Tag: Julien Tabulazero

I have a problem with the Messy tag. How do you use it in play?

If Messy really means messy in the sens of grievious bodily harm, how do you represent it in play? i.e. does your PC actually loose limb every time they get hit by a weapon or monster with a messy tag?

What happens when the messy weapon roll a 1 for damages? Not so impressive anymore.

Personally, I am toying with the idea of letting dices explode when you roll damage with a messy weapon or monster. Or roll damages twice and keep the highest. Hence, the truly horrendous injury your PC will receive in the fiction will correspond also to a truly horrendous loss of HP as well.

So how do you go about representing a messy tagged weapon or monster in your games?

Any suggestions are welcomed.

Sage LaTorra said in the thread on whether DW is suited from a gritty & low fantasy campaign that you should judge the “Judge the fictional situation, not the narrative worth” as to a lowly NPC killing a PC with a single blow.

I would like to ponder a moment on this sentence (hence I am creating a new thread) and put it in a wider context.

I think it is an interesting sentence because it pits fiction against narration but I am afraid I respectfully disagree.

I actually think the exact opposite which is that at DW, Narration trumps Fiction by miles. 

My understanding of DW rule system is that it was not created to simulate a fictional world but rather to tell an interesting story.

Do not get me wrong: I think that the GM should take great pains not to disrupt the suspension of disbelief around his/her table.

Once this is said, the GM should however not think in terms of plausible outcomes (hence there is no difficulty modifier at DW regardless of the task at hand) but rather in terms of interesting outcomes. 

Hence, screw the fictional situation if it allows you to tell a good story instead.

Can you play well in a dirty and gritty world with DW’s rule?

I am particularly interested in any first hand experiences of how well the rules work in a low fantasy universe.

Traps are fun. How do you use them?

More specifically, DW tells you that the GM never rolls the dice. However, if the PCs enter a room containing a trap, would you be tempted as a GM to make the Discern Reality roll for them and, using the”be a fan of the character” principle, ask yourself and give them the smartest answers?

Is there somewhere an official conversion guide to adapt D&D3.5 monsters to DW?

How do you translate Hit Points, Armor Class and Damages?

Any rule of thumb I should be aware of?

Tx

Social combat in Dungeon World

My campaign calls for the PC to leave dungeon delving behind and switch their fighting kit for the fine garments of a courtier.

While Parley is a move I intend to use a lot, it is not always appropriate. They might have to simply and politely convince someone of something and/or do not have leverage on the said person.

Hence I am trying to come up with social combat mechanics to cover this type of situation. I want a system which requires players to actually think and argue their position but does not necessarily relies on their oratory skills (not everyone is a born actor/orator) or simply rely on the GM agreeing or not with the player . I confess the following has a lot to do with the social combat system in Burning Wheel.

The combat takes place in two phases which are themselves subdivided in sub-phases:

I. PREP PHASE

This takes place before the actual social combat

a) Each protagonist starts by summarizing clearly and concisely his/her argument/belief in the upcoming debate (“I believe the following:… “)

b) Each protagonist define his/her argument’s Hit Point using the table below for  reference:

“This is an argument/belief I believe in but do not pay much attention to”: 10HP

“This is an argument/belief I believe in strongly that I am willing to publicly debate”: 15HP

“This is a core argument/belief and I could kill for it”: 20HP

“This is a core argument/belief I am willing to die for”: 25HP 

c) The protagonists agree among themselves and beforehand the consequences of wining/losing this debate (“If I win, you will agree to this and that and take the following action. If I loose, I will agree to this and that and take the following action”). The GM insures that both outcomes are of a similar magnitude and in accordance with the arguments Hit Points (a character will not do something drastic/ illegal/which goes against his core beliefs if he or she has lost only a small argument).

II. COMBAT PHASE

The debate actually starts. The PC takes a Debate Move

When you Debate with an opponent, speak an argument in favour of your position. Let the GM speak his. Roll 2D6+CHA and see below:

10+: You have just done a masterful/highly moving demonstration. Reduce your opponent’s argument Hit Point by 1D6. Furthermore, you may choose one of the following:

• Ignore your opponent intelligence modifier when rolling the D6 for damages

• Reduce his argument Hit Point by a further 1D6. He however reduces yours by 1D4

7-9: You have the upper hand in the debate but your opponent also scores a few good points. Reduce his argument’s Hit Point by 1D6. He reduces yours by 1D4

6-: You are lost for words as your opponent ram in his argument. He reduces your argument’s Hit Point by 1D6

Additional rules

• Intelligence acts as armor. When a character reduces his argument’s Hit Point, subtract to the damage any positive Intelligence modifier he or she may have. This applies equally to NPC (Your run of the mill bad guy has a modifier of 0. A particularly craft full and suave big bad boss may have a modifier of +3). You may not regain argument’s Hit Point this way.

• You have to speak. If for whatever reason the player cannot in good faith come up with a new/unheard argument in favour of his her position, assume that the result of the 2D6+CHA is 6-

• The GM has to speak. If for whatever reason the GM cannot in good faith come up with a new/unheard argument in favour of his her position, assume that the result of the 2D6+CHA is 10+

End game:

• If you have reduced your opponent’s argument’s Hit Point and your argument’s Hit Points are still positive, you have won the debate. The consequences of the debate agreed in the prep phase take effect.

• If your opponent has reduced your argument’s Hit Points to zero and his are still positive, he/she has won the debate. The consequences of the debate agreed in the prep phase take effect.

• If both yours and your opponent arguments’ Hit Point are reduced to zero, the debate is inconclusive. You agree to disagree and stay on your original positions.

What do you think of the above rules and what would you do differently?

Has anyone come up with a DW campaign framework for Maptools?