Okay, second draft of a replacement move for Interfere:
Oppose
When you attempt to foil a fellow PC’s action, say how you do it and roll +BOND.
10+ You get in their way or counter their action. They must choose 1:
○ Carry on, but with a penalty die on their roll
(roll an extra d6, take the lowest 2).
○ Back down, change course, whiff, or otherwise
let their action be negated.
7-9 As 10+, but after they choose you must then pick 1:
○ You’re left open to their follow-up; say how and
ask them what they do.
○ There’s unexpected chaos, harm, or danger; ask
the GM to describe it
6- Too little, too late. They act unimpeded, in addition whatever the GM says. Mark XP.
Design Notes
– Obviously, the big difference is always giving the other character a choice on what happens.
– If they carry on, I’m using a penalty die instead of a -2 in order to make things less predictable. If they target has already rolled, they can’t tell at a glance what the outcome of that choice will be. And the math works out to be similar (a penalty die is about -1.5, with a little less swing than a straight -2 penalty).
– I considered including “and mark XP” if they choose to relent, but I’m uncomfortable with the opportunities for “gaming the system” that has. I want to make PvP run more smoothly, not necessarily incentivize it.
– The 7-9 choices explicitly involve the character who triggers this move giving up the initiative, to either the other PC or the GM.
Here’s a replay of the same “why did the adventurer cross the road” scenario from the first draft, reworked with the this move. (Original post here: https://plus.google.com/+JeremyStrandberg/posts/95eSJaB3rvF)
Back to Lize and Edge, scoping out Lord Reese from across the street. Lize sees Dumont arrive, shake hands with Reese, and have a seat. Her blood boils. “Oh, I’m going over there,” she says.
GM: “Okay, Edge, Lize gets this look in her eye and stands up, moves to cross the street. What do you do?”
Edge: “Oh, no way! I’m not letting her sink this job. I get up and block her path before she can go.”
GM: “Really, okay? Sounds like you’re opposing Lize’s action. Roll +BOND.”
Edge: _Rolls an 8, +2 BOND. “10!”
GM: “Okay, Lize, Edge just jumped in front of you, blocking your way. Do you back down or carry on with a penalty die?”
Lize: “I’ll take the penalty die. I shoulder past Edge and cross the street, drawing my knife. Imma cut that a-hole.”
GM: “Huh, so I guess you’re acting despite a danger, the danger being Edge stopping you? And you’re pushing through, so that’s defy danger with STR. Make sense?”
Lize: “Yup.”
Edge: “Sure. But remember, with a penalty die.”
Lize: “I ain’t worried.” _Rolls 2, 4, 6 and adds STR +3. “Huh, a 9.”
GM: “Okay, stumble, hesitate or flinch resulting in a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice. I think you shove past Edge, but he recovers before you’re well and clear. Edge, what do you do?”
Edge: “Crap, I grab her by the harm and try to hold her back. I’m hissing ‘_Lize, be cool_!’ Is that oppose again?”
GM: “Yeah, I think so. Roll +BOND.”
Lize: “Can I do anything about this?”
GM: “You’re trying to just avoid and him keep going, right? If so, let’s see what he rolls; that’ll determine your options. Cool?”
Lize: “Yeah, makes sense.”
Edge: “Got a 9. So, Lize, your choice: back down or push forward with a penalty die.”
Lize: “But you’ll have to choose between leaving yourself open and unexpected chaos/harm/danger? Yeah, I back down, let you grab my arm and hold me back.”
GM: “Edge, what’s your choice?”
Edge: “Shit, I don’t wanna cause a ruckus and draw attention. I guess I’ll leave myself open to your follow-up, Lize. I just kinda haul on your arm, telling you to calm down. I’m not expecting whatever comes next. What do you do?”
Lize: “You’ve got me by the right arm, yeah? I’ll spin behind you, grab the back of your head with my left hand, and smash your face into the door jam.”
Edge: “Seriously?!?”
GM: “Whoa. Okay, roll hack & slash.”
Edge: “Can I dodge or fight back or anything?”
GM: “Nope, you left yourself open.”
Lize: “12! BAM! Roll damage?”
GM: “Well, you’re unarmed, so that’s just stun damage, right? Don’t roll damage, but Edge, you’re shoved face-first into the door frame. You’re dazed and seeing stars. I think it’s safe to say you lost your grip on her arm, yeah?”
Edge: “Yeah, I guess.”
GM: “Okay, Lize, your sudden burst of violence has turned a few heads, but you’re free to act. Lord Reese and Dumont are still across the street. Dumont is laughing, not a care in the world, but Reese turns towards the commotion. What do you do?”
Lize: “What I was planning to do all along. Walk over there and stab Dumont in the throat.”
GM Okay! You get halfway across the street when Lord Reese makes eye contact with you and see the murder in your eyes. He slaps Dumon’t shoulder, and Dumont turns to see you coming, his handing moving idly to his rapier’s hilt. What do you do?”
I dig it
I’m still against it, but I’m more concerned about your scenario. Lize succeeds the first time Defying Danger to get past Edge. Sure, she doesn’t get everything she wants, but she succeeded in getting past him. And your scenario had him just doing the same thing again…. Why isn’t Edge bound by the result of his move?
And that is with you crafting a “favorable” scenario using your new rule.
Players should be free to oppose one another, but the fiction should never grind to a halt while they just frustrate one another.
The RAW rule accomplishes exactly what it intends to. Your alteration makes it about players beating each other in the fiction instead of moving the story forward.
Letting the player whose character is affected by the move decide if they carry on at a penalty or change course is a vast improvement. However instead of letting the player doing the interfering choose an option for the 7-9 result, I would let the player whose character is affected choose the option.
The reason for this is that the affected player might not want to do anything to the interfering character. If not, that makes the option about being open to a follow up a “safe” option. Let’s say I want my PC to go stab an NPC, and your PC tries to stop me. You get a 7-9 and I choose to continue my action, taking the penalty die. You choose to leave yourself open to my follow up. But how would that work? I don’t want to deal with your PC now which is why I chose to pursue the NPC and take the penalty die. You choosing to leave yourself open to my follow up feels cheap, since I’m deciding to leave you alone for the time being. I think I would word the move like this:
When you attempt to foil a fellow PC’s action, say how you do it and roll +BOND.
On a 10+, you get in their way or counter their action. They choose one:
– Carry on, but with a penalty die on their roll (roll an extra d6, take the lowest 2);
– Back down, change course, whiff, or otherwise let their action be negated.
On a 7-9, they choose an option from the 10+ list, and then choose one of these as well:
– You’re left open to their follow-up;.
– There’s unexpected chaos, harm, or danger, the GM will say what;
– You cross off one of your Bonds with them.
Allowing the player whose character was interfered with to make both choices lets them decide what they want to do and how they want to deal with your character.
I also think there’s some flaws in your example. First of all, Lize hadn’t triggered a move when she got up to go stab Lord Reese. Until someone does something that triggers a move, it’s just a conversation between the players about what Lize and Edge do.
I also completely agree with Andrew Fish here. I feel you are unfairly punishing Lize by triggering Defy Danger after she’s already been interfered with from Edge. Edge got his 10+ and Lize took her penalty die. After that, she should get to Lord Reese and be allowed to make her Hack & Slash (or whatever move is triggered) with the penalty. Edge had his shot and should be bound by the results of his first Interfere move.
Andrew Fish & Chris Stone-Bush: I disagree that the Defy Danger result is unfairly punishing Lize. There’s no notion of “let it ride” in DW. The results of a move determine what happens, they don’t limit future actions of the parties involved. As the GM, I opted for a worse outcome for Lize, manifesting as her getting past him but not crossing the street before Edge has a chance to react. As the GM in the case, I’m interested in seeing what these two are willing to do to each other to get their way, so I’m drawing out the conflict. The GM move I’m making is “give someone an opportunity.”
You can disagree with my choice in this example, and that’s fine. But I’m comfortable that it’s a legit resolution.
As for Chris’s objection that Edge shouldn’t roll to Oppose until Lize triggers a move herself: that’s not my intent. My intent is for the move to trigger when you try to negate another PC’s action, regardless of whether that action is triggering a move. Like, the halfling reaches to open the ice-encrusted door and you’re like “no way!” The halfling isn’t triggering a move, but I’d like a move to resolve whether you stop him or not. Interfere doesn’t do that. You could argue for a Defy Danger with Dex, sure, I’m hoping for something that more specifically resolves this area.
I’m not so concerned with the 7-9 choice being in the hands of the opposer. It’s only a “safe” choice if you’re sure the PC you’re opposing isn’t going to make dealing with you a priority; even then, it’s explicitly handing over the initiative.
The bigger problem, I think, is that the “you’re left open, ask them what they do” option doesn’t jive with them choosing to carry on and then seeing what happens. Like, if they push through and I choose to leave myself open and ask what they do… that’s busted. We know what they’re doing. They’re pushing through, and we need to resolve that before anyone asks “what do you do?”
So, back to drawing board. Or not. I’ve got more pressing work to do.