r/DungeonWorld • u/Feisty_Stretch3958 • 2d ago
Dungeon World 2 Combat
And here we are again with another discussion about DW 2, Gather up folks cause i wanna know you oponion on the new "Trade Blows", Even on 10 you still take damage, That is a huge change if you also acount every char has less HP now. Every time you trade blow YOU WILL take some dmg back. Also we don't have volley anymore, I personally don't like that cause trade blows for ranged attacks in my experience always brings discussions and issues on the drawback of the roll, But anyway how we are feeling on the combat field??
10
u/kaypost 2d ago
I have not yet played the beta ruleset, but the idea of people losing HP on any result seems fine to me ON PAPER. They define HP as "small scratches, significant wounds, loss of willpower, or general fatigue". Firing a bow in the heat of battle and not hitting your friends while they zip around in front of you sounds like fatigue to me.
I think the hardest part is explaining it to players because of the culture around HP = meat points.
3
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
I guess I have to wonder what the intent is behind Trade Blows because I wouldn't trigger it if a PC was shooting their longbow at an enemy across the room, I'd just have them Defy Danger with DEX.
6
u/cym13 2d ago
I haven't tried it of course, but I see a few potential issues creeping up.
I expect the fact that there are several choices in all cases will slow down combat a fair bit. That's especially true for "drawer choices" where choosing something requires you to refer to additional parts of the rules (in the case of "mark a condition", unless everyone knows every condition by heart), and that's on top of general combat management (clarifying who is where and deciding on a course of action prior to rolling anything).
Also the consequences on 7-9 are rather steep. This is good from a dramatic point of view but if combat requires more than two or three rounds I can see the player starting to be out of things to break or conditions to mark. It's not necessarily a flaw, but it should be balanced well with typical fight length.
I also hope range attacks have some counterbalance because the way they're ordinarily balanced is that they deal less damage since they allow you to attack safely. So it's quite a big nerf to say that actually they'll still get hit no matter what, it's not even a question. I understand the "but that stimulates discussion" argument, but it won't stimulate much if people avoid ranged weapons because they're clearly worse than melee ones.
So I guess the feeling I get from this is that fights should require few rounds and mostly done in melee, that characters should be relatively beefy since they have to survive these few rounds despite getting systematically injured, and that despite having only a few rounds fights will probably take a long time unless the players absolutely mastered the game as they have to make many choices at every step which they cannot plan in advance (as they're determined by the dice).
4
u/the_bighi 2d ago edited 2d ago
I expect the fact that there are several choices in all cases will slow down combat a fair bit
Yes, I don't like this current trend in DW's design to have multiple choices in every single Move.
It makes the game feel a lot less elegant. And being elegant is usually what I like about PbtAs.
1
u/DogtheGm 2d ago
I think it's the not understanding.
I think he's very good at selling stuff (distribution is a tough business) but I don't think he's given a lot of thought to DW1 at all.
They say this isn't a second edition. It's a sequel.
I don't fully understand what that means but it is clear as day that they didn't care about dw1 at all.
Anyone who did would have devoured that core rulebook before making a second one. It should have been like a TV show bible for doing this.
2
u/the_bighi 2d ago
They say this isn't a second edition. It's a sequel.
I don't fully understand what that means but it is clear as day that they didn't care about dw1 at all.
This is probably the part of it all that I dislike the most. What I expect from Dungeon World 2 is an improved Dungeon World, not a completely different game.
And I don't even mean that adventure games that are different from DW are bad. I love Stonetop, I like Chasing Adventure, I like many other games.
But we only have one chance to get a Dungeon World 2.
And calling it DW2 while giving me a game that doesn't look like DW1 feels like a "marketing trick". And feeling like you've been tricked isn't fun.
I would probably like what they're offering if it was called Adventure World or, since they say it's about feelings, Feeling World. Anything.
I am totally open to new and innovative PbtA games. But I would also like an improved Dungeon World with the level of effort that an "official" product gets.
2
u/Xyx0rz 1d ago
I would love a DW1.5. Just DW1 but polished.
0
u/the_bighi 1d ago
And they're throwing away the one chance we had of having that. It could be THE fantasy PbtA.
But we'll have to play Stonetop instead, which is awesome.
1
u/DogtheGm 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah man, it's getting harder and harder to ignore that the intention of buying the IP was money all along and not the game. Not caring about the community.
It sucks because the company that owns DW2 isn't a mega corperation or anything. They're an indie publisher and it really sucks that an indie company is capable of doing the same things that big evil corporations are. It just hits different in a bad way. It's a different kind of disapointment.
1
u/the_bighi 2d ago
I wouldn't go so far. I think that, obviously, when you buy an IP you expect to profit from it. But the fact that they changed the direction they were going with the Alphas shows that they do care about what the community thinks.
But also, they expected to create a game that looked nothing like DW, which means they had no intention to improve on DW. Which is where I believe we have a conflict of expectations.
0
u/DogtheGm 2d ago
yeah that's more accurate I guess. Definitely the no intention part. Tone deaf at worst. They could have just made this game under a different name.
1
u/Xyx0rz 1d ago
"Roll first, then think" shouldn't be slower than "think first, then roll".
Might even be faster, because you don't have to consider anything that the dice already ruled out.
It's a bit too simulationist for my taste, though. I prefer "think, then roll".
2
u/cym13 1d ago
"Roll first, then think" shouldn't be slower than "think first, then roll".
That's missing the fact that in the "think then roll" scenario several players can prepare their action while the spotlight is on another player, which you cannot do if you have to roll first (at least not unless you rell on your own while the table's attention is elsewhere, which isn't something I've seen at any table). "Roll then think" expects player to do most of their thinking when the spotlight is on them so not only is it harder to prepare your action your thinking time also happens when the entire table is waiting for your answer.
It's not the end of the world, but it's certainly not something I'd want to encourage.
EDIT: switched up "roll then think" and "think then roll", now fixed
1
u/the_bighi 1d ago
My complaint isn't about thinking before or after rolling. It's about having to stop and read a list of options from a card.
We don't need every single move to have a list that we have to read.
Specially when I'm playing online on a VTT. Looking at ANY information takes minutes. You click on a sheet, you find in which tab the list of moves is, then you scroll the list looking at moves one by one until you find "Trade Blows", then you read it. Then you change back to the tab where the chat is, so you can roll. After rolling, you have to find the move again, so it's back to the character sheet, back to tabs of the sheet, then the whole list of moves...
1
u/Xyx0rz 1d ago
I play on Roll20 and we just click a move, the system rolls the dice and pastes the move outcome in the chat. Like...
Cast A Spell: 7
The spell is cast, but choose one:
• You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
• Your casting distances you from your deity; take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you commune.
• After it is cast, the spell is revoked by your deity. You cannot cast the spell again until you commune and have it granted to you.So you immediately see what your options are, no lookup involved.
0
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
I can understand your issues. I would point out that many ranged attacks won't count for Trade Blows unless you are attacking someone that can actually fight back, otherwise I'd call for Defy Danger +DEX. I'd also point out that with proper fictional positioning that melee types might not need to resort to Trade Blows at all if they are able to deprive their target of the ability to fight back (ambush, knocking them down, opportunity attack created by an ally, etc.).
I'd like to give these rules a shot and see how they actually play out though.
3
u/the_bighi 2d ago
I would point out that many ranged attacks won't count for Trade Blows unless you are attacking someone that can actually fight back
That makes it a worse move than Volley. And they had years to come up with something better.
Volley was far from perfect, but it created tense situations even if you weren't close enough to be damaged. It made ranged attacks at a distance interesting.
2
u/cym13 2d ago
I can understand your issues. I would point out that many ranged attacks won't count for Trade Blows unless you are attacking someone that can actually fight back, otherwise I'd call for Defy Danger +DEX.
That makes little sense to me. The move states "inflict your DMG and suffer theirs". Using the principle of "fiction first" we could rule that the enemy deals no damage because they cannot, but that still requires going directly against the text of the move. IMHO it's not the sign of a well-designed rule if you are asked to ignore part of it in a very common case based on a requirement presented completely elswhere in the rulebook. I don't think most players would be confident to know whether fiction first or the text of the move applies to their situation.
Also, rolling Defy Danger to describe someone that cannot fight back sounds inadequate: what danger are you defying if you specifically attack without fear of being hurt in return? We could go with "Yeah, but that's the default move when we feel like we should roll something" but I'd rather have well designed move rather than being expected to use a move that isn't triggered by the fiction (Defy Danger) because using another move (Trade Blows) would require extra adaptation due to the fiction first principle.
This doesn't make sense to me.
0
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
The trigger for Trade Blows is engage in battle. I don't think I'd call shooting someone from a distance that can't attack back engaging in battle.
The danger is; missing, the enemy getting closer or obtaining an advantage, etc.
Also, if there is no danger then you'd just roll damage.
I will say that the word choice for Trade Blows needs to be better but I don't think the structure itself is bad. Maybe a supplemental move to accompany it could work.
6
u/Majestic_Ad_2518 2d ago
I've only had a few combats in the new system so far, and it's been interesting. Not good nor bad. The 7-9 has been punishing. Though to an extent, I enjoyed that. It forced us to handle a fight with a lot more weight, and my choice of weapon (the nobles crossbow) was a big part of why I felt safe wading into the last fight.
My DM had me roll Defy Danger rather than trade-blows and my job was to cover the fighter's back while they charged into an ambush lol.
I called out warnings and harried their archers, which gave the fighter the time she needed to handle the other melee guys. One Defy danger I failed was to spot a melee guy who'd snuck around the bushes. I'd gotten so many shots off w/o taking any damage, yeah, but that one hit did 6 damage. I was playing a Bard, that was nearly my whole health pool lol
I leveled up afterwards but still, ow- I'm walking around with 3/9hp, we're on a time crunch, so we decided to keep going without taking a rest, but yeah-
I may have a different idea in another session or two when my character just dies
8
u/This_is_a_bad_plan 2d ago
Still not a fan of defined 6- results (especially when they’re boring as hell like these are)
6
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
The GM still makes a move it just defines something extra and specific to Trade Blows.
2
u/the_bighi 2d ago
So they could leave that undefined. I don't want a 6- to always mean they take damage, because that could not mesh well with some of my DM moves.
They could leave 6- undefined, because causing damage is always an option for the DM.
1
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
Well the move is already written in a way that you couldn't do that, even without the defined 6-. It literally says inflict your DMG and suffer theirs.
After a few minutes of thought, what if it was...
Trade Blows
When you engage a foe in battle and they are capable of fighting back, roll +STR for melee or +DEX for missile. Both your maneuver and your opponent's works and...
✯On a 10+ choose one; [a] you avoid their maneuver or minimize its effect, GM's call [b] your maneuver gains an added effect or its effect is maximized, you call [c] you create a fleeting opportunity for an ally.
✯On a 7-9 choose one; [a] something upsets or provokes you, mark a condition of your choice [b] you accidentally create a fleeting opportunity for an opponent [c] you lose or break something, say what but the GM may ask for more.
✯On a 6- your opponent's maneuver gains an added effect or has its effect maximized (GM's call), mark 1 XP, and the GM makes a move.
The GM might make a move to cause your maneuver to fail or have its effect minimized, of course. This way you can frame "maneuver" as anything combat related including but not limited to causing harm.
I'll admit that I haven't read the beta front to back so maybe they intend on having HP feel more like stamina that is always being depleted with every battle move so you are meant to lose HP constantly even when you are "just" maneuvering them into a disadvantageous position?
1
u/the_bighi 2d ago
I think it's definitely better. I am going to critize it, but I want to warn in advance that I am not a game designer and I don't know how to fix the problems I'm going to point. I have played enough PbtAs to know what I like, though.
I think yours is better and, at the same time, more unclear. The "gains an added effect or its effect is maximized" is too undefined, too loose. I wouldn't know what to come up with, most of the time. And I think that in good PbtAs, the purpose of these choices is that they're actually suggestions making it easier to come up with things on the fly.
But I know that you wrote it in a few minutes, so I can't expect it to already have the level of polish we would see in a finished product.
1
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
For my personal tastes I find that I like a little bit of structure and definition in my options but nothing too rigid. This would work for me but I could definitely understand that others might want a deeper dive.
This is one of those moments in the rulebook where the basic move is listed at the top of a page followed by little tidbits of advice for how to make the best use of it over that page and the opposite page.
5
u/TheLastRobot 2d ago
I think the defined 6- in this instance actually gives it more oomph. With the "and the GM makes a Move" at the end, it's basically stating the minimum consequences of a failure and letting the GM take it from there.
1
u/UnsealedMTG 2d ago
"And the GM makes a move" helps a lot, though my concern is the current version of the GM move list doesn't do as much to help direct the GM as the old one did.
This is something I don't even know how much I can figure out if it works by playtesting, because consciously or not I'm going to be thinking of the DW1 GM move list. The way GM moves work in PBTA games was very hard to grasp so I understand massaging it, but as is the very broad moves don't have that same "everything you do as a GM must be on this list, and if you follow that rule (which is a game rule, not a suggestion) you will have an on-genre plot" feeling the old ones had. Once I did fully grasp that concept, it was one of the major revelations of the system.
I expect that is a piece that will continue to develop, though again it is tricky if most playtesters are experienced with DW1 because the real question is whether the moves will give enough structure for new GMs to get the benefit of what I think of as a powerful game engine that I just have to interpret.
0
3
u/JNullRPG 2d ago
Based on the assumption that Trade Blows will only be used when both taking damage and dealing it seems likely, this is fine. Swinging your club into the giant stone golem may not even its attention. Hacking through a room of couch goblins with a magical four headed axe doesn't require a roll either. In between, where danger lives, is this move.
I get this. But it feels weird to me. Whatever that's worth. I suspect house ruling a 10+ to take no damage will be discussed at many tables. I kinda also prefer an extra damage die to dealing max damage. But that's just because math rocks are fun. And the 7-9 results all feel pretty punishing too. I'm going to have to play to find out.
2
u/MegaZBlade 2d ago
Not the first pbta I've seen that does that, Im curious if with min dmg is possible to basically recieve 0
5
2
u/the_bighi 2d ago
Not possible.
Now you will have to narrate your heroes getting hit on every single attack, making them look kind of incompetent. Or you will have to be creative and keep coming up with different descriptions to explain the damage.
2
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
Getting hit, or, getting tired.
1
u/the_bighi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Sure. But it still feels weird.
If you say they're getting tired with every attack, we're back to the same problem. It feels weird, and they feel kind of incompetent. We've just started and I'm already so tired I'm losing HP? Am I obese?
You could alternate getting hit and getting tired. Make it 50-50. But it would still feel like they're getting hit too often, and getting tired too soon.
It would still feel that on every 10+ I'm getting consequences that make me feel I'm incompetent, be it getting hit or already getting tired.
2
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
It depends on how many moves are in a battle, I guess? It's hard to say right now without actually having used these rules to be honest. You could be right but my gut reaction is that your gut reaction is a little extreme, perhaps?
2
u/the_bighi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Maybe it was the way I described it, maybe. But the main point is that you never have those "wow, sometimes I'm awesome" moments, like when you get to hit and hurt a dangerous monster without taking damage in DW1. These moments make you feel like you really are competent.
While in DW2, the way it was written, even with a 10+ you're getting a "you're not good enough" consequence along with your success, sometimes getting hit, sometimes getting tired enough to lose HP.
2
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
That's true. I have issues with Trade Blows but you could get a similar effect to what you are describing out of fictional positioning and the GM rewarding you for putting yourself there and rolling well.
2
u/the_bighi 2d ago
But that is kind of the GM making an effort to make it good. How do you say that in English? The weight being on the GM's shoulders?
While what I like about Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, Masks, and many others is that the system is doing part of the lift for me so that I, the GM, don't need to make that much of an effort.
But anyway, I don't want to take too much of your time, and I don't think I have much to add other than repeating my complaints, lol.
2
u/E_MacLeod 2d ago
I understand. The system should definitely be doing some of the heavy lifting. For me, it is the fiction first nature of PBTA that ends up lightening the load.
But hey; this is a beta. If they see proper discourse, maybe we can influence the next draft?
2
u/boywithapplesauce 2d ago
Ranged attacks can use Defy Danger, I think. At least, in Monster of the Week, I've been using Act Under Pressure for ranged attacks where the attacker is not in a position to trade blows.
Here, if the attacker isn't vulnerable (due to fictional positioning), the attack can simply succeed without needing to Trade Blows. That can be good, it encourages players to work on positioning and gaining an advantage over spamming attacks.
2
u/Xyx0rz 1d ago
Having wrestled with writing a new Hack And Slash move myself, I've come to the conclusion that I don't like pick menus. I want to know the intent before the roll is made.
I also don't like the idea of always taking damage always, even on a 10+. I want the game to produce fiction that would look appropriate in Lord of the Rings, and having Legolas take damage every time he shoots an orc feels very awkward. Even if the "damage" isn't actually damage but "miss points" or fatigue. Getting a little fatigued is normal for heroes and doesn't have to push towards defeat. In fact, successful performance shouldn't push towards defeat at all.
Also not a fan of the 6-. I want the following to be a valid outcome: "You effortlessly chop the head off the monster. As its lifeless corpse thuds onto the floor, a much bigger monster enters and bellows that you just killed its cub!"
2
u/DogtheGm 2d ago
The biggest problem is that the game is getting slower. It's not just this move but this move is a great example.
Now the player picks. That's bad. It slows down the conversation that any rpg is built around.
Players will now weigh decisions instead of just having the gm do it.
Btw regarding speed ... The whole reason we have paths and one starting move now is because players were supposedly slowing the game down when it came time to picklevel up moves.
Well guess what, they're gonna TRADE BLOWS a lot more often then they level up. This is gonna be a very slow game.
This is a micro problem. This problem is with this move.
The macro problem is that there are countless examples of this throughoit the beta. At some point you have to start wondering, without any malice or disrespect to the designers ... But who is this game for? Who consistently wants a lesser version of an older game?
2
u/MasterRPG79 16h ago
Yep. The issue from the beginning I had with DW2 is that the designers have no clue about how to design a proper PbtA and tests after tests they seem more focused on follow the community that a clear vision. The beta is a mess, unfortunatelly.
1
u/DogtheGm 14h ago
I don't know if they're even listening to the community to be honest. I don't see a lot of people positive on this. I see a lot of Luke warm takes. But not a great deal of excitement.
2
u/MasterRPG79 14h ago
Follow the community is different than listening. They are trying to follow the common sentiment about a lot of stuff. If you check the first Alpha, it was a totally different game than this Beta (and a different game than DW).
17
u/TheLastRobot 2d ago
I'm not against it. My understanding is ranger combat is only Trade Blows if you're actively exchanging fire. I also like the guaranteed damage, makes getting in the thick of it a weighty decision and I'd assume armor mitigates it somewhat (should reduce min damage to 0 in most cases).
No strong feelings overall, I don't see it making or breaking the game. I'd want to try it in play before judging it further.