Wizard World - an Ars Magica hack by Jared Hunt

So, if the combat move is something you can only used with sufficient training, why does everyone have it?  Why not make it a playbook move?  Or a widely available pseudo-basic move like the gendered moves from Sagas, or augury from AW?

Two people without training can trigger Resort to Violence against each other, so it's an option for everyone. It's more likely that trained combatants will resort to violence, but I think that makes sense.

but why make it an option for everyone?

I mean, I'm not saying characters w/out the move aren't allowed to punch people in the face.  But that can be handled with an "act under fire" type move, MC moves, and the conversation.

Sure if I have zero combat training, I'll be more likely to hold my own against another guy that knows how to fight.  But the move as written isn't about who is able to win.  It's about how someone achieves objectives (taking something, moving them, avoiding harm, etc).  I as an untrained fighter vs. another untrained fighter am less able to accomplish any of those objectives, even if I win the fight.

If it's important enough to say "a guy with out training is bad at this, beyond just the fact that he has -1 body", then say it!  Don't hedge your bets with finnicky compromises.

but why make it an option for everyone?

I feel like there should be very good reasons to remove options.

I mean, I'm not saying characters w/out the move aren't allowed to punch people in the face.  But that can be handled with an "act under fire" type move, MC moves, and the conversation.

Absolutely. And the presence of Resort to Violence doesn't change that.

Sure if I have zero combat training, I'll be more likely to hold my own against another guy that knows how to fight.

I think you mean you'll be *less* likely to hold your own against another guy that knows how to fight?

But the move as written isn't about who is able to win.  It's about how someone achieves objectives (taking something, moving them, avoiding harm, etc).  I as an untrained fighter vs. another untrained fighter am less able to accomplish any of those objectives, even if I win the fight.

I don't follow you there. The move is definitely about who is able to win. The winner takes something from the loser, or moves them, or kills them, etc. The language I used in the description of the move is to clarify that the move is about how important the *relative* skill and equipment is in a fight. Two unarmed, untrained combatants are able to take stuff, move, harm and avoid harm from each other (though they probably look silly doing it) and so can two trained, heavily armed trained combatants. Why would I remove that option from the game?

If it's important enough to say "a guy with out training is bad at this, beyond just the fact that he has -1 body", then say it!  Don't hedge your bets with finnicky compromises.

To quote from the text in the Resort to Violence section of the book:

"If your weapon is incapable of inflicting harm on the target, or if your enemy is a trained combatant and you aren’t, this move will not trigger unless you’ve secured some kind of advantage in the fiction."

I think that's fairly clear in saying "a guy with out training is bad at this".

I do appreciate the feedback and if you can point out the finicky compromises I'd be happy to address them.

Cheers!

There's a new version available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/aefq6ggar4jf1yh/Wizard%20World.pdf.

And the updated playbooks and reference sheets are here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zzyb71bscypdssf/Wizard%20World%20Playbooks%20and%20Ref%20Sheets.pdf

This round was mostly about improving the Bonds section. I reworked the explanation a bit and added a couple of questions to each house and companion.

The rest of the changes were minor tweaks and clarifications - nothing really substantial.

Enjoy!

Hi! I was interested in this hack, but I see that the download links are not working anymore. Is there a way to get the rules? :)