The formatting of “hit”/”7+” and “miss”/”6-” is inconsistent among Dungeon World playbooks, even within the Dungeon World text itself. I’m wondering what format people prefer?
The formatting of “hit”/”7+” and “miss”/”6-” is inconsistent among Dungeon World playbooks, even within the Dungeon…
The formatting of “hit”/”7+” and “miss”/”6-” is inconsistent among Dungeon World playbooks, even within the Dungeon…
Aggressive, obnoxious opinion: “Whatever works best within the move text” is a total cop-out.
The terms “on a 7+” and “on a hit” are functionally identical and express exactly the same thing. Same with “on a 6-” and “on a miss.” There’s no case for one being “more effective” in one move but not in another. I defy you () to demonstrate otherwise.
I’m personally a fan of brevity and consistency, so I prefer 7+/6-. But it’s a preference, and I don’t really care which one anyone but me uses.
I’m mostly in the 7+/6- camp because I think they’re more instructive for players unfamiliar with the system. However, I think hit/miss can make for stronger fiction in something like Hack and Slash. I can’t understand something like “I Am the Law” though.
Nick Nunes how do you mean “can make for stronger fiction in something like Hack and Slash?” You mean, like literally “hitting” or “missing?”
Jeremy Strandberg , essentially yes, by calling a 7+ result a “hit” and a 6- a “miss”, I think it gives the move more fictional “flavor”. However, that’s not necessarily a good thing either. I can imagine something like this:
Player: I swing my sword at the gelatinous cube.
GM: Ok roll+STR
Player: rolls a 4
GM: A miss… okay so you swing your sword and connect solidly with the cube, so solidly that your sword is completely engulfed, you can’t extract it.
Player: but you said I missed.
I personally don’t like hit/miss because it suggests a binary result. DW prides itself on having full success, partial success and failure. For this reason, I even prefer moves with “on 7+” and “on 9-” results, with the possibility of both happening simultaneously.
I wake up with a different opinion on this most days…but I think the best use of Hit/Miss is in moves that ALSO have a 10 and/or 7-9 result specified in addition to the binary riders.
10+, 7-9, 6- no “hit.” “Hit” is not DW speak.
Ray Otus DW, p. 79
Observant
When you hunt and track, on a hit you may also ask one question about the creature you are tracking from the discern realities list for free.
The phrase is also used extensively in Class Warfare and appears in other well regarded supplements like Grim World and Inverse World.
Ha. There ya go. I’m wrong. But I still don’t feel like referring to 7-9 as a “hit” is a great idea. Maybe it’s just me. Thanks for the references Nick Nunes.
Let me clarify. I feel like “Hit” is a holdover from D&D. It focuses a success down in a way that could limit it. In other words, if you call it a “hit” you are prone to think of it as a hit with a weapon rather than a general success of some kind. Therefore it could reduce creative thinking.
I suspect “hit” and “miss” come from Apocalypse World where they’re used exclusively, 7+ and 6- don’t appear in the basic or limited edition AW playbooks. I also suspect that “miss” came first and “hit” arose from the need to refer to outcomes which were not misses.
I don’t like “miss” because it’s misleading language — on a 6- a competent character can still succeed if it makes sense in the fiction, right alongside the GM making a move.
I personally prefer 7+, with no text for 6-. By default on a 6-, the player marks XP and the GM makes a move of their choice – I don’t want to be restricted as the GM if another move would make more sense.
Aren’t you worried that 7+ kind of “overwrites” the notion of the 10+? I mean it looks like only two results – success or fail. The whole system is built around three results. Clear success, mixed success, fail.
The 7+ is for moves that are structured like this:
When you attempt something, roll+FOO. On a 7+ something good happens. On a 7-9 something bad happens as well.
I.e. you get the same thing on a 7-9 or a 10+ but the 7-9 there are other things that need to be detailed.
I agree with others on the point that “hit” and “miss” imply things that they shouldn’t. A 6- for Hack and Slash doesn’t necessarily mean my sword swings through nothing but air, so the term “miss” isn’t very accurate. I hadn’t considered this before, I’ll have to go and update my Heresy World moves to consistently use 6- and 7+.
Having hand copied every move from the playbooks (some of them have typos!) – I believe the varying language is allowing a move to state something else happens with 6-, 7-9, and 10+. A move may allow a “hit” to be possible on a 7+ result.
Really, it’s up to the person writing the move to make it as clear as possible. Otherwise they’ll end up serving the same sentence as Jeremy Crawford on twitter.
7+/6-
I like consistency.
I prefer the ring of hit/miss, but numbers are probably objectively better rule writing because it easier for new players to interpret the results.
Of course, sometimes the best option is to write a move that reads “On a 7+, X happens. On a 7-9, Y also happens” and that just reads very awkwardly to me.