New AP podcast ep using DW beta 1.1 rules

I think that the pattern matching of fiction to moves makes  Defy Danger necessary as a 'go-to' move based on whatever stat you agree is appropriate. Sometimes you are having the conversation in the game and think 'gee we should be making a move here', but nothing fits. That's when gentle manipulation of Defy Danger comes into its own. The results (as listed) of the move are a very adaptable framework to hang your fiction on.

I can totally see a bluff style move as Defy Danger on INT, especially if the character is using their knowledge and smarts to confuse and bufuddle the target. The Danger being that the ruse or bluff is seen through and the monster / NPC acts accordingly (the GM make their move).

Just for variety, I can see a bluff style move could be made on any number of stats if the fiction warranted it. CHA for instance springs to mind if the character based their bluff on charm and superfluous gratuity and compliments.

In my mind AW-style moves aren't about how you could cleverly manipulate an existing rule to arbitrate something, they're about intuitive pattern-matching on the fiction.

Agreed! That's why I think bluffing is Defying Danger using Int. That's intuitive pattern-matching between fiction and mechanics, IMO.

To me, Defy Danger is supposed to be about reacting to some specific fictional danger. Bluffing, on the other hand, is a character-initiated action to achieve some specific intent.

To me, bluffing is a seat-of-your-pants, bullshit-my-way-out-of-this one kinda thing, which sounds like a very reasonable application of "quick thinking."

I'm not talking about calculated persuasion or negotiation or anything like that. That's clearly Parley. I'm talking about a spur-of-the-moment effort to fast-talk your way out of a sticky situation.

Those don't feel similar enough to me that they ought to be pattern-matched by the same move. I suppose "does the NPC realize that you're lying?" could be a Defy Danger but I think what people mean by bluffing goes beyond that.

"Throw them in the pit."
"Wait! If you throw me in the pit, you'll never find out where the Circlet of Al-Ahad is buried!"

GM: ...The circlet of what now?
Player: Beats me. I'm just trying to stay out of the pit!

I realize this could be interpreted as the character having leverage there, but to me that's an illusion. The character doesn't have leverage so much as he's trying to create leverage out of nothing. If he can't sell this lie, he's in for it. YMMV, of course.

Yes Mike! Exactly! So cool! Maybe the player of the wizard wants to spout lore about that shit, to help the fighter as he bluffs his way out of another pit, so you ask sure, what do you do? The resultant conversation and Spout Lore / Bluff (defy danger on INT) roll could either save the fighter, author a cool legend about the Circlet of Al-Ahad and start a whole new side quest or just be a lie he made up on the spot. All awesome! Failure means lots of juicy hard moves by the GM: even more awesome!

Sometimes you are having the conversation in the game and think 'gee we should be making a move here', but nothing fits. That's when gentle manipulation of Defy Danger comes into its own. The results (as listed) of the move are a very adaptable framework to hang your fiction on.

To me, this sounds like it's really contrary to the way moves are supposed to work. To my mind AW and DW aren't the type of game where dice rolls are arbitrary tension-injectors that the GM uses to orchestrate an entertaining experience. The "it's been a while, let me figure out if we can roll here" concept really rubs me the wrong way for the kind of game I think DW is trying to be.

To me, bluffing is a seat-of-your-pants, bullshit-my-way-out-of-this one kinda thing, which sounds like a very reasonable application of "quick thinking."

I think you're assuming more desperation being implicitly involved in bluffing than I am. The situations you describe sound like they're in the Defy Danger ballpark to me, but I think I was coming at it from a more "D&D combat power"-style concept of bluffing where it covers any use of trickery to impose your will on an opponent, even if you're already in an advantageous position. It's been a while since the session so my memory is pretty fuzzy by this point, but I don't remember Simon's character being in a desperate situation when the topic came up, so that may have colored the discussion.

Dan, I agree!  Moves are when the mechanics kick in if the fiction warrants it. I think I didn't explain myself clearly. I didn't mean that we make a roll 'caus its been a while'. I mean, we make a move because something is happening in the fiction that feels like a move, that has some strong sense of tension or uncertainty. You are doing it, but what is 'it' exactly?

It none of the other moves fit well, but the character is doing something that obviously demands a roll, but you don't quite know how to deal with it, double check whether Defy Danger (under whatever stat is fictionally appropriate) is your go-to move first.

You Defy Danger when you do something in the face of impending peril. This may seem like a catch-all. It is! Defy Danger is for those times when it seems like you clearly should be rolling but no other move applies. One of the simplest 'custom' moves you can write is one that causes you to defy a certain type of danger with another stat. Most dangers can be overcome with quick feet and agility but you’ll encounter dangers to be defied by your strength of will or bodily fortitude, too.

I posed a new episode of the podcast with our second session of the game.

I posted another episode with the third session. At the end of this one I talk a little bit about how I'm interpreting the agenda and principles and how that's informing my GMing of the game.