Sookeeh!

I really want to try this out.

Thanks!

Yeah, I noticed that one. It's funny how you always notice a bunch of mistakes only after something goes public.

So far I've noticed:
-a large chunk of the Bonds text is missing
-the Free Man's title font is too small
-the Free Man's highlight circle for Wyrd is borken
-the Shield Maiden and subsequent playbooks have a slightly different alignment than the previous ones
-there is an empty page between the basic and peripheral moves (p.18)

More thoughts is good.
When I first started the thread I was thinking of colour-first design, now I understand this a lot better, especially the distinction between c-f design and a c-f game.

Another question, Vincent or anyone. What would a setting-first game look like? Are there any in existence? I find it hard to think about.

What was the situation when the move was made? Where were all the goblins? What was happening, fictionally?

I think Dungeon World moves are more vague than Apocalypse World moves, but it's still the same basic system and that requires a fairly detailed, visceral description of the imaginary positions and events. You know, "to do it do it". How was the halfling making a stand?

It might sound pointless, but it matters in AW and I believe it matters in DW.

The outcome sounds fun and awesome, so if that's good, then it's good. But I probably wouldn't have handled it that way. First off, were all 10 of the goblins really nearby, so that he could defend against them? Were all 10 of them attacking him at the same time? In my opinion a move should rarely resolve a whole scene or conflict. I am not questioning your judgement, but I think this brings "Make a Stand" in perspective relative to "Hack and Slash".

As a side note I was talking to Sage about this move and I think there's definitely a problem with it. I think it's (amongst other things) because original D&D doesn't really have a "Constitution Move" and it's hard to reincorporate it.

Interesting topic.

This sounds like a fruitful void kind of thing. If something is the core of the game, you can't just use it with one move. Instead break it down into little bits and sneak them into all the other moves and mechanics. Let it emerge organically.

Like, intimacy, loyalty, vulnerability and things like that are the core of AW, but there's no one single explicit "be close with someone" move. Just like D&D doesn't have a single "kill monsters and take their stuff" stat. Giving in to your blood is just part of the whole deal, don't worry about trying to encapsulate it into one move.

I'm in this PbP game Chris is running right now. Were at 1.5 sessions, more or less (hard to say in an online environment), and at least one PC is badly wounded and another is at 11:00 right now (all due to PvP). It's crazy.

Maybe this had been already discussed back in the day when the Big Model was being created, I don't know, I never read all the threads. Vincent, shoot me down if I'm flying in the wrong direction.

It's not a big deal, really, it doesn't change anything about the BM at all, it just another element to exploration. Or possibly more elements.

Specifically:
-Myself and
-People (aka real, live human nature)

Or does that fall under some other part of the Model? Cause to me, these sound like pretty legit elements of Exploration.

Many many years ago, when we were still teenagers, most of my friends were playing these super efficient cool dudes. You know, trenchcoats, glasses, katanas. That kind of thing. Me? I did that for a while, too.

And then I played a woman. And an old man. And a little girl. And an ugly fat bastard.

So, I guess you could say it was an exploration of Character, to a point. But I remember distinctly, that for me, a big part of it was to challenge myself "Can I play a female? How do I feel about that?". I dunno. Is it a legit element?


The other thing, people. You wrote about "live human nature" in your three insights, as part of design, but that happens in play, too, yeah? I'm not just talking about characters in the game (exploring "real" human nature through the interplay of situation and character etc.) but about exploring social dynamics, the people that we play with. If I do this, will they be shocked? How far can I go with this description? If I make this happen, will they think it's cool? And it's not just about the game and the way we play, and test all these little boundaries (set by Agenda?), it's also getting to know the people you play with. Realizing your friend is making the same character over and over and what does that mean? Figuring out what pushes someone's buttons?

You mentioned that in Dogs, too I think. Getting to know a side of your friends you didn't know before. Maybe Poison'd says a lot about people you play with, too? Or not?

A person playing out a specific fantasy is covered by Right to Dream. But getting to know that person, through that fantasy of his, that could be exploration? Or is it outside the scope?

Double post. My bad.