Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: kingstonc on January 31, 2012, 10:36:59 AM
-
It says in the email attached to the beta that highlighting stats has been eliminated. However, the text in the beta has stat highlighting in it. Do we still have stat highlighting?
-
I think that was accidentally left in the text. See the end of session move.
-
The advancement section still mentions monster and danger levels (for comparison), even though they are now removed.
Ranger's called shot still mentions the saving throw (which is easy enough to replace with Defy Danger as suggested). We found however that its imperative (as always) to fictionally reinforce these mechanical effects, otherwise the move becomes very 4e. Perhaps a cue? Such as: On a 10+ your aim is unerringly true, detail your marksmanship....
The new bonds xp system is a good thing, but is it enough to maintain parity with Stats xp? Say the players each resolve a bond in a session, plus they each achieve an alignment goal, plus they tick all the 3 end of session 'adventuring cues'. That's still only 3-5 xp in a session. We are acheiving around 8-10 using stats (or the BBC 'keys' variant based on stats). Not that slower advancement is a bad thing, I also like how players are far more likely to level up at the end of session, thus having more of a 'player's turn' to narratively justify their advance.
Looks good Sage and Adam! Can't wait for the new playbooks!
-
It's way slower advancement than I expect from DW. I usually count on players to earn 15-25 XP in a 4 hour session with stat highlighting (or BBC).
I don't like the way it incentivises inter-party drama (because of the antagonistic bonds and zero-sum alignment rewards). I'm not sure if that is intentional or not.
-
I was surprised by the seemingly slow advancement as well. However, if you're using the fast (5 xp/level) varient then its not so bad.
-
I like the slower advancement. The changes to XP are pretty much in line with that I've been doing already in the games I run.
-
I agree that the advancement with the new XP seems a little pokey for me, but the new XP system is great. We just need to change the goalposts.
I'd put advancement at 4xp+current level in XP to advance to the next level. Quick advancement in the beginning when the characters are becoming heroes, slower advancement when they've already proven themselves.
-
How much do healing potions and antitoxin weigh? There's nothing listed for them (I assume that they're supposed to be portable).
-
In the Gear choices for some Classes it lists Healing Potions as 1 Weight.
The Redbook version lists Healing Potion as 1 Weight, and Antitoxin as 0 Weight.
-
It says that if something doesn't have a weight, it's not meant to be carried. I could swear that I read that things defaulted to 1 weight somewhere though (it would say if it were more or less).
-
There's a handful of little things that got left over from the previous text. Any reference to Saving Throws or Monster levels, for example. We're hacking those out with a sharp sword wherever we find them. Thanks for pointing them out. Highlighting, too. Toast.
@Kingstonc - the new XP system feels a bit slow? That's precisely the kind of feedback we're looking for. As you play more of the game, keep an eye on that and let us know how often folks are leveling?
-
Will we be seeing quick iterations of the rules in the coming weeks?
-
We'll be doing edit-level revisions often, but those shouldn't change how the game plays, just clarify the rules. We'll be updating to Beta 2 next month which will have significant new content.
-
Ranger's advances still list NEW TRICK Add another option to you animal companion.
Tricks seem to have disappeared from the animal build. Maybe choose a new strength option or a new training option would make more sense / clearer? Does this mean their ferocity / cunning increases too? (to a max of +3)
-
Soooo, one of my players (the thief) wanted some ubiquitous throwing knives. Hmmmm. I made a call and said sure, what do they look like? He described them as like a bandolier of death strung across his bulging belly. Nice.
So I drew an analogy with a bundle of arrows, saying that his bandolier of throwing daggers was 2 Ammo, 2 Gold, 1 Weight.
-
I just gave the Thief Many Hidden Knives, a la AW.
-
Yeah, I like them too Nate, but only for the thief? Like an advance? Or just a gear choice as in AW?
-
I think I added it to the starting crap for the Thief. I think they were effectively weight 2 and depending on the circumstance were anything from a short sword to a shiv. I don't really like the notion of throwing knives (knives aren't really made for throwing nor are they heavy enough) so the question of Ammo hasn't come up.
-
These GM moves (which are AWESOME! and I use all the time) are listed as moves, but have lost their description in the Beta 1.1?
*Turn their move back on them
•Separate them
•Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
•Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment
-
These GM moves (which are AWESOME! and I use all the time) are listed as moves, but have lost their description in the Beta 1.1?
*Turn their move back on them
•Separate them
•Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
•Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment
Most of those are part of the Dungeon Move: Present a challenge to one of the characters (p.124). So maybe they're vestigial and yet to be deleted?
Separate them is pretty obvious, but still worth a discussion of the various ways it can be applied.
-
From last night's play experience I have to say, it may just be my players being XP whores, but with the remodelled XP system, inter-PC Parley just seems too juicy to not jump on, with hefty use of the carrot. Was this intentional?
That said, outside of one holdout, everyone was keen-ish on the slowed advancement curve.
-
From last night's play experience I have to say, it may just be my players being XP whores, but with the remodelled XP system, inter-PC Parley just seems too juicy to not jump on, with hefty use of the carrot.
See, I know some people who'd totally dig this, and others for whom it'd be a total turn-off. We -- and by "we" I mean myself and the people I've played DW with -- tend to sell DW as an old-school-flavored game of dungeon-crawling adventure. I'm concerned that putting this much emphasis on Bonds will instead turn it into a game of inter-party arguing (and we already have Smallville for that).
-
In Beta we get experience for two things (alignment being third): playing bonds and playing dungeon crawl (awarded with questions at the end of session move). I agree with Mike that these are two different directions. But I don’t think it is such a bad thing. I prefer my DW open for different playing styles. Sometimes we want simple hack & slash, sometimes more exploring relations – and usually some mix of both. I would even modify questions at the end of session move to be more related to the actual adventure - for example, how party dealt with the dangerous situation – it doesn’t have to be a big monster every time.
-
It does seem that there are divergent streams; I'm certainly planning on clearly specifying the game and XP style when I advertise DW games at cons.
-
I'm interested to hear more about these "divergent streams." The way Adam and I have been thinking of it is: it's a group of people exploring action-filled locations, which of course means they relate to each other in some way. That's directly reflected in the things you get XP for, and how much XP you can get for those things. Bonds are 1 XP per session at most, so you spend some time playing off each other. Exploration, getting phat loot, and killing stuff (the adventuring cornerstones) are 1 XP each, together three times more important than Bonds. Your alignment which is again an adventury thing (going into danger to save others, surprising enemies, etc.) is unbounded XP.
I don't quite see the divergent streams. Bonds aren't heavy-duty Burning Wheel stuff. They're lightweight. That seems completely in line with the rest of the game: after all, these are real people in crazy action packed situations.
-
I mean, if you have to specify the "game style" and "XP style" when running the game by default, we've done something wrong. If you want to hack your own XP style, awesome! We'll even help you do it. But the game by default should be consistent.
-
Well, even just within my own experience, I'm seen people running DW as a room-by-room ten-foot pole poking game, people running slow-paced, connected, wilderness adventure games where travel between dungeons and/or a central town are important (this is my default), and balls-to-the-wall pulp action games where you start at the doors to the dungeon and end when the big bad is dead. Those all have different feels, to me at least. Then I see people talking here and on Story Games about games which sound to me like Apocalypse World with swords. I wish I could find an example of the latter to point to, but my search skills are failing me.
At any rate, all of these are legitimate old-school heroic fantasy styles, so I think this shows the strength of DW at catering to the nostalgia of all comers. I like all of those styles, but if I expect one and get another, there's some dissonance. I think this is really about blurbs and expectations than about Dungeon World, but it's something DW GMs at cons should think about.
-
I mean, if you have to specify the "game style" and "XP style" when running the game by default, we've done something wrong. If you want to hack your own XP style, awesome! We'll even help you do it. But the game by default should be consistent.
On the XP Style, the game is consistent; RAW is clear*. I see the divergence in that it seems that every AP I see is using some different combination of RAW XP and hacks (BBC/Bonds/Keys/etc), and that's something people running the game at cons should be clear on, IMO.
* Although, it seems that the one bond per session bit in the End of Session move is frequently overlooked and perhaps could use emphasis. I know I had to go back and check the rules when I saw one of you mention it here, and I've seen other comments that seem to indicate I'm not alone there.
-
Well, I only use the as written Experience rules. Again though, Parley at my table has been seen as a way too juicy option to give others Experience. Was that something that got missed in the update to Experience rules in the last 1.1 beta? Or is it still there by intention?
-
Yeah, but if folks are using inter party parley as an XP mine, then the GM should be all over that. Each move has to have some fictional context, to do it, do it right? So if one particular player (presumably the one with a high Cha) is constantly looking for ways to Parley with others so they can mark experience, it becomes a meta-gamey, counter intuitive to the interpersonal conflict and less immersed in the situation at hand.
Fiction first remember? always ask 'so what do you do?' Address the characters not the players and dig deep every time. Say 'yes' unless the character has leverage on the other(s) and they narratively try to get them to do what they want. Make those rolls count. Make the fictional consequences harsh too. This is inter-party conflict we are talking about here, and a very different game from the traditional D&D fare. So if it involves lots of blackmail, back-stabbery, politics, secrets and lies it may not have the same XP awards given for resolving bonds (in fact you may even create more!) or for traditional adventuring fare. Still DW, sure, but a darker, gritter, more personal dungeon world.
-
Yeah, but if folks are using inter party parley as an XP mine, then the GM should be all over that. Each move has to have some fictional context, to do it, do it right? So if one particular player (presumably the one with a high Cha) is constantly looking for ways to Parley with others so they can mark experience, it becomes a meta-gamey, counter intuitive to the interpersonal conflict and less immersed in the situation at hand.
Every source of XP is a potential XP mine. A game gives XP for the things it wants the players to do. If parley is an XP mine, then the game is telling me that's what I should be doing. Similarly, if alignment stuff is an XP mine, that's what the game wants me to do. The mechanical carrot is more powerful than a line of text that tells me how I should be playing.
Yes, it has to follow in the fiction, but that's where it becomes a situational maneuvering puzzle as Hans points out in this thread: Dungeon World XP and Situational Maneuvering (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=15795&page=1).
This is inter-party conflict we are talking about here, and a very different game from the traditional D&D fare. So if it involves lots of blackmail, back-stabbery, politics, secrets and lies it may not have the same XP awards given for resolving bonds (in fact you may even create more!) or for traditional adventuring fare. Still DW, sure, but a darker, gritter, more personal dungeon world.
If I signed up for an apparently normal game of Dungeon World and got a game full of inter-party blackmail, back-stabbery, politics, secrets and lies, I would probably be pretty unhappy.
-
If I signed up for an apparently normal game of Dungeon World and got a game full of inter-party blackmail, back-stabbery, politics, secrets and lies, I would probably be pretty unhappy.
Egg-zactly.
Yeah, fiction first and all that, but if the entire party can get more XP by staying in town and convincing each other to do things than by adventuring, that's a problem. Of course, there'd certainly be some real dickery at work there, and the GM always the option of bringing the danger to the PCs if they won't go out and find it themselves. But that kind of game seriously sounds a lot like the time I ran the Village of Hommlet using Smallville. The ol' ruined moathouse took a backseat to the PCs pushing each other this way and that. Which is fine for Smallville -- should've seen it coming, in retrospect -- but I really expect a different play experience from Dungeon World.
-
I get where you chaps are coming from, I understand your concern, but even though the system is saying 'have an xp if you manage to leverage another character to do something that they don't want to do via a successful move roll', the system is also saying 'have an xp for resolving a bond, learning something new and important about the world, defeating a notable monster or enemy and looting a memorable treasure'.
Sage and Adam tell us what they hope we will get out of their game:
Why play Dungeon World? First, to see the characters do amazing things... Second, to see them play off each other... Third, because the world still has so many places to explore.
The mechanical carrot has to be tied to the fiction, you can't get your cool advances without telling the story of how. If your group decides to chase a specific xp 'path' at the behest of the others then of course the fiction will reflect that. But its still a choice!
Although the game is set up to cater to a reasonable number of playstyles, whilst still maintaining a certain homage to its parents, DW is its own game, the game your group makes it out to be. So yeah, the rules may give you mechanical carrots to level up and get your cool powers, its up to you and your group on how to to tell the story of you getting there. If everyone consciously chases a broad mix of xp paths, the 'vanilla' DW story that emerges will be just as Sage and Adam promise.
Have a discussion at the start of the game, whether its a one shot or a campaign about what sort of game you would like to play? I've always found chargen has a strong influence on this direction based on the table conversation. The questions asked by the GM in particular and the resultant bonds, alignment choices and classes selected can definitely 'set the tone'.
But this can range from a party of do good paladin, cleric and ranger, to a thoroughly evil thief, wizard fighter combo (or anything inbetween). All with their own broad interpretive alignment and bond xp opportunities. I personally don't actively chase xp. I'd rather just tell a cool story, but that's just me :)
-
We'll certainly think about what Parley should grant (+1 forward when pursuing it is another option) but remember the fictional positioning here. You have to have leverage, it has to be something they aren't already doing. If the players are really caught up in this method of XP mention that they can get 3 XP per session for everyone by doing adventury stuff, as opposed to 3 Parley hits per player per session to get the same from Parley.
Have people been seeing a lot of Parley-for-XP? I haven't been seeing a lot of PC v. PC parley at all, personally, so I'm fine when the carrot and stick do come out.
-
I would chime in but Anarchangel and Mike are reading my mind. What I want from DW is for it to reward me with xp when I make moves that address the fiction the GM throws my way. It seems to be encouraging me to ignore the GM and focus primarily on roleplaying with the other PCs. Doesn't that make the adventure a distraction that interferes with advancement?
Hey, look at that. I did chime in :)
-
I don't think it's encouraging you to ignore the GM. Ignoring the GM is ignoring the world around you which lets them make hard moves, so you never want to do that.
You're on your way into a deserted temple and you hold a knife to your companion's throat to get leverage and you start telling them what to do. Sounds like a golden opportunity for those goblins to strike, as they take advantage of the discord.
I'm open to Parley doing something else, but I think the carrot and the stick both need to be there. XP is a wonderful carrot because it doesn't benefit the person offering it. +1 forward or similar would make a real problem: now you're better off going into a fight if you force the other party members into it (since you fight side by side with them).
-
We'll certainly think about what Parley should grant (+1 forward when pursuing it is another option) but remember the fictional positioning here. You have to have leverage, it has to be something they aren't already doing. If the players are really caught up in this method of XP mention that they can get 3 XP per session for everyone by doing adventury stuff, as opposed to 3 Parley hits per player per session to get the same from Parley.
I really like Parley granting XP as a carrot to the player. At the moment I think the weighting is off: (0-3 for dungeon exploration, 0-1 for bonds, 0-infinity for alignment, 0-infinity for parley). I'm hopeful that the new alignments you guys are working on will all be pointed more concretely at action in the dungeon and not so much as cross purposes to each other as the previous versions. This last hope also applies to bonds.
Have people been seeing a lot of Parley-for-XP? I haven't been seeing a lot of PC v. PC parley at all, personally, so I'm fine when the carrot and stick do come out.
I haven't seen a lot of this either, but I've only played/run one game in which this was potentially a more lucrative source of XP (i.e. without stat/action highlighting) than actually doing stuff.
Heh, i just realised that this is a weak version of the prisoner's dilemma. If the party cooperates everyone gets 3+, if someone defects, the party might not get to 3 but the defectors might get a heap by being Parleyed into everything. Of course, if that's not fun for everyone, you might not want to play with that guy, but is this something you try to design out of the game?
-
Just brainstorming but could parley let them write a bond about you instead of just giving you 1 xp? I mean, they're definitely going to have some new feelings about you when you lean on them to do something all of the sudden. That would make it harder to farm in the short run (you'd have to do something to address the bond) and the added bond to play would disincentive you from abusing the rule (lest you end up with a ton of bonds that you now have to keep track of).
-
I had thought about that too, Marshall, but my worry is that "having too many bonds to keep track of" isn't a very strong disinsentive. And having more bonds means more ability to help (and hinder) which I'm unsure about. I wonder if some people wouldn't see it as a way to buff each other?
-
What about a hard limit on the number of bonds? Too restrictive? The number could increase with levels (e.g. +1 bond per level or max bonds increase when stats do)...
-
I think the Parlay move should apply to NPCs or Monsters only. If players threaten or bribe one another, or whatever, it shouldn't involve a roll, let the players make their own decisions for their characters and move on.
-
You're on your way into a deserted temple and you hold a knife to your companion's throat to get leverage and you start telling them what to do.
But why even go to the deserted temple? Let's just have this conversation in the safety of my home. And are knives really necessary? Look, all I'm suggesting is that if you cut me in on 20% of your mining concern, I can secure you a position of prominence in the Mercantile Guild. It's a win-win.
I realize that this is a ridiculous example (and involves a lot of player dickery, and a lax GM). There are no real stakes here, at least in adventure-gaming terms. But is there anything in there right now to prevent this?
I like marking XP for Parley. It's good motivation to go along with whatever the other guy wants you to do. There just need to be stakes. As long as the description for Parley includes something about that -- "Don't let them Parley with other players insincerely, or for stupid shit unrelated to the dangers at hand" -- I don't really see it being a problem. For me, anyway.
-
But just like a Parley hit, the rules should incentivise what it wants you to do, not forbid you from doing things.
-
Sage, I think that example kinda makes my point. Basically, the GM and the XP system are pulling different directions. It creates the dissonance behind Mike's post. I don't want the GM to be throwing distractions at me.
@Glitch, I think Parley is fine between PCs. I like it to be a move like Seduce or Manipulate is in AW.
But where Mike says there has to be stakes, I would paraphrase as there has to be risk.
-
I don't quite see the "pull." Take that same example and replace trying to get someone to do something with "a ritual to give everyone magical armor" and you have the same situation. There will always be things that the player characters would be doing if there wasn't impending danger.
This is, not coincidentally, the exact same rule as in AW. I've never felt it makes AW into a manipulate-fest, or makes the focus on deep character drama. In my AW experience it makes it so that, when interacting with a person, you can offer the carrot or the stick. It rewards interaction, which we want to reward, but you can't just interact indefinitely.
Not only because the world will come and get you, but because it'd be damn boring. If you sit down at the table and really want to just earn XP, take it. Level up your character. If you want to play a game about fantasy adventure, offering some XP as part of forceful interpersonal interactions is fine by me.
Still, it's worth looking at other ways to do this. I'm not set on XP, I just haven't thought of a better option.
Option: Add a Bond. This one is in some ways more powerful: you give them increased ability to help and hinder you, as well as the opportunity for XP down the line. It suffers a bit from the buff effect, where I might manipulate you because then I can give you a bond that makes my life easier. It does have a nice fictional flow, but Bonds would probably need to be capped, which then means that if someone's already at their cap it becomes a less enticing option.
Option: +1 forward. The epitomy of the manipulate-you-to-help-me problem. A smart party would have the Bard (or high Cha character) parley everyone as often as possible. Keep those +1s coming.
Option: Healing. It is a benefit mostly to the person getting parleyed, true, but it has no fictional flow at all.
Option: No carrot. This would require some rewrites. On a 7-9 they do it or defy danger, on a 10+ they also take -1 if they Defy Danger. It feels like it would lead to party dysfunction, since you can never Parley someone and offer them honey, only vinegar.
I'm still feeling like XP is the best option. Keep in mind too that they have to have leverage to do it, and opportunity. There isn't a case where we just sit around parleying. Given that,
-
The primary driver of XP in AW is being Cool or Hot or Weird, or whatever, that translate specifically into a list of appropriate moves.
You can also get XP for accepting guidance, manipulation, etc.
Those things work in AW.Which is about a group of people dealing with scarcity trying to bring hope back to a fucked up world. The sources of XP fit well with the MC's agenda and principles.
DW, to me (and I readily admit this is my preference) is different. It is about adventure and risk taking, for treasure and glory and stuff like that. That seems to fit with the GM's agenda and principles of making the world fantastic and filling their lives with danger and playing to find out what happens.
Is there room for some xp from character interaction? Sure. But what's the focus?
-
Yikes! Totally hadn't meant to open a can of worms with that one ;)
I've no issue with XP coming from Parley per se. My players were doing it a bunch, half because a few of them were being just plain disagreeable, and half because one player in particular was trying to game being disagreeable to gain more XP. Said player, the party Cleric, was largely holding out on healing until folk supplicated his evil god of suffering and blood. CLW was his leverage over allies, trying to get them to do more and more worshipful activities, and he was trying Parley any time there was resistance to it. Largely to game XP for his allies. In addition, he was also having his character be a stick in the mud about pressing onward in a couple ways in the hopes that he would be reciprocally Parleyed.
Again, after I mentioned "Er, guys, we've been playing for an hour and you've been asking every couple of minutes to Parley, can we get on with the adventurin'?" the amount of disagreeableness went down and it wasn't an issue so much.
All in all I was just curious about that XP grab sticking out there when the ways to get XP had been significantly hacked down to more theme addressing things. I saw mention above that 15-20 XP a session wasn't uncommon in some parties, so the drop to "1-4 plus however many times you twig alignment; oh, and Parley," just made the XP mine of Parley seem a little... out of place. I don't see easily better options for it either, outside of ditching it and bringing back "Order Hirelings" or something as a replacement. I like having Parley, though, so I'm not too concerned.
Anyway, off to make some Dungeon Fronts for Keep on the Borderlands. Cheers :)
-
To solve problem with XP from Parley, maybe there could be set limit on how much XP you can get? For example, max 1 XP from Parley per player in one session. Keep carrot for the first time, and no carrot for future cases in this session.
-
Aaron, that's AWESOME. I thank you for your actual play inference of this little xp trait of the game. Oh and an evil cleric using CLW as leverage to gain more worshipers in the party? Absolute gold. Sets a specific tone, sure, but why on earth would you want to discourage that sort of 'playstyle' as unexpected in DW? I think you handled it evocatively and with a style we could aim towards in our GMing. 'Just get on with the adventurin' dammit!' Bravo!
Can't wait to see your fronts for the Keep if you are willing to share? Cheers :)
-
Aaron, I think the whole dynamic of the cleric holding out healing unless the other party members supplicated his god could have just as easily ocurred without a Parley move. It would still be great role playing, and add a ton of terrific flesh to the fiction. I just don't see what the actual Parley move adds to this whole dynamic, other than an XP-mine which encourages meta-gaming.
Also, why should a PC gain XP by caving into the demands of an evil cleric? That's not a very heroic thing to do. I would rather give them XP for standing up to the cleric and not caving.
-
Aaron, I think the whole dynamic of the cleric holding out healing unless the other party members supplicated his god could have just as easily ocurred without a Parley move. It would still be great role playing, and add a ton of terrific flesh to the fiction. I just don't see what the actual Parley move adds to this whole dynamic, other than an XP-mine which encourages meta-gaming.
Same here.
Also, why should a PC gain XP by caving into the demands of an evil cleric? That's not a very heroic thing to do. I would rather give them XP for standing up to the cleric and not caving.
And same here.
-
Aaron, I think the whole dynamic of the cleric holding out healing unless the other party members supplicated his god could have just as easily ocurred without a Parley move. It would still be great role playing, and add a ton of terrific flesh to the fiction.
Well, I know that in this particular case, it just wouldn't have happened without Parley being a move. My players saw the direct advantage in being a little obstinate with each other and seized on it. Had it not been for Parley, the player of the cleric told me he'd've just healed folk with his own supplications, and had it not been for the fact that one player was being a bit of a douche that night he'd have gotten a nice chunk of experience for going along with things.
I just don't see what the actual Parley move adds to this whole dynamic, other than an XP-mine which encourages meta-gaming.
I've nothing against metagaming when it leads to plot, as the above did. I just realised that I needed to keep a tighter rein on things.
-
That makes alot of sense. The fact that the Parley move added to the story is good. But don't you find it odd that a PC should gain XP by succumbing to an evil cleric and supplicating their god?
I'm also very curious how you would have handled the "Defy Danger" if the other player said, "no way - your evil god can kiss my a$$"!
-
Actually, on the first time he was Parleyed with a 10+, he said "fuck it, and fuck you". So he rolled Defy (with will, Defying his better judgement with anger), bombed the roll, and I went with a good ol' Seperate Them. I told him he stormed off, furious with the stupid Cleric and his stupid god, and wandered into a group of Kobolds who'd been cowering from previous events. And we all know how terrified animals react when cornered ;)
If he'd rolled 7-9 I'd've given him -1 forward, since he's just kinda ranting to himself in his head and distracted.
-
Adam and I have been talking about this. Here's our current feelings:
Manipulate in AW works because having the players at cross purposes is part of the game. You aren't a party, probably. You each have your own goals, so when it comes to talking to each other you need to have that mechanic so it doesn't always turn into a fight. It also flags pc v. pc as a valid thing.
That's not so true in DW. The default should be a party that gets along and has the same general goals. Sure, there can be strife and problems, but the baseline should be getting along and worrying more about the big problems you're facing.
So we're planning on removing the vs. PC clause of Parley from the next version (Beta 1.2 or Beta 2, depending on if we need a point release). It flags something we don't want to flag in DW.
-
Yes, thank you.
(I lobbied for replacing the move entirely, but I'll take what I can get.)
-
Aaron, thanks for the reply, it's interesting to hear how you handled it, well done I think. And sage, I'm glad to hear that aspect of the move will actually be removed.
-
(I lobbied for replacing the move entirely, but I'll take what I can get.)
What's wrong with Parley as is?
-
It's not a move I need to play Dungeon World.
I can see something like a reaction roll (to set initial conditions when you run into a monster) or a charm move for a bard or a spell effect. But manipulating someone with a conversation is just not a thing that happens in a game like this.
It works in AW, obviously, but didn't need to be ported over, IMO.
-
Ah, okay, I'm fine with disagreeing about that.
-
EDIT: Cross posted! Thanks Aaron for your description of AP (I was only postulating) and I'm with Sage, I think Parley is totally within the 'worldview' of DW. The removal of the PC vs PC clause is fine within the context of Heroic Adventure. In my mind you just go straight to the Defy Danger part of the move.
Well, I know that in this particular case, it just wouldn't have happened without Parley being a move. I've nothing against metagaming when it leads to plot, as the above did. I just realised that I needed to keep a tighter rein on things.
System matters. Sure, DW merges old Skool mechanic sensibilities with indie authoring 'rights', but the result allows for just the story that Aaron's group ended up playing to find out. The cleric's player keep 'pushing' through roleplay until the other players said 'nope' to all the evil supplication. He then decided that his Cleric's persusive evangelism combined with the leverage of CLW was far more enticing and invoked the parley move. Mechanical re-inforcement of the character's abilities that has to be described through the fiction. Pure DW awesomeness.
It could've easily turned out more 'Heroic' had the wounded player chosen to defy danger (and encouraged another whole move snowball and the chance for Aaron to make any number of GM moves).
Glitch, the XP for succumbing is likely a one off deal. It fictionally represents the character sacrificing their own alignment 'ethos' for the advantage of some nether-world healing (which I would certainly presume comes at some sort of fictional cost). Once committed, there is no need for the Cleric to parley with them again unless the leverage changes. This is a huge defining moment for the healed character, and the players have to take every advantage to fictionally describe it. To do it do it, fiction first and all that.
Don't forget that in the absence of 'bennies', XP is both a representation of character growth and player reward. In this context the award of an xp for the PC makes perfect fictional and mechanical sense. The player is awarded for roleplaying (in the same vein as alignment and bond triggers) and we have learned something remarkable about the character, with is now embedded within our unfolding story.
OK, I can't speak for Aaron, but I like your postulation of the character defying danger to resist the evil evangelism of the cleric as he stands wounded and at death's door. How would I handle it? First I'd ask lots of questions, embedding the mechanical iteration deep within the story.
'OK cool, you are resisting the rather persuasive hankerings of the the Evil Cleric to give you the benefit of his god's healing if only you will bow down and supplicant yourself. The Danger here is that you are on the edge of death. How do you defy that? with what aspect of yourself?'
So say the player goes with 'through mental fortitude' describing their resistence is through a stoic resolution to their own alignment beliefs. Note could have easily been any of the stats, they could have powered through or got out of the way or acted fast, or endured or used quick thinking, or turned the tables on the cleric; using their own charm and social grace... the player just has to narrative their reasoning. Its worth noting that the Cleric is risking the narrative ramifications based on this defy danger move by Parleying in the first place!
Say we continue my initial postulation that the player goes with defying through their strength of will and mental fortitude, rolling Defy Danger +WIS. If they get a 10+, the threat is meaningless to them, the character is strong in their own beliefs and stands firm. I would be curious as to how they would seek healing based on their wounded state (given they are refusing the clerics CLW), and ask the player just that.
On a 7-9 the move gets rather interesting, and I have to remember that to make my move powerful I must not state its name, address the character and go with the fiction first. So say its the party's good Wizard, all Dumbledorey. I offer him an ugly choice.
'Your impressive will is tenuous against the evil machinations of the cleric's god as sibilant whispers slide into your mind. You can resist his parley, but in doing so you will forget one of your prepared spells....'
If he misses his defy danger, well. I get to make as hard a move as I like. It could simply be that the character caves and accepts the healing (and supplicates to the evil god - perhaps changing alignmnent and marking xp), or I have a Dungeon Move or GM move I really want to make. For instance I could be HARD, deal damage and say that 'despite shielding your mind against the cleric's suggestions, the strain has opened your wound and its bleeding profusely. You only have a few minutes before you slip into unconciousness and death, what do you do?'
-
Here's why I think Parley belongs:
I feel like, with a little work, adventurers can get people to do what they want with words. The Bard's better at it, sure, but everyone can give it a shot.
Turning warring tribes against each other. Convincing an angry ghost that you're here to help. Bargaining for help from extraplanar entities. These all seem like D&D things to me.
Without Parley the situations where Parley would apply would likely play out in a very similar way. The players have taken the goblin relic, the toe of their god Gob'ul, captive and they want safe passage through the goblin caves. Without parley the GM portrays the world and probably makes a soft move (since everyone is looking at them to find out what happens). My personal GMing would probably be to tell them the requirements and ask or offer an opportunity with cost. That ends up looking a lot like Parley, I think: the players have to agree to something in return (the safe return of the relic, probably) and maybe provide assurances.
Parley encodes the GM moves into something that the players can see and do. I think we're keeping it.
-
Parley also reminds players that negotiating is an option.
-
I think John wants to make a different game. A more old school one. That sounds awesome, but it's not what Adam and I are making.
-
I like the idea of Parleying with NPCs staying in the game, but I think the "promise" wording in the move is causing some problems. In the Walking Eye AP, Kevin wouldn't let Troll Parley with Grundloch even though it sounded to me like Troll had leverage. In my own DW Basic play, near the end of a big fight with some lizardmen, I had my fighter say to the last one standing something like "if you run now, I'll let you go." I rolled the middle Parley result and the GM started roleplaying the lizardman talking with me trying to get me to articulate some more specific deal. I found it kind of silly since I had every intention of following through on my offer to let him go but I was playing my character as kind of gruff so I was more inclined to just kill the thing if he was going to make a big production out of it. I think "promise" wording makes the move hard to work with.
The few PC to PC parleys I did seemed pretty artificial in terms of the "leverage" I had (they tended to boil down to "I'll be grumpy if you don't do it my way") so I don't think the game will be losing anything important by taking away PC to PC Parley.
-
Keeping Parley also gives CHA a basic move other than Defy Danger . I know there is the special move of Outstanding Warrants, but probably recieves far less potential use than parley. I think parley's retention is also systemically important as it stops CHA from being the 'neglected stat'.
-
Maybe I'm not understanding the example, but I imagine the exchange between lizardman and McGruff the fighter to be:
McGruff: Drop your weapon, foul beast, and leave.
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
McGruff rolls a 7.
Lizardman: You'll let me live? Turn and return to the battle and I'll turn and leave.
McGruff: Feh. Enjoy my back, lizardman, if you ever see my front again you'll die.
McGruff turns and returns to the fight, the lizardman flees.
The lizardman asked for a promise ("You'll let me live?") and a concrete assurance (turning your back on him and rejoining the battle). Is that not how the move got used? Or was the problem that you felt the promise was already stated but the GM tried to draw out a new one, like this:
McGruff: Drop your weapon, foul beast, and and I'll let you live.
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
McGruff rolls a 10.
GM: Cool, and I think the promise he wants is the one you offered: letting him live.
Lizardman: You'll let me live? Better than dying here.
McGruff: Ha! Some brain in there somewhere.
I've added some to the move discussion about the parleyer offering a promise. In cases like this, where as part of the parley you offer a promise, the target can accept that promise as part of the move (with assurances based on the roll) or can ask for a different promise instead.
McGruff: Drop your weapon, foul beast, and I'll let you live.
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
McGruff rolls a 7.
Lizardman: If I flee I'll be killed as a coward. Give me your dagger, so I can claim I killed you, and I'll leave.
-
Keeping Parley also gives CHA a basic move other than Defy Danger . I know there is the special move of Outstanding Warrants, but probably recieves far less potential use than parley. I think parley's retention is also systemically important as it stops CHA from being the 'neglected stat'.
We would make sure it still had uses. I wrote up a move based on the AD&D reaction chart that would replace Parley, if we ever chose to get rid of it.
-
Yeah, Sage, I want to make a different game. I guess. I'm usually confused about exactly what D&D experience DW is trying to capture.
Here are some Charisma moves I should probably write:
When you charm, trick, or beguile...
When you make first contact...
Also, your price lists with [Cost - CHA] are totally awesome. Best use of Charisma ever. :)
-
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
When it sounds like parley, ask the following questions:
What is their leverage over them?
Is there something you want from them?
Can they understand you?
If you can answer all three, roll parley.
-
Maybe I'm not understanding the example, but I imagine the exchange between lizardman and McGruff the fighter to be:
A little more like:
McGruff: (after killing a bunch of other lizardmen) If you want to run, I'll let you go.
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
McGruff rolls a 7.
Lizardman: Do you promise you'll let me go?
Dan (thinking): This is stupid. I already told him I'd let him go, if he wants to get away he should be running. If I had just killed him instead of offering to let him escape I'd be done with him by now.
Dan (out loud): I'm not going to say anymore to him than I've already said. If that's not good enough for him then I'll go kill him.
GM: Well I need some concrete assurance...
Dan: I think he should be able to tell from my body language that I meant what I said. I'm not going to say more than that. If that's not good enough for him then I'll just go kill him.
GM: Uh, OK, I guess... He runs away.
From my POV I had already given him concrete assurance by stopping the fight to talk to him in the first place. It seemed like the GM felt like the weak hit result meant he was compelled to explicitly negotiate something but that felt really silly to me, like the lizardman wouldn't take yes for an answer. Maybe it would have been different if he had asked for something else, but the way it actually played out really took me out of the game and made me regret trying to engage this part of the mechanics.
-
Yeah, I've encountered this situation before too. That 7-9 result almost seems to assume that the character is trying to trick the NPC. Sometimes that's the case, but when it's not, it feels weird.
-
It may be a problem of trying to lump both an "Intimidate" style move and a legitimate "Parley" style move into this one move. When I think of Parley, I don't think of it as shoving the sword into their faces. It's more of, "let's talk about this ... we have this you might like ... why don't you let us pass ... etc."
Maybe a "going aggro" style move is what DW is missing?
-
You could do some kind of go aggro move, but again, that feels very AW, where violence is stylized and often manipulative (and there's a scarcity of NPCs, so violent encounters in which someone runs away or hides are ideal).
Dungeon adventurers don't need to posture or threaten. They slaughter their way through 100 goblins and now they're gonna have a chat about handing the idol over? Pfff.
You kill them and take their stuff.
(I'm only slightly joking. Some kind of morale thing so all fights aren't to the death is good.)
-
Yeah, I've encountered this situation before too. That 7-9 result almost seems to assume that the character is trying to trick the NPC. Sometimes that's the case, but when it's not, it feels weird.
To me it seems more like it's assuming that the NPC thinks the character's pulling a fast one, whether or not they actually are. So the reaction to "Give me idol and I'll throw you the whip!" could be "Sure thing!" on a 10+ or "Throw me the whip first" on a 7-9. And really, fair enough. Generally speaking, whatever NPC with whom you're Parleying probably has every right to be suspicious of you. You're an adventurer. Odds are pretty good you're lying.
See also: "We'll pay you 2,000 now, and 15 when we reach Alderaan."
-
Hey John, I like the opener When you charm, trick, or beguile...
Awesome. I'd write a move based on that.
-
Hmmm, "When you charm, trick, or beguile" is something worth investigating. I feel like that's a lot of what Parley already is though. What is tricking someone but using the appearance of leverage you don't actually have? Parley as it strands covers much of the same ground but also extends to other cases that I think are important to adventurers.
In fact my first instinct for "When you charm trick or beguile" is "When you charm, trick, or beguile, tell your target what you want of them and what you'll offer in return. If what you offer is worth what they'll give you in their eyes, roll+Cha. On a 10+ they agree to the deal and expect you to hold up your side. On a 7-9 they're skeptical: offer some concrete assurance now or they're not interested." Maybe that's just because I really like Parley, but I feel like those mechanics of promise and assurance are a perfect fit for DW. Want the goblins to do as you say? You'd better have something on them, and they may bargain you down some.
I mentioned some examples of the D&D style we're looking at here in my earlier post. There's a lot of space for adventurers to use their resources to get leverage to get things done.
-------------------------------------------
The 7-9 result has nothing to do with the PC lying, it has to do with the NPC being incredulous. Dan, your example is exactly what I'm making clear in the moves discussion chapter: you already offered a promise and concrete assurance in your parley, the GM doesn't have to ask for a different one (but they can).
McGruff: (after killing a bunch of other lizardmen) If you want to run, I'll let you go.
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
McGruff rolls a 7.
GM: "You'll let me live? Of course, mighty one." says the lizardman. He starts backing away while facing you "just keep your sword at your side and you'll never see me again." Once he's several paces away he turns and runs.
That's the case where the GM thinks that promise is fine and accepts the assurance. The lizardman mentions the promise ("You'll let me live") and the assurance already being made ("just keep your sword at your side").
The GM doesn't have to take that though. If this lizardman is fighting for a larger cause or whatever maybe he doesn't care for his life so much as the safety of his nest, his honor, or whatever else.
-
That's a good example, Sage. This topic has certainly given me some ideas for handling Parleys in game. Are you going to put some of this in a moves discussion chapter? This idea should certainly be in there:
What is tricking someone but using the appearance of leverage you don't actually have?
-
McGruff: (after killing a bunch of other lizardmen) If you want to run, I'll let you go.
GM: You've got leverage (killing him), something you want (him to leave), and he can understand you. Sounds like Parley.
This is where Parley breaks down for me. I would never call for a roll there. It's already my job as GM to play the NPCs. McGruff kills a bunch of lizardmen, I go, okay, are lizardmen super brave or vicious? No? Okay he runs away. Calling for a Parley there seems very silly to me.
[This is why the move in AW is when you seduce or manipulate not "when you tell someone to do something." The move has really specific fictional triggers, which I like to characterize as 'are you letting them make up their own mind about it?' A conversation, even one about a deal or promise or threat, isn't automatically the move.]
Mcgruff says, "Run if you want to live." The lizardman runs, the end. There's no move there.
Also, making deals with monsters doesn't sit well with me, either. They're vile, awful things dedicated to evil. They're not like AW NPCs, which have a wide range of personalities -- some reliable and trustworthy, some not. I'm never going to have a chat with the goblin chief to let us pass through their territory unharmed. No adventurer is that naive. We know the goblins are gonna stab us in the back the first chance they get, so why even bother?
Maybe I'll try to trick the goblins into letting their guard down, and then run away, try to murder them, toss down some gold coins to distract them, or something. But I'm not going to, like, parley with them. They're monsters!
[If monsters are actually people, we have other problems. But that's another topic.]
-
Those are some really good points, John. Maybe the Cha move's trigger should use the word manipulate. I see now how this is problematic: it creates a dice roll when there's no conflict. Like if McGruff rolls a 6, now this lizardman does what now?
I think using the word manipulate and mentioning in the move discussion "are you letting them make up their own mind about this?" (and of course "how?") is really strong. I'll talk with Adam, but I think we should do that. The current trigger is certainly problematic.
-
I'm never going to have a chat with the goblin chief to let us pass through their territory unharmed. No adventurer is that naive.
Heh. In my first DW game, we did exactly that.
And, uh, my second, come to think of it.
-
I'm never going to have a chat with the goblin chief to let us pass through their territory unharmed. No adventurer is that naive.
Heh. In my first DW game, we did exactly that.
And, uh, my second, come to think of it.
Yeah, Adam and I are having a little sidebar right now on if that's in our vision or not. It's very old school D&D, but I'm not sure we're that old school. There's a whole rathole of "are goblins inherently evil?" that you can go down (and Adam and I are).
-
Also, making deals with monsters doesn't sit well with me, either. They're vile, awful things dedicated to evil. They're not like AW NPCs, which have a wide range of personalities -- some reliable and trustworthy, some not.
News to me. If I asked a player to tell me about goblins and he said they really weren't so bad once you got to know them, they're just kind of ornery around strangers, I'd jump on that and figure out something much worse to threaten their village.
-
In many old school (and new school) modules there are presented factions of "evil" demi-humans. You can't survive by taking them all on, and part of the fun of these modules is striking "deals with the devil" and temporarily allying with the goblins (for example) against the dark elves. Sure, goblins might be evil, but they're also intelligent and capable of parley if it serves their interest. The question of how long any kind of truce or trust can be maintained in these cases adds depth and tension to an adventure.
PS - we need stats for Orc babies! (just kidding)
-
Yeah, I'm overstating things a bit, I admit. A good reaction roll could give you an opportunity for a temporary truce or arrangement with intelligent monsters, for sure.
(Still, after the third time your party has been betrayed by such arrangements with evil, you kind of give up on it as a methodology.)
Maybe I'm not arguing that parley doesn't happen, just that it's a weird peripheral move for rare cases, and not the go-to Charisma move for every kind of interaction.
-
Dan, your example is exactly what I'm making clear in the moves discussion chapter: you already offered a promise and concrete assurance in your parley, the GM doesn't have to ask for a different one (but they can).
OK, that makes sense. I don't think I would have guessed that's the way it's supposed to work from the current rules. With the current wording "they need some concrete assurance of your promise, right now", my intuitive read of the "right now" part is implicitly asking for a new thing to happen in the fiction, and I'm guessing that's how my GM was reading it at the time, too.
I think bargaining does have a place in this kind of game. In an earlier session of that game the other PC's halfling thief had died in a place only reachable by a small tunnel (although in-character I didn't know he was dead), so I used Parley to intimidate a goblin into going into the tunnel to check on him for me, and I think the mechanic worked well there. I also probably wouldn't have offered to let the lizardman retreat if the Parley move hadn't been on my sheet (it was with the old XP rules and I think I had CHA highlighted at the time) but it seems in-genre for that kind of interaction to happen so I think it's good that there's a mechanical prompt to suggest it.
-
@Marshall (mease19): I just can't enjoy a dungeon adventure game in which the monsters are people. It's... just too ugly and genocidal. I went through my period where it was all an examination of racism and colonialism and such and I really don't want to do that again (not in a D&D game, anwyay).
I want monsters to be monsters: vile, unnatural, and unambiguous -- like horrors from a horror movie.
Like, ALIENS is a good dungeon adventure, to me.
(And -- holy shit -- it has a parley with a monster! Ripley pointing the flamer at the eggs. Would you look a that. Huh.)
-
@John, its not just that they could be bargained with but maybe goblins are neutral peoples in your dungeon world, people to protect. Maybe its the elves, those flesh-hungry elves that are the problem. Maybe in your dungeon world every elf boy has a rustmonster when they're young to teach them about responsibility and protect them from the dwarves that steal elfish children to work in their mines. I like that you can play around with which 'monsters' are monsters in the fiction.
-
Oh, I see. That makes sense. That's not something I'd put to player improvisation during play (during game setup, sure), but I get what you mean.
-
We're rephrasing Parley to have manipulation as a key part and making sure the move discussion talks about how it's parley when you're trying to make up their mind for them, not when you're just making a deal or something.
---------------------------------------------------------
I had a whole long discussion of alignment and killing things and justification, but I don't think this is the time or place to post it.
-
Just reading over my careworn copies of Moldvay and Mentzer and they do dedicate a fair bit of explanation to 'what to do' (as GM) when the party decides to negotiate with a favourably reactive monster instead of slaying them. Roleplay is encouraged of course, but also a detailed discussion on the mechanical use of CHA as a stat roll (or how it effects the monster's reaction roll).
Reactions can make the game much more fun than having fights. With some careful thought, a good DM can keep everyone interested and challenged by the situations that can arise.
The first decision a party must make in an encounter is to talk, fight, evade or run away, or wait and see what the monster will do.
I would think that Parley (or some iteration of a CHA based negotiation move) is totally within the tropes of D&D (any edition). I mean you could just make them GM moves: a revealed monster bargains for something it wants for instance, but I like giving the players moves (especially basic ones) as easily identifiable tropes within the fiction.
EDIT: Oh My. I was just scrounging through the bD&D folder, with sheaths of looseleaf, homemade dungeons and monsters that I came across one of my first characters that I played (when I was a player rather than DM!)
The wonderful illustrative potential of this character is that he was created by the rules as written, jotted down on a notebook page, lovingly laid out with ruled boxes for the stats and bonuses, attack rolls, treasure, and equipment lists... His name was Brogo Bumblefoot, the lovable halfling. In this iteration he was just level 3, with barely acceptable DEX and CON but he was particularly memorable (and the reason I selected his class as halfling) was that I had rolled a 17 for his CHA. Although never a prime attribute in bD&D, it was a useful score, and I remember (even as a young player) relishing the challenge of using what I had been given to interact with the DM's story in an exciting, unusual and (hopefully) effective way. Our DM had read and loved the section on Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art (p.B60) and allowed us to add our CHA bonus to any monster reaction roll if we tried to talk with it, or roll under our Stat on a d20 to negotiate terms.
This then became our operandus mundi - Brogo would be in the front with the Fighter and always extend open hands and negotiate with most monsters we came across. One of the most memorable being when the fighter had been burnt to a crisp by a rather cross red dragon, the cleric lying in a pool of their own sanctified blood and the wizard cowering behind columns at the far end of the dragon's den. Brogo stepped on up and offered the Dragon a deal, just like in tales of yore, that if he was able to best him in a duel of wits then he could walk free taking one item of treasure from the hoard. Lose and he would share the secrets of the adventurer's nearby town, and details on the magical horde the local lord has in his keep.
He had an INT of 15 and thus spoke one additional language and using my meta knowledge for the DM's love of all things draconic, went with that. After some delightful roleplay, Matt (the DM) said I had a +4 penalty as it was a difficult roll. It mattered little since I rolled a 1! (This was when lower was better), bested the dragon with my wiles and walked away with a bag of holding!
-
Brogo Bumblefoot! Awesome.
You inspired me to go through my OSR stuff, and I found the reaction results from Swords & Wizardry, which I've always liked a lot:
--2d6 roll--
6-: The monsters are hostile and attack.
7-9: The monsters withhold judgment and wait to see what the adventurers do.
10+: The monsters are open to negotiations.
(those outcome levels look familiar, huh?)
-
You might want to split the parley move up some:
When you try to talk to someone who prefers to do something else instead
7-9 they stop briefly and hear what you say, but resume their tasks afterwards
10+ they find you interesting and are open for more talk
When you try to close an unfair deal:
7-9 they accept now, but might change their minds later or try to play you
10+ they accept
When you pose or speak to rouse an emotion and hint at a suitable course of action:
7-9 they are affected emotionally, and choose some action in line with that emotion
10+ they are affected and do as you suggest
I think that all of these moves can be used on monsters, NPCs, and fellow PCs alike. Want to scare the goblins? Wany to make allies with the lizardmen? Want to gain an audience with the prince? Want to control an angry mob? Want to charm the audience for some coins? Want to bargain? Want to play with a dragon? Want the fighter to stop for a second? It's all there.
Also, against the PCs, there is no need for the carrot and the stick! I often find that hard to tie to the fiction.