Let's say I would like to propose this game to my group.
How do I introduce it to them ? Why do they play ?
The little four line pitch at the beginning of the document is a bit light.

1 MC, 3 then 4 PC.

So, we started with the stronghold. It was somewhat difficult to agree on the different options in each category, so I proposed that each player on turn cross out one option to make it easier. We ended with defending a wealthy province (the golden woods), being well protected by its natural position and enhancements. Its ennemies are hostile clans, the remnants of a former rule and a rival crown. It was a little difficult to choose the armory inclusions as we didn't know at this time how many warriors there will be to equip.

We continued with the dominant people, the Goldwoodish (my players have gigantic imagination). As we were talking about the people of a province, we took vassalage for numbers, wondered if this was the only option, and reduced the numbers as it was decided that it was a little vassalage. The Goldwoodish are a celtic people, hospitable and pious, but not that much into war (I pass on the details).

Then characters.
Lorn Kentigern, the Wicker-Wise, Goldwoodish. Described as the druid of his people. He had some struggle with his rights, first chosing mostly "technical" rights (as the other players), then after play start asking if he could change some of his rights to take more "narrative" ones because he needed them for the role he described. He peforms different rituals, speaks wisdom, receives offerings.

Digression : This, so-far, has become a regular complication in our table (and in my head as a MC), for those who took their character as an important person of their people : when they want to make something that they find natural for their role, or get some benefit from their position, sometimes it goes okay, sometimes we find out that there is a right they do not own for that. It is a little confusing that some actions of the fiction are mecanically right-protected, and some other are not. What happens if you feel that a player should get something, but he doesn't have the right to ? End digression.

Judicael Radlach, the Troll Hunter, Goldwoodish. Lone hunter and protector. He is a skilled hunter, has the right to kill to protect and is skilled at that.

Astrid Dortmund, the Castellan, Dortmund. Sister of the liege and his counsellor. When she chose to take a stat substitution on muster warriors, we discussed about who is really owning the right of mustering warriors of a people, as everything seems to be a question of rights in this game, but this one being a basic move. She also is literate, sit in counsel with the liege, and can offer sacrifice of goods.
We created her people, the Dortmund, norse clan who rules over the golden woods. Into war and rites, but not that wealthy. We found it interesting that the ruling class and the people be from different culture.

When I wanted to put the information we had on a war company sheet (stronghold defense), I was a little lost :
- for numbers, I had a half vassalage : 20 warriors, and a clan : 8 warriors. I didn't know if this made a total of 20 (the vassalage including the ruling class) of 28, and I was a uncomfortable with the idea that there was more warriors in the submitted Goldwoodish people than in the ruling class, which should be the warrior class. I ended by arbitrary chosing that the Dortmund have 20 warriors with them, and that the Goldwoodish may help with 20 hunters which are not actual warriors.
- for equipment, I had : the armory inclusions in the stronghold sheet, and the warrior outfit of the arms & armor section in house & belongings, depending of the wealthness, which is not the same between Goldwoodish and the Dortmund clan. Made me think that armory in the stronghold sheet is superfluous, as there is already rules to chose people equipment. Or this may be unclear for me.

Later, a fourth player joined :
Ulf Turgis, War Captain. He, well... has the right to do war and is good at that. He is the war captain for the liege.
His people, the Turgis clan, is an allied clan of the Dortmund. They are especially good warriors.

We made the neighbours and enemies together :
- The Woodgreenish are a celting clan who were previously ruling on the golden woods, but were chasen by the Dortmund with the help of some Goldwoodish who disliked their reign. They are now very poor and weak at war, but their rites remain strong.
- The Meinrad are a germanic clan who crossed the sea to raid this wealthy province.
- Neighbours include the rest of the Dortmund family and other norse clans...

Do we had enough to play ?

Yes and no.

- Yes because we have the place where the players live, and their enemies. So we are sure that the enemies will do something bad for the players, and this will create some play.

- No because at this point, we have a beautiful place where some happy people just want to live their life, protect their kind, and nothing more. And I didn't want to end with a story only about bad people threatening the peaceful lives of good people, and those PC just reacting and defending themselves to those threats, because all they want is just peace. (Digression : this is already how sounded our Apocalypse World campaign, and if this had been fun, it ended a little tiring with me as a MC feeling like an evil mastermind sending waves of threats to a group of PC just seeking to avoid them and nothing more) I wanted a game where both the MC and the PC push the story.

To reach this, I pushed them to this question : what do you want ? At first they gave banalities like "I want to marry", "I want to protect my people". So I insisted on : what do you want, which implies that you impose your will on the world to change the way things are ? And then interesting things arised : the Wicker-Wise wants to free his people ; the Castellan wants the power for herself ; the Troll-Killer wants to involve himself everywhere on diplomacy over conflict. Interesting things to come ! (The War-Captain didn't find anything really exciting to add, as the only thing he wants is war, but it becomes interesting with what the Troll Killer wants.)

- Also no because, as a MC I felt lightly equipped. A place, a bunch of peoples, some said "enemies"... I'm able to improvise with those elements, but it seems a little weak, especially when you compare to Apocalypse World and the instruction on how to run first session, and then build structured fronts and threats with their agenda and moves, who tells you exactly what they are going to do and how.

Next : the first sessions.

Hi,

I have a little question about the player's stats. I easily understand being Bold, and how it can help me to leap into action, being Strong, and how being a strong person is useful in combat or great labor, being Wary, and how a wary person will more easily take stock before taking action, and I even imagine how being Weird can help consult the other world.

But Good. Does it mean being virtuous and kind, and that is helping you winning people over ? Do evil people never win anybody over ? Is it intended design, to make righteous ones gather people easily, and unrighteous ones be alone and unhelped ?

Hi,

I'm wondering something about the sins in DITV : there is an exact list of eight sins in the Creating Towns chapter, which are the doors to demonic attacks.
Do the Dogs know about this exact list, of have they to figure out by themselves ?

Hi everybody,

After some sessions I have some problem handling moves during combat and battles, my PCs and me having some trouble breaking with the "round by round" systems usually found in roleplaying games. Here is some questions I've been wondering during those :

- When I say something like "the raiders draw their weapons and fire at you, what do you do ?", I have all of my PC starting to talk at the same time, all of them wanting to make a move. Can they all make a move ?

- If yes, do I have to make a MC move after everyone of them, or only after they all made their move ? If the latter, as I have to make a (direct) MC move for a failed PC move, do I have to make multiple moves if some fail their roll, but only one if they succeed ? How do I handle this ?

- If they all simply answer something like "I shoot back", do they have a move to make or we simply trade harm for harm ? they all want to make a "seize by force" move to inflict terrible damage and take little damage...

- Does a failed "seize by force" move still includes harm for both sides ?

- Do the holds granted by the leadership move of the hardholder or the indomitable move of the touchstone count as moves when used ? If they are used against enemy fire, is it legit to ask a "act under fire" roll ?

Sorry for my imperfect english.

Hi everybody,

I'm accustoming to the game moves before MCing my first session and I have great problems to tell which move must be used in which situation.

It started with a question much discussed here : I put my gun under another one's head and tell her to do something if she doesn't want to be killed, is the move Go Aggro or Manipulate ? The answer I found everywhere was : it depends if when the victim will spit at my face, will I shoot her or not.

And since then I've been like : what the fuck ?

First, in a game in which some moves cover a very large pan of situations (act under fire !), how can 2 situations that are 95% similar ask for a different move because of such a detail that even the victim doesn't know ?

Secondly, things are not always that simple. For instance, if I don't really know if I will shoot at her, depending of her reaction, what move do I use ?

Thirdly, the Manipulate move is way more powerful than the Go Aggro one : on a manipulate 10+ you win everything, the victim gives you what you want but you are not forced to keep your promise so you can still hurt her later if you want, on a aggro 10+ the victim chooses so you're not sure you will get a result. On a manipulate 7-9, you just have to put your gun down and disharm it, and you will get your result, on a aggro 7-9 the victim will take the first chance to take the hell out. And a miss on manipulate is the only way for the victim to give a big "fuck you" but she's totally able to give it on a aggro 10+. So what, it is more powerful to bluff than to really threat somebody's life ? And the victim's behaviour changes significantly when you are bluffing ? It seems very illogical to me. And I don't like what seems illogical, because it makes my world less real.

Finally, how can Razorblade, a 2 meters tall 250 pounds of muscle gunlugger armed to the upper teeth (cool+2, hard+3, hot-2), be so shitty when manipulating people using threat as a leverage if he's not really going to hit them ? How can they know ? How can Venus the 100 pounds ultra sexy skinner armed with a little knife be more efficient at this ?

So, what do you thing about all this ?

Sorry if my english is not perfect.