Say a Troll-Killer is tromping through the woods, hunting for the Mud Hag (an admittedly foolish endeavor). The Mud Hag decides she does not wish to toy with the Troll-Killer, and sends a pack of wolves to tear him apart before he reaches her.

My questions:

• How does one stat out a pack of wolves? Would it be a single "unit"? How would it's harm be set up? Armor? The lack of "gangs" here leaves me not sure how to move forward
• When the wolves attack, should one use single combat to decide how things turn out? Does this count as a war company? Should the Troll-Killer roll for his own war? Strong instead of war?

Hope these questions are helpful!

I thought about gender right away with Dark Ages. The punky queerness of AW is super awesome, but really doesn't fit with the Dark Ages idea.

Saga of the Islanders does do a neat thing in that it brings gender front and center, showing different expressions of gender in a culture where gender matters a lot. That's not to say that these gender roles are good/bad, particularly when viewed through a contemporary lense, just that their rigidity are paramount to the setting being evoked. Something about this gender rigidity seems like it would fit in AW:Dark Ages. Co-creating gender roles/expectations as a part of world creation could be kind of fun as well, but seems a little loosy-goosy for the design of this game thus far.

This whole "doing rights you don't have" thing brings up an interesting question when it comes to the supernatural/magical. Any average human person has the physical/social ability to attempt to impose the law on others, and the social ramifications of them not having the right to do so plays out fairly naturally. But when it comes to things like being overcome by an oracular vision, how does that play out? Does the MC just say no, the gods defy you this privilege because it is not your right? Can they have the oracular vision anyway, perhaps enraging the gods that such a transgression was made without the right to do so? These are some juicy questions - I'm very curious to see how they'll be answered. I'm especially curious to see if the answers to situations like this will be specified in later revisions of the game, or will ultimately and intentionally be left for the players to decide at the table : )

Character Creation
I ended up MCing while DS and OW created characters. I busied myself with creating enemies and a Troll while OW and DS did their thing. There was very little interaction until the process was done. OW created Herakleus, the Cretan Troll-Killer, and DS made Parlan, the Tavie Wicker-Wise. I created the people beyond the border (Slaves, known for their implacable blood vengeance, ruthlessnes, insularity, and a few other things), and a Wood Troll. I noted that a "monster sheet" in the vein of a character playbook would be nice to have.

Start of Play
When asked what was done last season, DS opted for "Rites and Celebration," while OW chose "At the Hearth," noting that a grandchild had been born. I asked what their holds were like. DS mentioned having a large ceremonial shrine. OW stated that he was not known as the "Troll Killer" by the Cretans, instead referred to as the land-watch patrol. The Tavie, more in tune with the magical beasts of the world, venerated OW for his aid in fighting on their behalf.

As MC, I mentioned that the lack of "getting to known the characters" left me not sure what to do next. We talked a bit, and thought that the "what did you spend last season doing" options might benefit from something that brings conflict into the game more. Some ideas included:

• what did you spend last season preparing for
• what did you spend last season doing, and what stood against your effort

Not sure what to do next, I opted to bring in my Troll (which I was excited about since I originally saw the Troll page of the playtest documents). We opened with DS speaking with the chieftess of the Tavie (Muirne), whose mother had had her breath stolen the previous night. OW was called, and Murine stated that it was the Wood Troll who had taken her mother. OW was bewildered, stating that he had killed that troll last season, sticking its head on a pike beyond the village.

DS decided to consult the other world, and blew the roll. OW opted to do the same, to the same effect. I described DS coming to his ceremonial shrine, only to find that several of the stone pillars making up the space had huge, deep gashes in them, many toppled over. Similar claw marks were dug into the dirt at the center of the shrine. OW inspected the pike (bearing no head), seeking a sign from his gods. He saw that the pike was cracked, now leaning towards the desecrated shrine - the creature had in fact returned.

After some conversation about how to move forward, OW and DS decided to try and track down the beast. DS asked for the hospitality of the Tavie, and was granted both a small troop of warriors (5). Additionally, DS enchanted one of OW's arrows to burn with hot fire, using the same hospitality to gain a bounty of food as a sacrifice.

In the woods, OW struck a quarries trail, blowing the roll. The troop arrived at the den of the Wood Troll, and were quickly ambushed by the beast.

Here we struggled for a bit with the rules. We started off the fight by stating the Tavie warriors as a War Company, and they rolled to "come under attack." While the warriors were quite weak (war -1), their "considerations for harm" were devastating.

They: outnumbered the enemy 3:1 (+3 harm, +3 armor), and had high ground (archers set up in trees) (+2 harm, +2 armor). After the first come under attack exchange of harm, the troll was nearly dead and the war company was unharmed. In response, OW lead an attack against the troll. When we read that the roll had to roll to come under attack, using its war, we realized that the battle mechanics probably weren't made for this. As such, we jumped back to when the troll burst forth from the treeline and attack OW. There was some confusion as to which move to use next - we originally looked at undertake great labor as a "acting under fire" equivalent, but I noted that the wording of the move and the move outcomes didn't really fit. Once we realized this didn't work, OW rolled to engage in single combat, and was brutally mauled by the troll as a result. He then noted that he really didn't want to go to single combat when the troll burst out - his intention was actually to flee, but he misunderstood the way the move worked. He opted to keep the harm inflicted (3 harm as established) but to then try to escape. We went with it for the sake of moving through the playtest.

DS decided, quite reasonably, to run, and succeeded in "covering the distance" to his escape on a lead into action roll. OW was quick to follow suite. He made the roll, "seizing hold of" his escape and "covering the distance" between himself and the exit. We got to a point where we felt like every move made was leap into action, but we weren't sure how else to engage the mechanic in this situation.

I had the archers fire off a volly at the troll, but as individuals, none of them could puncture the trolls hide. We decided in the interest of moving forward with the playtest, the Troll decided to retreat to the woods rather than get pelted with arrows again and again.

After the fight, DS consulted the other world, discovering that the Troll had survived its earlier "death" because it kept its organs hidden in a broken tree somewhere amidst the woods. He also saw that the troll must consume its own organs before removing them again at each half moon. OW opted to strike a quarries trail again, this time choosing to "study it for insight." He learned that the Troll was going to a cave in the side of a cliff to deter followers, and would wait to regenerate. Since they did not yet know the location of the organ tree, and OW was badly wounded, they decided to return to the stronghold.

One back, DS began a healing enchantment. The sacrifices chosen were:

• Bind the subject by oaths to your gods, in this case swearing the Troll-Killer to slay the troll in exchange for their blessings
• take a measure of blood from each person in the village
• give a bounty of goods to the river
• spend the rest of the season performing the enchantment

The oaths were acquired by OW after some cajoling, and the villagers were willing to give some blood to help revive their only protection from the troll. The bounty of goods was trickier however. Since a bounty had already been taken this season, the Tavie simply did not have it to give. OW asked the Cretan war captain, asking for 2 horses to be sacrificed for his healing. The war captain was unhappy about the request, but decided he would grant it if OW swore to him not to take up such foolish errands as chasing after trolls in the woods. "Stay at your guard post - do not enter the woods" was his demand, which OW made (this was fun since he had already sworn to DS's gods that he would hunt down and kill the troll). Since drowning two horses is kind of a task, I decided to call for a undertake great labor roll from DS. He blew the roll, and I described the horrific scene of cutting, stabbing and drowning the two horses, who fought for their life with tooth and nail. In the chaos and wild fighting for survival, 3 Tavie drowned, and DS took 1 harm from a horse kick to the femur.

We were just about done for the day at that point, so I called for the end of the season. DS's 1 harm couldn't be spent in recovery since one sacrifice was to spend the season enchanting, so it became permanent. OW slowly recovered over the season (healing 2 from the enchantment, and choosing to recover for the season to heal the last 1). During the season, I noted that 2 more Tavie had died, their breath stolen just as Muirne's mother.


Things we/I liked:

• Stronghold/People creation
• Rights and the interaction of characters and the people
• The design of the engage in single combat move (although I and OW noted, any harm at all is brutal in this game)

Questions/Things that were weird:

• Is "creating a holding" the same as "creating a stronghold"? Did we do this right?
• The scales of the wealth options given the populations in question
• Direction about world creation - should we have created a region rather than a single hamlet? How far reaching is "create the enemies holdings and peoples"?
• Where to go after character creation - I felt that I really need to interject something independent of the players, which was very different from AW (perhaps this is the intention? That this world is about outside threats coming in, not what you personally care about/seek to achieve?
• the whole fight with the Troll was confusing
• how "lead into action" seemed to be the only mechanic to use if doing anything other than "single combat"
• The focus of the game in general - we, perhaps expectedly, were very character/individual centric in our approach, but it seems like this game is much more about the community(s) as a whole. Were we approaching the game wrong?

I kind of think that the "Denied right" move is actually really awesome (sorry Vincent, I'm gushing again). My view on it is actually more focused on an in-the-fiction dynamic than most of the OOC situations people have been talking about. The MC should give the players their due as per the principle, so "denying someone their right" for no reason isn't actually playing by the rules. If I have the right to confront your betters for justice, and in attempting to do so am denied it, that's happening for a reason. Assuming my MC is not simply being (passive?) aggressive (which to me suggests a much deeper social problem that something the game mechanics can fix), my right being denied means someone in the fiction is intentionally denying it. Why is that? Are my betters conspiring against me? Have I been deemed unfit for my right by some prior (mis)deed? I want to know why I'm being denied my right, and can act as per the "denied right" move to express this.

I think the "openness" of this move also really speaks at the design intention (again, I think - could be way off here). The game isn't designed to make you always be able to have all of your "powers" all of the time. Think of the setting. Think of real life! How often are rights denied us? How often does that make us with to bemoan our fate; how often do we accept the injustice with dignity? The Dungeons and Dragons game system is about fighting tooth and nail for every little power you can get your hands on to fight against a pretty much purely antagonistic world (an oversimplification, I know). But AW: Dark Ages seems to be more interested in the lives of people in the dark ages - powerful, impressive, notable, and exceptional people, but people nevertheless living 'real' lives. Sometimes in life we are denied rights we should have access to. The "denied rights" move actually empowers us to respond to these denials by mechanizing options for our responses to them.

So, its come that time when I've got the hack itch again. For reasons beyond my understanding, I'm feeling a lot more confident on the player-centric end of AW-hacking. The moves, playbooks, their implementations and purposes - all that's coming much more naturally to me. However, I've come to the point of looking at the MC's side of things, and have hit a bit of a wall. AW's Mc instructions are obviously built for a world in which things are reactive, and people have their own agendas they are following (and will follow through on if no one does anything). I'm curious to know what peoples experiences have been with Hacking the MC's side of the AW engine, specifically how conflict/drama is constructed compared to the threats and the first session setup of AW). Has anyone toyed with these sorts of mechanics, and if so how has it changed (or been changed by) the nature of the game you were designing for?

Any word on how these have been playing out?

So, Plausiblefabulist threw down with this great quote in regards to the maelstrom in AW

From my point of view -- also as an author of fiction -- the way the world's psychic maelstrom works in AW begins to repair the decades of ruination that fantasy RPGs since D&D have wreaked on fantasy.

The psychic malestrom is numinous. It is deeply unpredictable. You encounter it at terrible risk; it can change everything, make anything possible, and you have no idea, in advance, how, or what the cost and consequences will be.

In other words, it acts like magic used to act in literature -- how magic acts in Middle-Earth, in Earthsea, in Prydain -- and as the miraculous acts in, for that matter, the Hebrew Bible --  and not how magic and the divine function in fantasy ever since D&D turned them into vending machines that produce precisely predictable effects given precisely predictable inputs.

Harry Potter casts third level spells from page 126 of the Player's Handbook. Ged opened his brain to the world's psychic maelstrom.

That got me thinking about color-first gaming and the specificity of moves like this. Most of AW is very color-specific - it is designed to evoke specific images of apocalypse-ness. The maelstrom is the same, but mechanically it's very open ended. Even augury is very open.

I'm working on a hack right now that involves witchcraft, and I was originally designing the magic to have specific moves (like a spell list) in a desire to evoke a very flavor. I'm sure it really comes down to preference and design intent, but I was wondering what people's thoughts were on possible advantages and/or drawbacks to having something like "magic" being more or less structured.