Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7931636" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] That's good input.  I haven't taken it for a spin yet (I'll have some data after Tuesday, which is our make map, make characters (without Bonds or Alignment), play a scene from their past so they can flesh out Bonds and Alignment, play an opening few scenes.I can't say for sure a Social Conflict will arise out of that, but, if it does, I'll post the results.Broadly, here is the design intent:1)  The mechanical architecture is meant to emulate the Tug of War Clock in Blades. A good Social Conflict should feel precisely like that.  The mechanics should bring that to life.2)  As you know, Dungeon World is about bold, thematic decisions in conflict-charged situations creating snowballing fiction where we get to discover who these PCs are and what is this setting they inhabit.  So the game should incentivize boldness and thematic coherency as it interacts with interesting, danger-laden decision-points.  I feel like the moves above play nice with the existing Basic Moves and Playbooks such that it should perpetuate more boldness and thematic decision-making across the various archetypes.  Toughs have more options to coherently and effectively interact.  Schmoozers can coherently and effectively schmooze.  Empaths can feel folks out and move them coherently and effectively by way of their connection establishment.And the decision-points in each of those moves are nicely player-facing and focusing on the particular type of fallout that "Toughing", "Schmoozing", and "Empathing" should reap, if things were to go wrong.3)  (a) Parley has always felt clunky (and clearly does to a lot of DW GMs as folks are constantly trying revisions) and (b) the fact that Dungeon World doesn't have an embedded, player-facing Win:Loss Condition for Social Conflict has always bothered me because it draws me out of the mental state of "play to find out what happens" a little bit.  This provides it, thus reducing the mental overhead of sorting through that grey area of adjudicated Win:Loss and simultaneously amplifying the habitation of the mental state of the "play to find out what happens" disposition, at least for me, as GM.  This resolves both (a) and (b). [HR][/HR]So in total:I think the mechanical architecture captures the emotional/mental disposition of social conflict.I think the moves revision/expansion increases boldness and thematic coherency (both in broadening the access to inputs and in the potential fallout/outputs).I think the Win:Loss amplifies "play to find out what happens" for the GM.</blockquote>

Verification