|
Post by yeknom on Nov 19, 2014 10:16:37 GMT -8
At the suggestion of HyveMynd I'm starting a new thread with my questions about Apocalypse World and Dungeon World. I'll also tag tomes in the hopes that he sees this. I'm going to start off with describing one of my problems with Savage Worlds, oddly enough. I use the Savage Worlds system (specifically a pulp-genre one-shot treasure-hunting adventure I threw together) to introduce people to either RPGs in general or RPGs that aren't D&D/Sword-and-sorcery. The problem is that I have a hard time imagining using the Savage Worlds system for anything except that 1930s pulp rock'em-sock'em genre. In my head, I try to adapt other game concepts to Savage Worlds, but I can't. Given that I am not too familiar with Dungeon World, I wonder if I'm going to have the same problem. I really don't have any love for the dungeon crawl format or even sword-and-sorcery fantasy. I know that a lot of people claim to have used the Apocalypse World engine for other genres of games, but the same has been said of Savage Worlds, which enjoys great popularity but is something I just can't seem to break into. (I may still one day, but it will take some sort of GM revelation on my part.)
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Nov 19, 2014 11:17:03 GMT -8
Given that I am not too familiar with Dungeon World, I wonder if I'm going to have the same problem. I really don't have any love for the dungeon crawl format or even sword-and-sorcery fantasy. DW is definitely D&D feeling as far as the "playbooks" (i.e. character class choices) and the individual selections that those classes make, but you could really do very much anything with the rest of the world. You will still, at some points (or at most points), have the feeling of fantasy, however you can tweak that however you like. (In the same way Warhammer 40K has, or various D&D settings like Dark Sun) As an example, my current campaign premise is that they are all soldiers in the empire's army, on a borderland, as part of a crack team put together to be put on special missions. I even phrase it this way, so that it evokes a modern special forces feel. In my setting most humans are suspicious of magic (especially back in the empire), and some regions and religions actively burn these "heretics". The PC backstory is effectively how they got here, and of course they may or may not have volunteered for this duty. I prefer a more gritty fantasy, which lets you can play your setting a bit dark, and remove some of that generic "elves and wizards" hokiness you get with some fantasy. Some of this will be enabled by PC choices... One of my PCs is a wizard whos power comes from the dead, who he can talk to. A dwarf cleric gets his power from the underdark and worship of Cthulhu Cthuks My Cthok. Our "generic" not-so-smart fighter is a butcher by trade, from another world, who one day fell into a meat grinder and found himself in this fantasy land for the last 20 years. We have a Orc shaman who gets powers from his ancestors, and can shapeshift. I think the key here of avoiding generic fantasy is get them to answer questions about their histories which also help define the world itself. This way it doesn't feel like Tolkien-land, unless that's what they want. Every sessions I have them reveal more and more strangeness about their cultures and background, so it makes the world their own. I'm a big fan of talking "modern" in fantasy. Curse, use current lingo, make dwarves talk like punks and elves like hippies if you like, or whatever. If you've read Richard K. Morgan's fantasy series (A Land Fit For Heroes) the main characters speak with a very modern tone, and deal with "modern" issues you don't usually read in traditional fantasy lit (homosexuality and its non-acceptance as an example). When reading it you feel like you are reading a cross between fantasy and cyberpunk, but it's really just more a realistic fantasy. Or I should say, it appears to attempt to immerse our modern player sensibilities into a fantasy land inhabited by our fantasy characters. Another recent example is The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson. Fantasy, but in a very unusual setting and source of "magic", with very realistic societal issues and conflicts, and cultural tones. In your case you could also setup a series of quests that feel pulpy, modern, or future, and then just tweak them to be "fantasy" (make that tank an elephant, those biplanes become lizard men riding pteradactyls vs. humans riding rocs/eagles, etc.) So far I've had very good luck with that in my campaign, especially if you don't make it silly (unless that what's you want) and it does make it feel fun and relate-able. One of my favorite things though, is just take something simple to change the world a bit and figure out some of the consequences. Like what if there is no quick form of transportation (horse, etc.)? What if the world is an large island with VERY dangerous animals living in the ocean that make ocean travel impossible. What if the world has no rain, but instead a complex irrigation system and sprinklers have been setup by a prehistoric culture that taps underground water... and what happens if the PCs local sprinkler system breaks down? All these things allow you to setup a fantasy setting but have it feel different enough so that you don't feel like your in the Shire and Mordor. All this is to say that "Dungeon World" does not equal "Dungeon Crawl". Dungeon can be any setting.
|
|
|
Post by lowkeyoh on Nov 19, 2014 11:42:26 GMT -8
I don't see why Savage Worlds wouldn't be useful in other settings. Space, or Victorian Era, or even Fantasy. The strength of the system is it's ease of use. As long as you're not looking for a great depth of gameplay, the setting doesn't really seem all that important. The real problem is that each setting is going to feel the same. You get to play Pulp 1920s, Space Pulp, Fantasy Pulp, or Victorian Pulp. Because the game rewards you for making bad decisions.
And that's really the crux of the issue. Different game systems incentivize different styles of play and reward players for playing that way. The average FATE character would seem cursed to the average D&D character with the vast amount of terrible coincidences and complications falling out of thin air at every turn. Similarly, your average Shadowrunner would look at a D&D character's willingness to get into combat with a puzzled face.
Dungeon World is not really bound by it's setting. You aren't forced into anything. The strength of the AWE is that you are relinquishing creative control over the world and sharing it with everyone involved. If you guys want to have haughty elves, and selfish dwarves, and mindless murdermachine orcs, so be it. We don't. If you want to play low magic, go for it. It's up to the game group to define how the game is going to run, and that's a fundamental shift from the way other games are played.
|
|
|
Post by yeknom on Nov 19, 2014 14:16:34 GMT -8
I don't see why Savage Worlds wouldn't be useful in other settings. Space, or Victorian Era, or even Fantasy. The strength of the system is it's ease of use. As long as you're not looking for a great depth of gameplay, the setting doesn't really seem all that important. The real problem is that each setting is going to feel the same. You get to play Pulp 1920s, Space Pulp, Fantasy Pulp, or Victorian Pulp. Because the game rewards you for making bad decisions. I think you hit the nail on the head. I tend to think of pulp as a genre rather than a flavor, so I've had a hard time envisioning how SW could break out of that genre. To be honest, I can't dream up any examples of Fantasy Pulp, Cyberpunk Pulp (Cyberpulp?), or any other [Genre] Pulp. I know that there are a lot of setting books for SW, but I've never really found them to be interesting enough to spend money on. (Not that I'm that discerning, but I'm rather broke.) Anyway, I guess I'd be interested to see examples of non-fantasy DW/AW games. GURPS is my default system now, but after the L5R actual play, I'm really anxious to try out that system, even though it's totally non-generic. I guess I respond well to seeing a system played well, such as in Actual Plays.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 19, 2014 20:00:58 GMT -8
Yeah. lowkeyoh really nailed how I feel about Savage Worlds. It was designed to be a pulp system. So yes. You can play anything using Savage Worlds, but it will always feel pulpy because that's what the mechanics were designed to do. That's not a knock on the system, mind. The Ubiquity system (which powers Hollow Earth Expedition and a few other games) is a system that I love, but it too is designed to do pulp. Any game you run using Ubiquity is going to have that pulp flavor. If you don't want pulp, then you can either go in a really mess with the system mechanics, or you can play another system. I usually do that latter because I'm lazy. Sometimes I wish that Dungeon World had a different name. You aren't the first person I've seen who assumes it's only about dungeon crawls, yeknom. It's called Dungeon World (I'm assuming) because it's meant to evoke the feel of Dungeons & Dragons, but uses the Apocalypse World system. Many AW-powered hacks are called "Something something World", and people often abbreviate AW-powered games to "* World". But getting back to your concern, Dungeon World is no more or less focused on dungeon crawls (or dragons) than Dungeons & Dragons. A DW adventure can be set anywhere. The last session I ran for my friends (which was far too long ago now) was set in a rocky desert. Getting to the Apocalypse World system, yes. There are now many games that are "Powered by the Apocalypse" or use the "AW Engine". However they're not just cosmetic reskins of the same system (or rather the good ones aren't). The basics of the AW system are this: Players narrate their characters' actions until they trigger "a move". Then they roll 2d6 and usually add a small modifier based on their character's stat. On the result of a 10 or more, the character achieves their goals with no problem, or maybe does better than expected. On a 7-9, the character achieves their goals, but with a cost, a setback, or some other kind of trouble. On a 6 or less, the GM gets to make a move. (Note that the result of a 6 or less does not mean the character fails. Usually.) A "move" is a chunk of rules that says "when someone [says this], dice are rolled to see what happens". Moves are different for different games, and are used to highlight and mechanically reinforce what the game is about. So for a fantasy adventure game like Dungeon World, the moves are things like; Hack & Slash (attacking a foe in melee), Volley (attacking with a ranged weapon), Defy Danger (getting out of the way of traps, hazards, or dangerous situations), Spout Lore (determine your character's in game knowledge about a topic), Discern Realities ( looking around for clues), and Parley (manipulating an NPC into doing what you want). Games usually have Basic Moves and character specific moves. Basic moves are things all characters can do (attack, defend, etc.) while character specific moves are things only that character can do. For a game like Dungeon World, those are class based. Only the Wizard can cast arcane spells. Only the Paladin can lay on hands and detect evil. Only the Ranger has the animal companion. Things like that. All moves have fictional triggers that must be met before they activate. For example, the trigger for Hack & Slash is "When you attack an enemy in melee..." If you do something else, like throwing a dagger or hurling a fireball, Hack & Slash won't trigger. The big point of AW-powered games is "To do it, you have to do it". Meaning that if you want to trigger a move, you have to satisfy that fictional trigger. By the same token, if you satisfy that fictional requirement, you have to make that move, even if you don't really want to. Like if a move says "When you take damage..." and you take damage, the move triggers. The thing that makes AW-powered games great, is that well designed hacks have triggers, moves, and results that support and reinforce the genre and type of game they are. They aren't just reskins of existing games. Dungeon World is a game about fantasy adventurers doing adventurous things, So it has moves that trigger from and provide mechanical results that are appropriate. Monsterhearts is teenage supernatural romance. It has stats, moves, triggers, and effects that are completely different from DW, because the game is not about fantasy adventurers going on quests. It's about teenage monsters being horrible, selfish people and causing drama. The common elements between AW-powered games is that they're all built around moves, that you have to trigger moves through fictional narration, and the 2d6 task resolution system. There are some wildly different games in terms of tone and genre in the Apocalypse World-based family.
|
|
|
Post by yeknom on Nov 20, 2014 9:52:55 GMT -8
Actually, HyveMynd, I realize now that I mis-remembered what Dungeon World actually is in my first post. I got the system confused with one of the 0-Edition D&D clones that was talked about somewhere in the HJRP backlog, which I've been inching my way through. I think I remember hearing that one of them was designed to be especially suited for the paradigm of the "dungeon crawl." Anyway, Dungeon World was actually originally pitched to me as, "D&D that's been simplified to be more fun and dynamic," or something to that effect. Reading through your Cliff's Notes version of the game mechanics, I have a follow up question for you. Even though I run a GURPS game, I'm also a player in a Pathfinder game, which I have no reservations about calling a different version of D&D. The problem that's come up in that game is that situations that require a lot of mechanics-based adjudication (typically combat, but sometimes skill challenges, which our GM borrowed from 4th Edition) are really a completely separate game. You know the deal, I'm sure: even if you're not min-maxing, you are picking feats from a list and deciding when and where you want bonuses to die rolls. Spells come from a different list and occupy a certain number of slots. And so on. The fact that the resulting character sheets usually require software assistance doesn't even enter into it, really... Like Chocobo racing, it's a side game that usually distracts from the more interesting storyline. How do the "moves" of the Dungeon World system avoid this problem?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 20, 2014 17:38:15 GMT -8
Anyway, Dungeon World was actually originally pitched to me as, "D&D that's been simplified to be more fun and dynamic," or something to that effect. Yeah, kinda. To me, Dungeon World is more simplified than some versions of D&D, especially 3rd and 4th edition. Definitely more simplified than Pathfinder. But that might be a matter of perspective and familiarity. More importantly though, Dungeon World is a different playstyle and player mindset than D&D and Pathfinder. In DW (and most AW-based games), fiction is mechanics. Perhaps part of the reason DW was pitched to you as a simplified version of D&D is because many actions are resolved by asking "Does this make sense given the fiction?" If the answer is "yes" then it just happens without the need for dice or other mechanics. For example, in the for DW game I ran for my friends, the party was about the enter the tunnel to the Snake Cult's lair. They heard the sound of many feet climbing the wooden steps and realized they only had a few minutes before a mob of cultists came out (they had been making a lot of noise outside the tunnel). The Fighter hid himself in the swamp grass next to the exit, and I had the player make a Defy Danger move (the "danger" being him being spotted as soon as the cultists came outside). He nailed the roll with a 10+, and so they had no idea where he was. He waited until all the cultists were outside, then lunged forward to butcher one from behind. "What do I roll?" the player asked. "You don't" I said. "You just run the guy through. Do your damage." The cultist had his back turned and the Fighter had hidden himself so well that the baddies had no idea he was there. No one was expecting to be hit from behind. Also, the move Hack & Slash only triggers when the foe you're engaging is aware of you and able to defend themselves. That's how the game work. Narrative positioning. If the players can narrate their characters into situations where they can do things without triggering moves, then let them. But by the same token, if the players narrate their characters into situations where they are ignoring threats, then they don't get to defend either. If the Wizard keeps reading their spellbook instead of doing something about the ogre charging up behind them? Oh well. So that style of game is possibly why people have said DW is simplified. Instead of many rules to impartially handle many situations, there are fewer rules that rely more on doing what makes sense given the fiction. How do the "moves" of the Dungeon World system avoid this problem? It sounds like you're asking if there are a lot of moves that require the players to flip back and forth during the game. The short answer is " Have a look for yourself".
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Nov 21, 2014 8:36:43 GMT -8
I got the system confused with one of the 0-Edition D&D clones that was talked about somewhere in the HJRP backlog, which I've been inching my way through. I think I remember hearing that one of them was designed to be especially suited for the paradigm of the "dungeon crawl." Dungeon Crawl Classic (DCC), perhaps? I have no experience with it, although I've met someone around LA who really enjoys it, and uses it as the gateway RPG for his newbs.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Nov 21, 2014 8:45:28 GMT -8
But by the same token, if the players narrate their characters into situations where they are ignoring threats, then they don't get to defend either. If the Wizard keeps reading their spellbook instead of doing something about the ogre charging up behind them? Oh well. This is a part that I struggle with, and especially when first running DW. Especially noticeable in combats, since we RPGers are normally used to a back-and-forth attack/defend type of mechanic as per board game rules. Example: Orc archers are preparing another barrage. Instead of going for cover, the cleric PC prays to his god to heal his comrade who's been knocked down. The cleric fails the roll (6-). This doesn't necessarily mean that the spell just didn't work. It may mean an arrow grazed him, causing damage (roll for that), AND the spell therefore fails. Some PCs used to other systems always pipe up here... "can't I roll to Defy Danger to dodge the arrow?" Um, no. You made your decision on what action you wanted to execute when the situation presented itself... you failed your roll to cast the spell, here are the consequences and what that means in the story. Now, what you going to do about it? Some PCs don't like this because it feels like they have less mechanical control (which is true). I would say that this system really reduces the combat board game mechanics inherent in other systems, and that does mean that going into and out of combat is much more seamless (from a role-playing perspective).
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Nov 21, 2014 11:52:04 GMT -8
Yea, so my first intro to the AW engine was last year, and im a big fan. I even bave trouble remembering the fiction first rule.
That all said, for me, Dungeon World is actually one of mh least favorite hacks. I get it, but more often than not the playbooks, dont lend towards stories i want to be a part of. I love fantasy, but im more into courtly social manipulation stuff.
MonsterHearts is probably my favorite hack, and its great at how well it was designed to tell that type story.
|
|
|
Post by yeknom on Nov 21, 2014 14:11:44 GMT -8
It sounds like you're asking if there are a lot of moves that require the players to flip back and forth during the game. The short answer is " Have a look for yourself". OK, so I think what I was asking was how much do the game mechanics detract from the narrative and lead to time spend on mechanics-resolution? In D&D-style games, the mechanics are the foundation of the game and the narrative actually adapts to it. As an example, if I decided to run a D&D game that was low-magic and didn't even have spells, I imagine I wouldn't get a lot of happy players. Or at least those who did play would have a hard time calling it D&D. Once combat starts, the game converts to nothing but a group effort at mechanics-resolution. The way I run GURPS, the mechanics are called only when there's an impact on the narrative. Virtually everything is a simple 3d6 skill check, so they interrupt the narrative very minimally, and (since I'm usually fair) no one is going to challenge me on how I determine modifiers. There's extremely minimal time spent in-game on mechanics-resolution, since nothing but the final modifier has to be known (e.g., "Give me a Guns-minus-5 check" instead of "Let's go over all the different modifiers that added up to negative five.") In Fate, my admittedly limited experience as a GM showed that mechanics and narrative are a bit too intertwined, to the point that very often the narrative details had to be negotiated, leading to a lot more time time spent on mechanics-resolution, even though there was a lot less number-crunching involved. ("OK, you want to spend a Fate point - let's have a pow wow about what aspect of you or your current situation makes the most sense for you not failing that bad die roll you made in some way.") Wait, didn't I have a point I was getting to? Oh yes, So, DW sounds at least much better than D&D in terms of mechanical interference in the roleplaying, but I'm still wondering how much time is actually spent on mechanics-resolution, and whether I'd run into the same problem I had with Fate when I tried running it.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 21, 2014 19:02:20 GMT -8
Monsterhearts is my favorite AW-based game too, joecrak. I think it's a great example of how good AW-based games are built so that all the moves and mechanics support and reinforce the intended theme of the game. However I find Dungeon World to be a lot more approachable for new players (both new to RPGs and new to AW-based games), since traditional, Tolkien-esque fantasy is something everyone is familiar with. To try and answer your question yeknom, I feel that DW is closer to Fate than D&D when it comes to how intertwined mechanics and narrative are. As tomes said, AW-based games are "fiction first" games. Meaning that the fiction takes precedence over everything else, and also that everything begins (and ends) with the fiction. I mentioned before that moves have fictional triggers. Unless and until those triggers are met, the mechanics don't kick in. But the mechanics also generate fiction. For example, the "attack at range" move from Dungeon World looks like this: VolleyWhen you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range, roll+Dex. On a 10+ you have a clear shot—deal your damage. On a 7–9, choose one (whichever you choose you deal your damage): - You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger of the GM’s choice
- You have to take what you can get: -1d6 damage
- You have to take several shots, reducing your ammo by one.
If the player gets a 7-9 result and chooses the "place yourself in danger of the GM's choice" option, then the GM has to narrate the danger. It doesn't matter is there wasn't anything dangerous going on before, because of the option the player chose, the GM has to add something to the narrative. The whole game is like that. Player narration triggers moves, the moves generate a narrative that the players react to, which triggers more moves, and so on and so forth. You can't really separate the fiction from the mechanics. Which is a very large part of why I like AW-based games.
|
|
|
Post by joecrak on Nov 22, 2014 7:48:07 GMT -8
Monsterhearts is my favorite AW-based game too, joecrak. I think it's a great example of how good AW-based games are built so that all the moves and mechanics support and reinforce the intended theme of the game. However I find Dungeon World to be a lot more approachable for new players (both new to RPGs and new to AW-based games), since traditional, Tolkien-esque fantasy is something everyone is familiar with. I can't disagree with this statement. It does have the easiest buy in around. It's just after they play this, that's when you introduce them to all the other great PbtA games. Though right now the one's I play most are sort of still in beta testing. And speaking as someone that once tried to design One single playbook for Brennan Taylor's L5R hack. Man is it difficult.
|
|
|
Post by yeknom on Nov 23, 2014 14:54:48 GMT -8
Monsterhearts is my favorite AW-based game too, joecrak. I think it's a great example of how good AW-based games are built so that all the moves and mechanics support and reinforce the intended theme of the game. However I find Dungeon World to be a lot more approachable for new players (both new to RPGs and new to AW-based games), since traditional, Tolkien-esque fantasy is something everyone is familiar with. To try and answer your question yeknom, I feel that DW is closer to Fate than D&D when it comes to how intertwined mechanics and narrative are. As tomes said, AW-based games are "fiction first" games. Meaning that the fiction takes precedence over everything else, and also that everything begins (and ends) with the fiction. I mentioned before that moves have fictional triggers. Unless and until those triggers are met, the mechanics don't kick in. But the mechanics also generate fiction. [...] The whole game is like that. Player narration triggers moves, the moves generate a narrative that the players react to, which triggers more moves, and so on and so forth. You can't really separate the fiction from the mechanics. Which is a very large part of why I like AW-based games. HyveMynd, I think that one good aspect of this AW system that you're ignoring is that it's still possible for the GM to handle everything him-/herself. (Or at least that's the impression I get.) If the player is just narrating what his or her character is doing, then it's not necessary for the player to be aware of what "moves" are being triggered in the mechanics. This would be pretty beneficial for players similar to mine: those who like to try everything they can think of with little consideration for whether there's something built into the system to handle it. Fate Core could handle this, sure, but the game slowed down in an effort to maximize collaboration. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is if you want a game free from mechanical interference for the sake of smoothness of play. So if I've got a game which requires some Volley to be triggered, I could simply ask for a roll. Now, assuming that they do get a 7-9, it's possible that I could just pick which of the three outcomes listed would happen, or I could offer the player the choice. But it is less of a headache that there are only 3 distinct choices rather than leaving it up to creativity. I feel enough creative pressure as a GM, and I don't want to have to inflict that on the players. So, there's Dungeon World, which is nominally about D&D-style fantasy, and Monsterhearts, which seems to be nominally about paranormal romance. I know that a lot of AW proponents like to say that these systems are highly-adaptable, and I was wondering if you could provide some good examples of AW-based game settings that show how the molds can be broken. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons that I love GURPS so much, because there never felt like there was a mold in the first place.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 23, 2014 18:40:14 GMT -8
So if I've got a game which requires some Volley to be triggered, I could simply ask for a roll. So good so far. Though I'm going to be a pedantic dick and say if Volley gets triggered, you must ask for a roll. That's how the game works. If a move's trigger is met, the move has to resolve. Though players are allowed to revise their narrations so that moves don't trigger, depending on how nice of a GM you are. Now, assuming that they do get a 7-9, it's possible that I could just pick which of the three outcomes listed would happen, or I could offer the player the choice. Mostly no, but a little yes. In AW-based games, almost everything is player-facing. Only players roll dice, and when a player triggers a move that provides choices, the player makes that choice. Not the GM. If the player triggers a Volley move and gets a 7-9 result, they chose whether they mark off 1 ammo, put themselves in danger, or do -1d6 damage. Never the GM. Some moves do specify that the GM gets to choose something. Like the "put yourself in danger" option for Volley says "You have to move to get the shot placing you in danger of the GM’s choice". So the player has to choose to put themselves in danger, but the GM gets to say what that danger is (usually it's something related to what's already happening in the scene). It sounds like you're worried about being overwhelmed by choices. Most moves provide those choices, at least mechanically. You've seen the Volley move, but here's the Defend move as another: DefendWhen you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, roll+Con. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. So long as you stand in defense, when you or the thing you defend is attacked you may spend hold, 1 for 1, to choose an option: - Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
- Halve the attack’s effect or damage
- Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1
- Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level
Or the Lash Out Physically move from Monsterhearts: Lash Out PhysicallyWhen you lash out physically, roll with volatile. On a 10 up, you deal them harm and choose one: the harm is great (add 1); you gain 1 String on them; they need to hold steady before they can retaliate (during this scene). On a 7-9, you harm them but choose 1: they gain 1 String on you; they can deal 1 harm to you for free, if they want to; you become your Darkest Self. Again, the players get to choose from among these options. Not the GM. I've never run into a player freezing up with analysis paralysis when choosing options as a result of a move, yeknom. The options are right there for them to pick from. I've had players ask mechanical questions, such as "what is hold?" or "what does +1 forward mean?" but it's not like they have limitless options. So, there's Dungeon World, which is nominally about D&D-style fantasy, and Monsterhearts, which seems to be nominally about paranormal romance. I know that a lot of AW proponents like to say that these systems are highly-adaptable, and I was wondering if you could provide some good examples of AW-based game settings that show how the molds can be broken./quote] I'm not sure how to answer this question. The "mold" of AW-based games is the player-facing moves being triggered from narration. If the game isn't built around that concept, it's not really an AW-based game. But apart from that? There's a lot of hacks out there, all very different from each other.
|
|