I’ve been doing some thinking about multiclassing in DW (spurred by a couple of questions about it that I see asked frequently):
1) when you take a MC move and grab a starting move that requires other moves to function (e.g. Cast A Spell), you’re meant to get the other moves as well. This is sort of tucked away in the main rulebook rather than made explicit, so for clarity’s sake a lot of custom playbooks have to write “when you take X via an MC move, you also get Y and Z” somewhere in them.
2) you are specifically supposed to be able to take MC moves with MC moves. This means that being able to MC to Fighter (or any class with MC Dabbler) means being able to MC to any class at all. This isn’t mentioned in the rules and was clarified by Sage and Adam.
3) sometimes, imposing some restrictions on MCing is flavourful and thematic, and can help define the class’ fiction and identity. The Druid can only MC to Ranger, for example, or the v1 Shaman can only MC to the Ranger or Druid – this is because all three are “primal”/nature archetype classes.
4) some classes just plain can’t MC, or can’t MC outside of a couple of specific classes. A lot of times this is just a very arbitrary restriction and doesn’t actually serve flavour particularly well. Why can’t my Thief also be able to cast illusion spells, or have a pet ape, or be charming and open? All of these things are cool ideas that make for fun and memorable characters.
5) MCing is fun! Yes, niche protection is fairly important, but that’s already enforced via limiting play to a single copy of each class. Letting players pick moves from other classes to make their character mechanics fit their character fiction doesn’t significantly impact niche protection in most cases.
6) MCing restrictions make existing classes incompatible with newer ones. To take the example of my v1 Shaman again, although it can MC to the Druid or Ranger, the Druid or Ranger can’t MC to the Shaman. The intent of the restriction is obviously thematic, so it’s weird that it doesn’t work both ways RAW. Of course, the only reason it doesn’t work both ways RAW is that the Druid and Ranger are official classes published in the main book and the Shaman came out afterwards.
7) it’s just confusing, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone finds the relevant section on getting prerequisite moves and that we had to ask for authorial clarification on MCing into MC moves!
Basically, the way MC rules work in Dungeon World is fairly pants.
As such, I think multiclassing would work much better if instead of being a per-playbook move, it were part and parcel of the Level Up move, like such:
Level Up
When you have downtime (hours or days) and XP equal to (or greater than) your current level+7, you can reflect on your experiences and hone your skills.
• Subtract your current level+7 from your XP.
• Increase your level by 1.
• Either choose a new advanced move from one of your playbook’s favoured classes, or choose a new move from any other class as if you were one level lower. If you pick a starting move that requires another starting move to function (like the Cleric’s Cast A Spell move, which requires Commune) you get that move too.
• If you are the wizard, you also get to add a new spell to your spellbook.
• Choose one of your stats and increase it by 1 (this may change your modifier). Changing your Constitution increases your maximum and current HP. Ability scores can’t go higher than 18.
You then pair this with a favoured class system: each playbook lists the classes which are most thematically appropriate to MC into. The Druid’s list would read “Ranger or any other class with a strong connection to nature,” for example; the Fighter’s might read “any class with a strong martial bent” which would let it treat, say, the Barbarian or a future Warlord playbook as favoured classes.
The end result of this is that:
A) you can have thematic restriction that creates a stronger fictional identity without stopping your players from going for character concepts that you, the class author, didn’t think of. Illusionist Thief and warrior-Shaman are now possible RAW.
B) every class, official or third party, can now MC into every class, past and present.
C) no more confusion about MCing into an MC move (or about prerequisite moves).
D) you’ve freed up space for additional flavourful advanced moves in any class that previously had MC moves!
Obviously, RAW isn’t everything, yada yada yada, but that doesn’t mean RAW shouldn’t be designed to avoid the necessity for houserules as much as possible. 🙂
One thing that the existing MC moves do (that your proposed level up move does not) is put a limit on the number of cross-class moves. I don’t think anyone currently gets more than one in each tier.
That puts a hard limit on the amount of cross-class synergies you have to consider when designing classes, and helps provide some additional niche protection.
In my hack Zombie World, I set up the six playbooks as having “basic moves” and “advanced” moves. When you want to multi-class, you have to take at least one of the other classes basic moves before you can take an advanced move. I can’t remember if DW makes a similar distinction, but the idea is to make MCing an important option but to make the player commit to it, and not just randomly pick up whatever he/she wants. Of course, my hack is a modern, contemporary zombie apocalypse, so fiction and flavor being tied to classes is less of an issue for my game, but, still, something to gnaw on…
Jeff Johnston: fair point. Completely forgot about that.
No, that’s not required You don’t have to take later MC moves from the same class as your first MC move.
hey, niche protection in the style of old school hack: when you take a move from another class, either it’s from a class no one else is playing, or you have to ask permission to who’s playing it.