Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Dan Maruschak on February 04, 2012, 09:21:35 PM
-
I released a new episode (http://www.danmaruschak.com/podcast/2012/02/05/episode-36-dungeon-world-beta-playtest-1a/) of my playtesting-focused AP podcast Designer vs. Reality (http://www.danmaruschak.com/podcast) that features my group playing a session with the Dungeon World beta 1.1 rules.
-
Cool, will listen this weekend :)
-
Sweet Dan, thanks!
-
Great podcast, Dan. I liked some of the moves you used on failures, like having the lizards eyes pop open. For the head butt, I recall the Red Book mentioned that weaponless attacks might do 1d4 stun damage, that's what I do in cases like that. The poor players rolling 1 or 2 for damage then getting consistently whacked for full monster damage ... Ouch! It highlights the brutality of the asymmetric damage resolution in DW.
-
The way I play it, when the fighter hacks and slashes with intend to hurt someone, he does d10 damage. Sword, bar stool, fist, ripping out throats with his teeth. Same with all the classes.
-
Interesting house rule, Anarchangel. I could see how that makes for a fiercer game than the rule as written ...
"You have to be wielding a weapon to use your class's damage dice. Default damage without a weapon is 1."
Thinking about it more though, there must be some advantage to having weapons. Otherwise the heroes could just saunter off unarmed and punch, bite, and rend their way through the dungeon.
-
Wow, it never even occurred to me that that was a houserule. I've never seen or played it any other way. It kinda doesn't even make sense to me any other way, actually.
-
Yeah, in any AP podcasts I've heard it seems that rule goes under the radar. But I can definitely see the rationale behind it. If characters are just effective unarmed, why bother listing weapons in the gear section? I guess it depends on the tone you want. If you want superheroes then sure, let them roll their full damage unarmed. But if you want a bit grittier tone then I think the unarmed damage rule makes sense, but I like the version they had in the Redbook where they mentioned 1d4 stun damage. This let me conduct a few bar-room brawls quite nicely.
-
If characters are just effective unarmed, why bother listing weapons in the gear section?
Because my Fighter looks cooler with a big sword than without one. That is an exceedingly good reason, IMO.
Plus, it's a fictional-positioning thing.
To take that farther, though: If any weapon does damage according to your class, why buy a club instead of a sword?
(Answers are the same as above.)
-
@Glitch - Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.
@Anarchangel - When we played DW Basic we played it that way, basically you do your character damage regardless of whether you're punching or stabbing (which is probably why Simon assumed it would work that way and why I didn't see anything wrong with it). But like Glitch said, the rule in the beta is that you only do character damage with a weapon. It stuck in my mind when I read it because it seemed like a change from what we did before, but I only remembered it specifically when I was trying to think of reasons why the monster might not do its full damage.
@Mike - Might the rule be in there to give some mechanical teeth to GM moves that separate PCs from their weapons? If dropping your sword is merely cosmetic then it potentially sucks some dynamism out of fights.
-
Hi Dan, you're right, I had thought about the move of separating the character from their weapon losing its teeth but forgot to mention it in the earlier post. I think it boils down to the style of game you want. Some folks want to ramp up the awesome and thus enable those great scenes where the fighter bites the throat out of the demon. Other folks might enjoy a game where the event of losing one's weapon actually carries some grave consequences.
-
The fighter can also choose her fists as her signature weapon, so if chosen, she deals 1d10 damage with a weapon and her fists.
I also have a house rule that for any class other than the fighter, when a character uses a mundane weapon not listed under their gear lists it counts as awkward and or dangerous (in addition to its other tags). This has no mechanical effect, but has the undeniably awesome fictional tags: It's unwieldy and tough to use & It's easy to get in trouble with it. If you interact with it without proper precautions the GM may freely invoke the consequences of your foolish actions. Once they level up, if they have been stubbornly wielding an uncharacteristic choice, they can choose to add the awkward weapon to their list of 'proficiencies' if they like and remove the tags :)
-
"You have to be wielding a weapon to use your class's damage dice. Default damage without a weapon is 1."
Yeah, I didn't realise it was a house rule either. The perils of so many different versions of the rules floating around! That quote is from DW Beta, p.11, btw.
I'm going to keep using it as it makes for quite dynamic fights. I find that when you separate someone from their weapon, they usually still try to get it back. :)
-
I've been listening to this AP on and off, and I'm compelled to return to this thread to say the following:
Bluffing is Defy Danger using Int.
That is all.
-
Bluffing is Defy Danger using Int.
While clever talking might be a Defy Danger in certain specific circumstances I don't think it's true in a general sense that Bluffing = Defy Danger. In my mind AW-style moves aren't about how you could cleverly manipulate an existing rule to arbitrate something, they're about intuitive pattern-matching on the fiction. To me, Defy Danger is supposed to be about reacting to some specific fictional danger. Bluffing, on the other hand, is a character-initiated action to achieve some specific intent. Those don't feel similar enough to me that they ought to be pattern-matched by the same move. I suppose "does the NPC realize that you're lying?" could be a Defy Danger but I think what people mean by bluffing goes beyond that.
-
I think that the pattern matching of fiction to moves makes Defy Danger necessary as a 'go-to' move based on whatever stat you agree is appropriate. Sometimes you are having the conversation in the game and think 'gee we should be making a move here', but nothing fits. That's when gentle manipulation of Defy Danger comes into its own. The results (as listed) of the move are a very adaptable framework to hang your fiction on.
I can totally see a bluff style move as Defy Danger on INT, especially if the character is using their knowledge and smarts to confuse and bufuddle the target. The Danger being that the ruse or bluff is seen through and the monster / NPC acts accordingly (the GM make their move).
Just for variety, I can see a bluff style move could be made on any number of stats if the fiction warranted it. CHA for instance springs to mind if the character based their bluff on charm and superfluous gratuity and compliments.
-
In my mind AW-style moves aren't about how you could cleverly manipulate an existing rule to arbitrate something, they're about intuitive pattern-matching on the fiction.
Agreed! That's why I think bluffing is Defying Danger using Int. That's intuitive pattern-matching between fiction and mechanics, IMO.
To me, Defy Danger is supposed to be about reacting to some specific fictional danger. Bluffing, on the other hand, is a character-initiated action to achieve some specific intent.
To me, bluffing is a seat-of-your-pants, bullshit-my-way-out-of-this one kinda thing, which sounds like a very reasonable application of "quick thinking."
I'm not talking about calculated persuasion or negotiation or anything like that. That's clearly Parley. I'm talking about a spur-of-the-moment effort to fast-talk your way out of a sticky situation.
Those don't feel similar enough to me that they ought to be pattern-matched by the same move. I suppose "does the NPC realize that you're lying?" could be a Defy Danger but I think what people mean by bluffing goes beyond that.
"Throw them in the pit."
"Wait! If you throw me in the pit, you'll never find out where the Circlet of Al-Ahad is buried!"
GM: ...The circlet of what now?
Player: Beats me. I'm just trying to stay out of the pit!
I realize this could be interpreted as the character having leverage there, but to me that's an illusion. The character doesn't have leverage so much as he's trying to create leverage out of nothing. If he can't sell this lie, he's in for it. YMMV, of course.
-
Yes Mike! Exactly! So cool! Maybe the player of the wizard wants to spout lore about that shit, to help the fighter as he bluffs his way out of another pit, so you ask sure, what do you do? The resultant conversation and Spout Lore / Bluff (defy danger on INT) roll could either save the fighter, author a cool legend about the Circlet of Al-Ahad and start a whole new side quest or just be a lie he made up on the spot. All awesome! Failure means lots of juicy hard moves by the GM: even more awesome!
-
Sometimes you are having the conversation in the game and think 'gee we should be making a move here', but nothing fits. That's when gentle manipulation of Defy Danger comes into its own. The results (as listed) of the move are a very adaptable framework to hang your fiction on.
To me, this sounds like it's really contrary to the way moves are supposed to work. To my mind AW and DW aren't the type of game where dice rolls are arbitrary tension-injectors that the GM uses to orchestrate an entertaining experience. The "it's been a while, let me figure out if we can roll here" concept really rubs me the wrong way for the kind of game I think DW is trying to be.
To me, bluffing is a seat-of-your-pants, bullshit-my-way-out-of-this one kinda thing, which sounds like a very reasonable application of "quick thinking."
I think you're assuming more desperation being implicitly involved in bluffing than I am. The situations you describe sound like they're in the Defy Danger ballpark to me, but I think I was coming at it from a more "D&D combat power"-style concept of bluffing where it covers any use of trickery to impose your will on an opponent, even if you're already in an advantageous position. It's been a while since the session so my memory is pretty fuzzy by this point, but I don't remember Simon's character being in a desperate situation when the topic came up, so that may have colored the discussion.
-
Dan, I agree! Moves are when the mechanics kick in if the fiction warrants it. I think I didn't explain myself clearly. I didn't mean that we make a roll 'caus its been a while'. I mean, we make a move because something is happening in the fiction that feels like a move, that has some strong sense of tension or uncertainty. You are doing it, but what is 'it' exactly?
It none of the other moves fit well, but the character is doing something that obviously demands a roll, but you don't quite know how to deal with it, double check whether Defy Danger (under whatever stat is fictionally appropriate) is your go-to move first.
You Defy Danger when you do something in the face of impending peril. This may seem like a catch-all. It is! Defy Danger is for those times when it seems like you clearly should be rolling but no other move applies. One of the simplest 'custom' moves you can write is one that causes you to defy a certain type of danger with another stat. Most dangers can be overcome with quick feet and agility but you’ll encounter dangers to be defied by your strength of will or bodily fortitude, too.
-
I posed a new episode (http://www.danmaruschak.com/podcast/2012/03/06/episode-37-dungeon-world-beta-playtest-1b/) of the podcast with our second session of the game.
-
I posted another episode (http://www.danmaruschak.com/podcast/2012/03/08/episode-38-dungeon-world-beta-playtest-1c/) with the third session. At the end of this one I talk a little bit about how I'm interpreting the agenda and principles and how that's informing my GMing of the game.