Combat options (and minor errata

Hi Guys,

I played a session last week and ran into a bit of a quandary.

Two of the players had rotten luck with the dice and kept rolling 6 and below. I tried to think of interesting things to happen to them instead of just damaging them and felt like I ran out of ideas pretty quickly.

What does everyone think about the balance between narrative consequence and straight damage on a 6-?

Do you find yourselves mostly dealing damage or mostly doing other things? How severe do you tend to make these consequences?

Also, I'd love some examples of adjudicating the more nebulous weapon tags. (forceful, huge etc) What can these do and when?

Also, how does everyone feel about adjudicating ranger animal damage? Our Ranger managed to put himself in a number of situations in our last game where his bear was not able to enter combat. He seemed cool, but I couldn't help thinking that I was cheating.

Errata; I don't think the ranger animal options balance. I don't have the material to hand, but there is at least one option (I think the last) that has everything another does and more. (Should the Ranger end up doing more damage than the fighter btw?)

Looking forward to any replies. 

What does everyone think about the balance between narrative consequence and straight damage on a 6-?

Do you find yourselves mostly dealing damage or mostly doing other things? How severe do you tend to make these consequences?

I use damage when I can't think of something more interesting. I prepare my monsters/NPCs with the same format as the book and so there's always a few bullet points at the bottom I can look to for inspiration. I've also taken to the habit of writing an "S" and "H" next to it so that I can quickly differentiate between soft and hard moves (and train myself to better tell the difference).

Also, I'd love some examples of adjudicating the more nebulous weapon tags. (forceful, huge etc) What can these do and when?

Forceful knocks people back or possibly prone. Huge might describe a weapon that is just plain unwieldy to PCs (except fighter with that tag on sig weapon). Honestly, weapon ranges and tags are something I frequently forget to take into account during play. It doesn't seem to be very important except on rare occasions.

Also, how does everyone feel about adjudicating ranger animal damage? Our Ranger managed to put himself in a number of situations in our last game where his bear was not able to enter combat. He seemed cool, but I couldn't help thinking that I was cheating.

The ranger and animal have to be attacking the same creature for the bonus damage to apply. That puts the animal at risk, so it's a fair trade. Of course, I have no idea how many hit points they have or the like.

Errata; I don't think the ranger animal options balance. I don't have the material to hand, but there is at least one option (I think the last) that has everything another does and more. (Should the Ranger end up doing more damage than the fighter btw?)

I'm not certain perfect balance is a design goal. The ranger could do more damage than the fighter, but that does require the ranger to put his animal at risk, unlike the fighter who gives up nothing.

Hey Stuart,
Despite your concerns, did you all have a good time? I don't think you were 'cheating', I think you were playing the game as Adam and Sage intended! Iserith gives solid advice, but I thought of a few extra things to add...

When you say the players were unlucky, and you had to keep coming up with as hard a move as you'd like, I have a list of all my Principles and Agenda, all my Dungeon Moves, all my Standard GM Moves, and all the grim portents listed in front of me. These are your 'crib sheet'. I also note with a different coloured pen which options target specific player flags. Note that deal damage is just one of about 2 dozen options!

Think of a golden opportunity (a player rolls a <7) as your time (GM's are players too!) in the spotlight. What do you really want to introduce into the fiction? What excites you about the protagonists or situation? If you can't instigate that into the scene right now, how can you 'set it up' to introduce on the next failed roll?

If you are still 'stuck', rather than just go to deal damage as your move, I ALWAYS go with:

Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask
This move is particularly good when they've done something that's not a move, or failed a move. They can do it, sure, but they'll have to meet the requirements.

So you offer the players a hard decision. They can still do what they intended (sort of) but there is another, even more impending doom just waiting in the wings. This purposefully sets up a 'moves snowball' and allows the moves to flow from the fiction, which is the most satisfying integration of the story and the resultant die rolls.

In regards to balance, your role is to stick to the agenda, which purposefully does not include being 'balanced'. You always say what the rules and honesty demand though. The players need to know this, tell them that your job is to be a fan of the characters and fill their lives with adventure, and thus the player's will have a great time. DW isn't a tactical skirmish game balanced to the nth degree, its first and foremost a storygame. Fiction first, always.

Hope that helps?

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses chaps.

I've run this game 5 times now and each has been a lot of fun until the last game. I foolishly let 6 people onto the table at once (I believe games run best with 3-4 players plus GM) and the game dragged a bit for it. The fact that there was one player who decided to work against the party would have been fine in AW (with fewer players) but not really in DW (with rather a lot more). I think my confidence is a little down after that game.

Thanks for your response on damage vs bad stuff happens Iserith. I guess I do what you do here. Damage unless I can think of something more interesting. I think I need to take my time a little here and not be so concerned with an instant decision. I suspect this problem was due in part to the large group and the slow pace of the game.

Noofy, heavy use of "Consequences and ask" is a good idea. That way I can bring things in that the players have options on and everything seems a little less arbitrary.

You know, last game I printed a list of moves and Agenda and everything and didn't refer to it once. Further proof that I need to slow down whilst making decisions occasionally I guess.

Thanks Iserith, I guess the tags do what I thought they did. I must keep a list in front of me of all the tags so I don't forget.

The ranger animal damage thing still rubs me the wrong way a little. I love that you just roll extra damage on a hit, the mechanic is nice and simple. What I don't love is the model for the animal being damaged. Killing it outright by fiat seems wrong. Maybe I could go with injuries similar to debilities when it is employed recklessly. (I reckon the character sheet should have a list of names for animals...)

In reference to Ranger animal balance, I was was actually referring to balancing with themselves. I should have been more clear. Here they are. Option 4 is just way better than any of the options. You are as good or better than all of the other options with the exception of cunning.   

Ferocity 2d4 Cunning+1 Armour +1 Instinct +1
Ferocity 2d4 Cunning+2 Armour +0 Instinct +1
Ferocity 1d4 Cunning+2 Armour +1 Instinct +1
Ferocity 2d4 Cunning+1 Armour +2 Instinct +2

Cheers all,

Stu.

I've run it with at most 4 and felt comfortable with that. I can see how 5 or 6 might get particularly cumbersome.

I'm also suffering from wanting to make quick decisions and am training myself to take a moment. The times I take a few seconds to come up with a response seems to really make a difference in the quality of the call.

As for the balance of the animal companion, I think it depends on the type of ranger you want to be. If the GM is aware of the animal's weaknesses and uses it for the ranger's weak hits and golden opportunities, having a +2 Instinct can probably be a drag from time to time. How'd you like if you fail the Parley AND your animal bites the prince's ankle because it's "savage?" As well, having +2 Cunning is very handy as it influences a lot of other moves.

Hi All,

Ran another game on Sunday night. The advice to slow down and take your time on decisions is golden.

The game ran a lot more smoothly and was a lot more fun with less people. I'm going to cap my games at 4 players plus me in future.

I still think Rangers are unbalanced to an unacceptable degree. They should not do more damage than fighters. IMO

Does anyone have any issues with the tedium of between encounter healing? The dice rolling sometimes seems endless.

Cheers,

Stu.

I haven't noticed much of any healing that wasn't in combat. Are you talking about the cleric or paladin casting spells or laying on hands? If it's taking a while and isn't interesting, I'd probably throw something tense at them to bring their focus back around.

Hey Stu, I assume that the healing problem is because the healing roll for HP gain is consistently low? 1d8 is pretty good for cure light wounds though.

You could always offer them an opportunity with a cost. Say, they can roll maximum recovery (8), but they have to choose an additional 7-9 option on cast a spell.

When you make camp (even for an couple hours, such as recharging spells etc) you gain half-of-max hit-points.  Do you guys play that way? (p29)

Otherwise, you lose spells on a miss, and take casting penalties/run out of heals quickly.  I find that the party is usually pro pushing on when in dangerous territory or so long as the casters don't need spells.  Then they look for camp and get a boost enough to go on.  Of course, this is how my groups decided to play (your mileage may vary).

Hi All,

Noofy, the answer is a resounding yes. Bad rolls exacerbate this problem. I've always thought that the 1d8 for healing was too much of a range. I might house-rule that in combat, the 1d8 stays, out of combat you can heal 4  (or maybe 5 ) hit points or roll. The idea of offering an opportunity with a cost is a good one. I hadn't thought of doing this with spells.

Stras, you are quite right. Thinking about it, I usually don't let them have the "free" hitpoints until they've slept. A good solution to this problem might be to let them have the free ones first.

Also...your reference to the all powerful BOO was not missed in the other thread. "Go for the eyes Boo, THE EYES!".

So do you guys find the Ranger overpowered in terms of damage dealt?

Cheers,
 
Stu.

 

Haven't had a ranger yet in the party (most folks read through it but picked something else initially), but if I know my friends (and I do) I will probably have one when I run a demo game this week, so I'll keep an eye on it.

It looks like the ranger does more damage early on if their companion is engaged (+2d4), but lacks the innate armor piercing of spell damage, or the survival abilities of Fighters and Paladins.  Keep in mind that the animal companion is sort of like spells.  A fresh wizard loves the smell of Cloudkill in the morning, but as they keep casting the spells get used up, and the -1 forwards pile on.  Every time the ranger misses you can hit their beastie or trigger one of its flaws.  It may not have HPs but if you follow suit on the 'Man's Best Friend' move you can probably remove Ferocity dice or other +s it provides till they rest.  Then he is similar to casters no?

If the GM is afraid to threaten the ranger's animal or fails to take advantage of its flaws, then yes, the ranger will outpace the fighter on damage. With no additional moves to stack damage, a fighter could do 5.5 - 7.5 damage on average, not taking piercing into account.The ranger with Ferocity 2 on his animal means 9.5 damage on average.

So, bottom line, threaten the animal or use its flaws when you can. As well, that Ferocity is a trade-off. I generally prefer animals who can do more stuff than one who can give me more damage. Damage is boring, but to each their own.