Couple of wound questions for 2.5.

1. Can you get hurt in an already critically-wounded location?  (e.g. You're critical in the head. Later, getting shot while peeking around cover, you take a W from incidental fire. The head is the obvious spot to take your wound. Ignore it, or perhaps move it to some nearby location, Battletech-style, signifying system shock or further blood loss?)

2. When you miss a Critical+Wounds roll and take further damage, can you choose wounds or stress, or is your further injury of the same type as the critical?

3. For single shot weapons that happen to do multiple wounds (e.g. the railgun, close-range shotgun, bolt-action sniper rifle), seems to me you'd default to both the same box, critting immediately.  (This isn't really a question I guess!)

EDIT:
4. Regarding VOF and force party, if you have a group of players attacking the same enemy squad, do you use both the "Soldier vs. Group" rule and the "PC Team vs. Enemy" rule?  That would seem to make sense.

The one thing I'm not super fond of is the interaction between arbitrary wound location and the way that wounds stack up to become critical.

It strikes me that one of the nice things about VOF (or random damage in general) is that the GM imposes a plausible level of threat, about which the players can reason (e.g. "Dare I risk that random, unaimed fire to move up a bit further?"), but then dice determine the outcome.  The GM isn't being vindictive if the enemy scores an unlikely hit.

With arbitrary hit location, it seems that the GM is in the position of choosing critical wounds.

Somewhat separately, if people are having to stick out their necks to do battlefield assesses, do you get a lot of early head criticals?

Tonight we were playing WWII regiment (2.1).  Our infantry platoon was being supported by a Sherman tank, under the instructions of our Officer player.  At one point, we squared off against a Panzer IV, and the anti-vehicle weapons were duly consulted.

It seems that medium tanks can't hurt one another on the front armor.  7d AP against armor 8 seems destined to do no damage.  We struggled with this for a while until deciding that some tank fire might be concentrated.

I'm not sure how a single-shot weapon becomes concentrated, I think it may have to do with aiming time.  (e.g. if you're hull down and stationary and a guy comes through a narrow defile, you'd be shooting concentrated).

Curious how this is usually handled.  (Maybe it's not, being an NPC-on-NPC action?)

So, World of Dungeons is interesting because it only has one move.  As I dance around the edges of a first version of my own AW hack, a question has come to mind:

Given that I have a generic move, why would I include a more specific one?

I've come up with a few reasons so far; I'm interested in comments, your own reasons, etc.

1. Interesting failure/success options - the designer has a wonderful idea for particular kind of success or failure, and including it helps the game 'be about that'.  These might be insights into human behavior, combat, etc. - or they might be genre-appropriate turns of events.  ("On a 7-9, you shoot his hat off.")

2. Suggesting courses of action to the participants.  You might have a general move, but if your players are starting at the option to a) do something b) betray a friend or c) seduce an authority figure, it's clear you're playing a particular kind of tale.

3. Walling off areas of gameplay with fast pacing.  In The Regiment, there are downtime moves.  These neatly communicate that the game includes some downtime, but it isn't really about that - the moves you have are very coarse-grained and so have the effect of helping the game getting lost, waist-deep in camp politics between missions.  Nope - you roll your legwork move and you're back into battle.  Imagine a 'when you go to town to spend your loot' sort of move for a dungeon crawly game.

Similarly, moves give players license to refer to a move when they want accelerated pacing.  For example, if you want to 'launch a startup' and there's a move for that, that gives the participants a nudge you can do this with a certain amount of screen time - the GM might take the hint that she doesn't need to squeeze the players for justification of where they get their starting capital from.  You don't need to know anything about starting a business, you can just describe it in a handwavey kind of way, and the move gives you license for it to work out (or not).

(I think of the sex moves in AW as a fascinating combination of 2 and 3 - they bring sex into the game, but with such an accelerated pace that it can be mechanically/fictionally meaningful without having to describe zippers and orifices.)

4. Conversely, moves can slow down pacing, and zoom in the game.  Playing World of Dungeons, you could theoretically tackle a whole dungeon with a single move.  This is clearly not possible in Dungeon World, since there are moves that trigger on specific portions of dungeon tackling.

5. Nudging the conversation back into a particular fictional concern.  The moves in the Regiment set up a conversation about battlefield position and tactical advantage, despite the fact that these things have no mechanical effect (well, beyond gun range).  There's no movement rate, shooting bonuses from being up high, etc. - but the multiple references to these ideas cause the moves to keep bouncing the participants' conversation back to these topics.

I'd love to hear other thoughts on this.  (And it's dawning on me that there may be nineteen threads on this very topic.)

If you do this, I think it's wise to practice a little. :-)  Our GM at one point missed the map entirely, which was a little anti-climactic.

Also, he gave us a chance to dodge when there was a direct hit, which is pretty important.  My sense is that the constant incidental fire in The Regiment is about ratcheting up the pressure as the players' resources (e.g. boxes) dwindle. But being hit right off the bat with a 10" shell would just .. suck.

My advice would be this:

- Imagine and describe what the PCs are seeing and sensing.  Avoid thinking of it like a gridless, top-down strategy game.

- In battle, you never have as clear a picture of the battlefield as you'd like.  Call for Assess a lot.  Even if there's no facehugger hiding in the light fixture, making players ask for information reinforces the idea that - in the heat of things - the time to absorb the environment is a precious commodity, and comes at a cost.

- Don't be afraid to hurt them.  Grit, tough, death moves, bond stress, and the medic's whole playbook only come into play when PCs are taking damage.  The game hits its stride when characters are being chewed up and spit out.

Sweet!

That seems a good way of doing it.