|
One of our best Apocalypse World world-building set-ups happened from just this kind of leading question; we'd already established that the hold in the game was a place called "Abilene," a neon-glitz city in the middle of a desolate, blasted plain. The last vestige of "the time before," clinging to existence thanks to an old Tokamak reactor (which provided power to a protective grid used to keep out "the ghosts"). Anyway, I decided that rather than there being a single hardholder in charge (as none of the PCs picked that playbook) that the town was run by a 12-member council called "The Jury." During character creation, it came out that the Chopper worked for one member of the Jury and the Gunlugger occasionally did freelance work for another. Then I turned to the guy playing the gangly, awkward, creepy Brainer and asked, "So Burroughs, what's your relationship to the Jury?" Without missing a beat, the player said, "I'm ON the Jury." Of course you are! It gave the game a scheming political dimension right out of the gate, which was loving awesome.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
That was actually for a one-shot. 4 players, all seasoned role-players whose experience was mostly old-school games, and only one of them had ever played AW prior to that session. But it turned out to be an awesome evening, and every time I see him, the guy who played the Savvyhead harasses me to "get the band back together" for another session. Unfortunately he and one of the other players now live out-of-state, so I dunno when that's gonna happen. But my regular gaming group is pretty rad too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Bazanga posted:Trying to figure out how much info to give without feeling like I'm just doing an info dump on the upcoming surprises or plot. One of the things I always like to do in vanilla Apocalypse World (and that translates well to Dungeon World) is to give the players some idea of how they know something gleaned from reading a sitch or spouting lore or discerning realities. You can also enlist the player's aid in this too. "What to be on the lookout for? Well, you suspect there's strong illusion magic going on here. Magnificor, how do you know?" And if the player says, "I see sigils in non-descript places, sigils used to trigger illusions under certain circumstances. And further, those sigils look like the ones drawn by the guy who was my roommate in Wizard Collegium," well, there you go.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
"Down pat" is kind of a misnomer for DW. I think the thing to do is to allow players to follow through on their own successes. So instead of a 10+ on Defy Danger being a "you don't get hit," maybe make it a "you don't get hit AND..." then ask the player what it was they were trying to accomplish. Part of this is up to your players too. Instead of simply reacting to the NPCs, ask them what they're trying to do. Distill their answer down into an appropriate move and snowball from there. So in your Ogre swinging a club example, maybe it goes like this: DM: "The Ogre raises his club high overhead, looks at you with his beady eyes, and begins his haymaker swing. You know if it connects, it's gonna hit like a ton of bricks. What do you do?" PC: "I blast him in the face with my Firebolt spell." DM: "OK, but the timing will be tight. Go ahead and Defy Danger with INT to see if you can get the spell off in time." PC: <rolls> Crap, I only got an 8. DM: "Well, the spell goes off, but just as you release the energy, the club makes contact. <both PC and NPC roll damage> or PC: <rolls> "Huzzah, an 11!" DM: "A paragon of concentration under fire, you manage to recite the incantation faster than you've ever done it before. You blast the Ogre in the face, forcing him to reel backwards. <PC rolls damage> or PC: <rolls> "Oh poo poo. A 5." DM: "Yeah, your concentration is totally rattled by the Ogre. You flub a part of the incantation and it's all over." <NPC rolls damage> And so on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Actually, the success on the Defy Danger just grants the opportunity to roll for the spell. So essentially, it's two rolls, one to get off the spell in time, the other to cast it successfully. The essential part is that it follow the fiction. Casting spells when someone is swinging a massive club at your head is dangerous! But the important part of Defy Danger is that you can use any stat so long as you justify it in the fiction. So in the example I gave, the spellcaster is trying to use his focus and concentration to avoid the instinct to flinch. Conversely, a character with a high Dex might dodge before striking. And you can just as easily have the Defy Danger roll stand in for the attack (Hack & Slash) roll if the character's follow-up move is some kind of attack ("I roll between the Ogre's legs as he swings his club, hamstringing him with my dagger as I pass through"). I think either way is fine, though using the Defy Danger as the stand in roll will result in the PCs usually inflicting more damage in a fight because they'll typically be using their better stats. The elegance of the PbtA systems is the flexibility the GM has in interpreting the die rolls and setting up further rolls based on the evolving fiction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:The thing is that this is already modeled by the hack and slash move. Acting regardless of danger should, RAW, have a PC eat a hard move as set up in fiction, then do what they wanted to do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:In fairness you have this backwards. Fiction is always first, if their action triggers a move it's that move.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
What do you mean by "doing better?" Rolling more =/= doing better. Usually, it's doing worse because there's more opportunity for GM fuckery. The reason the Wizard isn't cutting in on the Paladin's turf here is because the Paladin can straight up do damage. The DD test is to see if the Wizard can even get his spell off, let alone see what effect it has. And given the fictional set-up, it's very much a "succeed at this roll in some fashion or eat damage, suckah!" sort of thing. If the Wizard flinches or freezes or hesitates, he's gonna get pasted before he can do anything to the Ogre. By opting to H&S, the Paladin is at least going to get to inflict some damage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:I am DMing a campaign for some friends and we are all new to DW and table-top RP in general. Things were going pretty well at first but the adventure has recently taken the PCs into towns and steadings more often and things have stalled considerably. I found this good advice on how to inject obstacles with your GM moves during social encounters, but I'm still wondering how to best handle the routine selling of loot and restocking of basic supplies. It seems like your either left with exiting the fiction to quickly tally things up and modify inventories or spend ten minutes narrating a series of shop menus which gets very stale. It also prompts one of my players to enter price haggling mode (with no real leverage, so I can't rightly turn it into a Parley). Any advice on how to best drive these tasks, or good videos with example play? Your game should be the same way. Before you do anything, ask yourself "Is this worth a scene?" Something worthy of a scene should either a) change the direction of the story, b) tell us something important about the world, c) tell us something important about the character(s), or d) some combination of the above. Paying 30 crowns to acquire a new (albeit mundane) sword is none of those, so handle it in montage. The player deducts the cash, notes they have a new sword, move on. But that's not to say that every "shopping trip" needs to be a montaged interaction. That's where the advice you linked comes in handy - for those interactions you've deemed are worthy of a scene. Maybe when the Wizard goes scroll shopping, something interesting or unusual happens. Or maybe when the Fighter goes to buy that sword, any of the linked complications happens. The trick is in knowing what will or won't make for an interesting scene. As a general rule of thumb, I'd handle 75% of these kinds of interactions as montage, and turn the remaining 25% into full-blown scenes, with care taken to "spread the love" to make sure each of the characters gets an opportunity to shine. It won't happen for everyone all the time (because that can and does make a game drag), but everyone can rest assured that their chance to throw dice and receive rewards and/or fuckery will come.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
"Establishing" things in the fiction is super important. It's best not to spring things on your players, but rather to foreshadow them first. So if your monster's attacks are "piercing" or whatever, have the party encounter the body of some poor, unfortunate previous adventurer, making sure to describe how his breastplate is punctured completely through. Or if it's huge, describe how the tracks they find have an eight-foot stride. This helps give the players some sense of what they're going to be encountering and lets them decide whether "trade harm as established" is a good idea. Also, I think that players who cut their teeth on a certain D&D play-style have a really hard time running away if they're losing a fight. They'll seemingly run headlong into an obvious TPK situation because the thought of backing down never even occurs to them. It's almost like, "This monster is in front of us and therefore MUST be defeated in order to advance The Plot; there is no other way forward." It's bizarre, and you need to disabuse them of the notion as soon as possible. Finally, keep in mind that not all monsters will fight to the death either. Maybe after the Paladin lands a heavy blow on a critter, it fucks off (only to lie in wait and ambush them later). Or maybe it decides these hombres are not to be tangled with, and gives them a wide berth from here on out. Or maybe instead of just inflicting damage when a player fails a roll, you make some other hard move instead - my favorites here are to "capture someone" or "separate them." So the PC steps forward for a mighty swing of their sword and fans the roll to the tune of a 4 - OK, the monster deftly evades your clumsy swing, then darts in, wraps a tentacle or three around you, lifts you off your feet, then disappears back down the hole from which it emerged. Your companions watch in horror as the monster carries you away, your screams fading as you are dragged deeper into the tunnels. Once it gets back to its lair, it stashes you in a wad of some kind of sticky, foul-smelling goo, no doubt to save you until a later meal. And of course (to both you and the rest of the party) "What do you do?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
The way to keep the PCs from using the same moves over and over again is to have the NPCs' actions change the fictional landscape such that the move isn't appropriate/possible. So the Tentacular Slime monster grabs Thaddeus by the sword arm - how does he get free? Or the Vorpal Harpy swoops down into Bjorn's face, attempting to tear out his eyes - can't really cast an invocation in that situation, so what does he do? In most cases this is going to be some form of "Defy Danger," but it will often be done with a stat the character doesn't necessarily excel in, which gives you more opportunities for fuckery. These aren't hard moves (the Tentacular Slime isn't tearing Thaddues' arm from its socket, the Vorpal Harpy hasn't actually ripped out Bjorn's eyes...yet), but they set up the situation and allow the fictional situation to push the PCs into taking actions that are more than just "I swing my sword again." I find that lighting people on fire or coating them in acid is a fantastic way to get them to concentrate on self-preservation. And if they don't, don't be afraid to make the hard move that you've just set up. "OK, you're on fire. What's that you say? You want to ignore the flames, gut through the pain, and swing your sword at the evil sorcerer again? OK, cool, but that sounds like Defy Danger using CON to me - hit that move and you can swing without penalty. But even if you succeed you'll still take 4 HP of damage, because your poo poo's on fire, yo."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Some of the best advice for running any PBtA game is to actually read Apocalypse World itself. There's a ton of fantastic advice in there about how these sorts of games are actually run/played.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
A good way to do that is to put responsibility for the failure on the opposition. So if the PC fails to Defy Danger (say roll + DEX to dodge an incoming attack), it's not that the PC tripped or stumbled or whatever, it's that "holy poo poo this monster is faster than you thought!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
The important thing here is that these kinds of moves are also an important cue to the MC that it's time to add something to the fiction. For instance, if the player rolls read a sitch in AW and asks, "What's my best way in?" it's up to you to offer them a way in. Maybe it's something you hadn't initially considered, some approach or vulnerability that the PC spots. Whatever it is, it's totally cool (and usually preferable) to make it up on the spot. It's also a great way to gently caress with the players, because it alters the fiction in a way that is mechanically enforceable. If your ultraviolent PC wants to know the best way in, it's perfectly cool to say, "You take the measure of the place and realize that a full frontal assault is loving suicide. Your best way in is probably to bluff your way past the guards out front, but you'll only be able to do that if you're not festooned in weapons and armor. You'll have to appear less threatening." That way, if they want that sweet, sweet +1 forward, they're rolling Defy Danger +CHA instead of simply Hacking and Slashing their way in like idiots. In AW parlance, this is you "offering an opportunity with a cost."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Very true. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
This is actually one of my problems with DW (vice AW proper): it's get just enough of the lovely cruft of D&D to fool people into entirely missing the point of how PbtA games are supposed to work. This game that Azran is in sounds like straight-up fodder for the cat-piss thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Yeah, ideally the player says, "I look for traps," and you say, "Cool. Roll +INT" and apply the rules for either discern or defy as appropriate. That's almost always way better than waiting for them to say, "I discern realities to find traps." Remember, if what they're saying sounds like a move, you call for a roll whether they say "I'm doing X move" or not. And for players new to the system, they'll contextualize things in terms of what their characters are doing, not which of a set of unfamiliar moves they're rolling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
No. If swoop and snatch is a move for that animal, they get to spend hold to just do it. So long as you deem it to be something situationally appropriate for a hawk to snatch, no roll is required. Similarly, if you shapeshift into a rhinoceros and one of the rhino moves is trample, gore, and smash, if the player says they want to make that move against their skeleton foe and spends a hold, then you have one trampled, gored, smashed skeleton. Is it fictionally appropriate that getting trampled by a rhino destroys a skeleton? Yeah, I'd say so. So that skeleton is destroyed and you don't need to make a hack-and-slash roll at all. Easy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Also, if you don't let the player make an "animal move" and just default to hack & slash, your player is still rolling +STR as normal - but shapeshift doesn't change your stats, so your bear is no more terrifying in combat than the druid himself was, which defeats one of the main purposes of shapeshifting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Mr. Glass posted:this makes sense to me, but it sounds massively OP - do i let the druid turn into a bear and claw the poo poo out of every enemy they encounter? do i use failed rolls of the Shapeshifter move to limit this? Failures on the shapeshift move are another factor, and in that case it's nice to turn these moves back on them. So you shapeshift into a bear such that you can use berserk rampage or whatever, but you fail the roll - at which point the GM tells you, yeah, sure, you turn into a bear and start rampaging - but your base-instinct bear brain gets a little fuzzy on what constitutes "friend" versus "foe" and you end up mauling your cleric. Shapeshift failures are comedy gold, BTW.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Mr. Glass posted:this is awesome and i love it. going back to my question, though -- what stops the druid from doing another shapeshift at their next opportunity?  But ImpactVector makes the key point, and that's that it takes some (unspecific) amount of time to shapeshift. That is the druid's action for that tick. So when the druid says, "I want to shapeshift," you say, "Cool" and have them roll and generate hold. But make them wait until it's their turn again to use one of those holds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Honestly, I question the need for Dungeon World at all. I've had no problems running Apocalypse World reskinned for a medieval fantasy setting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Arashiofordo3 posted:Mostly theme, and stated purpose of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Yeah, this is important, and it's why "Cast a Spell" and "Shapeshift" look the way they do. Also be aware that the *World games are generally predicated on much stronger boundaries around player roles. There might be multiple PCs that can swing a sword, but there's only one Fighter, for instance. When designing a playbook, it's good to keep this in mind, as you don't want to create a playbook that steps into another playbook's sandbox too heavily. A little overlap is OK, but it's easy to screw this up. As an aside, if you wanted to create a "jack of all trades" playbook, an interesting way to start would be to create a playbook where your three starting moves all have to come from other (different) playbooks, with the proviso that none of those playbooks can be in use by other players. So for instance, if your party was a Thief, a Paladin, and a Mage, your starting moves could come one each from the Druid, the Bard, and the Fighter. Substitute all "take another Jack-of-All-Trades move" advancements for "Take a move from another playbook" advancements. That might be kind of funny, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Oh, for sure. And because of that structure, it would be extremely difficult to duplicate the way a Wizard works - which is as it should be. The Jack-of-all-trades should never be as good at casting spells as the Wizard. But having access to a single-move magical ability (like Shapeshift) would be pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Imagine someone doing that Jack of All Trades class thing and taking Shapeshifter, Signature Weapon, and Animal Companion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Songbearer posted:...from where the kobold hails... Also, your game sounds like fun!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I'm really surprised that there weren't more heroic fantasy aw hacks. I figure someone would have tried to de-d&d fantasy aw.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Being strict about triggers is one of the most important shifts in mindset for PbtA games. Also, N0data is right; "I try again!" is almost always the wrong answer in a PbtA game. the consequences of a failure (or even of a partial success) should change the fictional situation such that simply attempting the same thing over again isn't even really possible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Infinite Oregano posted:I suppose this is a question that likely applies to all PbtA games, but regardless: If you're playing in real time (whether it's by discord or face-to-face or whatever), how do you keep in your mind the possibilities of GM Moves, or the complications that stem from a 7-9 Defy Danger roll (or hypothetically the other moves but I feel that Defy Danger's broadness leaves it more open to possibilities but also meaning it can be harder to come up with a satisfactory result on the spot)? Do you make any preparations as such? But realistically speaking, this triaxiom (worse outcome, hard bargain, ugly choice) is the lens through which most of PbtA operates. Pretty much any time it's your turn to talk, this is what you're doing - you're describing a situation that's about to go bad or makes the current situation worse (reveal an unwelcome truth, capture someone, put someone in a spot, inflict harm as established), gives them what they want but makes them pay for it (make them buy, activate their stuff's downside, take away their stuff, trade harm for harm as established), or presents them with a difficult decision (tell them the consequences then ask). You control the throttle on this - i.e. how "hard" your move is - but the nature of what you say should be a logical consequence of what came before. Essentially, it's all about figuring out what the PC is trying to do, then thinking of ways that it could go wrong that make sense in the context of what's happening or being attempted. Like I said, I feel like that's a pretty vague answer, but it really is how the game functions. It also gets easier with practice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Glad to hear that the "Always Be Moving" approach is largely bullshit. It makes more sense if you flip it around: in any other game, every time you say something, chances are fairly stellar that you could pick one (or more) moves from the list that pretty much map exactly to what you said/did. But there's one important caveat here, which is that there's some stuff that a lot of GMs in other games do that are NOT on that list, and for good reason. For instance, you will note that there's no "bore the poo poo out of your players with NPC exposition" move. Nor is there a move to "require players to tediously map the dungeon." "Foster paranoia and force people to constantly make perception checks" is also notably absent. Even when giving the players information, there's a difference between "tell them" and "reveal an unwelcome truth." It's the difference between "blemmysmen are typically found in packs of 10-20" and "Yeah, you kill like 5 or 6 blemmysmen, but you know they're like rats - for every one you see there are at least three you don't." Essentially, the moves as they are generally cut to the heart of adding drama to the narrative. When people say, "Always Be Moving," what they often really mean is "cut to the chase." This gets to what Zorak was talking about in his last post, which is that you have to think about the purpose of the scene. And yes, every scene should have a purpose. If it doesn't have a purpose, it's not worth framing a scene around, and you should skip to the next thing in the story that is worth framing a scene around. This is actually one of the gems that lies at the heart of PbtA games - it helps you figure out what's important to the narrative, and what can be passed off with a few sentences of exposition and scene-setting prep. It's why a Dungeon World game can deliver huge, awesome adventure from the word "go" and allow the PCs to accomplish all sorts of crazy poo poo in a single session. It's super easy as a GM to just go with the flow and narrate the "next thing that logically happens," but if there's no tension, conflict, or character development then skip it - because if it lacks those things then it's not leaving the players anything with which to engage. It would be a piece of cake to come back from the dungeon and do a scene where the PCs return the Mayor's prize cow, collect their reward, and warn him of the danger posed by the blemmysmen, but that scene is boring and unengaging - unless the town's Archdeacon (also present of course) scoffs at the blemmy threat, downplaying it as the veriest of hyperbolic and superstitious tripe and trying to make the PCs the laughingstocks of the town. Everyone knows that blemmysmen are just a story used to frighten unruly children. Now there's an opponent, a conflict, and a chance to engage; can the players convince the Mayor? Will they confront the Archdeacon directly, will they engage in a debate or war of words with him? Might it come to blows if he impugns their honor? Or will they work behind the scenes to prepare the town for the (inevitable) attack of the blemmysmen? Capture someone, put someone in a spot, present an opportunity with a cost - these are things that you do to put the PCs in situations that they cannot ignore. That's a whole lot more fun than simply "saying what happens next." Ilor fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
No, you can make a move whenever it is appropriate. But in general, the harder the move you plan to make the more set-up you should do prior. So for instance, it's actually cool to say, "The Ork hacks at you with his bladed club and connects, drawing blood. Take 3hp damage." That's you inflicting damage as established. But that's a pretty forceful move, and some GMs balk at straight-up doling out harm like that. But what might be more cool is to say, "OK, the two Orks split up, each one hedging to one side as they size you up. The one on the left looks like he's about to make a lunge at you - what do you do?" This is you revealing an unwelcome truth. Chances are good the player will engage in some kind of fighty move with the Ork making the lunge, and you'll handle the outcome of their move's roll accordingly. But at that point it's fine to say, "While you're dealing with the first Ork, the second one seizes his opportunity and darts in, opening a gash on your trailing leg before you can turn and fend him off again. Take 3hp damage." You can say this because you've set-up the move - you've warned the player that there are 2 Orks, that they've spread out, that they're coordinating their attacks, and that dealing with one runs the very real risk of opening you up to the other. Similarly, anything you narrate that makes the environment dangerous is a good set-up. "The bandits are in the tree-line, maybe 20 yards away. With the cover of the wagons you're relatively safe, but anytime you pop your head out, it draws fire from 3 or 4 arrows. The moment you move from cover, you're going to get feathered. What do you do?" Again, this is revealing an unwelcome truth, and you are doing your due diligence as the GM to establish something in the fiction: breaking cover means getting shot with arrows. If the PC does something that involves exposing themselves to fire, it's fine to simply apply damage. You can even do it as a precondition to their move - so someone might want to defy danger using DEX to try to roll out, spring to their feet, and bum-rush the nearest bandit. It's OK to say, "sure, take X damage and roll+DEX," because you've set-up your move. And if they knock their defy danger roll out of the park, then maybe they only get hit the once and make it the rest of the way without taking any further damage. If they 7-9 it, taking another arrow on the way in is an easy "hard bargain." And if they fail, of course, the world is your oyster. Make sense?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
It's also cool to have a monster make an attack to which hack & slash is not an appropriate response. As in, "With the sound of a thousand in-drawn breaths, the dragon rears back. Its maw open wide, a gout of flame jets forth towards you. What do you do?" If the PC is dumb enough to say, "I attack!" then barbecue that fucker. Likewise, if an opponent's attack is already launched - "The Ogre swings his tree-size club at you - what do you do?" - then anything that the PC does that fails to avoid, blunt, or stop that attack means they're going to take damage. Don't let them get away with "attacking first" when the opponent's attack is already incoming. Similarly, it's always good to make moves that change the (fictional) tactical picture. "The zombie grabs your sword arm in his vise-like grip. Rotted mouth wide, he moves to bite you. What do you do?" That's putting someone in a spot, which is a great set-up move, and in this case you've made it clear that the PC's sword arm is encumbered and can't be used, which almost certainly takes hack & slash off the table. If the PC wants to avoid being bitten by the zombie (the move you're setting up), he or she needs to do something else. Break free or shove the zombie away? Yeah, that's cool, roll+STR (which you then adjudicate as what it is, which is defy danger). Also remember that moves have triggers. It's not enough for the PC to say, "I roll hack & slash!" This is especially true if getting close to the opponent is difficult or dangerous. And as the GM, you should always be looking at what the PC is trying to do and deciding if there's an appropriate stat for a defy danger attempt. If one of those things gets triggered, make them roll.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
I think it's fine as is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
It's good to know which special moves your PCs have taken such that you know which triggers to look for. But you don't need to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every move in the game or anything. Just concentrate on what your PCs can do.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Defy Danger with CHA is pretty much the go-to for fast-talking your way out of (or into) trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
I know I've talked about it before in both the GM thread and the PbtA thread, but one of the things that will really help keep the action moving in a Dungeon World game is to present the players with situations that they cannot ignore. While this is relatively easy for plots, one thing that's really important to keep in mind (especially in DW) is to remember to do this in fights as well. Because the GM never rolls dice in DW, an easy trap to fall into is to have the PCs' foes stand around like dopes waiting for the PCs to smack them. This will produce an effect where the players will walk all over the competition, especially if they work together. And that's fine at some level, but if you want to give your PCs a challenge in DW, the best way to do that is narratively rather than mechanically. You need to make ample use of your GM moves on behalf of your monsters. Don't depend on players failing their hack & slash rolls to inflict damage on them - it's totally cool to set up a move (say, by revealing an unwelcome truth like, "The Ogre swings his massive, iron-studded club at you!") and follow through on it if the PC does nothing to change the fictional situation (say, by inflicting harm as established like, "with bone-crushing force, the massive club strikes, inflicting 8 hp of damage and knocking you clean off your feet!"). If a player doesn't respond to your set-up ("oh poo poo, massive club!") then they are presenting you with the aforementioned Golden Opportunity ("smack!"). You've done your due diligence in informing them of the fictional situation. Essentially, what you are doing is having your monster take the initiative and thus you are forcing the PCs to react to the changing fictional situation. And don't feel like you always have to go super soft by starting with your unwelcome truths; depending on the situation, it's totally cool to cut to the chase and say, "With the speed of a viper, the duelist lashes out with his rapier. Though the cut across your fingers is relatively shallow, the sharp pain and sudden leverage send your longsword flying over the edge of the balcony. He stands there bouncing on the balls of his feet, grinning. 'Shall I cut my initials into your cheek next?' What do you do?" This is you taking away their stuff, which is one of your basic GM moves. Some GMs will balk at this, feeling that it's "unfair" or that the PCs should somehow be able to "resist" any given potential consequence, but in some sense this is how you make your foes dangerous in PbtA games. Generally, the more dangerous the monster, the more aggressively (i.e. "harder") or more often I'll make my GM moves. Some poo poo should be terrifying, and it's not just about giving it more HP or armor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I think that will likely be the biggest hurdle, conceptually, for my D&D familiar players. It probably initially feels "unfair" that an enemy can just...do that, because they're used to a system where you have to roll for everything. I know I'm for sure going to have to get over that feeling myself, as a DM FWIW, this is where I typically am thinking about defy danger rolls. I might allow the PC a STR roll to break out of the tentacle's grip, or a CON roll to simply resist the crushing force while the PC's compatriots try to hack her free of the tentacle. Similarly present an opportunity with a cost is great because it sets up the situation but gives agency back to the player to decide which direction the story progresses. "With your sword arm pinned you can't really bring your weapon to bear. But if you drop your sword and draw your dagger, you could maybe work it up underneath one of the coils and start sawing your way free. Or you could drop your shield and draw your dagger in your off-hand. Wanna try?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
They're essentially custom moves for the absence. So say the player of your Thief has to miss a few sessions, and decides that in his absence his character is going to "do something sneaky." Great! So you write him a Love Letter: Dear Devlan the Slick, After a little bit of time spent scouting, a few choice coins pushed across the right bars, and one tense conversation at knife-point, you've found the location of an eminently desirable little bauble called the Eye of Medraxas, which you've managed to steal. The former owners want it back, of course, but that's not the worst of it: Roll+WIS; on a 10+ pick 1, on a 7-9 pick 2. On a miss, all three are true: * You accidentally killed someone important in the process (tell the DM how) * You've left something incriminating behind (tell the DM what) * One of your contacts gets caught in the backlash (tell the DM who) Love and kisses, Your DM
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Bah, that's a bummer. I guess you can take solace in the fact that the DM is likely to take a lot of the DM lessons from DW and apply them to Pathfinder
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 15:36
|
|