Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: ragnarok on September 08, 2013, 08:19:21 AM
-
Not having played DW yet, I'm quite sure how to handle disarming my players' characters (just "use their resources" when appropriate).
But what do you do if the players want to such a thing? Just let 'em "hack'n slash", with the desired outcome instead of damage? "Defy Danger", with the danger being "If you don't get that, right he's got the drop on you"?
I think, in doubt, everything's "defy danger", but I just wanted to ask another opinion or two on this.
-
Player: I disarm him.
GM: what do you mean? What does Garnok the Barbarian do to disarm the goblin archer?
Player: I knock the bow from his hands with my battle axe!
GM: defy danger using strength.
There's definitely danger. If they miss you make a move. If they roll 7-9, you give them one if the Defy Danger choices. Telling them the goblin launches an arrow at their friend, but they can jump in front of the shot themselves is always a good one.
-
Virtually any "combat maneuver" can easily be handled with Defy Danger. In the game I'm running I think the players do stuff like this even more than Hack & Slash.
-
I tend to shy away from using Defy Danger as a standalone catch-all, specifically for combat maneuvers. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most relevant has to do with the relative investment and downsides of Hack and Slash versus Defy Danger.
H&S and DD both give partial/complicated success in the 7-9 range, but DD gives you an "escape hatch" option that H&S does not afford. If you roll 7-9 on H&S you will be taking an attack from your opponent. On a 7-9 roll with DD you can choose to abort and not take the worse outcome or hard bargain that the GM has offered for you to succeed. To be fair there are cases where choosing to abort the DD leaves you in pretty bad spot as well, but that's situational outside of the DD.
I tend to think of things like disarm and called shot (the general idea, not the Ranger's move) similarly. Each is a combat maneuver that is a step above its more mundane relatives (i.e. fighting with a sword or shooting an arrow). Unless somebody has gained a specific move for these (through the fiction, or a compendium class, or what-have-you) then I like to model them by augmenting H&S (or Volley) with DD.
So for a disarm attempt, the player would roll H&S, and assuming at least a partial success could roll DD to convert the general combat success from damage into the disarm. This keeps disarm a tricky maneuver since it requires two rolls, and doesn't let the character skate entirely by choosing to abort a partial success at DD.
All of that being said, I think there are plenty of cases where a standalone DD would work for handling a generic maneuver. Disarm just happens to be one where I think DD alone doesn't do it for me.
-
I should probably add that when a player rolls 9 or less I always make a move, not just what the description says. In that way no one is ever "opting out" with a Defy Danger roll to Disarm. Roll an 8 when attepting to disarm, you'll succeed but you're going to get hurt doing it.
Besides, as I read it a "Worse Outcome" (DD, 7-9) could certainly be taking damage.
-
I should probably add that when a player rolls 9 or less I always make a move, not just what the description says. In that way no one is ever "opting out" with a Defy Danger roll to Disarm. Roll an 8 when attepting to disarm, you'll succeed but you're going to get hurt doing it.
I think that deals with the issue, too. However, if you're going to make an occasional tweak to DD to support disarm then you could also just make a move (basic or otherwise) for it. If you leave DD unmodified (or at least as I understand it - it wouldn't be the first time I've misinterpreted something) then the "easy opt out when things go wrong" is on the table.
Besides, as I read it a "Worse Outcome" (DD, 7-9) could certainly be taking damage.
That definitely could be a worse outcome, but if the danger you are defying is "take some damage" then it's not much of a choice for the DM to offer "take some damage" as an alternative to "take some damage".
In cases where DD is used to avoid a calamity (e.g. a gout of flame erupts toward you, what do you do?) then success in DD is usually avoiding the damage. These are difficult for the player to opt out of. If you choose to opt out of the hard bargain, etc. then you eat the gout of flame.
In cases where DD is used when you are acting in spite of danger (e.g. trying to slip past an ogre's war club to stab her in the face with a dagger), then the results of DD become a little more nuanced. In this case a DD-DEX might let you engage in H&S. If you rolled a 7-9 on the DD then choosing to let the ogre get in a hit before you're able to engage in H&S is case where it totally makes sense; you can take damage on a partial success but you are still then able to engage in H&S. It's a tough choice. These are the situations where "opting out" weakens the downside/stakes for something like disarm. On a partial success the GM offers the hard bargain. If the player wants to do what they set out to do (in spite of some danger) then they accept the hard bargain; if they don't take the bargain they can opt out and only have to pay the opportunity cost of going nowhere with the action.
This got me thinking concretely about something I've been doing in more detail, and that's always good!
-
Ahhhhh... I think I see where I was failing to "pick up what you're putting down".
If I'm following you, the "ugly choice" might be along the lines of: 1) disarm him but suffer damage, or 2) fail to disarm him but suffer no damage. With option #2 being the "opt out", a failure but no real consequence.
I guess why I wasn't following you was because my idea of the "ugly choice" would have probably been along the lines of: 1) you disarm him but suffer damage, or 2) you disarm him but wind up prone at his feet. It just never really occured to me to allow a "simple failure" as an option on a DD 7-9.
Thank you sir. Annother arrow for my quiver of GMing!
-
Yeah - pretty much that's it, except you put it much more succinctly than I did.
Ahhhhh... I think I see where I was failing to "pick up what you're putting down".
If I'm following you, the "ugly choice" might be along the lines of: 1) disarm him but suffer damage, or 2) fail to disarm him but suffer no damage. With option #2 being the "opt out", a failure but no real consequence.
I guess why I wasn't following you was because my idea of the "ugly choice" would have probably been along the lines of: 1) you disarm him but suffer damage, or 2) you disarm him but wind up prone at his feet. It just never really occured to me to allow a "simple failure" as an option on a DD 7-9.
Thank you sir. Annother arrow for my quiver of GMing!
-
I would 100% use Defy Danger for a manuever like that (it's literally what Defy is for). I'm confused by the idea that players get to "opt out" somehow. The GM always gets to offer up what happens in the basic rolls. Sometimes that's the hard choice, but it's also the worse outcome. It's your call!
Hack & Slash is only triggered when to melee combatants are trying to hurt each other. Defy Danger is triggered whenever a character is attempting something with clear consequences. Seems the obvious choice to me. You can always deal some damage on a 7-9, as your worse outcome. The player shouldn't fail, though: a 7-9 is a hit, not a miss. Maybe they unbalance their foe instead of disarming. Maybe their foe grabs a smaller backup weapon. But they get something out of their successful roll.
-
I would 100% use Defy Danger for a manuever like that (it's literally what Defy is for). I'm confused by the idea that players get to "opt out" somehow. The GM always gets to offer up what happens in the basic rolls. Sometimes that's the hard choice, but it's also the worse outcome. It's your call!
The opt out idea comes from the text for Defy Danger, as well as examples from the same section.
?On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.
and
GM: Emory, as you climb up the side of the ravine you spy a cultist on a ledge nearby who evokes a frost spell and covers the side of the cliff with ice! If you want to keep climbing, you need to defy danger or you’ll fall.
Emory: No way, I am too tough. I grit my teeth and dig my nails into the wall, climbing one hand at a time. I’m using Con, okay? I got an 8, though...
GM: Hmm, well, I think the only way you can gain any traction, tough guy, is if you use your dagger to pull yourself up the last few feet. It’s going to be lodged in there until you have some time to pull it loose and there’s an angry spellcaster nearby.
Emory: I can always get a new dagger when I get home. Time to finish this climb and that cultist.
So on an 7-9 you can succeed if you accept the complication the GM offers, or you can "opt out". Emory can make the climb if they are willing to spend the dagger. Presumably, if they aren't willing to spend the dagger, they can't continue the climb, but that also doesn't mean they immediately fall. So in the context of using Defy Danger to disarm, it seems like you can engage in sword play against any enemy, but be in much less danger of receiving an attack from the enemy. And on a 7-9 you can take the partial success, or if you don't like the offer, you can opt out.
Anyway, that's where the "opt out" idea is coming from. I may have it wrong, but it seems pretty consistent with how the moves are written, and supported by examples. I do know that I tend to lean farther away from using Defy Danger as a catch-all than most, though.
Hack & Slash is only triggered when to melee combatants are trying to hurt each other. Defy Danger is triggered whenever a character is attempting something with clear consequences. Seems the obvious choice to me. You can always deal some damage on a 7-9, as your worse outcome. The player shouldn't fail, though: a 7-9 is a hit, not a miss. Maybe they unbalance their foe instead of disarming. Maybe their foe grabs a smaller backup weapon. But they get something out of their successful roll.
I don't get this definition of the trigger for Defy Danger. It seems to me that it is triggered when the GM warns you that there's some danger involved that could complicate or impede your actions. I don't see how the consequences are required to be clear.
-
Huh, that's interesting, I've never seen that interpretation before. Um, there's no real "opting out" unless the GM specifically offers that choice. The GM can offer a worse outcome, hard bargain OR ugly choice. You don't have to give them a chance to back down, not at all. That's probably the most boring option, really, because it leaves the situation unchanged.
Worse outcome just means "some of what you wanted, not all of it," and in no way lets a player back down. You can say "nope, you don't disarm her but you do knock her off balance, take +1forward."
Hard Bargain could be something like "your weapons are tangled, and you can only disarm her if you damage your weapon." Now this situation is what you seem to dislike. So don't do it! Say "your weapons are tangled, and you can disarm her, but you'll either damage your weapon or drop it. Which one do you do?"
Just don't offer a hard bargain that includes backing down.
Anyway, I'd be wary of using Hack&Slash for these kind of stunts because they do not trigger Hack&Slash. It's real
ly for hitting each other: like, if the players rolls a 10+, do they get the +1d6 damage? It seems weird that you'd feel forced to use the wrong move because you like the consequences better. You can always deal out damage on a 7-9 Defy roll, if that's part of your Worse outcome or Hard Bargain.
-
Also, you're right, my wording was totally unclear. I was trying to say "when there is clearly danger" not "when the danger is clear," good catch.
Basically, Defy Danger really is the catch-all move. It's basically there to call for appropriate stat rolls. If you think it's boring to call for one move over and over, you are probably correct. That's why I never say "defy danger," I just go "oh, you're trying to ______? Roll plus dex." But it's made to handle any situation, don't shy away from applying reasonable consequences to this move: Deal Damage is one of your moves an the GM, you don't need to use H&S to apply reasonable fictional consequences. You can do that easier with Defy.
-
That's where I was coming from Scrape.
I felt like opting out is a "non-result" and kind of contrary to the Dungeon World paradigm. It violates the 7-9 being "fundamentally a success but at a price" idea.
-
You don't have to give them a chance to back down, not at all. That's probably the most boring option, really, because it leaves the situation unchanged.
I looked for an example of that in Dungeon World and Apocalypse World last night, but didn't find it.
-
Huh, that's interesting, I've never seen that interpretation before. Um, there's no real "opting out" unless the GM specifically offers that choice. The GM can offer a worse outcome, hard bargain OR ugly choice. You don't have to give them a chance to back down, not at all. That's probably the most boring option, really, because it leaves the situation unchanged.
Worse outcome just means "some of what you wanted, not all of it," and in no way lets a player back down. You can say "nope, you don't disarm her but you do knock her off balance, take +1forward."
Hard Bargain could be something like "your weapons are tangled, and you can only disarm her if you damage your weapon." Now this situation is what you seem to dislike. So don't do it! Say "your weapons are tangled, and you can disarm her, but you'll either damage your weapon or drop it. Which one do you do?"
Just don't offer a hard bargain that includes backing down.
First let me say that I know you have tons more experience with the game than I do, and that I'm not trying to be pointlessly argumentative or pedantic. Without your newbie guide I would have had a much harder time getting the flow of the game.
If I alter the emphasis you gave above, maybe where I'm coming up with this will make more sense.
The GM can offer a worse outcome, hard bargain OR ugly choice.
to
The GM can offer a worse outcome, hard bargain OR ugly choice.
Outside of "The Godfather" an offer is something that can be refused. If the GM chooses a worse outcome, it is still offered, according to how the text reads to me. The authors seemed to have taken a great deal of care in choosing the words for the basic moves, so that's why I'm on "offer" like a dog on a bone.
Anyway, I'd be wary of using Hack&Slash for these kind of stunts because they do not trigger Hack&Slash. It's real
ly for hitting each other: like, if the players rolls a 10+, do they get the +1d6 damage? It seems weird that you'd feel forced to use the wrong move because you like the consequences better. You can always deal out damage on a 7-9 Defy roll, if that's part of your Worse outcome or Hard Bargain.
It seems to me that you're looking to the results encoded in the move text to define should trigger the move, and that seems backwards. The trigger text should stand alone from the results, and a disarm attempt seems to me to fit the trigger text of "When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str." It doesn't seem to me to be a force fit to the wrong move at all. Going back to the called shot example, as a "stunt" this is nothing more than an upgrade to a normal swing of a sword.
I don't know that I've seen other folks use Defy Danger *after* another move to upgrade it as I have,rather than the more common case of rolling Defy Danger *prior* to enable a move. There may be something hinky with that.
I do take your point that nothing happening is a not very interesting option that has generally been avoided in the rules. I agree that it isn't very interesting as well, but the potential downside of a partial success is fairly well understood before you roll. If the use of "offer" was unintentional (or just not the way i read it), I can probably live with that.
In the example I quoted above, if Emory doesn't want to leave their dagger behind for whatever reason, what happens? Do they fall, or just remain there until it's time for them to Defy Danger Con to just hang on, or are they compelled to use the dagger because that's the "offer that cannot be refused" that the GM has given them?
-
It's a good debate! I claim no special authority, I'm just a player like everyone.
This is really interesting to me, I had never considered that a player could refuse the 7-9. I always read "the GM will offer' to mean just that it's the GM's responsibility to come up with the choices.
You can use H&S if it works for the situation, I guess. What does it mean to attack in melee? Maybe it means a disarming manuevers as well. My only issue is that H&S uses strictly STR, and if the character is using pure finesse it seems an odd fit. In my mind, you're attempting a dangerous manuevers, and the danger is being hurt by the enemy's weapon. On a strong hit, H&S deals damage. But if the player is only trying to disarm them...
Anyway, like most moves in DW, it all depends on the fictional circumstance. Personally, I turn yo Defy quite often and just wanna stress that you can definitely deal damage on a weak hit or miss, as part of your cofferdams "worse outcome." As long as you remember that a 7-9 is fundamentally a success, but with a cost.
-
Whether its boring entirely depends a bunch on the GM's offer. I generally find it interesting to find out what players are willing to endure for success. What I find really interesting is the GM move after the offer is declined. Everyone's turned to the GM now to find out what happens next, right?
Scrape, I think many GMs just tell the player a worse outcome and move on, but that isn't really how it seems that the move reads.
-
Maybe this is just one of those things that will differ, table to table. At my table, when the dice are rolled the situation always changes. Thinking back, I have definitely been like you can do this if you're willing to let this other thing happen." And if they're not willing to do it, that's like hesitating or flinching and the enemy reacts to that. Something always changes, that's how I use the dice.
To answer your question, in my example choice of "to disarm her, you must drop your weapon or damage it," I wasn't thinking that backing down was an option. They have attempted the manuevers and they're at a crucial moment where they hang on and damage their weapon, or else let go and lose it. Those are their two options. No matter what, they succeeded on their disarm roll and the enemy will be disarmed: it's a question of which less-desirable side effect takes place.
That's how I do it! Your method may vary!
-
I'm with you Scrape. When the dice hit the table consequences occur.
I like for the players to always feel that their dice roll causes something to happen, even if it's something bad. I try to avoid a dice roll that results in "nothing happened". For me that's what every other RPG out there does, but Dungeon World is constantly "pushing" things forward. Characters act, dice may be rolled, cool stuff happens!
At our table no one makes a dice roll without a little thought beforehand because there is no "opting out", something is definitely going to happen! Are you prepared for the consequences of your action? If so, roll those bones! If not, you may want to consider a different action.
-
I'm mulling this over. It's sort of a question of narrative authority and the role that the dice play. For me, the attempted action is set in stone before any dice are rolled: the player is trying to disarm their foe. Now reality is hanging for a second, waiting for the fate of the dice roll, yeah? (Fortune in the middle-style);There's no going back on it. If they fail, then their enemy has blocked the attempt and I narrate what happened. If they succeed, then it's done and I have to narrate the enemy's reaction to the success of that move. But the 7-9 is different in the timeliness. Often, I stop in the middle of the action, pinpointing a split-second where something can go wrong. I'll often give the player a choice of how it goes wrong, but the action is mid-progress. There's no ret-conning out of the situation, we're stuck firmly in the moment. When the player makes a choice, time continues and we play it out. But it's like a little frozen moment within the frozen moment, where the dice have something to say but so does the player or character.
7-9 results are usually more interesting than hits or misses to me, and this is just another reason why.
-
When I first read through Dungeon World I thought that the 7-9 results were going to be the most interesting but I also asked myself "How often are those 3 numbers going to come up?" I was pleasantly surprised to discover that those numbers come up way more than half of the time. Awesome!
-
When I first read through Dungeon World I thought that the 7-9 results were going to be the most interesting but I also asked myself "How often are those 3 numbers going to come up?" I was pleasantly surprised to discover that those numbers come up way more than half of the time. Awesome!
Almost like they were statistically more probable... dun dun DUN
-
Okay, so this intrigued me. I spent some more time with the Apocalypse World move that Defy Danger is drawn from, Act Under Fire (Page 190-192). Here's the GM's offer of a hard bargain:
Roark’s hit, and Marie tries to
drag him to cover. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her a hard bargain:
she can get him to safety, but only if she takes a bullet herself.)
So that's clearly an offer that the player can opt out of, abandon Roark or take a bullet. But, clearly also not boring if the player chooses to opt out, cause there's poor Roark lying out there. Here's an ugly choice:
Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking
into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If
they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly
choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent
teenage sentry.) She hits the roll with an 8, so the ugly choice
it is. “There’s some kid out here, huddled under this flimsy tin
roof with a mug of who-knows-what. You think you’re past him
but he startles and looks right at you. You can kill him before
he makes a noise, but you’ll have to do it right this second. Do
you?”
Here, the player can't really opt out of the choice. She's acting. She's under fire. To put it in Dungeon World terms, they can opt out of the Defying part, but then they have to deal with the Danger. Here's a worse outcome:
Bran the savvyhead’s got less than a minute to get Frankie’s
car started again before Balls and friends are on them. (On a
7–9, maybe I give him a worse outcome: he gets the car started,
but Balls’ first couple of people are there already. I picture him
tearing away with Poor Skimla clinging to the boot.) ”
Interestingly, the word used above isn't offer, it's give, which seems fitting. Again, here's a situation where opting out is essentially meaningless, right? I mean, I guess you could decline this worse outcome and take a much worse outcome.
The thing that's clear in the above choices is that none of them is a choice between Defying Danger and nothing happening. Let's look at the example in Dungeon World.
GM: Hmm, well, I think the only way you can gain any traction, tough guy, is if you use your dagger to pull yourself up the last few feet. It’s going to be lodged in there until you have some time to pull it loose and there’s an angry spellcaster nearby.
Emory: I can always get a new dagger when I get home. Time to finish this climb and that cultist.
It's arguably not as strong as the Apocalypse world choices. But, what happens if Emory says "I can't lose this dagger!" and opts out? Umm....angry spellcaster, nearby...Emory's exposed on the side of a frost covered ravine with a dangerous sorcerer nearby. The GM can just deal damage at this point.
Modify message
-
And, yes. I like to overthink things.
-
That's interesting, noclue. I came to DW with a background in ApocWorld, so maybe that's why I considered the language differently.
Anyway, there will def be some situations like "do you press on or give up?" But I think those are exceptional. My default is to assume that the player is following through (that's how we got to the move, by doing something), and that now the 7-9 means they don't quite get what they want. But they're gonna get something. I mean, it's a success, right? Just not a full success.
So I make my ugly choices about which thing you sacrifice to do it, not whether you sacrifice something at all.
-
Interesting comparison between AW and DW. While I had a little bit of AW exposure, DW play rapidly eclipsed it. Scrape, if I had had enough AW background I probably would have never gotten hung up on the "offer" thing.
GM: Hmm, well, I think the only way you can gain any traction, tough guy, is if you use your dagger to pull yourself up the last few feet. It’s going to be lodged in there until you have some time to pull it loose and there’s an angry spellcaster nearby.
Emory: I can always get a new dagger when I get home. Time to finish this climb and that cultist.
It's arguably not as strong as the Apocalypse world choices. But, what happens if Emory says "I can't lose this dagger!" and opts out? Umm....angry spellcaster, nearby...Emory's exposed on the side of a frost covered ravine with a dangerous sorcerer nearby. The GM can just deal damage at this point.
This is starting to gel for me. Even though Emory would be able to opt out of the specific danger that was being defied (climbing upward even though the cliff was now covered in ice) if the bargain wasn't to their liking, backing down from the Defy Danger that was started could be seen as tantamount to looking to the GM to see what happens next. The angry spellcaster was a present danger, so mojo-to-the-face.
-
When I first read through Dungeon World I thought that the 7-9 results were going to be the most interesting but I also asked myself "How often are those 3 numbers going to come up?" I was pleasantly surprised to discover that those numbers come up way more than half of the time. Awesome!
Almost like they were statistically more probable... dun dun DUN
Math was never my strong suit!
-
Ultimately I think it is this kind of flexibility that makes Dungeon World so appealing and enjoyable to run.
-
Yeah, the bargain doesn't have to be "if you want to succeed, X happens." It can (maybe should? be "you succeed, but X or Y will happen. Choose one."
-
In the example I quoted above, if Emory doesn't want to leave their dagger behind for whatever reason, what happens? Do they fall, or just remain there until it's time for them to Defy Danger Con to just hang on, or are they compelled to use the dagger because that's the "offer that cannot be refused" that the GM has given them?
If Emory doesn't want to leave the dagger behind, it's not that he can decide not to start climbing once the dice have hit the table. He's started up the icy cliff - that's the acting despite an imminent threat that he had to do to be able to for roll the move in the first If he doesn't want to leave the dagger behind, he's partway up the cliff, not falling off, but exposed for whatever happens to him.
At this point I'd probably move the spotlight onto some other party member, give them a chance to create an opening for Emory to get up -- or else, when the spotlight goes back on Emory, he's got another Defy Danger against whatever else gets dumped down on him.
-
If Emory doesn't want to leave the dagger behind, it's not that he can decide not to start climbing once the dice have hit the table. He's started up the icy cliff - that's the acting despite an imminent threat that he had to do to be able to for roll the move in the first If he doesn't want to leave the dagger behind, he's partway up the cliff, not falling off, but exposed for whatever happens to him.
I think this is spot on, but I'd note that Emory began climbing the cliff before the circumstance arose that put them in Defy Danger territory so Emory was committed prior to the dice hitting the table in any case. In this example it doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the second part of the climb once that cliff was iced had begun or not.
At this point I'd probably move the spotlight onto some other party member, give them a chance to create an opening for Emory to get up -- or else, when the spotlight goes back on Emory, he's got another Defy Danger against whatever else gets dumped down on him.
Whether we think "opting out" is an option or not with Defy Danger I think this approach works well. Just because someone can potentially opt out of one danger doesn't mean the rest of the fiction can't come to bear. Highlighting one of these other imminent dangers and shifting focus to another character works nicely with the idea that opting can be taken as hesitation to the point of losing the initiative.
-
I can imagine circumstances where "opting out" would be the moment of hesitation or stalling, and would make total sense. I shy away from that as much as possible, preferring the "pivotal moment" approach of an action in-progress. But it works either way, as long as the moves are pushing the game forward.
-
I think Emory better do something, because if he just sits there looking like a pinata, I'm going to smack him with a stick.
-
I know, right?! I'm tired of these layabout do-nothing adventures lounging about on dangerous terrain waiting about for loot to be delivered to them like they are on some sort of senior citizen ocean cruise.
When you're done with that stick, I'll have a go!
I think Emory better do something, because if he just sits there looking like a pinata, I'm going to smack him with a stick.
-
I'm actually working on a senior-citizens-on-a-sea-cruise hack right now, funny you should mention that. It's called Sea World, duh.
-
Wow, that can get more complicated than I thought. Thanks for all that input!
-
I find it useful to clarify what the 7–9 options could mean because they didn't inspire me until I understood them. Like, I'd look at them when I had to say something and I'd be like "Let's see hard bargain, ugly choice, worse outcome... ummm, what's the difference... shit, what am I choosing between here... yeah, I'll just make something up..."
This is how I think of them.
Hard bargain: Pay this cost or don't defy the danger.
Ugly choice: Defy the danger but pay this or the other cost.
Worse outcome: This is the cost of defying the danger. Pay it.
So yeah, a hard bargain is a kind of an ugly choice where the choice is pushed earlier; avoid paying the cost by dropping the whole thing. You just walk away from the whole deal, so to speak.
Whereas with ugly choice, at least how I parse it, you're committed, knee deep; your choice is with which cost you're willing to pay. And you will pay a cost because it's too late, you're already committed to defying the danger.
And worse outcome, there's no choice. Defying danger hurts. Suck it up, princess.
-
I don't think I've heard the 7-9 options broken down in quite that way. I think I like it. It encodes options for the "opt out" in Hard Bargain, for "you did it and here's the nonnegotiable cost" in Worse Outcome, and the middle road where you're committed, but you still get to choose some ugly.
And depending on the type of the DD this will inform the GM's choice about what to present to the player. In the disarm scenario, I'd be looking at Worse Outcome or Ugly Choice, and could safely ignore the opt-out-ability of the Hard Bargain.
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!
I find it useful to clarify what the 7–9 options could mean because they didn't inspire me until I understood them. Like, I'd look at them when I had to say something and I'd be like "Let's see hard bargain, ugly choice, worse outcome... ummm, what's the difference... shit, what am I choosing between here... yeah, I'll just make something up..."
This is how I think of them.
Hard bargain: Pay this cost or don't defy the danger.
Ugly choice: Defy the danger but pay this or the other cost.
Worse outcome: This is the cost of defying the danger. Pay it.
So yeah, a hard bargain is a kind of an ugly choice where the choice is pushed earlier; avoid paying the cost by dropping the whole thing. You just walk away from the whole deal, so to speak.
Whereas with ugly choice, at least how I parse it, you're committed, knee deep; your choice is with which cost you're willing to pay. And you will pay a cost because it's too late, you're already committed to defying the danger.
And worse outcome, there's no choice. Defying danger hurts. Suck it up, princess.
-
That's a killer breakdown, watergoesred! GMs will gravitate towards different choices depending on their style and the situation at hand, but that perfectly explains the options. Cool.
-
Cheers guys! Breaking the options down like this has helped me plenty, in both Dungeon World and Apocalypse World.
In the disarm scenario, I'd be looking at Worse Outcome or Ugly Choice, and could safely ignore the opt-out-ability of the Hard Bargain.
I find hard bargain works well when another PC or NPC suffers, either from the cost or from the danger not being defied. That's what I saw in the Apocalypse World examples that noclue quoted. And if you want to split hairs, the ugly choice looks like a straight up hard bargain to me, because Keeler only gets her hit (sneaking into Dremmer’s camp unheard) if she pays the cost (shoots the kid).
Okay, so this intrigued me. I spent some more time with the Apocalypse World move that Defy Danger is drawn from, Act Under Fire (Page 190-192). Here's the GM's offer of a hard bargain:
Roark’s hit, and Marie tries to drag him to cover. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her a hard bargain: she can get him to safety, but only if she takes a bullet herself.)
So that's clearly an offer that the player can opt out of, abandon Roark or take a bullet. But, clearly also not boring if the player chooses to opt out, cause there's poor Roark lying out there.
Here's an ugly choice:
Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.) She hits the roll with an 8, so the ugly choice it is. “There’s some kid out here, huddled under this flimsy tin roof with a mug of who-knows-what. You think you’re past him but he startles and looks right at you. You can kill him before he makes a noise, but you’ll have to do it right this second. Do you?”
Given all that, in a scenario where PCs are acting to disarm an opponent, a hard bargain could be:
- you can disarm the Gnoll without trouble (danger defied), but the mighty axe will fly lose and straight at the kidnapped son of the Countess (the cost). Do you?
- to cleanly knock the Darkle blade from the cultist's hand, spoiling the sacrifice at a key moment (danger defied), you'll have to take your time to line the shot up, so there'll be no way to avoid the iron bull's charge so you'll be sent flying and gored into the pit of bones (the cost). Do you make the shot?
-
A little bit of a non-sequitor here but what does being disarmed do, mechanically speaking, to someone? Does it prevent a person from doing damage until they roll a defy danger roll?
-
It depends. If you have no weapon and are considered unarmed and are trying to attack someone who is, then yes, a defy danger roll would be necessary, if they are aware of the attack. Just as if you are wielding a "hand" weapon and attacking someone with a "close" weapon. Or a "close" weapon attacking someone with a "reach" weapon.