Colin: That's really good. :)

By the way -- to me, the fictional action that makes Trap Expert happen is pretty much identical to the fictional action that makes Discern Realities happen. The character is poking around and looking for trouble. If the Thief is a Trap Expert and the thing he's trying to discern is the presence of hidden danger, then he should get to use Trap Expert where everyone else would use Discern Realities to attempt the exact same thing. The perks with Trap Expert are 1) it uses Dex (which presumably benefits the Thief) 2) the Thief gets holds on success instead of being forced to ask questions on the spot, and 3) the Thief gets much more specific information than a lay person.

A wizard could look for traps too. He'd use Discern Realities, and on a success, he might ask, "what should I be on the lookout for?" The GM would say, "watch out for traps!" The Thief with Trap Expert, by contrast, would get to know exactly where the trap is and how to deal with it.

I say this because, to me, it's not really EVER a compromise to make the Thief use Discern Realities instead of Trap Expert -- all that does is deny the Thief his fancy advanced move for no reason.

What do you guys think?

A.

I think it would shake out like this:

1. Arrow cover to pin down goblins

I think I'd call this Parley. You have leverage over the goblins -- (if they rush your friend, they'll get lit up). And, you want them to do something (stay back). Somehow you have to make the situation clear to the goblins, so you're either using well placed shots to demonstrate your intentions or your just yelling to each other (a similar scene happens in the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven). Either way what you're doing is meant to be intimidating, so Roll + CHA. On a 10, they get it and stay back. On a 7-9, you have to give some concrete assurance of your promise to kill them. So, I'd say that you have to spend one ammo for an especially impressive shot/series of shots to really make your threat sink in. On a fail, you waste the ammo AND they ignore you and charge.

2. Swing Bridge Kick Fall

This where the GM makes the text book tell them the requirements or consequences and ask move. You say, "sure, but the dude might grab you and pull you off the rope or dodge your kick and swing at you like a pinata -- want to try anyway?" If the PC goes for it, then do Defy Danger as usual with either STR or DEX depending on which danger you throw at him. (Or just let the PC kick the bad guy off the bridge -- you warned that there might be consequences, but that doesn't mean that the consequences MUST come to pass. I'm fond of the occasional automatic win).  

3. Zombie Horde

I think this one is hard to answer -- it depends on your GM move and on the player's decision.

"There are numerous corpses shambling around between you and Bad Guy and the nearest one lunges at you WHAT DO YOU DO?" That's one thing.  

"You are overwhelmed by zombies clutching at every part of your body and you cannot possibly kill them all before they devour you WHAT DO YOU DO?" That's another thing.

Either way, what happens next is in the hands of the player. They might make any number of moves.

But, assuming they push through with sheer determination  -- knocking down zombies and trampling them. Then, yeah Defy Danger with STR makes sense to me.

In my view, the bottom line with all of this stuff is that your job is to make a GM move and their job is to make a player move (or decline to do so). You won't know which player move they are making until they make it. There isn't a "correct" player move. So, in your "use arrows to pin down the goblins" example -- I think that would be Parley (like I said) but only if that's what the player ACTUALLY SAYS. If the player just says, "I shoot at the goblins" then I'd call it Volley.

Zap,

A.

noofy: Word. Let us know if you're ever in Colorado. :)

Good morning:

I don't know why I wrote 8 goblins. I meant 2 goblins. Anyway, even with two goblins, I understood the table's confusion. According to the GM, each goblin had 5 HP and 1 armor, so players were concerned that one sword strike -- even on the highest possible roll -- could not kill them both. They were thinking of every goblin as an independent entity with stats.

And, that's not a silly way to think. That's actually the most natural way to think. They were reasoning that "goblin #1 has stats, so goblin #2 probably has stats too." But, if I understand you, you're saying that one SHOULD think about goblins in a different way . . .

Sage had a great post in another thread about fighting multiple monsters where he described a room full of goblins as the environment and only the individual goblin who is up in the fighter's face as the monster who has stats. If we think about it that way (which I loved) then decapitating goblin #2 with a wide swing is just colorful description and not a mechanical issue because goblin #2 is purely fictional. The players can use the goblin filled room in their descriptions in the same way that the GM can use the goblin filled room to create dangerous situations without meticulously monitoring the stats of each jerky goblin.

I think we're on the same page. This forum is very helpful. :)

admutt: That's awesome. I think I like your idea better than mine, but here's mine:

1. Players can only take damage on their own move.

2. When you attack another PC, roll + STR

On a 10+ the other PC must Defy Danger to avoid your attack

On a 7-9 the other PC must Defy Danger to avoid your attack, but you are exposed to retribution and the other PC may deal his damage.

A.

 

Theoretical. But, a few of the characters in our party could easily end up at cross purposes, so it could come up.

A.