The OOC Tavern

[Kanye Westeros]

mb I have a quick question

Would I be able to use my shapeshifter hold to shift into a new shape, or would that be a new shapeshifter roll?
like, say I turn into a rat to climb up a rope and get above some bad guy, would I be able to use one of my hold to change into a wolf and drop on them, or would I have to roll a completely new shapeshift with new hold to do that?

I've seen GMs go either way before, so it's a matter of what you feel is best, but I wanted your input before doing anything later that might need a retcon.

[mb.]

I had never really thought about it, but when I consult the move itself:

When you call upon the spirits to change your shape, roll+Wis. * On a 10+ hold 3. * On a 7–9 hold 2. * On a miss hold 1 in addition to whatever the GM says.

I'd say that it's pretty clear: whenever you change shape, you roll.

[Kanye Westeros]

I had never really thought about it, but when I consult the move itself:

When you call upon the spirits to change your shape, roll+Wis. * On a 10+ hold 3. * On a 7–9 hold 2. * On a miss hold 1 in addition to whatever the GM says.

I'd say that it's pretty clear: whenever you change shape, you roll.

Sounds good.

[Kanye Westeros]

I can't wait til I can join up and start raising hell!

[KingOfCowards]

We could use someone who can turn into a bird right about now...

[mb.]

Yep, sorry about that – I have a sensible idea of how to introduce Aziza, and it'll be soon, but not soon enough to help with those damned archers.

[mb.]

Another note KW: you are the only player with any DW experience other than this game, and I've only played in a few one-shot hangouts before this, so please do chime in if you have feedback for me or suggestions how any of us can take more advantage of the DW awesomeness.

[Kanye Westeros]

No worries, the only light criticism of the game I could make is that it helps everyone to have more fictional details, make each post a little story in itself rather than a statement of action. This is something everybody has trouble with at first, but when you have everyone throwing out details its easy for everyone else to seize on them for their own thing.

Example:
I charge the gnoll, swinging my sword at its head.

could be

With a mighty shout, I throw myself in the path of the gnoll charging (other character). I swing my mighty blade in a vicious arc, attempting to connect with the beast's head.
(roll for Hack and Slash, for the sake of this example, we'll call it an 8.)
My weapon slashes the Gnoll, drawing blood and enraging it. Since the 8 means I take damage too, I usually leave that part up to mr. GM.

This is the subtle side of 'Players help shape the world', and 'Play to find out.'
The above has all the same intentional info as the first, but the fleshed out details have now introduced elements that weren't there before. Maybe the impact of the Gnoll colliding with the fighter means (other character) still has to defy danger, or maybe it spoils their shot. The GM now has a tidbit to hang another move onto, the Fighter's shout. It can draw unwanted attention, or trigger any number of GM moves.

So when I say we should try and make little stories, I don't mean anything more than a handful of sentences, but they help all of us see what you're seeing, and provide little things to grab onto.

[mb.]

Absolutely! Thanks for the observation Kanye. I'd like to see all of us include richer fiction in our posts too. Here's to making better stories together!

[Spartakos]

See, its the hybrid that I have trouble with. I've played freeform/writing games, and enjoyed them...and I've played dice games, and enjoyed them. But with DW (so far) I'm never quite sure where my authorial writ runs out.

I think I'll get used to it.

[mb.]

I can understand that Spartkos. Part of it may be just familiarity with the moves. Generally, things that don't fit in a move are things you can just do - not always, but usually. It's also usually "no drama, no move". You can describe what you're doing, and the moment you say something that needs to be resolved with dice because there are stakes to what you're doing, you've triggered a move.

For example:
GM: there's a wall in front of you, about twice your height, roughly built with large rocks sticking out all over the place. What do you do?
You: I climb the wall slowly and carefully, and look over the top.
GM: no problem, you take a minute, and over the wall you see...

Versus:
GM: there's a wall in front of you, about ten times your height, roughly built with large rocks sticking out all over the place. What do you do?
You: I climb the wall slowly and carefully.
GM: damn, it sure would hurt if you fell, wouldn't it? Roll+DEX to Defy Danger and avoid that.

Versus:
GM: the ogre is right behind you, howling for your blood! You turn the corner, and in the alley there's a wall blocking your way, about twice your height, roughly built with large rocks sticking out all over the place.
You: I jump as high as I can, grab whatever I can, and pull myself up as quick as possible!
GM: okay, the ogre's huge hands are closing in on you; he'd obviously love to dash your brains out on that wall. Roll+DEX to Defy Danger and get up the wall before he grabs you.

And even in a dramatic situation, more fiction means more fun for everyone.

This:
You: I try to hit him with my sword. I rolled a 10 on Hack & Slash.
GM: Okay, roll your damage.

Versus:
You: I back off a step, waiting for him to raise his sword, then I spring suddenly forward, swinging my sword over my head and down at his sword arm, trying to chop it off. I rolled a 10 on Hack & Slash.
GM: Nice move! Your sword arcs down in a steely flash, completely severing his hand. His sword, hand still tightly gripping it, clangs to the floor as he howls in agony! Roll damage!

I guess the biggest difference between Dungeon World and most other RPGs is that the fiction has as much or more influence on the outcome as the dice. I also forget it and leave things a bit too simple and short sometimes, but I'll try for more interesting story!

[Kanye Westeros]

Exactly, if there's no real reason why you can't do something, then you just do it. If there is a reason you can't do something you explain how you do it, which allows the GM to come up with interesting ways to get in your way. If doing that thing can end up hurting, stopping, ruining, etc. you or someone else, then it's probably a move that should be rolled for.

Like you may not know this but you don't always have to hack and slash, that just covers one small part of combat, the trading blows, if you go on the defensive you can choose to roll Defend and spend a hold to do a little damage. But you have a third option, one that isn't explained very well in the game, a player can 'Deal Damage' much like the GM can.
If you attack someone and in the Fiction there is no way they can attack you back (like they're helpless, or fighting someone else, etc.) You simply roll your class damage and call it good. The thief is the only class that really mentions this, but anyone can do it, the thief just has special options for doing it.

As for Authorial Writ, and how far is too far, it's always a matter of taste from group to group. But beyond that there's different concerns depending on the arena.
A group playing face to face can take a lot of liberties, because everything is there in the moment and there's a much easier back and forth flow between players and GM.

In PBP, things are obviously a little different:
As mentioned before, expanding your actions into tiny stories helps everyone.
As for how much you can describe? well that's where it comes down to talking it over, but my understanding is that it is always impolite to 'hijack' another player's character, so I would word my posts as a question or hook for another player to grab onto and respond however they choose. (There's room for debate on whether moving NPCs is ok, like I did with the Gnoll's action and reaction in my example post above)
And then there's the matter of failure and GM moves, again it depends on the group, but in a similar vein to interacting with other players, I tend to leave my post vague toward the end so the GM has an easier time of picking it up and running with it, sometimes I'll throw in a little fluff 'telegraphing' my intentions for what I want to do next, which (IMO) is another hook that the GM is welcome to grab to mess with me.
example:
I just failed a hack and slash, but it also made sense that I also performed a Defy danger move. Which I succeeded.
As I swing past the Big Bad, my sword glances off his armor, I make it across the pit but...
So I succeeded defying danger, even though I failed the move before
GM: Big Bad snags the chain you've swung on, yanking you from your perch and slamming you into a support column, take X damage.
So even though it's slightly out of order of which moves happened and when, it still leads to an exciting Fiction!

[Kanye Westeros]

Aziza - location unknown

In my cage, somewhere deep within the Gnoll tunnels, I can faintly hear the sounds of battle. A scream of dying Gnoll alerts the ones guarding my cage and they shuffle off down a side corridor. I can see my spear and my gear, leaned up against the opposite wall, so close and yet so far.

I lean down and pick up a thighbone from one of this cage's previous inhabitants, and I begin rhythmically slamming it into the bars of my cage *CLANG!CLANG!CLANG!CLANG!*, hoping that whoever is fighting the Gnolls is friendly...

[mb.]

Sorry for the delay Aziza - I hadn't expected four gnoll archers to be such a problem, but a few bad rolls can complicate anything. But it looks like they're mopping up quickly now, so we'll be moving along to your first appearance shortly!

[Kanye Westeros]

we aren't burdened with an overabundance of choices right now.

Hahahahaha, awesome. I approve the reference.

[mb.]

Apart from the obvious comedic value of Bedwyr failing his roll to smash bodily into a large, heavy, but completely unlocked door, I'm curious, just to make sure my descriptions are clear: what made you think force was necessary to open the door? And the good side: Bedwyr hasn't earned any experience in ages !;)

[Spartakos]

Well, I didn't actually know whether the door was locked, barred, magically held, etc. I considered a more cautious attempt to open it (cracking the doors to peek through, having Oelle and Boggs put effort into opening so that Bedwyr could go through, etc)...but I thought that if there WAS something keeping the doors closed, such a tentative attempt would fail, and alert whoever was within that we were outside...we'd lose surprise, AND we wouldn't be through the doors.

If it had worked (and my odds weren't bad at all...I only needed a 7 to get the result I really cared about, it doesn't take very long; I presume any success is enough to break the object in question?), I would think that would have meant that regardless of whether it was locked/barred/etc, I broke the door sufficiently to force entry. Was this a poor assumption? Perhaps I should have asked more questions first.

Honestly...the tragicomic effects of failure are a downside to the system, for me. In a more straightforward system, I might have failed to bust the door, but I wouldn't have looked like a chump doing so. If failure is seldom/never a "simple failure"...then a little less than half the time (6 or less on 2d6, about 40%) one not only fails, but effectively "fumbles". Does this make it a better choice to NOT use moves sometimes, as opposed to purely narrative actions?

I get the feeling that generally, one only rolls when there are consequences to the attempt...but in this case, if the door would have simply opened if I pushed it, was the fact that I tried to use my move a mistake, that proved worse than if I had simply said "I open the door?". Because it also feels kind of weird to have a special ability on my sheet that I'm sometimes better off not using.

[mb.]

Ah, I'm sorry Spartakos. If nothing else, I want the game to be fun, not embarrassing.

Moves in DW aren't something you "use", they're "triggered" by the fiction – in a game around a table, you'd describe what you're doing and I/we would decide if you triggered a move, which you'd then roll. In PbP we sort of have to shortcut that a bit, or suffer half the already slow speed. So it's absolutely right and desirable that you to say "I do this" and then roll the move you think is appropriate. And usually it works fine.

As described, the door is extremely sturdy and heavy, but unlocked. If we'd been at a table together, I would've said "when you ram it, it opens. Slowly, but your bash does open it." No roll necessary. Since you pulled the move into it, and unfortunately failed, I went with it. In hindsight, I should've called it, stricken the move, and just opened the door. But I had thought (knowing that your nemesis the Alpha was waiting behind the door for Bedwyr's spotlight moment) that starting with an embarrassment, which with good rolls would turn into heroic redemption, was good for some drama and character development. Describing your character as arrogant is pretty much asking the GM to take him down a notch or two eventually. As long as he also has a chance to redeem himself.

As for the rolls and the chance of failure, some of your frustration may stem more from my inexperience as a GM than from DW itself. A 10+ is a clear success, a 7-9 is a success with consequences, and a 6- is a clear failure. On a roll+0 you'd be right about the 40%ish failure, but most common moves are roll+2, so you only completely fail on a roll of 2-4, which improves your odds considerably on 2d6. I like this much more than your average d20 game, because even a partial failure in stress situations, especially life or death and/or pain situations, should logically almost always have consequences. The consequences are also where GM moves come in. The GM never rolls for monster attacks – they are one of the GM options that arise from your rolls. I think the system is perfect for a certain kind of play, if everyone's okay with their characters developing and changing, but I know I haven't perfected GMing it yet.

In this case, I'll leave it up to you. I screwed up and should have stricken your move and just opened the door. If you'd like to retcon it, no problem: I'll edit my last post and we can move on. Let me know.

[Spartakos]

Moves in DW aren't something you "use", they're "triggered" by the fiction – in a game around a table, you'd describe what you're doing and I/we would decide if you triggered a move, which you'd then roll. In PbP we sort of have to shortcut that a bit, or suffer half the already slow speed. So it's absolutely right and desirable that you to say "I do this" and then roll the move you think is appropriate. And usually it works fine.

That makes sense to me, as far as saving time; but this is something I'm still getting used to, the divide between where narrative and mechanics mesh. Part of it is that things that are a part of my character (abilities, skills, traits, etc) feel like something that should be used at my discretion.

As described, the door is extremely sturdy and heavy, but unlocked. If we'd been at a table together, I would've said "when you ram it, it opens. Slowly, but your bash does open it." No roll necessary. Since you pulled the move into it, and unfortunately failed, I went with it. In hindsight, I should've called it, stricken the move, and just opened the door. But I had thought (knowing that your nemesis the Alpha was waiting behind the door for Bedwyr's spotlight moment) that starting with an embarrassment, which with good rolls would turn into heroic redemption, was good for some drama and character development. Describing your character as arrogant is pretty much asking the GM to take him down a notch or two eventually. As long as he also has a chance to redeem himself.

Hrmm...I see it differently, I guess. To me, having a character who is arrogant (especially one who has been so for some time, as Bedwyr has) usually says there is probably a reason why he is such...in general, quite a few people are arrogant because they actually can back it up. From a narrative perspective, I would generally only take an arrogant character down a notch if I wanted to develop him into a less arrogant person; one who learned some humility/hubris. That doesn't strike me as very "Bedwyr"; I'd planned to perhaps temper his arrogance a bit by playing to some of the social drawbacks of being arrogant...in short, that it's a very unlikeable personality trait. Now Bedwyr has spent a lot of his life not developing close personal relationships, in part as a defense mechanism, so this drawback hasn't been as harmful...but if he develops closer ties to friends/allies, then he might start to reconsider his attitude...at least as far as his friends.
Or he might not, and may simply remain conceited and arrogant...which makes him a flawed hero, which is not a bad thing at all, IMO.

As for the rolls and the chance of failure, some of your frustration may stem more from my inexperience as a GM than from DW itself. A 10+ is a clear success, a 7-9 is a success with consequences, and a 6- is a clear failure. On a roll+0 you'd be right about the 40%ish failure, but most common moves are roll+2, so you only completely fail on a roll of 2-4, which improves your odds considerably on 2d6. I like this much more than your average d20 game, because even a partial failure in stress situations, especially life or death and/or pain situations, should logically almost always have consequences. The consequences are also where GM moves come in. The GM never rolls for monster attacks – they are one of the GM options that arise from your rolls. I think the system is perfect for a certain kind of play, if everyone's okay with their characters developing and changing, but I know I haven't perfected GMing it yet.

Well first, I take just as much blame for this as you, especially considering I'm at least as unfamiliar with the system. So don't beat yourself up over it.
Second, perhaps that's a factor...the fact that the character is supposed to develop and change. If I'd been thinking more with that in mind, I might have designed a different character, with a clearer perspective on how I wanted him to change. As it is, I already had a somewhat clear picture of how I wanted the character, so I'm a bit resistant to changing him thus far.

In this case, I'll leave it up to you. I screwed up and should have stricken your move and just opened the door. If you'd like to retcon it, no problem: I'll edit my last post and we can move on. Let me know.

I appreciate the offer, but it'll be simpler if we let it stand; let's take it as a lesson learned for next time, on both our parts. Fair enough?

[mb.]

I appreciate the offer, but it'll be simpler if we let it stand; let's take it as a lesson learned for next time, on both our parts. Fair enough?

Alright then, on we go!