36 thoughts on “Where can I find Jason Cordova’s take-down of the DW parley move?”

  3. I can do my best to break down what I think the problem is, though: basically, the results of the move are garbage and very difficult to work with in many common social conflicts in fantasy games. Imagine the very common situation of paying off a jailer with some coin. Your leverage is the coin—that part’s easy. But then if you get a 10+, they ask you for something and do it if you make them a promise. In the context of paying off a jailer, what does that even mean? You’re going to have to promise them something in addition to the coin? Is the promise the coin? If so, that’s weird, considering you have presumably already presented the enticement of the coin in order to trigger the move. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the coin is the “promise.” If you get a 7-9, what does a “concrete assurance” of the promise mean in this context? You’ll show them the coin? You’ll give them half now, half later? It’s fucking weird. Based on these weird results, it’s easy to reach the conclusion that Parley is the wrong move here, and that Defy Danger CHA might be better. So then the question becomes “What is Parley for?” I could of course see a situation where Parley makes a lot more sense: in a Game of Thrones-style power play or manipulation. Indeed, I think that is more what the move is designed for. But if that’s the case, why is it in this game about dungeon crawling, especially as a Basic Move? Nearly every other part of the game is about dungeon crawling or getting ready to dungeon crawl. Parley is garbage.

  4. I can do my best to break down what I think the problem is, though: basically, the results of the move are garbage and very difficult to work with in many common social conflicts in fantasy games. Imagine the very common situation of paying off a jailer with some coin. Your leverage is the coin—that part’s easy. But then if you get a 10+, they ask you for something and do it if you make them a promise. In the context of paying off a jailer, what does that even mean? You’re going to have to promise them something in addition to the coin? Is the promise the coin? If so, that’s weird, considering you have presumably already presented the enticement of the coin in order to trigger the move. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the coin is the “promise.” If you get a 7-9, what does a “concrete assurance” of the promise mean in this context? You’ll show them the coin? You’ll give them half now, half later? It’s fucking weird. Based on these weird results, it’s easy to reach the conclusion that Parley is the wrong move here, and that Defy Danger CHA might be better. So then the question becomes “What is Parley for?” I could of course see a situation where Parley makes a lot more sense: in a Game of Thrones-style power play or manipulation. Indeed, I think that is more what the move is designed for. But if that’s the case, why is it in this game about dungeon crawling, especially as a Basic Move? Nearly every other part of the game is about dungeon crawling or getting ready to dungeon crawl. Parley is garbage.

  9. Jason Cordova couldn’t agree more.

    Just to make it easier for anyone else following this conversation, here’s my version of Parley. I’ve been using for about a year now and find that it works great:

    PARLEY

    When you press or entice an NPC, say what you want them to do (or not do). If they have reason to resist, roll +CHA: on a 10+, they either do as

    you want or reveal the easiest way to convince them; on a 7-9, they reveal something you can do to convince them, though it’ll likely be costly,

    tricky, or distasteful.

    When you press or entice a PC and they resist, you can roll +CHA: on a 10+, both; on a 7-9, pick 1:

    • If they do it, they mark XP

    • If they don’t do it, they must reveal a way you could convince them

    And then the GM’s guide includes these as possible things that might convince an NPC:

    • A promise/an oath/a vow

    • A chance to do it safely/freely/discretely

    • Appeasing or appealing to their ego/honor/conscience/fears

    • A convincing deception

    • A better/fair/excessive offer

    • Helping them/doing it with them

    • Violence (or a credible threat thereof)

    • Something they want or need

    • Concrete assurance/proof/ collaboration

    • Pressure/permission/ help from __

  10. Jason Cordova couldn’t agree more.

    Just to make it easier for anyone else following this conversation, here’s my version of Parley. I’ve been using for about a year now and find that it works great:

    PARLEY

    When you press or entice an NPC, say what you want them to do (or not do). If they have reason to resist, roll +CHA: on a 10+, they either do as

    you want or reveal the easiest way to convince them; on a 7-9, they reveal something you can do to convince them, though it’ll likely be costly,

    tricky, or distasteful.

    When you press or entice a PC and they resist, you can roll +CHA: on a 10+, both; on a 7-9, pick 1:

    • If they do it, they mark XP

    • If they don’t do it, they must reveal a way you could convince them

    And then the GM’s guide includes these as possible things that might convince an NPC:

    • A promise/an oath/a vow

    • A chance to do it safely/freely/discretely

    • Appeasing or appealing to their ego/honor/conscience/fears

    • A convincing deception

    • A better/fair/excessive offer

    • Helping them/doing it with them

    • Violence (or a credible threat thereof)

    • Something they want or need

    • Concrete assurance/proof/ collaboration

    • Pressure/permission/ help from __

  15. I think the big key here is that Parley is an obvious evolution of Apocalypse World’s seduce or manipulate. (No idea if any Monsterhearts DNA made it in there too, but those were pretty much the only PbtA games in town when Dungeon World came out.) It’s a powerful move in a game built around power struggles and tense negotiations, but you’re correct, it doesn’t work nearly as well for Dungeon World.

    I wouldn’t be surprised, if DW ever saw a new edition, to see that move get replaced. The PbtA landscape has evolved substantially since DW first came out, after all. DW was one of the pioneers, which makes some of its tech a bit out of date.

  16. I think the big key here is that Parley is an obvious evolution of Apocalypse World’s seduce or manipulate. (No idea if any Monsterhearts DNA made it in there too, but those were pretty much the only PbtA games in town when Dungeon World came out.) It’s a powerful move in a game built around power struggles and tense negotiations, but you’re correct, it doesn’t work nearly as well for Dungeon World.

    I wouldn’t be surprised, if DW ever saw a new edition, to see that move get replaced. The PbtA landscape has evolved substantially since DW first came out, after all. DW was one of the pioneers, which makes some of its tech a bit out of date.

  17. Jim Crocker It’s a definite risk. It’s not too bad, because I don’t find the PCs triggering the move on each other that much. You have to 1) pressure/entice another PC, then 2) they have to refuse, and then 3) you have to choose to go to the dice.

    In a more internally conflicted group, I can see it being an issue, but it hasn’t been for us.

    You could change the “If they do it, they mark XP” to “If they do it, they do it with advantage” (or +1 forward, or whatever flavor of bonus). That feels less explicitly like a carrot to me, though.

  18. Jim Crocker It’s a definite risk. It’s not too bad, because I don’t find the PCs triggering the move on each other that much. You have to 1) pressure/entice another PC, then 2) they have to refuse, and then 3) you have to choose to go to the dice.

    In a more internally conflicted group, I can see it being an issue, but it hasn’t been for us.

    You could change the “If they do it, they mark XP” to “If they do it, they do it with advantage” (or +1 forward, or whatever flavor of bonus). That feels less explicitly like a carrot to me, though.

  19. I agree with Jason Cordova about the move not being clear about what the promise and the concrete assurance are about.

    On the other hand I see a value in the negative space around Parley. When I read it I hear the authors say:

    If it doesn’t trigger Parley, you are not getting out of it with a roll

    Which in turn means that in a social situation you can either:

    1) Use your brains and role play your PC making a convincing argument.

    2) Use your brains (and/or other moves like DR) to mention something you can use as leverage.

    And that is why I don’t particularly like Jeremy Strandberg version. Putting the onus of coming up with the leverage back on the GM gives a player permission to go back to D&D mode and say I want to convince the jailer to let me out, can I roll Parley?.

    And to get back to Jason’s example:

    Offering a jailer coin while you are behind bars doesn’t trigger Parley in the first place because said jailer would never believe said promise. In other words that’s no leverage… unless you’re house Lanister’s colors of course.

  20. I agree with Jason Cordova about the move not being clear about what the promise and the concrete assurance are about.

    On the other hand I see a value in the negative space around Parley. When I read it I hear the authors say:

    If it doesn’t trigger Parley, you are not getting out of it with a roll

    Which in turn means that in a social situation you can either:

    1) Use your brains and role play your PC making a convincing argument.

    2) Use your brains (and/or other moves like DR) to mention something you can use as leverage.

    And that is why I don’t particularly like Jeremy Strandberg version. Putting the onus of coming up with the leverage back on the GM gives a player permission to go back to D&D mode and say I want to convince the jailer to let me out, can I roll Parley?.

    And to get back to Jason’s example:

    Offering a jailer coin while you are behind bars doesn’t trigger Parley in the first place because said jailer would never believe said promise. In other words that’s no leverage… unless you’re house Lanister’s colors of course.

  21. Stefano Casella sure, I get where you’re coming from.

    Note, though, that with my version of Parley, there’s a judgement call of “If they have reason to resist, roll…”. If you come up with a super appropriate angle, then you’ve bypassed the roll entirely.

    And if the GM thinks your approach is bogus and you roll, yeah, the onus is on the GM to a way you could convince them. But that’s not really different than studying them carefully and triggering Discern Realities to get the same information–which is also putting the onus on the GM.

  22. Stefano Casella sure, I get where you’re coming from.

    Note, though, that with my version of Parley, there’s a judgement call of “If they have reason to resist, roll…”. If you come up with a super appropriate angle, then you’ve bypassed the roll entirely.

    And if the GM thinks your approach is bogus and you roll, yeah, the onus is on the GM to a way you could convince them. But that’s not really different than studying them carefully and triggering Discern Realities to get the same information–which is also putting the onus on the GM.

  23. Jeremy Strandberg, that is true. But shouldn’t that be the case for every move?

    The way I understand it, though it might not be explicitly stated in the book, you don’t trigger a move that would make you roll unless the action that triggered the move has a chance of failing and/or having consequences.

    For example:

    You don’t roll Hack and Slash to stab the unsuspecting farmer.

    You don’t roll Bend Bars, Lift Gates to take down the rickety, mouldy, ancient door.

    You don’t scout ahead nor trailblaze to travel on the safe imperial road.

    And, in my opinion, you don’t even consider using Parley to entice a local merchant to sell you apples when you are willing to pay full price. I don’t see the need to rewrite Parley for this. It’s just a call that the GM has to do for every move.

    I might elaborate this better in the future but I’m starting to suspect that the culprit here is the game loop as described in the book. The more I argument about the use and interpretation of moves the more I find that there is a hole in the space where the GM decides if a move has been triggered.

    The short version of it is this:

    At times the situation is crystal clear because all relevant details have been established in the fiction beforehand.

    Often enough though, when deciding if a move is triggered or not the GM is called to make a move first. Failing to make this move means that they either make the players roll for unnecessary moves or they are adjuticating results arbitrarily. (the latter could actually be a move, so the only risk is having players make moves that you should make?)

    Example:

    GM: While walking in the thick vegetation you are accosted by an elf. She carries bow and arrows and has the looks of a hunter. She is also carrying a bunch of birds and other small prey. What do you do?

    Players: We greet the elf and show our hands in sign of peace. “Where to the nearest settlement my friend?”

    GM: “You are far from home human, and while I walk swiftly in the vegetation you will require another day to get to my village!”

    Players: “Our rations got destroyed in an accident. Can you spare some meat for us? We can pay…”

    At this point, as a GM you have to make a move. I suspect that every line of dialog coming from the players is looking at you to find out what happens but at this point in particular, when it seems like they are about to trigger Parley, as a GM you have to make a move.

    Present an opportunity without cost

    GM: “Here, take this. But make your way to the village right away for the elders will want to ask you about your travels. You’ll thank me later.”

    …no need for Parley.

    Present an opportunity with a cost

    GM: “We have no use for coin… But I will take one of your healing potions as payment for these birds.”

    …no need for Parley, just Pay.

    Reveal an unwelcome truth

    GM: The elf seems hesitant: “If I feed you, you’ll become members of the village. That is our custom. But I don’t know you and I can’t decide on this without consulting the elders.”

    Now, if the players manage to apply leverage Parley might get triggered. There might be a Spout Lore about elven customs, a DR applyed to the conversation, etc.. etc..

  24. Jeremy Strandberg, that is true. But shouldn’t that be the case for every move?

    The way I understand it, though it might not be explicitly stated in the book, you don’t trigger a move that would make you roll unless the action that triggered the move has a chance of failing and/or having consequences.

    For example:

    You don’t roll Hack and Slash to stab the unsuspecting farmer.

    You don’t roll Bend Bars, Lift Gates to take down the rickety, mouldy, ancient door.

    You don’t scout ahead nor trailblaze to travel on the safe imperial road.

    And, in my opinion, you don’t even consider using Parley to entice a local merchant to sell you apples when you are willing to pay full price. I don’t see the need to rewrite Parley for this. It’s just a call that the GM has to do for every move.

    I might elaborate this better in the future but I’m starting to suspect that the culprit here is the game loop as described in the book. The more I argument about the use and interpretation of moves the more I find that there is a hole in the space where the GM decides if a move has been triggered.

    The short version of it is this:

    At times the situation is crystal clear because all relevant details have been established in the fiction beforehand.

    Often enough though, when deciding if a move is triggered or not the GM is called to make a move first. Failing to make this move means that they either make the players roll for unnecessary moves or they are adjuticating results arbitrarily. (the latter could actually be a move, so the only risk is having players make moves that you should make?)

    Example:

    GM: While walking in the thick vegetation you are accosted by an elf. She carries bow and arrows and has the looks of a hunter. She is also carrying a bunch of birds and other small prey. What do you do?

    Players: We greet the elf and show our hands in sign of peace. “Where to the nearest settlement my friend?”

    GM: “You are far from home human, and while I walk swiftly in the vegetation you will require another day to get to my village!”

    Players: “Our rations got destroyed in an accident. Can you spare some meat for us? We can pay…”

    At this point, as a GM you have to make a move. I suspect that every line of dialog coming from the players is looking at you to find out what happens but at this point in particular, when it seems like they are about to trigger Parley, as a GM you have to make a move.

    Present an opportunity without cost

    GM: “Here, take this. But make your way to the village right away for the elders will want to ask you about your travels. You’ll thank me later.”

    …no need for Parley.

    Present an opportunity with a cost

    GM: “We have no use for coin… But I will take one of your healing potions as payment for these birds.”

    …no need for Parley, just Pay.

    Reveal an unwelcome truth

    GM: The elf seems hesitant: “If I feed you, you’ll become members of the village. That is our custom. But I don’t know you and I can’t decide on this without consulting the elders.”

    Now, if the players manage to apply leverage Parley might get triggered. There might be a Spout Lore about elven customs, a DR applyed to the conversation, etc.. etc..

  25. The question I’d have at that point is “well, what’s the point of a Parley move, then?” That sort of negotiation isn’t really inherent to the dungeon-delving genre, and the move is a pretty straightforward port from a completely different genre.

  26. The question I’d have at that point is “well, what’s the point of a Parley move, then?” That sort of negotiation isn’t really inherent to the dungeon-delving genre, and the move is a pretty straightforward port from a completely different genre.

  27. Andy Hauge: “well, what’s the point of a Parley move, then?”

    Very good question Andy. So much so that it got stuck in my head for the last few days… A couple of reasons came to mind, but to be perfectly honest I don’t consider the following to be extremely strong arguments:

    A) While you might adjudicate the result of a conversation just by making moves, sometimes i’s useful to defer responsibility to the dice. I think this is especially the case when interpreting NPC because players might get the impression their PCs are actually trying to convince you the GM instead of a fictional character.

    (And this is also the weak point: players are people and therefore all different. Some will actually prefer a game that doesn’t adjudicate social conflict at random.)

    B) Sometimes even the GM wan’t to find out what happens… I know sometimes I’m like:

    Hmmm… that’s not a bad argument Lory. Let’s see if you manage to make it appealing to the Dragon too. Roll Parley.

  28. Andy Hauge: “well, what’s the point of a Parley move, then?”

    Very good question Andy. So much so that it got stuck in my head for the last few days… A couple of reasons came to mind, but to be perfectly honest I don’t consider the following to be extremely strong arguments:

    A) While you might adjudicate the result of a conversation just by making moves, sometimes i’s useful to defer responsibility to the dice. I think this is especially the case when interpreting NPC because players might get the impression their PCs are actually trying to convince you the GM instead of a fictional character.

    (And this is also the weak point: players are people and therefore all different. Some will actually prefer a game that doesn’t adjudicate social conflict at random.)

    B) Sometimes even the GM wan’t to find out what happens… I know sometimes I’m like:

    Hmmm… that’s not a bad argument Lory. Let’s see if you manage to make it appealing to the Dragon too. Roll Parley.

  31. Andy Hauge yes.

    Then again, you could just Defy Danger more or less in stead of every other move. Even the book explicitly states as much I believe.

    I think you could play a version of DW with just:

    Spout Lore (what do I already know)

    Discern Realities (what am I learning)

    Defy Danger (what do I do)

  32. Andy Hauge yes.

    Then again, you could just Defy Danger more or less in stead of every other move. Even the book explicitly states as much I believe.

    I think you could play a version of DW with just:

    Spout Lore (what do I already know)

    Discern Realities (what am I learning)

    Defy Danger (what do I do)

  33. I’m not going to die on this hill, but wanted to put in what I like about Parley: It forces the table to color NPCs in a bit more.

    Because the player needs to have leverage on a GM Character, the players and GM have to think about NPCs in terms of what levers make them move – what motivates them. Sure, good GMs do that anyway, but this move recruits the players to help with that, so even NPCs that you haven’t fleshed out can get fleshed out in play. Eventually everyone the PCs Parley with will have motivations. That can occasionally do the cool old school D&D thing of raising throwaway NPCs up to major supporting cast. I appreciate that.

  34. I’m not going to die on this hill, but wanted to put in what I like about Parley: It forces the table to color NPCs in a bit more.

    Because the player needs to have leverage on a GM Character, the players and GM have to think about NPCs in terms of what levers make them move – what motivates them. Sure, good GMs do that anyway, but this move recruits the players to help with that, so even NPCs that you haven’t fleshed out can get fleshed out in play. Eventually everyone the PCs Parley with will have motivations. That can occasionally do the cool old school D&D thing of raising throwaway NPCs up to major supporting cast. I appreciate that.

Comments are closed.