Defy Danger: Is it avoiding a threat or acting despite a threat?

Yeah, exactly! Sneaking is very likely to be Defy Danger.

The other useful thing for cases where you're not sure what move applies is to go to your GM moves. Take the guard at the barbarian chiefton's tent for example: the players want to get past him, but they don't have any leverage on him, so no Parley. You can respond with a GM move, something like "tell them the requirements:" "So, the guard looks you up and down and kind of snarls: only the pure can see the chiefton. You scum have the stink of the outside world about you."

Defy Danger is for those times when it seems like you clearly should be rolling but no other move applies.

This doesn't sit well with how I understood things to work in DW. A roll is when there's a move and the move follows from the fiction. Why would you "clearly" have to be rolling something if a move doesn't apply? It just happens or doesn't. Is this a reaction to GM fiat as donbaloo suggests? I can live with this stipulation, but it takes Defy Danger back into the realm of being a skill check or the like (which I believed was not the intent until now).

EDIT: I'm thinking back to something sage said about the "charged" nature of a situation being baked right into the move in a forum post somewhere. DM doesn't have to decide if there is a roll or not because the move will apply or not. Doesn't this above rule also go against this notion?

I think I need to read the whole Moves Discussion section in 2.1.

We should expand on that for sure.

Here's the thing: if you really feel like a roll should be made it's probably because there's something dangerous and interesting going on. That's not too clear from the quoted statement, we'll revise. But the idea is: when there's something happening where you can just see how badly this could turn out, that mean's you'er seeing a danger that's being defied.

Great discussion lads :)

My input after all has been said is a commentary on GM 'style' or behavioural response through moves. Defy Danger is the 'goto' move by the players for sure, but only after elucidated through the fiction. So the choice of soft or hard move by the GM in determining the 'danger' is all part of what Chris refers to as fiat - but its a choice by the GM based on the fiction - its the framing of the danger by the GM that matters too. Even if the GM makes a hard move, with the consequences metered without player adjudication, it is never in a 'vacuum'. Everyone is excitedly narrating at this point, moves are being made, dice are being rolled.

If the danger is threatening the players but hasn't effected them yet (the GM is setting themselves up for the hard move to follow) then the GM move is presumably soft. If however, the danger has already effected them or is ongoing, then the players are probably responding to a HARD move, which is most suitable on a failed roll or total ignorance of a sign of doom.

 The consequences of the danger seem to be problematic; especially in combat/damage scenes where the age old (war)gamer habit of dissecting the fiction into 'turns' seems to muddy the issue. I think everyone's primary advice here is to follow on from the fiction. A 'hard' move doesn't mean random, irrevocable badness happens. It means totally focused, re-incorporated, established and omnipresent badness happens and effects you, so now what are you going to do about it?

So in our play, we've found defy danger can be both; either reacting to the threat of something happening (softer GM move). Or responding to an established danger after it has already effected the fiction (harder GM move). How and why the danger has been introduced is always deeply embedded in what has already been contributed to the story.

At the risk of sounding obtuse, I'd just like to confirm something in general if you'll indulge me. Going back to the example of the fighter "rolling to the side and then moving up behind the ogre" as a response to a threat of the ogre bringing his club down in some kind of (specifically threatening) devastating smash... assuming the fiction doesn't suggest any other complications for the fighter, avoiding the ogre's club in the manner described does NOT trigger Defy Danger, correct? Because he's not acting despite the danger - he's doing what's appropriate by avoiding it (rolling to the side).

You're not being obtuse iserith, I keep waffling back and forth between this issue as well throughout the dialogue. It seems to me that sage suggested earlier that perhaps the dodge could be called a Defy Danger and a roll was necessary

Which is why I got caught up on the wording of "acting DESPITE danger". Obviously the dodge is acting purely because of and in relation to the danger. Defy Danger seems to read that its mainly for trying to do something else, perpendicular  to the danger. I'm sort of in mind of Shadow of Yesterday when I think about it like that.

But I like that Sage said it can be used both ways. Honestly, I just think its more exciting if there's a roll involved instead of the player just narrating themselves out of danger. And I guess we should keep in mind that, if it wasn't for the follow up hack and slash move...there'd be no debate here right? If the Fighter was instead dodging to the side and sprinting past the ogre to get to some goal...that's clearly Defy Danger. Right? There's something about the follow up attack/hack-and-slash that's making the issue squishy for me though.

Not obtuse at all, I didn't really make that clear.

Let's look at a few things you could do when the ogre charges you with his club. I find examples establish a lot more fiction, so let's say the GM said this: "The ogre finally takes notice of you and runs across the room at you, winding up a big smash with his club. What do you do?"

If the player says "I dive behind the rock so he can't smash me" they're defying danger. Normally diving behind a rock isn't a roll but they're diving behind despite the club coming at them. I agree that "despite" isn't quite the right word here, I'm open to alternate wordings, but the point is that the players are taking an action to avoid a threat that's not covered by another move.

If the player says "I charge right towards him, setting up my own hammer, this guy doesn't scare me!" they're Hack and Slashing. The ogre's club is already a part of Hack and Slash, not some extra outside complication, so no need to Defy Danger.

If the player says "I duck down behind me shield and set my footing, ready for his strike" they're Defending themselves.

If the player says "I cast Magic Missile on him!" then we probably clarify the fiction a little: how close was the ogre, is there really time to cast a spell before he's in your face? If there's time they just Cast a Spell. If there's not time before the ogre swings then they probably want to think about diving out of the way or something, otherwise they just take damage (and/or whatever other fictional effects getting hit by an ogre's club might have, like being tossed across the room).

If the player says "I cast Magic Missile on him!" then we probably clarify the fiction a little: how close was the ogre, is there really time to cast a spell before he's in your face? If there's time they just Cast a Spell. If there's not time before the ogre swings then they probably want to think about diving out of the way or something, otherwise they just take damage (and/or whatever other fictional effects getting hit by an ogre's club might have, like being tossed across the room).

There can be a combination of rolls here, too - it's possible that the GM says "if you're going to cast a spell, that ogre is going to smash your shit.  If you can Defy Danger, you'll be able to cast the spell.  What do you do?" and he could say "I leap out of the way, working my acrobatics into the somatic component of the spell" or "fuck you, ogre, I grit my teeth and let him hit me, but I tough it out." which are both Defy Danger (one with DEX and one with CON) and on a 10+ by some miracle, the caster avoids the danger (not being able to cast the spell) and on a 7-9 exposes themselves to some additional danger - hp damage, an ogre move like "knock someone down" but can still cast the spell.  On a miss, the hit happens and the spell don't.  Then they're all melee'd by the ogre and have to get out of the way or play the Hack and Slash game.

"The ogre finally takes notice of you and runs across the room at you, winding up a big smash with his club. What do you do?"

If the player says "I dive behind the rock so he can't smash me" they're defying danger. Normally diving behind a rock isn't a roll but they're diving behind despite the club coming at them. I agree that "despite" isn't quite the right word here, I'm open to alternate wordings, but the point is that the players are taking an action to avoid a threat that's not covered by another move.

If the player says "I charge right towards him, setting up my own hammer, this guy doesn't scare me!" they're Hack and Slashing. The ogre's club is already a part of Hack and Slash, not some extra outside complication, so no need to Defy Danger.

If the player says "I duck down behind me shield and set my footing, ready for his strike" they're Defending themselves.

Thanks for the clarification and discussion, guys. This has been very helpful.

So the lesson here is, if the GM has used a soft move to set up a specific and credible threat, it's (almost) always Defy Danger unless the action taken in response equates to another move. Would you agree with that?

And, if so, could I trouble you to give me an example of a character's response sufficient to neutralize or evade the threat that wouldn't be a Defy Danger and wouldn't be another move? In other words, can a player just as easily come up with some fiction to negate the specific threat without activating a move?

I realize there is no hard and fast rule to this stuff. I'm just trying to train my brain to process and adjudicate as consistently as possible, even if the fiction is never the same.

"I leap out of the way, working my acrobatics into the somatic component of the spell" or "fuck you, ogre, I grit my teeth and let him hit me, but I tough it out." which are both Defy Danger (one with DEX and one with CON) and on a 10+ by some miracle, the caster avoids the danger (not being able to cast the spell) and on a 7-9 exposes themselves to some additional danger - hp damage, an ogre move like "knock someone down" but can still cast the spell.  On a miss, the hit happens and the spell don't.

Sorry to nitpick your examples, but this confuses me.  

If I grit my teeth and take the blow, I'm taking damage + effects (knock down, etc.).  I just told you I'm taking the blow. The Defy Danger with Con is to let me cast the spell anyway.  Yes?  On a 10+, roll to cast a spell.  On a 7-9... you can cast it, but at with a cost (more damage? cast at -1?) or hard bargain (it'll be wild and out of control for sure, or you'll loose the spell for sure).  Miss:  spell fizzles.

If I dodge & cast at once, that Defy Danger might keep me from getting hit at all.  So 10+, you're home free & roll to cast.  7-9, I'm seeing difficult decision: cast (no penalty) but get hit.  Miss: wham, damage + effects + no spell.

(Depending on your stats, dodging is probably smarter. But it's rarely smart to play roshambo with an ogre.)

Or are you saying that there wouldn't be a Cast a Spell roll?  That casting would be part of the Defy Danger?

I'm going to go back to my example from before, just since I've found concrete examples easier to work with (that way all the fiction is stated).

The GM says: "The ogre finally takes notice of you and runs across the room at you, winding up a big smash with his club. What do you do?"

Then the player says: "This ogre is being controlled by the orcs, right? I hold up the chieftan's chain that we stole, and tell him in orcish to stand down."

(For the purposes of this example, all this is true. The ogre was just released from a cage by some orcs, the orc chief has a distinctive chain that is his mark of office, and the ogre is trained enough to reasonably recognize it and respond to it. In a slightly different situation some or all might not apply.)

The GM: "The ogre slows down and kind of skids to a stop in front you of, cocking his head like he's trying to work this out. After a brief moment where it looks like he's still considering smashing you he says 'Who smash?'"

In this situation the player had a way in the fiction of neutralizing the threat without defying it. The GM made a soft move of showing portents of doom (the charging ogre) and the player dealt with it without a move, based on the fiction.

@ Jeremy

I'm a little confused by that as well because I would interpret someone ignoring the threat of the club as giving me a Golden Opportunity.

@ Sage

Perfect, thanks. I think I've got my head around this now.

Hey Sage, great example. Could that also be considered a Parley? Obviously the chain has an inherent meaning to the Ogre, possibly his training has taught him that defying the chain means pain. Seems there is some kind of leverage there and the character is using it.

Could go either way?

Yup, could go either way. It depends on what the ogre's like. In my head he's like a trained dog, his listens to whoever has the chain. If he's more like a human then you might be Parleying.

We're adding some discussion of how Parley works too. I use this simple way of looking at if Parley applies (assuming they already have leverage): is the player taking action to make up the target's mind for them? Just telling someone to do something while you have leverage over them isn't Parley, it's when you use that leverage to try to make up their mind for them that Parley happens. (This may not be the clearest in the current text, we're working on it, this understanding grew from a lot of forum threads)