Beta questions

I just gave the Thief Many Hidden Knives, a la AW.

Yeah, I like them too Nate, but only for the thief? Like an advance? Or just a gear choice as in AW?

I think I added it to the starting crap for the Thief. I think they were effectively weight 2 and depending on the circumstance were anything from a short sword to a shiv. I don't really like the notion of throwing knives (knives aren't really made for throwing nor are they heavy enough) so the question of Ammo hasn't come up.

These GM moves (which are AWESOME! and I use all the time) are listed as moves, but have lost their description in the Beta 1.1?

*Turn their move back on them
•Separate them
•Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
•Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment

These GM moves (which are AWESOME! and I use all the time) are listed as moves, but have lost their description in the Beta 1.1?

*Turn their move back on them
•Separate them
•Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities
•Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment

Most of those are part of the Dungeon Move: Present a challenge to one of the characters (p.124). So maybe they're vestigial and yet to be deleted?

Separate them is pretty obvious, but still worth a discussion of the various ways it can be applied.

From last night's play experience I have to say, it may just be my players being XP whores, but with the remodelled XP system, inter-PC Parley just seems too juicy to not jump on, with hefty use of the carrot. Was this intentional?

That said, outside of one holdout, everyone was keen-ish on the slowed advancement curve.

From last night's play experience I have to say, it may just be my players being XP whores, but with the remodelled XP system, inter-PC Parley just seems too juicy to not jump on, with hefty use of the carrot.

See, I know some people who'd totally dig this, and others for whom it'd be a total turn-off. We -- and by "we" I mean myself and the people I've played DW with -- tend to sell DW as an old-school-flavored game of dungeon-crawling adventure. I'm concerned that putting this much emphasis on Bonds will instead turn it into a game of inter-party arguing (and we already have Smallville for that).

In Beta we get experience for two things (alignment being third): playing bonds and playing dungeon crawl (awarded with questions at the end of session move). I agree with Mike that these are two different directions. But I don’t think it is such a bad thing. I prefer my DW open for different playing styles. Sometimes we want simple hack & slash, sometimes more exploring relations – and usually some mix of both. I would even modify questions at the end of session move to be more related to the actual adventure  - for example, how party dealt with the dangerous situation – it doesn’t have to be a big monster every time.

It does seem that there are divergent streams; I'm certainly planning on clearly specifying the game and XP style when I advertise DW games at cons.

I'm interested to hear more about these "divergent streams." The way Adam and I have been thinking of it is: it's a group of people exploring action-filled locations, which of course means they relate to each other in some way. That's directly reflected in the things you get XP for, and how much XP you can get for those things. Bonds are 1 XP per session at most, so you spend some time playing off each other. Exploration, getting phat loot, and killing stuff (the adventuring cornerstones) are 1 XP each, together three times more important than Bonds. Your alignment which is again an adventury thing (going into danger to save others, surprising enemies, etc.) is unbounded XP.

I don't quite see the divergent streams. Bonds aren't heavy-duty Burning Wheel stuff. They're lightweight. That seems completely in line with the rest of the game: after all, these are real people in crazy action packed situations.

I mean, if you have to specify the "game style" and "XP style" when running the game by default, we've done something wrong. If you want to hack your own XP style, awesome! We'll even help you do it. But the game by default should be consistent.

Well, even just within my own experience, I'm seen people running DW as a room-by-room ten-foot pole poking game, people running slow-paced, connected, wilderness adventure games where travel between dungeons and/or a central town are important (this is my default), and balls-to-the-wall pulp action games where you start at the doors to the dungeon and end when the big bad is dead. Those all have different feels, to me at least. Then I see people talking here and on Story Games about games which sound to me like Apocalypse World with swords. I wish I could find an example of the latter to point to, but my search skills are failing me.

At any rate, all of these are legitimate old-school heroic fantasy styles, so I think this shows the strength of DW at catering to the nostalgia of all comers. I like all of those styles, but if I expect one and get another, there's some dissonance. I think this is really about blurbs and expectations than about Dungeon World, but it's something DW GMs at cons should think about.

I mean, if you have to specify the "game style" and "XP style" when running the game by default, we've done something wrong. If you want to hack your own XP style, awesome! We'll even help you do it. But the game by default should be consistent.

On the XP Style, the game is consistent; RAW is clear*. I see the divergence in that it seems that every AP I see is using some different combination of RAW XP and hacks (BBC/Bonds/Keys/etc), and that's something people running the game at cons should be clear on, IMO.



* Although, it seems that the one bond per session bit in the End of Session move is frequently overlooked and perhaps could use emphasis. I know I had to go back and check the rules when I saw one of you mention it here, and I've seen other comments that seem to indicate I'm not alone there.

Well, I only use the as written Experience rules. Again though, Parley at my table has been seen as a way too juicy option to give others Experience. Was that something that got missed in the update to Experience rules in the last 1.1 beta? Or is it still there by intention?

Yeah, but if folks are using inter party parley as an XP mine, then the GM should be all over that. Each move has to have some fictional context, to do it, do it right? So if one particular player (presumably the one with a high Cha) is constantly looking for ways to Parley with others so they can mark experience, it becomes a meta-gamey, counter intuitive to the interpersonal conflict and less immersed in the situation at hand.

Fiction first remember? always ask 'so what do you do?' Address the characters not the players and dig deep every time. Say 'yes' unless the character has leverage on the other(s) and they narratively try to get them to do what they want. Make those rolls count. Make the fictional consequences harsh too. This is inter-party conflict we are talking about here, and a very different game from the traditional D&D fare. So if it involves lots of blackmail, back-stabbery, politics, secrets and lies it may not have the same XP awards given for resolving bonds (in fact you may even create more!) or for traditional adventuring fare. Still DW, sure, but a darker, gritter, more personal dungeon world.