Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Michael Pfaff on August 12, 2010, 09:22:10 AM
-
Every other character who gets a gang has an ability, like Leadership or Pack Alpha, to use their gang.
However, the Maestro D' doesn't.
"For security, choose this:
a real gang (3-harm gang small 1-armor)"
Other examples, like the Savvyhead's improvement option, say something like:
"__ get a gang (detail) for security, and leadership"
So...
What can a Maestro D' do with her gang? Why doesn't she also get a leadership move if she chooses the gang option?
Thanks.
-
You've still got manipulation/seduction, and going aggro. It's like how the Operator doesn't get a custom move for controlling their crew.
But keep in mind, most of the time, NPCs who are "yours" are assumed to have interests largely in line with yours. The Chopper doesn't need to roll Pack Alpha every time she gives the gang an order, it's just a fallback when the gang decides they're going to question her will. The Maestro D doesn't have that option, but he's not always going to need it. It's just a bit trickier to order his gangs to do something that goes strongly against their nature or self-preservation instincts.
-
It's just a bit trickier to order his gangs to do something that goes strongly against their nature or self-preservation instincts.
Wouldn't "acting as security" by definition be strongly against self-preservation?
I'm just curious because every other character that gets a gang has some kind of move to back it up.
Why call this a gang then? Why not say, "You have a crew that sometimes can act as security... if it's like, not dangerous."
-
The Maestro D has moves to back it up as ben pointed out, they're just not the same moves.
-
Yeah, i see the maestro's gang as hired help
-
Yeah, i see the maestro's gang as hired help
Which is a crew, not a gang.
Why would hired help fight for you?
And, then why does the Savvyhead get Leadership when he gets a gang for "security"?
Seems like design inconsistency to me.
Vincent?
-
Yeah, right now I'm ruling for Phillip (our Maestro D with the badass "John Wayne/Stephen Hawking love child" voice) that his guys will follow orders but won't make hard advances. Which is a little wonky.
-
I mean, by "against self-preservation", obviously suicidal stuff like "Hey, go attack that heavily fortified bunker with four times as many guys as you, all of them better armed."
Dealing with rowdy drunks, or even the occasional knife-and-gun wielding thugs looking for protection tribute, is just part of the job description.
Alternatively, "take a move from another playbook" could easily include Leadership or Pack Alpha if you've already got a gang, y'know.
-
Yeah, it's that whole prescriptive/descriptive argument again. Does having a gang prescriptively GIVE you leadership?
-
Dealing with rowdy drunks, or even the occasional knife-and-gun wielding thugs looking for protection tribute, is just part of the job description.
Right, much like a gang in a hardhold is part of the job description. However, a hardholder has Leadership.
I'm curious why the Maestro D' doesn't have a "gang move" and if not, shouldn't the gang be a crew instead?
-
A gang can, like, function as a weapon. A crew can't unless you do the work of getting them armed and crap. It's a distinction in terms of how they operate. Security detail is violent stuff. Crews do other things.
-
A gang can, like, function as a weapon. A crew can't unless you do the work of getting them armed and crap. It's a distinction in terms of how they operate. Security detail is violent stuff. Crews do other things.
That's not necessarily true.
We've already established that a Maestro D's "gang" isn't going into a big battle. They're going to like, throw someone out for drinking too much.
So, a crew detailed down to like 2 or 3 guys who work as bouncers seems much more appropriate. Certainly a crew can still engage in conflict... But, probably not get the gang's stats for size and whatnot.
I just don't see a Maestro D' having 20 guys sitting around with machineguns for "security" at his establishment. And, if so, wouldn't the D' need some kind of ability to control twenty guys?
-
Yeah, and crews do security work. It's a gig.
-
Yeah, and crews do security work. It's a gig.
Amen.
-
I'll hold off until Vincent speaks. He's good at cutting to the heart of things. It seems like things are being made way more complicated than they actually are. Hocuses have a move that lets them form a gang (speak truth) but don't have a leadership/pack alpha move. I've just sorted out how it works in the fiction, and if someone without a gang move wants to command a gang they use one of the other moves. It's just a matter of who's got leadership skills, and who needs to manipulate or bribe or threaten people to do what they need done.
Like is this really confusing or quibbling over word choice?
-
It's just a matter of who's got leadership skills, and who needs to manipulate or bribe or threaten people to do what they need done.
Which doesn't make any sense because Pack Alpha specifically says, "when you try to impose your will" which is basically "threatening people or manipulating people".
Here's an interesting little tidbit on page 169 in the gang's harm and healing rules. It seems to imply that, yes, if you are a leader of a gang (whether you have the move or not) you can use leadership and/or pack alpha. The only requirement is that you be a "PC".
If the gang’s leader is a PC, she can hold the gang together with leadership or by imposing her will on it as its pack alpha.
Like is this really confusing or quibbling over word choice?
There's clearly a mechanical difference between a "crew" and a "gang". In nearly every example in the Apocalypse World document, a gang comes with an ability to lead them, such as leadership or pack alpha (do a text search of the words 'get a gang' in the PDF, you'll see what I mean). Crews do not.
That sets a precedent. The only time a PC earns a gang and doesn't have one of those moves is the separate document for the Maestro D' - and additionally, if you try to control a gang after gaining one descriptively somehow.
Even in the "gangs" section it says:
A couple of the characters can get a new gang, plus either pack alpha or leadership, as one of their improvements. *bold emphasis mine
So, clearly the abilities and actual gang are related.
-
I've not played with the Maestro D yet, but isn't it simply a matter of what conflicts we expect to be interesting?
The Operator is all about balancing the conflicting demands of the project she's running. If her crew are guarding a bar then they're not raking the wastelands for salvage or keeping her boy toy away from the slavers. Juggling does this, of course it's on the sheet.
A Chopper is all about being the brutal enough to keep control of a pack of savage murderous thieves. If she gives an order to a gang, we're want to see whether or not she has to break her second's jaw to get him to pay attention. Pack alpha does this, of course it's on the sheet.
Now we might care whether or not a particular Maestro D can focus her staff, or keep them in line, or whatever. Especially when the PC-NPC triangles start emerging. But that's not the jumping off point of the concept, it can be handled with basic or custom moves as and when it's needed.
-
Now we might care whether or not a particular Maestro D can focus her staff, or keep them in line, or whatever. Especially when the PC-NPC triangles start emerging. But that's not the jumping off point of the concept, it can be handled with basic or custom moves as and when it's needed.
Which implies it should be a crew, not a gang.
-
You can have a gang without having either leadership or pack alpha, just like you can have a car without being a no shit driver or you can have violation gloves without having any brainer moves. I don't get the confusion.
-
You can have a gang without having either leadership or pack alpha, just like you can have a car without being a no shit driver or you can have violation gloves without having any brainer moves. I don't get the confusion.
I think the confusion is that, mechanically speaking, imposing your will on a gang is fundamentally different than imposing your will on an individual. When you Go Aggro for example, it's on "someone".
If you can have a gang without those abilities, why does every improvement that include a gang grant one of those abilities? What about leading a gang in battle? Can you just not "hold the gang together" like you can with leadership or pack alpha?
Fictionally speaking, it makes sense for someone with a gang to have an ability to exert their authority over the gang. With a crew, you only need to exert your authority over each individual in the crew.
It's very distinct from having a car or using a violation glove.
Make sense?
p.s. I'm not saying that it's impossible to play a gang leader without those moves, I'm just saying it seems like it's coded into the system's mechanics for a gang leader to have a move like leadership or pack alpha.
-
That's a funny, apt way to put it. Yes, it's coded into the game's rules for a gang's leader to have one of those moves.
It just means that gang leadership doesn't come naturally to the maestro d'. If she wants it, she has to spend an improvement to develop it. Meanwhile, she has a gang but she doesn't really lead it -- that's okay.
-
That's a funny, apt way to put it. Yes, it's coded into the game's rules for a gang's leader to have one of those moves.
It just means that gang leadership doesn't come naturally to the maestro d'. If she wants it, she has to spend an improvement to develop it. Meanwhile, she has a gang but she doesn't really lead it -- that's okay.
Does this also mean that the Maestro D' cannot hold a gang together if it takes harm?
According to the rules, a gang with no leader, which you are saying the Maestro D' isn't, won't hold together after taking 1-harm. Basically, a Maestro D's gang is leaderless.
-
I think the D's gang (assuming she hasn't taking an out-of-playbook move to get leadership or pack alpha) has a leader. It's just not her. She's employing a gang lead by one of the gangers. They work for her but she's not, like, the gang leader. ya know?
-
I think the D's gang (assuming she hasn't taking an out-of-playbook move to get leadership or pack alpha) has a leader. It's just not her. She's employing a gang lead by one of the gangers. They work for her but she's not, like, the gang leader. ya know?
Which makes sense to me, and why it's worded that way.
Then she doesn't "have a gang", she "has a gang in her employ that works security". Which, is a huge difference. It's not totally clear in the trifold description. But, this makes sense.
And, it also clarifies the situation a bit. Basically, you can't "have a gang" unless you are also "the leader" of said gang. Which means, you can't acquire a gang without said ability.
This begs the question, if you don't take "get a gang, and leadership or pack alpha" as an improvement, is it ever possible to become a leader of the gang - descriptively.
Can you ever become the leader of a gang in the fiction without taking it as an improvement?
-
This is getting into really weird nit-picking over semantics, and it confuses me. Mostly I'm confused because usually it's ME that starts nit-picking over semantics, but in this case I'm just not bothered in the slightest by it.
I mean, I would say, sure you totally "have" a gang even if you aren't the leader. It's like this, IMO:
In the game I'm currently running, there's an NPC hardholder. There's also a group of ex-raiders that he hired a few years back to guard the holding. They're his gang. He "has" a gang. If he tells them to do something, they're probably going to do it. But if stuff gets hairy, they'll listen to the leader over him, for sure. It's like a military squad, maybe they've got a sergeant who handles the day to day shit, and they've also got some officer, too. The officer, he's technically in charge, but really, what the hell does he know? The sarge is the real leader.
-
I mean, I would say, sure you totally "have" a gang even if you aren't the leader. It's like this, IMO:
In the game I'm currently running, there's an NPC hardholder. There's also a group of ex-raiders that he hired a few years back to guard the holding. They're his gang. He "has" a gang. If he tells them to do something, they're probably going to do it. But if stuff gets hairy, they'll listen to the leader over him, for sure. It's like a military squad, maybe they've got a sergeant who handles the day to day shit, and they've also got some officer, too. The officer, he's technically in charge, but really, what the hell does he know? The sarge is the real leader.
That doesn't make any sense. You are either the leader of the gang or you're not and you're just bartering with them to do something. You can't actually exert your will on them (outside of Going Aggro, Manipulating or Bribing their leader...).
This is kind of a weird example, because Hardholders actually usually have a gang and leadership... This would have been his gang. He can use leadership on them right? If not. It's not his gang. It's a deal with a gang's leader.
Yah know?
It's like me hiring a Driver to run cargo for me. The car isn't mine because I hired the Driver...
-
You can Go Aggro, Manipulate, or bribe an entire group. You don't have to just do it to the leader. See my thread about it here (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=208.0).
-
You can Go Aggro, Manipulate, or bribe an entire group. You don't have to just do it to the leader. See my thread about it here (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=208.0).
Yeah. That's an interesting thread. Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Here's my problem: Sure, I can Go Aggro on a gang. But, guess what, they're going to do what the leader says unless it contradicts the gang's self-interest, as we've established earlier.
So, I hold my gun to the kitten's head and I say, "Gimme the gas or he gets it." Or, I walk up to the gang and I say, "Sure, you can kill me but one of you is going to die."
Then, immediately the leader looks at his gang and says, "Are you fucking kidding me? Rip this guy to shreds."
Ultimately, you need to Go Aggro on the gang leader right? A single individual in control of the others.
I walk up with the gang leader in my grasp, "Gimme the gas or I paint the walls with his brains..."
The gang hesitates for a moment, waiting for the nod from the boss. Right?
A crew on the other hand doesn't have a leader. They don't have anyone to look to. They are a group of individuals. It's different.
I don't know.
This has been good stuff and I think it's made me think a lot about how to handle gangs vs. crews in my hacks and games. Thanks for the feedback guys and gals.
-
The thing is, mechanically it doesn't matter either way. Whether you're going aggro on the whole gang or the leader if there is one is moot since it's still one roll.
-
The thing is, mechanically it doesn't matter either way. Whether you're going aggro on the whole gang or the leader if there is one is moot since it's still one roll.
But, fictionally it matters.
Right? If I Go Aggro on the gang, the leader can step in and say, "Fuck that. I'm the leader here."
If I Go Aggro on the leader, there's not much he can do. Aye?
-
If there's a leader or not a leader you're going aggro on the gang including them. A leader can't cancel out your successful roll because they were a victim to it also.
-
Something I think that's being lost in the trees:
- Apocalypse World's rules are not its physics like you can expect from some other games. If you try to figure out how AW's fiction works by looking first at the moves, you're going to break something (likely one's brain, probably the game). Like the game says, paraphrasing, "You can make some head-scratchers. Don't do it."
- The fiction is primary in AW. "Make it real." The moves are just tools for the players and MC to yank on the fiction in special ways. When they don't make sense there's no problem: they just don't make sense. When your character doesn't have a move to represent something there's no problem: you're not making a move. Just keep going with the fiction until a move is made.
So this is how I understand stuff like this confusion, given those basic principles (and his is my interpretation, my understanding; I'm going to speak in assertions because that's efficient, so keep this disclaimer in mind while you read):
So the Maestro D' doesn't have the leadership move. That doesn't mean anything fictionally at all. It doesn't dictate the relationship to the gang. (The fiction does that.) It doesn't limit how the Maestro D' can try to influence the gang and impose her will. (The fiction brings the limits.) Having Leadership doesn't mean anything fictionally either. It's a piece of system that lets you insert things into the fiction.
Try thinking of AW like this: The Gunlugger isn't bad-ass because she's got Not To Be Fucked With, she's bad-ass because she's bad-ass. Taking a move like NTBFW is just a way of giving you story control in-line with the already-established bad-assedness. All Gunluggers are "not to be fucked with", and a Gunlugger with NTBFW is not fictionally different from a Gunlugger without. The difference is that this Gunlugger is going to be guided into scenes that involve mowing down entire gangs like wheat, because the player chose that story control for their own. Moves don't create fiction when they're chosen—they don't tell you more about the character when you choose them. Moves create fiction when they're used—they tell you more about the character when the character acts in the fiction in a way that lets the player pull out the move and take control of the fiction.
If you think about AW moves like that, the Maestro D' having or not having Leadership isn't really an issue in the fiction. Does the MD' have a gang in the fiction? Yeah. Does she order around the gang? Yeah. Do they do it? Yeah, sometimes. Do they push back? Yeah, sometimes. Do they turn on her when pushed too far? Yeah, probably. Do they ever just go, "fuck, sorry boss, whatever you say" when they resist and then are shown who's boss? Yeah, sure.
The only difference is whether the player is doing this using the Leadership move or is doing this by fictional positioning and a series of Basic Moves. Obviously you have fewer chances to roll bad and give the MC a move if you're using Leadership. All that means is that a Maestro D' whose player didn't pay for Leadership from another playbook is going to have to work harder/smarter to keep a gang in line and will have a more interesting life (more chances for MC moves) when she keeps a gang around.
-
If there's a leader or not a leader you're going aggro on the gang including them. A leader can't cancel out your successful roll because they were a victim to it also.
Yeah, I think you're misinterpreting me. I'm not talking about canceling rolls. I'm saying when you Go Aggro on a gang, not a "group of people" - a gang that acts as a singular unit - you are actually going aggro on the leader.
Without a leader - no gang, imo. You're just a gaggle of individuals (like the Hocus' followers until she unites them with Frenzy) . And, most likely a leader will step forward and assume that mantle.
A crew is different in that they are a selection of individuals. They don't act as a single unit. Yah dig?
It's just round and round, and like I've said before, I totally think you can play the game with the Maestro D' as written, just have them Go Aggro every time they want the gang to do something or write up a custom move or whatever.
However, I do see the difference between gangs, and the associated moves, and crews as significant.
This conversation as helped me a lot in understanding the game and how I might also hack it.
Good stuff. Thanks everybody.
-
Something I think that's being lost in the trees:
- Apocalypse World's rules are not its physics like you can expect from some other games. If you try to figure out how AW's fiction works by looking first at the moves, you're going to break something (likely one's brain, probably the game). Like the game says, paraphrasing, "You can make some head-scratchers. Don't do it."
- The fiction is primary in AW. "Make it real." The moves are just tools for the players and MC to yank on the fiction in special ways. When they don't make sense there's no problem: they just don't make sense. When your character doesn't have a move to represent something there's no problem: you're not making a move. Just keep going with the fiction until a move is made.
So this is how I understand stuff like this confusion, given those basic principles (and his is my interpretation, my understanding; I'm going to speak in assertions because that's efficient, so keep this disclaimer in mind while you read):
Yeah, I get all that. I'm not saying the game doesn't work or that this is even a big deal.
I mean, a gang is essentially rules for weaponizing groups of people. Fine. I get it.
What I'm more concerned about is the design aesthetic of moves like Pack Alpha and Leadership.
What's the point of them? If we're just assuming you have a gang, and they do what you say most of the time, and anyone can have a gang like this, why even have special Moves for "imposing your will" or "having your gang fight for you"? Why not just use basic moves or custom moves for those situations like we'd do with the Maestro D'?
Maybe this thread should be in the Blood and Guts forum?
-
What's the point of them? If we're just assuming you have a gang, and they do what you say most of the time, and anyone can have a gang like this, why even have special Moves for "imposing your will" or "having your gang fight for you"? Why not just use basic moves or custom moves for those situations like we'd do with the Maestro D'?
Leadership can be used in absentia for starters. I can have my Hardholder order a part of his gang down the mountains to Terminal City to go raiding, and if I make my Leadership roll I've got one or more holds that can help them fight even when I'm not there. The risk in that at-a-distance scenario is that they surrender to the bandits, offer them inside info on my holding in exchange for mercy, and then bugger off into the wilderness.
If I don't have Leadership, then I can't even do that mechanical stuff to start with. Then I'm just telling a gang what to do in-fiction and reaping/suffering consequences that result from the ficiton, possibly with some basic moves to help the reaping/suffering along.
So, Leadership exists because it's interesting. It lets me do things directly to the fiction, as a player, that I wouldn't have direct access to normally. Without it I have to use more general mechanical tools to cobble together that kind of fiction if I really want to go there (with all the attendant messiness and MC-infused interestingness when I miss even one of those many basic moves).
Pack Alpha opens up similar fictional horizons. It's less used for telling a gang what to do, and more for putting down mutinies. The fictional horizon it opens up is a focused mutiny/crushing mutiny scene. That kind of scene is eventually integral to playing a Chopper, so it makes sense to support it mechanically. Without Pack Alpha you can get into that kind of scene, but it's going to be more fictionally piecemeal, take more play to set up and resolve, and be the kind of deal that will likely come up once and then irrevocably alter the relationship to the gang for the Pack-Alpha-less character.
I mean, think about the likely fictional circumstances. You've got a dozen violent individuals who have decided that you're done telling them what to do. They revolt. Most ways of imposing your will without the Pack Alpha move aren't going to be clean, repercussion-free actions. If you're clever and lucky you'll get the gang to do what you want, but unless you're exceptionally clever and lucky there will be piles of Badness that the MC will have inserted. The gang will never be the same again, and likely the crushed mutiny will come back to haunt you. If you're not clever or lucky enough, you've got a dozen violent individuals who are not only done with you as leader, but now you've pissed them off and you're probably under concentrated fire. Have fun!
Not so with Pack Alpha. You make the roll 10+? You're free and clear. Move along!
So, mechanically, Pack Alpha supports the archetype of the Chopper well: you get to have disputes with your gang, and you get to be a hard-ass who puts them in their place every once in a while. Rather than being a big huge blow-up that is going to define this and a few sessions, it'll be one event in a larger set of circumstances for your Chopper.
Mechanically, Leadership does the same for the Hardholder. It makes being leader-ly a supported part of the archetype, so that you can get into those power struggles in a quickly-resolved way, often enough to make it just part of being a Hardholder.
-
What's the point of them? If we're just assuming you have a gang, and they do what you say most of the time, and anyone can have a gang like this, why even have special Moves for "imposing your will" or "having your gang fight for you"? Why not just use basic moves or custom moves for those situations like we'd do with the Maestro D'?
Leadership can be used in absentia for starters. I can have my Hardholder order a part of his gang down the mountains to Terminal City to go raiding, and if I make my Leadership roll I've got one or more holds that can help them fight even when I'm not there. The risk in that at-a-distance scenario is that they surrender to the bandits, offer them inside info on my holding in exchange for mercy, and then bugger off into the wilderness.
If I don't have Leadership, then I can't even do that mechanical stuff to start with. Then I'm just telling a gang what to do in-fiction and reaping/suffering consequences that result from the ficiton, possibly with some basic moves to help the reaping/suffering along.
So, Leadership exists because it's interesting. It lets me do things directly to the fiction, as a player, that I wouldn't have direct access to normally. Without it I have to use more general mechanical tools to cobble together that kind of fiction if I really want to go there (with all the attendant messiness and MC-infused interestingness when I miss even one of those many basic moves).
Pack Alpha opens up similar fictional horizons. It's less used for telling a gang what to do, and more for putting down mutinies. The fictional horizon it opens up is a focused mutiny/crushing mutiny scene. That kind of scene is eventually integral to playing a Chopper, so it makes sense to support it mechanically. Without Pack Alpha you can get into that kind of scene, but it's going to be more fictionally piecemeal, take more play to set up and resolve, and be the kind of deal that will likely come up once and then irrevocably alter the relationship to the gang for the Pack-Alpha-less character.
I mean, think about the likely fictional circumstances. You've got a dozen violent individuals who have decided that you're done telling them what to do. They revolt. Most ways of imposing your will without the Pack Alpha move aren't going to be clean, repercussion-free actions. If you're clever and lucky you'll get the gang to do what you want, but unless you're exceptionally clever and lucky there will be piles of Badness that the MC will have inserted. The gang will never be the same again, and likely the crushed mutiny will come back to haunt you. If you're not clever or lucky enough, you've got a dozen violent individuals who are not only done with you as leader, but now you've pissed them off and you're probably under concentrated fire. Have fun!
Not so with Pack Alpha. You make the roll 10+? You're free and clear. Move along!
So, mechanically, Pack Alpha supports the archetype of the Chopper well: you get to have disputes with your gang, and you get to be a hard-ass who puts them in their place every once in a while. Rather than being a big huge blow-up that is going to define this and a few sessions, it'll be one event in a larger set of circumstances for your Chopper.
Mechanically, Leadership does the same for the Hardholder. It makes being leader-ly a supported part of the archetype, so that you can get into those power struggles in a quickly-resolved way, often enough to make it just part of being a Hardholder.
Oh yeah. That's what I've been looking for. Yes. More please?
So, tell me then.
Why not give the Maestro D' a theme with her gang? And, for that matter, why should the other playbooks get leadership or pack alpha with the gang they get from improvement?
Also - and this is the kicker. How do I earn leadership and pack alpha, as you've described them, as descriptive improvement and capabilities (not prescriptive by taking an "improvement" bubble or whatever)?
I eagerly await this reply.
-
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's because there isn't something about the Maestro D archetype that's like, "Hey I have a special style of leading a gang," so the Basic Moves suffice. Vincent has said elsewhere that moves exist in part as a way of color differentiation. That's why a Hardholder has Leadership instead of Pack Alpha, and vice-versa with the Chopper. Leading groups of people is a part of what they are. It is not a part of what the Maestro D is.
When I put together the Faceless Playbook, I gave him the possibility of taking Pack Alpha. He wasn't a leader, he was someone who could feasibly assemble a gang of hardasses and get them to follow him because he was the biggest hardass and he would do terrible things to them if they fall out of line. I didn't give him Leadership because it didn't make sense just like I didn't give him a workshop or anything like that. I imagine Maestro D didn't get one of these or a new, different one, because that's not what the Maestro D is. The Maestro D is defined mainly part by her establishment and that's why she gets one and the Hardholder doesn't.
There's a selectiveness in deciding who gets access to what to prevent the characters from blurring into one another. To make sure that if I am playing the Chopper, I'm THE Chopper, not a Maestro D without an establishment or a Hardholder without a Hardhold. The more those things blur, the more of a danger that becomes, and the less cool my character becomes.
I know other people disagree with me on this, but I don't think I would ever descriptively hand out Pack Alpha or Leadership. If you're not a Hardholder or a Chopper or someone who has those moves available as advances, it's just not a part of who you are. You'd have to get the advance to change Playbooks if you decide that's the path you want to take.
-
I don't know why the Maestro D' doesn't get it with the gang. Maybe to reinforce the theme that MD' gets things done by manipulation? The MD' who has a gang is going to have a more touch-and-go relationship with them, and it might blow up if they push too hard? A Maestro D' who wants to get more hard-ass can take Leadership or Pack Alpha as an improvement to change that, and become a slightly different kind of character.
I'm not sure how to go about things descriptively either. I'm still absorbing that soft rule from AW, and I don't think I've got a good handle on it yet. It's more obvious how to get things descriptively when they're things, but I'm pretty sure it's not limited to just stuff.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd go back up there to those core principles: make it real, don't make head-scratchers. I'd say that a Maestro D' gets Leadership or Pack Alpha when you're playing, playing, playing, and then you all realise that not having it mismatches the fiction that's been in play already. ("Make it real.") That's a pretty high bar for getting it descriptively, and maybe it doesn't need quite that much, but at that point I would have no reservations about just writing it on the sheet. Or better yet, writing a custom move to reflect the particular fiction that is begging for a move.
What do you think? Like I said, I'm still trying to figure out that part of the game.
(Cross-posted with Bret!)
-
This is good stuff. Thanks for the posts guys. It's making the who situation a lot clearer about how to handle PCs running gangs and also adding gangs to a hack. Excellent.
...
There's a selectiveness in deciding who gets access to what to prevent the characters from blurring into one another. To make sure that if I am playing the Chopper, I'm THE Chopper, not a Maestro D without an establishment or a Hardholder without a Hardhold. The more those things blur, the more of a danger that becomes, and the less cool my character becomes.
Eh. I don't know if I agree with this. After all, there are many improvements to classes that give you their abilities and whatnot.
I know other people disagree with me on this, but I don't think I would ever descriptively hand out Pack Alpha or Leadership. If you're not a Hardholder or a Chopper or someone who has those moves available as advances, it's just not a part of who you are. You'd have to get the advance to change Playbooks if you decide that's the path you want to take.
You're talking about playbooks that don't have pack alpha or leadership as an improvement option. But, what if you DO have that as a choice for advancement, and you are trying to achieve the capability in-fiction, descriptively. It's part of who you are, because it's an improvement option. Right?
Or better yet, writing a custom move to reflect the particular fiction that is begging for a move.
Yeah, this kind of seems to be the way to go as far as descriptive advancement of moves.
-
There's a selectiveness in deciding who gets access to what to prevent the characters from blurring into one another.
Definitely, but it's been interesting to note how the extensiveness of niche protection seems to be different between different campaigns. In some games, players seem to shy away from taking moves that other PCs already have, even though it's definitely allowed by the rules ("take a move from another playbook"). Where, in other games, it seems very common for a bunch of PCs to have the same moves.
I can understand, if you're really worried about niche protection and blurring, Bret, why you would be worried about assigning playbook moves based on fictional developments, but it does work really well in other campaigns that aren't quite as worried about those things. There's still enough differentiation between characters, in my opinion.
Take the situation where one PC switches character types to become the same type of character as another existing PC. Now you definitely have two Choppers or two Gunluggers or whatever. And that's definitely in the rules, yeah?
-
Gonna steal from John Harper on SG here:
When the Gunlugger seizes a gang by force and takes definite hold of it, and then lays down the law and makes an example of a few of them, the MC is allowed to say "Okay, cool. Let's figure out the gang profile from the options here, to reflect this new bunch of savages you have under your thumb. And you totally have pack alpha right now."
Basically when you are operating under the conditions that those moves are intended to model. Even so, I like that John said right now like if the gunlugger got a different gang or lost the one he had, he'd no longer have Pack Alpha. It's not a part of who he is yet.
A friend of mine and I were talkin about this. "We like a little more game in our game." That's why I'm reluctant to give an advancement out descriptively. I'm more likely to do the above and be like okay this is a temporary thing until you pay for it.
As for what you said about abilities across other classes, yes, there are abilities that other classes can get that you have, but it's things that make sense for them, and there is still a distinct difference between Chopper and Gunlugger with a gang. I'm definitely not going to confuse the two and they don't blur together. Now, if there were no limit on out-of-Playbook advances you could take, and the Gunlugger started taking all the Brainer moves or something, is he a Gunlugger or is he a Brainer? As it is there's no confusion about this, and I like that.
J. Walton - I'm not super concerned about niche protection with the rules as written. I think they do the job just fine. And really I was just explaining my take on the rules and the rationale behind them or really more how they make sense to me, not clutching my heart in fear of Playbook dilution. I think by the time a character can take a new Playbook and become another Chopper, the characters will be so well-established and differentiated that it wouldn't be a problem anyway. I don't know, it's not as big an issue as all that.
-
Gonna steal from John Harper on SG here:When the Gunlugger seizes a gang by force and takes definite hold of it, and then lays down the law and makes an example of a few of them, the MC is allowed to say "Okay, cool. Let's figure out the gang profile from the options here, to reflect this new bunch of savages you have under your thumb. And you totally have pack alpha right now."
Basically when you are operating under the conditions that those moves are intended to model. Even so, I like that John said right now like if the gunlugger got a different gang or lost the one he had, he'd no longer have Pack Alpha. It's not a part of who he is yet.
Yup. I dig it.
A friend of mine and I were talkin about this. "We like a little more game in our game." That's why I'm reluctant to give an advancement out descriptively. I'm more likely to do the above and be like okay this is a temporary thing until you pay for it.
As for what you said about abilities across other classes, yes, there are abilities that other classes can get that you have, but it's things that make sense for them, and there is still a distinct difference between Chopper and Gunlugger with a gang. I'm definitely not going to confuse the two and they don't blur together.
Yup. I totally understand where you're coming from because Chris (on the boards and in my group) has similar feelings on the matter.
I say, so long as you can get an ability or similar one fictionally, I'm down. Blend the game and the fiction.
-
Bret, yeah definitely, if you haven't spent an advance on a move, you only have it as long as it makes sense fictionally. If you lose your gang or stop being the alpha, obviously you can't still use Pack Alpha. But if you've bought it and lose your gang or whatever, it's pretty easy for you to use it and round up a new gang, because it's part of who you are. So if we agree on that, then maybe we've just been talking past each other the whole time (both here and on SG).
Do you mean how you're normally limited to two out-of-playbook moves? Because that seems pretty open-ended to me. With two moves, you can buy the two core moves of another character type, yeah? So I don't see that as particularly restricted.
-
But, what if you DO have that as a choice for advancement, and you are trying to achieve the capability in-fiction, descriptively. It's part of who you are, because it's an improvement option. Right?
My instinct, when playing, is to angle fictionally for the improvements that I'm heading for anyway, or to take the improvements that I think could reasonably be gotten soon, but I know that's not a rule. Frex, my Hardholder was using Hard and Sharp all session to get an advance, but he screwed around with the maelstrom in a pivotal scene so I felt taking +1 weird wasn't inappropriate. I really wanted to take "take a new option for your hold" to get a more disciplined gang, but that didn't fit the fiction at all (the gang was just getting started on their unruliness) and I didn't want to yank that toy away from the MC in the very first session. But yeah, that's not a rule, and if there's downtime anything could go even with that self-imposed limit.
So as an extension of that, I'd be leery of handing out an improvement descriptively that the player could just buy when appropriate. I mean, it's not like the power level changes drastically with even a bunch of improvements (because power level is almost irrelevant to how AW works), so players really shouldn't be angsting about having to pay for an improvement anyway.
Take the situation where one PC switches character types to become the same type of character as another existing PC. Now you definitely have two Choppers or two Gunluggers or whatever. And that's definitely in the rules, yeah?
Y'know, I would have agreed a minute ago until I thought about it, but now I just don't know. I wonder if the "pick up another playbook" rule is relying on there being only one of each playbook, and it is instructing you to literally pick up one of the playbooks that are left to be picked up? But this is totally a tangent.
-
Take the situation where one PC switches character types to become the same type of character as another existing PC. Now you definitely have two Choppers or two Gunluggers or whatever. And that's definitely in the rules, yeah?
Y'know, I would have agreed a minute ago until I thought about it, but now I just don't know. I wonder if the "pick up another playbook" rule is relying on there being only one of each playbook, and it is instructing you to literally pick up one of the playbooks that are left to be picked up? But this is totally a tangent.
It actually says, "get a move from another playbook."
I'm reading that as any playbook is fair game. However, I could see some groups limiting that in the way you suggested.
-
JW was talking about the other way to blend classes: by picking up another playbook and becoming that class. The "take a move from another book" is totally fair game. I'm wondering about the former.
-
JW was talking about the other way to blend classes: by picking up another playbook and becoming that class. The "take a move from another book" is totally fair game. I'm wondering about the former.
Oh! Duh!
I forgot about that option. Good call.
-
Bret, yeah definitely, if you haven't spent an advance on a move, you only have it as long as it makes sense fictionally. If you lose your gang or stop being the alpha, obviously you can't still use Pack Alpha. But if you've bought it and lose your gang or whatever, it's pretty easy for you to use it and round up a new gang, because it's part of who you are. So if we agree on that, then maybe we've just been talking past each other the whole time (both here and on SG).
Well, definitely not on SG. I've been studiously avoiding weighing in on that thread on this subject. ;) But yeah, I am pretty sure we agree.
Do you mean how you're normally limited to two out-of-playbook moves? Because that seems pretty open-ended to me. With two moves, you can buy the two core moves of another character type, yeah? So I don't see that as particularly restricted.
Yeah, that's cool. I can only think of a couple characters that you could do that with, though. And like I said, I'm just explaining how the rules make sense to me.
-
Weirdly, Id argue that *not* having Leadership is Pack Alpha is quite possibly an advantage. Missing a roll on either of those explicitly causes a relatively serious betrayal, probably worse than the result of flubbing a rune of the mill manipulate roll.
-
Weirdly, Id argue that *not* having Leadership is Pack Alpha is quite possibly an advantage. Missing a roll on either of those explicitly causes a relatively serious betrayal, probably worse than the result of flubbing a rune of the mill manipulate roll.
Nah. The 10 or 7-9 on the roll is for assurances. Without that, it's just fiction and if the NPCs want to attack as the MCs move, then they do. No recourse. No ability to bring them in line, outside of maybe a manipulate. Failing Pack Alpha is not the ONLY time they might revolt.