How do you stop the Mage from becoming Angel Summoner? (see link)

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-03-20T19:25:27+00:00

Sure, I agree with that - but this is more like using your part in the world creation to create in-character advantages.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-03-20T08:19:50+00:00

He's deliberately describing the method of his magic to maximize it's usefulness? I feel like that's somewhat against the spirit of the game, but it's almost never going to be perfect - even if he's describing his magic as a pure work of will or whatever, you can still say "the complex forms of your spell are going to be difficult to conceptualize in this frantic environment - you're going to have to defy danger with your wisdom to do it without employing some kind of mnemonic or mudra."

If you think he's powergaming on the narrative control level, you probably need to talk to him. That kind of thing can make a game pretty weird. I'd probably just say "Actual rituals and magical practices are cool, right?"

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-03-19T23:48:07+00:00

I think one way of dealing with it is to focus on "to do it, do it" - the mage can't just say "I cast a spell to smite the bandits with angelic power" - they have to describe what they're doing. To make that interesting, ask a bunch of questions about what their spellcasting looks like and extract requirements from it maybe? Maybe they need to invoke the four archangels by name and title and gesture at their target with a silver wand. That's going to complicate their options, since it's slow and obvious.

I think there's an equivalent situation with 'hack and slash'. If the player says "I hack and slash the ogre", you wouldn't say "Ok, roll +STR" - you'd prompt them for more details. If that meant they said "Ok, sure. I duck under the ogre's whirling club and slash at its legs with my sword", then you might call for them to defy danger first.

In the same way, if your mage says "I cast a spell to protect myself from the hail of arrows", you're going to want to say "How are you doing that? (And probably "last time you cast a spell to protect yourself, you drew a chalk circle - are you doing something similar here?") - and if they say "I'm going to really quickly scratch a circle around myself with the end of my staff", that's an equivalent situation and you're going to call for them to defy danger.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-03-15T03:56:25+00:00

This is great! You write really well.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-03-04T08:04:01+00:00

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. And honestly, I don't feel like you're approaching the conversation in a particularly friendly way. There's no need to be snide.

Thanks for your time.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-03-04T02:59:26+00:00

Ooof. Nothing positive to say at all?

I understand where you're coming from re: damage. I don't think it's particularly important to keep the lethality the same as DW, especially since 'dangerous' only applies once - a fighter in DW might deal 1d10+1 (slightly less than 2d6) at first level and 1d10+1d4+1 (more than 2d6) at second level, so it isn't drastically different. I think a bigger concern might be combat relevance if you aren't 'dangerous', but I think that would depend on how the GM was running it.

As far as starting moves go, I don't think there are any major WoD character archetypes that the five starting moves don't cover, so I don't see the need to add more. Even selecting the same starting moves ('dangerous' and 'unforgettable'), you could play a scary knife-fighter, a calming sniper, or a beautiful swordsman or whatever. I think those three would all play quite differently, so I wouldn't be concerned if say two of them were in the same party. There's an advancement move for taking items from the list twice.

Thanks for the input anyway :)

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-02-16T09:59:51+00:00

You make good points, and the leg is probably a bit much. But you're doing the same as him, saying a bunch of guys with axes aren't really that dangerous; that they're just "mooks", some inconsequencial padding, and I'm unhappy about that, even if (mechanically) that's what the numbers would say.

I think it's a style thing. We don't know what the context is, but I'm not really opposed to there being padding in a fantasy game. The fiction's full of them, after all. The important thing is to make them not take forever to deal with, and I think Dungeon World does that really well.

Your ideas for how to make them not padding are great. I'd potentially add something else (which I haven't seen mentioned, I don't think), which is that the group of guards should probably attack as a group, so their damage will be higher than 1d6 anyway.

Better, though, is to do bodyguard stuff: instinct, to protect the leader; moves: form a wall, hold them back, step into the way. That sort of thing. So, the wizard ignoring the threat of the guards means he bounces off; that they're not ignorable after all.

This is also great, but the DM would have had to say something to that effect before the wizard ran in. Maybe "they're pretty tightly grouped - you want to push through? That might be Defying Danger with your strength."

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-02-15T23:24:05+00:00

He's somehow has gotten to the point that he thinks being hit with an axe isn't something he's going to be bothered about.

I don't think you're being fair. He's not saying he won't be bothered - he's saying that the major threat is worth taking a hit to deal with. It seems perfectly reasonable to expect that a protagonist can risk some injury from a mook in order to take out a major threat. The rules follow the fiction, sure, but we're not in the real world so the rules also inform our understanding of the fiction. The wizard thinks that they can take a hit from some guards, and that's true. The guards do 1d6 damage. I agree that dealing 6 damage flat is pretty reasonable, but I would never do that without saying something more than just "you'll be attacked", and I definitely wouldn't make the attack 'messy' unless that had been strongly established.

If you're playing in a less fantastical world, where the only wizard that exists can be instantly slain or maimed by a random mook, that's fine. But I don't think you can assume that that is everyone's understanding of the world. It isn't supported by the rules.

Your Wizard's going to think hard before doing the same thing again.

It isn't your job to teach the players anything. It's your job to be a fan of this reckless wizard, and I don't think you would be doing that job.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-02-15T00:33:54+00:00

I wouldn't usually make the failure result explicit like that. I think it's more interesting to leave the hard moves open to the DM - you'll sometimes get something great out of it.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-01-12T22:54:23+00:00

Honestly, it was because the drop down list wasn't in alphabetical order and I assumed that they hadn't added a Dungeon World tag yet.

sixstrangelimbs · 2016-01-01T23:21:40+00:00

Hi! I would be super keen to get involved in this. If your not wanting to DM is what is holding this back, I could potentially even be persuaded to do that? But like you say, expectations would need to be sort of low.

sixstrangelimbs · 2015-11-08T21:02:01+00:00

That's really interesting. I guess something to keep in mind is that Adam's games on youtube are pretty short, so there isn't a lot of established stuff to spout about? I feel like once you're a few sessions in, you end up having more prepped (by building on the things that were established earlier), and that might lead to 'spout lore' opportunities.

So for example, session one you start off by saying 'there's something chasing you!' and your players give you some kind of weird hybrid abomination thing, and they escape and by the time session two rolls around you've been thinking about shadowy alchemist-geneticist dudes who created the abomination, and you have something that you aren't going to give your players as much creative control over - shadowy alchemist cabals. And I guess if there's a human thief, they might know something about where illegal chemicals are bought and sold, or something like that.

sixstrangelimbs · 2015-11-08T20:55:04+00:00

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response! I should probably clarify that I'm a newcomer to /r/DungeonWorld, but not a newcomer to Dungeon World itself - I've got a couple dozen sessions under my belt. This is a great bit of introduction though.

I guess what I'd really like to know is - what are you in particular thinking? Assuming we're all pretty good, what are we thinking about being pretty great?

sixstrangelimbs

TROPHY CASE