The new Threat Map

I presume Vincent is too busy designing and writing to answer, but the rest of you: would you use the new threat map as a tool for the whole group, lying there in the middle of the table, or for the mc, hidden to the players because they shouldn't know if Roark is technically a pain addict or a warlord?

I use it in both ways.

1) I use the threat map as it is designed for myself, as MC. I use it as a pragmatical tool to remember threats in directions they are going. It's more an organizational tool to me: I know which particular threats I have to keep in mind when they go there. Much more useful than fronts to me, I don't use fronts, even if i'm using ideas from the "Threat Analysis" threads. I generally don't write what kind of threat it is, as I have index cards for that, just a quick reminder of what is where and how they move (I draw direction arrows).

2) I think I read this advice in Dungeon World or something related: on the Region map we draw together, I add "traces" of some of the threats. Can't remember where I read this but in DW it was something like "if one of your threat is a troop of orcs marauders ravaging the region, draw a burnt village not far from the PC's location". So they don't know it's "The Horde", or the "Fire Cult", they know there's has been the sound of an explosion there, and refugees there.

So PC can see real traces of threats on the map, but only the MC can see the threat map. My goal is to preserve immersion.

[Edit: some details]

I would use it as an MC-only tool. However, I might also have a map that looks very similar, but without any of my behind-the-scenes information (e.g. Treat types) available to everyone.

I don't use them. You could share that information, but I wouldn't want to advertise the threat category of the threat. I don't want game terminology coming between or creating expectations for the characters and the in-play narrative. I'm very used to doing things on the fly, so the only times I've used the MC creation rules for either edition is for flavor when writing after-game reports for my crew, or for "saving" thoughts about why I did something or what could be behind this.

I haven't seen the new rules, but the idea of displaying the Threat Type of various NPCs/locations to the players seems like an Absolutely Terrible Idea. There is just zero upside -- for inexperienced players, all the terminology is just going to be weird and distracting, and for experienced players the terminology is just going to pull them out of their characters or result in awkward second-guessing behaviour. You never call a move by its name, why would you ever want to do the same for a Threat?

Yeah, I realized soon after posting how obvious the answer was. :) Thanks, all, for replying!

I haven't had a chance to really test out the Threat Map, but my initial feeling is that I liked fronts better. I don't really need the Map part of the Threat Map since I usually have an actual map of the area drawn, with at least some of the threats right there on it. The direction of the Threat Map doesn't really do much for me, while the grouping of threats in a front helped me see how they were part of a larger problem.

That's cool, for me it's the other way around. For me it's much easier to see how that hive queen, and those enforcers, and that breeding pit are connected, since they're in the same general area, than connecting them through the much more symbolic or abstract scarcities of the first edition.

At least I think so, we'll see when it sees play properly. :)

I let them become connected through personal relationships. So they're initially mapped by, how do they immediately act all the time in their lands (when people go to them), how do they sometimes lash/reach out (when they come to you). Deciding those two is normally about asking what do they need to survive, so I find scarcity an essential factor. And when they interact, I let the fiction and the player decide how they're connected.