Had my first experience with Worlds of Adventure last night. Good basis of DW, for context. This is just my writeup from Kyle’s game that he’s recorded for you.
Bond economy feels like a good change to me. Incentivises deleting bonds to aid, and then building them up. This makes the bond loop shorter (ie in vanilla DW, it takes at least 3 sessions to resolve three bonds. In WoA, I can create and “use” 3 bonds in a single session). Bonds feel cleaner when they’re less grandiose if players are expected to “earn and burn” bonds in this way. I dig it, very Fate-point-y.
Addition of extra races in character creation was well received by all players.
Played a Ranger, I love the “Ranger as battlefield tactician” development. Sits with me a lot better than what we’ve seen from DnD. I expect a lot of resistance (because us nerds and our tradition, right?), but personally I loved it. Felt different enough to the fighter, felt like it filled a gap I haven’t seen in a long time. Moving animal companion to it’s own section was nice. It’s good to be an option, but I really didn’t wan to play “guy with a wolf”.
Always Prepared and Ruthless Slayer were enjoyable to interact with. Gives the Ranger a very mobile feel around the battlefield knowing you’ve got 3 defy dangers at 10+ up your sleeve. Really empowering to go wild in the fiction. We do need to talk about Ruthless Slayer and whether the list is permissive or not. “Take Something Important” is pretty wild for a move that doesn’t require a roll. “Their throat, their heart, their kingdom” I just get it, right? I can personally see what you’re going for, but it’d be nice if the rule had more clarity on what my limits are as a ranger. How do I not just kill everything by spending my readiness? Because surely “their life” is something important that I can take.
Tools of the Trade echos The Witcher in exactly the way I want it to. I’m glad this move exists and my greatest regret is that I didn’t get to use it in our playtest.
Grisly Trophy is a nice feel. I would like to see it extended to party-mates, personally. More party interaction from the ranger would feel good, and this is a good way to do it. Defy Danger still limits the power of it, so that doesn’t worry me too much. It’s just something I’d like to see, the ranger’s expertise being passed on to others.
Biggest problem we had was Bestiary Knowledge. It breaks flow a lot on its own. I love the question (says a lot about the ranger that the first thing they think when they see something is “how can I best kill this thing”). But yes, after the GM presents this wonderful description of a person or thing, to have the Ranger immediately ask “So how do I kill it?” is funny the first or second time, but really breaks the tone of the game. We played a couple of hours in a one-shot and I was sick of asking it, I couldn’t imagine how much I’d want to punch my ranger in the face during a campaign. But I love the question, and I don’t want to see it removed. I would prefer to see it merged with the Hunter background or something, maybe added to Discern Realities/Spout Lore. Just thinking out loud.
Regardless, I really enjoyed the ranger in a way I’ve never enjoyed a ranger before. I’m really excited to see this project go forward. I hope these notes and our playtest are of use to you.
Thanks a bunch for the feedback. We’ll be looking into bonds, too – though the next update is looking like it’ll be a combination of the two existing systems, so expect some changes there.
Ruthless Slayer does actually offer guidelines for what “Take something important” means, as it provides a list of examples (“an item, a weapon, their limb, their position”) that should be used for that move. It more or less uses the same wording as the Barbarian’s Smash! move; do you think the fact that it doesn’t specifically include the phrase “something physical” the issue here?
I like your idea for Grisly Trophy, though I do wonder if that could lead to issues of everyone in the party toting a particular skull/claw/etc on their belt just because the Ranger gave them it. Perhaps there’s a caveat that could be applied to the move in this context to make it more reasonable?
I also agree on your thoughts on Bestiary Knowledge, or at least the question aspect of it. It makes perfect sense to make this the benefit for being a Hunter (rather than the current mechanic)!
Re: Ruthless Slayer – The issue is that it’s not clear if that list are suggestions, or are restrictions. What is the bottleneck of the ranger’s ability: the move or the fiction? ie is this move meant to empower the ranger to act at a higher ability than the fiction would usually allow?
If a player says to me “I take their heart” (ie I make it a killshot) is that within the scope of the move?
The difference with Barbarian Smash is twofold: 1) it requires a move, and 2) it requires a 12+. Both of those are pretty intense restrictions. If a Barbarian hacks and slashes a giant, pulls a 12+ and says “I take his heart”, I’m interested in the fiction of that. I still think it’s a little too much “pocket nuke”, but at least it’s been earned. If a ranger says “how many giants are there? three? I take their hearts. There’s 3 readiness spent. No move required.”
EDIT: Re: Grisly Trophy. Does Defy Danger not already provide a caveat to the move? I’m not sure what you’re looking for in that, but I don’t have an issue with everyone wearing something the ranger made for them. I like seeing overlaps between characters like that.
So, in our campaign we have a player that uses Bestiary Knowledge every time; we have come to expect it. It doesn’t bother us. Of course, he’s playing his character as a hard-ass killer of Beasts, so it makes sense for him. I can see how it would be limiting, though!
Thanks for posting this Sidney Icarus!
Sidney Icarus I do certainly agree on what you’re saying about Ruthless Slayer. Personally, the intent is that the list provided is a list of examples; your chosen “something physical” shouldn’t exceed the scale presented (that is; “an item, a weapon, their limb, their position”) in either the Ruthless Slayer or Smash! move. That’s why a list of appropriate suggestions are presented.
For Ruthless Slayer the intent is that, instead of making a move (like Hack and Slash or Defy Danger) to, say, remove that limb, they just do it – same with the 10+ Defy Danger option. Compare the Smash! move, where the Barbarian gets to do this in addition to any damage dealt by their Hack and Slash roll.
On Grisly Trophy: I like seeing that kind of overlap too – it’s cool to think that the Ranger gives their pals these gruesome relics that, in turn, grant them the ability to pull off incredible stunts or magical tricks (much like what the Ranger can do with them). My only concern is how this might work fictionally; my line of thinking for how Grisly Trophy works (and, by extension, Arcane Trophy) is that the Ranger is uniquely skilled in the matter; after all, the move established (through existing) that not just anybody can carve off the petrifying head of a Gorgon and use its powers.
This might be too exacting and vague of a question, but how else could it work, and how could a Ranger imbue others with the ability and skill to do the same? To let it work for allies, we already need to add in a sentence; perhaps it could say something like “If you take the time to teach or show someone how, they can also use your trophies, under the same requirements that you use.”
In the game I mentioned, the Character used Grisly Trophy to pull a horn from the ThingTroll he killed; it came up very useful later.
I wonder, if we reduced the ability to once or twice per session, would that help?
My concern with Ruthless Slayer removing a limb is that it could be an end-run around the 16hp dragon. That is to say, it can be a lot of fun using monsters who have low hp but interesting fictional positioning that the characters have to overcome. If you’ve set up a dragon the size of a castle that’s invulnerable to normal weapons, what do you say when the ranger wants to take out 3 of their limbs just by spending hold?
I wonder if it could instead by a GM-player conversation; perhaps “Take something important: The GM will offer two out of *an item *a weapon *their limb *their position *their cool. Choose one; they lose it.”
Tim Denee Seems like a reasonable approach to the situation. I do feel like the 16HP Dragon example could probably still demand a Defy Danger though (“I want to use my Readiness to lop off one of its wings!” “Okay, you’ll have to Defy Danger first”), and if that means burning a second Readiness (for the 10+ Defy Danger option) then maybe that’s fine?
I don’t know; maybe it’s cool and appropriate to have that as the class’ shtick? I’d love to hear more ideas about how the move could be tweaked; it’s a nice concept, but it shouldn’t be broken in practice, I agree.
Muggins AU I want to make it clear that I think that saying “fictional positing is God” is a valid response here. But then I think that should be explicit in the text of the move. As Tim Denee alluded, it should be clear which side of the 16hp Dragon this move falls on.
Regardless, in this existing state, it feels really uninteractive to me. Rolling dice is there to give the GM authority to enact hard moves. The question this move asks is Do they need that? (ie is “everyone looks to you” or “they give you a golden opportunity” insufficient?) I kind of think so. I think we need dice for both sides of the GM screen, so to speak. And not tying this to a roll does a disservice.
When my ranger is interacting with the baddies, I want dice to hit the table. I want a) opportunity for failure and b) opportunity for earned awesomeness. Which feels cooler to you: “I spend two readiness to kill the dragon” ? Or “I roll 10+ to defy danger, then 12+ to fire an arrow, oh and with my 12+ I take his life!”? The inherent feeling of risk and success is important IMO.
If you were to ask me, I’d make this move “When you Defy Danger to avoid the threat of an enemy, on a 12+ You see an opening and can take something exposed (a limb, a weapon, their footing, a treasured necklace).”
Maybe that helps: “something exposed”. I don’t want physical, because I want players to think outside of “I disarm the gerblin”, but I like exposed. “I take the dragon’s throat!” not exposed, heavily armoured! “I take the King’s right to rule!” not even close, he has three children as heirs, his line is pure. “I take the Orcs memories of his orders”…uhhh no.
But! But but but.. Maybe we can take extra moves to make those things exposed. Maybe we use a hack and slash to cut the Dragon’s scales off, exposing the throat. Maybe we can sow discontent for the dastardly king. Maybe we can… Perform brain surgery on the orc. Defining exposed to an overreaching ranger isn’t a “no” it’s a “reveal an unwelcome truth/tell the requirements and ask”.
I also really really like the question this poses to a ranger: do you use your point of readiness for a 10+, or roll for the 12+ to get your opening? Which is a weird question to ask (because I don’t think it’s asked anywhere else in the game as written), but one I find incredibly worth asking.
I agree.
I think another way to tackle it might be to replace that option. As neat as it is, if it doesn’t align with the intention or feel, it’s not a very good move. Perhaps a “you reveal a weakness or vulnerability” option would be appropriate, for example, since it’d align with some of the Ranger’s more cooperative, skirmisher-style moves. If you have suggestions I’m all ears.