I would add a few questions to ask the players:

- What did you just spot lurking in the water?
- What are the strange words being carried on the wind?
- What tragedy befell the captain and first mate?
- Who (NPC) made it to the beach first and how?
- What can you see on the island that gives you pause?

I think skinnyghost has a really good point about the Impending Doom, too. By moving the needle from "ship sinks, you drown" to "ship sinks, lose all your swag," then it brings the scenario you're trying to put forth more in line with "Play to find out what happens." Otherwise, you may find yourself fudging and handwaving the potential failures leading up to the beach because you've already determined the next front is on the island.

So, I'd definitely change the Impending Doom as he suggests or I would simply say you're shipwrecked on an island, then Q&A everything leading up to that point, allowing the characters to establish all of that with some guidance. Then I'd use what they gave me as fodder to determine what happens next.

Cool. Out of curiosity, what are some D&D adventures that you've run using Dungeon World?

You will definitely get a better grasp of it by running a game. It's kind of hard to explain in the abstract.

The key, I think, is specificity, which can be a hard thing to start doing after years of running other games where abstraction is useful and expected. Strongly defining the threat of the monster in the fiction and getting specific actions stated by your players is very important. The more fiction you put out there in your description, the more "blocks" the characters have to get through to affect these great horrors. It's simply not enough to make base-to-base contact with your mini, make an attack roll, apply damage, and move on. Potentially, even getting into position to swing your sword at these monstrosities could be a harrowing exchange. This is a struggle to learn if you're used to other games. At least it has been for me and for some of my players.

... and it looks like stras jumped me on this one with a much better explanation!

Yeah, a sword probably wouldn't do much if anything to the earth elemental. You're better off taking it down with a hammer and chisel. Anyone got that?

For the purple worm, it burrows, possibly creating sinkholes to separate and isolate the characters, bursts from the ground to some devastating effect, exposes only very little of its body while it does its thing. And the part that's exposed is simply too tough for the average weapon to get through whereas its backside or innards might be a different story, so chase it through the tunnels or get swallowed?

Awesome. It jumps off the page and looks like it's full of interesting possibilities. My memory is sketchy on Thunderdome as I think I've only seen it once, in the movie theater, back in the 80s. Outside of the obvious fantastic elements, how closely did you adhere to the film?

Also, is this your normal format? I've been tinkering with different layouts to make the front management clean and easy to reference in play when I need to. So I'm curious to know what people are doing for their notes. (I imagine a time in the not-so-distant future when I will have created blank "forms" that I can just fill out off the top of my head while I find I have spare time during my daily routine about town. A tight, one-page format that I can make a hundred copies of and have it in a binder so it's easy to carry around.)

Good points. The only quibble I'd have is I just can't see how a heavy-armor-and-shield fighter is going to sneak as well as a thief. By virtue of his stats, he's likely better than a Str fighter at sneaking, but the fiction demands the armor should apply some penalty to any attempts at sneaking, even if it's not specific in the mechanic.

I had the opportunity to see this move in action last night and I have to say it's not my favorite. It's too complicated and mechanical, not particularly evocative. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why I didn't like it in play. You had to have been there. I gather the purpose is to spark the conversation about who does what and how. It fell flat when we did it though, becoming a discussion about what the difference between a trailblazer and scout was more than anything.

I rather liked the previous version in B2 that had a list of things that might happen on a weak hit. When it was used in play, it was much less clunky. I gather the issue and impetus for the revision was how to adjudicate what was essentially a "group check." So here's a proposed revision:

Undertake a Perilous Journey
When your party travels through hostile territory, roll + Con, individually. On a 10+, you avoid hardship in the wild and reach your destination. On a 7–9, you reach your destination, but you must choose one from the list below. On a 6-, the DM chooses two:
     • You consume a ration.
     • You expend a use of adventuring gear.
     • You're fatigued and need rest (take -1 forward until you do).
     • You draw attention to the party.

It would also require a revision of Follow Me and Strider (ranger moves). I think I'd probably get rid of those moves and just give the ranger a starting move that says, "Rugged Outdoorsman: When you undertake a perilous journey with your party, your allies take +1." That makes a ranger very helpful in overland journeys and fits with the archetype.

I'm also skeptical of Make Camp and Take Watch, but haven't given it an honest try yet, so I'll report back after we've playtested it further.

What's been your experience with these moves?