, when I’ve been less obsessive about mapping my every response to a move, I’ve implicitly used those a lot.