Stonetop Kickstarter: March 1st, 2021

We're finally doing it:

click me for the prelaunch page

Here's the teaser text:

The Stone has always been here, in the center of the village. It’s larger than life, older than anything, etched with runes. When storms roll up from the south, as they often do, the Stone pulls lightning from the sky and the village shakes with thunder. Visitors cower. The locals? They barely even notice.

You are one such local, someone who calls Stonetop home. You’re one of a handful of notables—admired, or respected, or maybe even reviled. When there’s trouble, people look to you for the solution. Or as the cause. Or both.

And right now, as the first wildflowers appear beyond the Old Wall? Trouble is brewing. The world itself is darkening, like the sky before a summer storm. Folks can feel it. They’re afraid.

These are good people, here, in Stonetop. Your kith and kin.

If you don’t step up to protect them, who will?

I've been working on Stonetop since, criminy, 2013? It started as a "playset" for Dungeon World with beefed up rules for managing the steading's prosperity. Then it became a whole slew of custom classes with a unique structure, and a bunch of creepy artifacts. And then I started tweaking basic moves, and eventually acknowledged that this was going to be a standalone game.

I've run over 75 sessions with 5 different groups. I've played in over 30 sessions myself. We've had something like 60 different playtest groups. 

And now, finally, the end is in sight. We'll be launching the Kickstarter on March 1, 2021, closing on March 31. Target fulfillment is October 2021.  

Jason Lutes of Lampblack & Brimstone will be running the Kickstarter and publishing the game. You might know Jason/L&B from The Perilous Wilds, which is where we first collaborated. Jason is also doing layout, editing, and art direction.

Illustrations will be done by Lucie Arnoux, a UK-based artist whose work includes reportage, children's books, set design, and comics. That's her work up above. Here's some more:

(details, including a sample chapter and a more art, after the break)

Take Watch is a bad move and you're a bad person if you like it

"Did you hear that? It sounds like... click bait!"

Strong personal opinion: Take Watch is a bad move. You don't need it. Dungeon World doesn't need it. I'd even go so far as to say that it is antithetical to the rest of the game.    

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the bog-standard version in the original Dungeon World text. This one:

When you’re on watch and something approaches the camp roll+Wis. * On a 10+ you’re able to wake the camp and prepare a response, the camp takes +1 forward. * On a 7–9 you react just a moment too late; the camp is awake but hasn’t had time to prepare. You have weapons and armor but little else. * On a miss whatever lurks outside the campfire’s light has the drop on you.

It breaks the usual flow of the game. It doesn't add much of anything to the fiction, and what it does add presumes more than it should about how any given PC will react in every situation. (A full explanation, and what to do instead, after the break.)

My recipe for starting adventures

I've got a little process that I use whenever I start a game of Dungeon World or Homebrew World. It's similar to the first session procedure that's described in the book, but different in some key ways. I've found that this approach reliably kicks off a new game quickly and with a lot of energy, in a way that makes it pretty darn easy to run and improvise.  

Here's the recipe:

1. Establish the adventure's premise with the group
     > Premise = a fantastic location + a grabby activity
     > Do this before anyone picks playbooks or makes characters
   
   
2. Players create characters, GM writes/updates hook questions, which should establish:
     > Motive: why are they here, doing this?
     > Stakes: what's on the line, why is this important?
     > Urgency: why shouldn't they dawdle?
     > Dangers: what do they expect to face? what do they know about them?
     > Detail: what specifically are they hunting/seeking/fleeing/fighting/etc.?
     > Complications: what's getting in the way? making it harder? constraining them?
   
   
3. Do introductions (by name, pronouns, class, and look).
     > Do not do bonds (or in Homebrew World, background questions) just yet. 
     > You're just establishing who the characters are.
     > Yes, you can ask questions, but keep it light for now.
   
   
4. Ask a few of your hook questions
     > Usually 1-3
     > Pick questions that elaborate on or clarify the premise
     > Address specific PCs, not the group at large
     > Ask follow-up questions; encourage the players to do so, too!
   
   
5. Do bonds (or in Homebrew World, background questions)
     > Ask follow-up questions; encourage the players to do so, too!
     > Use this to establish how they know each other, why they're working together
   
   
6. Finish asking your hook questions
     > Doing bonds/background questions often rolls naturally into this
     > Ask follow-up questions; encourage the players to do so, too!
     > Ask additional questions as they occur to you
   
   
7. Frame the initial scene, tightly
     > Start in media res or at least right on the verge of action
     > Who, where, when, doing what?
     > Give up to 3 strong impressions, ideally from different senses
     > Make a soft GM move
     > "What do you do?"

That's the recipe!  More about the background, details, and suggested prep after the jump break.

I keep hearing good things about Delicious in Dungeon,
but haven't read it; just seemed appropriate, y'know? Cuz recipes.

Running Fights in Dungeon World & Stonetop

I've been working on the GMing chapters for Stonetop, and recently finished the "Dangers" chapter. Part of that chapter is a section on "Using Monsters and Running Fights." It's a distillation of procedures, advice, and wisdom that you'll find floating around the Dungeon World community, but that isn't really specifically laid out in the DW text. 

If you've been GMing Dungeon World (or any of its hacks) for a while, you probably know all of this already. I'm mostly posting this for newer GMs, or those who've been running the game but still feel uncertain when fights break out.  

Some caveats:

• It assumes that you're using my changes to Hack & Slash, Defend, Defy Danger, Parley, and Aid--but most of what follows applies with the original moves, too. 

•  The Multiple Combatants and Abstracting Groups sections assume that you're using an updated version of the Follower rules originally presented in the Perilous Wilds. In Stonetop, Followers can make the same moves that PCs do (like Defy Danger or H&S), but the roll either +0, +1, or +2 depending on their tags and you might have to Order Followers to get them to do things.  Expect a future blog post on that!

• You'll see references to GM principles, moves, and agenda items that are slightly different from those of core Dungeon World. I trust you can see the parallels. It definitely assumes that the GM move "Deal Damage" has been replaced with "Hurt Them" 

Okay, let's do this. As always, questions and feedback are appreciated!

Introducing Monsters

Whenever it’s time to make a GM move, you can introduce a danger and put a monster in the scene.

Don’t worry about your monsters being “fair fights” or “balanced encounters” or something that the PCs can even defeat. Worry about your monsters making sense. Portray a rich and mysterious world, right? If it makes sense for the PCs to stumble across a pair of (extremely dangerous) thunder drakes, go for it. Then play to find out what happens.

Exactly how you introduce a monster will depend on the situation, the monster’s tags and qualities and moves, and the actions of the PCs. “Obvious” monsters encountered in a wide-open space will give the PCs plenty of opportunity to plan and react. Stealthy monsters in a dark, cluttered space while the PCs stumble around in torchlight? Not so much.

------------------ 

The PCs are up in Gordin’s Delve trying to trade off some valuables they found in the Green Lord’s tomb. Rhianna’s off talking to a contact. Vahid, Caradoc, and Blodwen are at a pub. Caradoc and Blodwen get up to leave, and Vahid sees a couple of unsavory types get up and follow.

Now, if these guys are just a pair of local miners that Caradoc managed to tick off, then I’ll introduce a danger and let the PCs see them coming. “About halfway back to your hostel, you realize that you’re being followed. It’s those guys from the pub and they look pissed. What do you do?” The PCs have all sorts of options—they might try to lose them, or set an ambush, or talk, or whatever. 

But if these bad guys are stealthy cutthroats who regularly murder unwary travelers in alleys and loot their corpses, then I’ll be much more aggressive about it. I’ll start by hinting at more than meets the eye. “You find yourselves in a dark, empty little trash-strewn square, and everything’s quiet. Too quiet. You feel like you’re being watched. What do you do?” 

Let’s say they Discern Realities, roll a 7-9, and ask, “What should I be on the lookout for?” I’d say “You’re pretty sure someone’s following you, or maybe circling ahead. And these alleys are a filled with good spots for an ambush. What do you do?” Whatever it is, they’ll be on guard. My next move will probably be to introduce a danger, but softly and with a chance to react. “As you pass a dark side-alley, two thugs rush out towards you, what do you do?” 

But suppose they Discern Realities and get a 6-, or just ignore my veiled threat and blunder on. In that case, I’ll introduce a danger hard and painfully. “Caradoc, this guy comes out of a dark side-alley and snags your right arm, twists, and shoves you face-first into a wall. Take 1d8 damage. Blodwen, you see a second guy step forward, sneering, a glint of metal in his hand. What do you do?”

------------------

These two guys follow you into an alley...
(more after the jump-break)

"Discern Realities" in Stonetop & Homebrew World

Discern Realities is a move that is near and dear to my heart. It's one of my favorite moves, and I've written about it at length:

• In Defense of Discern Realities
• Discern Realities vs. Spout Lore vs. Just Describing Stuff
• Discern Realities: make the question part of the trigger?
• Many, many discussions on G+ (have fun)

I tried using that "make the question part of the trigger" approach to the move a couple times, but didn't really like how it worked in practice. Either the players had to keep the questions constantly in mind and intentionally ask them, or as the GM I had to keep them constantly in mind and watch for the players asking them. Also, a lot of my playbook moves add questions you can ask to Discern Realities "for free, even on a miss" and those don't jive well with the "ask first" approach.  

So, for Stonetop and Homebrew World, I use Discern Realities as follows. It's quite similar to the original, the key differences being:

• the trigger specifically includes "looking to the GM for insight"
• both games use advantage/disadvantage instead of +1/-1 forward
• "Who is control here?" has become "Who or what is in control here?" (with "their fear" or the like being legit answers)

The accompanying text is the first draft of what I plan to put in the Stonetop book. It'll probably get cut down a little to fit on one spread, but this is the text that I wish I had when I first started learning to run Dungeon World. I hope you find it useful, too. 

----------------------------------- 

Discern Realities 

When you study a situation or person, looking to the GM for insight, roll +WIS: on a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below; on a 7-9, ask 1; either way, take advantage on your next move that acts on the answers.

•   What happened here recently?
•   What is about to happen?
•   What should I be on the lookout for?
•   What here is useful or valuable to me?
•   Who or what is really in control here?
•   What here is not what it appears to be?

Player: "Uh... what should I be on the lookout for?"
GM: "Well, funny you should ask..."
(image by Jakub Rozalski)

My Framework for GMing Dungeon World

I've been working on the GMing chapters for Stonetop, and it's made me think about how the conversation really flows. I've also been thinking about GM moves, and Principles and Agenda, and how they all work together. I thought I'd talk about them a little here. 

I don't think that what follows is fundamentally different than what the game text tells you to do. Like, if you read the DW text and the DW Guide, and GM the game enough, I think you end up doing what I describe below. This is just how I conceptualize it, with 8+ years of experience running, playing, and talking about DW and similar games. (This is also pretty similar to what I describe here.)

Maybe you'll find it useful? Maybe a new GM will find this and something will click for them. Regardless, I'm going to be posting some excerpts from the Stonetop GMing chapters over the next couple weeks, and I think this will help set the stage. 

As always, feedback and questions are appreciated!

The Game is a Conversation

You say something. The players say something. You say something in response. You ask questions of each other, clarify, interrupt, talk over each other. To quote Vincent Baker: "you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right?"

The whole point of this conversation is to create the fiction, the shared imaginary space that we're all talking about, where the PCs and NPCs and monsters all exist and act. The game's rules mediate the conversation, and help us figure out what happens when there's uncertainty, and help introduce unexpected and challenging elements into the game.   

Dungeon World is (despite what some folks will tell you) a rather traditional RPG. It structures the conversation and assigns responsibilities and authority in a very familiar way: 

• The players are responsible for portraying their characters (who they are, their actions, their thoughts and opinions, their experiences and backstory). 
• The GM is responsible for portraying everything else: the world, the NPCs, the monsters, etc. 

Dungeon World is different than a lot of RPGs because it explicitly encourages (and arguably requires) the GM to ask the players for input on the world, particularly during the first session and about areas where their characters have experience or expertise. But that's not that different than how lots of folks play D&D. (Ever done a session 0 where you make characters, talk about backstory and the kind of setting you want to play in? It's like that, but it's done during play.)

Different groups take this collaborative spirit to different degrees. Some DW GMs are very cognizant of The Line (I know I am) and avoid asking the players to make up details about what their characters are experiencing on the spot. Other GMs will actively ask the players to make up details about the room they've just entered, or the NPC they've just met, or what happens next. Some groups collaborate on where the story should go, and what kinds of scenes they want to have. None of these are wrong. They're just a matter of taste.

Step-by-step: how to write up a front

This post was originally a conversation on the Dungeon World Tavern back in Google+. Bryan Alexander said "Let's talk about Fronts and Dangers and Grim Portents... you start!"    

Later in the conversation, Bryan said "Honestly, I'm struggling a bit with understanding it myself. I've reread the chapter three times now and it isn't really clicking. We are three sessions in and while I have several ideas and things that tie into each other--I’m not quite sure how it is supposed to come together in terms of how the book says to do it."

And, yeah... Fronts are one of the chapters that folks in the DW community regularly point to and say "this could be easier to understand."  So here's my answer to Bryan, regarding how to proceduralize it.  Maybe you'll find it useful, too? 

From 20 Dungeon Starters (Marhsall Miller, Mark Tygart)

After your first session (or maybe two):

Dangers

1) Look at the fiction already established, and identify the dynamic actors, the people or things that will move forward and adapt and pursue an agenda: the rival adventurers pillaging the dungeon; the abusive lord looking to increase his power; the goblins trying to defend their home. Each is a Danger.

2) Look for fragile, untenable, unstable circumstances. Like a crumbling dungeon holding a slumbering terror, a village simmering with resentment at its abusive lord, a disease or curse poised to sweep through the land. Each is a Danger, though maybe not yet active. Consider putting a “face” to each of these dangers, like the rabble-rousing matron who’s had enough or the spirit of the restless priest-king buried in the tomb.

How to handle "boss" monsters in DW

I originally posted this on the Dungeon World Tavern, in response to Lauri Maijala asking: 

"How do you handle wizards etc. 'boss monsters' that do not have a cohort of minions to keep the characters busy. I have failed constantly with them and feel like even three characters can take out any single threat without too much of a trouble."

The Dungeon World community at large is pretty quick to say "read the 16 HP dragon" article (content warning: passing reference to violence against children) when someone asks about making monsters more than just their numbers.  It's a good article, but it doesn't really tell you how to do those things; it shows you a high-level example of those things in action. 

It's on my "someday maybe" list to write up a fictionalized "actual" play example of the 16 HP dragon incident, showing how that scene might have actually played out, with moves and rolls and GM deliberation. 

But until then, here's an attempt at some specific, actionable advice for running "boss" monsters. 

Step 1: Stat the boss monster up, hardcore

Use their moves, special qualities, and potentially their lair and gear to make them hard to get at, able to interrupt player actions, and capable of dealing with multiple foes at once. Bonus points for moves that take PCs out of the fight without actually killing them.

E.g. qualities like “Aura of will-sapping menace” or “Hidden by swirling shadows.”  Moves like “Reveal a preparation” or “Unleash a spell of death and destruction” or “Turn their minds and fears against them.”

For a spellcaster/magic-user, maybe think a little about the specific spells they can cast, or at least the nature of those spells.  Try to word that into your moves (“Unleash a deadly spell of fire and flame” is better than “Unleash a spell of death and destruction”). Or, make a list.  But if this really is a big bad, don’t feel constrained by the list. Think of that list as giving yourself permission to do those things, but maybe they can do other stuff, too.

if it helps, find a badass picture that helps you visualize the BBEG

On Learning to Run Dungeon World

Over on Google+ (in it's last, dying days), Tom Pleasant said this (across a couple different comments):

I’ve done a reasonable amount of storygames but am struggling to grok GMing *World.... Played a dozen different *World games and read up on how to run it. All the agendas and things just make me panic.

I've heard that sentiment before and I totally get it. It seems like you're supposed to constantly keep about a dozen different principles in your mind and make sure that anything you say comes from a list of another 12-20 (or more) proscribed GM moves. How the hell are you supposed to do that and juggle all the social realities of the table and know the rules of the game and keep your setting coherent and and and and.

You know. Just do this. It's easy.

It doesn't help that text of most PbtA games present the "How to GM" chapter as rules that the GM must follow as opposed to advice. Here's the Dungeon World text:

This chapter isn’t about advice for the GM or optional tips and tricks on how best to play Dungeon World. It’s a chapter with procedures and rules for whoever takes on the role of GM.

Here's my (slightly heretical) advice, to him and any other potential GM who's intimidated by the agenda, principles, and GM moves, of Dungeon World.  

Forget the agenda. Ignore the principles. Run the game.  

If you've run pretty much any role playing game before, and certainly if you played Dungeon World or another PbtA game, then you already know the most basic, fundamental thing that you need to know: the game is a conversation.

Establish the situation. ("You're standing in front of these two huge teak-wood doors. The mountain wind howls all around you in the fading light. Your breath catches on the cold air, getting colder. It'll be night soon.").  Keep it brief. Maybe ask the characters some questions about why they're there, what they hope to find, what they're worried about it, why they shouldn't dally. As much or as little as you and they are comfortable with. Enough to set the scene and establish their motive for being there.

Restate the scene and the situation (doors, cold wind, getting darker and colder). Turn to a particular player and ask their character "What do you do?" 

If they ask questions about the situation, and you think you the answers would be self-evident, answer them honestly and generously.  ("Are there any handles or anything on the doors?" "Oh, yeah, there are these huge brass rings on each door, like the size of your arms making a circle. They hang down so the bottom is at about chest height.")  Then: What do you do?

If they ask questions about the situation, and you DON'T think the answer would readily apparent, tell them what's required to learn it. Maybe it involves doing something.  Maybe it involves them making a move.  ("Can we hear any noise from inside?" "No, but they're really thick and it's windy out here. Maybe if you pressed your ear to the doors?" or "Are there any footprints or signs that they've been opened recently?"  "Sounds like you're studying the situation. Discern Realities?")  Ask if they do that. If they do, say what happens or engage the move and resolve it per the rules.

If they do something with an obvious outcome, say what happens as a result. ("I grab onto one of the big brass rings and pull." "There's a creaking noise, and the door slowly grinds open. It's like dragging a car in neutral, it's so heavy.  Dust falls from up top as you, gets caught in the wind and swirls. Darkness looms inside.")  Then: What do you do? 

If things are dragging and the PCs are just dickering around, or you want to get to some action, then telegraph some trouble. ("As you step into the door and get your torches lit, you see a huge, vaulted hallway leading into the darkness. Just at the edge of your torchlight, you see a boot, lying in the ground. Then you realize it's attached to a bony leg. A dead figure, sprawled in the middle of the hall.") Then: What do you do?  (Chances are that they'll do something triggers a move. Resolve it.)

If they do something that would trigger a bad thing, say how the bad thing starts to happen but not how it finishes. ("As you approach the dead body, the tile under your foot starts to give way just a little, then click.").  Establish a bad thing about to happen, but stop while it's still unfurling, and ask them (or another character): What do you do?

If they don't do something to reasonably address the bad thing, clarify with them. ("You just stand there? Even though you pretty clearly just stepped on a pressure plate?")  If they really do ignore it ("Pressure plate? pfft, whatever, I study this corpse.") then bring it home.The bad thing happens, full force. ("You feel this burning stab in your gut and then your ears register this THWOOSH and you realize that there's this six-inch dart sticking out of your stomach. Take d6 damage and your whole body starts to feel like it's on fire.")  Probably turn to someone else and say that they just saw that happen: What do you do?

If, when you introduce the threat, they say that they do something about it (good on them), then they're probably triggering a move. Resolve it!  ("Oh, crap, a pressure plate? I dive back and to the side." "Okay, sounds like Defying Danger with DEX to me, roll it.") Resolve the move as written. ("A 7-9? How about a hard bargain? You can dive and get out of the way of what's coming, but your torch will go clattering off into the distance. Yeah?").

On a miss (6 or less) have them mark XP and then decide what's the most obvious bad thing that can happen?  It happens. Tell them what happens  ("As you dive out of the way, there's this burning stab in your leg. As you hit the ground, you realize you've got this 6-inch dart sticking out of your leg. Take 1d6 damage and holy hells does it burn, way worse than it should.")

However the move ends up resolving: re-establish the situation, turn to a specific player, and ask their character What do you do?

In a chaotic, fluid situation (like a fight), keep moving around between players. Each time you re-establish the scene for them, throw in something that they have to react to (not always bad, maybe it's just an opportunity, a chance to act) before you ask: What do you do?

Notice that I'm not referencing agenda, or principles, or GM moves.  You're simply:

1. Describing the situation
2. Answering their questions
3. Giving them some sort of hook or thing to react to
4. Asking them what they do
5. Saying what happens next (return to 1)
   OR
6. Following the rules of the player-facing moves, then saying what happens next (return to 1).

That's the flow of the game, the conversation.

Not sure what to do for #2?  Or as a result of #5?  Skim over your GM moves list and see if something inspires you.

But mostly, just follow the natural fiction of the game and the rules. And don't beat yourself up if for not doing it "right".


Then, after the game, think back on the decisions you made, the things you decided to say. Run those things against the game's proscribed agenda. Did you say or do anything that violated the agenda? Try to avoid that next time.

Look at the principles.  Did you say or do anything that violated them?  Think about what you could have done instead. Think about what adhering to that principle might have looked like.

Look at the GM moves. Think about your major decisions, the things you said to prompt action from the PCs or to give them hooks. Can you match each of those things to one or more of the GM moves?  Where there any decisions you made, where you could have done one of these other GM moves instead? Keep that all in mind for next time.

My ultimate point here is that the GM's agenda, principles, and moves are just ways to codify and describe good GMing.  Some GMs adhere to them closely and intentionally make their moves from the lists. Some GMs keep the principles constantly in mind.

But if they're acting as a barrier to you, and intimidating you, then fuck 'em.  Describe the situation. Give them hook or prompt a response. What do you do?  Resolve a move or say what happens. Repeat.

And then look back on your work and see how you could have done better.

GMing is a practice, like yoga or martial arts or meditation or painting or whatever. You get better at it by doing it, by reflecting on it, by constantly trying to do better.  No one starts off as a maestro. Don't be afraid of being bad or mediocre or less than excellent.  Do the work. Show up. Get better. Get good. Get great.

Deal Damage is a Crap GM Move

I posted this essay on the G+ back in June of 2017. I still feel this way, and in Stonetop and Homebrew world, have replaced the GM move "Deal damage" with "Hurt them." It's not much of a difference, but I find that it better matches how I play. Fair warning: if you ever play DW (or a variation of it) with me running it, expect to be losing HP very often.

obligatory "wounded man" image

----------------------------------------------------

When I've played DW with less-experienced GMs—and certainly when I started GMing DW myself—I've seen this sort of thing happen a fair deal:

"Okay, you got a 7-9 to Hack & Slash the orc? Deal your damage. 3? Okay, he's still up. But he stabs you back. Take 1d8+1 damage.  You still up?  Okay, what do you do?"

The strawman GM in my example is making the GM move deal damage, but they aren't following the principle of begin and end with the fiction.  As a result, the whole thing is flat. The player reduces their character's HP total. We vaguely know that the PC landed their blow, and the orc landed one back. But we've got no sense of the actual fiction, the details, the momentum. Who hit whom how? When? And Where?  Is the PC's axe still stuck in the orc's shoulder? Does the orc up close and personal, stab-stab-stabbing you with his rusty knife?  What the hell is going on?

Now, you can blame that on the GM (obviously: they aren't following their principles).  But you've got literally a dozen principles always competing for your attention, and it can be tough to keep them all straight.

You can also lay a lot of blame at the feat of the Damage and HP and "down at 0 HP" system that DW inherited from D&D.  But if you start tinkering with any of those things, you end up changing basic moves, and class moves, and how you make monsters, and equipment, and spells, and pretty much the whole mechanical economy of the game.

So what about the GM move itself:  Deal Damage.  I'd like to argue that this move—its name, its description, the fact that it exists at all—is part of the problem. And maybe an easier one to fix.

Of all the GM moves, it's the only one that maps most directly to a purely mechanical outcome. "Take 1d8+1 damage."  The GM must evaluate the fiction a little to determine how much damage you should take, but not much… you can just look at the orc's damage die and say "you're fighting an orc, take 1d8+1 damage."  And because the result of move (the roll, losing HP) is so mechanical and abstract, it's easy to forget to return to the fiction and describe what that damage actually looks like.

(You don't see this issue nearly as much in Apocalypse World, even though it basically has HP and has basically the same move: inflict harm as established. I think there are two reasons. First, the way NPCs suffer harm is much more handwavy than in DW… each level of harm corresponds to a rough description of trauma, and it's GM fiat to determine if the NPC is still standing. Thus, the GM has to decide on the specific trauma, in the fiction, in order determine if the NPC is still a threat. It's pretty brilliant.  Second, against PCs, there's the Suffer Harm move, which can generate all sorts of interesting fiction.)

Compare deal damage to use up their resources. When the GM uses up resources, they must decide which resources to use up. If they decide to "use up" your shield, then the natural thing to say isn't "you lose your shield, reduce your Armor by 1" but rather "it smashes through your shield!" or "you feel the strap on your shield snap and the thing goes flying, what do you do?"  Even if the GM uses up an abstract resource (like adventuring gear or rations), it's pretty easy and natural for everyone to visual your pack getting smashed or torn open or whatever.  HP are such an abstraction that it's easy to just decrement them and move on.

Every now and then, the conversation crops up that you just shouldn't use the Deal Damage move, or that you shouldn't use it very much.  Other GM moves are more interesting, etc. etc.

Another relevant detail:  on page 165, there's this gem that often gets forgotten:

Note that “deal damage” is a move, but other moves may include damage as well. When an ogre flings you against a wall you take damage as surely as if he had smashed you with his fists.

With a sidebar of:

If a move causes damage not related to a monster, like a collapsing tunnel or fall into a pit, use the damage rules on page 21.

So… could we just remove "Deal Damage" from the GM's list of moves?  If it just flat-out wasn't a choice, and instead you always had to make a different GM move (or monster move), one that might also happen to deal damage, would that help GMs begin and end with the fiction?

Or would it just confuse things? Or not make a difference?  After all, you'd still have the GM move Use up their resources, and you HP are really nothing more than a resource.

It's entirely possible that I'm just overthinking this, and the "solution" to this "problem" is just learning to "begin and end with the fiction."

Discuss!

Now, for some selected comments from the post:
----------------------------------------------------

Aaron Griffin:  I like the idea of removing it, but you'd need to have some more coaching about "on the fly"/improv monster moves.

In your orc example, I doubt the orc has "hit with sword" as a move. A novice GM with a strict reading of the rules might not understand that the orc can swing that sword even if it doesn't say it.


Me:  I'm actually thinking you would NOT replace it with "attack" moves for monsters.  But rather, any time the monster attacked, it'd be a different GM move that happened to also inflict damage.

E.g. when the orc "makes an attack against you," if I don't have "deal damage," I'd be forced to pick do something like this instead:

Use a monster move >> the orc's Fight with abandon : "So, you like run it through, but it doesn't seem to notice. It just pushes itself onto your blade, hacking at you and your shield over and over with that vicious meat cleaver thing, scoring a number of blows before it expires. Take d6+2 damage and your blade is stuck right in the thing's gut. What do you do?"

Reveal an unwelcome truth:  "You gut the orc, but he scores a scratch on your arm, not a big deal but holy shit does it burn, take a d6+2 damage. And you're like, uh oh, what's that greenish oil coating this dead orc's blade?"

Use up their resources: "You slash it across the chest, and it reels back, then follows up with just this reign of blow after blow. Take a d6+2 damage and your shield is just in splinters, it hauls back for another chop, what do you do?"

Separate them:  "So, yeah, you run the orc through as it leaps at you but its momentum carries it into you, knocking you down the ravine in a tumble. Take d6+2 damage and you land in a heap, a dead orc on you, the fight up top.  Ovid, you see the Hawke and the orc go tumbling off the cliff and another one comes swinging at you, what do you do?"

Put someone in a spot: "Oh, yeah, you totally slice this orc's throat open and goes down in a gurgle, but the other two rush in on you and hack away, take d6+3 damage (+1 cuz of the extra one, right?). And they keep reigning blows on you, herding you back toward the pit, it's just a few feet away, what do you do?"

Etc. etc.

I.e. there's no replacement for the "Deal Damage" move, no general monster moves like "stab them."  So whenever a foe makes an attack, the GM must make a different GM move, one that makes no sense unless you begin and end with the fiction.

----------------------------------------------------

Greg Soper:  I really like this. I think that there should still be references to damage, but just push it through the general-Damage dice lens (scrapes and bruises = 1d4, etc). So GMs can still be liberal with dealing damage, but just as a result of other moves, and never just as an automatic response to a 7-9 Hack & Slash or a missed Defy Danger.

Me:  oh, I still think there's a lot of value in having distinct Damage values for monsters. It's part of what establishes the "difficulty" of fighting (e.g.) orc bloodwarrior (d6+2) vs. an orc berserker (d10+5!!!).  

----------------------------------------------------

Wright Johnson:  I think the problem with deal damage is actually the name.  As you said, the move itself is the only one written purely in the language of game mechanics.  Inflict harm as established is not a phrase which rolls off the tongue outside the context of Apocalypse World, but it's also consistent with the mannered way the rest of the AW game text is written.  DW is written in natural, conversational English, so the shift into purely mechanical jargon stands out.  If the move was called something like hurt them, I think it might be less jarring.

Asbjørn H Flø:  That was my first instinct too​, with that exact wording. Making hacks and rule changes strikes me as too much work, but rewording it to hurt them opens it up sufficiently to remind you to consider the fiction and your options.

Jason “Hyathin” Shea:  Aside from removing the option entirely (a valid solution, IMO) hurt them is a great option. As I've been reading comments that phrase has been rattling around my head, and it leads me to say, "okay, so how am I going to hurt them?" I don't think that way when I read "deal damage."

----------------------------------------------------

There were also a number of comments around the idea of introducing versions of AW's Suffer Harm player move, discussion of Paul Taliesen's A Descriptive Damage Hack for Dungeon World, and so forth.

----------------------------------------------------

In the end, I've replaced Deal Damage with Hurt Them in my Dungeon World hacks, along with these instructions to the GM: 

When you make a GM move that involves someone getting banged up, knocked around, hurt, or injured, then deal damage as part of that move. If the damage is caused by an established danger, deal damage per its stats. Otherwise, what would it do to a normal person?

• Bruises & scrapes; pain; light burns d4  
• Nasty flesh wounds/bruises/burns d6  
• Broken bones; deep/wide burns d8  
• Death or dismemberment d10

Debilities are ongoing states reflecting the tolls the characters have taken. Inflict them as (or as part of) a GM move. They are:

• Weakened: fatigued, tired, sluggish, shaky (disadvantage to STR and DEX)
• Dazed: out of it, befuddled, not thinking clearly (disadvantage to INT and WIS)
• Miserable: distressed, grumpy, unwell, in pain (disadvantage to CON and CHA)

Debilities might also cause someone to Defy Danger to do things that are otherwise safe.

Yes, those are different debilities than core Dungeon World. That's a post for another time.