It depends on the move.

For example, the druid transforms into a Leopard, I might give him a "Pounce" move patterned on Hack and Slash (when you leap on an unsuspecting target, roll +dex) then, just like Hack and Slash, there'd be an outcome roll.

Or if the druid transforms into a kitten, I might give him an "Aaaawwwwww, kitty" move patterned on the Thief's "Wealth and Taste", say "When you roll about and purr adorably, choose someone present. They'll come over and give you a cuddle" (this is possibly the least heroic move I've ever conceived). "Wealth and Taste" doesn't need a roll, so neither does that.

Note you should ask the druid the intent of the transformation in order to determine an appropriate move.

I thought The Hobbit was kind of backwards for a front. Which was thus the solution:

---

The Theft of the Hoard

Danger:
An Ancient Wizard, a Band of Renegade Dwarves, and a Sneaky Thief

Portents:
A Thief is recruited, and a map revealed
The band is equipped by Elves
A Ring of Invisibility is aquired by guile
The thuggish band arrives in town
The thief sneaks, invisible, through a secret door; an item of great value is stolen
A weakness is discovered; the Dragon is slain, the renegades steal the treasure

---

It's actually got the same issue I've had with some of my putative fronts, in that Smaug's not going to be aware of any of the portents until Bilbo's grasping mitts are making off with the Arkenstone, and it's all too late - everything happens way off-stage. I think fronts work for some things, but for many standard adventures they just don't apply. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though

Wow, this got dangerous! Personally, I think that if we've let people roll dice, we've agreed that the move is happening.

The move is "Cast a spell", though, not "Hit a target with Magic Missiles", even if the latter is what they expect. Or is that cruel and heartless?

I'd go for the counterspeller being hit (though narratively trying to counter) on the Wizard's 10+, deflecting/absorbing harmlessly a 7-9, and reflecting on a 6-

@Slow Dog: If you and your group want to intentionally miscommunicate, you knock yourselves out.

Um.

Chamomile, what do you mean by "Hoplite Armour?"

Because "Hoplite Armour", if it means anything, means "A big round shield". And I don't think you meant that.

(It's a curse, Scrape, it really is)

Hoplite Armor (2 Armor, 3 Weight, 100 coins), Light, Clumsy

/Historical nitpick on
What's Hoplite armour? A Hoplite is a soldier with a Hoplon (a big round shield), and Hoplites are otherwise depicted wearing nothing, clothing, bronze cuirasses or linen laminate, depending on period

(I know. I can't help it, though.)

What noofy said - like so many things in the game, it's about interpretation and asking questions. 

Cure light wounds says "Heal an ally". Consume Unlife says "heal yourself or the next ally you touch". I assumed the difference in wording is purposefully significant - that is, when the question came up in our group, I carefully examined the rules, and finding a spell the strictly separates "yourself" from "ally", I must therefore rule that "yourself" cannot be an "ally". If that isn't the intention, both spells should say the same thing, and it probably also be clearer that such decisions are up for group discussion.

I meant that most often people think that on a 7-9, you ALWAYS suffer damage, no matter what.

I'd say I was *usually* dealing damage, and I need to cut back.

I'll also raise a possible extra wrinkle based on the example Matthulhu pointed out, where a goblin attacks and deals damage, which is that a Goblin as written up in the monster section doesn't have a simple attack in its list of moves. A 7-10 would seem an appropriate time for an Orc to "Fight With Abandon" or an Ogre "Rage", whereas the Goblin can hardly Charge! anew, and its other moves (call more Goblins, retreat and return) aren't attacks. So isn't "it strikes with its spear, dealing damage" not a reasonable conclusion?

That's not the only conclusion, of course, but we're in a position where the game is telling us to make an attack that didn't ought to be a hard move, but its up to the fiction to tell us what sort of attack that might be.

Perhaps "it strikes with it's spear. What are you going to do?" (suitably embellished) is good enough.

Now I'm arguing with myself. Time to go away and cogitate further.

I'm in my second week of running the game. A question occurred to me as I thought back about the session, which is: What do you do about fighting multiple opponents?

The flow of the fighting was fine at the time, but on a couple of occasions, either deliberately or by opponent actions, single characters ended up fighting groups of opponents. In original DND, this would have been dangerous, with those characters being attacked by each opponent; in DW, when the character rolled a 7-9, I was dealing the damage of a single monster, regardless of how many were being fought. As I look back, it doesn't seem quite right, with a group being no worse than a queue. But contrawise, it's not like the players were ignoring the extras, so I couldn't just assume the rest got free hits.

Perhaps I'm over thinking it. In one case, the surrounded player was dragged down by the mob - the move following the fiction, right? Any other ideas?