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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

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!

There can be a bit of confusion around multiclassing and levels as there are two different ways that levels are considered with multiclass moves, and both refer to adjusting your effective level.

The first bit of text that discusses multi-classing is on p. 32 (for me in the PDF - you mentioned p. 29, but I'm guessing we're looking at the same spot).

Multiclass Moves
The multiclass moves allow you to gain moves from another class. You get to choose any move of your level or lower. For the purpose of multiclassing, any starting class moves that depend on each other count as one move—the wizard's cast a spell, spellbook, and prepare spells for example. If a move from another class refers to your level, count your levels from the level where you first gained a move from that class.

Here it does indeed say "You get to choose any move of your level or lower."  The multiclass moves for each class mostly look like this:

Multiclass Dabbler
Get one move from another class. Treat your level as one lower for choosing the move.

You could take this a glitch/error in the rules, however a charitable, but consistent, reading would be that the first statement tells you that in general you can pick from the full range of moves from your level and below, and that the statement in the move itself says that while doing so you need to consider your level to be one less than it actually is.

The second part from the first text on multiclass rules says "If a move from another class refers to your level, count your levels from the level where you first gained a move from that class."  So once you've picked the move from the other class while observing the level limitations described above, any time the text of the move, or related text (such as the text in Prepare a Spell when you've taken Cast a Spell), then you consider you level to be ( your current level ) - (level at which you took the relevant multiclass move).  So if you were a fourth level fighter who took Multiclass Dabbler to gain Cast a Spell when you were a second level fighter, you would prepapre spells like so:

Prepare new spells of your choice from your spellbook whose total levels don’t exceed your
own level+1 = (4  - 2 + 1) = 3.  For what it's worth, I don't know of a non-spellcasting related move that references level, at least within the base classes.

In summary, when you choose the move, you'll generally look at the options option to you as if you were that class at your current level - 1, but when using that move and the move text references your level, your effective level is = current level minus level you chose the multiclass move.

That being said, I know that some folks run the effective level as level -1 as a conscious decision about relative power/balance/usefulness of the move at higher levels. I don't think the level power curve of DW warrants that, but that's just my take.

With regard to the text in on page p. 348 (your p. 346), If this read as follows, with the bracketed text being my insertion, then it continues to be consistent.

This is why the multiclass moves act as [at least] one level lower, so that each class’s niche is somewhat protected.

So, I'm creating a sort of "hack" for dungeon world as dungeon world did for apocalypse world. In anycase it's called Crystal World and it focuses on emulating final fantasy in a tabletop game I know there have been several attempts over the years using other systems that did not go well. I am hopeful though about this system since battle is arbitrary and it has a very easy system to learn. ANYWAY that's not what this topic is about. I am planning on basically recreating dungeon world's design of the book, so my question is what are the sizes and margins for dungeon world?

On another note, I'm confused about multiclassing in dungeon world. It states that when you multiclass "you get to choose any move your level or lower" (pg 29). However on the same page in the margin it states that you choose a move from 1 level lower than your current class. This is also brought up on page 346 which states "is why the multiclass moves
act as one level lower, so that each class’s niche is somewhat protected"

Am I just completely missing something? It seems like the book is contradicting itself.
Preemptive- thanks for the response!

The structure here is pretty close to the Perilous Journey basic move.  You could either present it as Perilous Journey with some locale-specific flavor, or create auxiliary moves specific to the locale that modify Perilous Journey. Here's an example of one for the quartermaster role.

---

When you act as quartermaster while undertaking a Perilous Journey through the old dark forest, use the following results instead:

On a 10+, you have partaken of the hospitality of the fey within the forest without any negative repercussions. You require no rations of your own for this journey, and feel rested and fresh at the end of your journey.
On a 7-9+, you have partaken of the hospitality of the fey within the forest without any negative repercussions, but your party is under the effect of a magical geas while you remain in the old dark forest. Consume 1 less ration.

• Harm no creature of the forest, in self-defense or otherwise
• Drive away the <insert creature here> that invades the forest
• ...

On a 6-, you have run afoul of the inscrutable requirements of fey etiquette in the old dark forest, and your Perilous Journey comes to an end. Until you find a way to fulfill your obligation or escape the magic that binds you here and prevents you from acting against any denizen of the forest, you're going nowhere and likely in constant danger.

These are great concrete examples tied to GM moves. Things like this help me out a lot.

Yeah, James is wise. The cleric doesn't need to invoke any move other than a GM move.

This can be tricky if you are the GM and haven't been used to not rolling for stuff. But just scan your list of moves and make one that feels right.

'Sure you could bend the bars a little, but its gonna make you weak.' (Show then them consequences and ask)
'You bend the bars with all your might, but to no avail. You need to heal/rescue/support the fighter, so they can flex their mighty thews, what do you do?' (show a downside to their class)
*turn to the thief* 'You know the cleric has got no chance of bending those bars, there has to be some other way of escaping, what do you think?' (reveal an unwelcome truth)
'You can bend those bars sure, but you'll need a lever of some kind that you don't mind bending in the process.... The unconscious fighter's two handed sword perhaps?'(use up their resources)
'You bend the bars and the thief slips through.' (separate them)