The wall of the house are crumbling, make the fighter do a defy danger to avoid the debris before he does a Hack n Slash. His sword hit the snake big scaly flesh, tell him how little it affect him, but that he succeed at turning the snake attention on him.

The more you give details like these, the more your players will need to roll, giving you more moves and they will also try to find a weak spot to be able to do any damage.

My favored aproach with ''Bosses'' is 3 fold.

* Characters usually need to defy danger to be able to get a hack n Slash.
* Many hits won't do anything against it, they need to find a weak spot.
* The monster moves will have the character defy danger constantly.

Have them do some special moves that will ''stop'' some characters temporary. Fighter is stunned and the wizard his busy casting his spell. The serpent open his mouth to swallow him whole, what do you do Ranger ?

Well, with greater empowered magic and augmented magic. A fire ball cast within a cloud kill has a potential of doing 5d6 + 7 damage. It would be possible to cast this combination as low as level 8 with the proper moves. Something no warriors could ever hope to do.

Even if it does average damage, around 24 that ignore armor, it can essentially clear the whole bestiary with average damage, and even the apocalypse Dragon with one hit (unless of course the GM get's creative).  Yep it's true some class are powerful, but I think each has it's own strength and weaknesses that keeps the game interesting.

If a player, min max his character, let him do so, DW can still bring some challenge for him, and it can get quite fun to see how he can manage to go through all that stuff !

It's not automatic, because they are losing experience to gain the moves, and therefore falling behind characters who don't do so immediately in levels, which hurts them in stats, and especially if they are spellcasters.

The problem with your alternative suggestion, for my desires, is that I *want* the players to have more moves.  I want them to be able to be two classes fully, given enough experience and fiction development, without sacrificing their higher level moves.  Ultimately, a "maxed out" character under the system I'm suggesting here, would have the basic moves of two classes, and a total of 12 (instead of 9) advanced move picks.  It would take him a total of 50 additional experience points to reach that "maxed out" point than a standard character.

Another comparison, is that the same amount of experience would get you to be a 10th level character without taking a secondary class, or to be a 7th level character with a mastered secondary class (technically, a few experience points short of 7th level).  So, it's not "for free".

Usually a character needs Level + 7 Xp to gain a new move (and a level). If the character lose Xp to gain a move (or a level), isn't it just easier to let him gain a Level ? You may allow characters to go at a higher level than 10 if you truly need a character with more moves. Why wanting to work with a different system when the one in place does the job ? If your character have more moves than other characters, I think it's just fair to let him be at a higher level since he will obviously be more efficient or at least more versatile than another character with a fewer moves.

So I don't see any troubles allowing for higher level characters with more move and a more flexible multi-classing system.

I didn't intend for that to be a "restriction" on alignment; I was merely trying to express that one couldn't get experience from both class alignments at once.

I do very much like your concept of Multiclass Mastery, and I may try to adapt from there.  There are only two things that I don't like about it.  One, different core classes have different numbers of basic moves, so I would probably tweak it to say "Once you have selected three basic moves from a second class, you gain any basic moves of that class you had not already selected, and are considered to have mastered that class; at this time..."

The other thing is that it doesn't achieve the *number* of moves that I'm interested in player's achieving; I truly want them to (eventually) be able to do the full job of two classes without having to give up higher powers eventually.  This could be altered by simply granting two moves per level, or something like that, though.  I need to think about it.

Just having the Mastery itself as a rule is a very helpful suggestion, though; thank you.

I only see one major issue with your multiclassing. What about my single class Bard ? The guy who multiclass has way  more manoeuvers than I have, it's unfair.

In this case nobody can have a single class character. If you trully want a character to fulfill two classes at the same time, why not just give him both classes starting moves, and 2 new moves per level ?

Quote from: J. Trudel on September 03, 2013, 04:38:54 PM

Yep, talking it out is usually a working solution. Describe your setting to the players and ask them to contribute. One of the most improtant job of the GM is to describe a setting that will have the players wanting to be a part of it. I guess that your players didn't really get what your setting was about, and this is why talking with them is so important. If the setting is too ''open'' you have good chances to end up having for character funny teen girls running around with pink hairs and chainsaws. ;)

While it might be welcome in some settings, the case isn't true for many others.

Okay I think I know what the problem was now. I misunderstood the freedom of Dungeon World which is my failing. I gave them too much free reign. Next time I won't ask such broad questions at the start. For the next session I'm running it for people who are actually interested in a campaign. This one was just kind of a test of me to work out the system and such. Mainly combat which was chaotic but a lot of fun. The next session is for five people from my local game store's facebook page. I posted up I was running Dungeon World and these people jumped at the chance. I think it's a testament to the game that within seconds of posting the ad I had five people going. "Do you still have places? I'd love to join!"

Next session for the start of the campaign I'm going to be introducing a cult called the "Jade Mask." I have some basic ideas about them written down but I've left blanks in the narrative. The game is going to start with the adventurers investigating the sounds of moaning and screaming coming from a cavern in the forest. What would you say would be a good way to open this? What kind of questions should I ask?

I think that's one of my problems is I ask far too broad questions leaving it open to crazyness and basically turning it into medieval saints row.

Before asking questions, I suggest you introduce your setting. Then even broad question will have the players answer with revelant information about your setting. I would begin somewhat like that :

The land of ........ (your setting), is a dark place where habitants struggle to live. Hard days of work are hardly enough to put bread and dirty water on the table. Peasants revolts seldom occurs, but the lords of the land are quick to put anyone who oppose them to the sword, or worse. This is why many try their luck to escape a hard life by becoming adventurers, you are amongst them, on your way to investigate some strange ... (introduce the mission).

How have you become involved in all this ?

Yep, talking it out is usually a working solution. Describe your setting to the players and ask them to contribute. One of the most improtant job of the GM is to describe a setting that will have the players wanting to be a part of it. I guess that your players didn't really get what your setting was about, and this is why talking with them is so important. If the setting is too ''open'' you have good chances to end up having for character funny teen girls running around with pink hairs and chainsaws. ;)

While it might be welcome in some settings, the case isn't true for many others.

I agree, maybe your players are just not looking for DW. However, combat is as much tactical as YOU want it to be in DW. You can always give bonus, add or remove a defy danger based on player choices during combat. This will give clever tactics a notable advantage in play. The thing is, it is not a ''usual'' gaming approach to tactics, but it does the job of granting a tactical advantage that may be in fact closer to a real life encounter.

Assumptions in the form of rules may give the players more insights about tactics in the game, but you can always let them know that some tactics will remove defy danger or give them bonus etc etc. It might do the trick.