Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Quizoid on March 06, 2012, 11:58:55 PM
-
How do you use Make Camp? When adventurers do it, do you make everyone roll, looking for "the weakest link," or do you just have one do it for the group (strongest link)?
Does everyone roll to aide everyone else (:
I suppose, if I "followed from the fiction," can someone make a camp for someone else? I suppose I wonder if the roll is just to make the camp (strongest link), or if the roll is to camp in such a way that bad things don't happen (weakest link).
-
Hey Quizoid, I've always had all the characters who actively 'make camp' and eat a ration make the move and on a hit they get to choose one of the options for the whole camp.
Like most moves though, its very easy to say 'we make camp' and make a roll. I really push for more detail. Invoke the setting, where are you? what routines do you do follow to prepare camp? How do you make the area 'safe'. Imbed this into the situation at hand and get lots of juicy hooks for failure from the players themselves.
On a failure, I get to make as hard a move I like, often tying it to the specific character: yes you eat a ration, yes you heal a little and here is this wonderfully evocative impending doom that awaits you. Or ask questions about a tension-ridden bond as the players natter around the campfire. 'So that time the thief stole your precious thing? How comfortable do you feel going to sleep while they are on watch?'
I love make camp, its a fantastically undervalued fictional move in my opinion :)
-
I have one player roll. Anyone else can aid if they want to help, or wander off into the woods and do other things if that's their bag.
-
We obviously need to phrase the move better. The intention is: everyone who is making camp (by settling down for a night's rest) does the move as appropriate for the environment. They they choose elements that are true for the camp as a whole.
It's like when you decide on a camp site and then one guy goes off to forage, someone else hides your tracks, another guy starts the fire, and so on.
This, by design, makes camping with fewer characters more dangerous. If you only have two even if you both roll well there's going to be something lacking in the camp. That's a reflection of not being able to share watch as easily, or scout as much of the surrounding area.
-
What of the non-camping characters? Presumably some want to make camp to trade rations for health. What are the other ones doing? Could you pair making camp with discerning realities to represent one or more characters standing watch? Would that be inappropriate or redundant?
I suppose you could create other reasons to make camp...
When you make camp with an ally, take +1 forward per ration spent to Parley as you break bread and share a spot by the fire.
(your hospitality is your leverage)
I like to use "...until you Make Camp" as a way of marking duration in custom moves.
-
Doesn't that make it too easy to camp? One person succeeds and everything is fine? How do you incorporate misses into that?
It seems like a weird (unique?) situation where everyone has to make the roll, then the GM has to look at all of the results and craft a situation that potentially combines total success with partial success and a miss or two.
-
Each hit adds something to the camp: safety, supplies, etc. One roll can only add one benefit. So one person does not a camp make.
That said, we're open to changing the move.
-
When we played, my players asked, "Why the heck do we have to be in a dangerous area to have a chance to forage and not have to consume a ration? That kind of sucks."
I read the move over again, shrugged, and told them not to worry about it - that they weren't in a dangerous area and weren't going to have to worry about rations running out.
-
Each hit adds something to the camp: safety, supplies, etc. One roll can only add one benefit. So one person does not a camp make.
That said, we're open to changing the move.
*Re-reads*
OooooOOOOOh!
Well, I've been playing it wrong. Has it always been like that, or was that a Beta change? It probably could stand to be clarified.
-
I just checked against the wording in the Red Book version and the wording is identical.
That's the only version I played, and we always did it wrong, nominating someone (usually the cleric) to make camp. The move as-is is probably fine, but I'd agree the wording could be tightened up a bit.
Undertake a perilous journey points out that each player must make the move separately, so something along those lines would probably help. Some way to make it clear that if the party is making camp in dangerous territory then each player in the camp should roll.
-
I've always played it as written, no confusion. But I did find it odd that you needed to be in a dangerous area. Although, in a Points of Light style game you could argue that any area outside a settlement is dangerous :)
-
Maybe you could think about it like this:
In AW I believe there's commentary on the Read a Sitch move talking about how the move requires reading a charged situation. And that just by using that move you're saying the situation is charged, even if it didn't seem like it until you made that move.
Well, why not the same thing with making camp? You want to the chance to not use up rations? You gotta risk it and now the area is more dangerous than maybe you thought it was.
-
That makes sense, and I had the same thought but didn't go into that with them.
It was just a weird case where they were making a camp next to a river about a mile outside a village in an area filled with olive groves and deer.
-
All seems peaceful in the grove, then you see the branch of an olive tree lash out at a nearby deer. You hear rustling from the tree near where you're laying on your bed roll. What do you do?
-
I've always played it as written, no confusion. But I did find it odd that you needed to be in a dangerous area. Although, in a Points of Light style game you could argue that any area outside a settlement is dangerous :)
And some areas within a settlement...
The other way to go with be to say that it's easy to forage in a settled area, so you don't need to spend a ration there.
-
Sage, what's the value in penalizing smaller groups? That really rubs (me at least) the wrong way. You'd usually have a smaller group because you have fewer players. Making camping more dangerous because there are only two guys I can game with seems... icky.
From a simulation aspect: the more folks in a camp, the harder it is to find enough food when foraging for them. The harder it is to cover your tracks. The harder it is to ensure noise/light discipline and keep the camp hidden.
There's also the weirdness that comes out of, say, three guys getting 10+ and one guy rolling a 3. You've got a well-hidden, well-provisioned camp that leaves no trace... but the GM's gonna make a hard move that might very well interrupt the group making camp in the first place. And the more guys you've got rolling 2d6, the more chances of getting a low roll.
Seems like it would play smoother with either:
a) One person rolls; 10+ choose two options and 7-9 choose one. (Maybe require that everyone else making camp roll +Bond; 7+ no effect but a miss they impose a -1? But that's clunky.)
-or-
b) Make it a "weakest link" roll. Everyone rolls, on a 10+ nothing bad. On a 7-9, choose something from a list (use more rations; didn't heal; slept for crap take -1 forward; something's out there watching you). On a 6-, camp gets interrupted but good.
Related question: how much detail do you want/envision the players getting into when making camp? I appreciate the benefits Noofy's "get vivid" approach, but your players are probably there to play Dungeon World, not Camping World.
-
The two person party is what hirelings are for :)
That said, the weakest link option might work too. We'll think on it.
-
While you're looking at this, consider the possibility that there's a generic set of outcomes and then options that only open up when there's a Ranger around - something beyond the A SAFE PLACE move. Maybe even something built into the class that they don't need to spend a move on.
I don't know that it should go in that direction, just spit-balling.
Making camp, setting watches, etc. - such a classic mainstay of this kind of gaming.
-
In my opinion, the more characters you have means that you can go into more dangerous areas and, because of your numbers, be able to synergize to keep up your HP and so forth.
That just kind of fits the fiction to me - - people can sleep more soundly and digest properly and all those other comfort-things when someone else is around to watch their back. It fits with my digestion of adventure stories and how characters in that genre keep it together.
In a spy-film or heist-flick hack for DW, Make Camp would be something like:
Pit Stop:
When the lot of you go out for a drink or a bite to eat, consume one Smoke [thanks, Regiment!] to recover HP equal to half your max. If you turn down a cig or don't have one, you ain't feelin' too good - heal nothing and take -1forward.
Roll +eyeballs - - on a hit you may choose one for the "party" as a whole:
- you're not in enemy territory
- the food is actually pretty good; you don't have to dull your taste buds with a smoke first to stomach it.
- no one seems to remember you after you leave, if anyone should come inquiring about you.
My point is that adventure fiction is very often about the characters eating, drinking, or otherwise engaging in (literally) sensual activity together - playing music or partying, even.
Mechanically, socializing as a group is emphasized, and playing with fewer players is discouraged because it kind of collapses the whole Bond system, which if used can do a lot of the creative groundwork for the party dynamic, and even the world the game takes place in.
Then, when you get back to town, you can mark your return with a Carouse roll.
Jeremy, I figure if I didn't want to really screw the players over on account of that 3 you mentioned, you could just opt to make a softer move instead, like revealing something bad about a hireling or announcing future badness (maybe the first distant rumblings of the Balrog, deep below?) to show the players that even at rest they can't really relax here.
It revolves around the phrase "dangerous territory" - - just like in good old Unknown Armies, if there's no threat or challenge in the way, then don't put one there. Make Camp seems to be "say yes or roll the dice" personified, as the players look to the DM to judge whether they're in a dangerous spot or if they can just have a reprieve for a bit.
-
Also, as far as I understand the rules, ANY 6- is a Golden Opportunity.
In that way, a big camp is more in danger of perhaps drawing some unwelcome attention.
-
Good call! Hobbitses need to hide from prying eyes, after all.
-
I'm just throwing this idea out. Small groups (1-2) in a dangerous territory tend to travel light and be inconspicuous rather than invite trouble.
When you need to lay low, roll+Wis and then subtract 1 for each additional party member you are rolling for. On a 10+, your position is well hidden from enemies and you may consume a ration to heal half the damage that has been done to you. On a 7-9, you are exposed but you will see them before they see you - take +1 forward.
-
^^ I like that it clearly makes sense for the heroes to kind of hole up individually, wherever they can find a bit of cover.
I like that a weak hit means a future encounter, but you still get to heal up. It preserves the "integrity" of getting a hit.