First session Dungeon World actual play with single PC

[JiffyPopTart]

After doing a bit of digging....I see that this is a PBtA game. I have played a short campaign of this system before (the Xfiles one) and have watched an in person session of the Teen Angst Superheroes game as well.

I think maybe my issue might be that in the write-up the middle ground seems to always be a success with a big drawback versus a neutral or lesser success without drawback.

Specifically the part that jumped out is early on when a better than average die roll resulted in losing the characters primary weapon unless they undid the partial progress they had already made. That to me seems like a partial failure in a different style of game.

 

[Rune]

After doing a bit of digging....I see that this is a PBtA game. I have played a short campaign of this system before (the Xfiles one) and have watched an in person session of the Teen Angst Superheroes game as well.

I think maybe my issue might be that in the write-up the middle ground seems to always be a success with a big drawback versus a neutral or lesser success without drawback.

Specifically the part that jumped out is early on when a better than average die roll resulted in losing the characters primary weapon unless they undid the partial progress they had already made. That to me seems like a partial failure in a different style of game.

I am aware that a number of PbtA games are light on specific moves, but DW isn’t one such. (In fact, it’s surprisingly crunchy for a narrative-driven game.)

Most of the moves in Dungeon World specify what happens in the 7-9 range and a lot of those give the player a few broad options to choose from.

As for a bad roll cancelling the effects of a good roll, I agree that it could feel like it might as well be a 7-9 (except with XP gained), but that’s kind of downplaying the important narrative that takes place in between the rolls. And that narrative is important; it’s kind of the point of DW.

 

[darkbard]

Specifically the part that jumped out is early on when a better than average die roll resulted in losing the characters primary weapon unless they undid the partial progress they had already made.

Just a brief note that the Ranger's primary weapon is actually the bow, which keys off DEX and powers the Volley and Called Shot (a special Ranger) moves. STR, on which most moves using the melee weapon will key, is the character's 4th highest stat (of the traditional six).

 

[Manbearcat]

She casts Discern Energies but comes up 6- (here that confused debility turned a 7 to 6). First failure! Sure, she confirms what the Tieflings say about the child’s potential for magic (maybe she’s wrong about this, indicative of her failure), but as she does so the female Tiefling, clearly a practitioner herself, notes the Ranger’s aptitude, and I mark this for use as a complication at a later date. “The magic is strong in this one. She knew of the boy’s potential all along, for sure.” As a hard move, I decide to exploit the Tiefling’s instinct: to dominate. He demands to punish the Ranger with a public whipping. I decide to end the scene here, with her punishment and its painful scars that she will carry forward occurring off screen. Did this fail to honor her success on the Parley, to avoid physical punishment from the Duergar in return for using a foe’s instinct as a hard move? Maybe, but we both thought it appropriate to the fiction.

@darkbard

All in all looks good. Looks like you guys had fun and did a very solid job!

Couple thoughts on the Discern Energies/Parley part:

* Its not clear by the excerpt (a) if the Tiefling's statement of "this one holds potential" is establishing/affirming that the Tiefling is capable of making that determination and has already done so (being in the line of work they are in) or (b) if this is just a best guess? Regardless, if the Duergar: Tiefling transaction already established the magical nature of the child, I'm wondering what you guys' thought line was on "Discern Energies revealing the child's nature" being leverage? Was the conversation something like "I can confirm your guess (if it was indeed just a guess)" or was it a bluff of "the child has x potential" (because the Psionic doesn't provide that info as I understand it?)?

* Given what I'm thinking I'm understanding in the reading above, I believe my order of operations would have been the following:

1) Was it not established whether the Tiefling knew for sure or not whether the child was magic? If so, leverage is good so the 10+ stands so long as the PC upholds their end of the bargain. Proceed to Discern Energies.

2) If it was established that the Tiefling did know for sure, then we need to sort out leverage a little more? Is the PC bringing something to the table like the aforementioned bluff "I can tell how potent this child's potential is?" That looks like good leverage to increase the price. If so, Discern Energies doesn't do the trick here and that looks to me like a Defy Danger Int (thinking fast and procedurally pulling off the ruse) or Cha (convincing and pantomiming the move and results of the divination). I'd accept either there.

On (1), if we got a hard failure on DE, then a lot of things can go down here; GM's choice. One option is "the Psionic discipline is lost until you re-attune (with no effect occurring)." In that case, she can't produce the goods for the leverage (because she can't "re-cast"). Does she come clean? If so, that seems like the time where you need to make a soft move to reframe the conflict. Does she try to bluff a consternated recast? Proceed to the second half of (2); DD Int or Cha. On a hard failure there, the rouse is up and there are consequences. On a 7-9, they buy the ruse but you change the situation sufficiently adversely so she has to make a hard choice (possibly something related to an alignment or bond), pay a cost (maybe 1 Coin for causing the delay in purchase and time is money to a slaver), or deal with a downstream complication of the ruse (maybe the Tiefling requests she come back to her steading and the PC show these exact magics to her Elders so they can study how the PC is able to determine how potent a magic is)?

Maybe you can clarify some of that and give your thoughts?

 

[Manbearcat]

Also, do you think you could piece together the move sequence and resolution for the combat?

I'd be curious how you responded to moves made + results and how you felt that went. Running combat and creating dynamic, interesting decision-points is one of the more difficult aspects of DW (that GMs typically don't get the hang of until a fair bit of experience).

 

[darkbard]

@darkbard

All in all looks good. Looks like you guys had fun and did a very solid job!

Couple thoughts on the Discern Energies/Parley part:

* Its not clear by the excerpt (a) if the Tiefling's statement of "this one holds potential" is establishing/affirming that the Tiefling is capable of making that determination and has already done so (being in the line of work they are in) or (b) if this is just a best guess? Regardless, if the Duergar: Tiefling transaction already established the magical nature of the child, I'm wondering what you guys' thought line was on "Discern Energies revealing the child's nature" being leverage? Was the conversation something like "I can confirm your guess (if it was indeed just a guess)" or was it a bluff of "the child has x potential" (because the Psionic doesn't provide that info as I understand it?)?

* Given what I'm thinking I'm understanding in the reading above, I believe my order of operations would have been the following:

1) Was it not established whether the Tiefling knew for sure or not whether the child was magic? If so, leverage is good so the 10+ stands so long as the PC upholds their end of the bargain. Proceed to Discern Energies.

2) If it was established that the Tiefling did know for sure, then we need to sort out leverage a little more? Is the PC bringing something to the table like the aforementioned bluff "I can tell how potent this child's potential is?" That looks like good leverage to increase the price. If so, Discern Energies doesn't do the trick here and that looks to me like a Defy Danger Int (thinking fast and procedurally pulling off the ruse) or Cha (convincing and pantomiming the move and results of the divination). I'd accept either there.

On (1), if we got a hard failure on DE, then a lot of things can go down here; GM's choice. One option is "the Psionic discipline is lost until you re-attune (with no effect occurring)." In that case, she can't produce the goods for the leverage (because she can't "re-cast"). Does she come clean? If so, that seems like the time where you need to make a soft move to reframe the conflict. Does she try to bluff a consternated recast? Proceed to the second half of (2); DD Int or Cha. On a hard failure there, the rouse is up and there are consequences. On a 7-9, they buy the ruse but you change the situation sufficiently adversely so she has to make a hard choice (possibly something related to an alignment or bond), pay a cost (maybe 1 Coin for causing the delay in purchase and time is money to a slaver), or deal with a downstream complication of the ruse (maybe the Tiefling requests she come back to her steading and the PC show these exact magics to her Elders so they can study how the PC is able to determine how potent a magic is)?

Maybe you can clarify some of that and give your thoughts?

First off, thanks for the excellent feedback, @Manbearcat. Much appreciated. (And I welcome specific feedback from others who have extensive experience with the system as mine is still limited.)

Re Discern Energies/Parley: In framing the flashback scene I didn't establish on what basis the Tiefling called out the Svirfneblin, ie certainty or a hunch. The player indicated to me that her PC would try to sneak magically-potent NPCs through the system under the noses of her masters when possible, and so I decided to see what that might look like in the flashback scene. I guess my thought process was that the male Tiefling didnt know for sure, the female Tiefling was there as a kind of "spot inspector" and did have the capability of determining this, and we would play to find out?

I think I agree, though, on your point about the limitations of Discern Energies and the possible implementation of a DD roll in there. I wasn't thrilled at my decision over the fallout of the failed Discern Energies roll, but at least we were both satisfied with the fictional outcome of the interaction in the moment.

Regardless, the Duergar certainly didn't know and was relying upon his relative control over the PC and thus the situation to get the price he desires in the transaction. (Note on logical consistency in the fiction: Why would the Tiefling essentially negotiate himself into a more expensive purchase? The consistent procuring of magically potent abductees is more important to him than the coin of this single sale, and he hopes to curtail any future failed identifications caused by lax oversight.)

I guess my thought process on Discern Energies was that there were hard moves at my disposal that didn't (1) negate the competency of the PC to fulfill her fictional role and (2) failing to Discern Energies would somehow undo her success with Parley, but thinking about this second part further I realize that's nonsense, and we could still proceed with some kind of Bluff or something as you note.

 

[darkbard]

Also, do you think you could piece together the move sequence and resolution for the combat?

I'd be curious how you responded to moves made + results and how you felt that went. Running combat and creating dynamic, interesting decision-points is one of the more difficult aspects of DW (that GMs typically don't get the hang of until a fair bit of experience).

Hoo, boy. Yeah, my notes here are not stupendous, and I don’t have great facility with recalling specific details, but I’ll give it a go.

When the albino choker ape (reskinned choker) was revealed, reaching out to squeeze the life out of the source of its misery, rather than Hack & Slash, the Ranger chose to step back and attack via bow from range (Volley). But since the choker has reach, I asked her to Defy Danger first. I don’t have notes on PC HP ablation and her next action was Volley, so I assume she succeeded, dodging the creature’s grasping meathook. She did 8 HP damage (taking the choker down to 9 HP after its armor) but it was on a 7-9 roll and she opted to move to get the shot, placing her in danger (taking some damage on a 7-9 Defy Danger roll; this may have been an error on my part, more a hard move than simply “a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice”?) and commanded her animal companion to Do Their Thing, which was to charge the choker, grab its leg in its maw, and pull it down off the stalactite.

This too was a success, but I can’t recall if it was an unmitigated 10+ or a 7-9 at which the choker inflicted damage upon the animal companion. I do recall that the canine’s teeth were unable to penetrate the ape’s thick hide (2 damage, 2 armor is a wash). Regardless, I narrated that the choker and animal companion were now embroiled in a vicious scrum on the tunnel floor, the choker having wrapped the animal companion in its legs. (This makes me think there may have been some damage involved and thus a 7-9 roll.)

What do you do?

Rather than fire into the melee via Volley and put her animal companion at risk (I’m unsure of her thought process here beyond following the fiction), the Ranger decided to Hack & Slash with her pick. Here things get even fuzzier. I have notations of that H&S and Defy Danger (STR) and memory of the choker taking damage and inflicting it, which I narrated as grasping in its uninjured hand, the one not previously damaged and hanging limp from the arrow it took earlier, the Ranger by the throat until her vision begins to dim at the periphery as she struggles for breath, but beyond that …? I do remember narrating her losing her pick (I need to come up with a better “worse outcome, hard bargain (which I think was in play here), or ugly choice”).

The combat ended on an unfortunate series of dice rolls, the animal companion suffering lethal damage on a 6- roll for Do Their Thing, and the Ranger suffering a similar fate on the return damage from a 7-9 roll on Hack & Slash with a rock (which I adjudicated as w(2d8) as an improvised weapon), while delivering a mortal blow in return.

Anyhoo, additional feedback is encouraged!

 

[Manbearcat]

On combat, these are some meta-principles (if the first two look like 4e principles, there is a reason for that!) I use in PBtA and FitD games which I feel invest those conflicts with danger and interesting decision-points:

* Create Space and Movement

Range, Reach, Forceful tags and Defy Danger (or another applicable move) are so important to Dungeon World. Try to make every combat like Indie's mad dash from the crumbling temple in RotLA or the ranging duels in PotC. Navigating the space between enemies is an obstacles course. Create decision-points that leverage the inherent danger in that space (or lackthereof) and keep pressure on with distance and incentives to navigate it.

* Use Multiple Enemies/Hazards and Variety

This one integrates with and helps animate the meta-principle directly above. The other thing it does is it creates new axes for decision-points. If we don't get to the ridgeline to attack that Artillery, they'll perpetually rain fire down upon us. But how do we navigate obstacle x and y (could be Shock Troops, could be a dangerous climb, could be assassin vines, etc) that is between here and that entrenched position? The Insane Gibbering of the Abomination creates an aura that must be confronted to defeat it. The Sorcerer (Controller) has just cast Earth to Mud and has made pockets of the battlefield treacherous to close distance.

And multiple enemies are fundamentally more dangerous in DW while simultaneously more interesting, being vectors for a larger number of soft moves (and the snowballing of those soft moves).

Develop Your "Cost Game"

Make the fight about more than HP ablation. Threaten precious things; people, places, ideas (Bonds/Alignment).

7-9s are intentionally in abundance. Do you want to lose this intangible fictional positioning (time/space/ability to martial move x, y, z) or will you part ways with tangible resource (Armor, Weapon, Adventuring Gear, Rations, Bag of Books, Coin, Pack/Purse to hold this stuff, etc, etc)?

---

Incorporate these meta-principles with the broader principles of play and practice your GMing game to improve the way they manifest in play.

How do you feel you did on those grounds in your first combat?

 

[darkbard]

These meta-principles are solid, and I think the rulebook does a pretty good job of guiding GMs into their use. Since we have extensive experience with 4E, I think I just naturally fell into thinking dynamically about tags like Reach and Forceful, but I didn't really incorporate much in the way of terrain. The choker did begin combat clinging to the stalactites, so there was from the very beginning a three-dimensionality at work in the scene. And I did separate the Ranger from her melee weapon, interposing the wrestling bodies of her animal companion and the ape between her and its reach. So ultimately, I'm pretty satisfied with my decision making with regard to battlefield dynamics.

What I was less satisfied with is my "cost game," twice separating the PC from their melee weapon rather than thinking expansively beyond physical equipment (or, at least, ablating equipment beyond weaponry). Losing her pick in combat in the second instance fit the fiction well, but it would have been more interesting if such a complication had not already been presented in the earlier scene.

 

[Rune]

These meta-principles are solid, and I think the rulebook does a pretty good job of guiding GMs into their use. Since we have extensive experience with 4E, I think I just naturally fell into thinking dynamically about tags like Reach and Forceful, but I didn't really incorporate much in the way of terrain. The choker did begin combat clinging to the stalactites, so there was from the very beginning a three-dimensionality at work in the scene. And I did separate the Ranger from her melee weapon, interposing the wrestling bodies of her animal companion and the ape between her and its reach. So ultimately, I'm pretty satisfied with my decision making with regard to battlefield dynamics.

What I was less satisfied with is my "cost game," twice separating the PC from their melee weapon rather than thinking expansively beyond physical equipment (or, at least, ablating equipment beyond weaponry). Losing her pick in combat in the second instance fit the fiction well, but it would have been more interesting if such a complication had not already been presented in the earlier scene.

Combat is a great time to put someone in a spot, offer an opportunity at a cost, or show signs of approaching threat. (Or, with more players, separate them.)

Since the default in DW is that the players usually have the initiative (in the true sense of the word), you can really ratchet up the tension by throwing something out that they have to react to. This can be as simple as an enemy suddenly threatening an ally/ward or perhaps driving the PC backward toward hazardous terrain with a surge of aggressive strikes.

Regaining the initiative can be an opportunity requiring defiance of danger, or sacrifice of resources (a ripped backpack, a wound, loss of a clear head). Or perhaps the foe has feinted, but the opportunity to punish the maneuver is still present, if the PC is deft enough.

And, of course, an approaching threat can be in the form of reinforcements, but also the ominous rumblings of an imminent cavern collapse, or a third-unaffiliated party, like a bulette or the town guard. Or perhaps something insidious, like a long-term disease, previously ingested poison or tragic curse beginning to make their presence manifest.