Some thoughts on the Defend move and outcomes in general
I have been thinking about the Defend Dungeon World move recently and I read something that changed the way I think about it. I would normally roll+CON and get some number of hold or fail. In a few situations this can be very useful like pulling attacks away from a wizard performing a ritual or a thief securing an escape route. But at best you get 3 hold and the actual timing of when to roll, and weather you can roll again or get to Hack and Slash as well, has always been a little unclear. Most players will just try to Hack and Slash away their opponents as quickly as possible before to much damage is done. Alternatively they create some fictional circumstance to draw attention, like covering themselves in cows blood or making a lot of noise. These are both good strategies but I felt they left Defend a little lame.
I was browsing around in the Dungeon World Tavern and someone mentioned the difference between the 3 outcomes in reference to defend. Normally a 10+ is a success, your character does whatever he set out to do. A 7-9 result is a success with complication. The Defend move is triggered “when you stand in defense of a person, item or location under attack”. So on a 10+ it seems like you should succeed in defending your target in addition to getting 3 hold. On a 7-9 you still defend the target but there is a complication and you get 1 hold to deal with it.
This makes the most sense if you are trying to accomplish something with your defense other than redirecting attacks. Say you want to keep a bunch of monsters out of a room or from crossing a bridge, so you plant yourself in the way. Whether or not they get by you is based more on the outcome of the roll then on how you use the hold. Or you are trying to draw fire, your roll determines if you succeed and your hold helps you weather the consequences. This approach kind of turns Defend into a special form of Defy Danger with CON.
Unfortunately the redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself hold option does seem useless in the 10+ success case. You have completely succeeded at defending them so there shouldn’t be an attack targeting them. This may be an indication that I am trying to use Defend in the wrong way.
What do you guys think? Is this the wrong idea or a step in the right direction? Do you feel Defend is already super useful or a bit hard to use? How about other moves with hold options? Is getting less hold or having to spend an ammo enough on its own to count as a success with complication?
I think the move is playable either way it is described, but think the correct way is the way we have always played it where you spend the hold to defend rather than successfully defending and getting the additional benefit of 3 hold.
I see “defend” come in to play more often when my players describe getting ready to take an attack but not describing themselves attacking. When this happens I say to them “it sounds like you are trying to defend this ground, roll Defend.” Some players defending while others attack has proven effective for them. It also gives the move uses beyond protecting a specific wizard doing a ritual or other event like that.
I think the move is playable either way it is described, but think the correct way is the way we have always played it where you spend the hold to defend rather than successfully defending and getting the additional benefit of 3 hold.
I see “defend” come in to play more often when my players describe getting ready to take an attack but not describing themselves attacking. When this happens I say to them “it sounds like you are trying to defend this ground, roll Defend.” Some players defending while others attack has proven effective for them. It also gives the move uses beyond protecting a specific wizard doing a ritual or other event like that.
That’s an interesting perspective, but I think David LaFreniere is right. To my mind, the trickier thing is recognizing when Defend gets triggered. It should probably fire a lot more often than it does in our games (although I’m seeing it happen more and more lately).
That’s an interesting perspective, but I think David LaFreniere is right. To my mind, the trickier thing is recognizing when Defend gets triggered. It should probably fire a lot more often than it does in our games (although I’m seeing it happen more and more lately).
Jason Cordova I started asking players to roll defend when narrating preparing to take an attack about 3 sessions back and have seen about 6 or 7 defend rolls. Give it a try and let me know if you get similar results.
Jason Cordova I started asking players to roll defend when narrating preparing to take an attack about 3 sessions back and have seen about 6 or 7 defend rolls. Give it a try and let me know if you get similar results.
So do you guys think that the general rule of success, success with complication, failure, doesn’t apply when the outcomes are specified. Realy the only place they are not specified is defy danger.
So do you guys think that the general rule of success, success with complication, failure, doesn’t apply when the outcomes are specified. Realy the only place they are not specified is defy danger.
Daniel Fowler That’s actually not a general rule, but rather a general way of understanding PbtA’s conflict resolution system. The moves are whatever they say.
Daniel Fowler That’s actually not a general rule, but rather a general way of understanding PbtA’s conflict resolution system. The moves are whatever they say.
Also, note: on an unspecified 6-, that doesn’t necessarily mean failure. It means GM makes a Hard Move.
Also, note: on an unspecified 6-, that doesn’t necessarily mean failure. It means GM makes a Hard Move.
A situation I see sometimes is when someone is looking for something specific. They roll a 10+ on discern realities and get 3 hold. Whether or not they find it though seems to be based on the questions they ask. Perhaps they should find it, if it is there and get 2 other hold.
Spout lore’s utility realy seems to rests on the DM regardless of the roll.
Maybe this just goes back to the being a fan of the players idea. So when the players do well give them what they want
A situation I see sometimes is when someone is looking for something specific. They roll a 10+ on discern realities and get 3 hold. Whether or not they find it though seems to be based on the questions they ask. Perhaps they should find it, if it is there and get 2 other hold.
Spout lore’s utility realy seems to rests on the DM regardless of the roll.
Maybe this just goes back to the being a fan of the players idea. So when the players do well give them what they want
I usually suggest the move that will answer what they want to know on a 10+ and let them choose the other two. As far as defend goes, I find that players who see their character as a defender, use this the most. Case in point, my friend’s paladin used defend almost exclusively throughout the campaign. He could take out attackers pretty well since smite gave him extra damage when he deals damage. He’d usually roll high, so he could choose to do damage equal to his level, plus the smite damage. The only times he used hack and slash were when his holy avenger was the only thing that could hurt something. He really enjoyed it and I was a fan of him being the paladin defending his allies. So, summed up, I think that defend works pretty well the way it is. If it always succeeded, there wouldn’t be any reason to use your CON to defy danger. Why use that when you can defend and get extra things?
I usually suggest the move that will answer what they want to know on a 10+ and let them choose the other two. As far as defend goes, I find that players who see their character as a defender, use this the most. Case in point, my friend’s paladin used defend almost exclusively throughout the campaign. He could take out attackers pretty well since smite gave him extra damage when he deals damage. He’d usually roll high, so he could choose to do damage equal to his level, plus the smite damage. The only times he used hack and slash were when his holy avenger was the only thing that could hurt something. He really enjoyed it and I was a fan of him being the paladin defending his allies. So, summed up, I think that defend works pretty well the way it is. If it always succeeded, there wouldn’t be any reason to use your CON to defy danger. Why use that when you can defend and get extra things?
Daniel Fowler I guess my issue with that position is it essentially turns Dungeon World into World of Dungeons. The reason why you have specific moves (instead of just a generic Do Something Risky-style move) is the specific outcomes can lead the story in directions no one expected or, on the flip side, they lead to very tightly prescribed outcomes the GM can’t fuck with.
Also, the principal is “Be a fan of the characters” not “Be a fan of the players.” I think being a fan of the characters means putting them in situations in which they get to shine, not just giving them what they want.
Daniel Fowler I guess my issue with that position is it essentially turns Dungeon World into World of Dungeons. The reason why you have specific moves (instead of just a generic Do Something Risky-style move) is the specific outcomes can lead the story in directions no one expected or, on the flip side, they lead to very tightly prescribed outcomes the GM can’t fuck with.
Also, the principal is “Be a fan of the characters” not “Be a fan of the players.” I think being a fan of the characters means putting them in situations in which they get to shine, not just giving them what they want.
In a recent session, the question came up of whether it’s possible to Hack and Slash while maintaining hold from Defend. My position was: ‘sure, as long as you’re still defending someone or something in the fiction’.
In a recent session, the question came up of whether it’s possible to Hack and Slash while maintaining hold from Defend. My position was: ‘sure, as long as you’re still defending someone or something in the fiction’.