Make Camp

Sage, what's the value in penalizing smaller groups?  That really rubs (me at least) the wrong way. You'd usually have a smaller group because you have fewer players.  Making camping more dangerous because there are only two guys I can game with seems... icky.

From a simulation aspect: the more folks in a camp, the harder it is to find enough food when foraging for them. The harder it is to cover your tracks.  The harder it is to ensure noise/light discipline and keep the camp hidden.

There's also the weirdness that comes out of, say, three guys getting 10+ and one guy rolling a 3.  You've got a well-hidden, well-provisioned camp that leaves no trace... but the GM's gonna make a hard move that might very well interrupt the group making camp in the first place. And the more guys you've got rolling 2d6, the more chances of getting a low roll.

Seems like it would play smoother with either:
a) One person rolls; 10+ choose two options and 7-9 choose one.  (Maybe require that everyone else making camp roll +Bond; 7+ no effect but a miss they impose a -1? But that's clunky.)

-or-

b) Make it a "weakest link" roll.  Everyone rolls, on a 10+ nothing bad. On a 7-9, choose something from a list (use more rations; didn't heal; slept for crap take -1 forward; something's out there watching you).  On a 6-, camp gets interrupted but good.

Related question: how much detail do you want/envision the players getting into when making camp? I appreciate the benefits Noofy's "get vivid" approach, but your players are probably there to play Dungeon World, not Camping World.

The two person party is what hirelings are for :)

That said, the weakest link option might work too. We'll think on it.

While you're looking at this, consider the possibility that there's a generic set of outcomes and then options that only open up when there's a Ranger around - something beyond the A SAFE PLACE move.  Maybe even something built into the class that they don't need to spend a move on.

I don't know that it should go in that direction, just spit-balling.

Making camp, setting watches, etc. - such a classic mainstay of this kind of gaming.

In my opinion, the more characters you have means that you can go into more dangerous areas and, because of your numbers, be able to synergize to keep up your HP and so forth.

That just kind of fits the fiction to me - - people can sleep more soundly and digest properly and all those other comfort-things when someone else is around to watch their back. It fits with my digestion of adventure stories and how characters in that genre keep it together.

In a spy-film or heist-flick hack for DW, Make Camp would be something like:
Pit Stop:
When the lot of you go out for a drink or a bite to eat, consume one Smoke [thanks, Regiment!] to recover HP equal to half your max. If you turn down a cig or don't have one, you ain't feelin' too good - heal nothing and take -1forward.
Roll +eyeballs - - on a hit you may choose one for the "party" as a whole:
- you're not in enemy territory
- the food is actually pretty good; you don't have to dull your taste buds with a smoke first to stomach it.
- no one seems to remember you after you leave, if anyone should come inquiring about you.

My point is that adventure fiction is very often about the characters eating, drinking, or otherwise engaging in (literally) sensual activity together - playing music or partying, even.
Mechanically, socializing as a group is emphasized, and playing with fewer players is discouraged because it kind of collapses the whole Bond system, which if used can do a lot of the creative groundwork for the party dynamic, and even the world the game takes place in.

Then, when you get back to town, you can mark your return with a Carouse roll.

Jeremy, I figure if I didn't want to really screw the players over on account of that 3 you mentioned, you could just opt to make a softer move instead, like revealing something bad about a hireling or announcing future badness (maybe the first distant rumblings of the Balrog, deep below?) to show the players that even at rest they can't really relax here.

It revolves around the phrase "dangerous territory" - - just like in good old Unknown Armies, if there's no threat or challenge in the way, then don't put one there. Make Camp seems to be "say yes or roll the dice" personified, as the players look to the DM to judge whether they're in a dangerous spot or if they can just have a reprieve for a bit.

Also, as far as I understand the rules, ANY 6- is a Golden Opportunity.

In that way, a big camp is more in danger of perhaps drawing some unwelcome attention.

Good call! Hobbitses need to hide from prying eyes, after all.

I'm just throwing this idea out.  Small groups (1-2) in a dangerous territory tend to travel light and be inconspicuous rather than invite trouble.

When you need to lay low, roll+Wis and then subtract 1 for each additional party member you are rolling for.  On a 10+, your position is well hidden from enemies and you may consume a ration to heal half the damage that has been done to you.  On a 7-9, you are exposed but you will see them before they see you - take +1 forward.

^^ I like that it clearly makes sense for the heroes to kind of hole up individually, wherever they can find a bit of cover.
I like that a weak hit means a future encounter, but you still get to heal up. It preserves the "integrity" of getting a hit.