I am introducing my group to DW this weekend… I’m thinking of swapping out the Wizard and Cleric with the Mage and Priest alternate playbooks. I’ve seen some talk about the Mage, but not about the Priest (probably because the former is free and the latter is not!).
Does anyone have experience with the Priest in play?
9 thoughts on “I am introducing my group to DW this weekend.”
Sadly not, but I like the class. We’ve used the mage and templar in the group and they were both a lot of fun. The templar is a good all-rounder if you want to provide a witch hunter-style character, too.
Out of curiosity (and I’m not trying to be a downer here), what exactly are you unsatisfied with about the Wizard and the Cleric? What makes you not want to use them, especially if you are introducing a brand new group to the game?
Excellent questions, Christopher Stone-Bush .
Strangely enough, I think I like the Wizard and Cleric playbooks better (it isn’t strange that I like them better, only strange that I like them better and am still asking the question!).
As for why I’m asking the question, then, for our gaming group we try to keep every game we play within the same world we’ve been gaming in. We use one-shots and trial runs of systems to give glimpses of the past or as preludes to things to come. Given that, the Mage, with it’s more “themed” magic, fits the fiction of the world better.
I suppose that once I started walking down that path, I figured I should do so for the Cleric as well! (flawed logic and all)
I totally get wanting to continue to explore a specific setting over several games, Jon Sprague. But if you’re modifying a system right out of the gate, rather than playing it “as is” a few times first, I sort of feel like you’re not giving it a fair shot. If you immediately hammer a new system so that it fits the “shape” of a setting it was not designed or intended for, you’re not seeing what the system can do on its own.
Dungeon World doesn’t have a setting, so this isn’t a giant issue. But that also means the system is flexible enough to take any setting you give it, without monkeying around with the mechanics or adding in optional/advanced stuff. I’ve looked at the Mage (as it’s free) and it looks somewhat complicated. Especially if you’re introducing new people to the game. I’m not saying don’t use use alternate playbooks, but why not just start with the “base” game, rather than jumping right to “advanced mode”?
All fair points, certainly… and probably the wiser course of action, Christopher Stone-Bush . Thank you for taking the time to help me see straight!
If the table likes the system and wants to keep going, we’ll revisit the casters and see what they want to do with it then (ask questions, right?).
Fiction goes a long, long way in AW-powered games. I’ve seen people complain that DW doesn’t have rules for allowing dwarves to see in the dark, or that makes elves resistant to sleep spells. My response is always ” Well, if your dwarves can see in the dark, then they just do.” You don’t need rules or mechanics for that kind of stuff, you just narrate things appropriately. I’m not sure what kind of magic you’re trying to emulate Jon Sprague, but it can probably be covered through fiction and narration.
If you play a few sessions and realize you need to tinker with mechanics (which may be the case), you’ll have a clearer idea of what needs to be changed than if you started right off with something new. Good luck, and let us know how things go. 🙂
My group never used the cleric or wizard simply because the idea of spells per day and predefined spells, versus just having a theme, seemed boring. The few times I played spell casters in other games (Pathfinder, D&D) I got use to the lists but I never really liked it. Then I played Mage: The Awakening and I finally felt like playing a caster for the first time. So when I picked up DW and saw spell lists I looked for a replacement immediately.
As for the priest itself, it plays like a mage. You have your themed magic but the theme is slightly skewed (with defined worshippers and enemies). You can do more of what you imagine versus simply casting “Cure Light Wounds” twice per day at first level. The priest though is definitely a defensive version of the mage since the mage gets “Black Magic” and the priest doesn’t have an attack spell move. It would be up to your GM is you can simply blast away an enemy but that’s more of the mages schtick. If you want to be a blasty priest just reskin the mage to be divine.
It’s a shame you immediately wrote off both the Cleric and the Wizard, Delos Adamski. Especially as neither of them have “spells per day”. They do both have spell lists, and I understand preferring Mage‘s freeform magic to other magic systems.
If you’re having fun playing DW with alternate playbooks, that’s great. It’s just a pet peeve of mine when people immediately change something about a system, rather than play a game “as is” first.
more over, it’s very easy to create custom spells. Not only you can just make them up on the fly when needed and when the fiction is ok for everyone, but both classes have their own meanings to do it (ritual and divine guidance).
Comments are closed.