Hi Shawn.
Hi Shawn.
The more I read the rules and the more I read players' reports on this site, the more I like the game. One problem though that I have perceived : the system of ranks for the monsters (same HP, same Harm, etc) leads to the fact that despite the fictional difference, you still have only five different one-dimensional monsters to fight when the thing gets real (i.e., dice are rolling).
To make them more diverse I would :
- Add tags to each monsters, just like in DW, as well as multiple possibilities of attacks. So a Wyvern (Extreme, Scaled) would have Snap up (4 Harm, Armor piercing) AND Tail strike (3 Harm, Stun). Something like this.
- Do NOT reduce the Harm inflicted by the monster/foe when you reduce their rank due to group action. This is illogical and anti-fictional. A wyvern reduced to Rank 3 like in the example of play at the end of the book would still have Harm 4 like the Extreme monster it is, even if you can collectively inflict 1 Progress per Harm a result of collective action.
The more I read the rules and the more I read players' reports on this site, the more I like the game. One problem though that I have perceived : the system of ranks for the monsters (same HP, same Harm, etc) leads to the fact that despite the fictional difference, you still have only five different one-dimensional monsters to fight when the thing gets real (i.e., dice are rolling).
To make them more diverse I would :
- Add tags to each monsters, just like in DW, as well as multiple possibilities of attacks. So a Wyvern (Extreme, Scaled) would have Snap up (4 Harm, Armor piercing) AND Tail strike (3 Harm, Stun). Something like this.
- Do NOT reduce the Harm inflicted by the monster/foe when you reduce their rank due to group action. This is illogical and anti-fictional. A wyvern reduced to Rank 3 like in the example of play at the end of the book would still have Harm 4 like the Extreme monster it is, even if you can collectively inflict 1 Progress per Harm a result of collective action.
If you're familiar with DW, then you already know that damage/HP are about the least important part of an enemy. The fiction is more important than the mechanics here. Just like the (practically proverbial at this point) "16 HP dragon." (Re)read this: latorra.org - A 16 HP Dragon | LaTorra.org
ReplyDeleteMaybe they are not the most important, but DW still has them. As you have maybe noticed, I do not suggest to re-introduce HP or damage dice (from DW) in Ironsworn, but only the tags. So I fail to see how you remark is relevant to my suggestion. And believe me, your "If you're familiar..." and "Reread the 16 HP dragon..." does smack of condescension.
ReplyDelete...I was just trying to build on shared context of coming from a DW background that you'd already brought up first, no condescension intended. Plus am mobile. Sorry for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel what you’re saying here, and I think that writing up tags or special moves for the monsters can be a great way to narratively differentiate different monsters. I’m looking at the foes chapter right now and I see that each monster is given drives (To determine how best to role play it) and Tactics, which show how it normally fights and at least for the magical creatures see,s to include special powers. For example I see the Frostborn can sense heat and drain your life with a touch. Mechanically it may just inflict 2 harm, but narratively it’s eating your soul. I think that’s what Josh McGraw was getting at by posting the dragon. Mechanically monsters in PbtA games are very simple, but they have the capability to be very exciting and powerful through the abilities we invest in them narratively.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with your second point though. It’s my understanding that the reason we reduce an enemy’s rank in a group action is that not only is it easier to hurt a monster when there are a lot of you, but the damage that creature delivers is spread out and absorbed by the group. Effectively the monster has to spread its attention across a number of foes which makes it less effective than it would be if it could focus on you.
Justin Gordon I /cosign that whole thing but wasn't going to type that all out on my phone. :D
ReplyDelete📌
ReplyDeleteJustin Gordon On the second point : that's the whole problem ; damage from a powerful foe should not be (or not always) "spread out and absorbed by the group". That is, I think, against the fiction. When a wyvern snaps you up, one in a group of several, then you take the full damage, it is not each member of the group who is "a little bit snapped up". When Gregor the Mountain is up against several ennemies, each strike of his sword (which lands) kills an enemy, it does not give a paper cut to each enemy.
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the logic of reducing Harm rank to the end, then a Dragon against a hundred warriors would not cause any damage. Which is anti-fictional (and definitely against the sprit of the 16 HP dragon example).
Josh McGraw And sorry if I flared up a little bit too quickly ! But to say the truth, I have noticed on the multiple forums about ptba games a real tendency of telling everybody who criticises part the rules even a little bit : "Are you familiar with..." or "Have you read so and so?"
ReplyDeleteA B all good mang. I know what you mean, and I think it's because there's so much content and context coming along with any PbtA discussion that we could be talking "apples and oranges" without even realizing it.
ReplyDeleteI doubt Shawn intends the "group action can reduce threat" thing to be infinite. If you try it in practice, it feels vaguely like cheating to even do it by one level. Feels like the sort of thing that would be a payoff for a lot of setup work, especially with an Epic threat (like the prep to take down that 16HP Dragon).
Justin Gordon already said a lot of what I was thinking, but I'd also add that there's a LOT more variability in outcomes baked just below the surface on the player side, compared to a standard PbtA game. Pay The Price throws a lot of potential variables out there that can worsen a situation beyond simply taking damage, and they're worded openly enough that my first instinct on many outcomes would be to hook back into anything unique in the enemy's write-up. I think your initial post seemed to be looking for the hook to be on the "monster" side of the mechanics, when it's already there just split more on the "player" side of the mechanics.
Newb here, never played PbtA and just starting solo and definitely not trying to be condescending as I am too green to be any type of authority, but what benefit do tags give? I really am trying to see the need for 'tags'. I mean I get that they... define the monster, as in the example of the Wyvern. Your Wyvern snaps for 4 Harm and whips its tail for 3 Harm. In regards to opponent being one dimensional, doesn't that just make all Wyverns that much more so? Now by defining it you specify exactly how all Wyverns are supposed to act and how much of a threat they are. What if I want my Wyverns to - tag: Pin / tag: Rend?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I have a hard time explaining myself in writing and REALLY having a hard time this time doing so! I guess I am not seeing the benefit of tags, it feels like I am... limiting my narrative... maybe? Can you help me get it?
Now on to my questions / thoughts of the Harm and Challenge Rank scaling due to numerical advantage. As I understand it, you don't have an issue with the Challenge Rank being less for the numerical advantage of the PC in the book's example, the issue lies with the Harm changing with that adjustment? So though the threat is less because you out number the Wyvern, he should still be doing a 4 Harm snap and a 3 Harm tail whip? Interesting...
But since Harm is reflected to the character sheet, no matter the narrative truth is, isn't that actually making it stronger? What I mean is, the NPCs are just props, field dressing, to explain an advantage the PC has. If they are snapped up with 1 Harm or 3 Harm it doesn't matter, it all mechanically effects the PC correct? The NPCs in the example don't have their own health bars, damage to them shows as -Health, -Momentum, etc. to the character.
I think I really could support a break of Harm/Challenge Rank IF this, and every encounter I can envision, wasn't really a competition of only two resource pools; the threat and the resources on a single character sheet.
Again, sorry, I just don't know enough about this to really be of any help. My post is more to hopefully understand possible limitations that I am not seeing as a newb.
Hi, A B. Really appreciate the recommendations!
ReplyDeleteWhat DW uses has tags is currently woven into Features, Drives and Tactics but I'd love to hear from other folks if there is a general feeling that if tags or attacks need to be more robust and directive. To be honest, I am a bit reluctant to head down the path of more detailed attack types, but I'd certainly like to hear if there's something too weak or fluffy about the overall approach.
Actually, NPC attacks were originally handled similar to what you suggest. The tactics were more detailed. They were attacks or maneuvers which had a recommended countering move and the suggested outcome (i.e. against a roar you would Face Danger and lose some spirit on a failure), but in the end I decided this was getting way too prescriptive and fiddly, and I decided to leave it in the player's hands. What does it mean for my character if a huge bear stands up on its hind legs and roars at me? Maybe I falter and lose some momentum. Maybe it saps my spirit. Maybe I take a stumbling step back, trip, fall to the ground, and have to face a new danger as the bear pounces. There's probably 5 other outcomes I can think of, and the same goes for more forceful attacks that might be assumed to be harm but can lead to other interesting failures. I can use the oracle and the Pay the Price table to help decide, which creates some interesting opportunities to weave a result back into the fiction.
A foe's harm was also originally separate from their challenge rank. As I worked on those mechanics, I came to discover that the harm they inflicted was generally lining up with their ranks, so why bother with making them separate? This does, I agree, create some fictional disconnects when you reduce a rank due to narrative support or advantage (i.e. working together with NPCs). I generally look at a foe's harm as it's average potential through the fight, rather than on a strict attack-by-attack basis.
So, I feel that it 'sorta comes out in the wash, but I get your point and I'm curious as to what others think. Separating rank from potential harm, or saying that if you reduce a rank due to a negative benefit you retain the previous harm, doesn't add much in the way of complexity, but it seemed slightly fiddly enough that I didn't feel like it was worth the gain.
In the end, your second point is a pretty easy one for players to adjust to their liking, or for me to address in a different fashion in the book. You first point (more robust tags and more prescriptive attacks) has farther-reaching potential consequences.
Tags for monsters. Not a bad idea. And John Risus I assume that you're actually S John Ross? If that's true then it's funny to hear you call yourself a newb.
ReplyDeleteShawn Tomkin Well, I see all your points. For the tags, maybe it's indeed me being not imaginative enough !
ReplyDeleteFor the reducing of Harm with reducing of rank of the foe, though, I stand my ground : I would definitely implement my "home rule" !
Jacob Ross Oh no. No, no, no. I am not S John Ross. My online handle is purely a homage to him and his rules. I did contribute to the society back in the day, but that was many years ago. ;)
ReplyDeleteAfter some reflection, and reading replies since I posted, it is a little more clear now. The idea of splitting the Harm from the Challenge to resolve the situation seems tangible. As an example, if I get this right, is the idea of a character walking around a corner into the face of a mugger with a gun leveled at him or an eight year old with the same gun leveled at him. One is, arguably, easier to resolve, but they both pose the same threat. Is that the gist? Threat vs Consequence?
As for prescriptive attacks/defense modes, I could maybe see it used in a module (are there such things for solo play?), but as a hard and fast rule in the main rules... maybe in a 'But here is what else you can do' chapter? I don't know.
John Risus To answer some points :
ReplyDelete- Tags are just short descriptions that have an effect on the mechanics. It allows to differentiate Harm. In the present system, all 3 Harm done by all Formidable opponents are the same 3 Harm. With tags, for example "Stun", you take 3 Harm, AND/OR you are stunned. But a 3 Harm with tag "Messy" would have a tendency to rip your arm off...
- I read your paragraph :
"But since Harm is reflected to the character sheet, no matter the narrative truth is, isn't that actually making it stronger? What I mean is, the NPCs are just props, field dressing, to explain an advantage the PC has. If they are snapped up with 1 Harm or 3 Harm it doesn't matter, it all mechanically effects the PC correct? The NPCs in the example don't have their own health bars, damage to them shows as -Health, -Momentum, etc. to the character. " ...
... and I fear that you have missed or misunderstood something entirely. But maybe I understand wrongly what you mean.
The Harm inflicted by the NPCs/monsters is indeed affecting the PCs, health bar and so on.
But the NPC do have their own "health bar", it is the progress bar of the fight. Damage to them DOES NOT show as -Health, -Momentum, etc. to the character, that would be contradictory ! It does not show either as +Health, +momentum to the character. Damage to the NPC is recorded on the Progress bar of the fight according to the Rank of the NPC.
A B I am grasping Tags a bit better now and see their usefulness in say a module if you wanted a certain tone or for a specific boss to differentiate them out of the masses. Or, that's at least how I would implement them.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I am REALLY missing something with the NPC example then. I'll have to go back and re-read the book as I just do not understand how the Wyvern snapping the head off one of my supporting NPCs goes as ticks on the Progress track to resolve the fight and doesn't effect the PC in say a loss of Momentum... I'm lost, sorry.
John Risus No, no, sorry, I was confusing what you meant by NPC, I thought you meant the foe, not the NPCs on the side of the PC.
ReplyDeleteFor those (the NPCs on the side of the character) your vision is right.
It is for the foe that there is a progress bar.
You were right, I was wrong, badly read your post. Sorry again.
A B Thanks, I was manically re-reading the rules. Afraid I had buggered it all up. LOL
ReplyDeleteA B I think that things like "Stun" or "Knocked Down" etc are deliberately left to the player through Pay the Price
ReplyDeleteSometimes it makes sense to take 4 harm, sometimes it makes more sense to take 2 harm and be knocked to the ground. Dungeon World spends more time elucidating individual enemies in order to give the GM options for how to play them. I think that in a game that is, at its core, GMless that a simpler method of adjudicating monsters is fine. I think that if any changes were to be made it would be to offer some sample tags with the monster, but not necessarily to give them a written mechanical impact (ie rather than saying Stun: Take 3 harm and lose initiative, you could have the Dungeon World Huge or Messy which would give you some ideas to trigger when you Pay the Price)
Though reading it, that seems like what the Tactics section of the bestiary is basically doing already.
As far as reducing a monster's rank in massed combat goes, I think that the difference we're seeing here is that I'm assuming a Strike or Clash happens after a period of attacks and sort of...summarizes? a portion of the narrative combat. From that view, it makes sense that a monster would deal less harm to each member in a group context because over the course of the combat each participant would probably take less damage.
Of course, if I miss on Strike or Clash I don't have to choose to Endure Harm. I could Pay the Price by having some of my support eaten by the Wyvern thus rendering the Wyvern's 4 harm down to mechanically 0 harm. I could rule that the Wyvern eats my backpack (-supply) or just scares the crap out of me (-spirit). Heck, I could rule that the Wyvern grabs me up in its mouth and flies high into the air (Putting the player into a spot and possibly using up my resources if I don't Face Danger to keep a hold of my sword!)
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't get super concerned about the harm level of the creature because I generally find Deal Damage to be the most boring move a monster can make fictionally, and 1 harm more or less doesn't honestly make my combats more interesting.