Reading through Dungeon World, questions for GMs, RE: Initiating a GM "move"

[innerdude]

So I'm reading through Dungeon World, and really like the core concept a LOT. I can definitely see this being the type of game that my players would latch on to when they're in the mood for something less "tactical" and more free-flowing.

That said, I'm a bit confused about a couple of specific concepts around GM-ing, namely about when a GM can initiate a "move" against the players.

For example, players are caught in an ambush --- they tried to "discern realities" about the clues left behind when they searched an area and failed. Based on their failure, I initiate an "Ambush" move. Now the (hypothetical) hobgoblin archers and spearmen are closing in.

At what point do I as the GM get to introduce a potential "attack"? Do I simply narrate what happens?

"Your search of the area failed to reveal that several hobgoblin sentries were watching you the whole time. Now half their tribe is descending on you from the hills above. Because you failed to discern, they're on you before you have nearly any time to react. What do you do?"

In my head I'm thinking I let the player answer however they like, but then add, "Okay, but they are literally right on top of you. You're going to have to 'Defy Danger' to do any of that at all without getting skewered."

In other words, as a GM I never simply say, "The goblin attacks you," then roll a "Hack 'n Slash" check for the goblin and apply damage. But does this also apply to monsters making ranged attacks? Monsters never make their own "Volley" roll, do they? How do you narrate hobgoblin archers making an attack without simply having them roll their own "Volley" check?

Or is this a case where I should have some kind of predetermined "monster move" set for the hobgoblins that causes them to fire arrows in response to character actions? And in this case, is the character's only response to try and move for cover, get behind a shield, etc.? And is that simply considered a "Defy Danger" move on the part of the PC?

 

[Gilladian]

In cases like this, you narrate the hobo ambush. They don't ever roll an attack. Just say what happens.

"As you advance across the hillside, a flight of arrows suddenly sails at you, hissing through the air around you." At this point, it is up to you to either inflict automatic damage because they already failed to avoid this danger, or have them make defy danger rolls to act in whatever way they choose.

If I had given the Pcs warnings of danger, and they advanced anyway, I would inflict damage. If they took precautions, like trying to hide, looking as threatening as possible, or even just raising shields defensively, I'd give them DD rolls and interpret the results. If I had NOT given them any reason to expect danger, then I would give them a DD roll for sure.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], "deal damage" is a GM-side move.

Among the judgements a DW GM has to make is when to go hard and when to go soft. Do you "reveal an unwelcome truth", triggering Defy Danger or something similar? Or does a flight of hobgoblin arrows deal damage to the heroes? GM's call, in accordance with the logic of the fiction and the core GMing principles.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] , couple things:

1) I would recommend you read my PBP here. That should help you quite a bit.

2) I would recommend you watch a game run by Adam Koebel on Youtube (co-creator of the PBtA hack).

3) See [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's post directly above. It all depends on the status of the fiction (while you maintain fidelity to the game's procedures, play agenda, and GMing principles).

3a) GMs don't roll dice in DW. The moves they make are things that happen in the fiction as a result of:

- a 7-9 result on a player move.
- a 6- result on a player move (and they mark xp).
- a soft move which is the general framing of a scene.
- when the players present you a golden opportunity because they have ignored or not properly dealt which a telegraphed soft move such as "reveal an unwelcome truth", "show signs of an approaching threat."

---

So I'm going to fill in some blanks on your scenario above as I don't know enough.

Situation:

The PCs are tracking some refugees from a raid on a village. They're deep in the wilderness and smoke rises from the distance in a heavy stand of trees. A campfire against the gathering dusk and the cold that comes with it?

They move in and investigate.

Clues clearly point to (a) much higher traffic than a small band of refugees, (b) heavy mailed bootprints, (c) a recently snuffed fire, (d) yet scat and tracks of a few beasts of burden (which the refugees left with).

A player makes their Discern Realities move and a player Aids. Outright Failure on the DR and a 7-9 on the Aid. This could mean several things depending upon the fiction:

* The hobgoblins are hidden nearby and have javelins ready to launch a volley at the precise moment. This is it. Pick targets and have the players roll damage. Lets say this is an elite ranger unit; b[2d6 (piercing 1)]. If multiple targets attack a specific PC, add +1 damage for each additional attacker. Of note here, given the 7-9 on the Aid move, the Aiding PC should probably be the one eating extra attacks as they've exposed themselves todanger.

* The hobgoblins have laid a gnarly tripwire/snare trap made of thorns to entangle a PC and hoist them up into the trees. Meanwhile, they've beat it and are now well ahead of the PCs and on their way to their bastion/redoubt. Defy Danger and lets see how this thing goes.

* The PCs find the grisly remains of one of the refugees with a note scrawled in blood knifed to its chest, pinning it to a tree; "CHASE MORE, ANOTHER DIES" . Meanwhile, like before, they're well ahead of the PCs.

* No signs of the hobgoblins as they've beaten feet to their main outpost/camp. Unfortunately, they camped too close to the alpha predator in this locale andthe smell of food in their cookpot has attracted its most unwelcome attention; an enraged Owlbear with Messy tag!

* A curse is scrawled on every tree in this stand and one of the PCs knows the ancient script. These lands are haunted...and the hobgoblins have clearly captured the refugees and are heading headlong into the cursed forest. Maybe the PCs need to Defy Danger (Wis, Con, Cha) from the supernatural horror with a debility on the line if they get a 6- and maybe some sort of horrific vision of the future on a 7-9 (where you pocket a take-1 to make it become manifest at a later date).

There are lots and lots and lots and lots of prospects here. It just depends on the nature/continuity of the fiction, what sort of action your players have signaled they're interested in (through PC build and answering questions in the course of play). Regardless, you play to find out what happens and you fill the PCs lives with danger and adventure...over...and over...and over.

That is Dungeon World.

 

[innerdude]

Thanks @Gilladian, @pemerton, and @Manbearcat. Good answers from each.

A couple of follow-ups:

First, do you find yourself adding small bonuses or penalties as a discretionary "GM call," or do you avoid that and only add or subtract from a roll based on the "forwards" they've accumulated?

Second, in terms of balancing encounters, is there anything particularly to be aware of? Charting a monster's damage capability, its instinct + moves, and its general "fictional positioning" seem to make sense, but I'm wondering if there are any pitfalls in setting up combat challenges to be too difficult. (Though looking at the playthroughs, the vast majority of the interesting challenges are less about combat and more about the character trying to "push forward" the fiction.) For instance, in battles against hordes, do you ratchet up the challenge and danger simply by adding the additional static damage to the monster's damage rolls? It seemed that the base damage for the creature remained the same, you simply added more static damage as the horde got bigger. (I haven't really delved into the monster section in depth yet, but I've read through it.)

Also, are there areas where the players have more of a tendency to argue against the results of a GM move? In this case, I'm guessing "Say yes or roll the dice (i.e., initiate a move)" is the overriding philosophy here, but I'm wondering if there are specific areas where players are more prone to say, "That's not fair," or "That doesn't make sense." Is it difficult in some circumstances to find a satisfying resolution that meets the fictional need, the stated intent of the PC action, and the result of the roll?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]

I'm not actually a DW GM, and so can't give answers based on DW experience. So I'll just reply to your last question, based on my experiences with BW and the non-combat aspects of 4e.

are there areas where the players have more of a tendency to argue against the results of a GM move? In this case, I'm guessing "Say yes or roll the dice (i.e., initiate a move)" is the overriding philosophy here, but I'm wondering if there are specific areas where players are more prone to say, "That's not fair," or "That doesn't make sense." Is it difficult in some circumstances to find a satisfying resolution that meets the fictional need, the stated intent of the PC action, and the result of the roll?

This issue of fairly adjudicating the fiction is an important element in BW and 4e (especially the non-combat/improv parts of 4e). My general advice would be:

* If the players have a firm view of how the fiction works (eg how magic portals work; how to build a "tank trap" that will slow goblin warg riders; etc) then let them run with it and adjudicate in accordance with "say 'yes' or roll the dice". Instead of blocking the player idea at the conception/framing stage, let the failure results do that. (And of course let them have their successes if they get them.)

* If you, as GM, have some idea about a nice twist you would like to have happen, use that as your consequence for failure. You don't need to fiat to get it in there, because in these sorts of games failure results will come up.

* If you have to narrate a failure, and you didn't have some preconceived idea, poke your player, but in a nice way. What I mean by that is that you should go to something they care about, but don't wreck it or invalidate it. Make them realise that it was worthwhile for them to engage with that bit of the fiction (eg you noticed they have some family in their PC backstory) and make a threat to that part of the focus of play. Instead of backstory, this can be as simple as putting some bit of gear (the "pudding diving rod", or a shield or weapon) into jeopardy.​

Summarising the above (and you probably don't need to be told this, but I'll say it anyway): reverse all the traditional ideas (from Gygax, KotDT, GM advice books etc) that suggest players need to be kept on a tight leash or they'll wreck the place. Give the players free rein, and let their PCs and their "stuff" be the focus; but use those failure results to push back and make them wish they'd rolled better.

 

[Manbearcat]

So you have some procedural questions and some GMing ethos questions. I'm going to use your enumeration with "also" being 3.

Thanks @Gilladian, @pemerton, and @Manbearcat. Good answers from each.

A couple of follow-ups:

First, do you find yourself adding small bonuses or penalties as a discretionary "GM call," or do you avoid that and only add or subtract from a roll based on the "forwards" they've accumulated?

Second, in terms of balancing encounters, is there anything particularly to be aware of? Charting a monster's damage capability, its instinct + moves, and its general "fictional positioning" seem to make sense, but I'm wondering if there are any pitfalls in setting up combat challenges to be too difficult. (Though looking at the playthroughs, the vast majority of the interesting challenges are less about combat and more about the character trying to "push forward" the fiction.) For instance, in battles against hordes, do you ratchet up the challenge and danger simply by adding the additional static damage to the monster's damage rolls? It seemed that the base damage for the creature remained the same, you simply added more static damage as the horde got bigger. (I haven't really delved into the monster section in depth yet, but I've read through it.)

Also, are there areas where the players have more of a tendency to argue against the results of a GM move? In this case, I'm guessing "Say yes or roll the dice (i.e., initiate a move)" is the overriding philosophy here, but I'm wondering if there are specific areas where players are more prone to say, "That's not fair," or "That doesn't make sense." Is it difficult in some circumstances to find a satisfying resolution that meets the fictional need, the stated intent of the PC action, and the result of the roll?

1) PBtA systems generally don't condone preemptive, discretionary GM calls of "take -1" or "take +1" as inputs tomoves for when the GM thinks something is difficult or easy. The game's maths are designed specifically for the bell curve outcome (making the 7-9 predominate), so fiddle with that at your peril. You will use it in very rare circumstances, but it should be extremely remote. "Take -1" or "take +1" will be outputs/move results (that then become components of subsequent resolution), but not preemptive, process-sim inputs. "Take +1" will also occur modify moves in scenarios where players deploy resources (Adventuring Gear, Bags of Books, etc) to do so.

What you will do, in its stead is make clear what the fictional positioning is (if its not obvious) before the move is resolved. Dungeon World handles this informally through conversation, while Blades in the Dark handles it formally through Position adjudication; Controlled (Set up for success - good results will be lovely while bad results will be bearable), Risky (default), Desperate (Serious danger or a reach - good results will be hemmed in a bit while bad results will be brutal).

So take the below example:

Dashing Bard: "I know she is loyal to the innkeep, but I've been emptying drinks into her and wooing the barmaid pretty good all night. I feel like she is a couple sheets to the wind and hanging on my every word. I know she has the map of the smuggling route down her bustier. I'm going to lean in for a kiss and "cop a feel" and see if I can't extract it!

GM: I agree with you. There are a lot of potential suitors around and a lot of unfriendly eyes...but you're a in private booth and she is definitely in the palm of your hand (thus signaling the equivalent of a Controlled Position in BitD). Go for it (Defy Danger Cha).

So if the player were to somehow get a 6- result, you aren't going to throw a punitive Hard move at them (if you make a Hard move at all...you're certainly in your right to make a Soft move, given the Position). You aren't going to have her freak out, take offense, slap him and run out screaming. You aren't going to have an interloper charge in and attack the Bard.

You might have him pull the map out of her bustier, but she is so wasted that she falls out through the curtains of the private booth and onto the taproom floor unconscious. He has the map but now he has a bunch of parishioners looking at a situation that needs to be explained (which, if subsequent moves and the fiction snowball, might ultimately lead to the attention of the Innkeep who knows she has that map...and confrontation).

Make sense?

2) Encounter difficulty is trivially easy to intuit.

a) The inputs are minimal and mostly first order. The real dangers are (i) large numbers of dangerous obstacles/enemies, (ii) dangerous tags like Messy, and (iii) bad fictional positioning for the players (the equivalent of Desperate in BitD).

b) The way multiple attackers on one target works is - Roll highest damage dice of the group > if any of the attackers has piercing n or ignores armor, apply it > +1 damage for every attacker after the first.

c) The fictional positioning + the results of player moves + Monster Tags/Instincts/Moves govern what they do.

3) I haven't really experienced much disagreement on my moves in actual play, but I did have @Nagol feel that I didn't go punitive enough in a play anecdote I relayed in another thread. So I'm sure there are situations at tables that arise where players feel the GM hasn't done a good enough job of signaling the state of the fiction (and the PC's position in relation to it) when a move was made, such that the output was too strong or too meek. If Nagol was a player at my table and felt the way he did, then either (a) he is right or (b) we (the group) didn't do a good enough job shoring up the fictional state of things before move was made.

I'd just say do your best to be as clear as you can, listen to your players (they certainly might be right, we aren't perfect!), and maybe even deploy Blades Position tech in DW if you feel like you need more formalization of fictional positioning.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

3) I haven't really experienced much disagreement on my moves in actual play, but I did have @Nagol feel that I didn't go punitive enough in a play anecdote I relayed in another thread.

<snip>

Punitive wouldn't be the adjective I'd use. Respectful of the mechanics is closer, I think. A 6- result is presented as failure so the resulting fiction should match that state. Simply introducing a new trouble while leaving open the opportunity for the player to continue moves that will achieve their original goal (as many soft moves will) I find problematic.

If Nagol was a player at my table and felt the way he did, then either (a) he is right or (b) we (the group) didn't do a good enough job shoring up the fictional state of things before move was made.

Or (c) the player is a poor fit for the group/style of play. A player is only right when the group agrees with him or he can cite an objective standard that applies and the group agrees that standard is applicable.

 

[Nagol]

So I'm reading through Dungeon World, and really like the core concept a LOT. I can definitely see this being the type of game that my players would latch on to when they're in the mood for something less "tactical" and more free-flowing.

That said, I'm a bit confused about a couple of specific concepts around GM-ing, namely about when a GM can initiate a "move" against the players.

For example, players are caught in an ambush --- they tried to "discern realities" about the clues left behind when they searched an area and failed. Based on their failure, I initiate an "Ambush" move. Now the (hypothetical) hobgoblin archers and spearmen are closing in.

At what point do I as the GM get to introduce a potential "attack"? Do I simply narrate what happens?

You have effectively two choices here. A soft move (narration ending with "What do you do?") or a hard move (narration ending with a directive to roll dice/take action followed by the rest of the narration incorporating the result). Begin and end with the fiction.

I'm a fan of hard moves in response to failure and soft moves to keep situations evolving.

"Your search of the area failed to reveal that several hobgoblin sentries were watching you the whole time. Now half their tribe is descending on you from the hills above. Because you failed to discern, they're on you before you have nearly any time to react. What do you do?"

In my head I'm thinking I let the player answer however they like, but then add, "Okay, but they are literally right on top of you. You're going to have to 'Defy Danger' to do any of that at all without getting skewered."

In that case I'd skip asking for player input since it is irrelevant. Get the Defy Danger out of the way AND THEN ask for input -- when it is meaningful again.

In other words, as a GM I never simply say, "The goblin attacks you," then roll a "Hack 'n Slash" check for the goblin and apply damage. But does this also apply to monsters making ranged attacks? Monsters never make their own "Volley" roll, do they? How do you narrate hobgoblin archers making an attack without simply having them roll their own "Volley" check?

Or is this a case where I should have some kind of predetermined "monster move" set for the hobgoblins that causes them to fire arrows in response to character actions? And in this case, is the character's only response to try and move for cover, get behind a shield, etc.? And is that simply considered a "Defy Danger" move on the part of the PC?

The GM never rolls dice, he only narrates the action. A large volley of arrows might call for a group set of defy danger checks as the PCs ty to get out of the line of fire (soft version of the ambush move) or perhaps the group is caught off guard and the first volley results in damage and the PCs need a defy danger to do anything to get out of the cover they found instinctively (hard version of the ambush move).

By and large, the monsters don't make moves in reaction to PC action -- DW isn't that fine grained. The GM updates the fiction based upon player input and the results of player moves. Once in a while, the GM announces "something new" i.e. makes a move of his own (when a player roll fails, the scene gets stuck, etc.).

Predetermined monster moves are pretty much a cosmetically prepared specific versions of the general GM moves by and large. I think the primary purpose of having them prepped in the creature stats is to remind the GM what is appropriate and/or awesome for the creature to do.

 

[Manbearcat]

At what point do I as the GM get to introduce a potential "attack"? Do I simply narrate what happens?

<snip>

In other words, as a GM I never simply say, "The goblin attacks you," then roll a "Hack 'n Slash" check for the goblin and apply damage.

I want to say a couple of things on this right quick because, due to deeply internalizing the paradigm D&D turn-based combat/cyclical initiative, melee fundamentals (among other things) in DW seem to be difficult for certain GMs/players to conceive.

1) If a player is in neutral/offensive position (able to respond or dictating the terms) and is dictating the melee exchange, the player should make the Hack and Slash move to resolve the engagement with your goblin.

2) If your player is not in neutral/offensive position, you would simply narrate the fiction with a soft move like follows:

Situation: Fighter is tangled up with the snapping maw of a Dire Wolf (maybe a Defy Danger move @ 7-9 triggered the Forceful tag where the Fighter is in a bad spot, but didn't take any damage).

GM: "You're on your rump, back pressed to the gnotted wood of the frozen tree. The Dire Wolf's fetid breath is thick in your nostrils as a hand grips a tuft-full of fur while one of your knees is locked against its throat, fending off the vicious maw which snaps inches from your face! Meanwhile, the goblin rider that was thrown from its back frantically looks around for its spear. Finding nothing, it picks up a fist-sized rock and rushes in from the side to brain you with it!

What do you do?"

No Hack and Slash move with the goblin is going to take place here. Unless the Fighter has Signature Weapon Fists, the GM should almost surely require some sort of Defy Danger or Defend move just to either get free from the Dire Wolf or to get a Hand-tag sidearm unsheathed. Dealing with the goblin is another matter.

Unrelated to the above, I don't recommend Custom World Moves for Locations/Monsters/Hazards/Traps until you're really comfortable with the system. Just develop the fiction and use Defy Danger (or Defend if it warrants). You've got all the room you need in either the 7-9 or 6- DD result to make the Location/Hazard/Trap/Monster manifest in the fiction (and on the PC character sheet).

And if the player outright ignores or is wholly unable of dealing with your telegraphed soft move...you just go straight to the hard move and bring the worst about (Deal Damage/Afflict with a Tag or Debility, Use Up Their Resources, etc).