If I wanted to split Hack and Slash into a purely active move, and then have attacks against the player be made as a Defy Danger move, what would the 7-9 options look like, if the monster attacking wasn’t an option?
If I wanted to split Hack and Slash into a purely active move, and then have attacks against the player be made as a…
If I wanted to split Hack and Slash into a purely active move, and then have attacks against the player be made as a…
At first blush it sounds like you want to give monsters “turns” in the game. Creating a designated time/procedure where monsters “go” and players “defy danger”. Is this accurate? If so, that’s not going to work within Dungeon World.
Of course I could be off base. Perhaps you could clarify what you’re planning on doing and what you’re looking for?
I don’t know about others but in most games I play in, as well as those I GM, monsters don’t hack and slash. instead if a monster is going to deal damage I use a monster move and have the players roll the appropriate die. if they have a response, such as “I want to dodge out of the way of the hill giant’s fist” then they roll the defy danger, but it is assumed that the hill giant will hit unless the player reacts
Jonathan Spengler : That’s exactly right. And I’ve played a fair share of DW, and I’m not sure why that wouldn’t work. It seems like it could work easily, making a “monster turn” where players roll to avoid the monster’s attack, and a “player turn” wherein the players roll to hit the monster. I’m just looking for those 7-9 ranges for both.
Craig Haley : Craig – that’s exactly what I’m going for. Except that the 7-9 range for the player’s hack ‘n’ slash states that you both do and take damage. What if I wanted to make an alternative setback, so that monsters only did damage during their moves?
I do not know why you would do this, as it will roughly double combat length and make it much more rigid, but if you do failed attacks might grant a choice between doing less damage or leaving yourself open and granting +1 damage against you.
I could maybe give better advice if you explained what you were going for.
And unless you fundamentally change hack n slash, remember that your players may end up taking damage twice, in a sense. Once when they attack and again when they fail to defend themselves.
Parker Emerson offt he top of my head I would replace taking damage with a different GM move, though this still seems like something you’re trying to avoid.
Maybe go the route of Volley and give some choices:
When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str. On a 10+ you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack. On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy but choose one:
-You can’t find a good opening, deal -1d4 damage(might be too much off, maybe a solid number)
-You open yourself up in order to make your attack, placing you in danger of the GM’s choice
-possibly open yourself to a counterattack (maybe something like a flat 1d6)
Best I could come up with off-hand, interesting concept to say the least
I came up with something similar to Craig Haley’s suggestion; turn H&S into a move more like Volley. On a 10+ you do extra damage, and on a 7-9 you do your damage but put yourself in a dangerous position. Or make 10+ dealing your damage without putting yourself in danger, and 7-9 dealing your damage with consequences.
I agree with other people here though. Splitting the move into a player turn and a monster turn both prolongs combat and loses some of the fluidity the original move allows.
When you attack an enemy hand-to-hand, choose your primary intent from the list below and roll +STR. On a 7+, you get what you wanted. On a 10+, pick a 2nd option; you get that, too.
– Inflict your damage
– Create an opening or opportunity (for yourself or others)
– Improve your position
– Deny your foes any opportunity to counterattack
(In case you’re wondering why you have to pick 1st and maybe get a bonus on a 10+, it’s so that you have to narrate what you’re up to before you roll.)
I don’t see the need for this, but if you were going to do it, I’d recommend following Jeremy Strandberg ‘s method here.
I think that would be an addition that DW does not need, bad idea IMHO.
It runs counter to the idea that what the GM says goes and moves the GM moves into the realm of chance and probability.
You CAN do it but probably should not. What about rules for flying? Planar Travel? Underwater combat? etc…
Plenty of games have the features you are describing, maybe look into those? In all honesty it would be easier to use new rules than re-write these.
I’m working on a more tactical version of DW, a Strands of Dungeon World, if you will. I think many of the mechanical underpinnings of Apocalypse World would work really well in a less narratively-driven structure. So hopefully that should explain what I’m trying to do here – I’m working on a specialized version of DW for a slightly different style of play.
Page 354 has the breakdown on how they arrived at the current Hack n Slash move, you might want to take a look. Some of the earlier versions have different options.