Just sharing this relevant post from Ken Hubbard in the Lone Wolf community. Some great questions.
Just sharing this relevant post from Ken Hubbard in the Lone Wolf community. Some great questions.
Originally shared by Ken Hubbard
A question about Ironsworn moves....
I'm still reading through this book. It's really interesting and I can't wait to play. I've been mulling over possible play situations in my head while driving, etc. and I want to clear up some of my confusion before I get around to playing.
But before posting the question, I just want to say this is a beautifully produced document. The black and white photos are great, the writing is clear and tight, it's well-organized with lots of white space, etc. So, good job to the creator.
Now, the issue I'm having is trying to better understand the difference between Face Danger and Secure an Advantage. The big thing seems to be FD is reactive, while SaA is proactive. I'm thinking of situations where you want to take away an advantage of the opponent. Which move is that? Examples: if an opponent has grabbed me and is holding me down, that's clearly reactive and I would roll FD. If an opponent doesn't see me, and I sneak up on him, that's clearly proactive and I would roll SaA.
What about a situation where you are under attack, but still have some degree of agency? Maybe there is a fairly obvious way to neutralize the enemy's main attack. Say, you're under fire and you flip a table sideways and dive behind it. Or maybe there are some howling bat-winged monsters swooping down at you from the sky, and you want to run to a grove of trees so they have to fight you on foot instead of from the air.
In both cases, the expected narrative is that you are still going to fight, you're just not letting the enemy dictate the circumstances. Also in both cases, it seems clear that you are both facing danger and securing an advantage. Or, reversing the semantics, you are trying to avoid danger and deny the opponent an advantage.
Anyway, to boil it down to a specific question, what move do you choose when you are not just trying to avoid a specific attack, but are also trying to prevent that whole means of attack. Maybe you do both moves? Otherwise, which one?
The reason it's relevant is because Secure an Advantage is strictly better in the mechanical (munchkin) sense because the reward for success is higher.
Originally shared by Ken Hubbard
A question about Ironsworn moves....
I'm still reading through this book. It's really interesting and I can't wait to play. I've been mulling over possible play situations in my head while driving, etc. and I want to clear up some of my confusion before I get around to playing.
But before posting the question, I just want to say this is a beautifully produced document. The black and white photos are great, the writing is clear and tight, it's well-organized with lots of white space, etc. So, good job to the creator.
Now, the issue I'm having is trying to better understand the difference between Face Danger and Secure an Advantage. The big thing seems to be FD is reactive, while SaA is proactive. I'm thinking of situations where you want to take away an advantage of the opponent. Which move is that? Examples: if an opponent has grabbed me and is holding me down, that's clearly reactive and I would roll FD. If an opponent doesn't see me, and I sneak up on him, that's clearly proactive and I would roll SaA.
What about a situation where you are under attack, but still have some degree of agency? Maybe there is a fairly obvious way to neutralize the enemy's main attack. Say, you're under fire and you flip a table sideways and dive behind it. Or maybe there are some howling bat-winged monsters swooping down at you from the sky, and you want to run to a grove of trees so they have to fight you on foot instead of from the air.
In both cases, the expected narrative is that you are still going to fight, you're just not letting the enemy dictate the circumstances. Also in both cases, it seems clear that you are both facing danger and securing an advantage. Or, reversing the semantics, you are trying to avoid danger and deny the opponent an advantage.
Anyway, to boil it down to a specific question, what move do you choose when you are not just trying to avoid a specific attack, but are also trying to prevent that whole means of attack. Maybe you do both moves? Otherwise, which one?
The reason it's relevant is because Secure an Advantage is strictly better in the mechanical (munchkin) sense because the reward for success is higher.
📍
ReplyDelete