Hi everyone. Quick question rule (I thought I was done with this now. It appears I’m not). So, last session a newbie joined my weekly session of DW. During the game, he raised his shield to protect himself from incoming arrows. He triggered the defend action. He rolled 10+ and said : “Ok, so I take reduce the damages by half twice, so I take no damage
me : No, you can’t take an option twice.
player : Really ? … Why not ?”
Then my regular players and I were : “Yeah, why not ?”
So, instead of ruling on it, we went for a defy Danger action and I let him avoid the danger completely. We actually all thought that you cannot take the same option twice without bring it out, but are we right ?
Of course, I’ll kill that newbie next game so he’ll learn his lesson 😉
Wouldn’t half of half be a quarter?
I was under the impression you can’t take the same one twice. But on a more interesting point, why did you trigger Defend when he raised the shield to protect himself? I believe Defend is for when you want to defend others. I believe a Defy Danger with CON would have been more appropriate, since he chooses to endure the attack with his batllements.
p. 64 : “Defending yourself is certainly an option. It amounts to giving up on making attacks and just trying to keep yourself safe.”
Defend of 10+ would give you a hold of 3 where one hold could half the damage but looking at the core book & example I’d go with letting them using the half damage hold again against two attacks but not to double the effect on one. Though when getting hit with multiple attacks in a round it just adds to the first attack damage & if it were me I’d save the hold as you never know in the next round if you’ll need it to save someone else.
Also don’t kill the new guy like that in retribution, as with Call of Cthulhu rpg fairly common saying, the players using a bunch of rope often don’t use it to make a lifeline as much as a noose, if the player wants to go the reckless route the consequences will come quickly plus vindictive GM is never a good thing anymore.
Though devil’s advocate spot of text, if you do want to ever feel like teaching someone a lesson on character fragility, Dungeon World is a great system as there’s hireling NPCs, instead of actively targeting a player, send doom to their hireling instead as now they have to deal with filling that role, a slight dip in the money to buy another one & explaining back in town on what really happened to the lost hireling.
Darren Priddy Thanks for your insights.
That last sentence was a joke 😉
Hmm, interesting. I never looked at it that way.
Couldn’t it have been “Defy Danger” instead of “Defend”? that could have allowed the player to avoid all damage (as they clearly wanted to) without any real confusion.
On a Defy Danger 7-9, you most likely end up in a spot that is even worse then before. On a defend 7-9, you are guaranteed to take half damage (and that includes only half of the other negative effects of the attack)
I don’t know that I like that answer much, but I’ll have to think more about it. For me, it’s pretty clearly cut.
What don’t you like about it?
I’m not saying it’s wrong, it just feels wrong.
The action seems to be an attempt at taking a pretty clear case of what should fall under Defy Danger, and putting it under a move that is only questionably a correct option in order to ensure that you don’t face the drawbacks of Defy Danger.
Is it “When you act despite imminent threat… by acting fast” or is it “when you stand in defense of [yourself]”? Would it be okay if the person was just dodging out of the way, or is it only because they have a shield? Could I Defy Danger for another person being attacked?
I just have a gut reaction against that sort of mechanical gaminess in Dungeon World.
See, I felt the same way. Not only that, but there is a choice in the Defend move that does not apply to a self-defense (direct an attack to yourself instead). Obviously, the rules say you can use it that way, and you potentially could, really. Just ignore it and spend hold as it pertains to the situation. I personally just didn’t like calling for the Defend move that way.
But now, after thinking about it.. Defend yourself with a shield from incoming arrows to take half the damage… That sounds pretty applicable, but I may do something more along the lines of utilizing the Defend move moreso as the Druid hold, where options are devised custom the the roll. Choose from these, or also……
For me the difference still is in what you do. Defy Danger is for when you do something dangerous, when you do something that is clearly threatend but want to pull it of regardless. Defend is facing a problem handhout. You are only adressing the danger, not doing something else n the hope of getting past the danger.
When you take a defensive and mobile stance, that might still be Defend. It depends on the situation. I don’t see it as gamey at all.
And when you Defend to do damage or distract them put don’t half the damage; that is you binding the enemy to you. You focus their attention on you and take a few hits in order to give others a chance to get in position or to hit them a bit from a more safe position.
I still feel like it’s clear cut… Maybe a custom move would solve this problem better than trying to use parts of two moves to cover the situation? That way it would be unassailably clear; you would have a “when you defend yourself from an attack…” with options specific to shielding and whatever, but not step in the toes of other kinds of danger that are defied.
Defend is when you stand In defense of another you cannot defend yourself it was a Defy Danger by enduring his sheild being the enduring part so you would roll Defy Danger because fictionally if he fails he could of not gotten it up in time or something.
As fot the hold its points you can spend on things and I always let my druid spend it on things more then once because it makes sense I would say if it makes sense in the fiction that he could do it twice then let them. Whether two half damage makes nil damage I dont know that is quite a tricky one.
“Defending yourself is certainly an option. It amounts to giving up on making attacks and just trying to keep yourself safe.”
Also yes you can spend multiple hold. But you can’t spend two hold on an animal move to supercharge it. You can spend it twice to do something twice. Ones and then again. So you can defend against two enemies attacking you or raise your shield against one attacker and then against the rain of arrows.
Also, as Johnstone Metzger said; ince you have halfed the damage of someone all their future attacks are still covered by that. You are not longer really at harm from them until they change their approach. He can probably explain this better then me. I can’t find the discussion about that atm.
No wait, it was here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/108034461092234678612/posts/6kk4TwXvych
“The Fighter breaking out of his defensive posture seems a bit at-odds with making the defend move. Why does he need to take this action? Because he can’t counterattack, while the enemies can just keep shooting arrows? Mm, this is boring and makes the Fighter into an idiot. I think once he halves the effect of the arrows, he has set up an effective defence and they can no longer deal damage until they close on him, which is presumably the Fighter’s motive for making the defend move. Otherwise, he should be defying danger to avoid the arrows while he closes ranks.”
“No, actually I was kind of saying that further attacks by the archers would be a dick move on the part of the GM, because it’s a successful roll, even if he can only spend 1 hold immediately, because the other two options aren’t feasible in the fiction. It’s not so much “let it ride” and more of a “you got a 10+, let’s make that actually count.”
What I mean by that is that if you have archers and The Fighter decides to defend and you just decide that’s a dumb move and you hit him again with the archers at far range, you are saying The Fighter made a tactical error and thus you are making him look like a chump. But if you are a fan of the character, you might instead decide that even though he can only use 1 hold now to take half damage, he still has the position to block any further arrow attacks entirely (no damage at all), so the enemy must either advance or retreat in order to break this stalemate.
Because if defend is a bad option, why is The Fighter choosing it? He’s The Fighter! So instead you decide, hey, he got a 10+, he’s The Fighter, he can save the 2 extra hold and the enemy advances closer, either into near range or into melee. And if he wants to spend a hold to surprise rush the closest dude and deal damage (“the best defence is a good offence”), cool beans, he’s The Fighter, he knows how to fight.”
Defend move is only for other ppl, a location, and an item.
Well, just like states earlier, according to the book it is not. Sorry.
If u read Antoine post he doesn’t say if the fighter was protecting anyone or anything he just said the fighter raised his shield to “protect” himself, which in reading into that defy danger would be the fighter’s option.
Now if one of his allies was being rained down on then the fighter could “defend” and use his moves to one attract attention on himself and then use hold #2 to take half damage. Now when your being attack by multiple attacks, u take the higher dice and then add +1 from the other attacks.
I just don’t know if u can use hold 3 to half damage again.
They can but for different attacks. And the protection of yourself is on the further explanation of the defend move.
I think that doesn’t really make sense to me and I don’t think I would run it like that. Defend sounds like its for other people because all the hold you can do applies to other people and Defy Danger in this case is trying to not get damage
But you do not act despite an immediate threat, you act directly against it.
There is an immediate threat…the arrows coming at you if that’s not immediate then I don’t what is…and usually this fits with most things when it comes to combat
But
“I want to run over to Hagrid before the arrows get here” is defy danger. You are trying to do something and not get hit by the danger. Defend is minimising it.
Yea, Tim does have the right of it here. I don’t like it either, but that is essentially how the move can be used on yourself. Minimizing incoming damage. You could Defy Danger with CON to endure it, but that is a fine line.
But my issue is, if you don’t Defy Danger CON in the arrow+shield situation, what is an example of DD+con and enduring an attack that is significantly different?
Also, that last bit Tim, I would argue that DD+con would be defying the incoming arrows in the sense that, if successful, you block all the arrows. If not, perhaps an arrow still got your foot. Rather than run away from the arrows, you decided to Defy that Danger by just sitting under the incoming arrows with a shield. That is just as much defying the danger as choosing to run over to a rock for cover would be.
DD with con could be
“I push him off the roof!”
“But he is spewing fire everywhere”
“My people come from the burning desserts; I can take it!”
I still think using your shield to prevent the arrows is defying danger with your CON more then a defence and I would like to keep the two separate by the you have to defend another using Defence and I don’t think much would change really.
Nothing about putting a shield between you and an incoming attack triggers a move. A shield is just more armor. The GM made a soft move announcing future badness, you just stood there giving the GM a golden opportunity, you suffer damage less the protection value of your armor, now the enemy archers are reloading – what do you do?
At least that’s how I would have GMed it.
But if that what the fighter is doing, shouldn’t you be a fan of that? Clearly he would know that this is what you do?
Also sometimes the danger is soo huge, you can only dig in and hope for the best. A house collapsing in on you for example. You can’t defy that, just defend your life.
Right?
Do you really think there would be a situation that the player is in a collapsing house without any other option than to block the incoming ceiling with his shield? Even if it were to be so, I would still call that a DD+Con. You are enduring the collapse. You’re not defending against it.
Let’s turn the rooftop example around:
“The mage is walking steadily towards you. He is casting fireballs in your direction. What do you do?”
“I defend myself with my shield against the fireballs.”
Would you also Defend here? I would just say “ok, you block a few fireballs and take no damage, you are pushed back to the edge of the rooftop now, what do you do?”
And it seems I would do the same for the arrows now that I think about it.
“Thunk thunk thunk! The arrows imbed themselves into your shield and the ground around your feet, the archers are reloading for a second shot and a horseman is coming up on you quickly, what do you do?”
I seem to think that any “Defend” situation where you would be defending yourself, seems more an RP element, really.