That group stealth roll irks me...

That's awesome! Do you know how long it takes to get yourself out of plate mail? If I can't find something fun to do to them in all that time they deserve an automatic success on the stealth roll ;)

AD&D 2nd edition had a table for that, but I believe it was a couple of minutes to put on and a few rounds to take it off without care for locks and things.

Yeah, if the Fighter wants to face danger in less armor then I guess you're back to dealing with group stealth. The other posts have good advice for that. Myself, I was thinking more like "sneaking into the next room," when taking off your armor is louder than just walking in, but if it's a pre-planned assault or something they will come prepared.

Don't you love that kind of thing? Armor is good, sure but nothing like knowing it will slow you down or outright give your location. :)

Armor is only good if you have to use it. You're better off not fighting at all, if it can be prevented. If you are especially brutal with the effects of damage, then the players will quickly realize this. Loosing an arm tends to complicate things.

The sheer amount of enemies can be frightening too. If you tell the players that there's 60+ goblins parading outside a fortress, they might decide not to risk fighting them. Being attacked by ten goblins with spears is d6+9 damage on anything but a 10+ result. That armor won't save you for long ;)

I was going to say something about the accuracy of AD&D's armor changing speeds, but accuracy isn't really what DW is after as well.

When you sneak through hostile territory, assign the following jobs:

- A lockpicker, rolling +DEX. On a 10+ the lockpicker gets the party there quicker than expected, or find an alternate route bypassing a known obstacle. On a 7-9 they find the least patrolled route and can lead everyone along it. (This job also includes leading the party along a precarious precipice, setting up a rope to climb a wall, and the like – all the acrobatics of breaking and entering.)

- A lookout, rolling +WIS. On a 10+ the scout will spot any trouble quick enough for you to get the drop on it. On a 7-9 neither party gets the drop on the other.

- A sweeper, rolling +WIS. On a 10+ the sweeper clears the tracks, making sure the simple passage of intruders goes unnoticed (if you start a fight or steal an object, that might be noticed, but not footprints, unlocked doors etc). On a 7-9 choose one: they notice something's amiss right now, but not what; after you're gone they can piece together exactly what you've done.



Notes:
- The lockpicker needs a new name: it's like a guide and stuff as well, the one knowing how to actually get to where they want to go. Failure on their part includes getting lost. If I called it just the Guide it wouldn't be clear it includes picking locks and stuff. I don't want to make that a fourth job either, or mash it into the sweeper's. Maybe some other division altogether could work better.

- The sweeper might roll+DEX instead depending on how you visualize their job. To me the important part is notice to the details, realising that the curtains used to hang just so. Someone with the wizard move Logical might even do it with INT. If you think the main skill involved would be the sleight of hand aspect, have them roll+DEX instead.

- Traps in the area, if there is no Thief there to roll for Trap Expert, are not really covered. The lockpicker's 10+ option might mean they notice a trap and bypass it. On a 7-9 though, it's legit to say the "immediate path" runs through a room you know contains a trap, and play out passing that room as usual. What the lockpicker's roll gave them is that this path will definitely lead to the right place, and it's the least patrolled.

- This move doesn't say what happens if you have less than three people in the party. You could treat the missing rolls as being 6-, meaning you'll either take your pretty time getting there, risk running into guards unprepared, or leaving glaring tracks for anyone to follow. Or you could say that with fewer people it's easier to stay alert and get everyone to move along, meaning you treat a missing roll like a 7-9.

- A Thief move corresponding to the Ranger's Follow Me and Strider would probably make sense. Especially if you do the "missing rolls treated as 6-" – then the Thief is the only one who can do even a half-decent job on her own.

That move is great. Call the Guide the Burglar. Also, if there's less than 3 people, maybe one person can take two roles? It means they won't have optimal stats for both.

"So, the thief is gonna lead the rest of you stealthily past the guards. That's defying danger, yep!"

One roll, for the group. The thief defies danger by leading everyone in. No big deal.

Maybe some other party members roll to Aid (thus possibly exposing themselves to danger).

And, like others said, you tell possible consequences and ask first (taking off noisy armor, etc.).

(P.S. I like the custom move too)

I would avoid making this kind of group roll into single rolls, but would enforce the idea that the thief can only lead if the rest make sense on what they are doing.

I would rather have the stealthy character shine because he told the dwarf to take his armor off if he wanted to have a chance of moving past the guards, and then have him roll in what he should be *da guy*, in place of making nearly assured to fail sicne everyone will be rolling.

Yeah, and of course you lead with the fiction. The thief can sneak in places alone that the group couldn't manage. You don't get to sidestep those concerns by making a roll -- it's the opposite. When the thief can lead the group, you do it that way. When she can't, everyone has to deal with the situation on their own.

There's no "group stealth" mechanic. Just situations, actions and move triggers.

The greatest problem I see is that we often apply the logic to these cases: The weakest link is the one who will define the action, but that just makes it a bad roll.

Instead, on games try to focus on the idea that the most interesting outcome is based on the character's strengths, the leader has to be whoever is good at it, as long as the players make effort to minimize their weaknesses. Otherwise, the good character will not even bother, heknows they will fail, he is that good.

Jonatan's move very much follows the same idea as mine, but he just had a much better execution. Nice one :)

I agree with Nifelhein; the GM should not emphasize how bad the worst is at specific things, but rather how good te best is.