Repetetive Tasks

Um, when I find it a struggle to come up with a 7-9 complication, I look beyond the mechanics. Most of the posts here have been about what constitutes a 'hard move': losing HP, attacking wandering monsters, losing stuff etc...

But what about your story? Ask why the Paladin is laying on hands. Would he really simply heal his companion simply because they are wounded and in the same 'party'? What are your ethics on laying on hands? What would your God(dess) feel about you healing that recalcitrant thief? Or heretical Wizard? If its good enough for them, then surely you are ethically binding yourself to laying on hands to every poor downtrodden and hurt NPC that crosses your path....
Where is the line you will not cross, and if you had to choose, what would the cost be to you?

Remember to adress the characters not the players and couch the questions deeply within the context of the scene. Works for me, and inevitably draws the narrative away from repetative, boring or spamming moves.

noofy, how do you pose that question?  Like, an example would help as I'm having a hard time you thinking about what that move looks like in play.

Also, those are tough questions to ask if someone is repeatedly laying on hands like 10+ times a session.

For the Paladin's lay on hands move, I definitely think the problem is in the wording of the power. I think (like the Angel's healing touch) there needs to be a built in direction for the MC to run in.

There's also the potential to drop the healing part and just use it as a curative condition remover. So, it rids people of illness, disease, conditions and whatnot.

Maybe:

When you lay your hands skin-to-skin on an inflicted person and ask your deity to cure them, roll+Cha. On a 10+, they are miraculously cured. On a 7-9, they are cured, but you see into their heart and your deity reveals their darkest sin. On a miss, your deity can cure them, but only if you take on the affliction instead.

Er, or something like that.

Specific.

But, I guess what "inflicted" means is up to the particular god. ;)

Another consideration is not tying this to Charisma, but to Deeds or some other mechanic. Maybe, something like the "hunger" of a Hoarder's hoard.

What does your God demand of you? Maybe when you call on the god it gets "hungrier" and wants you to perform deeds for it?

Ideas.

Michael, you are on to something there. The move is definitely a little broken, as worded.

Adam and I were thinking something like this: When you lay on hands, roll+Cha. On a 10+, you heal them X or remove a disease of lower level. On a 7-9, as 10+, but you or the target (your choice) are filled with a surplus of divine energy, take -1 Forward, and are visibly marked by your deity until... (maybe sleep, make camp, atone, etc. we didn't have a solid solution).

I actually really like your solution. I'll have to think on this more.

Also, it's interesting that no one has been as concerned about Cleric healing, despite it being similar. I think Adam and I have some ideas on that as well, but I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on Cleric healing.

To my mind it has much the same problem: the 7-9 result can basically mean "just do it again" if you choose half effect. So we're thinking of ditching the "spell has half effect" option. That way whatever you do has Consequences. We might replace it with something like "A tiny fraction of your deity's true majesty is revealed to you, take -1 Forward as you sort it out."

as far as cleric healing goes, there is at least some direct downfalls for it. while i agree that if you roll 7-9 chances are you are going to talk the 1/2 power option, but there are situations where you cannot settle for that. also if the roll is failed outright it is easier for the MC to say "oops you lost your spell" because it is a downside listed.
i think the issue with lay hands is there is no listed downsides for not rolling well.

(i do think that taking the 1/2 potency option out is a good idea. but it does have issues. a level 1 wizard has like 5hp and if they bork their roll they can either get hit and quite probably die or lose their only spell... gheh, ive talked myself into a circle again... i dont know)

That's a good point about taking an attack being a bit deal for a wizard.

I've already been thinking that maybe that option could be phrased differently. More like the GM "put them in a spot" move. That way it can also be used when there isn't an enemy already around: maybe one shows up, drawn by the magical energy. Or maybe the spell gives away the characters' location, plans, or intentions. Or maybe it's not even a monster.

Losing a spell sucks, but they're not first level for long, and they're still good at spouting lore.

Even with the newly rebalanced damage, taking a hit once isn't the end of the world. It's dangerous, but probably not deadly.

And we've been considering increasing spells prepared to two. I'm not sure about this one, since it makes it harder to progress. By the time the wizard's gained a few levels, they're fine, we don't want to add another prepared spell at every level.

Total spell levels equal to your spell stat bonus or effective level, whichever is higher? Gives low level chars a bonus that fades with time.

It still has a plateau effect that I don't like. You bonus will probably be +2 until about 3rd level, so going from first to second level doesn't make much of a spellcasting difference. Then you hit level 3 and get access to 3rd level spells and can prepare 3 levels of spells.

Hey gang,
I lreally really ike Michael's narrative cue's written into the move results. I do this anyway, but if it's there, on the page, it encourages the group to step out side the mechanics.

Also, I instinctively use the 'let it ride rule' from BW all the time in all my games. Effectively removes the spamming stuff and forces the players to narrative a drastic change into the encounter to re-roll the move.

one idea that might work with spamming spells is to make taking the half potency option a little harsher. maybe tack on a -1 forward (or even ongoing to spellcasting... hmmm interesting idea*) to it. this removes it from being the obvious choice in all but rare circumstances.
the line of thought i see now is, "hmm not a 10+... well ill just try again next turn." by taking half potency the spell caster loses nothing! the only way i see this not being a good option is if you really need that cure spell to go off at full force or your teammate is going to die or you are 99.999% sure this magic missile will kill that kobold.

* i actually kinda like this one a lot the more i think about it! heck even drop the 1/2 potency from it! every time the spell caster chooses this option they take a cumulative -1 to spell casting ongoing until they rest! this gives them an option with not immediate drawback (they dont get hit and they keep the spell) but it is not an option they can take every single time as it will eventually completely gimp their ability to cast spells at all. i dont see taking this option once as being too bad, but after two or three times the caster is going to have to start dropping spells or taking hits (and its a slippery slope, god i love slippery slopes!)
this would force them to take the third option when trying to spam heal the group after a fight and the MC could use that to interject a new interesting situation.

I really like that Ben.  We can test that out tomorrow when we get together along with the Encumberance rules. 

That's interesting, Ben. I do kind of like that...

-1 Ongoing until you prepare spells/dutifully pray actually seems pretty sweet, representing maybe your deity's displeasure, or the order of the universe fighting back against your will. It means that your first 7-9, even if you only had a +2 to start with, isn't a big deal. Take a -1 Ongoing and get on with it. The next time, though... now it's a tough choice. Looking at the math, even going to a 0 overall is still not a killer penalty. Tough, yes, but not killer. If you ever get to -1 though... probably time to stop casting.

It also means that getting that +3 in your spellcasting stat is a big deal. Not only are you less likely to have to deal with the 7-9 result, but getting one 7-9 isn't much of a problem at all. You can just choose to go to a +2 overall, which is still very practical.

And of course having someone defending you makes the whole thing easier: just take an attack and let the defender deal with it.