Magically Informative Loot

There are other moves that cover the "interesting and informative" part about the surrounding dungeon.

What moves do you mean?  There's GM moves, certainly, but the players don't directly interface with those.  And Discern Realities doesn't do a good job of filling that 'searching' role.  It's more a pausing and looking around move, quick and dirty.  You can apply it to a search (it's your only option, at the moment), but the Loot move's mechanics are better suited to that: the provisions for doing it quickly or without trouble, in particular.

If the name is a stumbling block, well, rename it to "Search".  Then if people are searching something with valuables, the GM says what's valuable and they roll to see how easy it are to collect, and what else might be there.  If there isn't anything really valuable, then the GM says there isn't, but the party can still roll to poke around for useful information.  And it still works exactly as per the Loot move's current wording.

Searching for clues that'll help survive later in the dungeon is pretty basic D&D behavior.  (Or at least old school exploration behavior.)

I remember my AD&D DMG, with its example of play that had the party poking around in an underground river, pulling out a human skull or something ... yeah!  Found it: The LIMED-OVER SKELETON OF THE ABBOT, in a pool of water, clutching a key to a secret door at location 28 and also host to a sealed scroll tube with a water-damaged map of the dungeon, only portions of which are still legible.

And they're examining the skulls in the corners of a room to figure out who lives here (it's a goblin skull).

I could totally see a very slight variation of the Loot move, where the party can look around, realize there's nothing valuable, hit a 7-9, and take some time and trouble to really tear apart a room, looking for something helpful.  And then the GM goes, Oh!  There in the corner, under the rotting flour sacks.  It's a goblin skull.

Michael, that's exactly why I said opening up the move might be a better option. But, as-written, I don't think Loot serves well as a "Search" function.

However, I disagree that Discern Realities doesn't provide the same sort of results.

Let's take your example:

"...had the party poking around in an underground river, pulling out a human skull or something ... yeah!  Found it: The LIMED-OVER SKELETON OF THE ABBOT, in a pool of water, clutching a key to a secret door at location 28 and also host to a sealed scroll tube with a water-damaged map of the dungeon, only portions of which are still legible."

What part of Discern Realities doesn't work with this? Poking around in an underground river is anything but "quick" and closely studying a situation is more appropriate to the "old school" style of actually INVESTIGATING shit instead of hitting you roll and the DM magically giving you the clues.

Remember, to do it, you need to do it.

Players: "We're poking around in the underground river with our pole..."
GM: "Sounds like you're closely studying something. Roll Discern Realities for me."
Players: *dice* "Yeah! 10+"
GM: "What do you want to know?"
Players: "Uh, what is useful or valuable to me here? What should I be on the lookout for?"
GM: "Ah... while stabbing at the water with your pole, you hit something hard, but it's not a rock. It's a human skull. The skull appears to be attached to the rest of it's skeleton and through the water you see it's clutching something. Pulling the skeleton out, you see something useful (a water damaged map) and something else you should be on the lookout for: a key, barely visible as it falls from the skeleton's other hand into the water."

Works fine to me. Why have redundant moves?

I like the idea of search because it constitutes looking to see what's here.  It should be worded so that the DM can give only extra description or say you don't find anything though.  That way, if you search a place where you think there should be something, you have a chance of finding it.  If you search an area on a whim, that's just one more chance for the DM to make a move if you fail.  Spurious searches are, therefore, discouraged because they invite risk as you delay to search thoroughly.  An advanced character move might make specify finding something of value on a 12+.

I like the idea of search because it constitutes looking to see what's here.  It should be worded so that the DM can give only extra description or say you don't find anything though.  That way, if you search a place where you think there should be something, you have a chance of finding it.  If you search an area on a whim, that's just one more chance for the DM to make a move if you fail.  Spurious searches are, therefore, discouraged because they invite risk as you delay to search thoroughly.  An advanced character move might make specify finding something of value on a 12+.

Definitely. That's why I suggested the "GM can say you found all there is to find" clause. That sort of also negates the "you can only search once..." disclaimer in the move as well.

Search as much as you want, but the GM can always say you've found all there is to find.

Wait, why do you need "Search"?  Isn't that what Discern Realities is?  You Discern Realities and ask your questions, and maybe there's something there or maybe the answer is "nothing" or maybe you fumble and the GM makes a hard move.  I don't understand what people are talking about here.

Search v. Spot - We're running into 3E design issues! That says something about our design influences.

I think, if carefully worded, there could be two moves, but I'm not sure that's worth it. Maybe Discern is it. Hm.

Maybe you could convert the current Discern Realities into a spot check (for noticing stuff, "do I see this going on," etc.) and make Discern Realities an example custom move for when you are trying to disbelieve an illusion, ruse, or facade.

That's not a distinction I'm too interested in making. It also might end up turning disbelieve into that weird, metagamey "I see if I disbelieve!" Discern keeps it rooted in something you do (observe) and something you get out of it (details about what's real/not).

The one I'm thinking of more is the difference between noticing something and searching an area/looting/scavenging. Those seem like different things, and in AW they are - read a sitch v. John's custom scavenge move.

The one I'm thinking of more is the difference between noticing something and searching an area/looting/scavenging. Those seem like different things, and in AW they are - read a sitch v. John's custom scavenge move.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing that too much. I think Discern Realities could be used just as easily for looting (and probably better, in my opinion - "What here is useful or valuable to me?").

The whole scavenge move thing is way too bird's eye view for what I think of in terms of looting in D&D (which is normally just, "Oh, there's a chest here. Let's open it." Or, "Oh, there goblins might have gold on them, let's check their belt pouches..."). Whereas, the scavenge move is like, "Oh, you're going out into the dungeon, let's see if you get into trouble or if you just make it back with what you're looking for."

The game IS the scavenge move, so using the scavenge move seems weird. It'd be like using a "send your armies off to battle" move when you're playing a game about battling armies.

Does that make sense?

But, hey, it's your game. This is just idle feedback from someone who's still getting a feel for the whole thing and has a particular vision of D&D (which is insanely diverse...).

That's actually some good feedback, Michael. I'm wondering if we put the Loot move on the wrong side of the screen, in a way.

That's a keen insight, Michael!

I've been thinking a lot about "workshop" rules lately (for another project). You know, the Savvyhead's thing where he says he makes a thing and the GM answers with stuff from the list.

(I'm sort of designing an AW hack that uses the workshop method for almost everything)

Anyway, maybe there's something there for looting rooms. The PCs go, "We search the goblin bodies and room for treasure," and you go, "Okay, sure. But," and then you choose from the list, linking items with AND or OR as needed.

"... but it's pitch dark so you'll use up some torches during the search. Or you could drag the bodies back to the glowy algae room first."

"... but you'll have to deal with the noxious fluids leaking from the bodies first."

"... but it'll take a little time and attention. Who's searching and who's watching the door?"

"... but you'll need a detection spell if you want to find anything hidden with magic, OR use the light from one of your magic candles."

etc. etc.

(clever readers will note that the workshop mechanic is just the MC move "tell them the possible consequences and ask," given more form.)

I think I would really dig that approach, John.

Especially, the "Ok, sure..."

Something is going to be there. And, that something is livening up the dungeon. And, the DM can make that something a complication (dragging bodies, using torches, time and attention, etc.), but can also have mini-moves specifically for the looting which gives them inspiration for neat treasure items, as well as clues and details about the other stuff in this dungeon as well as stuff that leads to other dungeons.

Hmmmm. Very cool.

Oh, yeah, there's definitely a sort of uncertainty in the rules as written.  It looks like I never mentioned it, but I was kind of thinking: you could just do it really old school, where the GM knows what's where, and the party describes how they search things, and the GM says what they find.

I took the existence of the Loot move as an indication that that wasn't the way you wanted to go, though.  And there are reasons not to go that way, since it inclines itself to the table behavior of sinking time to pixel-bashing the scenery.  A tailored move short-cuts that, which is probably desirable, though it could certainly be something more like John's no-roll workshop move, rather than Loot.

But I'm more interested in this: "... but can also have mini-moves specifically for the looting which gives them inspiration for neat treasure items, as well as clues and details about the other stuff in this dungeon as well as stuff that leads to other dungeons."

Because that's why crossing the line and putting this in player hands can work.  For instance, right now the GM doesn't really need to detail treasure.  You maybe have some ideas for magic, and you have a feel for how generous you want to be with gold, and that's enough: the Loot move lets the players cue you for this stuff.  That means you don't have to plan, prep, and place it all, like you would in D&D.

Ditch the Loot move, and now you kind of do need to plan that stuff, or you need to cook up some other process for the GM to figure this stuff out on the spot.

When I'm running D&D, I'll do the prep and placement (with treasure, with clues) and be ok with it.  But I don't think that would fly with me in DW.

As a for instance, John's move is interesting, but it offers me no cues.  For me to respond when the players use that move, I have to already know what's there, either through D&D-style GM prep, or through some other means.  For it to work for me, there has to be the 'some other means'.

So, I have no problem with having the party roll a search and (on a hit) demand information from me, even demand a certain kind of information.  If the move cues me properly, I'll be able to give them something useful every time - there's plenty going on, so it's just a matter of picking something and deciding how it manifests in the scene.

Just like with the Open Your Brain move, I'll never have any reason to use some kind of "there are no clues here" clause.  You'd only use that if you already knew where all the clues were, which is more prep than I'm interested in doing for a game on an AW chassis.

It's the difference between looking at my fronts, seeing goblins, and deciding (in response to a successful move) that there might be a goblin skull hidden over there ... and knowing from before the party even arrives that there's a goblin skull hidden over there, which they may or may not find.

You know, I have no idea if this relates back to the previous post in any useful way, but:

I think searching a room for clues in D&D is like opening your brain in AW.  You might have a question in mind, but you don't know what you'll get ... you just want the GM to show you something useful and interesting.  Just like the MC might give you a flash of something horrible happening in the ragwastes, the DM might toss you a goblin skull or a map fragment.

Michael, when the Savvyhead uses his workshop in your AW game, have you already pre-planned what you intend to have happen?

I don't see any more need to prep for workshop-style looting than the current move. I could prep encounters using the current rules and know that they'll loot each lair and corpse, so prep up items that I can throw their way if they get a hit on Loot.

For inspiration, that's why I suggested mini-moves though, similar to the list in the Savvyhead workshop rules, but maybe for the MC's eyes only. Moves are made in reaction to play, not as prep. Loot isn't a "front" (but, maybe it could be I suppose).

Hell, you could do up tri-folds with the Thief having a list of the MC's "treasure moves" similar to a Brainer having a list of fronts. That'd be neat.

I definitely agree about the show you something useful and interesting bit. That's what I want from treasure. Gems and Gold, sure. But, also interesting magical items and useful tidbits of information that lead me further into the game world.

Some awesome thoughts here. Lots of ways to move forward.