I hope this is the appropriate place for this as it’s not a move per se, but sort of a hack system I’m trying to design. I’m GMing a game where the player’s recurringly taking a non combat approach. Which is fine of course, but last session I caught myself letting a fight drag on because I wasn’t sure how to decide when they had overcome the encounter. So I thought it might be interesting to add a “clock” like system into Dungeon World for overcoming encounters that doesn’t just involve taking away the enemy’s HP.
It’s entirely untested and quite ropey, but I’d love some thoughts on what I’m trying to do:
Clocks
Clocks are a measure of non combat progress against an enemy obstacle. A bear, a group of cultists or an ancient evil force can all theoretically be overcome without a blade. However the difficulty has more to do with their intent and ability to be swayed than their actual strength or power.
Starting clock size – How forceful is it?
The enemy’s attitude is key in revealing whether they’ll back down/move on.
Docile and passive – 1
Indifferent but willful – 2
Stubborn or hesitant – 3
Forceful and aggressive – 4
Is this a group?
If the group has a unified instinct they are harder to convince, depending on how many there are. If they are not unified or motivated, do not apply this modifier.
A pair – Add 1
3 or 4 – Add 2
5+ – Add 3
What is the situation?
If the player is directly in the way of the enemy’s instinct, add 1
If the player’s kind is familiar to the enemy, subtract 1
If the player is frightening to the enemy, add 1, but note that intimidation will be effective.
If the enemy cares more about their instinct than the player, subtract 1
If the enemy is intelligent, add 1
If the enemy is known for deceit or trickery, add 1
If the enemy is difficult or impossible to communicate with, subtract 1 but note that the player reasoning with it will not work.
If the clock has been reduced to 0 or lower, consider if the player even needs to convince the creature. Perhaps it has no interest in this encounter at all.
Filling the clock
A successful action from the player against the creature should fill one segment.
Consider filling more than one if it seems appropriate. For example:
An action plays into the enemy’s instinct, either aiding or boosting it.
An action builds upon a previous action for a compounded effect.
eg. Back a person into a corner, and then your ally grabs them from behind.
A particularly clever idea that warrants added effect.
Remember that this is not HP, it’s a soft indication of progress.
If the player can tie up their opponent, it doesn’t matter that there are 5 segments left on the clock. Use the progress to remind yourself that the player has done well, and should ‘win’ the engagement.
As the player makes progress, fictionally portray their success building. An enemy at 1/4 health will be hobbled, so an enemy with an almost full clock should be losing heart.
Once the clock is full, the encounter is beat. By whatever means seems appropriate, remove the threat.
Seems like a good idea. The implementation might be a little complex, but it can be refined.
If you’re just using numbers, The Planarch Codex has some precedent for calling that a “tracker”.
Aaron Griffin makes sense since John Harper wrote it, and the OP is basically adding clocks from BitD to DW
Planarch Codex is J. Walton 🙂 but clocks are original AW tech.
I like the basic concept. I would be inclined to split it into two separate counters: “progress” and “tilt”. Hits and misses should both cause forward progress, but they tilt the exchange in different directions. When you hit your target progress, resolve the situation based on the current direction of tilt. You don’t even necessarily need to track the tilt explicitly, since you’ll probably have a good sense just based on the fictional positioning after several misses have occurred. Basically you’re setting an up-front goal for your pacing, which then helps guide when you should be building to some sort of climax, regardless of whether it’s ‘success’ or ‘failure’.
There’s some room for flexibility here and I could definitely see something like this helping to tighten up ‘social encounters’, which can be tricky to execute well in DW, since there is no built-in social currency or mechanical tracking of progress like you get with more direct combat. It’s also a nice implicit reminder that I should be making GM moves to introduce/progress danger/stakes even in social situations, as a stagnant progress counter is a good indicator that the Adventure has stalled. I may try this out in a simplified version (with finger in the wind estimation of target for the progress clock) and see how it goes.
Aaron Griffin Ooh, interesting. I’ll look into the Planarch Codex when I get home.
Dan Bryant Tilt is an intriguing idea, and would definitely keep the pacing going, rather than having a scene drag out because of bad rolls. Maybe it could even work in the Success, partial success, failure framework of DW in general to add a bit of flavour there and keep from straying into binary success/fail territory.
I think that is a great idea. I’ve periodically had battles where the main conflict was resolved, and the PCs were simply picking away at the rag-tag remnants on the field, and we simply hand-wave it with a few questions, and a montage. “So the orcs’ morale breaks, and they start to flee. Do you let them? Hunt them down? take them alive, or kill them? Let me know your preference, and describe the scene.”
Your clock system gives a player-facing system to track something like morale, or other situations that would keep an opponent engaged, or not-engaged.
I do think i’d move away from all the situational modifiers. While recruiting a hireling does include similar modifiers (albeit to a roll), such modifiers are generally against what i prefer in DW. In your example, it feels more like modifiers to a “challenge rating” which introduces a new complexity to a tool meant to streamline a process.
Instead of adding more segments as the situation becomes more complicated for the PCs, perhaps you can relegate the complexities to the fictional positioning – it requires “more” from the PCs to tick a segment if they have to convince 8 NPCs, instead of 2.
As for the portrayal of the success building, i really like this aspect. It harkens to Grim Portents, except they are signs of the progress PCs make, instead of signs of NPC progress.
Perhaps each ticking of a segment can be tied to the NPC making an appropriate Move to pursue its instinct, and if the PCs respond to the Move in a way that makes progress, tie the countering/redirection of the Monster Move to the segment getting ticked.
This then opens an option for the GM to make a Hard Move by erasing a tick, as the PCs loose progress for whatever reason.
As long as clocks were kept fairly small, this could go on for a few exchanges, with the danger that letting it go on too long (before the clock tug-of-war gets boring) would result in attempted escalation or escape by the NPCs.
Interesting. I like how Instincts tie into it. I wonder if this entire thing could be wrapped up into a single move though, either in place of Parley or working with it.
It might also be noted that physical injury that isn’t necessarily intended to kill (or is, of course) could certainly “make progress” in this regime.
It reminds me of conflicts in Torchbearer; looking at that might help refine this idea.
Gary Chadwick
I think partial success falls out naturally from the fictional positioning that results from the misses that occur. For instance, consider a tense stand-off with a group of enemies with stakes of escalation into combat. Misses may push toward increasingly threatening tactical positioning of the enemy group, so that if a fight finally does break out, the enemy will have some advantages in the fiction. It also applies some pressure to the PCs to either trigger the fight early (keeping the advantage from escalating too much) or continue their attempts at deescalation. Some PCs might even deescalate until the enemies have let their guard down and then initiate the combat. 🙂
Aaron Griffin face egg is the most delicious 😅
This is basically a Contest / Contest Under Fire in the Fate RPG.
http://ryanmacklin.com/2014/05/fate-contests-under-fire/
It also reminds me of Trollbabe a bit, where you determine the number of rolls needed to decide a conflict.
I think clocks work best as an abstraction, and less with fiddly bits associated with them. I have used a clock to represent the ambient danger level present in a dungeon. The further along the clock, the more prepared the monsters are. They may be patrolling, setting up ambushes, or digging in defensively. When the party takes too long or or makes too much noise to do something, I fill in a segment.
0:00 The dungeon is calm and quiet, any monsters inside are going about their normal routines, unaware of any threats.
3:00 Some of the more wary foes may become suspicious, but they don’t know exactly what’s going on yet.
6:00 The enemy knows that something hostile to them is present, though details are yet vague. Monsters will not be caught flat-footed, but neither are they actively taking up defensive postures just yet.
9:00 The dungeon is aware of the party, as well as their rough location. The dungeon’s defenses come into play noticeably. Any quick defensive measures that can come into play are activated. The monsters are obviously ready for a fight.
10:00 The opposition steps up their game significantly. Expect cautious patrols designed to flush out the intruders, and the monsters taking on a much more active role in protecting their lairs. Moments of safety for the PCs to regroup and prepare are becoming noticeably harder to come by.
11:00 The party’s location and activity are pinpointed. Any remaining preparation or defenses that can be set up are. The enemy will actively hunt down the PCs, since they know where they are. Contingency plans are coming into play, such as hiding loot or taking escape tunnels out.
12:00 The dungeon is in position to checkmate the PCs. Coordinated attacks, barridaeed doors, carefully staged defenses, loot spirited away, you name it. The PCs will not have a moment of safety until the dungeon is completely empty of foes or until they are running for their lives.
When you try to Make Camp or otherwise rest for an extended period of time in a dangerous dungeon, roll+filled in Threat clock segments. *On a 10+, choose two. *On a 7-9, choose one.
– The dungeon becomes more alert, advance the Threat clock. You cannot choose this option if the clock is already at 12:00.
– A threat approaches, someone must Take Watch.
– It’s just not safe to stay here, you don’t have enough time to get sufficient rest to do what you wanted. The GM may offer an ugly choice or hard bargain.
*On a 6-, things remain calm, and you can rest safely. No XP is awarded for a 6- on this move.
The Sprawl does a a very good job in managing multiple threat clocks. Try looking there.