Barf Forth Apocalyptica
the swamp provides => AW:Dark Age => Topic started by: TheKingInJello on September 07, 2014, 02:11:28 PM
-
Looking through the playbooks, the Court Wizard seems like he got a somewhat shorter stick than wicker-wise -- I know the classes aren't intended to be balanced against one another, but it seems a shame that he doesn't get to do enchantments, for example.
Also, what's the intention of the Call Upon Your Gods right? I get that Bold instead of Weird is an error (saw it in a previous thread) but doesn't it still just give a right that everyone has anyway? Consult With the Other World?
-
I'm with you on the right to call upon the gods; it needs a tiny little buff of some kind to make it distinct from consult the other world.
In general, though, I don't think the Court Wizard is weak. The step out of your earthly life, throw down demons, and whisper to ghosts moves are look pretty attractive. After two or three sessions you'll probably be able to take the right of enchantment from the Other World domain as well.
-
Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do.
I can bemoan that I'm not the king of Denmark... but it lacks the gravitas to do that when I have no RIGHT to be the king of Denmark.
Hamlet has the right to be king of Denmark and so he gets to make Monologues about it and we LISTEN to him. He gets to drive STORY with his right to be king of Denmark. I do not.
Calling upon the gods is something anyone CAN do. It's different than what you have the RIGHT to do.
Rights are there for building motivation and story, not for giving you supernatural powers.
-
Yes, rights drive the story. Some rights also give you additional abilities, and I don't know why you would say they're not for that. I really don't think it's correct to say that every player can do any of the things that every playbook gives rights to. Can the War Captain decide to "Step out of [his] earthly life and journey in other places."? You might say, "Of course! But he has no right to expect it to work when he tries." But that's not really any different than saying a first level fighter CAN cast magic missile, but has no right to expect it to happen, or for it to deal 1d4 damage. It might be technically true, but it strains the definition of "can" and "cast magic missile."
The reason I'm asking This right seems like it's trying to do both of those things, but by granting a right that everyone already has. It's like if Hamlet's right that you wrote read: "You have the right to be King of Denmark. Treat this as Winning Someone Over."
-
Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do.
That is incorrect.
-
Yes, rights drive the story. Some rights also give you additional abilities, and I don't know why you would say they're not for that. I really don't think it's correct to say that every player can do any of the things that every playbook gives rights to. Can the War Captain decide to "Step out of [his] earthly life and journey in other places."?
No. There are clearly rights that have game effects but are phrased as rights. No one is talking about those.
We're clearly talking about rights that don't have game effect. Of which there are many.
You have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.
There are also rights that INCLUDE game effects.
You have the right to confront your betters for justice. When you do, treat it as winning them over, but roll
Strong instead of Good.
No one is confused about rolling strong instead of good.
The reason I'm asking This right seems like it's trying to do both of those things, but by granting a right that everyone already has. It's like if Hamlet's right that you wrote read: "You have the right to be King of Denmark. Treat this as Winning Someone Over."
They certainly can do both. But I believe the second part of the move is the less interesting and will not drive story. It's the RIGHT that will drive the story.
And NOBODY has the RIGHT to be king of Denmark but Hamlet. If Rosencratz and Guildenstern bemoan that they have the right to be king of Denmark we call bullshit and don't listen. If later they take that right as an advancement... we shall see what comes to pass.
Similarly no one but the Wizard has the RIGHT to call upon the gods and be WRONGED if they are prevented from doing so.
Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own. You can now make the move. You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods! You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are! You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols!
I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting. I'd be a fan of that character!
If ANY other character goes to that land and is told NOT to call upon their gods. They can defy them and do it anyway... and maybe pay a price. But I promise you... if your rights are denied and you make an eloquent speech and show us that you have the WILL to make it come to pass. The MC listens. The other PC's listen. Story goes where the worthy take it. If I was another character in THAT game I would have to decide what to do... either to help you or to hinder you. I'm involved in this war now whether I wanted to or not. Perhaps I'm the War captain and I am drawn to your plight and Muster Troops to aid you in the destruction of these false gods! GAME ON.
Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do.
That is incorrect.
It's not. The game effects that are awarded with the rights are separate. Some people can try things and fail or not be ABLE to. But in general we're not talking about those few rights that have otherworldly ability attached.
If I don't have the right to confront your betters for justice. I can still do it. I might get smacked down for it but you bet I can.
If I don't have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all. I may still do murder upon someone for what I see is the protection of all.
We're OBVIOUSLY not talking about game effects here.
-
It's not. The game effects that are awarded with the rights are separate. Some people can try things and fail or not be ABLE to. But in general we're not talking about those few rights that have otherworldly ability attached.
This thread was started about rights for enchantments which is a game effect according to your own definition, but which is also a supernatural power.
But.
All of the rights are game effects.
When a wicker-wise has "the right to be overcome by an oracular vision" that is a game effect in the exact same way that a Keep-Liege has "the right to impose law on the villages under the stronghold’s protection." One could be viewed as completely narrative, but there is a game effect in exercising either right just as their is a game effect for being denied that right. If a Dragon-Herald tries to be overcome by an oracular vision, nothing will happen. If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).
-
This thread was started about rights for enchantments which is a game effect according to your own definition, but which is also a supernatural power.
I think I read the OP different than you.
Also, what's the intention of the Call Upon Your Gods right? I get that Bold instead of Weird is an error (saw it in a previous thread) but doesn't it still just give a right that everyone has anyway? Consult With the Other World?
I thought the question was more oriented toward giving a right for a move everyone has access to.
That's what I am answering mostly.
But.
All of the rights are game effects.
When a wicker-wise has "the right to be overcome by an oracular vision" that is a game effect in the exact same way that a Keep-Liege has "the right to impose law on the villages under the stronghold’s protection." One could be viewed as completely narrative, but there is a game effect in exercising either right just as their is a game effect for being denied that right. If a Dragon-Herald tries to be overcome by an oracular vision, nothing will happen. If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).
I don't think this is true at all. I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly. They will laugh at him and not do so. If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it. If there is a Keep Leige in play he might have something to say about it. There is nothing preventing the player from ATTEMPTING that which he has no right. It just might not work out and in fact drive story because now the Keep Leige has been denied her right to impose law. Now we get conflict. Now the story heats up.
I agree with you there are a lot of moves that are mechanics based and characters that have not selected those rights can't do those things. But those are fairly obvious and no one is asking questions about them. There are MANY rights in the game that do not have mechanics with them and THOSE are not strictly permissive. They are there to be used only when you are DENIED those rights.
I may slay a man in the defense of all. But if I do not have the right to do that, I can expect that someone will PROBABLY lay the smack down on me for it and there isn't shit I can do about it.
If I HAVE the right to slay a man in the defense of all and someone tries to punish me for it after the fact. I can declare that I have that right and the gods are displeased! I can declare that I will wage war on those who would seek to belittle my right. I can drive story to see that my rights are not impugned again!
In this instance the right to slay a man in the defense of all isn't a game effect. It doesn't prevent people who don't have that right from trying to do so. It's just not going to be a major driving motivation when that right isn't upheld for those who don't have it.
-
If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).
I don't think this is true at all. I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly. They will laugh at him and not do so. If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it.
I don't think there is absolutely any difference in either of these statements.
-
If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).
I don't think this is true at all. I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly. They will laugh at him and not do so. If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it.
I don't think there is absolutely any difference in either of these statements.
I feel like you're just fighting now. If you don't then I'm just splitting hairs and we have to agree to disagree.
-
Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own. You can now make the move. You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods! You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are! You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols!
I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting. I'd be a fan of that character!
OK. I get your POV is that the intention is to act as a right to consult gods that are possibly strange and foreign to the locals. If that's the case, the move will probably be rewritten to read something like:
"You have the right to call upon your gods or the gods of your people, though you are far from them," removing the mechanical statement "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world, but roll Bold instead of Weird." Vincent has said that the Bold instead of Weird thing is an error, but just leaving "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world" doesn't really add anything.
I'll be interested to see, though, if Vincent plans to add some additional function to that move.
-
Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own. You can now make the move. You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods! You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are! You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols!
I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting. I'd be a fan of that character!
OK. I get your POV is that the intention is to act as a right to consult gods that are possibly strange and foreign to the locals. If that's the case, the move will probably be rewritten to read something like:
"You have the right to call upon your gods or the gods of your people, though you are far from them," removing the mechanical statement "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world, but roll Bold instead of Weird." Vincent has said that the Bold instead of Weird thing is an error, but just leaving "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world" doesn't really add anything.
I'll be interested to see, though, if Vincent plans to add some additional function to that move.
I don't think there needs to be a rewrite. There are many rights that have no game mechanic. You have the right to consult the gods is like... a (no pun intended) A GOD GIVEN RIGHT.
My example about the locals is something the GM can do to challenge that right to make story. You can consult the gods wherever you damn please and to whichever god you damn please. That's your right. If someone challenges that right it lets you draw motivation out of that engagement to make story. I think that's the crux of what rights are for. (Please note I'm talking about non-game mechanic rights.)
What would you see the difference being between this move as written (minus the bold thing) and:
You have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.
They seem to add similar flavor to what your character has the right to do. I see no problem here...
-
Yes, remove the entire mechanical statement.
-Vincent
-
Perfect, that's what I figured. Thanks!
-
For a foreign trader character with Bold as the high stat, having the right to worship their own gods, even this far away from their home, and to roll Bold instead of Weird, would be a good, strong right. For the high Weird Court Magician, though, the right's mechanically gutted.
There are several of these in the rights lists, where if you copy them straight over into a playbook without checking against the stats you'll gut the right. The Troll-killer has one too, and I think the Castellan, and possibly some of the others.
For purposes of this playtest, it's probably best to just call them out when you see them, and then don't worry about them.
-Vincent
-
This whole "doing rights you don't have" thing brings up an interesting question when it comes to the supernatural/magical. Any average human person has the physical/social ability to attempt to impose the law on others, and the social ramifications of them not having the right to do so plays out fairly naturally. But when it comes to things like being overcome by an oracular vision, how does that play out? Does the MC just say no, the gods defy you this privilege because it is not your right? Can they have the oracular vision anyway, perhaps enraging the gods that such a transgression was made without the right to do so? These are some juicy questions - I'm very curious to see how they'll be answered. I'm especially curious to see if the answers to situations like this will be specified in later revisions of the game, or will ultimately and intentionally be left for the players to decide at the table : )
-
But when it comes to things like being overcome by an oracular vision, how does that play out? Does the MC just say no, the gods defy you this privilege because it is not your right? Can they have the oracular vision anyway, perhaps enraging the gods that such a transgression was made without the right to do so?
As the MC, I would first look to the basic moves. If what the player is trying to do can be answered there then it triggers the move. If nothing seems to fit the player's description then I would look to the MC agenda and principles. If nothing still fits properly then the player is just flailing about trying to have a vision and getting nothing.
Or maybe it's an opportunity for a hard move? You try to have a vision and the local soothsayer, or the Wicker-Wise, notices it as an attempt to defy or usurp her authority.
-
I feel like (and I may be wrong here), that Enchantments are open to anyone in a mechanical sense. If you go a shrine of your gods, offer them a bounty and inflict 1-Harm on yourself, you can make an NPC fall in love with you for a night or talk to the ghost of your dead mother. The rules even say "You can perform any enchantment, at any time you choose to do so." That's the stuff of fairy tales right there. On the other hand, if you don't have the right then you are performing unholy black magic and are a witch! The Court Wizard is "trembling before God" and so does not have the right to use unholy witchcraft. . .but he does ave the ability.
-
That's some thought provoking discourse right there!
EDIT: It makes me reconsider my comment in this thread (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=7050.0) about attempting 'magic' without the Right.
-
I'm late to the conversation, so I don't know if there's been previous discussion about how all characters who don't explicitly have a right implicitly have "you do not have the right to. . ." but it was something that struck me almost immediately. The average NPC does not have the right to petition his betters for redress, to own a war horse, lance and kite shield, to own an enchanted weapon, to enchant another, to command the armies in defense of the stronghold, to contact the gods of his people etc.
People may not question the one without a right but if you don't have the right, you have no recourse. If someone with the right to an enchanted weapon or a war horse steals yours, you had no right to it and now its theirs by right (which is kind of like law). If no one else will command the war party, you might be able to do it this one time but its not your right.
-
I understood the same thing, Nomadz, when reading the rules for enchantments. Anyone can do it at any time, even without the right to do it (with whatever fictional consequences that may follow).
I think only the wicker-wise has the right to enchantments in his playbook. Of course other characters could acquire them through experience as time goes by.
All in all, I like that very much.
-
I think this is an interesting interpretation, but the text allows another, which is that the text says who has which rights but is silent on who has what abilities. So it's not "everyone automatically has the ability, even if they don't have the (social) right" but rather "you have no right to expect that it will work, but it might -- play to find out." Can the court wizard cast enchantments? Maybe: to do it, she's got to do it, and the MC, guided by her principles, will say what happens.
-
The rules even say "You can perform any enchantment, at any time you choose to do so." That's the stuff of fairy tales right there. On the other hand, if you don't have the right then you are performing unholy black magic and are a witch! The Court Wizard is "trembling before God" and so does not have the right to use unholy witchcraft. . .but he does ave the ability.
As you quoted, it does say "You can perform any enchantment, at any time you choose to do so," and gives details how. So, yeah, it looks like you might get burned at the stake for doing that when you ought not be!
So, Vincent or Meguey, since these are playtest documents can you clarify whether that was deliberate or not?
Can any playbook really perform any enchantment?
-
Hmm, the playtest instructions do actually say, "Rights give individual PCs their own unusual abilities, modifiers to the moves, or other situational beneifts. They can have both game-mechanical and purely fictional effects."
I think it's clear that taking some "rights" on your character sheet actually confers abilities, just as that line states. They aren't wholly about social contract or perception of others. If you take the right to correspondence in Greek, it's a reasonably safe bet that you can actually read and write in Persian... and if neither Persian nor literacy is particularly common in your setting (and by default, in a Dark Age of a Northern/Western Europe different from our own, they wouldn't be), then most other people simply can't carry on such correspondence. There might be some who have the ability but not the right -- slaves who were formerly scholars in the East and are now forbidden from writing, say. But there are others who have neither the right nor the ability. The right, in addition to being a right, has also "granted you an unusual ability" which others do not have. It's not that everyone can read Persian, but only you will avoid getting in trouble for it. It's that they actually can't read Persian.
There's something about "anyone can do any enchantment" that is attractive if you think of enchantments as having to do largely with summoning the old gods, folkways that are available to those willing to take the risks involved. But there's also something about it that bothers me a lot, because the Dark Ages were also full of mystical, hermetical, and other secret magical traditions, and even in sort of hedge-witch paganism there was clearly the sense that some people were special and knew special secrets. The idea that the only thing keeping the War Captain with a -1 Weird from sacrificing seven people and permanently turning a dozen of his warband into unkillable zombies, and the only thing stopping him from doing so is social sanction (including the sanction of the gods)... that seems to pretty radically decouple magic from "unusual abilities" and knowledge in a way that seems problematic...
-
Well, I'm not sure sacrifices would stack for one thing. One body per enchantment. So if the War Chief wants a zombie army he'd have to give a bounty, 1 Health and a life in a shrine sacred to his gods in a ritual lasting an entire season to create one. If he then released someone from an oath and prayed for forgiveness from the Wicker Hag he could have his 12
but. . .
He doesn't have the right to do any of this and its not exactly something that can be done in secret. He's asked his gods to raise the dead for him paying a price in blood and lives. This is almost a stereotypical evil ritual. Do his gods like the Wicker Hag and vice versa? Has he done anything requiring the forgiveness of the Wicker Hag? Because he's just spent a whole season drawing her attention in a different god's sanctuary. Are either the Wicker Hag or his gods going to be happy about that? How are the crown and the Court Wizard going to feel about it? What about the priesthood? How about the people who produced the bounty that he sacrificed to turn their dead family members into an undead army?
For a Wicker Wise, its more or less a given that she can do this in a shrine to the Wicker Hag without having to worry about most of that because its her right.
On the other hand, a Court Wizard gives blood and bounty in a shrine to make the someone fall in love with his lord for one night. He doesn't have the right either but this is exactly the Merlin/Uther story. There were plenty of consequences to come out of that one night.
I like the idea of enchantments being available but consequential to people who don't have the right. Someone denied a right that they do have should be consequential. So should someone doing something that they have no right to.
-
Sure, that's all cool and it's all narratively awesome. I have no quarrel with "whether you have the right matters". I am just ambivalent about throwing out "whether you have the knowledge matters."
Would the Merlin/Uther story work just as well if it wasn't Merlin, but some other guy -- not a wizard, maybe more of a Lancelot type -- giving blood and bounty in a shrine? Is what's interesting about Merlin simply that he's *willing* to offer the blood and bounty, and he's no more or less *good at it * than anyone else in the story, despite, you know, *being Merlin*? Maybe so -- maybe this is a Dark Age where the only thing standing in the way of anyone from creating a zombie army is simply the consequences they have to face for doing so, and procuring the appropriate access to shrines, sacrifices, and bounties.
Maybe that's also specific to enchantments, which do basically almost say "anyone can do them". I find it a little grating that any 12-year-old can just go summon the dead without even having to find a musty tome or bribe an old crone, but so be it... these are the enchantments that are intuitively obvious to anyone who's heard the old tales, because they basically involve just sacrificing and asking. But the one about leaving your body and traveling elsewhere like the Court WIzard can, maybe that one is a right-which-also-implies-the-ability-when-you-take-it, and there's no reason to assume that people who don't have the right can do it, any more than that they can read administrative documents in Persian.
-
Well, a 12 year old can't because there's no 12 year old playbook. I suppose I should have specified "Any PC". NPC's would have whatever back story, materials and rituals I think fit the story and the principles. Maybe there's a big Threat that can combine sacrifices and effectively turns every soldier his army kills into an undead flesh eater (a weaker conversion rate than seven dead for 12 zombies). That's pretty apocalyptic right there.
My personal take is that these things aren't necessarily widely known or practiced but they're the kind of thing that a PC can find out easily enough either through Literacy, asking around or maybe a Weird roll. Its difficult to go from the general framework to a specific circumstance and I definitely won't have time for a playtest before November but I'm really hoping someone in my group tries this. Maybe that bounty of goods requires a bunch of red capped mushrooms that allow you to leave your body. I just personally feel like the cost and consequences will slow people down enough that someone without the right doing enchantments is going to be very consequential. I'm inclined to err on the side of permissiveness in that situation.
I used the Merlin example precisely because it sounds like someone who didn't have the right but did it anyway. You're right, though, that he clearly had knowledge that Uther didn't.
-
Since Nerdwerds asked for a ruling:
I'm pretty sure that the text as it exists allows both readings. Whether texts to come will allow both, or specify, I daren't speculate.
My advice is to withhold judgment on the matter yourself until a PC who doesn't have the right to perform enchantments nevertheless undertakes to perform an enchantment. Decide then whether they're able. You might consider having them consult the Other World, as Nerdwerds suggests, as a prerequisite, and let the result of that move lead into the enchantment, yea-or-nay.
-Vincent
-
Oh, actually, I can be a little more forthcoming than that.
If I'm the MC, and we're in early play, and the War-captain's player asks me if they can perform enchantments, my answer is, "well, I mean, you can make sacrifices and petition your gods, but you shouldn't expect to have access to the enchantment rules, any more than [pointing to the Dragon-herald playbook] if you muster warriors, you should expect to roll weird."
Setting expectations this way in the early game will mean that the War-captain probably won't undertake to perform enchantments frivolously, and if they do, I've prepped them to be shot down. But if, in later play, the War-captain DOES undertake to perform an enchantment, not frivolously, I'll judge it then, like I say.
-Vincent
-
I look at enchantments a bit like performing a marriage - if you have the right to do that (real-world parallel: have the legal recognition as authorized to perform such a service) it's legally binding and there's no contest, even if the relationship may not last. If I try it, it might be a pretty ceremony and have meaning to the couple, but it's not legally binding, won't stand up in court, and certainly doesn't bind the gods.