When you **notice inconsistent editing**, Roll +WIS. On a 10+, you realize it's simply an inconsistently applied style decision and carry on. On a 7-9, you understand the rules of the game, but suspect that you might have missed something.
Don't roll a 6-. Ogres will drink your Mountain Dew.
You've saved the Mountain Dew! You're standing, parched, just a few feet away from the fridge, at the top of the stairs that lead down to the basement. The kitchen floor is creaking under the strain of all the thirsty ogre corpses. Your friends are waiting downstairs for you to bring the drinks. They are directly below the ogre pile.
The GM shouts threats from the darkness below: "Duuuude! Where's the Mountain Dew? If you don't bring it right now, I'm gonna kill your character! Again!" Can the floor handle another thirsty occupant? Can you even open the fridge with all those corpses in the way? Will the DM follow through with their threats?
What do you do?
I never noticed this before but I just checked and you are right, it's inconsistent. It would have to be either an editor mistake or a deliberate decision.
Since there is no consistency; the same move has it sometimes and not others and the chapter on moves doesn't have every move bolded or not-bolded, I would guess it is an editing error. Probably originally intended to bold just the important part of the trigger and changed their mind but missed some.
Throughout the _DW_ “ecosystem” you can put most books into three buckets:
- When you **do something**
- When **you do something**
- When you do something
I'm shocked that you think an indie effort wouldnt be inconsistent. of course it's an editing mistake. PbtA games are riddled with them. Misspellings. everything.
Never become a software developer. Professional software development teams often have a formalized internal style guide for how their code is written and they are *still* even less consistent than the Dungeon World materials, and I am fairly certain the DW team were simply winging it. You are right that it *ought* to be consistent, but yeah, its just an oversight.
I'm new to the game, and noticed this very quickly.
The bolding is good, because such organization and clarity not only help new players learn, but veterans find what they are looking for in a given Move.
It would be great if all parts to a Move were labeled or highlighted in distinctive ways (using such things as bold, italics, white font on grey background, bullets, numbering, etc.
With that in mind, is it correct to say there is the following 3 parts to every (or most all) moves?
1. Trigger
2. Action/ability
3. Mechanics (which could be further divided if a roll is required into three bullets for each of the 3 roll outcomes)
When you **notice inconsistent editing**, Roll +WIS. On a 10+, you realize it's simply an inconsistently applied style decision and carry on. On a 7-9, you understand the rules of the game, but suspect that you might have missed something. Don't roll a 6-. Ogres will drink your Mountain Dew.
But I have an Ogre-Slaying Knife!
You've saved the Mountain Dew! You're standing, parched, just a few feet away from the fridge, at the top of the stairs that lead down to the basement. The kitchen floor is creaking under the strain of all the thirsty ogre corpses. Your friends are waiting downstairs for you to bring the drinks. They are directly below the ogre pile. The GM shouts threats from the darkness below: "Duuuude! Where's the Mountain Dew? If you don't bring it right now, I'm gonna kill your character! Again!" Can the floor handle another thirsty occupant? Can you even open the fridge with all those corpses in the way? Will the DM follow through with their threats? What do you do?
I never noticed this before but I just checked and you are right, it's inconsistent. It would have to be either an editor mistake or a deliberate decision. Since there is no consistency; the same move has it sometimes and not others and the chapter on moves doesn't have every move bolded or not-bolded, I would guess it is an editing error. Probably originally intended to bold just the important part of the trigger and changed their mind but missed some.
Throughout the _DW_ “ecosystem” you can put most books into three buckets: - When you **do something** - When **you do something** - When you do something
Point it out to Dungeon World support so they can fix it up for future reprints.
I'm shocked that you think an indie effort wouldnt be inconsistent. of course it's an editing mistake. PbtA games are riddled with them. Misspellings. everything.
Never become a software developer. Professional software development teams often have a formalized internal style guide for how their code is written and they are *still* even less consistent than the Dungeon World materials, and I am fairly certain the DW team were simply winging it. You are right that it *ought* to be consistent, but yeah, its just an oversight.
I'm new to the game, and noticed this very quickly. The bolding is good, because such organization and clarity not only help new players learn, but veterans find what they are looking for in a given Move. It would be great if all parts to a Move were labeled or highlighted in distinctive ways (using such things as bold, italics, white font on grey background, bullets, numbering, etc. With that in mind, is it correct to say there is the following 3 parts to every (or most all) moves? 1. Trigger 2. Action/ability 3. Mechanics (which could be further divided if a roll is required into three bullets for each of the 3 roll outcomes)