DRAFT Compendium Class move for Druid
In her previous session, our Druid used an artifact of Death to bring back someone who died wrongfully. I’m working on a compendium class based on that, but I’d love some feedback.
The artifact move was created by Asbjørn H Flø. After someone commented that the effect was similar to the Fighter’s move Through Death’s Eyes, I thought it would be interesting to riff on the same theme.
—
When you use Death’s Abacus to balance the symmetry of life and death, you can choose this move instead of a move from your class the next time you gain a level.
☐ Threads of Fate
When you pause in a situation of deadly peril, name a person nearby whose death you foresee, and roll+WIS. ✴On a 10+, you gain 3 hold. ✴On a 7–9, you gain 1 hold. You may spend hold 1 for 1:
– To redirect any harm toward the person you named, by fate or misfortune; or
– To redirect any harm away from the person you named towards yourself.
If the person dies, gain 1 balance. If the person lives, mark XP.
—
The reference to “balance” is an allusion to the Druid’s class move Balance, which allows the Druid to gain hold to spend on healing. I thought I might make some other moves in the compendium class that use “balance” as well.
Through Death’s Eyes tells the player that “the GM will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible”. This version gives the character XP instead, so that there is a consolation if they got it wrong.
I’m not sure if the move is quite ready yet. Let me know what you think!
For the sake of clarity, here’s an example. Say the Druid gets hold from this move, and she names an enemy monster as the target of her vision. Suppose the GM makes a move, in which a falling rock causes d10 damage to the Ranger. The Druid could spend 1 hold, causing the falling rock to hit the monster instead.
Or suppose the Druid names the Ranger, and the same falling rock comes along. The Druid might spend 1 hold to let the rock hit her for d10 damage instead of the Ranger.
In the first case, the player is helping the Druid’s vision come true. In the second case, the Druid is pulling the strings of fate a little to prevent the vision from coming about.
Does that make sense?
Deep Six Delver perhaps I’m biased by AW, but this seems like a watered down version of the battlebabe move which lets you mark out a pair of NPCs for death and survival once per scene. I’d be entirely comfortable with that move in place of this one. That one has a lot more narrative punch – the PC becomes a force of life and death, in a meaningful and powerful way -, whereas this is basically a little hp shifting. A CC class move, IMO, should expand narrative options and possibilities, not just add a little mechanical shufflecard to HP whittling.
I also don’t understand the trigger of “pausing in a situation of deadly peril.” If the PC is in “deadly peril”, are you saying they have to open themselves up to deadly harm? Just to roll? And the result is some damage shifting, assuming they nail a 7+?
Additionally, the first move of a CC should embody what that CC is about. Here, I see a little flavor text about fate, but the move itself is not really fate oriented.
I’d
1) make the trigger much more concrete and explicitly not self sacrificing.
2) either recraft it as explicitly the battlebabe move, or otherwise give it something more than damage transfer.
Some suggestions on 2:
Describe a fate that must come to pass before the scene has ended. 10+ 3+1 hold; 7-9 1+1 hold. Use hold on rolls that would help or prevent that fate from occurring: those that would help are rolled greatest of 3d6 (and get a +1 bonus); those that would prevent are rolled least of 3d6. If that fate does not come to pass, the target(s) of that fate – be it a death, a life, or a shitty haircut – has won free of the loom of fate altogether. Reality unravels slowly for as long as the fate remains unmet: MC begins a countdown clock for the destruction of Fate, whatever that means in your campaign. This is a significant incentive to cast fates that are small and easily managed: you don’t want to have to wrangle the future of an entire kingdom just to save the Loom of reality.
Thanks, J Stein! That’s an interesting twist. I’ll mull it over. I haven’t read AW, but I have it and I’ll look over the Battlebabe move.
I see my example was misleading.
I explicitly avoided saying anything about HP in the move because I was thinking of harm in the broadest terms: Boulders falling on someone; getting impaled by a jagged spear smeared in foetid waste; getting vaporized by a spell; falling into lava; having your heart broken; or yes, even getting a bad haircut I guess. Not just numbers.
I do want it to be tied to theme of the abacus move, which was this:
Ruthless Calculation
by Asbjørn H Flø, revised
When you move a bead on Death’s Abacus, you exchange a life for a life. Choose one soul who is claimed by Death. They live again. The GM will choose someone alive. They are dead, and have been since Death claimed the soul you restored. This might change the world forever.
J Stein, I see the Battlebabe move you mentioned. It’s almost identical to the Fighter move I referred to above:
Visions of death: when you go into battle, roll+weird. On a 10+, name one person who’ll die and one who’ll live. On a 7–9, name one person who’ll die OR one person who’ll live. Don’t name a player’s character; name NPCs only. The MC will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible. On a miss, you foresee your own death, and accordingly take –1 throughout the battle.
Cf. Fighter: Through Death’s Eyes
When you go into battle, roll+WIS. ✴On a 10+, name someone who will live and someone who will die. ✴On a 7–9, name someone who will live or someone who will die. Name NPCs, not player characters. The GM will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible. ✴On a 6– you see your own death and consequently take –1 ongoing throughout the battle.
Version 2
☐ Fatal Glance
When you make eye contact with a living person, roll+WIS. ✴On a 7+, you both catch a glimpse of the person’s imminent destruction. When they die, you gain 1 balance. ✴On a 10+, choose 2. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1. ✴On a miss, choose 1, but you both catch a glimpse of your own imminent demise, and you take –1 ongoing until you leave their presence.
– A terrain feature
– A carried object
– A sudden ally
– A found or reached item
– A terrain feature
Whatever you pick will play a part in the imminent demise you glimpsed.
When you die, spend all your balance and roll+balance for your Last Breath. When you make eye contact with a dying person, you may spend all your balance and they roll+balance on their Last Breath.
J Stein, better?
I’m not quite there yet. Credit where it’s due, the items to choose are from Trollbabe by Ron Edwards.
What I like about it, is it gives the GM some fuel to bring fate about through regular GM moves, rather than just numeric (or stochastic) bonuses or penalties. And it’s more clear that the move isn’t about shuffling damage.
What feels like is still missing is some means for the Druid to vie for the prevention of the fate, especially if it’s her own. I’ll have to think it over some more.
P.S. J Stein, I do like your version, but I’m afraid the player wouldn’t use it. She took the Abacus from another character explicitly to prevent him from doing stuff like your version of the move describes. When he got it back, he used it to rewrite almost the entire history of the campaign. 😉
Deep Six Delver if what the PC likes is
notscrewing around with fate, and the CC is for their taste, maybe write around that instead?I like Fatal Glance more, but i think I’d modify it to choosing an item
anddescribing the items role or fate. Eg, the NPC will die related to a dagger that will break, rather than just “with a dagger.” More narrative power and flex, tempting the PC to eventually realize they can do things like, “that boulder is seriously in our way… I guess I could condemn our henchman to die to make it roll away,” which sounds like a perfect evil temptation for this PC.J Stein, How about this?
✴On a 10+, choose 2. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1. ✴On a 7+, describe how the item(s) you pick play a role in your vision.
I like it
Thanks for your help!
Okay, I still need a name for the class, but here’s the revised draft:
When you use Death’s Abacus to balance the symmetry of life and death, you can choose this move instead of a move from your class the next time you gain a level.
☐ Fatal Sight
When you make eye contact with a living person, roll+WIS. ✴On a 10+, choose 2. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1. ✴On a 7+, you both catch a glimpse of the person’s imminent destruction. Describe how the item(s) you pick play a role in your vision.
– A carried object
– A sudden ally
– A found or reached item
– A terrain feature
When they die, you gain 1 balance. ✴On a miss, choose 1, but you both catch a glimpse of your imminent demise, and you take -1 ongoing until you leave their presence.
When you take your Last Breath, spend all your balance and roll+balance. When you make eye contact with a dying person, you may spend all your balance and they roll+balance on their Last Breath.
As for naming the compendium class, I wanted to make it something about keeping balance, and/or something about being a seer or sybil, but I haven’t hit on something with a good ring to it yet.
How is this for a follow-up move on the same compendium class? No name for it yet:
When you see a calamity strike, you may name another plausible target and spend 1 balance. Everyone who saw the calamity sees it reverse and strike the alternate target.
Better yet:
☐ Danger Sense
You cannot be surprised by an unlucky disaster. When you see a calamity strike, you may immediately spend 1 balance to declare it a premonition, and you get a chance to act first.
Class name: Adjudicator? Adjudicatrix?
So, for the calamity strike, it seems like there’s a few issues:
(1) “Unlucky disaster” and “calamity” aren’t the same thing (e.g., the former seems like it rules out intentional acts, like assassination or traps; the latter does not). I’d reword it so the description and the trigger are consistent.
(1) What is an “unlucky disaster”/”calamity”? I mean, can I undo a tsunami? A broken wagon-wheel? Getting hit by a dart from a trap? An assassin’s dagger? I don’t mind this being written broad just as long as it’s written with clear intention to be broad. I’m cool with big sweeping moves (the ability to zoom out and go cinematic is a huge part of DW vs. something super micro hack-and-slashy like DnD), but your intent should be clearer.
(2) How far back does the premonition go? A day? A week? I mean, a one-minute rewind could be enough to screw up an assassination, but to evacuate a city about to get slammed by a hurricane? At least a week’s premonition for it to be useful. The former is easy, “Oh, you get to act before that dagger comes flying out of the shadows”, but the latter? You’re not going to rewind the game a week. I’d actually rebuild it slightly in two ways:
(a) I’d have it go far as back in time as is useful. Spend 1 balance to “have had a premonition earlier, in time to effect a desperate response.” Bam. The power is never useless, but it’s also clearly not a get-out-of-jail-free card: it’s just a chance to mitigate. Fictionally powerful, but not god-like.
(b) I’d have the effect of the premonition be like flashbacks in Blades In the Dark. You get to ask the player then-and-there, “okay, so what did you do to prepare a response to this turn of events?”
It doesn’t let the player undo what’s happening, but it gives them a fictional excuse to respond to its consequences. So, if someone makes a roll to stab the king, you can’t undo the stabbing. But you can spend 1 balance to say “Oh, I had a vision of this an hour ago… but I couldn’t see exactly who’d strike, or when, so I prepared by putting some hidden armor on the king.” Everything that played out still happens – the king still gets stabbed – but now you had an excuse to turn a fatal wound into a scratch. Blades in the Dark executes on this pretty much perfectly, so I strongly recommend checking out their G+ community for discussions of their flashback mechanics.
For a tsunami example, if water hits the city it hits the city – no undoing established fiction – but maybe the player has prepared safe zones for people to be able to evac to / hide in. And so on.
I really like the idea of the premonition spurring a flashback! Thank you!
The disconnect between “unlucky disaster” and “calamity” was intentional. It was meant to be two separate, but related ideas.
The idea about an unlucky disaster was meant to be like the Thief move Shoot First, with a different specialization. Instead of getting to act first when an enemy would surprise you, you get to act first when an unintended misfortune would surprise you. That part doesn’t cost balance. An assassin’s dagger would be the former, not the latter. Now I see I should spell it out more and make it a separate move.
The “calamity” part was deliberately broad, because I did intend for it to include things like assassins’ daggers.
I’ll rewrite it. Thank you so much, J Stein.
☐ Adjudicator
You have become an impartial referee of fate itself. When you hear voices from outside the world disputing “rules” or the resolution of events, you may pronounce judgment, and your judgment is final. The GM resigns. Now the Agenda, Principles, and Moves are up to you.
😉
Rewrite:
☐ Premonition
When you see a calamity strike, you may immediately spend 1 balance to recall the omen that warned you—just in time to initiate a desperate response. Tell us how you prepared for this turn of events.
I’m not sure I’ll make a “you can’t be surprised by bad luck” move, because nearly every roll of the dice produces unintended misfortune.
It seems like someone with these powers should also have a move that reveals grim portents. Hmmm.
☐ Revelation
When you spend at least a few minutes quietly gazing into a reflective surface, spend 1 balance to catch a glimpse of a grim portent. You may ask about a specific danger, or let the GM choose the whatever seems most immediate. The GM will describe it.
When you Discern Realities as you gaze at this vision, you can ask 1 additional question, even on a miss. ✴On a miss, you suffer terrible convulsions for a few minutes. You can’t use this move again until you Recover.
J Stein, someone over on Discord pointed out that choosing 2 items from Fatal Sight could make it harder instead of easier for the player to describe a vision. Kind of like, “he can only be killed in a doorway by a widow” or something.
What I had in mind was that the player was picking dangers that would each be brought to bear toward the other character’s demise.
So here’s a revision.
☐ Fatal Sight
When you make eye contact with a living person, roll+WIS. ✴On a 10+, choose 2 dangers. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1 danger. ✴On a 7+, you both catch a glimpse of the person’s imminent destruction. Describe how each danger you pick plays a role in your vision.
– A secret contaminant or passenger
– A social reversal
– A terrain feature
– A threat from a faction or creature
– An unknown defect
When they meet the end you foresaw for them, you gain 1 balance. ✴On a miss, choose 1, but you both catch a glimpse of your imminent demise instead, and you take -1 ongoing until you leave their presence.
When you take your Last Breath, spend all your balance and roll+balance. When you make eye contact with a dying person, you may spend all your balance and they roll+balance on their Last Breath.
~~~
I’ve tried to make it more explicit that the items are independently dangerous, so the player won’t get the idea that the vision they describe must create an improbably specific death scenario.
I also tried to make each item more suggestive of danger without being overly specific. I changed “A sudden ally” to “A social reversal”, to encompass something like an unexpected betrayal (suggested on Discord). “A secret contaminant or passenger” might indicate anything from food spoilage to a snake in their boot. And “an unknown defect” covers anything from “their rappelling rope is frayed” to “their dagger breaks”, et cetera.
I almost rewrote the move to make the roll grant hold, and let the player use hold to make select GM moves directed at the doomed character.
But I like this better—teaching the player how to translate GM moves into fiction would be showing too much of how the sausage is made. 😉