Disarming and other stunts

If Emory doesn't want to leave the dagger behind, it's not that he can decide not to start climbing once the dice have hit the table. He's started up the icy cliff - that's the acting despite an imminent threat that he had to do to be able to for roll the move in the first  If he doesn't want to leave the dagger behind, he's partway up the cliff, not falling off, but exposed for whatever happens to him.

I think this is spot on, but I'd note that Emory began climbing the cliff before the circumstance arose that put them in Defy Danger territory so Emory was committed prior to the dice hitting the table in any case. In this example it doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the second part of the climb once that cliff was iced had begun or not.

At this point I'd probably move the spotlight onto some other party member, give them a chance to create an opening for Emory to get up -- or else, when the spotlight goes back on Emory, he's got another Defy Danger against whatever else gets dumped down on him.

Whether we think "opting out" is an option or not with Defy Danger I think this approach works well.  Just because someone can potentially opt out of one danger doesn't mean the rest of the fiction can't come to bear. Highlighting one of these other imminent dangers and shifting focus to another character works nicely with the idea that opting can be taken as hesitation to the point of losing the initiative.

I can imagine circumstances where "opting out" would be the moment of hesitation or stalling, and would make total sense. I shy away from that as much as possible, preferring the "pivotal moment" approach of an action in-progress. But it works either way, as long as the moves are pushing the game forward.

I think Emory better do something, because if he just sits there looking like a pinata, I'm going to smack him with a stick.

I know, right?! I'm tired of these layabout do-nothing adventures lounging about on dangerous terrain waiting about for loot to be delivered to them like they are on some sort of senior citizen ocean cruise. 

When you're done with that stick, I'll have a go!

I think Emory better do something, because if he just sits there looking like a pinata, I'm going to smack him with a stick.

I'm actually working on a senior-citizens-on-a-sea-cruise hack right now, funny you should mention that. It's called Sea World, duh.

Wow, that can get more complicated than I thought. Thanks for all that input!

 I find it useful to clarify what the 7–9 options could mean because they didn't inspire me until I understood them. Like, I'd look at them when I had to say something and I'd be like "Let's see hard bargain, ugly choice, worse outcome... ummm, what's the difference... shit, what am I choosing between here... yeah, I'll just make something up..."

This is how I think of them.

Hard bargain: Pay this cost or don't defy the danger.
Ugly choice: Defy the danger but pay this or the other cost.
Worse outcome: This is the cost of defying the danger. Pay it.

So yeah, a hard bargain is a kind of an ugly choice where the choice is pushed earlier; avoid paying the cost by dropping the whole thing. You just walk away from the whole deal, so to speak.

Whereas with ugly choice, at least how I parse it, you're committed, knee deep; your choice is with which cost you're willing to pay. And you will pay a cost because it's too late, you're already committed to defying the danger.

And worse outcome, there's no choice. Defying danger hurts. Suck it up, princess.

I don't think I've heard the 7-9 options broken down in quite that way. I think I like it. It encodes options for the "opt out" in Hard Bargain, for "you did it and here's the nonnegotiable cost" in Worse Outcome, and the middle road where you're committed, but you still get to choose some ugly.

And depending on the type of the DD this will inform the GM's choice about what to present to the player.  In the disarm scenario, I'd be looking at Worse Outcome or Ugly Choice, and could safely ignore the opt-out-ability of the Hard Bargain.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!

I find it useful to clarify what the 7–9 options could mean because they didn't inspire me until I understood them. Like, I'd look at them when I had to say something and I'd be like "Let's see hard bargain, ugly choice, worse outcome... ummm, what's the difference... shit, what am I choosing between here... yeah, I'll just make something up..."

This is how I think of them.

Hard bargain: Pay this cost or don't defy the danger.
Ugly choice: Defy the danger but pay this or the other cost.
Worse outcome: This is the cost of defying the danger. Pay it.

So yeah, a hard bargain is a kind of an ugly choice where the choice is pushed earlier; avoid paying the cost by dropping the whole thing. You just walk away from the whole deal, so to speak.

Whereas with ugly choice, at least how I parse it, you're committed, knee deep; your choice is with which cost you're willing to pay. And you will pay a cost because it's too late, you're already committed to defying the danger.

And worse outcome, there's no choice. Defying danger hurts. Suck it up, princess.

That's a killer breakdown, watergoesred! GMs will gravitate towards different choices depending on their style and the situation at hand, but that perfectly explains the options. Cool.

Cheers guys! Breaking the options down like this has helped me plenty, in both Dungeon World and Apocalypse World.

In the disarm scenario, I'd be looking at Worse Outcome or Ugly Choice, and could safely ignore the opt-out-ability of the Hard Bargain.

I find hard bargain works well when another PC or NPC suffers, either from the cost or from the danger not being defied. That's what I saw in the Apocalypse World examples that noclue quoted. And if you want to split hairs, the ugly choice looks like a straight up hard bargain to me, because Keeler only gets her hit (sneaking into Dremmer’s camp unheard) if she pays the cost (shoots the kid).

Okay, so this intrigued me. I spent some more time with the Apocalypse World move that Defy Danger is drawn from, Act Under Fire (Page 190-192). Here's the GM's offer of a hard bargain:

Quote

Roark’s hit, and Marie tries to drag him to cover. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her a hard bargain: she can get him to safety, but only if she takes a bullet herself.)

So that's clearly an offer that the player can opt out of, abandon Roark or take a bullet. But, clearly also not boring if the player chooses to opt out, cause there's poor Roark lying out there.

Here's an ugly choice:

Quote

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.) She hits the roll with an 8, so the ugly choice it is. “There’s some kid out here, huddled under this flimsy tin roof with a mug of who-knows-what. You think you’re past him but he startles and looks right at you. You can kill him before he makes a noise, but you’ll have to do it right this second. Do you?”

Given all that, in a scenario where PCs are acting to disarm an opponent, a hard bargain could be:

• you can disarm the Gnoll without trouble (danger defied), but the mighty axe will fly lose and straight at the kidnapped son of the Countess (the cost). Do you?
• to cleanly knock the Darkle blade from the cultist's hand, spoiling the sacrifice at a key moment (danger defied), you'll have to take your time to line the shot up, so there'll be no way to avoid the iron bull's charge so you'll be sent flying and gored into the pit of bones (the cost). Do you make the shot?

A little bit of a non-sequitor here but what does being disarmed do, mechanically speaking, to someone?  Does it prevent a person from doing damage until they roll a defy danger roll? 

It depends. If you have no weapon and are considered unarmed and are trying to attack someone who is, then yes, a defy danger roll would be necessary, if they are aware of the attack. Just as if you are wielding a "hand" weapon and attacking someone with a "close" weapon. Or a "close" weapon attacking someone with a "reach" weapon.