Author: Tor

In PbtA hacks in general, do you think there is a place for a specific move or mechanic that deals with conflicts where you’re attacking someone who is actively opposing you, but not willing or able to use violence back? And I’m not talking about attacking someone unsuspecting or helpless. In those situations you would just deal damage or achieve what you’re trying to do without rolling.

A good example of this kind of situation is when you are using ranged weapons against enemies who can’t fight you back. Maybe they are charging at you with melee weapons or running away, but they’re actively avoiding your attacks and trying to achieve something. Dungeon World’s volley would fit here, but it’s specifically for ranged combat.

Your opponent could also be up close trying to capture you unharmed with a net, or maybe you’re invulnerable to their attacks so they are trying to take down your defenses in some way other than just attacking.

This could be baked into whatever conflict move a game has, so instead of just trading harm, the enemy achieves a goal or puts the player in a bad spot. Maybe by giving the player some extra options to choose from and if they don’t pick those options, the enemy will get what they’re trying to achieve.

Hack and Slash from DW just states that the attack an enemy makes in return on a 7-9 can be dealing damage (+ tags), but it can also be something else entirely like “jamming a poisoned needle into your veins”.

Do you have other good examples of moves from different games that considers this?

How would you resolve these kinds of asymmetric conflicts?

In many PbtA games, gangs inflict +1 harm and get +1 armour for each step of size difference between them and their opponent. What would happen if I started placing smaller groups or individual enemies on the same ladder? For example a giant ogre that is the equivalent of a large gang or the ninja triplets that are like a small one. This is of course already baked into AW with the move “Not to be fucked with” where the Gunlugger can fight as a small gang.

The extra math could be a drawback, but it might actually help you avoid math in something like a mechwarrior game where you mostly fight enemies on the same power level when you’re in the suit, and when you’re not, you’re probably just fighting people anyway. But it’s obviously situational and it wouldn’t be practical in most games.

I was planning the next duet campaign for my son and I thought it would be interesting to have a player that switches back and forth between power levels so he can fight giant monsters one day and duel his rival the next. That’s how I started thinking about this, but since I don’t remember seeing anything like it anywhere I have a feeling that it might not be that effective.

Have you seen good examples of this?

What are the flaws?

How would this be a good mechanic?

Is there a better way to deal with different power levels?

I’ve been piecing together a generic retire move giving the players an extra edge. Nothing revolutionary. I’m not making it for a particular hack at the moment, but it could be used for any game where the players want to go out with a bang.

I hope my idea comes across even though the writing could be better. Does it need some clarifications or better examples? I might make the move itself more succinct and attach a longer explanation. I’m particularly worried about explaining how you decide what an appropriate final achievement is, but playtesting is probably the only way to tell if it’s going to work.

Final Achievement

When you retire your character, take one hold and describe how you go. If it makes sense in the fiction, retirement might be delayed to give time for closure, but you can not take any dramatic action beyond your final achievement.

Spend your hold at any time to tell what you want your final achievement to be. It has to be in character and within your capacity through sacrifice, dedication, planning, luck, pushing your limits or sheer willpower.

It can involve actions before and up to retirement and actions behind the scenes, but the actual results might come later. Explain, describe and answer any questions asked. This is your last chance to shine, but the GM is the final arbiter.

Examples:

Perform an impressive or unlikely feat of body or mind, leave something useful behind, spur others into action, have your hard work pay off or a brilliant plan come to fruition.

(Depending on the situation and tone of the game retirement could mean death, debility, imprisonment, loss of motivation, insanity, disappearing or just plain retirement.)

Any thoughts?

What do you think about moves that use options or questions about the fiction to determine the modifier for a roll instead of a stat?

Here are two established examples…

One of the barter moves from Apocalypse World:

“When you make known that you want a thing and drop jingle to speed it on its way, roll+barter spent (max roll+3)…”

Recruit(Dungeon World):

“When you put out word that you’re looking to hire help, roll. If you make it known…

• …that your pay is generous, take +1

• …what you’re setting out to do, take +1

• …that they’ll get a share of whatever you find, take +1

If you have a useful reputation around these parts take an additional +1…”

Some pros of stat independent moves:

• They can be useful when differentiation is unnecessary, although it’s relatively easy to differentiate if you want to.

• More predictable and easier to tweak. No wacky +3’s.

• You can get rid of stats that only serve one move by making that move independent.

• Avoid advances that let you roll x move with y stat instead of z. I’m not a fan of those.

• Easier to design the relationship between moves and stats since there are less of them.

…some cons:

• With many independent moves, you can’t bump up one stat to get better across the board in a category. You have to address each move separately if you want to give playbooks an edge.

• If the options are vague it is easy to waste time on definitions and justifications. Look at the recruit move.

• Higher word count and complexity, although not necessarily. Look at the barter move example.

• Potentially lots of +1’s to keep track of.

I sketched out part of a theoretical combat move that makes the combat stat in my non-existent game unnecessary. I can imagine that a move like this would work well in a game where combat is all about using the fiction and your other moves to set up +1’s before the fight move is triggered or skip the fight completely. Keep in mind that it is just an example.

FIGHT!

You’re all here to defeat bad guys with speed, wit or brawn, so your stats don’t matter. When you fight, roll and take +1 if…

• …they are flanked or caught up in something else at the same time.

• …you have a longer sword or something.

• Etc. (Don’t make me come up with something intelligent on the fly)

Then each playbook can have their own little battle move extension.

• When you fight and smash everything around without consideration, take +1.

• When you fight from higher ground, take +1 and deal +1 harm on a hit.

• When you fight, you get to do x on a hit.

• When you fight, take -1 unless you blah, blah…

Is it worth considering moves that don’t use stats when designing a hack? Any thoughts?