Getting into Dungeon World, any failure stories?

[johncs]

I've been playing DnD for a few years, but only recently discovered Dungeon World. And I absolutely love it. The improv and silliness of DnD was always my favorite part.

I'm going to be GMing my first game of it next week (I've been a player mostly). Do any of you have any stories of failures or mistakes you've made while GMing, or that you've seen a GM make?

[kyoryu]

Follow the rules. Seriously.

I put the GM Moves on separate piece of paper or 3X5" card for reference and ease of use.

[Lapak]

Best way to avoid complaints is to get everyone in the habit of pausing for a moment between declaring a move and rolling for it. For one, it helps as everyone gets used to way Moves work - if there's a situation where you want to tell them that they're using the wrong Move for the situation, or another player wants to provide advice, it's a lot easier on everyone to avoid the thing where somebody just rolled a 10+ and you tell them they can't do [whatever] or they roll a 6- right as another player asks them to hold on a moment.

Also, the 'Aid or Interfere' move is one of the better party-dynamic builders in the base rules, and the groups I've played with have enjoyed the opportunity to use it. Building a delay in between declaring and rolling creates opportunities for other party members to jump into the action (for good or ill.)

[johncs]

Best way to avoid complaints is to get everyone in the habit of pausing for a moment between declaring a move and rolling for it.

Oh wow, I think my GM was doing this now that I think back. I never noticed it as something explicit though, felt very natural. Props to him I think.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Follow the rules. Seriously.

I put the GM Moves on separate piece of paper or 3X5" card for reference and ease of use.
This one is big. Without an easy reference, I tend to fall back on the same set of move consequences.

Also, be very wary of adding armor to monsters, unless you can see ways to circumvent it. It'll really bog down a fight, even compared to a monster with comparable HP, because it negates small hits.

[Friv]

Yeah, I tended not to include more than Armor 1 on monsters as a rule; I liked having some armored monsters, because there were heroes with piercing weapons and it felt worthwhile, but a lot bogged down the fight badly.

One player also accidentally developed a build that was unpleasant at the very late game - specifically, one of the options on Defend is to auto-deal your level in damage to an enemy who threatens you or the people you're defending. And Defend's default doesn't apply negative consequences to a 7-9 roll, just a reduced effect.

The result was that with a +3 to con, the team's druid had the ability to routinely toss 8-9 damage into the faces of enemies with no drawbacks or exchange of harm just by hanging close to the meleeists and blocking things with his beast form. He started deliberately not defending people even when it was a good idea in the fiction just because it was so overpowered compared to what everyone else was doing, and it didn't require any of his special moves to do it.

[1337 b4k4]

One mistake I see a lot of new DW GMs make is running the game the same way you run a D&D game, where there's a roll for just about everything and the GM is always telling the players what to roll (e.g. "The floor starts crumbling beneath your feet, everyone roll "Defy Danger using DEX"). The most important phrase as a DW GM is "What do you do?" and wait for the players to describe an action. Then and only then see if their action triggers any rolls. So in the above example, it should play out more like this in DW:

GM: Rogar and Blackleaf, as you enter the intersection, the floor starts crumbling and falling away beneath your feet. What do you do?

Rogar: I grab the ledge as I start to fall and hold on.

Blackleaf: I leap backwards to the hall we just left.

GM: Ok, you're both defying danger here, Rogar it sounds like you're using strength, and Blackleaf you're using dex

In this way, players have more freedom to react to dangers in ways that make sense for their character. Rogar's player might have chosen this action because his dex is fairly low and he has a better chance to power through being a big tough barbarian.

[Chauncymancer]

Accurately signpost your dangers.
Accurately signpost your dangers.
Accurately signpost your dangers.
Player: "I want to spend my last hold to divebomb that ghoul."
Me: "You'll be right next to all of his friends, if you divebomb that specific ghoul. *"
P: "That's fine, I dive down, turn back into myself on his back, and then shapeshift into a cougar."
M: "You are completely surrounded by ghouls, you are flanked on all sides and overwhelmed."
P: "How? I thought I was next to them, not in the middle of them?"

You can do a whole lot more in a single DW move than a single D&D move. You need to foreshadow any natural consequences of an action pretty hard, because they are even less visible to a player than in most tactical games.
What I should have said at *
M: "If you do anything but escape them as fast as possible, they'll easily be able to surround you.

[Cluedrew]

OK, I haven't actually played Dungeon World (not that that has stopped me before) so this is from other Powered by the Apocalypse systems. And that is that players shouldn't declare moves. Declare the in universe action and then let the MC call the move. I mean I would be checking my modifier as they did, but I still did it as a bit of a formality. It gives the MC more information to shape the result of the roll, avoids the "I roll diplomacy" problem (we had some real issues with that once, doing this would have fixed it but that player couldn't wrap their head around it) and it sort of fits the flow of the game.

Although perhaps who declares the move is not as important as make sure the in universe action gets described before the move is decided.

[flond]

OK, I haven't actually played Dungeon World (not that that has stopped me before) so this is from other Powered by the Apocalypse systems. And that is that players shouldn't declare moves. Declare the in universe action and then let the MC call the move. I mean I would be checking my modifier as they did, but I still did it as a bit of a formality. It gives the MC more information to shape the result of the roll, avoids the "I roll diplomacy" problem (we had some real issues with that once, doing this would have fixed it but that player couldn't wrap their head around it) and it sort of fits the flow of the game.

Although perhaps who declares the move is not as important as make sure the in universe action gets described before the move is decided.

I'd say this, with the caveat "be open to questions." if a player is all "Whoa whoa whoa why isn't it X." be willing to explain your ruling, or explain what it'd need to be to be X.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'd say this, with the caveat "be open to questions." if a player is all "Whoa whoa whoa why isn't it X." be willing to explain your ruling, or explain what it'd need to be to be X.
Yeah; dialogue, dialogue, dialogue is key. The moves should drive things forward, and you shouldn't get bogged down in dithering around, but definitely work on an interplay to make sure everyone's on the same page.

[Cluedrew]

I agree with the comments made about my earlier comment.

So to put something fun here, I different type of failure story:
MC: Roll stealth.
P1: {rolls 2}
MC: OK, you-
C1: Things are getting real. Hit the beat! {Followers start playing loud music.}
C2: {head-desks}
MC: That works.

Custom failures can be so much fun. Which is actually what I thought the thread was about when I saw the title.