In reverse order
Undertaking labor is supposed to cover it.
I may revise the move in the future, or may just clarify it, but that's where sneaking past the guards currently fits.
-Vincent
Yeah, that was what I thought too, but no one at the table like it, especially because it meant our Outranger, whose basically a hunter and guide, with no strength was not very good at it. I could have told him he just picked his stats wrong, but other than that they fit his concept.
I think there really should be a sneaky option. Personally I'm of the opinion that you don't need and shouldn't have Size Someone Up. Good seems to cover all forms of interpersonal action fine and in fact beyond the healing move (that seems like it should be weird anyway) that is all it does. Having Wary work the same way as a basic move seems repetitive and almost seems to make Good irrelevant(especially since you can already take a move to do it with Bold if you're Wary sucks). If I had the preference I'd prefer to see a move closer to what's detailed here for Sneaking, rather than see Size Someone Up remain.
The caution action IS a basic move, except there isn't a basic move to do that. There isn't a move to pick a lock, pick pockets, sneak behind the guards, deactivate traps and so on. Nothing of the sort. And i needed that.
But, why is there no move to pick a lock, pick pockets, sneak behind the guards, deactivate traps ? My guess is : because this is not what DA is about. Dungeon World is.
Perhaps. But perhaps it should be. There's a fair amount of sneaking in Game of Thrones, Arya, for example. Not sure about the others, but it seems to a common trope, especially in low magic gritty settings.
The spy network is somewhat similar to consult the other world, but don't have the supernatural drawbacks in doing it (appropriate place, if you fail you don't face supernatural hazards and so on). Your solution could be more elegant, but it still need something to differentiate it more.
Why do you feel the need to differentiate it more?
- Caution action : sounds way too much like a basic move. Also, 2 harm is huge !
Agree with everything else (especially your agreement with me) but this seems fine to me. Maybe 1 harm is enough, but with this it makes it FAR more likely that you'll pick one of the other options, which are all narrative more interesting than, succeed but get hurt(btw, OP, I think you should remove the leave traces behind bit). The only time you'll pick this is when something is worth perhaps more than your life to accomplish well.
1) remain silent: it's also useful to resist torture and not tell what you know. If people knows that you know something, they'll try to take it from you... and with this right, you can keep your mouth shut. You can't be won over, you can't be tortured and so on. Ok, there is no narrative behind you keeping your mouth shut, but it saves your ass when your cover is blown.
Well, my original objection is it only seemed to apply to when having been captured and tortured you had a right not to talk, which, having no mechanical weight behind it, seemed meaningless. Why would your torturers respect that right, ever?
But then I thought about it some more. If the people asking you the question know they are in the wrong trying to get you to talk, it implies there is a protected "class" almost of people who you simply do not ask questions of. Sort of a MAD. We don't fuck with your spy master and you don't fuck with ours. That seems pretty neat.
I still don't particularly like the phrasing. It's too knoweldgable of our world. Almost tongue in cheek, a wink and a nudge. It also doesn't seem evocative enough as I didn't realize the implications until I tried to phrase an argument about why I didn't like it. I think jimmeu is onto something with the "keep and receive secrets." Its evocative of more than an interrogation room or torture cell which really doesn't seem like it would come up that often.
2) Fight dirty: i don't understand why people thinks it's op. 3harm and 1 extra option, without the possibility to use shields and armor, it's way worse then the war champion one (which has 1 extra option on top of 3 or 4harm weapon, a shield and an armour and maybe even a warhorse). But you can use Wary, and this part is powerful. But in a straight fight war-champion vs spy, the spy loses most of the times.
It's OP for two reasons. 1) It gives an extra harm and an extra spend, which is mechanically very powerful and 2) it gives more "stuff" than any other right.
On it's own it's more mechanically powerful than the War Champion's option. The War Champion has to take extra things to be more powerful, AT THE THING HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE BEST AT. Now, it's pretty much always going to be the case that he takes those options, but still, you may have now made you're spy the second best fighter in the game. A free spend on position is alot, even if the spy isn't wearing armor. Which by the way, he shouldn't be anyway. You're not making a sacrifice when most of the time it wouldn't make sense for a spy or spymaster to be wearing armor.
This also isn't a game about mechanical sacrifice for bonuses. It's not meant to be, well if I sacrifice this +1 here, I'll get another +2 over there. So the mechanics of the move don't fit the rest of the game. Particularly when it gives so much. One right usually gives a substitution move. Another right usually gives a spend. Another right still might make a +1 harm in exchange for armor. That's essentially 3 rights combined into one. 2 at the very least. Which makes it by OP in that it gives more stuff than any other right. If you were to list out the things that make your character awesome, taking this right gives you a 3-1 on everybody else. And part of this game is just how Awesome your rights make you on the narrative level.
It also doesn't seem to fit the fiction or particularly make sense. Why would a person have to be unarmored to have the right to fight dirty? Seems like something a person who fights dirty should and would want to do all the time, so why not give them the right, all the time?
That's not all. The idea of duel wielding dagger sneaky guy also coming close to beating fully armed and armored bad ass warrior, fits neither the fiction we're trying to emulate nor real life combat. In a straight up fight, where both fighters are aware of each other and there is no interference(which is how I see Single Combat working) dagger dude gets trounced, 100% of the time, occasionally being able to stick the real fighter before being murderated. In fictional representations we're emulating, they might be able to hold their own enough to get away, but that's it.
3) Safe hideout: it's one of each, you specify the hideout when you need it the first time. Without rolling because i hate too many rolls.
Worth noting, most players enjoy rolling. But regardless, it seems like it should either be a thing you have and explain at the beginning, or something you have a chance of having later and being exactly what you need. Not waiting till the last moment and having the guarantee that you'll get exactly what you want and need.
4) Vanish into shadows: I thought this was the most powerfull trick in the spymaster slevees. So i'm a bit puzzled right now :p
Well, you're replacing inspire others, which basically means the spy guy has no real move to get other people to go to fight, RIGHT NOW, in this moment, beyond trying to talk them into it. So you're taking out a pretty useful thing. Yes you get a useful thing in return, but most rights just give you stuff, they don't make you sacrifice for them. Again, this isn't the type of game where you trade a +1 for a -1 there. At least it doesn't appear to be.
5) Lie: well, i have my doubts about it. There is no "lying" move in this game like in AW where you roll to manipulate someone. The win someone over is the read a person move. I wanted the manipulate move into the spy. I should write it better perhaps.
So, I understand the desire to include manipulation but currently Size Someone Up works just as well. You get the information you need to manipulate them the same as you do with Win Someone Over. So really this just a way of establishing mechanically that your lie is believed, instead of leaving it up to the narration(or the other player making their own move) and one that will actually make you worse at the roll than the normal manipulation, since Wary is +2 and bold is +1 at most.
I like it better if it's you have the right to spread lies and rumors and leave it with no mechanics. You might add something like, in pursuit of your holdings interest. Or you might not.
8) Declare retroactively: you know things, so you are prepared to the worst case scenario. That's what i thought. Perhaps this move is too batman-y, but i need to test it.
So I see this as working in 3 narrative ways in fiction.
There's the original Oceans 11 way, where we see the entire set up of the plan from beginning to end and then we see it go off. My interpretation is you have a right to make a plan and execute it, tell it to the MC. Roll +Wary. On 10+ It will work perfectly provided no unforeseen interference. On a 7-9 it will work out mostly, bu one crucial detail will go wrong. On a miss, prepare for the worst.
There is what I know call the Dresden way, based on Jim Butchers insistent to continually fall back on it to add tension. This is where we see that the Hero is setting up a plan, but the plan itself is never revealed until the last moment. Mechanically it could work as, You have the Right to Plan and Prepare for anything. Roll +wary. On a 10+ Mark 3 and spend them at any time. On a 7-9 mark 2 and spend at any time. On a miss, Mark 1 but expect your plan to backfire.
-Your plan protects your holding from harm, explain how now.
-Your plan eliminates a potential enemy, explain how now.
-Your plan protects you and a close ally, explain how now.
-Your plan exposes someone for who they really are, explain how now.
Lastly, there is Dues Ex BatMachina. Where you never see the hero prepare, it's never implied, in fact there may not even possibly have been time in the story for him to have been off screen preparing or any reason to cause him to prepare, but somehow, in the nick of time, his plan goes off and reverses everything. That's where yours is.
I see the first as something that works in a Spy or Criminal setting. Something where narrative things should be hard, set, and understood. I see the last as working in Superheroic stories. Which leaves the middle one, which makes sense as often we don't see the reveal of long term planning(Ala littlefinger) until after that planning has come to fruition. However the whole time, we see and know they are planning. We just don't know what.