So let’s imagine a different sort of Hack & Slash, shall we?
HACK & SLASH
When you fight in melee, make clear your intent and roll +STR. On a 10+, your maneuver works as well as can be expected, deal your damage if appropriate. On a 7-9, your maneuver works but there’s a catch:
• You’re exposed to the enemy’s attack
• It costs you something (your weapon, your footing, you position, etc.)
• It’s less effective than you planned (if dealing damage, you have disadvantage)
• You cause unwanted harm, peril, or collateral damage
If you fight from a position of relative strength or safety, you chose. Otherwise, the GM chooses.
We gain a move more grounded in the fiction, both in its inputs and outputs. We get a move that can be about fighting for position at least as much as doing damage, which can make disappointing damage rolls less disappointing. We also get a fun little incentive to improve your tactical position when fighting, because of the control it gives you on a 7-9.
We lose the fun choice on the 10+, where the player has to decide if that extra d6 damage is worth the damage/harm, or if if it’s character. We also lose some of the move’s simplicity.
We also potentially lose moves that interact with Hack and Slash as written. Like, how would Smash or Superior Warrior interact with these? Or various magical items?
What do you think?
I would remove the “It’s less effective than you planned” option. Compared to the others, I think it’s far too mild. If you choose it, you’re still doing damage with effectively no or very little cost.
I like it
I don’t like it. You’ve taken important fictional control away from the GM and given it to the player.
7-9 is where the GM lives. Allowing a player to choose from a menu of options on a 7-9 is surrendering the GM’s lifeblood.
And just to make sure we’re all on the same page: the rule book makes it clear that on a 7-9, “the enemy’s counterattack can be any GM move made with the creature.” So it really is taking literally limitless possibilities away from the GM, and reducing it to a few choices.
I would worry here that players would seldom pick “You are exposed to the enemy’s attack”. Collateral damage, dealing less damage, or losing position always sounds like the safer choice
Leckie S the GM should be able to make those stakes meaningful. My players would choose the “exposed to the attack” most of the time
“If you fight from a position of relative strength or safety,” move this condition to the trigger. Otherwise, Defy Danger to fight.
Dune Aught disagree on the trigger. That’s not the trigger, that’s fictional positioning to determine the outcome.
Andrew Gross serious question: how do you feel about Volley, then? On a 7-9, player chooses between 3 outcomes, only one of which really gives the GM any latitude.
Also: the player only gets to pick the 7-9 outcome when they “fight from a position of relative strength or safety.” So, like:
– Higher ground
– From behind some sort of cover
– Holding a choke point (maybe)
– Flanking a (normal) enemy
– Having a close weapon when they have only a hand weapon, or vice versa when you’ve already closed the distance
etc. etc. Most of the time, the GM is going to be picking.
Peter J, Leckie S I think what choice the player would make on a 7-9 is largely situational, right? Sometimes exposing yourself to attack is the safer/better choice; sometimes not.
It’s a lot like Volley: expending ammo is the no-brainer choice until you’re running low on ammo, or using a thrown weapon. Then the choice between danger vs. reduced damage depends on your goals, your fictional position, etc.
Like, with this version of Hack & Slash, imagine I’m trying to hold a choke point against an onrushing horde of goblins. I dig in, shield up, and stab anything that comes within reach, trying to drive them back.
On a 7-9, you could definitely argue that I’m fighting from a position of strength (choke point, reach weapon). What would my choices look like then?
Expose yourself to the enemy’s attack: well, goblins have a tendency to CHARGE but they only do 1d6 damage each, and I’m holding a choke point so they can’t all get at me at once. I’m looking at maybe 1d6+4 damage and maybe having a couple of the little shits climbing hanging on my shield. If I’ve got 22 HP and 3 armor, that sounds like a good deal for holding the choke point.
It’s less effective (if you deal damage, you have disadvantage): the damage is least of my worries, here. I’m less effective at holding the choke point. I still hold it, and I might not take any damage, but a few of those little jerks are slipping past me and getting to my friends. And if my friends are, like, a wizard trying to finish a ritual or a thief trying to pick the lock so we can escape, and maybe a cleric who’s not so good in a fight… well, that’s not ideal. But it might be interesting.
Losing something: depends on what. It could be my footing, my shield, my spear, my position. It’s probably not my overall position, because my maneuver works and I still hold the check point. So maybe they’ll drag my shield down and I’ve lost that and now I’ve lost my 1 armor and the fictional advantage the shield gave me. Maybe it’s the spear, the dragged it aside and snapped it, and now I’ve got to draw my short sword and meet them at much “fairer” range. Either way, I’m probably not going to be acting from a position of strength/safety next time.
Unwanted harm/peril/collateral damage: depends on the nature of that choke point. If it’s like a sturdy brick doorway in a castle, no one nearby, and none of us can think of what that would look like, I’d feel comfortable as the GM saying “nah, pick something else.” Or maybe you smash a torch from the wall and it lands on a tapestry, and now we’ve got fire to deal with. And if your choke point is, like, a mine shaft held up by old beams, you could easily damage those in the fray, and now the beams are buckling and dirt’s pouring from the ceiling and this whole room might cave in soon.
(Heck, we could even stretch “unwanted harm” a bit, and be like “Oh, Jarl, this is like the first time Diana has seen you really fight, right? I think you totally hold the doorway, but she sees just how bloodthirsty and savage you really are, and I don’t think she’s going to get over that anytime soon.” The harm, here, being to their relationship.)
Anyhow, my point is: depending on circumstances, any of those choices could be interesting, problematic, and bad. In the situations above, I honestly think exposing yourself to the enemy’s attack is the “smart” play.
Jeremy Strandberg I completely missed the ‘if you aren’t fighting from a position of strength and safety the GM chooses’ part 🙂
That resolves my biggest issue – that the player always picking their preferred outcome doesn’t feel right if the fiction says their character is on the ropes.
I really like the idea of having to chose between taking damage and keeping my position (and therefore my ability to choose outcomes) or losing position and handing that power to the GM on my next 7-9.
How can I cause critical damage?
Oney Clavijo that’s one of the things we lose with this approach, and it’s something that makes me sad.
Like, I really, really dig the 10+ choice instandard H&S. It’s a really interesting decision, and how players approach it says a lot about how their characters. And the fact that it’s an extra d6 no matter what your base damage is, that little detail changes the calculus so much between, say, the cleric and the fighter.
The question is, is that 10+ choice more valuable than the expanded fictional inputs and outputs, and the emphasis put on fighting from a position of strength/safety?
Aaron Griffin the reason I suggest to include the fictional positioning into the trigger is because the proposed move, if the GM chooses, is an inferior defy danger that needlessly limits the GM’s choices.
It’s already dangerously close to DD as it is.
Dune Aught how is standard H&S any better, vis a vis Defy Danger?
On a 7-9 you deal damage and are exposed to the enemy’s attack.
I must be missing something — why can’t 10+ be a choice between dealing their damage and dealing extra damage but the GM chooses one of the 7-9 options? Is it because of the contradictory ‘less effective’ option? If that’s the case, I’d say drop that option and restore the option for extra damage on 10+
Will D i was just playing around with that, actually. The concern was more about clumsiness than anything else.
So, like:
==================
revised HACK & SLASH (take 2)
When you fight in melee, make clear your intent and roll +STR. On a 10+, your maneuver works as well as can be expected, deal your damage if appropriate. At your option, you can deal +1d6 damage but treat the roll as a 7-9. On a 7-9, your maneuver works (deal damage if appropriate) but there’s a catch:
• You’re exposed to the enemy’s attack
• It costs you something (your weapon, your footing, you position, etc.)
• You cause unwanted harm, peril, or collateral damage
• It’s less effective than you planned (if dealing damage, you have disadvantage)
If you fight from a position of relative strength or safety, you chose. Otherwise, the GM chooses.
==================
That preserves the the “position of strength, you choose” mechanic, even on the 10+ trade-off. Which I think is overall a good thing.
But you’re right, the “less effective” option doesn’t jibe with “do +1d6 damage,” and it’s super clumsy to try to to rule that one out and have it be variable who picks.
So, maybe on the 10+, it’s the player who always gets to pick in exchange for an extra d6 damage? With a little rephrasing, that might work. Like this:
==================
revised HACK & SLASH (take 3)
When you fight in melee, make clear your intent and roll +STR. On a 10+, your maneuver works as well as can be expected, deal your damage if appropriate. At your option, you can deal +1d6 damage if pick one from the list below (just not the last one). On a 7-9, your maneuver works (deal damage if appropriate) but there’s a catch. If you acted from a position of relative strength or safety, you pick 1; otherwise, the GM picks 1:
• You’re exposed to the enemy’s attack
• It costs you something (your weapon, your footing, you position, etc.)
• You cause unwanted harm, peril, or collateral damage
• It’s less effective than you planned (if dealing damage, you have disadvantage)
==================
Or, as you suggest, it could always be the GM’s choice. I’d probably want to see it in action (and see how players interact with it) before deciding for sure.
I don’t like the part where the GM gets to choose. I am sorry to be honest but I prefer that the player chooses his own fate and if he choose the wrong path he will suffer the consequences of his own actions. Tha GM has enough power already IMO
Oney Clavijo do you mean you don’t like the fact that on a 7-9, the GM gets to pick between enemy’s attack vs. losing something vs. collateral damage vs. lesser effect?
If so: how is that substantially worse than a 7-9 to Hack and Slash in the standard rules? “On a 7-9, you deal your damage and the enemy makes an attack against you?” The GM is entirely in control of what the enemy’s attack looks like. It might knock your weapon out of your hand, or pin you, or pick you up and throw you and your allies, or whatever makes sense for the fiction and the monster’s stats.
With this, we’re basically just broadening the range of GM moves to include things that don’t include an enemy’s attack.
📌
Jeremy Strandberg
You’re right. It’s unfair for me to say a more specific/restrictive form of DD is inferior. In a sense, most moves are specific forms of DD. The specificity says something about the way the world works. Certain actions always risk particular outcomes.
I agree with you that what makes H&S really great is the 10+ outcome. You got it right with your revised H&S.
I’ve been tinkering with Hack and Slash myself, so this conversation is very helpful. 📌
I like this. I will ponder it this week—maybe even offer it up for the Saturday game.
John at Deep Six Delver let us know how it goes if you do use it!
(That goes for everyone, BTW!)
Jeremy Strandberg yes friend I can explain why I think it is different: in the practice, when you apply your move a zillion things can happen during the pcs attack and the monster can spend a lot of time in a fight without making a real actual attack against you (cause damage that is) in the practice, it is a fact that the monster may never cause damage. In the original move you get a feeling of that give and take that a battle is when you slugg it out toe to toe with a monster. He gets to cause you damage. Give and take bro, epic and glorious.
Perhaps add the option to the list?
To throw another wrench into the discussion…
Since this version now has a pick-your-poison type 7-9, what if Volley was merged in to make a combined “fight” move? This would mean a conditional stat choice (+STR for melee and +DEX for ranged), and a conditional 7-9 option like:
• Ranged attacks: expend 1 Supplies or mark “out of ammo.”
While this adds complexity to this move, it also reduces the number of basic moves, which is its own form of complexity. Plus Volley gains the fictional grounding that Jeremy Strandberg adds in this version of Hack and Slash.
Thoughts?
Or just change the “it costs you” option to include ammo in the example list
Oney Clavijo sure, I hear you.
Though, “You expose yourself to the enemy’s attack” is one of the options on the list already.
Will D don’t think I haven’t considered it!
If there’s a move that combines H&S with Volley, some possibilities for the name might be “Smite”, or “Attack!”, in addition to “Fight!” Whatever it’s called, it would need a more general trigger.
“Storm the Enemy” is also an option, but that suggests something more akin to what T&T calls “melee”: When both sides swarm together on the battlefield, in such a way that reach weapons become ineffective.
John at Deep Six Delver I have a little bit of experience here. I did some playtesting some time ago with the moves Clash – a hybrid of H&S and Volley, intended for open combat – and Strike – a move akin to the Thief’s Backstab or Ranger’s Called Shot, intended for when the PCs had the upper hand. It worked fine, but wasn’t perfect.
Who chooses from the 7-9 options?
“If you fight from a position of relative strength or safety, you chose. Otherwise, the GM chooses.”
I like the move, although I feel like
It’s less effective than you planned would be something my too-much-D&D players would ALWAYS chose because they don’t like dealing with interesting consequences.
In a way, it’s the only option where you don’t really have a “negative” effect. You’re just doing less damage, but you still do damage AND avoid getting attacked, losing something, etc.
On a side note, I’m not so sure the choice on 10+ is that interesting. I’d be way more excited to add a 12+ line than offering the 10+ RAW DW option.