Hit and Miss

Is there a difference between "on 10+" and "on a hit"? E.g. Parley:

On a hit they ask you for something and do it if you make them a promise first

Is "on a miss" 6 and under?

Miss: 6 and under
Hit: 7 and over

Weak hit: 7-9
Strong hit: 10 and over

So "on a hit" is a broad term including on rolls above 7.

Also, I don't seem to find this explanation in the rules proper.

So "on a hit" is a broad term including on rolls above 7.

Also, I don't seem to find this explanation in the rules proper.

Yeah, I had the same problem....Think about it this way....
10+ The player succeeds
6-   The enemy succeeds
7-9 They both succeed..or the player just partially succeeds

Beyond just combat, you can think about the enemy as being a trap...poison...a hidden item...etc.

Also, the enemy succeeding means the creature makes a move ...it could be destroying something, knocking a character down, etc....up to and including dealing damage.

That's definitely correct. I also find it important to remember that a 7-9 is fundamentally a success for the player; only the 6- is a real failure. I usually think of it like:
10+, success with no drawbacks
7-9, success with a cost
6-, failure with a cost

That also reminds me that it's the cost that matters; what does the player have to sacrifice for this? Especially on a failure, I need to remind myself that failure without cost is pointless- they can just keep trying into infinity and that's a bad game. A lot of RPGs just say "you failed" but I like the *World games because they say "you failed, here's what that means.

Once a move applies, it's time to look at the effects. Most moves tell you to roll+something. The roll part means to take two d6s, roll them, and add them together. The +something part means to add the modifier associated with that stat. So, a character with Dex modifier of +2 who launches a Volley rolls two d6s, adds them together, and adds two. Easy.
The result of the roll falls into three categories: a 10+ is a strong hit. A 7–9 is a weak hit. A 6- is a miss.
Strong hits and weak hits are both hits. A hit means the character does what they set out to, more or less. A strong hit means they do it without much trouble or complications. A weak hit means complications and unpleasantries. Sometimes, a weak hit will mean you need to make a hard decision about what to do next. The move will always say what to do for a strong and weak hit.

p.11 of the Beta 2.3 rules.

The problem with the rules, in my opinion, is the rules do not clearly state what happens to a character on a "miss". A 6- isn't just a miss, it means something bad happens.

Actually they do. They say that on a miss the GM has a golden opportunity, and that a GO is a move as hard as the gm likes.

Actually they do. They say that on a miss the GM has a golden opportunity, and that a GO is a move as hard as the gm likes.

You are right, as I stated it, I was very wrong... My point, poorly stated was this...

I found it difficult to find what happens on a miss besides a miss in the book. There is a tremendously good combat example, except it never covers a miss..but plenty of times on a partial hit.   

In fact, looking at a supplement they have a creature with poison. On a 10+ for con you are OK...On a 7-9 the players picks two.. Nothing is said on a 6-.   

Go with the assumption you do not know what happens on a 6- other than a miss, assume you have never played anything but DND, and go through the rules page by page and see how quickly you come to the right idea in clear terms.

It could be just me. :)

I found it difficult to find what happens on a miss besides a miss in the book. There is a tremendously good combat example, except it never covers a miss..but plenty of times on a partial hit.   

In fact, looking at a supplement they have a creature with poison. On a 10+ for con you are OK...On a 7-9 the players picks two.. Nothing is said on a 6-.   

Go with the assumption you do not know what happens on a 6- other than a miss, assume you have never played anything but DND, and go through the rules page by page and see how quickly you come to the right idea in clear terms.

It could be just me. :)

It's not just you. My players also look at their sheets sometimes and go, "it doesn't say what happens on a miss." But the rules pretty clearly state that on a miss the GM makes as hard a move as he likes, and the hard move is usually pretty implicit in the text.

The only other option is to have the moves spell out what happens on a miss, and I think that would be very limiting. When the player misses their +CON roll and suffers the poison effect, there are any number of ways the GM might handle it. Depending on the campaign tone, established fiction, and condition of the party, there are a lot of choices you could make. If they're really hurting, then a simple -1ongoing will sting. If they're starting strong, you can act a lot harder without screwing them over.

I'd rather have that freedom. If the move flat-out TOLD you what had to happen, always, on a miss, then it might lead to annoying "rules-as-written" debates and limit the GM quite a bit. It would be a good idea to emphasize this a little more often in the rules, for new players: Unless a move specifies otherwise, on a miss the GM makes a hard move based on the fiction.

Scrape has the right of it. Reinforce to your players too that a Golden Opportunity is the mechanical 'justification' for the all the HARD fictional trouble the GM introduces to the story. It explicitly states that the GM can make as hard a move as they like in response to character misses. Its the risk for rolling. The GM can always make a hard move at other times, especially if the story is  dragging or the players just look at you expectantly, but a miss is like a stone in the pit of your stomach; Oh Oh. What's gonna happen now? Followed by the ubiquitous GM question left hanging in the air; 'So, what do you do'?

Once the players understand this paradigm, especially when the GM embraces the principles and (is a fan of the characters and fills their lives full of adventure), a miss is exciting and scary and a little nail-biting, but its not unfair, or GM fiat to be a dick. Plus you get a little XP too, so its not all bad.

Despite the principle to make a move but never speak its name, the game is not about secret hidden DM rules. The players can (and often should) know what the DM, Dungeon and Monster moves are like. It gives some anchors for an in-play discussion of a move snowball - like the clarifications in the rulebook throughout the Moves Discussion Chapter.

The only other option is to have the moves spell out what happens on a miss, and I think that would be very limiting. When the player misses their +CON roll and suffers the poison effect, there are any number of ways the GM might handle it. Depending on the campaign tone, established fiction, and condition of the party, there are a lot of choices you could make. If they're really hurting, then a simple -1ongoing will sting. If they're starting strong, you can act a lot harder without screwing them over.
[/quote]

Here is the rub, as I see it. The way I normally GM (outside of DW) is that character death is fairly rare. That doesn't mean that the characters act in nonsensical ways since they know my hesitancy to kill characters. In general, I think killing off characters often interrupts the narrative.

Along comes DW and they say make it dangerous and don't be afraid to kill characters, so I decide to go along with that. Actually, I am fine with that since that is supposed to be the tone of the game. Now what you are talking about here is to take me back to my old ways and fudge things enough that the players struggle but make killing more rare.

Along comes DW and they say make it dangerous and don't be afraid to kill characters, so I decide to go along with that. Actually, I am fine with that since that is supposed to be the tone of the game. Now what you are talking about here is to take me back to my old ways and fudge things enough that the players struggle but make killing more rare.

It's hard to fudge when players roll all the dice -- it might work for you if you rewrote the Last Breath move?  Or just include that rolling a miss on Last Breath will get an extra-potent bargain from Death in order to return to life.  There's some discussion of this in the text if I believe.

Just a thought if you wanted to keep things less lethal!  Otherwise, resurrection is a bit of a motif if people are fine playing a different character for awhile.

It goes both ways Azato. You could kill a character without a player even rolling a miss. You just make the hard move and kill them dead. But that would actively work against your principles and agenda, so you shouldn't really do that.

If you warn the player with an impending doom, a few soft moves and they still end up in a place where you (all) think the character should be dead, then hey, go for the heroic death. So long as it makes sense in the fiction its no more 'fudging' or fiat than any of your GM moves (you don't roll dice remember?).

Yeah, we're not saying that you have to take it easy. Just that you can if you need to. Because there are no rules for what move you must make, you can be as hard or as soft as you need to be. Mechanically, monster Stat blocks are super light. You can really push your hard moves if you think a monster or situation should be very dangerous, or you can throw some softballs. It's very open. Remember, dangerous doesn't always mean deadly. Break equipment, use up supplies and healing, really push them until the conflict is as difficult as you wanted.

They leave the 6- moves open for a reason: it's your game.