And here’s the Thrall, a “compendium” (insert) class for #Stonetop, which is one of the ways you can escape death’s…

And here’s the Thrall, a “compendium” (insert) class for #Stonetop, which is one of the ways you can escape death’s…

And here’s the Thrall, a “compendium” (insert) class for #Stonetop, which is one of the ways you can escape death’s door when your time is up (other way: become a ghost or a revenant).

I’m pretty pleased with the Impulse/Favor mechanic… I think it could work pretty well for a D&D-4/5e style warlock, one who’s patron really has their hooks into the PC.

Anyhow… feedback and questions appreciated!

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

The Thrall

In #Stonetop, we use Death’s Door instead of Last Breath. And here’s what happens on a 6-:

On a 6-, your time has come. Choose 1:

• Step willingly through the Black Gates

• Refuse to go; gain the Revenant or Ghost insert (your choice)

• Call on one of the Things Below by name and beseech it to intercede; gain the Thrall insert

The Ghost and Revenant have been done for a long time, but I’ve been putting off the Thrall for a few reasons. I wasn’t quite sure where on the “dead man walking” vs. “sorcerer” spectrum I wanted to go. I wanted the specific Thing Below that you made a deal with to be important, but didn’t want to give up on their ambiguous, mysterious nature. A fair number of the Things Below are associated with Major Arcana, and didn’t want to crowd those out (either their moves or their consequences). And, of course, I wanted it to all fit onto one 1/2 sheet, front & back.

I’m basically using my rules for long-term enchantment & mind control for this (from here https://goo.gl/ZTZ4e4), but with Favor instead XP. The GM picks the Impulse and the first Mark, allowing them to set the initial tone for this specific Thing Below.

As you continue as a Thrall, you both gain new Marks and lose access to future marks, sort of burning the candle at both ends. When you run out, you’re done. You’re no longer a PC; you’re a monster now.

Anyhow… I’m honestly not sure if anyone would every actually choose this insert. I’m almost positive that none of the players in my long-running game would (well… maybe one of them). But that’s okay: I’m pretty sure that the mere _existence of this insert adds texture to the game, establishing part of the mythology in a way that describing sorcery just couldn’t quite do.

As always, feedback and questions are welcome and appreciated!

https://goo.gl/tbWzJ8

The Thrall

The Thrall

The Thrall

In #Stonetop, we use Death’s Door instead of Last Breath. And here’s what happens on a 6-:

On a 6-, your time has come. Choose 1:

• Step willingly through the Black Gates

• Refuse to go; gain the Revenant or Ghost insert (your choice)

• Call on one of the Things Below by name and beseech it to intercede; gain the Thrall insert

The Ghost and Revenant have been done for a long time, but I’ve been putting off the Thrall for a few reasons. I wasn’t quite sure where on the “dead man walking” vs. “sorcerer” spectrum I wanted to go. I wanted the specific Thing Below that you made a deal with to be important, but didn’t want to give up on their ambiguous, mysterious nature. A fair number of the Things Below are associated with Major Arcana, and didn’t want to crowd those out (either their moves or their consequences). And, of course, I wanted it to all fit onto one 1/2 sheet, front & back.

I’m basically using my rules for long-term enchantment & mind control for this (from here https://goo.gl/ZTZ4e4), but with Favor instead XP. The GM picks the Impulse and the first Mark, allowing them to set the initial tone for this specific Thing Below.

As you continue as a Thrall, you both gain new Marks and lose access to future marks, sort of burning the candle at both ends. When you run out, you’re done. You’re no longer a PC; you’re a monster now.

Anyhow… I’m honestly not sure if anyone would every actually choose this insert. I’m almost positive that none of the players in my long-running game would (well… maybe one of them). But that’s okay: I’m pretty sure that the mere _existence of this insert adds texture to the game, establishing part of the mythology in a way that describing sorcery just couldn’t quite do.

As always, feedback and questions are welcome and appreciated!

https://goo.gl/tbWzJ8

A starting adventure for #Stonetop!

A starting adventure for #Stonetop!

A starting adventure for #Stonetop!

Feedback greatly appreciated, especially on the framework and structure.

Originally shared by Jeremy Strandberg

Second stab at an adventure starter

The original version was (mostly) based on the classic Dungeon Starters, with questions and “love letter” moves that started the situation in the field, having already made it through the Great Wood and right to the crinwin’s doorstep. It asked a lot of questions about why they were out there and what they hoped to accomplish, but it basically meant that they spent a bunch of time building the town of Stonetop up and then not setting foot in it during play. At least, not in the first session.

Thinking about it, I realized that I never did that in my own games. In my own games, we start the first “adventure” session in town, reveal the problem, and then almost immediately launch into play. They’d Chart a Course (even if I hadn’t called it that), maybe recruit some followers/help, then Outfit for the adventure. We’d then deal travel at some level of abstraction, and then get to the destination and the “meat” of the adventure.

And I think that’s about right. A Stonetop adventure starter needs to start in town and let us see a slice of life. It should let us see who/what is important to the PCs and who/what the players are interested it. And then it should push them out into the field, with a mission in mind. It should give some guidance on how to handle the travel, and then give us something to work with: a map, blanks, discoveries, and dangers.

So… here’s what I’ve got. I’d really appreciate feedback on the format, level of detail, usefulness, etc.

All art should be considered placeholder.

https://goo.gl/UtfHFd

Ceffylwraig (Horse Wife)

Ceffylwraig (Horse Wife)

Ceffylwraig (Horse Wife)

solitary, large, cautious, organized, magical, spirit

HP 20, Armor 0

Kicking hoofs: [w]2d8+3 (hand, close, forceful)

• Manifest as a majestic, beautiful horse

• Slip free of any restraint

• Guide the herd like it was a single living entity

• Curse someone with wild, unbridled emotions

Instinct: to be fiercely independent

A herd of wild horses has a life, nay, a spirit all its own, a spirit as free and fickle as the wind. Take care, you who would poach wild horses for your own purpose, lest you find your heart turned against you!

Something interesting: A ceffylwraig sees herself more as queen than wife: proud and haughty, disdainful of the weak and the slow, the herd her subjects more than her children

Something useful: a ceffylwraig is scornful and suspicious of praise or fancy words, but can be appeased by thoughtful gifts, offered with appropriate respect from proud women of noble bearing

What sort of gift do the ceffylwraig most value?

What sort of gift will do in a pinch?

#stonetop

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

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

I want to run Curse of Strahd in Dungeon World or Freebooters, structuring it in the Perilous Wilds/Deeps style, but…

I want to run Curse of Strahd in Dungeon World or Freebooters, structuring it in the Perilous Wilds/Deeps style, but…

I want to run Curse of Strahd in Dungeon World or Freebooters, structuring it in the Perilous Wilds/Deeps style, but I’m not sure the best way to go about that. Some parts are more clear. I am using a more structured approach than normal since I have a player who does not want to get into world building at all, so it makes sense to use this kind of module. I plan on setting up fronts as much as possible, but I could use some help in other areas.

Should I abstract a ‘dungeon’ like Death House

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/Curse%20of%20Strahd%20Introductory%20Adventure.pdf

into the Perilous Deeps style, or just run it as is?

What about all the existing NPCs and their complex relationships? Should I make those more random and improvised or use them as written in CoS? They are pretty complex as this diagram shows:

http://www.dmsguild.com/images/8957/204160.jpg

or maybe just run #Stonetop, add a vampire and call it a day? I am considering using the stonetop classes regardless. Any advice?

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

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