Defend Duration

I'm sure this will rely heavily on the fiction at that moment, but this came up in a recent game. Cleric moves to defend someone in the group, holding up his shield to protect an ally while said ally does battle with an orc. He gets Hold 3. Some sword swings are exchanged, but no damage is applied to either party. The cleric decides to cast magic weapon on his ally's blade, hoping that the blessings of his deity will give his friend the edge he needs to defeat the orc.

Is the cleric still defending such that he can spend hold if his ally is attacked? Or does the act of focusing on the spellcasting mean the hold is lost? It makes sense to me that as long as the cleric's still in close proximity to his ally and making a reasonable effort in the fiction to act in defense, then the hold is still there. But I wanted to make sure.

Action triggers moves, and moves continue as long as they need to, based on what's happening in the fiction.  In some ways, this is going to need to get eyeballed by the group.  In the case of Defend, the move is triggered when you "stand in defense of a person, item, or location".  Your hold is valid "so long as you stand in defense".

Personally, I'd look external to the situation - is it a crazy hectic battle or is is small enough to allow a breath or two of fresh air?  (This is really just "begin and end with the fiction").  If that's the case, you may not be Defending anymore in either case.  Defend relies on an external source of danger to defend against, right?  If it's not there, the Defense is over.  If there is Danger, ignoring it to cast a spell may preempt all that business and require that you Defy Danger before you cast.

Alternately, if the Cleric wants to aid the ally, he should spend that hold for "Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker" on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, I'd say you're defending or you're not.  Taking another action means you're doing that, instead.  Again, the situation is going to dictate the terms of the move.

Makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

I love the catchphrase "start and end with the fiction". I've noticed that most posts where there is a discussion about moves and how they are "supposed to work" inevitably end up with someone saying "it depends on the fiction". And I agree with that.

I appreciate the above response but I really do think that "in the fiction" there can be a case made for a cleric using a move to defend (so he isn't attacking) and then casting a magic weapon on his ally (still not attacking) and be able to justify that he is still defending. He's using his shield to defend (or his armor or his body) and in his other hand he holds his holy symbol and speaks the words to his spell calling on his diety.

I think the spirit of the rule is to allow you to defend (instead of just attacking, like in most other RPG's) but it shouldn't be interpreted too strictly so that you have to stand there like a statue and can do nothing else. If the cleric wanted to, I would allow him to defend and still be able to Spout Lore about the strange monster that is attacking the group.

Both Adam (skinnyghost) and Superdave are right. Most of the time Defending means you can't do something else, but not always. I think a good way to think of it is ask "have they done something that might lead to an attack getting by them?" If so, they're probably not Defending anymore.

And there's nothing wrong with just going to the dice on this is there. Defending but need or want to Spout Lore or cast a spell? Do it. Want to go back to defending? Then Defend and reroll the Move. If you fail, yep, whatever you did broke your awareness. If not, cool, back your back in action and braced for defense.

No?

I'd just call that making the move twice, but sure. You were standing in defense, then you do something else, then defending is what you're concentrated on again.