Tag: stonetop

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. 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

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

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