Since Paladins are Religious based fighters, meaning they that are not straight combat.  So instead of the +2 to melee and with the update +1 to Range.  I am suggesting that they get just a +1 to both Melee and Range.  Because they will also get some divine powers.

I would actually take a look at D&D 4th Ed cleric / templar class' abilities and powers for inspiration.  For some reason, they felt the clerics should be melee heavy.  But many of their abilities would've worked better for Paladins.




Since the Stress and Health are now the same (still not sure how I feel about that).  I would give the Barbarians, +2 to Stress for both Range and Melee, but also a -1 to attacks with Range and Melee to balance it out.  Perhaps even limit them to medium types of armor.


I'm not familiar with DW, so I made suggestions that make more sense to me :) and probably will continue to.  Thank you for the info!

Hmmmmmmm. Tempting... But... I dunno... I'll put this possibility on the back burner for now...




Well see, they CAN wear up to medium if they want, but they're designed to work BEST without ANY armor. (see recent updated moves). But actually they CAN'T wear heavy armor without the penalty.





This is the now-classic Dungeon World...  https://drive.google.com/file/...eW1GRVVaNnRfbnc/view

Hey man could I interest you in trying the Small Quick Experiment with me real fast (comparatively speaking)...?

Sure, what's up?

I am assuming it is the "Experiment thread"

I am confused in Step 3 with this: Then roll 2d6. If the phrase is one of that player's 5 advantages, add 2 to the roll result. If the phrase is one of that player's 3 disadvantages, subtract 1 instead.

Are you saying that if the roll on 1d39 was one of the 8 we choose (5A / 3D), then add 2 to the roll or subtract 1 to the 2D6 to see how well we dealt with it?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:55, Tue 30 Mar 2021.

Yes... (Was there some alternative possibility that that suggested to you...? If so, what was it, so I know how to clarify...?)

Initially it seemed like we were rolling the 2d6 to see which of the 8 items we picked would be used in the beginning of the adventure.  But that didn't add up, so it confused me.

As for clarification:
Take the result above and roll 2d6 to determine how well or poorly your character handled the event. If the phrase rolled is also one of the player's 5 advantages, then roll 2d6+2. If the phrase is also one of the player's 3 disadvantages, then roll 2d6-1 instead.

This message was deleted by the player at 17:15, Tue 30 Mar 2021.

OK, so now that both of us have gone, wouldn't be just do step 3 and 4 until we conclude the story?
Do we want to indicate an end or just keep going until we run out of ideas.

The instructions, near the end, suggest that we each take 7 turns, but I'm open to more, or fewer, if you wish...?

your turn

And, experiment concluded!

I think it turned out pretty well!

What did you think?

Also: maybe I should remove "keeping watch" from the list? It seems sort of too passive...?

I enjoyed it.  And for an ad hoc round robin writing game, it was really good.  I like trying to string the random rolls of the event and success levels together into a story.

I agree, I think we need to look at the list and remove some of the passives one or expand them so that they aren't as passive.

1. Well I've removed "Keeping Watch..." what others seem, to you, possibly too passive?

2. Also, should I maybe increase the Advantages and Disadvantages one chooses? From 5/3 to 7/4, perhaps...?

Well, first.  Yes if we want to increase the change of getting a bonus or penalty, I think the increase of 5 to 7 Advantages and 3 to 4 Disadvantages would be good.  I could even see it being 8 Adv and 5 Disadv. which would be about 34% of the current 38 total options.

We could possibly remove the following:
A safe place
A warning that someone left
Helping each other

These could be condensed into "Buying or finding a rare thing":
An old book/scroll/map
An amazing work of art
A useful gift

...Whaaaat if I said "How about if we do it again, and test out 8 and 5?"




I think I agree that the first two are indeed too passive. I want to leave "helping each other" though.




I don't want to condense all three, but I think I'll combine "An old book/scroll/map" and "a useful gift" into: "An old book/scroll/map or some other potentially useful thing"

What do you think of that? Too long? I don't think so... But I want your opinion...

So let's start at the end and go up.

No, I don't think "An old book/scroll/map or some other potentially useful thing" is too long, I think it gives a better writing hook.

I won't argue leaving in "Helping each other", but I will comment that it seems like the group is already helping each other.  As such I would propose adding in "Hindering each other"

Let's update the list and then I am game to trying it again with the 8a / 5d, but let's also reduce it to 5 rounds this time.

Yeah, but I want things to be open. Specifically, I want a certain amount of moves to be capable of being interpreted as combat moves.

I'm leaving it for now, and we'll see what happens...



Hmm, okay I'll try that (too). Stand by...

I still think "more than 5" rounds is better, but I also think it went better this time.

Advantages/disadvantages still didn't come up much though. Should we increase? 9/5? 10/5? 10/6? 11/6?

Yes, I can agree the 5 rounds seemed to go way to fast.
So yeah 7 seems good.

I'm not sure if increasing it is a good idea.
I really depends on how often you want one of them to come up.

With the 8/5 combo, we each had 38% of the possibilities covered.  And combined, more than that because you had ones I didn't and I had ones you didn't.

With more people than two, you are more likely to have someone have one come up.

Yeah



Yeah, but if one of YOUR advantages comes up on MY turn, the way the rules are written now, it doesn't count.

Should it?

Hmmm, it would make sense for a group to synergize.  So if it one of the writing partner's advantage, then you get a +1 to the roll.
And for disadvantages a -1 for partner's disadvantages.

That makes sense to me actually



Hmm, not sure I want that, actually...

Wanna try to talk me into it? Or no?

And if no... should it maybe be 9/6?

Well, if we look at it from the team perspective, it would make sense.
I see as the character trying to cover for another party members' deficiency, which is why it is a -1.

This gives the potential for a range of +3 to -3 if Advantages and Disadvantage stack.

So if you have two people good at melee, and that comes up they would get a +3.
If you have two people terrible at melee and that comes up they would get a -3.

But when you start getting 3+ people, you can get some really interesting rolls with many probably being at a +/-1 as an average.
Yet can get some spectacular successes and failures.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

...Wanna try 7 rounds of it that way...?

Sure, so to sum up the rule changes:
9 Advantages
6 Disadvantages

If you roll an advantage of another player, then add +1 to the roll; this stacks if it is also your advantage.
If you roll a disadvantage of another player, then subtract -1 to the roll; this stacks if it also your disadvantage.

Correct?