Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Ludanto on June 03, 2011, 10:09:28 AM
-
How does Loot work, exactly?
They search the bodies, and the GM tells them what gold and gems the monster had.
OK.
Quickly and trouble-free.
OK.
"Something you find has useful information (or has magic about it)."
Strictly worded, if there's nothing to find, there's no information or magic. Or if they just find 5 GP, then those coins have magic or information.
Is that the intent? Assuming not, then maybe it ought to read "You find something that..."
As for that, information isn't that hard, but "has magic about it" is harder. Some advice would be nice. What does "has magic about it" mean? And there's not a giant chart of potions and scrolls and minor magical trinkets, so what sorts of magical things might they find, especially if they choose that option often?
I suppose I can muddle through, but any insight would be appreciated.
-
i think the idea is you are not supposed to have predefined loot for your monsters, or at least have some options.
the item can really be anything you want it to, it has magic about it but is not necessarily magical itself. maybe it is a scroll or potion, maybe its a coin with some minor enchantment put on it by an evil sorcerer. maybe its a fetish bag given to the orc by a shaman! the last two would give the party new adventuring hooks or more information about what lies ahead. (there is an evil sorcerer in these parts, perhaps we should cleanse the land of his foul magicks! or, we must be on our guard, these orcs have the backing of a powerful shaman...)
agony tends to run very low magic games so perhaps i have been conditioned into this, but i think finding a magic sword or necklace on every single orc raiding party doesnt really make much sense. in the end, though, its up to you and your players on how prevalent you want magic items to be. (in our game we have several magic rune keys that we dont really know what to do with...)
-
I, uh, agree with Ben.
The two sessions we ran with the new loot rules kind of seemed off to me. I like the idea of not having pre-determined treasure with an encounter but the group chose something magical each time. I'm of the mindset that magical items should be special and unique and have a history. Hard to improv when that's what you magic items to be and someone says "come up with one, now."
I guess, the best idea seems to be to have a list of magic items ready to drop in whenever it makes sense. I still don't like that the group is finding a magic item 2-3 times every session. It will be like D&D before you know it.
-
Our magic has been pretty low key. A fetish that points to an elder god, a knife that thirst for elvish blood, a scroll with writing no one can read, etc...
Using an item has invoked custom moves to keep things interesting. There are no +1 swords in our game.
-
Our magic has been pretty low key. A fetish that points to an elder god, a knife that thirst for elvish blood, a scroll with writing no one can read, etc...
Using an item has invoked custom moves to keep things interesting. There are no +1 swords in our game.
Nice! Great ideas.
-
I think the key is to remember that the move says "or" and also "about it" rather than "you find magic shit, hurrah!" and that the GM is the one who gets to decide and explain. The PCs say "I want some info or magics" and the GM will either improvise a clue or the like or will give up some predetermined magic awesomeness.
It's a way to access and bolster an existing loot situation, rather than replace it wholesale with randomness and player-control.
-
Well, it doesn't say "or". The player can pick magic the player can pick info. Often it's hard to come up with regular magical things that aren't lame, is all. Saintandsinner's idea of vague, potential plot hooks is a good one, but it's still challenging.
-
SaintAndSinner is completely on the right track. Consider "magic" as permission for the GM to do something weird. The players are basically saying: "it's alright if you make a little trouble for us, we want interesting events to occur!"
This is actually just a minor re-skinning of John Harper's scavenge move from the custom moves chapter of Apocalypse World. It's interesting, as it's a move that toes a thin line of player v. GM authority. Because of that, we've thought about rewrites, but let me explain why it is the way it is for now.
Loot is such a part of the game that it needs at least some guidance, preferably a move, around it. We had some earlier versions of this move that gave the player a lot more authority, but that didn't really work. The GM has authority over the world, the move can't give the players direct authority over that. But it can direct the GM.
This move is one of those places that Dungeon World forces magic to be pervasive. If you want a game where magic isn't pervasive, this is something you'll have to change (and hey! we have a custom moves chapter now that gives you some advice on how to do that). Like SaintAndSinner says, magic doesn't mean +1 sword, or even something beneficial. It means something strange and magical and weird. Let your imagination run wild.
There's a reason that none of the magic items in the book just give +1. I need to add this to the text somewhere, but: a Dungeon World magic item is NEVER just a +1. +1s are mundane, they come and go. Magic works intelligently and interestingly. It changes how you do certain things, or opens up new possibilities.
If you're having a hard time coming up with magic or information, refer to your fronts. Give them something that portends a impending doom (information) or will prepare them for it (magic), or is just a bizarre effect of it (magic).
-
I would think that "information or magic about" could be sort of like a combination of appraise and detect magic. Why yes, a wizard has touched this recently or those sure are 5gp but look at the mint, they're from the kingdom of Blicken so you know that the bandit king has been raiding farther West...
-
I would think that "information or magic about" could be sort of like a combination of appraise and detect magic. Why yes, a wizard has touched this recently or those sure are 5gp but look at the mint, they're from the kingdom of Blicken so you know that the bandit king has been raiding farther West...
Nice.
-
So, I'm curious about this:
You only Loot when you already know there’s something valuable and you’re rooting around to get the most of it. You might Discern Realities to search an ancient laboratory for something useful but you Loot the goblin barracks once you’ve cleared them out, or the corpse of the sell-sword you just put down.
To me, it seems like this restriction is unnecessary, maybe even a little boring. The way the loot move works, it's already entirely up to GM whether there's anything valuable or not. If I loot, the GM tells me about gold and gems, then I roll, and then I might get information or magic. But is seems like there's room to use the move even when there isn't any gold and gems. And magic, as discussed here, isn't necessarily valuable or even safe.
So why not let me loot when I don't know if there is really anything valuable, per se?
Like, we're attacked by a crocodile, and it doesn't have a red cent on it. Why not still let the party search the corpse? Maybe there's the remains of another monster in its gullet, and that tips us off to another threat in the area. Getting that information will take time and/or trouble, and it even opens up the possibility of rolling a miss and getting in real trouble, so it's not like it's ever going to be uninteresting to loot.*
It also leaves the chance of the GM surprising the party with a little treasure after all: "Actually, yeah, there's few gold coins in its gut, un-corroded by the the stomach acids. It must've eaten someone pretty recently, for those to still be in there ... wonder if there were survivors?"
It feels a little odd for the party to want to search the corpse, but to have to know there's something valuable there already. Maybe there are coins in its gut? Probably not, but how the hell do we know without searching first? I suppose a Discern Realities roll could be searching, but why not just Loot? That move seems like a better fit for the task.
* Unless, admittedly, I'm just hell-bent on finding some valuables in this crocodile's guts, and the GM tells me, no, nothing valuable there. And then I hit a 10+ and pick that the looting is fast and trouble-free. That would be pretty dull. But there I'm being kind of stupid, really, risking trouble for very little likely reward ... I'm not going to hit a 10+ every time I do that crap.
-
I would say it makes total sense if you are DMing and your players are carving into every corpse of every creature they slay, and those creatures eat treasure. Then, yeah. Why not?
-
That's not the point. If the monsters aren't eating treasure on a regular basis, the loot move still lets interesting things come up when the party searches 'valueless' corpses, by letting them hit the information and magic options.
Or rather, according to the quoted text, it doesn't let those things come up. But why not let it happen?
-
That's not the point. If the monsters aren't eating treasure on a regular basis, the loot move still lets interesting things come up when the party searches 'valueless' corpses. Or rather, it doesn't let those things come up, according to the quoted text. Why not let it happen?
I'm just not sure I buy the Loot anywhere, anytime argument.
Loot seems like a move best reserved for those times when loot being there would be appropriate, based on the DM's agenda/principles I guess.
Otherwise, I loot my trash can. What's in it? Oh, 7-9, I guess there's magic or useful information there. :)
If we're opening up the Loot move to be more free-form, I'd want a clause in there (similar to Open Your Brain in AW), that let's the GM say something like, "You've found all there is to find." And, that might be nothing.
-
That's an excellent point, Michael.
-
Ah, but you can only loot lairs and corpses, not trashcans. The move as written is actually already very good for what I'm describing - all the loopholes are already buttoned up. It's just the text in the back of the book that gets in the way.
And why shouldn't every dead monster or lair have something interesting and informative about the surrounding dungeon? These monsters don't live in little random encounter bubbles. Or, at any rate, they shouldn't.
-
I think a lot of our text there is to cover up for the fact that we probably need a "The GM can say you've found everything" option. Kind of like saying "nothing" to "What here is valuable to me?" The GM needs that permission, but they should use it rarely, if at all.
Smart ideas, everyone.
-
And why shouldn't every dead monster or lair have something interesting and informative about the surrounding dungeon? These monsters don't live in little random encounter bubbles. Or, at any rate, they shouldn't.
There are other moves that cover the "interesting and informative" part about the surrounding dungeon. I don't think that onus should fall entirely on Loot's shoulders.
Loot is specifically for ... loot. Right?
Just because a creature isn't carrying loot doesn't mean you can't Discern Realities or whatever and learn information about it. I can "closely study" a creature's body and get the same information, whether it has loot or not.
-
You should always be able to find loot. Anything could be valuable to someone. The questions, given encumbrance, are: Can you use it now? Is it likely to help you later? Are you willing to carry it out? Can you find a market for it?
-
You should always be able to find loot. Anything could be valuable to someone. The questions, given encumbrance, are: Can you use it now? Is it likely to help you later? Are you willing to carry it out? Can you find a market for it?
The way loot is worded seems to imply a specific idea of what loot is.
"the GM will tell you what gold and gems the monster had"
Gold. Gems.
Then, possibly something useful or magical.
-
Loot, as written, requires a bit of fictional/GM permission. It's for specific things: bodies and lairs, pretty much. "Gold and gems" may be too specific a wording, but it's close.
John says "I search the goblin barracks for anything valuable." The goblins have to have something, so I say "Sure, sounds like you're looting." He makes the roll and gets some coin as well as some swords, too well-crafted to be goblin work (they're informative - the goblins have allies - and at least a little valuable).
John says "I search the hallway for anything valuable." It's just some random hallway, so I say "Uh, okay. So you're like looking around the seeing what you notice? Sounds like Discern Realities."
It's the fictional difference of "Place we reasonably know has valuable stuff" v. "Random location."
Is this the right way to do it? I'm not sure. Some good points have been made here, I'll think on them.
-
Sage, that's exactly what I was trying to say too.
Looting is when you are actually searching through treasures, not just searching. Discern Realities is when you are just searching.
At least, based on how it's worded and my interpretation of it.
-
And what if you're trying to skin the croc so that you'll have a valuable hide to sell to the boot-maker back in town?
-
And what if you're trying to skin the croc so that you'll have a valuable hide to sell to the boot-maker back in town?
When the Ranger did this in the campaign I was DMing, I said, "Sure, but it'll take some time to skin it and whatnot." He was like, "Sure." And, so we skipped an hour and I was like, "Yo. You have an alligator skin now."
-
Taking the skin is probably actually Looting, yeah. I have to disagree with Michael here, not because his example doesn't sound good, but because the move is always triggered by the fiction.
Remember, the Loot roll doesn't change that he gets the skin. That's set. What it might say is that he gets it quikcly, or without smelling like entrails (which might attract monsters), or that there's something important in the croc's belly.
Loot doesn't tell you the basic value of what they find, that's up to the fiction (and the GM's prep and creativity). It just says how easily they get it, and what unexpected bonuses they get.
-
I have to disagree with Michael here, not because his example doesn't sound good, but because the move is always triggered by the fiction.
It's all good. When I DM, I don't really consider skinning creatures "looting" necessarily. :) I'm sure in some campaigns it is.
What about the goblin I behead? Is that looting?
-
"And with that you slay the last goblin. Their bloody smelly bodies are strewn about the room. What do you do?"
"I'm going to pick over the bodies take whatever's valuable or useful."
"Sounds like Looting to me. The town guard is paying for goblin heads, so those are certainly valuable. There's also a few assorted coins, about 1 gold worth, and of course the shoddy blades they were shanking you with. Make you roll."
"I got a 7. I get it with little trouble. I get 5 heads to take back to town, 1 gold in small coin, and I'm not even going to bother with weapons. Those are heavy."
"Little trouble, eh? Well, you take your time to avoid all their wicked open sores and jagged rusty jewelry, so you don't end up disgusting and diseased. It does take you a while, though, and in that time you start to hear chanting from down the hall. Maybe they've noticed the guard haven't come back and started the ritual early? What do you do?"
The Loot move is based on John's scavenge move, so think of it a bit like that. It's all about how you find things, with the option of choosing to find something special on top of that.
I wonder if the magic and information options aren't misleading. The move isn't really about what you find, it's about how you find it. You just have the option of trading some control of how for a little control of what.
-
Like I said, in some campaigns (where Goblin heads are currency I guess), hacking off extremities could be considered "looting"... ;)
-
Yeah, that was kind of my example, above. If goblin heads are worth something, you get them as part of the move. Same as if the heads popped off and turned into coins :) (though that might be easier to carry).
Coins or heads, you're still taking time to gather something valuable. Coins or heads, that's still looting, and you still might get it quickly, without trouble, or neither.
The fact that "coins and gems" are mentioned specifically is an oversight. Consider looting for anything of value.
-
Right. So, you are saying that there needs to be something valuable first before looting takes place.
If the goblin heads aren't valuable, there's no looting right? Loot doesn't spring into existence because someone "loots"? There has to be loot that someone is retrieving?
That's what your post seems to indicate.
Let's say the goblin heads weren't valuable in my campaign.
"And with that you slay the last goblin. Their bloody smelly bodies are strewn about the room. What do you do?"
"I'm going to pick over the bodies take whatever's valuable or useful."
"There's nothing of much value here. Dirty goblin rags and crude sticks sharpened to a point."
"Aight. Let's move on."
-
There are other moves that cover the "interesting and informative" part about the surrounding dungeon.
What moves do you mean? There's GM moves, certainly, but the players don't directly interface with those. And Discern Realities doesn't do a good job of filling that 'searching' role. It's more a pausing and looking around move, quick and dirty. You can apply it to a search (it's your only option, at the moment), but the Loot move's mechanics are better suited to that: the provisions for doing it quickly or without trouble, in particular.
If the name is a stumbling block, well, rename it to "Search". Then if people are searching something with valuables, the GM says what's valuable and they roll to see how easy it are to collect, and what else might be there. If there isn't anything really valuable, then the GM says there isn't, but the party can still roll to poke around for useful information. And it still works exactly as per the Loot move's current wording.
Searching for clues that'll help survive later in the dungeon is pretty basic D&D behavior. (Or at least old school exploration behavior.)
I remember my AD&D DMG, with its example of play that had the party poking around in an underground river, pulling out a human skull or something ... yeah! Found it: The LIMED-OVER SKELETON OF THE ABBOT, in a pool of water, clutching a key to a secret door at location 28 and also host to a sealed scroll tube with a water-damaged map of the dungeon, only portions of which are still legible.
And they're examining the skulls in the corners of a room to figure out who lives here (it's a goblin skull).
I could totally see a very slight variation of the Loot move, where the party can look around, realize there's nothing valuable, hit a 7-9, and take some time and trouble to really tear apart a room, looking for something helpful. And then the GM goes, Oh! There in the corner, under the rotting flour sacks. It's a goblin skull.
-
Michael, that's exactly why I said opening up the move might be a better option. But, as-written, I don't think Loot serves well as a "Search" function.
However, I disagree that Discern Realities doesn't provide the same sort of results.
Let's take your example:
"...had the party poking around in an underground river, pulling out a human skull or something ... yeah! Found it: The LIMED-OVER SKELETON OF THE ABBOT, in a pool of water, clutching a key to a secret door at location 28 and also host to a sealed scroll tube with a water-damaged map of the dungeon, only portions of which are still legible."
What part of Discern Realities doesn't work with this? Poking around in an underground river is anything but "quick" and closely studying a situation is more appropriate to the "old school" style of actually INVESTIGATING shit instead of hitting you roll and the DM magically giving you the clues.
Remember, to do it, you need to do it.
Players: "We're poking around in the underground river with our pole..."
GM: "Sounds like you're closely studying something. Roll Discern Realities for me."
Players: *dice* "Yeah! 10+"
GM: "What do you want to know?"
Players: "Uh, what is useful or valuable to me here? What should I be on the lookout for?"
GM: "Ah... while stabbing at the water with your pole, you hit something hard, but it's not a rock. It's a human skull. The skull appears to be attached to the rest of it's skeleton and through the water you see it's clutching something. Pulling the skeleton out, you see something useful (a water damaged map) and something else you should be on the lookout for: a key, barely visible as it falls from the skeleton's other hand into the water."
Works fine to me. Why have redundant moves?
-
I like the idea of search because it constitutes looking to see what's here. It should be worded so that the DM can give only extra description or say you don't find anything though. That way, if you search a place where you think there should be something, you have a chance of finding it. If you search an area on a whim, that's just one more chance for the DM to make a move if you fail. Spurious searches are, therefore, discouraged because they invite risk as you delay to search thoroughly. An advanced character move might make specify finding something of value on a 12+.
-
I like the idea of search because it constitutes looking to see what's here. It should be worded so that the DM can give only extra description or say you don't find anything though. That way, if you search a place where you think there should be something, you have a chance of finding it. If you search an area on a whim, that's just one more chance for the DM to make a move if you fail. Spurious searches are, therefore, discouraged because they invite risk as you delay to search thoroughly. An advanced character move might make specify finding something of value on a 12+.
Definitely. That's why I suggested the "GM can say you found all there is to find" clause. That sort of also negates the "you can only search once..." disclaimer in the move as well.
Search as much as you want, but the GM can always say you've found all there is to find.
-
Wait, why do you need "Search"? Isn't that what Discern Realities is? You Discern Realities and ask your questions, and maybe there's something there or maybe the answer is "nothing" or maybe you fumble and the GM makes a hard move. I don't understand what people are talking about here.
-
Search v. Spot - We're running into 3E design issues! That says something about our design influences.
I think, if carefully worded, there could be two moves, but I'm not sure that's worth it. Maybe Discern is it. Hm.
-
Maybe you could convert the current Discern Realities into a spot check (for noticing stuff, "do I see this going on," etc.) and make Discern Realities an example custom move for when you are trying to disbelieve an illusion, ruse, or facade.
-
That's not a distinction I'm too interested in making. It also might end up turning disbelieve into that weird, metagamey "I see if I disbelieve!" Discern keeps it rooted in something you do (observe) and something you get out of it (details about what's real/not).
The one I'm thinking of more is the difference between noticing something and searching an area/looting/scavenging. Those seem like different things, and in AW they are - read a sitch v. John's custom scavenge move.
-
The one I'm thinking of more is the difference between noticing something and searching an area/looting/scavenging. Those seem like different things, and in AW they are - read a sitch v. John's custom scavenge move.
Yeah, I'm not really seeing that too much. I think Discern Realities could be used just as easily for looting (and probably better, in my opinion - "What here is useful or valuable to me?").
The whole scavenge move thing is way too bird's eye view for what I think of in terms of looting in D&D (which is normally just, "Oh, there's a chest here. Let's open it." Or, "Oh, there goblins might have gold on them, let's check their belt pouches..."). Whereas, the scavenge move is like, "Oh, you're going out into the dungeon, let's see if you get into trouble or if you just make it back with what you're looking for."
The game IS the scavenge move, so using the scavenge move seems weird. It'd be like using a "send your armies off to battle" move when you're playing a game about battling armies.
Does that make sense?
But, hey, it's your game. This is just idle feedback from someone who's still getting a feel for the whole thing and has a particular vision of D&D (which is insanely diverse...).
-
That's actually some good feedback, Michael. I'm wondering if we put the Loot move on the wrong side of the screen, in a way.
-
That's a keen insight, Michael!
I've been thinking a lot about "workshop" rules lately (for another project). You know, the Savvyhead's thing where he says he makes a thing and the GM answers with stuff from the list.
(I'm sort of designing an AW hack that uses the workshop method for almost everything)
Anyway, maybe there's something there for looting rooms. The PCs go, "We search the goblin bodies and room for treasure," and you go, "Okay, sure. But," and then you choose from the list, linking items with AND or OR as needed.
"... but it's pitch dark so you'll use up some torches during the search. Or you could drag the bodies back to the glowy algae room first."
"... but you'll have to deal with the noxious fluids leaking from the bodies first."
"... but it'll take a little time and attention. Who's searching and who's watching the door?"
"... but you'll need a detection spell if you want to find anything hidden with magic, OR use the light from one of your magic candles."
etc. etc.
(clever readers will note that the workshop mechanic is just the MC move "tell them the possible consequences and ask," given more form.)
-
I think I would really dig that approach, John.
Especially, the "Ok, sure..."
Something is going to be there. And, that something is livening up the dungeon. And, the DM can make that something a complication (dragging bodies, using torches, time and attention, etc.), but can also have mini-moves specifically for the looting which gives them inspiration for neat treasure items, as well as clues and details about the other stuff in this dungeon as well as stuff that leads to other dungeons.
Hmmmm. Very cool.
-
Oh, yeah, there's definitely a sort of uncertainty in the rules as written. It looks like I never mentioned it, but I was kind of thinking: you could just do it really old school, where the GM knows what's where, and the party describes how they search things, and the GM says what they find.
I took the existence of the Loot move as an indication that that wasn't the way you wanted to go, though. And there are reasons not to go that way, since it inclines itself to the table behavior of sinking time to pixel-bashing the scenery. A tailored move short-cuts that, which is probably desirable, though it could certainly be something more like John's no-roll workshop move, rather than Loot.
But I'm more interested in this: "... but can also have mini-moves specifically for the looting which gives them inspiration for neat treasure items, as well as clues and details about the other stuff in this dungeon as well as stuff that leads to other dungeons."
Because that's why crossing the line and putting this in player hands can work. For instance, right now the GM doesn't really need to detail treasure. You maybe have some ideas for magic, and you have a feel for how generous you want to be with gold, and that's enough: the Loot move lets the players cue you for this stuff. That means you don't have to plan, prep, and place it all, like you would in D&D.
Ditch the Loot move, and now you kind of do need to plan that stuff, or you need to cook up some other process for the GM to figure this stuff out on the spot.
When I'm running D&D, I'll do the prep and placement (with treasure, with clues) and be ok with it. But I don't think that would fly with me in DW.
As a for instance, John's move is interesting, but it offers me no cues. For me to respond when the players use that move, I have to already know what's there, either through D&D-style GM prep, or through some other means. For it to work for me, there has to be the 'some other means'.
So, I have no problem with having the party roll a search and (on a hit) demand information from me, even demand a certain kind of information. If the move cues me properly, I'll be able to give them something useful every time - there's plenty going on, so it's just a matter of picking something and deciding how it manifests in the scene.
Just like with the Open Your Brain move, I'll never have any reason to use some kind of "there are no clues here" clause. You'd only use that if you already knew where all the clues were, which is more prep than I'm interested in doing for a game on an AW chassis.
It's the difference between looking at my fronts, seeing goblins, and deciding (in response to a successful move) that there might be a goblin skull hidden over there ... and knowing from before the party even arrives that there's a goblin skull hidden over there, which they may or may not find.
-
You know, I have no idea if this relates back to the previous post in any useful way, but:
I think searching a room for clues in D&D is like opening your brain in AW. You might have a question in mind, but you don't know what you'll get ... you just want the GM to show you something useful and interesting. Just like the MC might give you a flash of something horrible happening in the ragwastes, the DM might toss you a goblin skull or a map fragment.
-
Michael, when the Savvyhead uses his workshop in your AW game, have you already pre-planned what you intend to have happen?
I don't see any more need to prep for workshop-style looting than the current move. I could prep encounters using the current rules and know that they'll loot each lair and corpse, so prep up items that I can throw their way if they get a hit on Loot.
For inspiration, that's why I suggested mini-moves though, similar to the list in the Savvyhead workshop rules, but maybe for the MC's eyes only. Moves are made in reaction to play, not as prep. Loot isn't a "front" (but, maybe it could be I suppose).
Hell, you could do up tri-folds with the Thief having a list of the MC's "treasure moves" similar to a Brainer having a list of fronts. That'd be neat.
I definitely agree about the show you something useful and interesting bit. That's what I want from treasure. Gems and Gold, sure. But, also interesting magical items and useful tidbits of information that lead me further into the game world.
Some awesome thoughts here. Lots of ways to move forward.
-
I'm reviving this thread because its freaking awesome! but also because up until this point we'd been detailing magical treasure via the loot move (with the exception of some situation determined macguffins through other moves and player bonds). I particularly like turning the question back on the players asking them (usually someone other than the looter!) to tell us what magic was found: snowballing the move into a spout lore or discern realities if warranted as the players scramble to uncover lost magics....
This is great! and Wonderful! But as the Michaels, Sage and Adam et al. came to the conclusion, you could disseminate into any number of 'mini' moves to elucidate this information.
But I'm more interested in this: "... but can also have mini-moves specifically for the looting which gives them inspiration for neat treasure items, as well as clues and details about the other stuff in this dungeon as well as stuff that leads to other dungeons."
Because that's why crossing the line and putting this in player hands can work. For instance, right now the GM doesn't really need to detail treasure. You maybe have some ideas for magic, and you have a feel for how generous you want to be with gold, and that's enough: the Loot move lets the players cue you for this stuff. That means you don't have to plan, prep, and place it all, like you would in D&D.
This has been working extremely well, but like most things '....World', the players imaginations, even when tying intimately back to the fiction, eventually stale.
My idea to bolster this magically themed imagination was to generate lists, not so much mechanical advantage, but rather prescriptive and descriptive tags. Somewhat similar to the Fighter's signature weapon, or the Clerics Deity, or the simple equipment lists. Simple words to spark the imagination of everyone at the table.
Generating the object is not really a problem. Its all to easy (and appropriate) to always think of 'traditional' items like:
Books, amulets, maps, quills, scrolls, gloves, carpets, rope, bracers, rods, belts, wands, rings, staffs, boots, cloaks, crowns, circlets, necklaces, armour, pouches, bags, weapons, bridles, cups, pots, decks of cards, musical instruments.....
So simply thinking a little more mundane or unusual is enough to spur the imagination:
Thimbles, compasses, whistles, monocles, contraptions, dice, cutlery, wineskins, whatever.... This is not so much the issue.
Its the magical tags we are coming unstuck with. Everything just seems to relate back to the wizard or cleric spells, or is some variation on protection, invisibility, flammable, speed, charm, power, skill, carrying potential etc....
So I just wondered if folks have some specific tags they have generated or used during play to detail their magic items created through the fiction (rather than those generated as lonely GM fun)?
-
I would like to see a little trifold with inspirational tags like those.