Dungeon World and Social Conflict

[Manbearcat]

On Tuesday, I'm starting a new game for 2 friends (late 30s and early 40s) who have never played TTRPGs in their lives (though they both have or do play video games and the love the genre).

Something about Dungeon World has always bothered me:

* The limits of the Parley Move (in general, but the narrowness of "leverage" in particular).

and

* The fact that the game doesn't use the robust conflict resolution mechanics of Apocalypse World (opposing Clocks) as a win:loss condition for the Social Conflict.

So, what I'm planning is this:

1) Expand the Social Moves a hair. Introduce and modify some Blades moves:

Assert
When you assert yourself through force of intellect or an imposing display, roll Int or Str: On a 10+, choose 2. On a 7-9, choose 1.

• They shrink a bit (tick your Clock 1 time).
• Their allies don't take up their cause.
• They're an open book (take +1 forward to Discern Realities against them).
• Your allies are emboldened (allies take +1 forward against them).

Consort
When you show someone you care about what they think, roll Cha. On a 10+, choose 2. On a 7-9, choose 1.

• They return the gesture (tick your Clock 1 time).
• They're intrigued (take +1 forward to Sway).
• They reveal what is important to them and how they think.
• They aren't offended by your advance or openness.

Sway
When you influence someone with guile, charm, or argument, roll Cha. If you know what is important to them or how they think and use it against them, you cannot get a 6-. If you do not, you cannot get a 10+. On a 10+, they're convinced or nearing it (tick your Clock 2 times). On a 7-9, their position softens (tick your Clock 1 time), but they offer a rejoinder that requires an answer.


As its hopefully plain to see, my intent is that the interfacing of these 3 moves, along with Discern Realities, will do the heavy lifting in Social Conflict (along with personal Playbook Moves).


2) Use opposing 4 tick Clocks to determine win:loss condition of the Social Conflict. Obviously, when a Hard move is made against you, the GM will escalate the situation/change the fiction adversely and tick your Clock.

---

I'll be playtesting this this week when we play the game, so I'll update this thread with the results.

Any thoughts generally?

Any thoughts specifically about any of these moves?

 

[Aldarc]

I'll look over it more closely, but I will note for now that Jeremy Strandberg (Stonetop, Homebrew World, etc.) wrote an article recently on Parley in Dungeon World.

 

[Nagol]

Consort has a default negative that can be erased with a success (being offended by your advance or openness). Assert doesn't. Is a partial success just "not quite as good" success?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'll look over it more closely, but I will note for now that Jeremy Strandberg (Stonetop, Homebrew World, etc.) wrote an article recently on Parley in Dungeon World.

Awesome. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out and see if it does some of the heavy lifting I'm working toward here.

 

[Nagol]

Looking at the set of 3, as they are written, I'd use Consort -- spending my first success to reveal what is important to them and then every other move would be Sway. I can no longer get a Hard Move failure and it will take 2-4 rolls to succeed.

 

[Manbearcat]

Consort has a default negative that can be erased with a success (being offended by your advance or openness). Assert doesn't. Is a partial success just "not quite as good" success?

Assert has:

Their allies don't take up their cause.

Consort has:

They aren't offended by your advance or openness.

The idea here is two-fold:

1) A 7-9 is going to call for some kind of thematic complication (make a move that follows).

2) This empowers the player the discretion to take that particular follow-up off of the table on a 7-9. The GM still has to introduce a complication, but it wouldn't be that one. It would basically allow the 7-9 result to create a stalemate rather than a minor step toward their goal but a clear escalation of events.

 

[Nagol]

Assert has:

Their allies don't take up their cause.

Consort has:

They aren't offended by your advance or openness.

The idea here is two-fold:

1) A 7-9 is going to call for some kind of thematic complication (make a move that follows).

2) This empowers the player the discretion to take that particular follow-up off of the table on a 7-9. The GM still has to introduce a complication, but it wouldn't be that one. It would basically allow the 7-9 result to create a stalemate rather than a minor step toward their goal but a clear escalation of events.

OK! I was thinking allies don't take up cause was a more specialised success type. Makes sense.

 

[Manbearcat]

Looking at the set of 3, as they are written, I'd use Consort -- spending my first success to reveal what is important to them and then every other move would be Sway. I can no longer get a Hard Move failure and it will take 2-4 rolls to succeed.

Just like combat though, there would be 'offense" by the other party in the Social Conflict so, invariably, there would be some Defy Danger (Cha or Int typically - depends on how the player responds) involved to bring the situation back to neutral; hence the "rejoinder you have to answer" as a 7-9 in Sway.

Just like in combat, you can't Hack and Slash with your Close weapon when you're at Reach range. First you'll have to navigate that distance (possibly requiring a Defy Danger or a Defend or some other move - contingent upon the fiction) before you can H&S. Same thing here, you can't Sway until you've dealt with their volley and at least got the situation back to neutral.

7-9 on that Defy Danger may bring the situation back to neutral for another Sway, but I'm going to tick their Clock 1.

6- and I'm ticking their Clock 1 and escalating/bringing in new adversity.

EDIT - Should say - Ticking THEIR Clock 1 (not YOUR Clock).

 

[Nagol]

The Sway rejoiner should be no harder than a soft move though, should it not? You are prevented from applying a hard move because failure is off the table. So you're pretty much limited to hard bargain or ugly choice as they tick the clock. Since the player can decline to take the bargain and lose the success or be forced to tick the clock and react to the ugly choice.

 

[chaochou]

I really like this idea.

The bit I'm not keen on is that Assert is both INT and STR - feels like it's trying to do two jobs.

I'd be interested to see that split it out into two moves, like Argue (Int) and Threaten (Str)

Argue
When you assert yourself through force of intellect, roll Int: On a 10+, choose 2. On a 7-9, choose 1.

• They accept some of your argument (tick your Clock 1 time).
• Their allies don't take up their cause.
• They're an open book (take +1 forward to Discern Realities against them).
• One of your allies is emboldened (name one ally to take +1 forward against them).

Threaten
When you weave threats into your demands, roll Str: On a 10+, choose 2. On a 7-9, choose 1.

• They shrink away from you (tick your Clock 1 time).
• They don't plot to betray you
• They're on the defensive (take +1 forward to Hack and Slash against them)
• One of your allies is emboldened (name one ally to take +1 forward against them).