Welcome TheGenerator

Welcome TheGenerator.

What do you want to get from this 'game'?
Do you have any specific questions?
What is your history?
I know you have GMed some Dungeon World. Your thoughts are always welcome.

---

Take a look at the To Start post in the general Welcome thread and answer any of those questions, if relevant.

Feel free to chat here, or in the general Welcome thread. And take a look at what we we currently have in the other threads when you have time.

Hi vagueGM and everyone here :)
I'm a longtime roleplayer. Have always played at the table, GP is the first place I'm doing PbP. I'm enjoying it so far!

The games I have played were mostly in D&D and WFRP, but I've also done some one-shots like Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun and Vampire the Masquerade. Probably others I'm forgetting. I'm always up for trying something new, as long as it doesn't throw 5 rulebooks at you to get started. Actually the less prep, the better for me.

I also GM. I used to GM a game of Police Cops which was a lot of fun. Then that group switched over to Dungeon World and I'm still doing that. I had never played DW so it was a bit of a rough start, but I watched a bunch of Adam Koebel games and tried to copy his style of GMing.
I have tried to GM D&D and WFRP in the past, but I found that I lack the lore-knowledge that comes with running those games.
I'd like to read through some stuff that's already here. Join in on discussions about DW or PbtA possibly. It's always interesting to get other people's point of view. Share my view on things and hope it helps someone :)
The biggest issue I'm having in my games now is the combat. I tend to fall into the pattern where I let the PC's do their thing. If a hack & slash 7-9 comes up, or a 6- I'll have something bad happen to them, but I never seem to find a good moment to let the bad guys "have a turn". It makes for quite boring combat in my opinion. Part of it is due to me being a bit overwhelmed with everything that's going on during combat. Trying to manage different 1 on 1's at the same time is tricky to me. If anyone has pointers on that topic, please let me know.

Perhaps it would be interesting to set up a battle scene or if someone can link me a good example, that might help.

Someone has to start in every group. :)
Adam is an excellent GM, but has a particular style. He also has thousands of hours of experience. He would tell you that "it takes time, keep practicing".
Yes. Please share. We all have valuable insights that can help others.
Combat can also be tricky (mainly due to being slow) in PbP. At least DW does not have Initiative Order to force everyone to wait for everyone else to act. But that can be its own management issue.
Yeah, it can be a mind-bender, transitioning from DnD style to DW. The 'Dungeon World Guide' is held by many to be 'must read' to help get into the mindset. I am sure you can find it on the internet.

The bad guys never really get a 'turn'. The GM makes Moves --from their list-- when the rules tell them to, which is not only on a 6-. These Moves don't have to involve enemies they are fighting.
First: Make sure that that is not merely your opinion or self-doubts. If the players are enjoying the scenes then don't stress about them. You can still aim to be better at it, but that comes with time.

This might not be relevant, but think in multiple dimensions, height is your friend when it comes to making combats more interesting with little effort. Also, give people things to hide behind, and reasons to hide behind things. Model this behaviour with your mobs, so the players can see they have options.
You will need to explain more. Where are these 1 on 1s? Why is the party not working together.

The lack of initiative order does not mean they don't take turns, just that those 'turns' are not set by an uncaring metronome but by the flow of the fight. Make them need to work together, if you can. Unless I am misunderstanding your meaning.
I have created a subforum for you to run games in. You should be able to create and moderate threads there. Let me know if you can't, it has been a while since I set these up.
I can't think of a good example. I normally make them from whole-cloth. We can roll some dice and make a random encounter.

Actually, after a few combat scenes, my players had me reintroduce initiatives for them because they wanted a fair distribution of turns. I didn't see the need for it, but if it makes them happy...
I think I'm having troubles on realizing when it's a good time to make a move during combat. But as you mentioned it takes experience as well.
I'm not sure if that's something I've read before or not (probably not). I'm going to look it up.
That's a good idea. I also am trying to throw in more environmental hazards like pit falls or a river or an earthquake even. Just to make things more interesting.
It's not always literally 1 on 1, but when there is more than one enemy the party tends to not attack the same target. Other times it's because a -6 splits them up or they are just not all together when the fight starts. It can become difficult to keep an eye on everything that's happening.
Sounds good. That link sends me to the forum homepage. Probably something not right in the settings. (I had the same issue with the one you made for Aironfabio)

Same here unfortunately... can't even find out 2 subforuns in the "round table - GM threads" section

(: Mutter, mutter... blames the updates... quietly fixes things in the background and claims, 'no, it is all working... right?' :)

It is tricky to see what what works since I can see everything and none of those permission apply to me. Apparently I missed adding a permission that lets the group read those forums.

Can you see them now?

While not ideal, it can make things easier when there is less stuff that is different or fewer new things the GM needs to learn. 'Initiative' is a simple mechanism for distributing spotlight. You can phase it out later when you find it gets in the way. There are also many 'better' ways to do initiative order than rolling, just going round the table, in the order they are sitting (possibly pre-arranged when they sit down) is a popular and quick system.

'Initiative' does remove that responsibility from the GM, freeing them up to concentrate on learning the other parts first.

DW specifically keeps a whole bunch of DnD stuff that is not needed (or desired) in a PbtA game. I don't like the six attributes (but don't mind them), and I really don't like rolling for damage and the Hit Point mechanic, but they are there to make it seem familiar to people coming from DnD. While DnD is still the biggest, we don't really have the situation where a majority of DW players are assumed to have come from DnD, I would like to see these nods to DnD removed from a DW second edition.
Is this just a combat problem or general "when to make moves"?

First, refresh your memory about what the book (or srd) says on the topic:
The 6- trigger is easy, I assume you have that one down pat? But note the other two:

• When everyone looks to you to find out what happens.

The players 'look to you' when a 6- happens, so this is really covers all of them. This also means that, if they are trundling along without needing GM intervention, let them get on with it.

At first they will look to you for confirmation that they are doing the right thing, if things are going well, you can just nod and say "carry on", or you can provide small adjustments with a Move like "Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask", or "Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities", or "Show a downside to their class, race, or equipment", or "Offer an opportunity, with or without cost", or "Put someone in a spot", listed in sorta ascending order of how disruptive to the current events these moves are.

The "tell them the requirements" need not change anything, you could just be reminding them of what is happening and that they need to keep moving (or do some research), the others have the potential to drive them in a new direction (if they take the opportunity, for instance), but that can be a 'soft move' since they can choose to not have it happen. (Soft Moves are things they character can avoid, Hard Moves are things that have happened to them and they need to deal with the consequences).

"put someone on the spot" can be a slightly Hard Move (it is a spectrum) since they have to stop and deal with it, but also (maybe) have time to deal with it before it becomes a problem.

Be careful of the "golden opportunity" one, a 6- might be a golden opportunity, or might not, that is usually fairly clear from the context, and the fact that they are rolling means they accepted the possibility of consequences.

If they do something 'monumentally stupid', this could be a golden opportunity for the GM to do something dramatic... or it may be the player being stupid or forgetting a detail that the character would not have overlooked, and the rules don't apply, have an OOC conversation and make sure the player intended their character to do something stupid.
Yes. At first you can try to limit how many things you are making work. We can do that here, creating scenarios that focus on one type of thing and looking at various ways to tackle its individual elements.

But you can also (hopefully) do that with your RL group. Tell them that you are still learning and would like to practice 'this part of the rules', they can then focus on doing that. You can create scenarios for them that limit their characters options, and get them onboard working within those limits rather than trying to break free of them (as is usual:).
Let me know if you can not find it, it is all over the net.

It starts with "When you read and understand Dungeon World, roll +Int..."
These can also make things more complicated, with more moving parts. Work your way up to them.
You could start with a tavern with a balcony and chandeliers. That is always a staple. Allow the PCs to swing from the chandelier, but if they don't, have an NPC do it (maybe as the result of a "offer an opportunity" GM Move you have a enemy try it and fall flat at the PCs feet?).

Don't call for Defy Danger (um... is that what it is called? I have too many games in my head and they use (dis)similar names for similar moves), followed by Hack and Slash.

Just use Defy Danger. If they succeed they could be in a position to do their damage (or other effect) with no need to roll. This can allow characters with bad Hack and Slash to still participate.

Take a look at the various 'Tactical and Support Moves' in Apocalypse World 2e (in the free handouts if you don't have the book). They provide nice ways for non-fighty characters to contribute and do damage. Steal everything you can!
In DnD that is a really bad idea, in DW I would often be inclined towards doing that, myself.
If it is making your life hard, you can talk to your players about it. But that will come with practice, it should not actually make a difference who they are each attacking, if they are each attacking it is still an action you need to resolve.

It sounds like you are putting too much pressure on yourself to "be perfect", and maybe you need to slow down, take more time on your notes so you be confident in your knowledge the condition of each 1 on 1?
Use that GM Move sparingly. It can cause problems.

Out of combat, it is best to limit this Move to situations that the characters can resolve. If you split them up, the players will want to get back together (as is right), so assume the story will derail while they work towards that goal.

We don't roll either, it's an arbitrary order.
Yeah it's really only in combat. I'm fine with the -6's but since combat switches quickly from one person to the next I don't see any "golden opportunities" and there's no spot where nothing is happening, cause after resolving one player's action, we go onto the next player.

However, thinking about it now. Something that I don't do is waiting for everyone to say what they do and then resolve everything at once. Is that the way to do it? I didn't think about doing it that way because it's possible that player A and B attack the same monster, but player A already kills it before player B's action is resolved. Maybe that's where I'm going wrong?

Another thing I struggle with is dealing damage as a bad guy. As an example:
It feels like the bad guys have a much harder time getting hits in when that sort of exchange happens. The only time the payers get hurt is usually when they fail their own attacks. Is that intended?

Then there's also the following:
Do I at this point give the bad guy another turn and another hit?
Maybe I'm just being too friendly as a GM?

I think I do alright when it comes to using the different GM moves. I try to keep it fresh by picking different ones and getting them into interesting situations. If I really can't come up with anything, I'll just asks the players what they think would happen.
I did notice that sometimes things that seem logical to one person are not logical to another. Usually this happens with things that involve positioning. We don't use a grid for fights, it's all theatre of the mind. I have gotten some complaints about that, however I feel that those complaints are a bit nitpicky. It really didn't matter whether A or B happened in that moment, just that something bad happened. But I still try to not let that happen anymore.

While less so than with DnD, combat is sort of its own game. There will be less back and forth and fewer options to 'do clever things'. When the players look to the GM, they will probably be looking to see if they killed a thing.

Combat gives you the least space to play. Set Initiative gives you even less space.

Remember that, even without 'Initiative', you are still calling on the players in some sort of order, so, if you choose to have that order be a simple circle, that is fine, but you can mix it up as well.
Most of them will come from 6-s, but if the player tries and fails at something that is not fighting, or does something risky, that can lead to interesting golden opportunities. Remember, your Moves don't have to punish them, you can use a Move to reward them, or to show them what is to come (Think offscreen, too).
That is to be expected in the hectic throws of battle. It is a life and death situation, no need to add more to it.

There is also very little actual time passing a fight, probably seconds in total. So, keep them quick and you won't need to do a lot to keep them interesting.

If the fight is to be longer than that, it is more than a fight, so you can add all sort of stuff between the beats of Hack and Slash. Moving, positioning, feinting, fleeing, negotiating, hiding, and so much more, are all part of a good fight.
This is a common strategy to get around the problems caused by Initiative systems. If you have introduced such a structure into your game, then it might be worth looking at doing that.

For normal --uninitiated-- DW I would resolve each Move as they happen. It is less bookkeeping, but also more dynamic. You don't always have to let the players know what the outcome was right away, but be careful of building up a pile of consequence from 6-s without telegraphing the rising storm. Players should not be surprised by the outcome, they should feel 'yep, that is fair'.
That is exactly what would happen in the heat of battle, people don't have perfect situation awareness, they make mistakes, and that one is a completely reasonable one. Let the player with the highest initiative speak last. Yes, I said 'last'. They are the quickest to react, so they get to adjust the most to how the others are changing the field. But it all still happens at the same time.

If they both take down one enemy, don't waste it. The beauty of doing all the resolution at once is that you can tailor the outcome to be the most exciting it can be. You can have the spectacle of the double death cow the other foes, you can give them an edge for the next round, or soften the outcome of a miss. Make it worth their while.

Let them describe it, so you can start thinking about the next round.
No. The Hack and Slash Move covers both 'turns'.
The dice already give them the chance of not getting hit, don't add another roll.

The enemies 'attack' is any GM Move, it need not be Deal Damage (but might often be). Remember that the monsters have their own Moves that add to your GM Moves, use them to spice things up (but be frugal with "bite off an arm":).
Yeah, you are doubling their chance to not get to do their thing. Hack and Slash covers this.
Though --and I hate to say this-- don't get too fancy. Do the first thing that comes to mind. It is usually the right thing, and overthinking it often only slows things down and you end up doing that first thing anyway. :)
Do this! All the time! They have more brains that you do (like, literally, go count them), and often come up with things you would not have thought of.

The players are also often much harder on their character than a GM would want to be.

You can always massage what they say, "yes, and" style; or veto it if need be "No, but...".
At most, I will sketch up a rough map in the heat of battle, and then use dice or sweets as tokens. But most of the time it is not needed and can get in the way. These maps never have grids, or even scale.
Getting to the bottom of the complaint can help, it might just be nitpicks, but if players are actually struggling, knowing where they are struggling can help you find an actual solution so you don't need the maps.

In a fight, scene descriptions can get very complicated. Repeat yourself repeatedly. Sum up what the last character just did before asking what the next player what they do.

"Barb, Mary just stunned half the orcs, they are standing there drooling and are not a threat for a round or two. There is also still that shaman, and they are doing those hand-movements again!! What do you do?"

This is less of an issue with PbP, where you would just be retyping the last posts. :) But a summary could be called for from time to time.
It probably doesn't. But make sure, it can be harder for players who are new to theater of the mind to come to terms with that, and it is your job to ease that process for them.

OOC can help, after-action reports can help. Once they see that is does work, and they don't need the crutch of maps and grids, they can walk freely.

I am also afraid to say that some groups just won't like theater of the mind. Some groups enjoy the maps and minis (some groups play for the maps and minis), but they should maybe play Pathfinder instead, where the those things are worth the effort?

Alright, so maybe I am doing that kinda right after all then.
I didn't realize I could turn that into a good thing.
Well the thing is, I have a barbarian, druid, cleric and wizard. Only the barbarian uses hack & slash. The druid has his holds, the wizard and cleric use their spells usually. Those last 3 classes don't have any "take damage" down sides on a 7-9 and they don't often roll a 6- on their best stat. So my bad guys end up getting 1 hit in per round tops. It makes me feel like they are just standing there waiting for death.
Yes that :)
This is something I don't do and I definitely should! Thanks for pointing that out.
I see my players quite often outside of DW things, so we do talk about things that happened in the game. We explain each other's point of view and if needed we change some of the outcome. Although my players are very reluctant to change anything that already happened.
These guys all come from D&D/WFRP except for 1 who is new to RP. I think they have a hard time seeing things the DW way. Most of the collaborative elements are things they have asked to throw overboard. You could be right, maybe DW is just not their kind of system.

They are about to get into the conclusion of a "main quest" and I was planning on asking if it's worth continueing afterwards.

Short correction, I think the 7-9 for spellcasting does have the option to 'put them in a spot'. In which case I could have them take damage.

You probably shouldn't, most of the time. But things like "Offer them an Opportunity..." is normally a good thing (even if it brings a bit of a dilemma of choice to the right now), and "Reveal and Unwelcome Truth" has decidedly positive notes in that it was 'already true', and now they know it (although, often it might not be revealed to the characters, just the players).

"You hear the sound of horns. You took too long and the garrison is alerted and will be come to help (them, not you). You need to finish this quickly and get out of here." Is an unwelcome truth, but also a thing that happened, and the move means they can react to it instead of being surprised.

Sure, the Move also made the garrison exist --which they did not really before-- but you could have used a much Harder Move, so the good part is that they are told.

You can sometimes appear to give them everything they want. If you smile mysteriously at that big, important roll that just scored a 3, tell them "It goes exactly as you planned. Well done." They are going to be real nervous. :) Be careful of this, it can devalue the successes, and you can forget to pay this off, and it does have an element of 'lying to your players' if done wrong. Reveal the truth to the characters as soon as you can, the players already know, they saw the dice.
We were just using Hack and Slash as a filler Move in the example text. But they all have it, even if it is not a first choice for them.

The Druid can still use all the Moves while in Animal form, some of the forms may be better at fighting, and may receive a fictional positioning bonus to fighting (though be careful, they are already the most versatile character, don't let the Druid overshadow the fighters at fighting, or the rogues at roguey stuff). The Druid's Hold is just a 'I don't need to roll to do the things the animal can do easily', not a replacement for the Moves.
Yes, they have much more serious consequence. Leave the physical Damage for those who get physical.
The enemy could turn from the Barbarian and threaten the Cleric, but that might also give the Barbarian a free hit on an defenceless foe (no need to roll, just do Damage), so it is an Opportunity Offered and a net positive.

Spellcasters can be quite squishy, doing Damage is a big risk, telegraph it first and make the Barbarian choose if they want to help the spellcaster or go after the big target to try end the fight. That way you Put them Both on the Spot.
As it should be. They are big damn heroes!
Use more bad guys? I am guessing that our three PCs will wipe the floor with 4 goblins in the arena.

I would expect most monsters to never get a hit on the PCs, but would still describe them as almost getting hits --even on a 10+-- but the brilliance of the PCs means they don't score.

Make their hits scary with poison and disease and paralysis and arms coming off, 'Damage' is boring. Make the players fear the hits and work to avoid them.
Mechanically they are but describe them scurrying around trying to get an angle to do some harm, but the PCs are just too good. We are free of the grid.

Or, have them behave intelligently. They should not try to 'one on one' someone who is stronger than them. The Monsters Know what they're Doing after all, it is just that the PCs are better.

PCs don't get (much) more health as they level up. Taking Damage is something they really want to avoid as much as possible, they can easily end up Facing the Black Gates.
Yes. Change it if it is a serious problem. But most people don't like retcons. It is hard enough to remember what happened without having to remember more than one reality.

Find a way to soften the blow rather than actually changing the events.
I have regularly found that completely new players take to PbtA faster than old-hand-DnDers.
Maybe they just don't like the collaborative stuff? Talk to them about what they do like and what they don't.

DW does not have to be collaborative. Sometimes players just want to 'watch a movie where they can have some small say in how it turns out'. If you don't like that sort of GMing, then you don't have to GM for them, someone else can. But there are middle-grounds.
An important question. Not only for at the end of a campaign,

Your choice of words on this question is particularly important. It can influence the answer a lot.

I know I'm focusing on the "damage" part, but HP is the main gauge for seeing whether a fight is going well or not. If the druid never gets hit, how do I make him feel like he's in danger (as in life-threatening)?
Other ideas I have for that mostly involve taking them out of combat completely. Like being knocked unconcious or captured in some way. But I'd rather not have them sit back and wait for help.
If the bad guys are only acting during a -6 (and sometimes 7-9) having more of them doesn't really solve the issue of them being inactive. And the damage rule for multiple enemies is a +1 to damage for each extra enemy, I believe. (I'd have to check)
Do you use that kind of stuff often? I have refrained from treating the messy tag to chop the barbarian's arm off because I'm afraid it would either make the character useless or it won't have any real effect at all. Not sure where the line is to make that a good story feature.

Yeah. Less so in PbtA, but DW kept it as a focus so as to remain DnD compatible.
I tend to use Damage (or Harm as I think of it, so excuse me if I use that term by mistake) as a last resort when nothing else more interesting comes to mind, or it is the only sensible option.

Be careful of this attitude though. Damage is simple, many of the other GM Moves complicate the situation, and make make it hard to make any headway.

"Balance. In all things."
Tricky. I want to say: Make the hits more scary by having them almost land, and add the knowledge that getting hit is worse than just HP loss. But that has the danger that when those hits do land (dice are fickle) the outcomes may be hard to deal with.

You can add other counters to the scenario, a literal 'ticking clock' is never a bad idea (central idea in Index Card RPG). Once time runs out they 'lose' as much as if their HP ran out, but that gauge vanishes right after, so they can move to the next thing with no downtime.
You have mentioned elsewhere that your group tends to not share their inner thoughts or what their characters value in the world. This might suggest that they have been screwed over by previous GMs constantly threatening their loved ones (there is a reason the lone-wolf-orphan is such a popular trope). If so, be careful of how you do this next part:...

You can threaten the lives of others instead of those of the group that decided to go out and put their lives on the line. This might just be another form of 'ticking clock'.

PCs that are up-front expect to be taking HP damage, and build for it, those that choose other builds might not want to take HP damage, and therefore might not mind if you never threaten their HP. Threats to the other members of the party (or NPCs) can be motivation enough for them.

Sound out your group and see if this is actually a thing you need to worry about. I have seldom found that to be the case, though. Mainly GMs worry and players are oblivious.
I know this was just a 'for example' but the Druid is a complicating factor. They may want to get hit in some form forms and not in others, you can adjust things for each. If they become a house-fly, they would probably die from one hit (not exactly 'rules', but internal game logic says so (and also we humans have the monster Move "squish fly with one blow", so it is 'rules')), maybe they get a Hold Move that allows them to 'quickly dodge a blow', but they know that once that is used up their next hit will kill them (which is why they have to revert back (that rule is always a complication, and does not need to be explained, but can be, or can be tweaked, even if just in terms of timing)).

Druids (and, so a lesser degree Paladins) are a problem that GMs have to work out how deal with. There are rules issues, as well as expectations issues. They need a lot of discussion.
Even Separate Them is a problem. Use this sort of thing judiciously.

HP loss will do the same separation eventually, but more permanently. You don't have to take them to the Black Gates right away, I have often allowed characters to finish the fight and then drop. If they fail their roll at the Black Gates, it also says they will 'cross the threshold soon'. 'Soon is up to you. I have allowed a character to finish out the current quest, so as to not leave the party one man down, or have them sit the rest out.

But don't forget about Debilities, they are worse than HP loss, but don't take people out of the game. You could emulate them as well, maybe the 'attention' that the spell caster draws imposes a blanket debility type effect while it is looking at you (eye of the beholder?)?

Options abound. But HP is a steady reliable one. Note that Deal Damage is a GM Move, not a monster Move, monsters have attacks that might Deal Damage, but might do many other things. This also means the GM can Deal Damage at any point, even if a monster or a hit is not involved. Everything is connected.
All the bad guys are acting all the time. The Hack and Slash Move only deals with the one(s) the PC is attacking. If they attack a group, they take the damage the group would deal each time and can avoid their attacks if they roll well enough, but they would also suffer any complications from attacking a group (Golden Opportunity?) and the group's 'attack' might not be simply Dealing Damage, they could swarm the PC and hold them down, or they could work as a group and entangle the PC's legs, giving them -2 to their rolls, or any other things or combinations of things (some attack, but some give negatives).

If the PC chooses to focus on one enemy, then all the other enemies get to act freely ("the orc behind you --the one you are not paying attention to-- clubs you on the head, you take..."). This is the quintessential Golden Opportunity. Force the PC to first reposition before they can concentrate on one enemy at a time.

Being outnumbered is bad.
No! Almost never. But I do threaten such stuff quite often. Maybe players learn (from all the one-armed ex-adventurers telling the stories of facing the beastie) that it is an option, so they plan and take precautions and avoid the hits.

They can still take HP Damage. HP is not 'health' is also covers getting tired and such.
Agreed. It is better used as threat, but the PCs who own weapons with the Messy tag still want to see that happen to the enemy? You don't have to apply the same rules to both sides (though I like to, where possible). You also don't have to use the Messy tag on each hit.

"Bite off their arm" would be its own monster Move, and not be part of the attack, so you can choose when to use it. Maybe threatening it on a near-miss? "The monster's jaws snap down but you manage to get your arm out of the way, just in time. If that had landed you are sure it would have taken your arm clean off!"

There may be magical healing that can fix this, or they may be able to work around it. If not, then it could be the same as a death sentence, some players may be OK with this, some might be OK with working around the disability (this is a magical world, after all).
Yeah. That is what we are looking for. Finding that line can be hard, but biting off an arm can be a story ender, so use sparingly.

Talk about it copiously, though. Put their fear of it into the player's heads.

Use the X-Card.

If you have time, I remember the One Shot Podcast episodes about Dungeon World to be quite good at showing how the GM may use moves in addition to the 6- situation - as well as being quite entertaining.

Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3

Their Masks episodes are even better at showing the GM moves, but that's a somewhat different game.

May I add that I agree with VagueGM that Dungeon World is a pretty clumsy hybrid between PbtA and D&D that keeps unneended stuff for familiarity's sake. May help in the transition, but it may also hurt by creating an expectation of a similar game experience.

That's how I got into DW in the first place :) I love their stuff!
Though, in practice it seems to rely heavily on the players. You can't force a play style, I've found. I'd love for my game to be like the one shot pod, but it just didn't turn out that way.
I think that's something I can improve upon. It's not something I do often.
I do use debilities and try to get them in a situation where they can tell fighting is not an option. I'm a bit reluctant to threaten a family member or something like that cause it would stop the fight immediately, but eventually they will still have to take out the bad guy, and now they will be extra angry. It seems like more of a delay tactic.
My druid has the move where they can lose shapeshift form to shrug off damage. But you did give me an idea in that regard. When he tries to shift again on his next turn, I can give him the "cost" that something bad will happen if he tries to shift right in front of the enemy.

I'll probably stay away from the "losing a limb" stuff, unless they do something outright stupid even after me warning them. Good to know you feel the same way about that.

I often have great ideas when I'm prepping for the session, and then during combat I totally blank on those. That's something I have to work on. I'm going to take all the tips and trick you gave me and try to incorporate them in my games.
That might also be the case, yes. :)

Thanks for all the help so far, vagueGM and Aironfabio!

Yes. That is unfortunately true. A lot of games I will only play with the right group. Getting the right players for a game can be hard and we do have to compromise sometimes.

Players can get better at this stuff, too. Maybe they learn from the examples of these podcasts (I don't know how GM focused they are, I don't get much time for them and don't really watch/listen to Actual Play stuff either, though I keep getting suggestions).
The threat could be that they have to finish the fight or there will be danger to loved ones? Maybe they have to focus on killing the one bad guy who made the threat? (My Paladin in the case of those goblins:) or maybe learn (via a Show Offscreen Badness Move) that if they don't win there will be danger.

You can also threaten the village their loved ones live in or frequent. Threats against whole villages seems to more acceptable (and can make more sense) than against individuals.
I am not sure about this. But there is nothing wrong with delay tactics, and not all fights should be 'to the death'.
Obviously my advice is rather general, and some of it might not apply to DW directly.
You do need to look at what options they have, and also which they did not pick, and try to avoid giving them things that invalidate the moves they could have taken later.

In this case, a spend to dodge in a form that would be one-hitted could work in conjunction with that sheet-move. It would also only be for that one form, and could allow them to stay in that form and rely on the 'revert to shrug off damage' as a second layer.

Your group will have special considerations that you have to take into account.
Yeah, that was an extreme example. :)
That is always the way of it. There are many tricks of the trade that public speakers have formed to cope with exactly that. (GMing is very akin to public speaking, a lot can be learned from that field).

Jot down a few words for each of those ideas, then glance down at that list frequently during combat (or other relevant situations). Maybe put it with the GM Agenda and Principles, and the list of GM Moves, if you look at that from time to time.

The danger is that the more you prep them more you want to use what you prepared, so don't force the one that you like, try to use what fits. But you can also tailor this list as you play, rewrite new lists with the ones you liked added to the new ones you think of, and maybe keep tally marks on which you used, so you can mix it up.

Even just the act of glancing down at the list brings the options back to memory. I sometimes prepare cards when speaking, I almost never actually look at them.
First tip: Read the book again.

Make sure that what was said here actually fits with DW. Some of it might be contraindicated by the DW specifics I have forgotten. (Some of the DW specifics may be contraindicated by the group you play in, or by playstyle, so cut off whatever gets in the way).

There is also a lot that has been said. It can be confusing to try take it all in and implement it in a game where you are already overwhelmed.

Pick one or two ideas to test in your next session and don't stress if they don't come up. Add more layers afterwards.

Keep things simple at first. There is nothing wrong with defaulting to Dealing Damage, you can add other, more complicating GM Moves as you progress.

Sounds great! :) Thanks. I have already realized a couple of areas to improve on with the info here, so I'm going to focus on those for the next session and see how things go.

I might try to make the fights more of a story rather than a sequence of moves.
For example:
That way they'll focus less on the initiative and more on the story of battle. I'll just have to be a bit more of a director in a sense.

That, of course, first means they need to be protecting Lucy, so generating situations where that sort of thing comes and persuading the players that such things are important may be a first step.

Take small steps. Enlist the players' help along the way.

Yes, that's right. It was a specific situation.
Will do :)