Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Ludanto on June 06, 2011, 12:33:10 PM
-
Spout Lore is a little funny in its trigger.
"When you interact with an item, monster or location and reveal your knowledge about it, roll+Int."
But I can't reveal my knowledge about it until I ask, and I can't ask until I roll, but I can't roll until I reveal my knowledge, etc. See?
So maybe that ought to be reworded?
-
I had the same comment. I think Sage is revising it? Maybe.
-
Totally needs to be reworded.
-
Point taken. Maybe when you bring your intellect to bare on it or unleash your knowledge and learning about it.
-
Or this one, which I just put in an email to Adam: "consult your vast knowledge about it"
-
I think you'd be fine by just dropping that one clause.
When you interact with an item, monster or location, roll+Int. On a hit, ask the GM questions.
Bam.
-
This brings up the age old question: what fictional difference is there between Spout Lore and Discern realities. That's why that clause is there.
The fictional difference that we try to make clear is: When you Spout Lore it's like you're Googling it, you bring up facts you already know. "Everyone knows that highland trolls are vulnerable to acid!" When you Discern Realities it's like you're Shaun from Psych, you pick up on details and draw simple conclusions. "Look out everyone, there's archers in the bushes, I saw the glint of an arrow!"
-
Closer to my ideal wording of the trigger would be:
"When you observe an object, monster, person or location and search your memory for knowledge..."
I think that the original idea merged the remembering / thinking part of the move with the actual revealing of that knowledge. The spouting, as it were.
-
When you interact with a thing, place or person, roll+Int. On a hit, you know stuff about it.
-
The only problem there Michael is that we'd also have "When you interact with a person, place or thing, roll+Wis. On a hit, you notice something." One trigger, two moves. One pretty common trigger.
-
The only problem there Michael is that we'd also have "When you interact with a person, place or thing, roll+Wis. On a hit, you notice something." One trigger, two moves. One pretty common trigger.
It's the same thing in Apocalypse World. Read a Person, Read a Sitch.
Two similar moves, but very different questions.
And, knowing stuff and noticing stuff is very different in application.
-
Read a person and read a sitch have two clearly different triggers: reading a person and, well, reading a sitch. You say what you're reading. You don't say "I'm watching Yeezy to see where he goes" and then read a sitch, you don't scan the horizon for the incoming biker gangs and then read a person.
We've considered something similar for Spout and Discern. You Spout about things and Discern people, maybe. That's workable, but it doesn't make much fictional sense (why do I study things with my intellect, not my senses?) and isn't true to the source material (since skills have been around, you Search and Spot with Wis, Knowledge with Int).
-
Yeah, I know what you mean. I was just using those as two relatively similar moves with very different results.
Honestly, I wish Spout Lore was more like Open Your Brain. You just know or don't know. Interacting with it has little to do with it.
And, Discern Realities was the Read a Person/Sitch move, where you need to be there, examining, observing and interacting with it.
-
That's an interesting take on it. I need to think a little more about how Opening your Mind works, but that's a useful model.
-
That's an interesting take on it. I need to think a little more about how Opening your Mind works, but that's a useful model.
Of course, it doesn't have to be as wide-open as Open Your Brain maybe.
I do know in my first session real life game, people would ask me, "What do I know about...?" And, I didn't have a move for that (because Spout Lore requires interaction). I mostly just told them, or asked them what they knew. Sometimes, it felt like a roll needed to be there. Maybe not.
-
Honestly, I wish Spout Lore was more like Open Your Brain. You just know or don't know. Interacting with it has little to do with it.
And, Discern Realities was the Read a Person/Sitch move, where you need to be there, examining, observing and interacting with it.
Now that we've actually started playing, I have to say I agree with this, or something pretty like it.
-
Quick question: For spout lore, is it assumed that whatever the answers to the questions are that you have just said it out loud?
The name (spout lore) implies that whenever the move is made, you have just said whatever the DM tells you. However, I could see cases where people want to know the answer but then want to keep it to themselves. Is it OK to act on whatever the DM answers in response to another player's spout lore, even if you don't play out them telling you?
-
Originally, yes, it was out loud. That's still reflected in the moves discussion, but I think we might drop it.
That was Tony's original fictional difference: Spout Lore is talking about what you know, Discern is just studying.
-
That was Tony's original fictional difference: Spout Lore is talking about what you know, Discern is just studying.
Which is weird, because you can't really talk about it, until you know about it, but you can't know about it until the move gives you the information, but the move doesn't give the information until you trigger it, which is talking about it. ;)
-
In defense of the original structure, it's similar to Hack and Slash:
"I stab up into the ogre's belly!" / "I tell everyone what I know about how the ogre can be defeated."
"I rolled a 5, crap!"
"The ogre blocks your attack with his club and your blade gets stuck."/"You kind of blather about ogre dung for a bit, nothing very useful, and it's loud enough that the ogre knows you're here now."
A lot of moves have some measure of intent. You start an action and the move finishes it. It doesn't negate that you started it, it just plays out the effect.
So you start a sword swing, the move says you don't actually get them. You start talking about ogres, but you can't remember any pertinent details.
That said, I agree that the move could be better. Comparing it to Open Your Mind is rather brilliant, Adam and I are talking now.
-
At PAX last year, Sage, we talked about the Lore move as Open Your Brain.
It's still a good idea. :)
-
Which is weird, because you can't really talk about it, until you know about it, but you can't know about it until the move gives you the information, but the move doesn't give the information until you trigger it, which is talking about it. ;)
This is my current frustration. I'll start to say something, then announce the move, roll, ask my question, listen to the answer, and then... what? Do I repeat the info in character? Is it assumed they know? Personally, I'd prefer it stays verbal so that play can continue straight off with the GM having just told everyone what you said. Now if only you didn't have to commit to telling them something before the move, cause then what happens if you roll a 6-, do you just sort of trail off? My bard is gonna end up hella flakey if so.
-
I'd say Spout Lore could be done remotely. Allowing for planning and preparation. Discern Realities is done in the now. As you see and interact with something.
-
A few times in the games we ran here we used the Open Your Brain for the Lore move. The tables were modified depending on where the PCs were.
-
Moves don't always have to have "when..." triggers that are rooted in the fiction, right? Sometimes they are player-to-player triggers. In AW, there are plenty of examples ("at the start of the session..." or "when there's significant downtime..."). None in the basic moves do that, sure, but...
So maybe:
Spout Lore: when you ask the GM what you know about something, roll +Int. On a 10+, you can ask 3 of the questions below. On a 7-9, ask 1.
...
The downside of this approach, as I see it, is that the hard move on a failure isn't clear. Since there's no fictional action being taken, it makes it hard for the GM to respond with something irrevocable.
-
Yeah, the thing about the moves you mention is that they use a table cue (the start of a session) to represent something in the fiction (some time has passed). In my experience, those moves get tossed out if, for example, you end a session with a cliffhanger.
As you pointed out, for the consequences to work, a move really needs to be rooted in the fiction.
-
I ran into this during the first session I ran. Luckily, there is something wrong with the folks in our group, and one of the players acted on the information even though he knew it was false. I still gave him a +1 bonus.
I'm thinking of providing some sort of incentive, such as bonus dice, for players who do this.
-
I ran into this during the first session I ran. Luckily, there is something wrong with the folks in our group, and one of the players acted on the information even though he knew it was false. I still gave him a +1 bonus.
I'm thinking of providing some sort of incentive, such as bonus dice, for players who do this.
I'd suggest telling them to mark a pip of XP. If your player does something cool that advances the story at the expense of a mechanical advantage... XP.
-
Yeah, mark XP like a Parley, or just +1 forward when acting on the information. There's a precedent for that.
-
Perhaps for Spout Lore and Discern Realities a clause could be added wherein "on a miss the GM will spin untruth, mark XP if you act on that information." That would help tie a missed roll back to the fiction be requiring the GM to give you some information and incentivize you to move forward with it.
-
I really like Spout Lore. I especially like Sage's rewording... 'bringing my mind to bear'.
In terms of interaction as a stipulation? Well HELL YES! How boring is it when a player asks what they know about something without getting their fingers dirty. 'So you want to tell us all some tidbits about the crumbling wizard's tower? Sure, but when was the last time you mucked about in its clandestine ruins?'
I love letting the moves establish fiction and in turn the fiction demanding that we make moves. AW and DW are magical roleplaying games.
-
Perhaps for Spout Lore and Discern Realities a clause could be added wherein "on a miss the GM will spin untruth, mark XP if you act on that information." That would help tie a missed roll back to the fiction be requiring the GM to give you some information and incentivize you to move forward with it.
I love this so much.
The following is a hack-of-a-hack, and could clearly be abused, but taking a page from Donjon:
Spout Lore, Donjon style (Int)
When you unleash your accumulated knowledge to provide information on an item, monster or location, answer one of the questions below and roll+Int. On a 10+ you're right. On a 7-9 you're half-right but missing some key information. On a miss, you're totally wrong, in a dangerous way. Take +1 forward when acting on correct information. Mark experience when acting on dangerously wrong information.
- Is it dangerous to me?
- What’s its value?
- What does it do?
- What type of monster is it?
- How can I prevent it from ____?
- How can I make it ____?
- How effective is (particular plan) likely to be?