Discern Realities v. Spout Lore v. Just Describing Stuff

This is another retrieval from the archives of the Dungeon World Tavern. Gerke Bouma posted about how "I still struggle sometimes with when to use discern realities and spout lore, and when to simply provide information or make them do a different type of roll." This was my response. Mostly the same as the original, plus formatting and some editing.  The examples section, though, was pretty heavily expanded on.   

Here's how I distinguish between Discern Realities, Spout Lore, and me just telling them stuff.

If they're just asking for clarification on the environment, what they see and hear and feel, what should be immediately obvious, then I'll just tell them.

• "What are the paintings of?"
• "Is the tunnel, like, worked stone? Or natural?"
• "What sort of stuff is on the shelves? Anything valuable?"
• "How many of them are there?"
• "I drop a coin down the pit... do I hear it hit bottom?"

All of these are basically the player asking me to do my job and describe the situation. But they're also invitations to make a GM move (because they're looking at me to see what happens).

Are they asking something that really should be immediately obvious?  Tell them! Is there a looming threat you can point to at the same time?  Do it!  "Yeah, the tunnel is like, raw stone and not bricks, and it doesn't look, like, hewn... it's more like it was... melted? There are these ripple-marks, and parts in the ceiling where it looks like the stone was almost, like, dripping? What do you do?"

If you've got no idea what the answer is, you could ask questions and build on the answers. "The paintings? I think they depict a number of important historical figures... you recognize a couple of them, who are they?"

If they ask about something that wouldn't be immediately apparent, then tell them the requirements and ask.  "The stuff on the shelves? Just a few ceramic pots, a couple rotting wooden boxes, and a bunch of dust and spider webs. None of it looks valuable, but who knows? You'd have to like open the containers to find out. Do you?"

Now, if they they take action in order to figure out what's going on, then they're Discerning Realities. "I shine my torch all around the opening to the tunnel, looking carefully at the walls, those dripping stalagmite things, the ground."  "Sounds like you're Discerning Realities to me!"

But if they ask whether they know something (or assert that they do, or ask what they know about __, or something like that), then they're Spouting Lore.  "Do I have any idea what could have made a tunnel like this?" or "Do I recognize the style of the pottery? Like, can I tell where it came from or how old it is?"


If it's not clear which one they're doing, either interrogate them and/or the fiction until it becomes clear, or just ask them which move they're trying to trigger.

Also: there's nothing wrong with giving them an opportunity and just being like "Ovid, I bet you'd know something about the scenes in these pictures, what to Spout Lore?" or "Well, you could search the shelves to find something valuable, that'd be Discern Realities."  In Apocalypse World 2e, they specifically call out "Push Read a Sitch" and "Push Read a Person" (etc) as GM moves for certain threats.

(And: the GM principle of "never speak the name of your move" is talking about the GM move. There's no prohibition against using the names of PC moves, and in fact you pretty much have to name those moves in order to play the game.)


Now, for some specific examples.

From Gerke's post: 

Situation 1: I described one of my room in a dungeon to have various pictures of rituals etched into the wall. The room was known to belong to a cult they were investigating. One of my players wanted to examine the pictures more closely and figure out if they provided them with any more information. I did not have anything specific in mind up front.  

Discern realities' questions didn't really seem to apply to this. I went with Spout lore (which resulted in them finding a riddle pointing to a hidden door), but i'm not entirely sure this was the 'proper' way to handle this.  

What would you have let them roll, if anything? 

"Figures in a Basement," Joseph Mallard William Turner, via the Tate
Seemed appropriate.

I'd have told them what the paintings were of (generally), maybe asked a couple questions ("You recognize one of these places, where from?") and then maybe prompted them to Spout Lore ("You want to Spout Lore to see if you recognize the significance or anything?").

Assuming they Spouted Lore, on a 7-9, I'd have made up something that connected the paintings to the cult, but given only fuzzy details about it:

"You're pretty sure your recognize most of these portraits and places... and the thing that jumps out at you, is that they all were people who came from humble beginnings and rose to prominence in society."

On a 10+, I'd give them some last piece of info to make it all relevant and immediately useful, like:

"So either these guys were all cultists and the cult is responsible for their rise to power, or the cult respects their rise to power. But hey, now that you think about it... the merchant who hired you to investigate this place... didn't he used to be a lowly wainwright?"

or maybe...

"You notice something a little weird, though. In each painting, there's this strange ankh shape... all the portrait subjects are either wearing one, or holding one, or it's on the wall behind them... and you're sure it's not a heraldic device. In fact, you're pretty sure it's the sigil of a demon lord, Ahtraxis, known for enriching mortals at the cost of their souls! Hey... how did you come to learn about Ahtraxis?"

(editorial note: in the original post, I suggested that they notice the ankh in the paintings, and then notice an ankh-shaped inset in the wall, but that felt more like a Discern Realities result to me)

If, instead, they described searching the room and the paintings, I'd have gone with Discern Realities.  (Yes, of course it's a situation... you're in a dungeon, right?).

• What here is useful or valuable to me? "The paintings are pretty nice, and would fetch a decent price if you could get them safely to a collector." 
• What here is not what it seems? "There's a recurring ankh motif in the paintings, like all of the subjects are holding one, or the walls behind them feature one, that sort of thing. Also, there's an ankh-shaped depression hidden in the far wall." 
• What should I be on the lookout for?  "Yeah, that ankh-shaped depression is definitely the trigger to something, like a secret door. You even find the edges of where you think the door is. But you also find a number of faint runes all around the edge... you're pretty sure it's some sort of magical trap."  
• Or perhaps, if they'd previous Spouted Lore about the contents of the painting and gotten that 7-9 result above.... "You know, looking at these important men and women from humble beginnings... it dawns on you... the wealthy merchant who's funding this expedition... didn't he start out as a lowly fishmonger?" 
  
  
• What happened here recently?  "Well, the paintings have clearly been here a while, though some are definitely newer than others. And this room doesn't get a lot of use, but you can tell from the dust that someone's been in and out of here somewhat recently, like in the past few days at least."
• What is about to happen?  "What, if you poke and prod that ankh-shaped depression? Probably nothing, unless you have an ankh to put in there. Or it might set off that magical trap, if they 'key' isn't right."
• Who or what is really in control here?  "Well, I mean, this place is pretty obviously controlled by the cult.  Hmm.  Oh! You know, you can tell that these paintings were all added over time, like based on the people in the portraits, maybe every 20 or 30 years?  And there's one that's relatively recent, showing a colonel in the King's army, Sir Montrose. He's still alive, last you heard. Is he maybe the head of the cult?"

Notice how some of the answers are affected by the previous answers, or the information garnered through a previous use of Spout Lore.  I find that this happens a lot. You establish a seed of information and truth, and then future questions/moves grow from it.

Also from Gerke's post: 

A player obtained an artifact belonging to the cult I mentioned before. The use of the artifact (a bracelet) has not been established yet (for the players, I do have something in mind). One of the players wanted to fiddle with the artifact around the room to see if it reacted to anything.  

Although I wasn't really planning on them doing this, it seemed cool to me. The answer "It doesn't react to anything" would be unrewarding and lame. However, simply telling them 'oh it reacts to XXX' might be a bit too easy. This action uncovering something potentially dangerous felt unfair without there being a roll involved.  

How would you have handled this?

Since the bracelet was discovered elsewhere and clearly the PCs thought it was important at the time, I'm assuming that it's already been described and the players already asked the obvious questions. If not, I'd start there.  "It's a metallic bracelet, with this blue lacquer. There's a red, glassy stone set in it, maybe like a carnelian? No, no markings, but it'd clearly be worth a fair amount of coin. The way your fingers tingle when you touch it, it might even be magical."

Now, when the PC pulls it out in the room with the paintings, if you (the GM) had something planned about the amulet and the room, you might offer an opportunity right then and there. Or, you could decide on the spot that there was a connection (even if you hadn't planned one) and do the same thing. Something like "The red carnelian is glowing; it wasn't doing that before. What do you do?" (and I bet that whatever they do, it triggers Discern Realities).

But if you didn't have any planned connection between the amulet and the room, and didn't want to introduce one... you have established to yourself that the amulet is magical and dangerous. So the player is sort of creating their own situation by waving this thing around to see what happens.  Sounds like Discern Realities to me.

• What here isn't what it seems?  "Well, this clearly isn't just a bracelet. You feel a warm... thrum of power when you put it on, and when you move your arm about."  (Or, alternately... "The bracelet, there's a powerful, subtle magic in it... how can you tell?")
• What here is useful or valuable to me? "Well, it doesn't seem to react to the paintings or anything. But when you move the bracelet towards a torch, you notice a slight flickering of the flame. it's, like... bending towards the bracelet, just a little.  Maybe more when you concentrate on it."
• Who is really in control here? "No one, right now. But you sense that you can control the bracelet's power through practice and force of will."
• What is about to happen? "As you move the bracelet closer to the flame, the flame like... leans in.  You're pretty sure the flame is about to jump onto the bracelet!"

• What should I be on the lookout for? "Well, if this bracelet is going draw flames into it, you better watch out. Use it wrong, or lose control, and you'll probably be flinging fires around all over the place."
• What happened here recently? "What, to the bracelet? Or this room?  Nothing. You guys are the first people to enter this room in years, maybe decades!"

Tinkering with Hack & Slash

There's a lot a like about Hack and Slash, but it's always bugged me how utterly mechanical the player side of the move is. You "deal your damage," and maybe evade the enemy's attack, but the move is silent regarding the momentum of the fight itself.

The move relies on the GM "reading the tea leaves" and interpreting a lot of details, such as...

• the PC's damage roll
• the monster's damage roll (if any)
• the armor & remaining HP on each side
• the tags of the weapons/monsters involved
• the PC's fictional action 
• the PC's intent
• GM principles (give every monster life, begin & end with the fiction, be a fan of the PCs, etc.)

...in order to determine what happens during a Hack and Slash and what to do immediately thereafter. Plus, you can deal like crap 3 damage to a foe with 2 armor and 8 HP and it's easy to be like "why did I bother."  Even one of the examples of the move in the game text (Jarl and goblins) is pretty flavorless exchange of numbers with no meaningful change to the fiction. 

I've tinkered with changes to Hack and Slash before (for example, see here).  But I think I might have hit on something I really like:

When you fight in melee or close quarters, roll +STR: On a 7+, you make your attack (deal damage!) and suffer the enemy’s attack; on a 10+, also pick 2; on a 7-9, also pick 1 (but not the first one).

• You evade/counter/prevent the enemy’s attack
• Your attack is powerful/fast/brutal: add +1d6 to your damage
• You hold the initiative or give it to an ally; say what you do next, or who gets to go next

It's largely the same as standard Hack & Slash, but there's a new parameter: initiative.  

If the PC chooses to hold the initiative, then, after the Hack & Slash move (and the monster's attack) are resolved, the PC gets to immediately follow up and say what they do. The GM doesn't get to make another move, not even a soft one.  The Hack & Slasher can either go themselves, or they can pass the spotlight to another PC and let them go, without the GM making a soft move.

So imagine the Fighter just rolled a miss on Volley and my move was for the ogre to smash his cross bow and grab him by the right arm and heave him up! (take something by force). The Cleric is on the ground next to them, reeling from a previous move, so I stay on the Fighter, hanging there by his right arm, the ogre clearly about to use him to bludgeon the Cleric. "What do you do?"  

"I draw one of my many knives with my left hand, heave up, and stab this thing in the wrist before it use me as a club!"  Cool, sounds like fighting in melee, so the Fighter rolls Hack & Slash.

On a 10+, he gets 2 picks.  If he picks:

• Evade attack + extra damage, he'd do d10+d6 and let's say he gets 9. Not enough to drop the ogre, but I think he hacked it's hand off!  "Yeah, not only do you stab it in the hand, you like chop it's hand clean off at the wrist, and it howls and you land in a heap."  But because the Fighter didn't hold the initiative, now I make a GM move.  "Before you can roll to your feet, though, you hear this horrible wood-snapping & crunching noise as it snatches up a sapling and starts swinging it down at you like a club, what do you do?"
  
  Now the Fighter is in reaction mode, right?  He might still pull of a clever Hack & Slash in here, but it's probably a Defy Danger. And regardless, he's reacting to me!
• Evade attack + hold initiative:  Only d10 damage, let's say 4.  "You stab it in the wrist and it drops you." But now the Fighter has the initiative, so he gets to go.  Maybe the Fighter asks "what's it doing," and I'll say it's clutching it's wrist in pain, what do you do?  And then the Fighter gets to decide: charge in? run away? go the Cleric's aid?  It's his call, and while there's still clearly a danger, there's no immediate peril he has to react to.
• Extra damage + hold initiative:  Does d10+d6 damage, let's say 9 again.  Chops the ogre's hand off, drops the ground, but because he's exposed to the ogre's attack. I decide to separate them violently. "...but before you can roll to your feet, it just punts you in the side and sends you flying. Take 1d10+1 damage and you come rolling to a stop maybe 15 feet away."  And now, the Fighter has the initiative, so I'm like "what do you do?" So the Fighter is like "what's the ogre doing?" and I'm like "standing there, doubled over, howling and holding it's bloody stump."  And the Fighter's like "Cleric, you go!"  And we switch to the Cleric, who's not far from the ogre, and now he gets to cast fear or entangle or get up and smash the thing on the head (another Hack & Slash) or get the hell out of there (probably not even triggering Defy Danger).  

On a 7-9, the Fighter picks 1 (and can't pick "evade their attack"). If he picks:

• Extra damage: it's like above (9 damage from the fighter, lops its hand off, gets punted away 15 feet) but instead of me turning to the Fighter and saying "what do you do?" I get to make a move. I've just sent the Fighter a ways away, and the Cleric is still nearby, so I'm like "Cleric, you see the Fighter lop the ogre's hand off and get booted, and the thing howls in rage and starts flailing about and it's beady hate-filled eyes set on you and just stomps toward you with it's good hand, clearly trying to grab you and throttle you, what do you do?"
  
  I took the initiative, and I'm making the Cleric react.  Also, I took the spotlight off the Fighter.
• Hold the initiative:  stabs the wrist (doesn't chop it off), gets booted, and ask the Fighter "what do you do?"  "What's it up to?"  "Grabbing it's wrist in pain. What do you do?"  "Cleric, you go!"  And then the Cleric gets to go!  

I think I like this a lot.  The fact that we have to think about the initiative means we have to imagine the situation and the momentum of it. The GM has explicit guidelines on whether to make a soft move after the Hack & Slash exchange.

It does make H&S a little "better" for the PCs, because you can do the extra d6 damage on a 7-9, or on a 10+, at the cost of ceding the initiative. 

And I guess that there would be some cases where the Fighter or whoever is pretty sure they'll drop the one foe on this one hit, so they go all in for extra damage and gleefully give up the initiative. 

But holding the initiative is really, really powerful, and I think that, once players started to see it in action, it'd be something they thought carefully about giving up.

Biggest concern, really, is spotlight hogging, right?  A player H&S's, keeps getting 7+ and keeps holding the initiative, and keeps saying what they do.  But even that isn't such a big deal, because you as the GM can let them declare what they do (without making a move at them) then put a pin in it and switch over to another player in a different part of the fight, and ask what they do.  I think that'd work, but the spotlight hog is definitely the part that bugs me the most.


EDITED TO ADD:  
here's a pretty substantial write-up of this move being used in an example scenario. So if you want a better idea of how it might play out, give it a read.

click to read all about fighting ghouls

In Defense of Discern Realities

I posted this essay on G+ back in 2016. At the time, there was a lot of talk and swirl on the Dungeon World Tavern about whether Discern Realities was a good move, and when it triggered, and how to use it. This was my response.  I'm re-posting it here to make it easier to find, and as (hopefully) the beginning of a series of posts on using Discern Realities. I've added some formatting and cleaned up a few typos, but it's otherwise unchanged from the original. 


I love the move. It's one of favorite things about DW. It's not perfect, and it occasionally grinds gears. But it consistently moves my games forward in ways that I'd never anticipate otherwise.

When does Discern Realities trigger?

In the previous thread, there was a lot of back and forth about when you should or shouldn't trigger Discern Realities. The trigger in the move (closely study a situation or person) is pretty wide open; I can see where the confusion comes from.

In play, I rarely find there to be any confusion. It triggers when I ask a player what they do, and they describe doing something with the intent of gaining more information.

• "I'll toss the room, looking for valuables."
• "I'm gonna take a closer look at that wall."
• "I'm staying just outside the clearing, looking the hovel up and down."
• "I keep my hand near my sword, but size these guys up."
• "I peer out into the darkness, looking for threats."
• "I try to calm down, take it all in, figure out what's going on."
• "I'll wander about the area, looking for tracks or spoor or other sign of big game."

I can hear the objections: "But XYZ isn't a situation!"

Of course it's a situation. Didn't you just make a GM move?  And ask them what they do?  This is Dungeon World. Think Dangerous and fill their lives with adventure. Something bad is almost always right around the corner.

Now, sometimes you'll ask them what they do, and they won't tell you.  They'll ask you a question instead. That in and of itself is probably not Discern Realities. That's them asking you to do your job (How to GM > Describe the situation, Make moves)

GM:  "You enter the room. There's a rumpled, musty bed in the corner, a dusty old bookshelf, a frayed tapestry on the wall showing, um... like a forest with a castle in the background and like a few dudes on horseback in the foreground.  There's no door but the one you came in. What do you do?"  (Notice I didn't really make a move there.) 

Wizard:  "What's on the bookshelf?" (Not Discern Realities; just asking something that should be apparent.) 

GM: "There's probably a dozen old tomes on the top shelves, and some brickabrack on the bottom shelves. You can't really see them well from the doorway, especially not in torchlight. You get closer?"  (Tell them the requirements & ask) 

Wizard:  "Yeah, sure. I step in and peer at the books, what do I see?" 

GM: "Ooh, yeah, now that you're closer you can see that a few of them are definitely tomes of magic! But as the torchlight flickers, you see a... shifting? shimmering? Like there's some sort of almost unseen field between you and those books.  What do you do?"  (Offer riches at a price) 

Wizard: "Huh. Like a forcefield or something?" 

GM:  "Could be. It's just this vague shimmering in the air. Like a heat shimmer, but not as intense. You barely saw it."  (No GM move. Just clarifying what the player already perceived.) 

Wizard:  "Okay, I'll slowly move the torch around, trying the find the edges of that ripple." 

GM:  "Ah!  Sounds like you're studying the situation closely! Discern Realities!"

But Why Do the Questions Have to Come From the List?

Yeah, it's partly a holdover from Apocalypse World. And it's definitely the most jarring part of the move. For example, in my moving-the-torch-around-to-find-the-edges example, the player might be like "dude, I just want to find the edges... that's not one of the questions!"

But here's the part that's brilliant: the questions force them to ask something meaningful.  Something that will propel the situation forward into action or deeper into context.  If you just answer the question "where is the edge of the shimmering effect," you're just encouraging pixel bashing.  Seriously. What happens next? Nothing about that answer will propel the situation forward.

The Discern Realities questions? They almost always will propel the situation. (Even "What happened here recently?" will likely add information that deepens the overall scene. "Nothing," you might say, "the way the dust has built up, not just on the bookshelf but on the floor and the bed... no one's been here for years." That's way more interesting and meaningful than "6-inches from the top center book.")

Another reason the questions are great: they force the player to prioritize. What are they looking for, really?  Are they more concerned about threats ("What should I be on the lookout for?") or opportunities ("What here is useful or valuable to me?") or deception ("What here isn't what it appears?") or or or.  The move forces them to pick.

(By the way, if it really bugs you or them, try this: let them ask more-or-less any question they want, but answer one the questions from the Discern Realities list--whichever one is the closest match. Can't tell which one is the closest match? Ask them questions about what they're hoping to find, or about how they do it, until you know.)

On a 10+, the questions make them think more broadly. They got what they were most interested in, but now... what else might they glean from the situation? This is where I find the most fun happens.

Wizard: "Um, first question... I guess, what is about to happen? I'm trying to figure out what this field does." 

GM: "Okay, cool. You find the edges of the shimmering field, about 6 inches from the books, yeah.  And as you carefully move the torch closer, the field almost starts to... solidify? No, more like... tense.  You're pretty sure it's about to lash out with some arcane force if you get any closer. Next question?"   

Wizard: "Huh. Okay... um, what is useful or valuable to me?" 

GM:  "Well, the books, obviously. But... well, yeah. You keep moving the torch around carefully, and you notice two things.  First, the field actually seems to be emanating from just one of the books. Out in, like, a sphere from that one.  It covers all the others, but, it's centered on one of them.  Also, you noticed that the field isn't triggered from the flame, just from the physical part of the torch itself.  Looks like energy can pass through it, but matter can't. Last question?" 

Wizard:  "Oh, hmmm... who's really in control here?" 

GM:  <pause>  "Huh, let me think about that for a sec....  Oh! You guys are! This place... the dust, the musty smell, the cobwebs in the corners... no ones been in this room for months, maybe even years.  Yeah, there's some sort of weird protective field around these books, but there's no sign that anyone's gonna be coming back for them anytime soon." 

Finally (and this is important to remember): sometimes the answer is a negative. "Who's in control here?"  "No one. It's a damn free for all."  "What isn't what it seems?"  "Nothing. This lady has been totally honest with you." "What should I be on the look out for?" "Not much. This place looks pretty safe."

Yeah, those answers might be kinda boring, but they are super valuable answers. Players can make informed decisions with those answers. They're great.

But the Move Takes Us Out of the Fiction!

Maybe? But it doesn't take you out of the conversation. You're still talking about what's happening in the game, aren't you?

Obviously, this is a personal taste thing, but: I find "immersion" to be somewhat overrated. I don't want to lose track of the fiction, but I don't mind having a conversation about what the fiction entails.

Nonetheless, I try to couch my answers in terms of what the characters actually perceive, and what they infer from that. That helps keep the move grounded in the fiction, a lot.

(Related: they often get better, more immediately useful answers if they discern realities up close and personal than if they just study a situation from afar.)

Another trick: I try to always answer their last question by either making a GM move and/or by switching focus to another PC. That way, the questions and answers blend nicely back into the normal flow of play.

e.g. "...no one's gonna be coming back here anytime soon. Hey, thief, while the wizard's been waving the torch around, what have you been up to? That chest at the foot of the bed seems to be padlocked shut, though the lock has gotten all rusty. What do you do?" (present a challenge that fits a class's skills).

"Isn't the +1 Forward Hard to Track?"

Yup, sure is.

It's particularly hard to remember because:

1. it doesn't always trigger (someone has to act on the answers)
2. if it does trigger, it might not matter. Any given +1 bonus only matters on 1 in 4 rolls (i.e. results of 6 or 9, after modifiers).

However, the +1 forward does give the GM's answers mechanical weight. If you Discern Realities ask the GM "what here is useful to me?" and get an answer like "um, your sword?" you might have been like "duh."  But you get a +1 to hack and slash (or defend, or whatever) if you can act on that information--and it's a pretty easy thing to act on!

And if you forget about the +1 forward?  The questions from the Discern Realities list will still be propelling the game, so it's no huge loss. That +1 probably (3 in 4 times) wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Editorial note: in my personal games, I've switched over to using Advantage and Disadvantage instead of +/- X modifiers.  'Vantage means roll an extra die and drop the lowest/highest. So for Discern Realities, the rule is "gain advantage on your next move that acts on the answers."  In a face-to-face game, you can represent that by having the player add an extra d6 to their usual "dice pile."  They might not actually get to use it, but they at least have it there as a reminder.  

In Summary

Discern Realities triggers when a PC takes action in order to get more information.

If the player is just asking you questions about what they see/hear/feel/know, and it's stuff that would be obvious, just provide the details. If what they want to know wouldn't be immediately apparent, tell them that and ask them how'd they'd learn it... and that will almost always trigger Discern Realities.

The questions are great because they force the players to ask questions that provide depth, texture, and momentum. They force the player to pick what's actually important to them. The extra questions on a 10+ prompt us (the players and the GM) to think about the situation more deeply than we would have otherwise.

The move can definitely "pull you out of the fiction," but I don't think that's a bad thing. And you can use your answers to put everyone back in the fiction.

Yeah, the +1 forward is easy to lose track of, but think of it as gravy. It's not the main dish, but it adds a little something-something when you put it on top.

Obviously, this is all just my opinions and experiences!  Your experiences might be very different than mine.  But I find Discern Realities to be one of the main drivers of my games.

Gear Slots and Supplies in Homebrew World

This post is out of date!  I've made significant changes to the inventory system in Homebrew World v1.5. See here for details.  

If you really prefer this older version, here's the last version of HBW that used it. Enjoy! (Also, maybe drop me a line and let me know why you prefer the old one.)

Homebrew World (I really need a better name than that) abstracts gear and supplies even more than Dungeon World does. My goal was for it to be intuitive and self-explanatory, but I've gotten a couple questions about it so I figured I'd write up an explanation.

Plus, this particular mechanic would be easy-ish to port into core DW or related games. So here it is.

Gear Slots

Each class playbook gets 9 "slots" for gear, plus a box for small items. It looks like this:

Gear slots & starting gear for the Fighter

And for the Thief

Most items take up a slot, but:

• Small items can go in your Small Items section (and you can carry as many as you can write in there). 
• Big items (like the Fighter's "Hauberk or brigandine or breastplate") take up two slots
• Clumsy items must go in the last few slots, the ones that make you clumsy. Heavy armor is clumsy for most characters, but some (like the Fighter) ignore it.
• Encumbering items (Armor, Supplies, instruments like a lute or a mandolin) can't occupy either of the first two slots.  (At least, that's my intent. I haven't actually flagged these items as such, and I'm not 100% sure that I ever will. Also, shields should probably go in these slots but whatevs.)

Normally, you'll be encumbered, meaning you have something in slots 3+. This doesn't normally have any game effect; that's the assumed state of the game. You're expected to be adventurers, carrying crap around on an expedition.

If you have nothing but your first two slots filled in, you are unencumbered. This doesn't mean anything by itself, but there are a handful of moves (like the Thief's Catlike) that only work if you're unencumbered.

If anything is in your last few slots, you are clumsy and have disadvantage on all your rolls.  You don't ever want to have something in your clumsy slots, but sometimes it'll be necessary or worth it. "You want to throw Thorin out over your shoulder and carry him out? Okay, but he'll take up two clumsy slots and you'll need to dedicate one hand to keeping him there. You do it?"

Supplies

For the most part, you don't track the specific stuff that you've got on you, except for weapons and some small items that add flavor or utility at the start of the game. Rations, bandages, poultices & herbs, rope, lanterns, torches, etc.—it's all subsumed under Supplies.

Each set of Supplies takes up one inventory slot and, by default, gives you two uses. When you expend the last use, that inventory slot becomes free and you can put something else in there.

(Note: the number of uses is something I'm still a little uncertain about. I think "2" is right for one-shots and short-run games, where you're basically doing one shortish adventure; it's probably too little for games with slower paced, more extensive expeditions.)

You might expend Supplies...

• To produce an item (see Have What You Need)
• To clear someone else's "out of..." condition (see Share Supplies)
• When another move tells you to, or gives you the option (see Volley, Give Succor, and Make Camp, or numerous Background moves).
• Because the GM uses up your resources, and Supplies are it.
• Because the GM reveals an unwelcome truth, the truth being that (some of?) your Supplies are gone, or spoiled, or broken, or worthless, or whatever.
• The GM makes a different move, and it happens to come along with you losing Supplies

When a move says to "expend 1 Supplies" or "expend Supplies," it means tick off one use of Supplies. It doesn't mean "lose the whole inventory slot."

"Out of..."

Each playbook has a section for tracking things you might run out.of. There are standard check boxes for things everyone is likely to care about (food, water, ammo, healing supplies) and room to free-text in more. Some class and background moves introduce new things you can be "out of."

When you're out of __, you don't have any more than what's already explicitly established on your inventory. So, like, if you mark "out of candles" to produce one last candle (see below), you add that one candle to your Small Items list but that's it. No more candles.

Also, if you're out of __, you can't do things that require or assume that you have __. If you're out of ammo, you can't shoot someone with your bow. If you're out of healing supplies, you can't Give Succor.

You might end up marking "out of __" because:

• You Have What You Need, but mark "out of __" instead of expending Supplies
• Another move tells you to, or that you can (see Volley or Make Camp)
• You specifically decide to rid yourself or otherwise be out of __ ("I give the refugees all my food. I can find more!" or "I discard anything made of iron from my person, then head through the faerie door.")
• The GM makes a move, and it results in you being out of __.

At the GM's option, you can also mark "out of __" in lieu of expending 1 use of Supplies. For example, the GM might tell you to expend Supplies as your pack tears open, and you might be like "can I mark 'out of food' instead?" 

Once you are out of __, you're out of it until:

• You Resupply.
• Someone else (who isn't out of the same thing) Shares Supplies with you.
• Fictional circumstances change, so that you wouldn't be out of __ (like, maybe you find a stream and fill your wine skin, so you're no longer 'out of drink.' Or, maybe you scour the battlefield for arrows and find enough to clear 'out of ammo.')

Expending Supplies to Produce Items

This isn't on the moves list yet, but it will be. Here's how it works:

HAVE WHAT YOU NEED  

When you go through your gear and expend 1 use of Supplies, you produce a common, mundane item, something that you could have been carrying around. Add the item to your inventory. 

If the item you produce is small, you can mark "out of __" instead of expending Supplies. If you do, that's the last of that thing that you had.   

What exactly counts as "common & mundane" in your world depends entirely on what you establish in play. A magnetic compass might be common & mundane in an Age of Piracy game, but a magical wonder in a bronze-age Aegean Sea game. 

When you expend Supplies to produce an item, you tick off a use of Supplies and add the item to your inventory. If it's a small item, put in the Small Items section (if it can fit). Otherwise, it takes up a slot (or slots, if big) as normal.

• If that was the last use of that particular set of Supplies, that slot is now free. You can put the item you produced there.   
• If you end up having to put it in a clumsy slot, them's the breaks. I guess it was just really well packed before, and now, not so much.

Many backgrounds give you the ability to produce items other than the common & mundane. A Noble Scion Fighter can produce "fine, expensive items (but nothing unique, magical, or overly specific)." A Tomb Raider Thief can produce "strange, obscure, even minorly magical items, but only if you can tell us where you got them." As with "common & mundane" items, it's up to your group to work these things out at the table, based on established fiction and the spirit of these moves. 

If you mark "out of __" instead of expending Supplies, the GM decides exactly what you're out of. For example, if you mark "out of __" to produce a candle, the GM might tell you that you're out of candles, or that you're out of light sources. Their call.

Expending Supplies to Clear Another's "Out of..."

Again, this hasn't actually made it into the play kit yet, but here's how it works:

SHARE SUPPLIES 

When you share with an ally who's out of something, expend 1 use of Supplies to let them clear one "out of " box—as long as it's something you might reasonably have been carrying. 

Note that if a character ends up "out of __," where __ is one of those special things only they can produce, they can only clear that condition if the fiction would allow it. Like, if the Fae-touched Wizard is out of impossible things, they probably can't clear that check box just because the Fighter gives her 1 Supplies. 

Then again, maybe they can? 

Lilliastre (the Fae-touched Wizard): Hey Fighter, can you give me 1 use of Supplies so I can clear this "out of impossible things" condition?

GM: Ummm... hold on there, sport.

Lilliastre: No, it's cool. I give him a little tartan sack to carry for me, before we left. It was, like, shaking around a little. Like there was something alive in there.  

GM: ...  Rudiger, that cool with you? You're down with playing mule for Lilliastre's craziness?

Rudiger: Oh, sure. I trust Lilli. (Even though I shouldn't.)

GM: Okay, fine. Lilliastre, you can clear "out of impossible things," but Rudiger, you've got mark "out of impossible things" in addition to expending 1 Supplies. You do it?

Other Moves That Interact with Supplies

Lots of moves also interact with Supplies. The big ones are:

VOLLEY
When you launch a ranged attack, roll +DEX: on a 10+, you have a clear shot—deal your damage; on a 7-9, deal your damage but choose 1 from the list below.

• You have to move/hold steady to get the shot, placing you in danger of the GM’s choice
• Take what you can get: roll damage with disadvantage
• Expend 1 Supplies or mark “out of ammo.”

The idea being: you're running low on ammo (expending Supplies) or you're out. Note that if you're out of ammo, you're not going to be using Volley unless you clear that check mark (or you use thrown weapons).

GIVE SUCCOR
When you tend to someone’s ailments, expend 1 Supplies (or mark “out of healing supplies”) and roll +INT: on a 10+, either pick 2 from the list below or pick 1 and you don't need expend supplies after all; on a 7-9, pick 1:

• They heal 5 HP
• They clear a debility 
• Their dangerous wounds are stabilized 

Note that you have expend 1 Supplies or mark "out of healing supplies" before you roll and get any benefit. If you're already out of healing supplies, then you can't make the move.

MAKE CAMP

When you settle in to rest in a dangerous area,  someone must expend Supplies or mark “out of food” or mark "out of drink").

Then, take turns with the following:

• Give an example of how you’ve met your Drive’s requirement; if you can, mark XP
• Describe how your opinion of or relationship with another character has changed; if everyone agrees, mark XP
• Point out something awesome that another character did, that no one else has mentioned yet; if you do, mark XP

When you wake from at least a few hours sleep, choose 1. If you expend 1 use of Supplies, choose another.

• Regain HP equal to 1/2 your maximum
• Clear your debilities
• Gain advantage on your next roll

So: you need someone in the party to expend 1 Supplies or become out of food, or become out drink. 

If everyone in the party is out of food and out of drink, you can't Make Camp: no XP questions, no "when you wake from at least a few hours sleep, choose 1." You might sleep, sure, but you don't get the benefits of Make Camp unless someone spends the resources. Also: you're starting to starve and suffer dehydration. Expect the GM to make things worse and worse for you.

At the end of the move, after you wake from a few hours sleep, you (meaning you personally, you the one specific character) can expend 1 Supplies to get any extra choice. This is 1-use-of-Supplies-per-PC. You can swamp Supplies around to meet the requirement. (As with other uses of Supplies, you can potentially mark "out of __" instead. You'll probably end up out of food, drink, or healing supplies if you do.)

RESUPPLY
When you take the opportunity to resupply, regain any uses of Supplies and clear your “out of...” items. If you’re paying for it, a valuable item (like a pouch of coins) should cover the party.

What constitutes taking "the opportunity to resupply" is going to vary from group to group and game to game. In general, be fairly generous about it. 

If the opportunity is meager, dodgy, rushed, or otherwise less than sufficient, you can still let them Resupply but with a limit. Like, "You can Resupply here, yeah, but unless you want to spend a hour or so picking through the stuff, it'll be limited. You can each clear one 'out of' or one use of Supplies. If you spend the time, like an hour or so, you can clear everything but who knows what'll happen while you're futzing about."

How It (Hopefully) Plays Out

My hope is that the whole thing doesn't require much in the way of explanation up front, but instead becomes pretty self-evident through play.

Example 1: The party is heading into a dungeon and I'm like "It's dark down there, what do you do for light?" and the Fighter goes "do we, like, have a torch?"  And I'm like "sure, if you mark off 1 use of Supplies. Write that torch down in your inventory."

Example 2: Later, there's a deep shaft that they want to go down, and the Fighter is like "Oh, I expend 1 Supplies to have a rope!  We tie it off to this pillar and use it climb down."  No need to add it to inventory, cuz they're leaving it behind. However, the Fighter is now out of Supplies (because they only have 2 uses).  (Let's assume they don't have "More Supplies" in their inventory.)

Example 3: The PCs get in a fight. Afterwards, the Thief (with Supplies, 2 uses) tends to the Fighter's injuries using Give Succor. She expends 1 Supplies, gets a 7-9, chooses to heal the Fighter for 5 HP.  There's no immediate danger and the Fighter's pretty banged up, so she's like "Okay, I'll try again," but instead of expending her last use of Supplies, she decides to mark "out of healing supplies." She gets a 7-9 again, heals another 5 HP on the Fighter.  

Example 4:  There's another fight!  The Thief volleys and gets a 7-9.  Now, she's got a cozy little sniper spot and doesn't want to put herself in danger, and the target she's going after has like 3 HP and 2 armor, so she'd rather not take disadvantage to her damage. She looks at the 3rd choice for Volley: use up her last Supplies or mark "out of ammo."  It's a tough choice!  She even starts rethinking... maybe danger or disadvantage on the damage roll are better...

Example 5: The Thief did choose to run out of ammo, and now the fight's over. "Hey, can anyone loan me some arrows?"  And the Fighter's like "Can I?" to me. "Do you have any Supplies left?" I ask and he doesn't. "Can I mark 'out of ammo' myself..." he asks, and I'm like "are you even carrying any ammo? Like, do you have a bow?"  And the Fighter's all like "No" and mopey, but c'mon. He can't give the Thief ammo he doesn't have. 

Example 6: The Thief, though, is like "Can I try to reclaim some arrows from the battlefield?" and there's really no move for that (I mean, maybe it's Discern Realities, but this isn't "studying a situation," it's "hey GM, will this work?")  To which I can offer an opportunity with or without a cost or maybe have them roll the die of fate. "Maybe? Roll the die of fate.  A 4? Well, if you spend like 5 or 10 minutes poking around, you can probably track down enough arrows to clear your 'out of ammo' mark, but Fighter, that torch is starting to get a little low. Y'all sure you want to waste the time scrounging arrows?" They decide against it. 

Example 7: The party explores a little more, and then retreats back to the surface to rest (just as the torch is running out). The Fighter picks up that rope they left tied to the pillar and takes it with him, putting it in the slot that used have his Supplies.

They find a spot to make camp. Someone has to expend 1 Supplies or mark "out of food" or "out of drink."  The fighter's like "I'll be out of food." I ask them some questions about the grub they're eating, and how they've got a little left between them, and they're thinking about the road home, but there's no other real impact right now.

Example 8:  Next morning, they head back into the dungeon. Remember, the Fighter is out of food and out of Supplies; the Thief is out of ammo and has only 1 Supplies left.

Once again, they need a light. "I have to spend my last 1 Supplies for that?" "If you want a torch, yeah. You could produce something smaller, though, like a candle, but it'd be your last candle."  "How about, like, one of those oil lamps? The ones that look like a closed netti pot with a wick?"  I'm cool with that, but she'll have to mark "out of light sources," not just "out of oil lamps." She agrees, and down they go with a sputtering oil lamp to light the way.

(Notice that I'm not making them expend supplies for a flint and tinder with which to light the lamp or that torch they had earlier. Mostly because I forgot until just now. But that's a small item anyhow, and I'm fine with the Thief and Fighter both having one. If I'm going to be a stickler for it, we could have them mark "out of tinderboxes" and put a tinderbox in their inventory, but I'm not very interested in tracking that.)

Example 9: Not surprisingly, the PCs get into a fight and the Thief drops that oil lamp. It goes out and the oil spills all over, but I don't have the lamp break (for I am a generous GM).  After the fight, they spend some time crawling about the floor looking for the lamp and find it. The Thief gets it relit and I'm like "You've got very little oil left, just a few minutes of what's soaked into the wick already, what do you?" The Thief Has What She Needs again, but this time she's "out of lamp oil."

They've got a tough choice, now!  The Fighter's out of Supplies, so he can't really help with anything. The Thief has 1 Supplies left, and has an oil lamp with plenty of fuel, but is otherwise out of light sources and out of oil (and out of ammo, and healing supplies). If that light goes out, they're kinda screwed.

Example 10: We're getting toward the end of the session and they're feeling kinda nuts, so they press on. They get to an old, ancient door and it's got a weird, recessed pattern in it. They talk about how to get into it, and the Fighter's like "Want me to bash it down?" and the Thief (a Tomb Raider) is like "Wait, do I recognize these markings and whatnot."

Sounds like Spout Lore to me, and she rolls (with advantage, cuz: Tomb Raider + ruins) and gets a 10+. "It's a key hole; you need special metallic cube, where you slide certain parts in certain directions and it makes a unusual shapes, and then it'll fit into the recesses and you can open the lock. How do you know this?"  And the Thief tells us about the last ruins like this she delved in, and how she found one of those cubes and used it to jimmy the door.  And then she's like, "In fact, I still have it!" and she Has What She Needs to produce it (which she can do, because of the Tomb Raider background).

She could expend 1 Supplies, but it's a small thing, so she can also mark "out of __." "If I mark out of..., what will I be out of? Key-cubes?"  And I'm like, "No, you'll be out of strange, obscure things."  Worth it; she produces the cube and fiddles with it and opens the door. 

Example 11: The get in and there's some adventuring and someone gets hurt, and the Thief can't Give Succor to anyone cuz she's out of healing supplies. The Fighter can, though. He marks "out of healing supplies" and rolls +INT, and gets lucky with a 10+. He heals 5 HP for the Thief and chooses to not expend supplies after all. He can Give Succor again, and he does, and this time gets a 7-9. He's out of healing supplies (but the Thief got another 5 HP back).

Example 12: They found a big silver-banded chest filled with something heavy and presumably valuable (the Thief missed a Tricks of the Trade, and I told them the requirements: they want to find out what's inside, they'll need to bring it with them but it's big and clumsy.) The Fighter takes it, filling his last two inventory slots (two because its big and the last two because it's clumsy).  He's still got like 3 open "normal" slots, but this isn't something you can just put in a backpack. He's basically carrying it in both hands like it was moving day and this was a box full of books. His fingers and arms are burning.

They get about half-way out and there's a monster and they flee and it chases them. We resolve it by having the Struggle as One, and the Fighter has a choice: leave the chest behind or roll with disadvantage.  He goes for the roll, and biffs it. They Thief gets a 7-9, so can't help out, and the Fighter's in a spot. I have him trip and the chest smacks into the ground (but doesn't smash open, thankfully). The monster is almost on them, you can leave the chest and run or turn to face it, what do you do?

Example 13: The Fighter turns and faces it and is all like big and scary and tries to scare it back, trigger Parley (with advantage, cuz the Fighter is Intimidating).  He wants to get it to stop chasing them. He rolls, gets a 10+. I tell him that the thing is clearly hungry, and that you could distract it by throwing it some food. 1 Supplies worth ought to do it!

Alas, the Fighter is out of food (and Supplies). The Thief, though, has both. She marks out of food and tosses her food to the monster and they make their getaway.

Example 14:  They make their way outside, only to find that the Fighter's old boss and his thugs are there waiting for them, ready to steal the treasure they've rightfully looted. There's a fight. The Fighter drops the chest (so he's no longer clumsy) and draws a weapon and wades into the fray.

During the fight, the Thief is like "Can I Have What I Need to produce some poison? Or a smoke bomb?" Neither of those are "common & mundane" in my opinion, and the Fighter agrees, so the Thief is outvoted.

Example 15:  They end up fighting free of the thugs, but have to leave the chest behind. The Thief comes up with a clever plan involving rope (with the Fighter has), rocks, trees (readily available) and a fishing net. "You have a fishing net?" I ask and she's like "Yup, been carrying it around the whole time." She marks off her last use of Supplies and sure enough, has a fishing net.

Example 16: The Thief's plan (net, rope, trees, counterweights, decoys) works and we soon find a number of the thugs hanging from a net in the trees.  The Fighter and Thief go find their camp, kill the Fighter's old boss and the couple of goons who remained, and find the chest.

They also loot the camp, which counts as Resupplying. They have to work quickly, though (the guys in the net were already working themselves free when they left), so I ask them to Defy Danger with INT or DEX (their call).  Thief gets a 10+ and so she fully resupplies (back up to 2 uses of Supplies, no longer out of anything).  The Fighter gets a 7-9, so I tell him he can either get 2 uses of Supplies or clear his "out of..." check boxes. He's only out of food and healing supplies (and ammo, I guess; more like he never had any), so he opts to get the 2 Supplies.

They head off, taking turns hauling that chest but otherwise well provisioned!

Design Goals

It's probably worth describing the design goals behind all this, huh?

First and foremost, I wanted something that would make resource management and depletion a meaningful part of the game, particularly for one-shot or short-run games. When everyone starts with 5 uses of rations and you've got like 12 uses of bandages among the party, and the ranger and the thief each have 6 ammo, and and and... well, the PCs have so many resources to start that the scarcity mechanics (and the interesting decisions they drive) rarely come into play in a single, initial session.

Second, I wanted something that consolidated all those different resources. Sure, abstracting ammo and adventuring gear go a long way, but the differences between ammo, gear, bandages, poultice & herbs, halfling pipeweed, etc.—it's all a lot to take in for new players. So, consolidate them all into 1 thing: Supplies.

Third: counting Weight sucks, and almost no one remembers to do it. Especially not in a One-Shot. The PCs basically now all have Load 6 or 7, and items weigh either 0, 1, or 2. But inventory slots are way, way easier for people to process than "count your total Weight and compare it to your Load; you can can carry up to 2 Weight more than your Load but you're at a penalty!"  Make it visual.

Fourth: there should still be the possibility that you've got plenty of stuff left, but you're specifically out of X, and that causes you trouble (or at least limits options).  If you're out of ammo, you can't use your bow (even though you maybe have plenty of food left).  If you try wriggle free from the assassin vine and get a 7-9 I might be like "okay, you get free, but the rope on your pack got snagged on the thorns and you had to leave it behind, mark out of rope." And that's like a Chekhov's gun, a note to self that I should show off the downside of not having rope.  

Fifth: It should all be relatively intuitive.  I found that it was. I didn't have to explain, like, any of the stuff above during my first playtest, and the players all thought the system was really elegant. 

Sixth: I really liked the idea of each Background interacting with the gear system in some way, sometimes subtly and sometimes obviously. Almost all of the Backgrounds do this. And in the first playtest, the Background/gear moves all came into play, in some pretty clutch ways.

Closing Thoughts

I'm overall really pleased with how this has come together, and how it's so-far worked in play. I've still got some concerns, though: 

• I'm really unsure if I've calibrated the uses-per-inventory-slot correctly. We had 3 per slot in the first playtest and it felt like way too much to me; hence, 2.  
• The Give Succor move originally had "don't expend supplies" as one of it's bullet point choices, and it was "pick 2 (on a 10+) or pick 1 (on a 7-9).  That made it too easy to spam.  So now, on a 7-9, you don't have the option of conserving supplies. . 

If you've got opinions or questions, I'd love to hear them (in the comments, on G+, or via Hangouts).  Thanks for reading!

The Agenda Behind the Agenda

Games that identify themselves as Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) pretty much always have a list of agenda items and principles for the GM. Like, here's Dungeon World's discussion of GM agenda:

Your agenda makes up the things you aim to do at all times while GMing a game of Dungeon World:

• Portray a fantastic world
• Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
• Play to find out what happens

Everything you say and do at the table (and away from the table, too) exists to accomplish these three goals and no others. Things that aren’t on this list aren’t your goals.

And then you get a list of principles (Draw maps, leave blanks and Address the characters, not the players, etc.) that serve as guidelines for running that game.

Each PbtA game has its own list, and while there's a lot of similarity, there's a lot of subtle variation between them. These differences are where the author tries to communicate how to run this game in particular.

Thing is, even the stuff that's similar across all PbtA games—like address the characters, not the players and play to find out what happens—doesn't address a couple elephants in the room:

• There are personal and social motivations that bring your group together to play this game in the first place. 
• There are rules of human interaction that go above and beyond the principles specific to this game.

Like, I could adhere strictly to the principles listed on page 160 of the book, but if I'm like pressuring everyone to play Dungeon World when they'd rather be playing Mario Kart and I'm ignoring the personal boundaries of the people in the room with me, I'm still a shit GM (and probably a shit person).

"I'm just following my principles! Why are you so upset?"

I've been fortunate enough to never personally encounter any serious boundary-violating crap like I'm making fun of in that pic, but I know it happens. And there are all sorts of other, little ways that the GM and players can mess up at levels above and beyond those addressed by a game's text.

So, in the GM chapter for Stonetop, I added this box text:

The agenda and principles listed here are the ones specific and particular to running Stonetop, but there are more general agendas and principles that you hopefully follow whenever you get together with other people to play a game.

Your agenda, of course, includes...

• Have fun
• Enjoy each other’s company
• Play the game you want to play.

...because otherwise, why are you doing this?

Your principles, hopefully, include…

• Treat each other with respect
• Listen to each other and pay attention
• Laugh, joke, don’t take it too seriously
• Communicate wants, needs, and limitations
• Set and respect boundaries
• Talk about what you enjoy and what you don’t
• Make changes as needed
• Put each other above the game
• Don’t be a jerk
• Take breaks as needed
• Talk about real life stuff, too

…because if aren’t going to do those things, it’s hard to see how you’ll have fun, enjoy each other’s company, or play the game you want to play.

I don't know this will end up in the final cut (that chapter is long), and I certainly don't think that having it written down solves the problems. I don't know that I've got them all or even got them right. But I felt like it was worth saving this somewhere and putting it out into the world.

If you ever play a game with me: these are part of my agenda and my principles. I may not always live up to them, but I'm trying. And I expect you to try, too.