Interestsing. Did the Make Camp (et al.) moves in Perilous Wilds/Freebooters on the Frontier or Stonetop also not work for you either?
I prefer the social conflict resolution in Stonetop and Avatar Legends. When the Move is Vs. PC, it is less about "I persuade you," but instead more about "you reveal what I could do to persuade you." I like that much better as it becomes a moment where we get to learn about the characters, and players can still decide how to act/roleplay on that information.
The game's attribute proliferation could probably be fixed by not permitting it to go up at all or putting a cap on it.
That said, I am curious what you mean when you say "playbooks could use some 4e-ification." I likely highly agree with you here here; however, I don't necessarily want to project my sentiments in that regard onto yours.
Sorry, I missed this notification, and I'm pretty tied up these days with various things (ENW general posting is basically bottom of the priority list and I think that is probably where I'm going to remain persistently at this point!).
I like Stonetop's fix. Its significantly better than DW's base and actually handles a lot of of Torchbearer Camp phase questions in a PBtA way (around water/fire, around protection vs elements/exposure, around concealment, around locale, etc). It also does what I've been doing for a good while in my DW Make Camp games and that is to disclaim decision-making on
whether something goes bump in the night and offload that to a 1d6 fortune roll akin to FitD tech (with options for Adv or DisAdv given conditions). This has been my solve for a long time. Probably my best solve for this is to answer these questions via gear and moves and then make a Custom
What Goes Bump in the Night move with 1d6 fortune roll; 6 =
Nothing and good rest, 4/5 =
Combo Danger Opportunity but the PC on-watch is ready, 1-3 =
Danger and the PC on-watch is surprised.
I really, really, really don't want that extraordinarily important question to be answered by high-latitude (even if constrained to varying degrees) GM decision-making. For these sorts of games, gamestates tend to pivot (and possibly careen wildly) on the faultline of
in the wild resource recharge. My preference for this is such resource recharge questions to be wholly (or as much as feasible) answered by table-facing, stable, systemitized procedures where players are working off of well-developed information density and engaging with a stable and vital decision-space around these matters.
Circling back to the Discord for DW2e and the various communities that have accreted over the years regarding DW. Well, I'm overwhelmingly out of touch with any/all of these communities. I've spent a little time sprint-scanning the various communities to get a feel for "what people want/expect" in this DW iteration.
Holy hell wildly divergent communities.
Honestly, its a bit overwhelming just how much stuff is out there and how divergent these communities are in terms of what they want out of a DW2e. I sincerely hope that Luke doesn't feel pressured to cater to all-and-everyones' DW2e inclinations. It will be an absolute mess if he does. I trust his design instincts to just make a good game that I have a better chance than not of running. Something that straddles the line between a more matured BWification and TBification of DW would make me tremendously happy (which, along with AW, obviously, and The Shadow of Yesterday, is what I always saw in DW in terms of touchstones and play inputs/outputs).
I am not going to get entangled in this giant web of input by all of these voices. Its too much for me I think (especially right now). I'm just one dude, who isn't particularly important, who Luke doesn't know, among thousands of voices who clearly want their input heard. So I think I'm going to entirely step back from this project and just wish Luke the best in his efforts!
Anyway, thank you for making this thread and making me aware of the project (by proxy). Be well Aldarc of ENWorld!
