Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7399492" data-attributes="member: 82106">In our experience it is fairly uncommon for two PCs to be built as the same class anyway, though it is certainly possible. It could even be desirable in some situations (a 'thief campaign' or something). In any case, one PC could be a different race, which can make a decent difference in powers. You can also 'MC' in DW (at least some classes can, its sort of a case-by-case thing). In that case it could be pretty easy to differentiate. Some classes though are pretty straightforward. You will surely be somewhat different, moreso than 2 OD&D fighter, but it could get a bit redundant. Some classes wouldn't work well at all as multiples. The Barbarian for instance. You CAN make distinctive ones (a dwarf with heavy armor and a giant axe vs a Conan-type) but the barbarian has some very distinctive moves that would seem odd coming up on more than one PC!I think 2 wizards wouldn't be much of a problem though, there are a good number of spells to pick from for differentiation.As for an 'NPC Wizard', this isn't even a coherent idea in DW. NPCs don't really play in anything like the way PCs do. For instance they generally don't make 'attacks' (IE Hack and Slash or Volley) as PCs do. Most monsters have 'moves' but they are really just options for a GM move when the monster is part of the fiction (IE a dragon can breath a fiery breath, but this would be done when the GM has a 'hard move' available, and it would simply do damage, though PCs could try to Defy Danger and avoid some/all of the damage). The point is an 'NPC Wizard' using the PC Wizard rules simply wouldn't work. The GM doesn't trade moves with the PCs or even with the whole party, moves happen in a sequence dictated strictly by narrative framing. Nor do most PC moves make sense in the GM context. In the case of spells, some of them could be turned into GM moves, but then you'd have a 'wizard-like monster' which is exactly how DW does it.</blockquote>

Verification