Thanks for the heads up, Skorabor. I'm back from vacation now as well and will be catching up today on the posts. If we're at a place to move forward, we'll do that as well! Thank you all for your patience!
Mandus has returned from the north shores of Lake Superior and is ready to resume some mayhem.
I'd agree with Mandus that we clearly learned important things about the world, and that we defeated a notable monster...and that we didn't loot memorable treasure.
That's +2
Also, do we get +1 for acting in accordance with our drive? mine says
"Prey on the unnatural -- Many halflings choose to live life like the fieldmouse, hidden under the feet of humans. I choose to live like the owl, hunting those that would destroy nature’s balance."
I suspect that's +1 for me this time around as well.
The bonds are a bit confusing for me.
First I have three bonds with three folks who won't be continuing on with us: Morgan, Karn, and Gilder. (Or is one or more continuing as an NPC? And even if they do, does it make sense to have bonds with an NPC?) I suppose what you're saying is just to drop those three and mark +1 for the set. Easy enough...though it feels a bit like cheating to get +1 for just erasing bonds with folks who left.
Now, about my remaining bonds:
[Skorabor] has something to teach me about the hunt.
-- I think I can see how this'll be resolved...someday I'll learn something about the hunt from Skorabor, be a better hunter because of it, remove this bond and mark XP.
[Skorabor] has tasted my blood and I theirs. We are bound by it.
-- This one's harder for me to think of how it might be resolved. One option is that that bond get's severed, say if he betrays me, and I no longer consider him a brother. (Hopefully not!) How else might this be resolved?
...and of course now that I've met Mandus and Gil, I'll figure out a bond for each of them.
Anyway, I think that puts me at 7 XP, just a fumble away from leveling up. Meanwhile, thanks for a fun game, and for taking the time to teach us and patiently answer long questioning posts like this one!
EDIT: just realized I did write a Mandus bond:
[Mandus] is a menace who doesn’t understand the damage he does to the balance, but I'll put up with his unnatural meddling if I have to...at least as long as he's of use against this greater menace.
-- and yeah, that's so far all Horn sees in him. No resolution there! ;-)
EDIT 2: *sigh.* I should've read the SRD before posting. It says "When you reach the end of a session, choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish."
That answers my question. I can see how, someday, Skorabor and I might decide we've adequately explored the 'bonded brothers' thing. Or that there's no more point in me trying to get Mandus to understand that he's destroying the Balance. Thanks again!
EDIT 3: OK, I've got a bond with Gil now: [Gil] is selfish and arrogant. I will do my best not to depend on him for anything.
I am posting this to both of my DW games, as I'm going to be making some changes to the way I am GMing them. This is coming from some revelations I've had regarding solutions to common problems or hang ups that I think may help.
Alright, this post may get long, because I’m a long-winded person. Apologies in advance.
I’ve compiled this information together because I would like to approach this game somewhat differently than I have so far. And rather than just change it without any warning, it’s always better to do so with a framework for what will be changing as well as the “why”.
Dungeon World has one of its greatest strengths in the dialogue that goes back and forth between players, and with the GM. Without this aspect, it gets quite clunky: there are only a handful of moves which are less than dynamic in their initial description. This, I believe, is why the creators emphasized that fiction is the priority and that moves only arise out of what is occurring in the fiction.
Similarly, if the game gets reduced to simply making “moves” it not only becomes clunky but also boils down to a seemingly endless teeter-totter of “I hope I make enough 10+ rolls to overcome all the complications that arise from the others”.
I’ve been trying to figure out how to do this in a PbP format because, while such a format really caters to a system like this without initiative order or a need for meticulous strategy, posting in forums is one of the most awkward ways to have something resembling a “conversation”. In researching this (believe me, I’m always trying to get new ideas and figure out how to run these games better… I have a lot of ways to improve) I’ve found that the whole dialogue characteristic of this game is a rather difficult concept to maintain even in tabletop situations.
-----------------------------------------------
So in a continued pursuit to really build these games into the best they can be, I’ve come across some things I’d like to do differently:
First, and this is the most broad sweeping change, I am choosing to slow down the pace at which I try to plow the game forward in favor of developing this conversation. This means that I will spend more time asking questions, or perhaps explaining a detail that maybe wasn’t apparent before (Examples below). This is not exciting because PbPs already move so slowly, but I’d rather do something really engaging and slow than clunky and fast (cue your innuendo of choice).
- I want to make more frequent use of the “how” question. This might get annoying, but after a while you might begin to anticipate it.
- I will also try to clarify things based on assumptions you seem to be making or threats I fear I didn’t make clear.
- I also invite questions, as I’d love to help you understand the setting or situation further (whether the questions are explicit or implicit).
Second, I need to shift things back to the initial mechanics where the GM designates when a move is needed or what move applies. This one was a revelation for me when I realized what was making things feel a little awkward. Because of the PbP format it really does seem quite advantageous for players to try and predict when a move might trigger and roll accordingly. It cuts out at least two extra steps, right? But I’m finding that several times, by doing so, I find myself feeling a need to shift the fiction in order to accommodate that move because now it has been rolled.
Because the fiction comes first, moves are often subjective rather than mechanical in their use. Sometimes climbing a wall is dangerous (it’s icy, or you’re fatigued, or someone’s pursuing you so you’re trying to go quickly), but sometimes it isn’t (it has decent holds, or you’re using climbing gear… who cares if it’s vertical, you’re a hero right?); and sometimes it isn’t even possible (I don’t care if you rolled high, there are no holds in this wall and you have no gear). Likewise, sometimes there are other things that must take place in the fiction before and action (which might trigger a move) can take place. Because there are no “difficulty modifiers”, what makes stabbing a fencing-master so much more difficult than a peasant with a pitchfork is the effort needed to get to a place where you can justify making a Hack n’ Slash move. (See the 16hp Dragon article for clarity).
While this is a simple fix in table top (GM says when to roll), in a forum it either creates a time sink, or it leaves a lot of rolls discarded. I’ve found a couple forum games where the group has decided to “keep the rolls” knowing that if I roll an 8 on a premature or unnecessary Defy Danger roll, then the roll will be used (with appropriate stat modifier) for the next roll. I really am not a fan of that option, however, as you will KNOW how something will turn out before you attempt it, for better or worse. If you have any ideas on another option, then I’m quite open to suggestions.
Otherwise, we’re stuck with one of the first two from this point. You may wait until I ask you to make a move (which may not make it too much slower, as things will already be slowing down a little bit from the previously mentioned change. So I could ask you to make a move in the same post I’m answering a question for someone or asking a “How” question). Or you could try and predict moves, rolling for them as you have already, but be aware that they may not be used, forever lost, good or bad if they don’t fit in this situation. Thoughts?
Third, there are some minor changes to the Basic Moves that I would like to try out for the sake of emphasizing the fiction over the mechanics. I’ve been reading a wealth of information on subtle changes intended to do just that and have a handful I would like to introduce. Most of them are subtle, but should get us all thinking of actions as part of the fiction rather than specific moves or tosses of the dice. These are not set in stone, what are your thoughts?
////
When you attack an enemy or attempt a physical maneuver in melee, roll+Str. *On a 10+, you deal your damage or execute the maneuver while avoiding their attack. At your option, you may choose to add +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack. *On a 7-9, your attack succeeds but the enemy also makes an attack against you. If you are currently in control of the fight, the GM will give you a difficult option about how that attack plays out.
The intention here is to specifically point out that this move can be triggered by all sorts of melee maneuvers beyond simply swinging a sword. Bull rush, grapple, trip… they may require other things to set up, but eventually trigger Hack and Slash when they are attempted. The second change here is to emphasize the choice element, which creates a lot of depth when used right. So if your character is still controlling the fight, he/she has a small degree in controlling how their enemy retaliates.
Im in favor of the move change, atleast to Hack and Slash as written.
As for the game slowing down and wasted rolls, I have a suggestion that ive made in most PbP games ive played. I say what I want to do, you as the DM read and think "That warrants a roll" and then YOU roll it. Now, alot of people seem to not like this, since they arent the one rolling, but really, you werent rolling anything to begin with, a random number generator was. Obviously, having your DM roll everything at a RL table would be annoying and stupid, but in this format, I really dont see what the big deal is.
This way, you can both get the roll and the consequence of it knocked out in one post instead of the potential 3 that a back and forth about the action would generate.
It really just is more effective.
Hey DM, happy to experiment in any way you pick.
One thought (that runs counter to the way DW plays at a tabletop, but might be elegant in PbP):
Let's say I take an action that triggers a move. Traditionally this is how the conversation goes:
ME: I run toward the orc chief and try to impale him with my spear.
YOU: OK, that's hack/slash, please roll
ME: <rolls dice>
YOU: OK, here's what happens based on that roll. What do you do now?
If it's clear what I'm doing and how I'm doing it, and not surprising to me that a roll is involved, we could try:
ME: I run toward the orc chief and try to impale him with my spear.
YOU: OK, that's hack/slash. <rolls dice> OK, here's what happens based on that roll. What do you do now?
...and in the process we cut the back-and-forth in half, without losing any roleplay opportunities for me.
Your call of course. I know that part of the ethic of DW is that the DM never rolls...but I think that that's more important at the tabletop where waiting for the DM can be a bottleneck. HERE the bottleneck is the back-and-forth.
What do you think?
EDIT: Hehehehehe, Gil, seems you ninja'd me with the same suggestion.
The art of the ninja is but one of my many skills halfling.
Thanks for the input guys. I apologize that I haven't weighed in on that yet, but I will once I finish laying this stuff out. I really appreciate the feedback.
*On a 7-9, it's a difficult shot to make. The GM will describe a difficult position you could put yourself in to still get a successful shot. If you are unwilling then you will need to take several shots to hit (mark 1 ammo) or take what you can get (-1d6 damage).
This probably looks just the same as before. The only change is that the GM will describe, at least in part, what the danger you could place yourself in would look like before you make the choice. This is to prevent the GM from forcing character action, even if the character decided they were willing to be put in a spot. For PBP, this could be sped up if the character who is willing to be "put in a spot" gives a description of how they're doing so (leaving cover, moving somewhere dangerous, appearing conspicuous, etc.)
When you closely study a situation or person, describe how you are doing so beyond basic observation then ask one of the questions below. After you have asked your question, Roll+Wis. *On a hit, the GM will answer your question truthfully and you may take +1 forward when acting on the answers. *On a 10+, you also gain 2 hold that may be used for other questions below regarding the relevant circumstance. These can be used immediately, or later if pertinent.
One obvious change is to better explain how Discern Realities differs from general observation. The second is to ask your question first... what is it you're initially trying to find out? On a 10+, you have discovered enough stuff to discern information beyond your initial question. These could be questions that snowball from the answer you get to the first question, or things that come up later that you think information from earlier might aid with. Also, don't underestimate the value of +1 forward. Discern Realities is a viable means of boosting the probability of an important action.
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, first explain why you think you might remember something about this and a brief description of what you think you recall. Then Roll+Int. *On a hit the GM will tell you something interesting that you recall further. *On a 10+ the GM will ensure that the addition is not only interesting but also useful. The GM may ask you to "explain further how you know this."
Two of the big tenets of this game are "Draw Maps and Leave Blanks" and "Play to Find Out". This means that world creation and direction are not concretely defined prior to play and should be "discovered" by the group as well as the GM. The intention here is to build in an obvious way that players get to "make sh** up". If the GM doesn't think it's information the character would know, or doesn't buy the reasoning they give for it, he/she may dismiss it. Otherwise the GM will ask for a Spout Lore roll *However, what they "make up" is still rooted in character experience and knowledge (more on that in the next move). The GM may also modify/clarify what you remember on a failed roll or if your memory is blatantly geared toward giving you an unnecessary advantage, as you'll see in the example below.
Liking what im seeing. Nothing really sprang out at me as being "op" or "wrong", so I think this will do nicely...only gameplay will tell if thats true or not :)
Ditto from me.
BTW, as someone who might enjoy DMing DW in the future, I'd love a peak behind the scenes at some point, in terms of "Draw Maps and Leave Blanks" and "Play to Find Out".
This is a very low urgency request, so please take your time, or feel free to say that you'll need to let more things play out before you answer it...but I'd enjoy knowing what so far was the extent of your plan, and what coem from improvising off our actions.
Cheers,
Yeah, I have no problem giving a peak behind the curtain. It's nothing miraculous, but I know I'm always curious about what's going on with the GM's side of things and looking for better practices. I'm still quite the beginner at this, but I can share what I've started figuring out.
Also, as to rolling dice for you guys, I want to hate the idea on principle but can't deny the reasoning behind it. Yes it's just a random number generator so it really doesn't matter who rolls it (and yes, around a table with actual dice this would be very different). I think what I dislike most about it is that it cheapens one of the many things I love about DW. In DW, there's rarely anyone to blame for what happens other than yourself. This is what frees the GM up (hopefully) to fully be a fan of your character and root for your success, rather than fall into the typical stereotype of trying to mastermind your deaths (trust me, not my thing either).
But in dungeon world, almost everything comes as a result of your own choices or rolls. Hell, you even roll the damage you take. So in the unfortunate event where you die, and you do the natural part of grieving that loss which involves casting blame, all you have are a string of choices you made and dice that you rolled.
With that said though, it would speed up the game as both of you pointed out if I rolled your checks when I asked for them. Then I could narrate the results or (as will often be the case now) offer you a difficult choice regarding how your character reacts.
But I don't think I'd ever be comfortable making that a blanket requirement, and would only do so with permission of the individual player--open to revocation at any time.
When you think you might realize something intriguing, fantastic, or humorous that hasn't been revealed yet, suggest it with a plausible explanation of how your character might have realized it. The GM will either build upon your character's realization or inform you that you are mistaken. This may also lead to Spouting Lore for further information.
In a lot of ways this is similar to Spout Lore, especially in that it gives you an opportunity to make stuff up. But where Spout Lore allows you to convey/retcon a piece of academia from your character's past, Suggestion allows you to attempt to create/shape the current circumstances by tying them to your character's experiences or awareness.
---------------------------
Finally, an optional GM Move for both Spout Lore and Discern Realities failures:
You're Mistaken...
On a failed (6-) Spout Lore or Discern Realities roll, the GM may give you false information. He MUST inform you, the player, that the information is not correct, though your character would not know otherwise. If you act on the information as if it were true, or convey it to someone else who acts on it as if it were true, the acting character marks +1 xp. Only 1 xp can be given in this way.
Now, onto end of session stuff as well.
Clearly you all learned something about the world +1 xp, and fought memorable monsters +1 xp. I would say, though you seem uncertain, that you acquired memorable treasure as well +1 xp, though you know little of it so far beyond the boots (and Morgan currently has those). But that stuff will come back, and since you've already acquired it, I'd say take the point.
It seems all of you were able to resolve/modify one of your bonds (especially with Gilder and Morgan leaving...). And yes, as Horn pointed out, you may only get +1 xp for resolving bonds. I should have mentioned this with the outlines of the moves.
I also should have mentioned that if you fulfilled your Drive somewhere in the adventure, as Horn has done, then you should get +1 xp for that as well. Some of you, it seems, may not have drives yet. If you do not, there are examples on your original playbooks or I'd be happy to work with you on creating one. If it ends up being something you fulfilled, I have no problem also awarding that point.
That brings my current records to:
Mandus: 7 xp, Horn: 8 xp, Gill: 8 xp, Skorabor: 7 xp
Two of you have enough to level, and both Mandus and Skorabor would have enough if they fulfilled their drive.
Bad practices, of which I'm guilty, are asking the players what they find in a chest, or what might be causing the temple infestation, etc.
Used sparingly, this can be a great way to get a "better" result. Lets face it, even the best DMs have bad ideas for their game. It could be as simple as, whenever you feel like it, you can do this, with the rule that if it doesnt work for your story, you just go with your own. Not something I imagine would get used alot, but still worth having as an option.
As for false info and telling the player, but not the character, im torn. I see the value of it, but at the same time I enjoy the aspect of being in the dark as to whether you gave us complete lies or half truths.
Either way, Ill roll with what you decide, nothing here rubs me the wrong way.
Drive: Gil knows full well where he came from, though the specifics are lost to him. Though he feels the lost emotions sometimes, including his racism and sense of honor and duty, he is determined to never go back, content with the life in the outside world where he is superior to everyone he meet.
Gil will do his best to avoid contact with other elves, and failing that, use every trick to avoid detection of his identity. On the way, he strives towards a life of luxury and comfort, a goal most easily attained through the acquisition of riches. Still, he loves the road and does not wish to settle down, instead buying all the comfort he can before moving on to his next score.
And for Horn, here's a brief look behind the scenes. Keep in mind, this is for an Adventure Starter, which is by design much more improvisational than later adventures. This next session will have slightly more structure.
First, I want to point out a couple places of inspiration.
- Dungeon Starters by Marshall Miller
- The Art of Improvisation by Rob Donoghue at the Walking Mind Blog
For the opener to The Moaning of Hollow Timbers I wanted something that conveyed the feel I get when I think about the Warhammer Ancient World. So my first thought was those Germanic style inns that are so iconic there, where the second story actually seems to protrude out further than the first. I set the scene there, and drew inspiration rather blatantly from the Lord of the Rings where the wraiths try to slay the hobbits in their sleep. At this time the monsters were undefined, but clearly other people noted the same reference. I threw in the name of Carl's Creek as well so that we had a location. That's all I had. Seriously.
So I started asking questions.
I wish that I would have asked more about your characters, and how you related to each other. But as the above posts convey, I think I may have shortchanged some things in the name of moving forward. With information from your characters we learned a few things:
- The creatures are living shadows, faceless but resembling what they once were. You aren't sure if they are enslaved needing to be freed, or just need to be destroyed.
- These things are minions of something else, their service bargained for by blood.
- Ordinary blades might not even be able to harm them. And even if you can harm them, can they be slain?
- What they used to be shocks them. They are incorporeal and can pass through most object.
- They seek secrets. Perhaps from Karm, perhaps from Morgan. And they've been pursuing you for a while.
- You were supposed to meet someone else here (Morgan's sister) but she isn't there yet.
From these things that you all built, I begin to outline the rest of the structure as set up in Marshall Miller's starters: Impressions, Custom Moves, Things, and Monsters/People
Impressions
I wanted to keep it creepy, so these are the things I came up with.
There probably should have been a lot more, but I didn't anticipate this first adventure going beyond surviving the shadow attack. I figured you'd all regroup after that. As you can see, the Worgs in the barn were not planned but made up when you guys pursued the fleeing weasel. I anticipated you would rather not split yourselves up and that interrogating the innkeeper was enticing enough to keep you there. So, as should be the case, you chose your own thing and I obliged!
I also didn't plan on Skorabor falling into a cavity in the wall. But it felt like a fun twist at the time. When he was down there I figured the best options were to encounter something nasty or come across some treasure. A nasty encounter seemed like the low lying fruit, so I went the other direction and made up something creepy but potentially useful.
Things
Lockets
That's really it. I didn't figure shadows would have much, physically.
Monsters
Shades
Moves: Devour Light. Invulnerable to mundane weapons until somehow materialized. Touch of Corruption. Shocked by screeches or reflections.
-------------------------
Simple eh? Or possibly, unimpressive. As I said, now things will get a little more concrete. Now there will be at least 2 fronts, as well as a map I will be using (with blanks, of course). I still like the structure above that involves impressions, custom moves (if applicable), and some monsters or things I think you might encounter. But I'm open to strange directions you guys might decide or inspiration that could come up on the spot.
Bad practices, of which I'm guilty, are asking the players what they find in a chest, or what might be causing the temple infestation, etc.Used sparingly, this can be a great way to get a "better" result. Lets face it, even the best DMs have bad ideas for their game. It could be as simple as, whenever you feel like it, you can do this, with the rule that if it doesnt work for your story, you just go with your own. Not something I imagine would get used alot, but still worth having as an option.
As for false info and telling the player, but not the character, im torn. I see the value of it, but at the same time I enjoy the aspect of being in the dark as to whether you gave us complete lies or half truths.
Either way, Ill roll with what you decide, nothing here rubs me the wrong way.
Drive: Gil knows full well where he came from, though the specifics are lost to him. Though he feels the lost emotions sometimes, including his racism and sense of honor and duty, he is determined to never go back, content with the life in the outside world where he is superior to everyone he meet.
Gil will do his best to avoid contact with other elves, and failing that, use every trick to avoid detection of his identity. On the way, he strives towards a life of luxury and comfort, a goal most easily attained through the acquisition of riches. Still, he loves the road and does not wish to settle down, instead buying all the comfort he can before moving on to his next score.
I haven't done it much in this game, but in my other games there have been trigger points where I leave a blank room or item and ask one of the players to tell me what is found there. While it's kind of fun and surprising, I also think there may be better ways to do that than just have the player create Deus Ex Machina. Hence the suggest move, which relies on the players if they wish to use it, without pulling them out of the immersion of their character.
And for the info, the GM is required (although obviously every GM has the ability to House Rule whatever they wish) to be honest on things discovered through Discern Realities or Spout Lore. I believe that's mostly so that someone doesn't get hoodwinked into destructive actions despite successful roles to determine otherwise. The GM may, however, only provide partial truths as long as the requirements are met (interesting and useful) and still truthful.
As for your drive, I really like the flavor of it. So my interpretation of it sounds like you would get xp if during a session you used trickery or deception to remain mysterious, unattached, or temporarily comfortable. How's that sound?
I like it, lets roll with it. Ill see about a gameplay post, not sure if it will be tonight or in the morning.
No worries. You may level up as well if you wish.
If so...
Add 1 point to any stat. If that pushes it to a new tier than the bonus increases as well. (Note: Adding to Constitution will raise HP by 1)[/b]
Pick an Advanced Move for levels 2-5.
OK, just leveled up. +1 STR (15 > 16)
Advanced Move
Balance: When you deal damage, take 1 balance. When you touch someone and channel the spirits of life you may spend balance. For each balance spent, heal 1d4 HP.
NOTE, is the Necromancer playbook somewhere where I could read it? I was wondering if Mandus has the ability to heal. If he does, I might choose a different ability.
I can only heal if I eat one of my own toes.
...For real? Thats hilarious!
Yeah, haha, one of the major Necromancer class features (as you've seen me demonstrate) is the Hexed Body Part. You can choose Eye, Ear, Finger, or Toe, and that body part can be detached and reattached at will, granting different utility for each body part. If you choose Toe, they can be eaten to heal for 10 HP, plus one additional effect, but nobody has volunteered to find out what it is...and I don't think they grow back. Although as a Lizard, I might convince Mogthrasir to make an exception for me. ;)
That's if I decide to pick up the advanced move that gives me an additional hexed body part later on. Right now my only hexed body part is my eyeball, my toes are normal toes.
He is also able to reattach other people's body parts, which is quite beneficial in more grim campaigns.
Back, but somewhat jetlagged. Will resume posting tomorrow.
Not a problem, welcome back Skorabor!
Also, Horn, please be aware that I am always in the process of trying to better understand this game. Hence a lot of the more recent minor changes. I also want to let you know specifically that I've been convinced, more or less, that Druid animal moves should "just happen" even if they overlap with other moves. This can get really overpowered since even a 7-9 can result in the equivalent of a 10+ hack n' slash, etc. The balance comes from the limited capabilities you have in that form. Also, as with any other move, sometimes a move will not be possible "as is" or may require other moves beforehand.
I appreciate that whenever you have shifted you've given me an idea of what you wish to use that form for. Usually I will assign moves based on that intention and what I think might also be useful at that time. Which means that the moves are not static to that form, but dynamic by situation. What are your thoughts in that area?
For what it's worth, I came down on the same conclusion regarding druid shifting. It makes druids really powerful, but I have no problem with that!
Indeed. You should all be quite powerful!
Welcome back, blood brother.
DM, that all makes sense. It seems basically when I have hold left in an animal form, I'll be very effective at my specific moves...but I'll expect to also have serious limitations/obstacles based on that form as well.
As far as power level, I agree that druids are turning out to be quite buff. When I was choosing my 2nd level move, I chose balance partly because I like the flavor, but also partly because some of the others seem very potent and I was conscious of already having quite a powerful character. (I *am* tempted to take Elemental Mastery at some point, since it seems quite fun...especially since it sounds like things will often go out of control in interesting ways...but it also seemed like potentially a big power bump so I thought perhaps I'd wait another level or two.)
OK gang, what's the game plan? We have a little time to talk.
I don't see negotiations going well (unless the skink can perhaps hide, and we can blame the body on the Oak and her minions).
I think the way to go is likely down the tunnel that our foes came through -- give chase to the Oak herself -- but we'll likely be seen and pursued (unless...does someone have an idea of how to create a diversion that would let us get into the barn unnoticed?)
We can of course let the conversation go poorly and then fight, but we may be fighting a mob, including many innocent people who think they're defending their town from us.
What do y'all think? What other options do we have?
I like the planning. I also want to point out that the tunnel in the barn has been "sealed up" to a degree with roots. See this post. It likely seemed obscure at the moment, so I want to make sure you realize it.
It doesn't mean that option's out, just that it will require time and effort beyond simply escaping down a hole. Gil noticed this, so he would be aware of it if the other characters aren't.
Aha! I'd totally missed that, thanks. (Though it's possible Horn wouldn't know it either, yet).
Another option, horn can certainly go be a "fly on the wall" (or bird, at least), listening to the conversation and coming to report back...though a bird flying into the tavern would likely be noticed.
I like the flee plan for dramatic reasons. It would be cool to go after the Oak while being chased by witch hunters :) But I think we should try and talk to them, keep Mandus out of sight and blame as much as we can on the Oak. Skorabor would be a complication though as his oath keeps him from lying. He would have to either stretch the truth or refuse to answer.
How much do you suppose humanity knows about the Slayer's oath? A witch hunter would be extremely well versed in matters of the world, and extremely educated, but limited obviously by the scope of human discovery/awareness. What would he likely know of Dwarven Slayers?
If they know that Slayers only tell the truth -- and believe it, and it matters to them -- that might actually work to our favor.
(At least for Skorabor and Horn. Explaining the nuance of the necroskink who's totally on the right side...and the pirate who's totally amoral but happens to be doing something kind of like the right thing for now anyway...oh dear.)
Very true, as incriminating as it might be, it could also be beneficial if you're truly in the right.
How much do you suppose humanity knows about the Slayer's oath? A witch hunter would be extremely well versed in matters of the world, and extremely educated, but limited obviously by the scope of human discovery/awareness. What would he likely know of Dwarven Slayers?
I would say that the slayer's are in the upper tier of common knowledge. A peasant with little contact with dwarves would not know of it in cities and areas where dwarves are more common they are definitely known. Taking the slayer oath basically means that you or someone close to you has done something really undwarfmanlike and to life that shame you have agreed to be even more dwarvenly with a dose of added violence. Since the dwarves are known to be trustworthy and fierce warriors should they need to be, a slayer must take these into the extremes. So they may never lie and must constantly strive to earn glory in battle.
I think it is safe to say that the witch hunter quite a lot about slayers:
* That it is a way to redeem oneself or a family/clan from a great shame
* That they may never lie
* That they are fierce warriors who seek glory in battle
He would also know that Skorabor is a relatively "newformed" slayer because of his lack of tatoo's on his arms and his rather short hair and beard.
So the "never lie" part he most definitely knows. But that "never lie" is not the same as "always tell the truth" I would say depends on his previous experience with slayers. Since dwarf's sincere nature and the great shame (no petty crimes) that can cause a dwarf to take the oath slayers are not common. I would even say that they are quite rare. Depending on how experienced the witch hunter is I would say that he has come across one or two at most during his career.
Fantastic! Thanks.
Mandus believes that the witch hunters would turn on us when the symptoms begin to manifest from Oak's mark. In addition, Horn is a lit fiery beacon to enemies to descend upon us. Our allies could very well become our foes suddenly and stab us in the back.
Mandus was willing to take the risk of trust when it came to the party, but witch hunters were another matter. The lizardmen tribes have good reason to mistrust them; there is a history of animosity between the hunters and innocent lizardfolk civilians. Even if it were the case of a few bad apples misrepresenting the bunch, Mandus is still prejudiced against them.
I should also attempt to give some feedback on this:
Second, I need to shift things back to the initial mechanics where the GM designates when a move is needed or what move applies. This one was a revelation for me when I realized what was making things feel a little awkward. Because of the PbP format it really does seem quite advantageous for players to try and predict when a move might trigger and roll accordingly. It cuts out at least two extra steps, right? But I’m finding that several times, by doing so, I find myself feeling a need to shift the fiction in order to accommodate that move because now it has been rolled.
I think this is a great idea. I've long been partial to this myself, preferring to describe what I do and only reach for the dice at the "command" of the DM. This is basically because of that you describe and secondly because I have really (like REALLY!) horrible dice luck.
Should you see that a post of mine requires a dice roll to resolve you're welcomed to do that roll since it does speed up things.
Finally, an optional GM Move for both Spout Lore and Discern Realities failures:
The core ruleset is VERY CLEAR that while the GM can be particular in the information he/she conveys, it must all be true. The GM can not provide false information. However, some people have suggested the option below.
You're Mistaken...
On a failed (6-) Spout Lore or Discern Realities roll, the GM may give you false information. He MUST inform you, the player, that the information is not correct, though your character would not know otherwise. If you act on the information as if it were true, or convey it to someone else who acts on it as if it were true, the acting character marks +1 xp. Only 1 xp can be given in this way.This is only a suggestion. I'm not sold on it yet, but somewhat intrigued by it. I want to know your thoughts before I consider adopting it, and would make sure you know it's a possibility before implementing. Thoughts?
I have no problem with you relaying false information to me as a player. I guess it is apart of the game design that you have a part in everything that happens to you but it feels kind of meta gamey to me. Not that I have a problem separating player knowledge with character knowledge but it feels contrived to give out false information and then say that it is false.
Mandus, what *do* you recommend then? We actually have time to talk in game here.
BTW, the jar of tongues is a good bit of evidence in our favor.
Also, DM, can you remind me: is it true that many guests have been "disappeared" from this Inn?
BTW, the jar of tongues is a good bit of evidence in our favor.
This kind of depends. Trying to tie the inn keeper to heavily to the Oak might be to much for Skorabor. He doesn't have to much pity for the inn keeper but he knows that the man was pressured into complying with the Oak. Implying otherwise would break Skorabor's principles. He also doesn't know what Mandus just found out about the inn keeper, so he could be convinced that the inn keeper was more into the disappearances of the guests, but if the truth comes out s*%% would hit the fan.
Horn, you're correct that many guests have "disappeared" from this inn. Mandus would certainly know it, and the rest of you may have an idea regarding it as well. Though you came here at the behest of someone else, it could be likely that you've heard rumors of it.
And Skorabor, you're right that it gets kind of strange to be told "your character believes this, though it isn't true." It tends to pull a bit from the fiction, which is the main star. But I like the rules that prevent me from lying to you guys even on a bad roll. I won't reveal things from Spout Lore or Discern Reality that isn't true, even with 6- rolls.
One thing I'm trying to make a common thread in this campaign though is rumors. I will keep giving you guys opportunities to present any rumors you may have heard, with the condition that they are not necessarily canon. I will likely use elements of them to define truth, but that's one of the ways your character might believe something not entirely true--only going by the rumors he/she has heard until it is revealed as otherwise.
I would say you can feel free to mislead us as long as you don't lie to us. NPCs, of course, lie all the time.
Great distinction! Noted.
Sorry, adding a new player to my other game, so needed to do some compiling of world lore. Catching up here now.
Also, Gil, does your class have a move that involves making hair-brained schemes? I can't access your playbook until I get home, but I seem to remember such a thing. If so... this burning down the inn thing would most likely apply, which could grant you some boons.
Hi.
So, what's this party's makeup?
Dwarf Barbarian
Skinkfolk Necro
Halfling Druid
Elf Pirate
Did I miss anyrhing? How tall is the Elf?
You guys need a Human, I think.
Gerard
Welcome.
Looks like you've got the party set-up down. It started with 3 humans, but life pushed them out.
What just happened?
And Gil is like 6 foot 2, but carries himself in a manner that makes him look taller.
What just happened?And Gil is like 6 foot 2, but carries himself in a manner that makes him look taller.
in game? You guys aren't aware of this, but Heathcliff (gentleman with the red hair) works in the stables. He saw something move in the stables when he came in, but didn't catch enough to know what it was. Being familiar with the building he's perceptive of changes, as well as familiar with how the horses would react with different situations.
Hearing one of his horses (presumably) calm and relaxed was enough to assure him that whatever seems off in there can wait until after the raging fire across the street is dealt with (the bigger issue at the moment).
If there weren't the greater concern, something so trivial certainly wouldn't have deterred him.