91
Dungeon World / Re: AP The Mansion's Cavity
« on: June 06, 2012, 05:34:46 PM »
Hey Frolo! Welcome aboard. Please forgive me if I paraphrase you - I prefer to go point by point but hopefully my ramblings might be able to help :)
1. Questions! I can see why you're concerned a little. Before we start a session (particularly with new players) I talk a little-bit about the game. I explain how things are going to go, creative input and so on. Often I'll bring in quotes from previous players (first game someone pointed out that Dungeon World indicated only dungeons, so I always mention that this is completely not required (tm)).
I find that if you brace the players they do better. And if I have 1 friend there who's experienced DW before, I pick on them first. Once the others see him get questioned I've actually had a player when I turn to him and ask for a description say "Can I have the questions now?"
So I think it's an acclimatization thing. When you see someone before you get props for good ideas, and others play off of them it helps break away from past examples I think.
2. I'm running a game with six people currently. Yech. I'd say 2-5 is the sweet spot. With 2 you usually lack a key role or a key trait but if you're writing a duo story it can work great. With 3 the 3rd person is usually the one who negotiates peace between the first two. All of my demo games at origins were 3 player, and everyone keyed very strongly off of each other. One of the things with 3's is that you can build better pc-npc-pc triangles, or cyclical arrows which you can't with 2's (either they agree or they don't, there is none of that 90 degree push that AW describes). 4's starts subgroups, and 5's has the one strong extra role. By 6 things get really clunky. Too many people between focuses, can be a bit rough.
I don't think DW has 4e's hard group dynamic though. You usually want a butt-kicker (say a fighter) and a non-butt-kicker (say a wizard). Each class has it's niche so it's not a big deal if you have two different flavors of butt kicker because they do things very differently (ex: paladin can lead men, or be very priesty instead of straight fighty-goodness). Often times good ideas and storytelling will help far more than specific moves (although sometimes... vica versa).
3. "This is not my first adventure" can progress to "I'm certain now X has my back" or "we're a well oiled machine" via assists for example. Similarly "I've sung songs of..." means you're a fan of this kind-of-mythic hero. This creates a relationship dynamic where you can grow to admire someone, or maybe become disillusioned. There's a lot of meat there to explore in RP.
4. Charming and Open is amazing. I had a bard stop a deadly combat with a demon lord by walking up and talking first (it could have gone ugly, but he was Ramon of house Pandarra after all...). But most importantly, while you CAN talk to someone and ask these questions, for the bard this is a move. This means that the bard will more often trade for the truth, as opposed to just hearing what they have to say and having to guess. You CAN tell the bard where to stick it, but then you won't know what they most desire, or how to get them to do something for you easily.
Your points are salient ones. One of the greatest challenges of GMing this system has nothing to do with learning the rules or making monsters, but un-teaching the behaviors traditional games have pounded into our heads. I think hard about every game I run, feedback I receive, and things I notice after every game. Been running this for a little bit, but I still have so much to learn.
Hope some of this helped! :)
1. Questions! I can see why you're concerned a little. Before we start a session (particularly with new players) I talk a little-bit about the game. I explain how things are going to go, creative input and so on. Often I'll bring in quotes from previous players (first game someone pointed out that Dungeon World indicated only dungeons, so I always mention that this is completely not required (tm)).
I find that if you brace the players they do better. And if I have 1 friend there who's experienced DW before, I pick on them first. Once the others see him get questioned I've actually had a player when I turn to him and ask for a description say "Can I have the questions now?"
So I think it's an acclimatization thing. When you see someone before you get props for good ideas, and others play off of them it helps break away from past examples I think.
2. I'm running a game with six people currently. Yech. I'd say 2-5 is the sweet spot. With 2 you usually lack a key role or a key trait but if you're writing a duo story it can work great. With 3 the 3rd person is usually the one who negotiates peace between the first two. All of my demo games at origins were 3 player, and everyone keyed very strongly off of each other. One of the things with 3's is that you can build better pc-npc-pc triangles, or cyclical arrows which you can't with 2's (either they agree or they don't, there is none of that 90 degree push that AW describes). 4's starts subgroups, and 5's has the one strong extra role. By 6 things get really clunky. Too many people between focuses, can be a bit rough.
I don't think DW has 4e's hard group dynamic though. You usually want a butt-kicker (say a fighter) and a non-butt-kicker (say a wizard). Each class has it's niche so it's not a big deal if you have two different flavors of butt kicker because they do things very differently (ex: paladin can lead men, or be very priesty instead of straight fighty-goodness). Often times good ideas and storytelling will help far more than specific moves (although sometimes... vica versa).
3. "This is not my first adventure" can progress to "I'm certain now X has my back" or "we're a well oiled machine" via assists for example. Similarly "I've sung songs of..." means you're a fan of this kind-of-mythic hero. This creates a relationship dynamic where you can grow to admire someone, or maybe become disillusioned. There's a lot of meat there to explore in RP.
4. Charming and Open is amazing. I had a bard stop a deadly combat with a demon lord by walking up and talking first (it could have gone ugly, but he was Ramon of house Pandarra after all...). But most importantly, while you CAN talk to someone and ask these questions, for the bard this is a move. This means that the bard will more often trade for the truth, as opposed to just hearing what they have to say and having to guess. You CAN tell the bard where to stick it, but then you won't know what they most desire, or how to get them to do something for you easily.
Your points are salient ones. One of the greatest challenges of GMing this system has nothing to do with learning the rules or making monsters, but un-teaching the behaviors traditional games have pounded into our heads. I think hard about every game I run, feedback I receive, and things I notice after every game. Been running this for a little bit, but I still have so much to learn.
Hope some of this helped! :)