Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8244402" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Because there is some commentary/thoughts in this thread that “Protagonistic Play” is not a discreet play priority that requires specific design/play ethos features (of which I do not agree with and have put a lot of countervailing words out there), I figured I’d copy/paste the below to this thread because I feel it has a lot of explanatory power of both the upstream and downstream effects of  Protagonistic Play (as holistically designed into a game) on the adjacent/related parts of design.TLDR - Deeply Protagonist Play favors PC build on the x axis and relatively mutes y axis power.I'll have more commentary later on the rest of what you've written above.  For now, just going to post on this.As you and I have discussed personally, I agree that there are some specific "holes in Dungeon World's spellcasting game" when it comes to scaling.  I think there are two problems (and they're related to another conversation we had Friday night) that Adam/Sage accidentally introduced or didn't conceptually resolve with the spellcasting scaling:1)  The x axis is more powerful than the y axis in Dungeon World.  Because players and player characters (most overlap on the Venn Diagram but the most potent are via discrete and indirect means that hook directly into the Protagonist nature of play; your evinced dramatic needs are the scaffolding for the trajectory of play and this is continuously addressed via "ask questions and use the answers") have so much y axis power already, there is steep diminishing returns on character build toward the y axis.  This is further amplified due to the fact that the game's engine creates so_many_pivotal_and_snowballing moments of action resolution.This can be looked at in the same way that the classic D&D 5MWD can be looked at.  Take the 5e D&D Diviner at Epic Tier.  The pressure you can put on this character's resources is absolutely minimal because of (a) so many spell slots, (b) so much at-will x and y axis power (Cantrips and low level at-will and Rituals), (c) 3 * Portents, (d) multiple avenues of individual spell refresh, (e) x and y axis power to dictate workday refresh.  This isn't even touching magic items.  As a result, unless this character is facing something on the order of 30+ PIVOTAL decision-points a day, it is trivial for a skilled Diviner to manage their loadout in a way such that resource pressure never emerges.  They're just pressing big, beefy buttons all day long.In a sort of inverted paradigm (due to all of the pivotal and snowballing decision-points as an outgrowth of action resolution), x-axis prowess (having a wide breadth of answers to questions) is considerably more powerful in DW.Now I love this model...but it does have design implications and fallout for high level spellcasting (the kind we're talking about here).2)  Reframing ability in Protagonist Play is less potent for a number of reasons.  Consider (again) our conversation from the other night.  The Elven Ranger move:Looks great on paper.  In play?  Here are the implications of this move:a)  You can never get xp on your selected Role on Perilous Journeys.b)  This scene reframing ability ensures that you'll never face a Danger in your role.  In Perilous Wilds, you'll always get 2 Boons for example.  That is awesome.  But that means that you'll never deal with any extended conflict and interesting decision-points as a downstream effect of that perma scene-reframing ability.  Go back to (1) above (there is always going to be more pressure points on the stuff you care about/your thematic shtick in this game to review some of the issues with this (as it relates to the scaling such that high level spells increase y axis power situationally but significantly reduces x axis prowess).What is more interesting and better design in my opinion?  The kind of design that (a) lets the Elven Ranger player get xp on from their move made, (b) ensures their competency, (c) lets them roll dice, (d) keeps their thematic stuff onscreen at a dramtically higher rate (across the population of all moves/obstacles faced in the game), and (e) gives the player the opportunity for an interesting decision-point (tactical, strategic, thematic)?RAISE THE FLOOR of the possible outcomes (rather than ensure the ceiling):Its now like the Paladin move Staunch Defender where you get 1 Hold on Defend even if you get a 6-.  Much, much better design (for all of the reasons above) in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification