Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9102044" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No. They still need to follow from the fiction. But they are drivers for how new fiction will be created. I'll give an example from a game where I was a player, rather than GM.Ozruk the Halfling Fighter started out as what D&D would call "chaotic neutral" (mostly "chaotic"). One of his bonds was with my character, a very LG-but-mostly-G style Human Paladin; "Abraxxis is soft; I will make them hard, like me." That's a standard bond from the Fighter class. Over the course of our early adventures, Ozruk came to realize that what he mistook for wide-eyed idealism was, in fact, a tragedy-hardened commitment to doing the right thing, for the right reason, because he had already lost everything else, and never wanted others to experience that loss. As a result, that bond resolved, because Ozruk came to see Abraxxis as an inspiration, not as a fool needing a lesson. The next bond was something like, "I will become strong, so I can protect others" (implicitly, the way my character did). Later, he acquired some magic items, which he grew proud about, and that bond changed ("resolved" into a new form), something like, "I have taken a Wizard's power, and I will use it against my enemies." Except that led him to do something he deeply regretted, so that bond again changed to something else, I no longer recall what.In the end, that particular bond changed many times, each time pushing the fiction toward some new goal or target. Bonds do not need to be reciprocal. That famous scene from the Street Fighter film is a good demonstration: "For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday." Chun-Li has a Bond with Bison, but Bison (even if he were a player character) does not have a Bond with Chun-Li.It can be either. Usually you pick an alignment move from a given list (mostly because they are thematic and relevant to the playbook you've chosen), but the books specifically support selecting more generic moves or coming up with your own, so long as they fit within a loose guideline. More or less, an alignment move needs to be an action, not just an airy statement of principles; it should be reasonably common but not a literally all the time thing (e.g. the text says "when you gain treasure" is a bad fit, but "when you gain treasure through lies and deceit" is great), and  For example, the Paladin playbook has, "Protect someone weaker than you" for the "Good" alignment move, and "Deny mercy to a criminal" for the Lawful alignment move.A character truly changing their alignment completely is not a common event, but quite expected. Generally this would reflect slow build up to a really major shift in their personality, or as the text says, "a gradual move toward a decisive moment." To reference back to Ozruk above, after his epiphany regarding my Paladin, it's possible he could have changed his alignment to something like, from the book, "Ignore danger to aid another," which reflects Ozruk's often Chaotic personality. A custom Alignment move I might design today, with more experience with the system, could be, "Take risks to empower the weak," as that was in fact a thing Ozruk did on multiple occasions (much to the party's chagrin!)[SPOILER="Digression on how Spout Lore works"]It does not and cannot do that. Whoever said otherwise is wrong. <a href="https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/moves/#Spout_Lore" target="_blank">The exact text of the move</a>, and the explanatory text that follows:This is followed by two examples of the move in action.The first has the GM ask the player a follow-up question, in this case, why Fenfaril doesn't remember what the trick is, just that there is one. The second scenario could have the GM ask, "So, how DO you recognize the metalwork and langauge of Dis, the living city, Vitus?" And Vitus would need to explain that--but that explanation would be backstory, not somehow inserting a special tower immediately before the party. The most you could get out of it would be something like a character observing that there is already a tower ahead, rolling on Spout Lore, the GM telling them that it is a bastion of the Order of the Black Quill, a sect of necromancer-scribes, and the character then saying that the reason they know this is that they were apprenticed to the Black Quill as a teenager, but flunked out, escaped, or some other reason why they aren't currently a peeling, desiccated corpse shuffling papers in a library somewhere.[/SPOILER]Fair enough. Following from the fiction is a rule that applies to everyone, and as stated, players must follow the rules (just as much as GMs should), so that really shouldn't be a concern. But I will spoilerblock the above answer, in case you do not wish to engage further on that topic.This I can do easily, as, per the above, I played a Paladin for something like a year and a half!This is the <a href="https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/classes/paladin/#Quest" target="_blank">text of the Quest move</a>. I have modified it slightly to replace the spaces with underscores, as the original HTML uses underlined spaces for its "fill in the blank" lines. (There are also some "advanced moves"--class-specific bonuses you can pick up as you gain levels--which improve its effects, but those just make it better, they don't change the fundamental process.)Note, as I said, the inherent back-and-forth here; I will also note that I, personally, would allow the player to suggest other possible quest goals, though those three are pretty broad and thus should work for most situations. The player chooses what the quest is (which, in all likelihood, will be in response to relevant conditions), and the GM has no say in that--again, as long as the player follows the rules, which includes that the quests must follow from the fiction. Declaring that you wish to slay Sauron in a game that simply does not have Sauron is not following from the fiction. Then, the player selects two boons--and one of those boons, the immunity, can theoretically be quite powerful. In turn, however, the GM must then state which vows apply.For a useful example: My character, Abraxxis, had lost his wife, Hannah, when they were both quite young. They grew up in a little middle-of-nowhere hamlet with a church of Bahamut, hidden from the eyes of the world, and were childhood sweethearts. His wife died after a girl, experimented upon by wizards, sought refuge in their house, and the wizard who had experimented upon her came to claim the girl. The two fought, Hannah and the girl died, and Abraxxis slew the wizard in retaliation--and then took himself to the temple and dedicated his life to championing righteousness. (Learning that this was Abraxxis' backstory was the catalyst for Ozruk changing is mind about the former's strength.) However, midway through the campaign, we learned that Hannah was not completely gone--her soul had been stolen by necromancers, traded from one to another for years, not knowing its connection to him.Upon learning this, and having recently discharged a previous quest (to cleanse a holy sword), Abraxxis immediately dedicated himself to "defend my wife from the iniquities that beset them," hoping to resurrect her, but at the very least to set her soul free to Bahamut's aery. He chose as his boons "invulnerability to enchantment" (because we were about to go amongst a great many enchanters) and "an unwavering sense of direction to my wife's soul." IIRC I got a third boon because of one of the aforementioned advanced moves, but I don't think that one was ever relevant.The GM said Valor, Truth, and Honor were the vows required of him. These are particularly sticky wickets when one of your allies is a very talented sneak-thief, but Abraxxis had practice in handling that, so I had no problem with those vows. This would come to complicate my life rather a lot later on! But the boons were unequivocally useful. The GM ruled that, because I had said "enchantments" and these are enchanter wizards, their spells could not touch me. Even their magic missiles. This is, of course, hugely helpful. But the even bigger help was when we got stuck in a shifting labyrinth of twisting corridors. It was meant to be an extremely difficult challenge to navigate our way through to the exit--but I had my "unwavering sense of direction," better than any compass, for orienting us through. It was still a difficult journey, fraught with peril, but that mystical guidance made the maze no challenge.As noted, those Vows came to haunt me later, however, as we had a difficult spot where there were wizards running away from us, who could reveal our position, potentially resulting in everyone's deaths. I chose, knowing it would be a risk, to strike down the last of those fleeing wizards. This suspended my powers for a time, not just the boons but most of my Paladin abilities, until I reconciled with Bahamut and atoned for the lack of Honor. It wasn't crazy hard to (my character had clearly shown his unequivocal faith), but it did require reflection and a re-dedication to always doing the right thing, not the easy thing.Hopefully, this illustrates how both sides are active participants in creating the fiction. The player sets the parameters for the Quest, and even the benefits gained from it, while the GM sets the costs paid. Both the parameters and the costs then push toward new fiction, toward testing the player. As another example, on a quest prior to the above (which ended up being the last quest Abraxxis embarked upon--we never quite finished that story), one of the vows involved was Hospitality. That adventure involved a red dragon--among the hated enemies of Bahamut!--that was enslaved by dwarves to power their furnace, its children tortured or even slain to keep it docile. All hell ended up breaking loose later on (due very specifically to Ozruk, no surprise there), but this specifically tested the character, forcing him to show comfort to a being that should be his bitter enemy, because the vow is comfort no matter who it is that is in need.</blockquote>

Verification