Anyone else ever thought it was odd that nowhere in the DW book does it suggest that the GM should misdirect?

Anyone else ever thought it was odd that nowhere in the DW book does it suggest that the GM should misdirect?

Anyone else ever thought it was odd that nowhere in the DW book does it suggest that the GM should misdirect? In my opinion this is a really good piece of advice that Apocalypse World gives to MCs and I’ve never understood why it didn’t make it across.

18 thoughts on “Anyone else ever thought it was odd that nowhere in the DW book does it suggest that the GM should misdirect?”

  1. I forget; what’s the difference between “Make your move, but misdirect” and “Make your move, but don’t speak its name”? I don’t have AW on hand right now, but they seem like they overlap a bit, and I think there’s been some condensing there. (Dungeon World seems to cover “misdirect” between “Make a move that follows” and “Never speak the name of your move”.)

  2. I forget; what’s the difference between “Make your move, but misdirect” and “Make your move, but don’t speak its name”? I don’t have AW on hand right now, but they seem like they overlap a bit, and I think there’s been some condensing there. (Dungeon World seems to cover “misdirect” between “Make a move that follows” and “Never speak the name of your move”.)

  3. Yeah sure.

    When I was learning to run DW nothing improved my game as much as running AW, just once. I had run DW several times at that point but one thing jarred: my players and I both felt that the PCs came across as kind of incompetent. This was far from what we expected, given the insistence in the DW RAW that they start off as powerful heroes (compared with starting characters in, say, D&D).

    Running AW once helped me immensely with this and it was the text on the concept of misdirection in AW that did it. In essence, instead of narrating the results of 7-9 results on DD rolls as the PC screwing up a bit (e.g. “you do it, but you drop your sword”) instead I now felt empowered and inspired to misdirect and make the little failures down to things outside the PC’s control.

    Maybe I’m attributing a ‘click’ moment for me to the misdirection concept irrationally, but it seemed that way to me.

  4. Yeah sure.

    When I was learning to run DW nothing improved my game as much as running AW, just once. I had run DW several times at that point but one thing jarred: my players and I both felt that the PCs came across as kind of incompetent. This was far from what we expected, given the insistence in the DW RAW that they start off as powerful heroes (compared with starting characters in, say, D&D).

    Running AW once helped me immensely with this and it was the text on the concept of misdirection in AW that did it. In essence, instead of narrating the results of 7-9 results on DD rolls as the PC screwing up a bit (e.g. “you do it, but you drop your sword”) instead I now felt empowered and inspired to misdirect and make the little failures down to things outside the PC’s control.

    Maybe I’m attributing a ‘click’ moment for me to the misdirection concept irrationally, but it seemed that way to me.

  5. In AW it’s this bit. EDIT: particularly my emphasised bit…

    Maybe your move is to separate them, for instance;

    never say “you missed your roll, so you two get separated.”

    Instead, maybe say “you try to grab his gun” — this was the

    PC’s move — “but he kicks you down. While they’re stomping

    on you, they drag Damson away.” The effect’s the same, they’re

    separated, but you’ve cannily misrepresented the cause. Make

    like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and

    so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction

    makes possible.

  6. In AW it’s this bit. EDIT: particularly my emphasised bit…

    Maybe your move is to separate them, for instance;

    never say “you missed your roll, so you two get separated.”

    Instead, maybe say “you try to grab his gun” — this was the

    PC’s move — “but he kicks you down. While they’re stomping

    on you, they drag Damson away.” The effect’s the same, they’re

    separated, but you’ve cannily misrepresented the cause. Make

    like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and

    so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction

    makes possible.

  7. Even though it never hit me that way I think it’s totally valid and real for you and I can see how you’d make that connection. Thanks!

    I’m pretty ignorant of DW itself, so I’ll let the voluminous experts hereabouts take if from here.

  8. Even though it never hit me that way I think it’s totally valid and real for you and I can see how you’d make that connection. Thanks!

    I’m pretty ignorant of DW itself, so I’ll let the voluminous experts hereabouts take if from here.

  9. To me, that sounds like “Make a move that follows from the fiction”, but it’s definitely a bit fuzzy. Essentially, it’s that constant reminder to always dig back into the fiction as justification for what happened.

  10. To me, that sounds like “Make a move that follows from the fiction”, but it’s definitely a bit fuzzy. Essentially, it’s that constant reminder to always dig back into the fiction as justification for what happened.

  11. For me it’s that the reason for a competent PC not being completely successful can be out of their hands – some fiction just happened! 🙂

  12. For me it’s that the reason for a competent PC not being completely successful can be out of their hands – some fiction just happened! 🙂

  13. The competency of the PCs is also a key consideration in Blades in the Dark. These two entries in the list of Bad GM Habits is also pretty helpful.

    DON’T MAKE THE PCS LOOK INCOMPETENT

    When a PC rolls a 1-3, things go badly, but it’s because the circumstances are dangerous or troublesome—not because the character is a buffoon. Even a PC with zero rating in an action isn’t a bumbling fool. Here’s a trick for this: start your description of the failure with a cool move by the PC, followed by “but,” and then the element in the situation that made things so challenging. “You aim a fierce right hook at his chin, but he’s quicker than he looked! He ducks under the blow and wrestles you up against the wall.”

    On failure, talk about what went wrong. “Ah, maybe you missed something while you’re climbing through the jeweler’s broken window?” “Yeah, they probably have tripwires or something huh?” “Yep! You feel the wire snap against your arm.” You can also lean on features the player has already portrayed about the character. How are their vice or traumas a problem? What is it about their heritage or background that gives them trouble or gets in the way?

  14. The competency of the PCs is also a key consideration in Blades in the Dark. These two entries in the list of Bad GM Habits is also pretty helpful.

    DON’T MAKE THE PCS LOOK INCOMPETENT

    When a PC rolls a 1-3, things go badly, but it’s because the circumstances are dangerous or troublesome—not because the character is a buffoon. Even a PC with zero rating in an action isn’t a bumbling fool. Here’s a trick for this: start your description of the failure with a cool move by the PC, followed by “but,” and then the element in the situation that made things so challenging. “You aim a fierce right hook at his chin, but he’s quicker than he looked! He ducks under the blow and wrestles you up against the wall.”

    On failure, talk about what went wrong. “Ah, maybe you missed something while you’re climbing through the jeweler’s broken window?” “Yeah, they probably have tripwires or something huh?” “Yep! You feel the wire snap against your arm.” You can also lean on features the player has already portrayed about the character. How are their vice or traumas a problem? What is it about their heritage or background that gives them trouble or gets in the way?

Comments are closed.