Hi noofy, you alluded to the more loose guidelines for assigning monster stats in the Red Book, which I feel keep much more in the spirit of the unwritten but posted guidelines we get from sage and adam on the forums.  If the monster stats themselves are really the least important part of the monster, which I can get behind, it's odd to see 2 full pages of detailed questions devoted to determining them.  It kind of sends mixed messages.

I think it's really tough to boil down the "art" of assigning custom monster stats to a rigid set of questions, it is a bit too prescriptive at this point.

If the questions approach is going to remain, we do see that the designers are currently on the right track in listening to the feedback and improving them to ultimately give us monster stats that make sense.  It's just that I'm not sure all that work on their part is warranted, and I can imagine how much work this is! :)

Good advice noofy.  I did use this approach when the paladin in one game insisted on striking a leucrota that was wrestling on the ground with the wizard. I warned him that if he went ahead with the attack there was a good chance he might hit the wizard instead. Sure enough, he ignored the warning and his sword wound up skewering the wizard and he failed his Last Breath. Keeping this approach in mind does a lot to mitigate the problem.

Still ... I do like rolling monster damage for other reasons. It removes some of the feeling of unfairness the players feel when they roll 1 or 2 for damage and the monsters always take "max" damage :)

Note this has nothing to do with trying to create numerical ranges to support a " balanced encounter".  My motivation stems more from applying some symmetry to damage and remove any chance of frustration that stems from the current asymmetry.

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)

I'm starting up a web site called DMMuse that will offer random tables and generators that anyone can contribute to.  The idea is to offer a resource that can help a GameMaster out in a pinch with a spark of inspiration.

The first service is a Fantasy NPC generator that could help seed ideas for GM's in Dungeon World games.  I invite all of you to try out the service, and submit your own NPC's so we start building out a huge collection.

If anyone has any ideas for other kinds of groupware-powered generators you'd like to see implemented, please let me know.

http://www.dmmuse.com/NPC.aspx

I've thought about what kind of form DW adventures and campaigns might take.  One of the challenges is that so much of the campaign can be generated through collaborative play.  One format that I thought might work is a sandbox style setting, without so much as a campaign arc, but with pages and pages of "starters" that loosely describe the various interesting locales and dangers spread around the region.

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 was refering to Anarchangel's interpretation above,

"If they fail, they must do what they were told."

That's why I would like to here concrete examples of how this went down in play, when someone refused a Parley, and how the "Defy Danger" went down in the game.

I can appreciate the idea of somehow factoring in your character's CHA in trying to influence another PC, but I think as written the move is vague and confusing, and can lead to undesirable side effects (meta-gaming, awarding XP for doing something against character, etc.)