I see. Just because Osterfell is protected by Valmark doesn't necessarily mean than it's a problem for Valmark. That makes sense. 

It's also likely protected by a City itself and can up its defenses that way.

I agree that it could make for some interesting front fodder.

I think I was just tired.  Thanks, noofy.

Maybe so.  Some of them are very good at spending hours creating death engine PCs in 4E or 3.X and then letting them go like tops to wreak holy havoc in those systems' dungeons.  Kind of like Car Wars or something...
 
I think there are some communications and personal issues involved on both sides of the table in my case; I've tried to be careful not to indict DW's procedures.
 
I need to set up a regular DW campaign with some people I know will enjoy the game.  It's not like Portland isn't teeming with gamers like that.
 
Leaving those things aside, what do people think about big bad solitary monsters opening with moves that give -1 or -2 ongoing to PCs and then PCs having to defy danger to shake the effects of those moves kind of like a sort of saving throw mechanic?  Has anyone used something like that to the good?
 

You're playing in a Skyrim-inspired Dungeon World campaign world.

Do you prefer a "real-world" Norse gods pantheon or "inspired by" names that, while vaguely Scandinavian are different?  "Real world" Norse gods would inevitably be getting a fantasy world twist so only the names and general areas of concern would remain, so to speak.

Why?

Recall the traditions of Deities and Demigods and the mishmash glory of the Judges Guild's Wilderlands before you answer.  :)

Thanks for the responses so far.

I guess the core of my query is whether, fiction aside, the main thing players can do on offense against a low-hit point legend is a number of actions that defy danger and whether that's how others approach these kind of fights.  Like, the fight is going on and as GM you're thinking, "these guys are getting ripped to shreds but they're not running.  They've got a pretty good idea though and they've successfully defied danger once towards implementing it.  Given the nature of this beast in this environment how many more times should they have to defy danger to beat it?"  I'm not asking for a number - clearly that will vary with the fiction!  I'm asking whether that's the terms you think in and how/if you convey that to the players: "Oh, you're so close!  If you can just do X then you'll have won!"

I'm finding that for some of the people I want to play Dungeon World with it is just not working for them at least in the way I'm implementing it.  If I'm not allowing an "attack roll" then clearly I am being a dick and/or the game is dumb.  I just won't play this game with those people.  Or, more likely, I'll try one more time and it won't go particularly well.  Trouble is, in my circles a lot of the people who "get" Dungeon World have their schedules filled up with things like Fiasco and Montsegur.  My dungeon-delving pals aren't always comfortable with the nu skool AND have also never had any exposure to old skool "fiat" and it can seem harsh to them.

It is really hard for some people to break out of their thinking habits in gaming. I can provide perfectly detailed Lore or Discernment that feels so spoon-fed that I'm cringing at how out-of-fiction meta I've gone, there can be a environmental feature that can solve their dilemma with just the tiniest bit of creative thinking, and they'll still go back to Hack and Slash (and go down swinging).  Besides old dogs and new tricks, I think there's something I'm not doing right/well about how I present the game and its Moves (see other threads on providing/not providing Move sheets).

I hadn't read/recalled the specific text for Messy.  That seems pretty clear.  Though many players don't think things like that happening to NPCs mean it can happen to them.  That brings up then how DMs are planning to handle all the de-limbed adventurers running around given there are 15 monsters in the core rules with the Messy tag.  Most players I know would rather have their characters be dead than de-limbed.  Does a permanent debility cover it or is that not enough probably?  "Sorry, Sir Gwaine, you've been savaged by cave rats.  I'm afraid your adventuring days are through."  :)

There's a custom move at the beginning of the Advanced Fuckery chapter of Apocalypse World that's Called things are tough.  Vincent really runs it down as a move, but I'm thinking of employing something like it for Dungeon World.

Monsters don't have levels and I don't want to have to assign levels to them.  I think that along with no hit point inflation were good design decisions for Dungeon World.  But wanting another lever besides the-amount-of-defy-danger-a-PC-has-to-do-to-get-to-an-effective-attack, I'm thinking of something like this:

a foe like none before: If the GM determines that a monster is more challenging than any the character has ever overcome, the player takes -1 to any roll in opposition to that monster.  Assign a number one or two higher than the character's current level to that monster.  When the character reaches that level, that monster will no longer have the a foe like none before tag.

That's a rough cut.  I would likely play around with a -2 & -1 progression, (as things are tough).  This would do a few things for me.

1) The level progression in DW is pretty flat.  Characters get broader, more flexible and more interesting.  They'll likely have some cool items as they level too.  But there isn't great a difference in power between a 4th level character and a 10th level character relative to most D&D rulesets.  I actually like this a lot.  I'm going to make people start over at first level if and when their characters die and they'll still be able to contribute effectively to the party.  But I can introduce a little more sense of progression with this rule.  That lower level character that is almost as mechanically effective against that 16 hit point dragon as that higher level character?  Things are going to be tougher for him because he's never faced a foe like this before.

2)  For the people who insist on not being so creative with how they approach situations?  I can still let them try.  It's just going to be tougher for them.  "You're first level?  This white dragon has you pissing in your boots.  Try whatever you like, but take -2 ongoing against it."  I don't agree myself with their thinking but to them, "yes but -2" seems a lot less dick-ish than "no, that move on your sheet just doesn't work in this situation (and here's why)."

3) I can introduce terrible foes in a sandbox world early and if the PCs want to go after them they can, even if they can't divine exactly how to handle the thing.  They can face it, discover it is a foe like none before, learn a few things, run away and then try again when they've had more experience and gained a couple levels.  More of that sense of progression thing.  And I can do it without all the level setting micromanagement prep.

I understand this wont' be for everyone.  I am going to try it as another control lever along with amount-of-defy-danger given that hit point flattening sort of takes one lever away.

The Regiment has messed around with some situation levers like its Supressed condition and its Force Parity matrix.  I may look at and think about those some more for a possible application to Dungeon World house rules to give my "16 hit-point dragons" some more mechanical teeth.

Nice resources.  Thanks!

Simple then.

DW not in front of me but it's probably perfectly clear in the text - just multiple D&D edition brain damage causing assumptions.

Thanks, Sage.

I thought this thread might garner some interest.

I just popped back in mostly to thank Sage for his answers and to say that I am looking forward to Beta 2. 

The "definitely not OSR" comment was interesting to me.  Two of my friends that read DW assumed it was that without my indicating it might be.  Probably just because there's a lot of OSR out there right now...  Or maybe OSR has now become synonymous with "D&D clone." 

One of them ran it last weekend.  They had a blast but the party got TPK'd.  He commented that one reason he loved it was how "hardcore," "old skool" and "gritty" it was.  I offered that was not necessarily the direction the designers had for it but was glad they enjoyed it.

I think the "half damage" option that is forthcoming may help me with my own personal tightropes with the game.  If nothing else it will add another signal layer to the fiction.  1) "Okay, now you're in a spot and I'm narrating how this guy is going to fuck up your world."  2) "Okay, here's the monster making a Move and incidently doing half damage to you."  3) "You missed again?  Well, fuck.  Here's what happens and you're taking full damage now.  More than your hit points?  Can't say you didn't see it coming...."

I'll be running Dungeon World at Gamestorm on the 24th.  The game filled within a couple hours after I posted it so there's clearly a lot of enthusiasm for the game.  :)