Improved combat moves

What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

When you Engage in Combat, roll +Appropriate.  On a 10+, you inflict a harm effect without receiving it, or inflict 2 and receive 1.  On a 7-9, you and GM each choose a harm effect to inflict.  On a miss, you receive without giving.

Harm Effects
Deal damage as established to a single target (if chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6).
Divide damage evenly between multiple targets (if chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6)..
Take away target's equipment.
Put a target in a worse position.
Take a dominating position.

Playbook specific moves could modify these options, possibly under certain conditions.  Spend 1 ammo to gain 1 additional harm effect.  When you select Deal Damage multiple times, add 1d8 instead of 1d6.  If your Signature Weapon would be taken away, you may choose to suffer Damage rather than lose it.  Etc.

Narratively, these options are of course restricted.  If an archer is shooting at a charging goblin and rolls a 7-9, it's not appropriate for the goblin to deal damage, or take away the archer's bow.  It is appropriate for the archer to lose ammo, or be put in a worse position by having a screaming goblin appear in his face, or for the goblin to reach some high ground where he can roll rocks down on the archer's head.  If he were exchanging fire with a marksman, then Damage certainly would be on the table and maybe losing his weapon too.

I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.  I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.  And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

I guess that's doable, but I much prefer the different methods of fighting feeling different as well. I haven't written up grapple yet, but... let's say in your version, I choose to "take a dominating position" and I'm also deciding that this position is grapple, with my character having a good grip. Now, I'm in a clinch with my opponent, but the outlook of the combat hasn't really changed, and the results of grappling are the exact same as the results of normal fighting.

I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.

Who said that dealing harm is (or should be) handled with a single blow fiction-wise?

I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.

My rules model it just fine. Last two 10+ results achieve it, while making sure the situation doesn't remain static. Your rules don't model it... as on 10+ you also need to damage him or take away his equipment, or discard your 2nd pick. And on 7-9 the GM can either damage you or disarm you in return, or nullify the progress by picking a dominating position for the opponent in return.

And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

My rules deal with up to two targets, and that's pretty generous swashbuckling spirit already. Any more of that, and I think suspension of disbelief would suffer... but if that's what you like, go for it =)

I'm really wary of a move with more than four options to choose during play, that's just way too many. You can roll a lot of those together and make it way easier to parse.

In fact you couldn't just have one option replace almost all of those: "...you gain an advantage or put them in a worse condition." That one statement covers literally everything from grappling, driving them back, knocking them over, whatever. I'd rather have my players describing their actions and goals, instead of picking specific choices from a long list. Why do we need each option explicitly listed?

Isn't this like saying that the overly long and confusing "GM moves list" should be deleted and replaced with a generic advice of "Describe something unfavourable happening to the characters."?

Quote from: countercheck on December 04, 2012, 08:26:28 PM

What about something along these lines, combining ranged and close combat?

I guess that's doable, but I much prefer the different methods of fighting feeling different as well. I haven't written up grapple yet, but... let's say in your version, I choose to "take a dominating position" and I'm also deciding that this position is grapple, with my character having a good grip. Now, I'm in a clinch with my opponent, but the outlook of the combat hasn't really changed, and the results of grappling are the exact same as the results of normal fighting.

Wheras, I'd rather let the options be the same across the board, but permit the activation of those through the fiction to differ.  And things WOULD have changed.  If you're in a clinch, new moves might trigger, and certainly your opponent's axe won't work any-more.  New narrative successes and failures become available.  Distilling the options down to the minimum number that must be differentiated seems to me to be a good call.  As I see it, there are three resources we're interacting with, fictional positioning, HP, and equipment.  So one option for each seems reasonable, no?

Quote from: countercheck on December 04, 2012, 08:26:28 PM

I'm not sure why the focus is so specific on a single blow against a single target.

Who said that dealing harm is (or should be) handled with a single blow fiction-wise?

Quote from: countercheck on December 04, 2012, 08:26:28 PM

I mean, narratively "The captain of the guard and I fence for a few seconds as I drive him back down the stairs." is an extended exchange of blows, but still a single narrative action.

My rules model it just fine. Last two 10+ results achieve it, while making sure the situation doesn't remain static. Your rules don't model it... as on 10+ you also need to damage him or take away his equipment, or discard your 2nd pick. And on 7-9 the GM can either damage you or disarm you in return, or nullify the progress by picking a dominating position for the opponent in return.

Quote from: countercheck on December 04, 2012, 08:26:28 PM

And "I swing my claymore in through the tightly packed goblins, cutting through six squalling little bodies with a single blow." would be one blow, many targets.

My rules deal with up to two targets, and that's pretty generous swashbuckling spirit already. Any more of that, and I think suspension of disbelief would suffer... but if that's what you like, go for it =)

Those comments were actually directed at default Hack and Slash, not your Hack and Slash hack =)  I agree your modifications handle those situations.

I'm really wary of a move with more than four options to choose during play, that's just way too many. You can roll a lot of those together and make it way easier to parse.

In fact you couldn't just have one option replace almost all of those: "...you gain an advantage or put them in a worse condition." That one statement covers literally everything from grappling, driving them back, knocking them over, whatever. I'd rather have my players describing their actions and goals, instead of picking specific choices from a long list. Why do we need each option explicitly listed?

Good call

Here's a new version

When you engage in combat, roll +Appropriate.  On a 10+, do 1 harm, or do 2 harm and receive 1 harm.  On a 7-9, do one harm and receive 1 harm.  On a miss, receive harm.  The harm effects, as with all moves, must follow from the fiction.

Harm Effects
Deal damage as established, divided evenly between targets as appropriate  If chosen multiple times, each selection after the first inflicts +1d6.
Take away target's equipment.
Put a target in a worse position or improve your own position.
Make a special monster, GM, or playbook move

Wheras, I'd rather let the options be the same across the board, but permit the activation of those through the fiction to differ.

Then it seems our design goals are polar opposite =)

Then it seems our design goals are polar opposite =)

I donno.  I think we're both trying to come up with a way to codify Hack and Slash's narrative effects.  But we're branching out from each other, yes.

I WOULD try to trim down the number of effects though.  Find ones that are similar, and make the wording the same.  Possibly tie some of the effects to specific weapons or playbook moves.  Both "- knock down one opponent and deal harm to another" and
"- opponent deals harm to his ally, spreading confusion; your party gets +1 next round"

are odd and powerful, and seem like they might be things that are earned.

It might be true that they are powerful, but I went with more of the swashbuckling genre here... which is pretty appropriate for D&D-style gaming. I mean, both these things would be doable by all Pirates of the Caribbean main characters in one combat or another, while Jack, Will and Elizabeth are obviously from three very different playbooks in DW terms. Plus I find it much more easier to have one comprehensive close combat move than... all the options scattered around several classes, which I'm bound to lose track of.

Boy, I got really carried away, but as DW completely lacks any grappling rules, I think it will be fun. A lot of messing with modifiers, but I think it models the grip advantages rather well.

TANGLED MEAT:

When you assault or resist in a grapple, roll +Strength.

On a 10+ you get to pick one of these:
- deal massive harm to opponent (+1d6 damage)
- get +1 ongoing for this particular grapple
- grab a weapon from ground or belt, getting +1 next round
- disarm the opponent
- throw the opponent, breaking grapple
- hold the opponent in a pain lock (he can't get free)
- receive harm, but break one of opponent's limbs (not neck)
- the opponent doesn't scream out
- get a strangle hold on opponent and get +1 to next roll; if you can maintain conditional +1 grapple related bonuses for two additonal rounds, he loses consciousness
- if opponent has a compact weapon in hand, direct it towards him and get +1 next round

On a 7-9 you get to pick one of these:
- deal harm while receiving harm
- get +1 to next roll, but receive harm
- avoid harm, getting -1 to next roll
- grab a weapon from ground or belt; GM chooses between dealing harm and giving you -1 next round
- you're disgracefully dragged away from an idle weapon, but can deal harm (I mean, this situation ALWAYS ends with a kick in movies, right?)

On a miss, the GM gets to use 10+ options, but to your disadvantage. All +1 results count as -1.

Interesting.  So, your basic damage move in a grapple (10+ and you deal damage) is +1d6, no downside? 

Wouldn't "get a strangle hold" imply "opponent doesn't scream out"?  Doesn't seem like both are required.  But if you want a separate one for preventing screams, getting only one choice from the list means there's no way to prevent screams AND end the fight. 

What advantage do you get from having or not having a weapon in hand?  Presumably you assume something, or else "grab a weapon from ground or belt, getting +1 next round" is way inferior to just "get +1 ongoing for this particular grapple".

Personally, I'm not sure I want anything this complicated, except as a list of ideas for hard choices and worse outcomes.  But it seems like it would work.

Interesting.  So, your basic damage move in a grapple (10+ and you deal damage) is +1d6, no downside? 

I was under the impression that 10+ results don't generally have downsides =)

Wouldn't "get a strangle hold" imply "opponent doesn't scream out"?  Doesn't seem like both are required.  But if you want a separate one for preventing screams, getting only one choice from the list means there's no way to prevent screams AND end the fight. 

Ah, valid point. I intended the... scream prevention to be less violent, like... covering the target's mouth. Without that, the only way to silence a resisting princess would be to choke her out =D

What advantage do you get from having or not having a weapon in hand?  Presumably you assume something, or else "grab a weapon from ground or belt, getting +1 next round" is way inferior to just "get +1 ongoing for this particular grapple".

Weren't unarmed strikes just 1 damage?

Hack'n'Slash 10+ result is base damage or base damage+1d6 and an attack from your adversary. Tangled meat is just +1d6, no downside.

Hack'n'Slash 10+ result is base damage or base damage+1d6 and an attack from your adversary. Tangled meat is just +1d6, no downside.

These grapple rules aren't designed to be compatible with Hack'n'Slash. Look at the first post in this thread.

Weren't unarmed strikes just 1 damage?

That was an older version on the rules.   Current version is silent on the subject, as far as I can tell.