Turn Undead

Sage, I LOVE the second re-write (with a roll). Signature moves should be rolls in my mind, with fictional triggers and multiple outcomes. This is not just for the opportunity for a soft or hard hit and the resultant story changes, but also for the chance that the cleric may fail and thus hand me a golden opportunity on a plate so I can make as hard a move as I like that is so so tied in with the tense situation of failing that roll.

I also like the idea of lists and options.

So maybe as the given move....
When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith roll+Wis.
On a hit, undead that can see you cower only for a few moments doing nothing but groveling before regaining their 'wits'. On a 10+ choose 2, on a 7-9 choose 1
*Name one undead creature and command it to flee your presence (once they leave they can return freely)
*all undead who can see you are held at bay until your show of faith stops
*deal your level x1d4 of faithful damage to the horde as you channel the wrath of your god
*Your God protects you from an imminent threat or suffering a calamity


Also, how does they new lack of monster levels effect the Paladin's rebuke undead moves?

If I were to confront you with a sword or magic I would assume I have leverage over you but in DW swords and magic are common place so leverage becomes a bit more iffy.

A credible threat to life and limb is totally leverage. If they don't think you'll follow through, not so much.

It feels like, if the rules are going to be specific that you need leverage, they should also be clear about what counts as leverage. Including leverage in the text of aproriate moves just makes sense. Saying, if it does then it does, puts the one and only social option directly in the hands of GM fiat and I am very uncomfortable with that.

GM fiat and GM interpretation of the fiction aren't the same thing. Leverage is "something that a character wants or needs". GM fiat is generally disliked because it's arbitrary and can be capricious. Trying to interpret the fiction based on what honesty demands isn't like that -- does the target character want or need the thing that the PC is offering? It's supposed to be grounded in the fiction and characterization that's been developed so far.

Dan,
That looks like you took that quote from the book, do you have a page reference for that? That is what I remember leverage being but if that is the case then we have stepped away from the general useage of leverage and the need for definitive use in other moves is even more important.

Dan,
That looks like you took that quote from the book, do you have a page reference for that? That is what I remember leverage being but if that is the case then we have stepped away from the general useage of leverage and the need for definitive use in other moves is even more important.

That's from the Parley move, in parenthetical clarifying text right after the word leverage: "When you have leverage on someone (something they need or want) and you try to get them to do what you want..."

I don't understand why you think this is stepping away from a plain english definition, it seems pretty consistent to me with a common usage of the word "leverage". Have you had experiences where it was hard to interpret the fiction to determine if someone had appropriate leverage for Parley?

If you include that they want or need not to have my sword in their face or to make a scene thats ok but then I have to come back to, why don't I always have leverage? If leverage is going to be an important prerequisite then it needs a better definition as a game term. I had a player attempt to parlay with a ghost in my last game but I couldn't see what they had that it wanted or needed other than contenued existance.

I would think that the leverage should be something that the monster wants, like a bribe of gold, or a concrete threat against it.  How did the player actually interact with the ghost in the "fiction"?  That would tell you what leverage, if any, the player held over the ghost.

You don't always have leverage because you're not always sticking your sword in the monster's face.  That's a quite aggressive action that might very well backfire.

They had the ability to affect the physical world more easily than the ghost could?

Perhaps it's worried about it's descendants, or some item it left behind?

Perhaps it would like them to avenge it in some way?

D.

If you're asking what the players might have that the ghost wanted, a classic answer would be for them to lay its physical remains to rest in a sanctified grave.

If you include that they want or need not to have my sword in their face...

Do all creatures want or need that? I can imagine a dragon that wouldn't care at all if you tried to get in its face with a sword, and a goblin that would care quite a bit. Look at it from the target's perspective. I can imagine a creature that thought it was winning a fight not wanting an opportunity to escape (why would it need that?) but a creature that thinks it's losing a fight could very easily want or need an opportunity to get away. "Leverage" isn't universal, it's contextual based on the fictional situation.

I had a player attempt to parlay with a ghost in my last game but I couldn't see what they had that it wanted or needed other than contenued existance.

Did the ghost believe that they had control over its continued existence? When you asked the player for clarification about what leverage they had for the Parley what leverage did they think they had?

I like the idea of a roll for Turn Undead. It allows for a golden opportunity on a fail which might look very cool depending on the scene.

Damage to undead by way of Turn Undead doesn't "feel" right to me. I just don't think it's very interesting, even if old school D&D allowed for it. I'd rather it be a situation where I could keep them at bay and communicate. Perhaps instead of saying the cleric has leverage and worrying about what that means, you could just say it allows the cleric to Parlay with intelligent undead on a 10+.

Dan,

Do you mind if we take this to a new thread? I seem to have drifted a bit from what we started talking about here.

Damage to undead by way of Turn Undead doesn't "feel" right to me. I just don't think it's very interesting, even if old school D&D allowed for it.

Well, in AD&D, for any given undead being you either have a chance of turning it (or no chance), you automatically turn it, or you outright destroy it. Just blast 'em to dust. Which is pretty metal, IMO.

I'm not sure when turning started to involve dealing damage (3rd ed., I guess?).

It's funny, the damage for Turning came directly from 3E, because it was the first thing I could remember about turning. Adam set me straight!

Right now we have a version that has a roll. On a hit undead can't come near you. On a 10+ mindless undead also flee and intelligent undead cower for a moment. The effect endures so long as you hold forth your holy symbol and pray. Intelligent undead may still be able to find ways to hurt you from afar.

The way Adam explained it to me, which makes a lot of sense, is that it's a way for the Cleric to exercise power over the undead, not necessarily kill them. It's a way to buy time to heal and prepare a counter assault.

I like the rolling it allows for that moment when the vampire lord just walks up and snaps your holy symbol like a twig but it still has an oppertunity for you to be a complete bad ass.