Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: DWeird on June 28, 2010, 05:02:20 AM
-
So! I played an operator who's gig was spreading peace and understanding through the use of words and diplomacy and looking harmless.
Eventually, I got the unwritten future extended move for manipulation, and boy oh boy did any move ever feel as right for him as this. Turning threats into allies! Yes!
Only, in that game, it didn't seem to do much (on screen, at least) beyond what I would get for a regular 10+. The henchman gave me support in front of his boss, the mutant leader promises not to kill all humans, the gang under fire put down its weapons and came peacefully. A 10+ was a "they do it!" then... And on a 12+, the result was still pretty much "they do it!", and then I would not hear from them again. For the most part, they'd stop doing some types of stuff - an ally: representative would not do warlord actions, and that is good...But they would not start doing the other types of stuff - the ally NPCs slid off the screen and did not do what their types called for without prompting... And the cool thing about the extended manipulation move is that it's supposed to give you people that help you even in your absence, even when you don't ask for it, right?
Now, there are details about the game that could've lead to me getting this impression (lots of intra-PC conflict with the result of NPCs in general not playing much of a role), but I think there's something more to this... Specifically, the MC, if he's following the principles right, is ill-equipped to deal with non-threat NPCs. They slide off the mental radar and only reappear as blips of "whoop! I can't do that with that guy, he's no longer a threat now".
'course, I may be way wrong here - what are your experiences with turning threats into allies?
-
Bump!
Certainly, someone besides me must have gotten a character to turn NPCs into allies, no? Please tell me how that worked for you!
-
When I did it, I turned an attaching squad of high-tech post-Aztec jaguar warriors into my gang. It was pretty useful.
-
JC has done it a few times in the game, and each time it changes things. Rice, Patch and Rope are all now allies with JC. Patch provides solid advice, Rice acts as an effective lieutenant and right hand man, and Rope evangelizes JC and his dream to the growing number of refugees that JC's picked up.
As MC I scrupulously avoid any fuckery when it comes to them. They don't get the crosshairs. I literally have a giant circle around each of these people in my notes, reminding me not to fuck with them.
I make sure that they are special, they aren't after something, they are geniune sources of goodness in the Apocalypse World. I've been doing a great job with Rice in this, but Patch and Rope sometimes slip off the radar. I've got to work on that.
In the case of Rope, getting the 12+ was a bit of a surprise. JC had otherwise prepared with the other two characters, getting a few bonuses to hopefully ensure the 12+. But Rope was a double sixes roll, and as he was the leader of the Six Blades refugees, I've had him bring a source of strength and hope.
Maybe I can get Colin to chime in here about the Allies.
-
Colin here. I play JC the Operator in the Gamma Road, MC'd by Jon (Glendower).
JC had only a partial success for a Cool Under Fire roll, to avoid the advances of several women. I played this as JC staying up real late into the night, pondering some tough choices he's made and obsessing over a personal object of his.
This led JC - the next morning - to be very frazzled, unfocused, and weak-willed, when he was to be the leader of the convoy that was meant to carry forth The Dream. It showed a weakness to JC's followers, and to Goldie the Chopper (and her gang), who was acting as the convoy's protection.
After playing through the morning, JC's Allies actually got together and bucked up JC, reminding him that he needed to appear strong ... and to get dressed. This gave JC back his resolve.
The MC did an excellent job bringing them in as character support, and gave me a lot to work with as a player. The MC made an effective use of the altruism and support that the Allies were created for - showing actual concern and compassion in the hellish world, while all the other NPCs are looking for their own.
As well, the MC played out their Ally type in the scene really effectively - Patch (the medic) was a Guardian (Impulse: to intercept danger), and Rice (JC's aide) was a confidant (impulse: give advice/perspective/absolution). Both Allies bolstered JC from their own impulse - Patch ordering JC to get some water and sleep, while Rice suggesting that JC's rumpled appearance and disquiet was was hurting JC's leadership.
-
Yeah, this:
Now, there are details about the game that could've lead to me getting this impression (lots of intra-PC conflict with the result of NPCs in general not playing much of a role), but I think there's something more to this... Specifically, the MC, if he's following the principles right, is ill-equipped to deal with non-threat NPCs. They slide off the mental radar and only reappear as blips of "whoop! I can't do that with that guy, he's no longer a threat now".
'course, I may be way wrong here - what are your experiences with turning threats into allies?
...is the MC not pushing those "threat types" into the game through Fronts. They should go on a whole new Front, called Home. Not Home Front, just Home.
And that Front needs to be expressed in game like any other.
Also, if you're making them Allies as a player, make sure your character is treating them like Allies. These NPCs are now incredibly... I don't want to use the word useful, but yeah, friends and allies are useful. These are people you can trust. Why are they falling off the screen? I'd have them be the backbone of whatever it is I'm trying to do. These fuckers are my friends.
The change isn't just mechanical. It's fictional.
-
I only just got the expanded move, and haven't been able to roll that good yet (even though I have a 1-in-6 chance of getting it).
Since about the second session my Battlebabe, Hellish, has been putting the moves on Jeanette, the daughter of another PC. Over the course of like 4 or 5 sessions? I was setting up for this roll. I take her out of the job she doesn't like much (working for another PC, I paid him off), move her into my hardholder's compound, used read a person a lot to see what she likes, and if I could teach her how to kick ass and kill dudes, all the while racking up the advances so I could open seduce/manipulate and have hot+2 at the time.
So I go down to the marketplace and spend barter on a gift for her and everything, get all romantic and shit... and then I flub the roll. And only the fact that the Maestro D' uses a hold from the Skinner move Hypnotic gets me a 7 result. I was so pissed!
Ah well, next game!
-
Make Home a relevant front! A change in fiction as well as in mechanics! Encircling the names!
Fuck yes, gentlemen.
As far as I know, Home was not made into a front. It probably would have made a lot of sense for it to, because that's exactly what my guy was angling towards all the time! Making a home for people.
Currently, I'm thinking something like... Put those Allies on a list. And write the opposite of a fundamental scarcity above that list. Fear becomes Bravery, Decay becomes Rebuilding, Ignorance becomes Understanding.
As far as the change in fiction... Depends on how you look at it. The threats-to-allies did not... reveal any symphathetic properties. For one of the earlier allies, the MC told me "Well, just because you changed his allegiance some doesn't mean he's a different person now. He's still a violent, savage motherfucker -- only now he's *your* violent savage motherfucker". A change of heart for that dude would have been immenselly gratifying, and would have made some sense at the time, too, I think.
This is an important thing, probably! Without figuring out how the persons involved fundamentally become allies instead of being threats in the fiction... The Allies will just become not-threats. That's... something, but not much.
As for myself... My operator did not have much of a choice in establishing scenes the last couple of sessions! Every other roll was 'under fire from being in dangerous territory' of one kind or another. Might've angled for including them more otherwise, possibly.
Encircling the allies' names is cool and one of the real little answers of how to keep the on your mind as the MC.
But yeah! A question: I'm the MC, I want my players' allies to matter. When do I bring them into play? How do I bring them into play? With threats, it's fairly simple: I escalate accordingly, and when I can, I make a hard move. When do I bring in allies? If it makes trouble for the other characters', I can just use AW's default settings. But what about when there's a character that needs help?
Say, there's a guy who's under fire from circling raiders of some sort. He tries to get out and busts his roll... Do I now as the MC make life hard for him? Or, if he has an appropriate ally (guardian, say!), do I instead go all "They catch you sneaking out! One of them, Wolf you think his name was, lunges towards you, and just as he's about to cut you open, there's suddenly a big hole in his head. You look at where the shot was fired from... It's <ally: guardian>!"
That actually sounds kind of cool, now that I've written it. How do I put it in principle form? "When I make a hard move, I make it with an ally against the threat instead of the actual threat, hmm?" seems a bit... iffy for a reason I can't quite place.
-
As far as the change in fiction... Depends on how you look at it. The threats-to-allies did not... reveal any symphathetic properties. For one of the earlier allies, the MC told me "Well, just because you changed his allegiance some doesn't mean he's a different person now. He's still a violent, savage motherfucker -- only now he's *your* violent savage motherfucker". A change of heart for that dude would have been immenselly gratifying, and would have made some sense at the time, too, I think.
This is an important thing, probably! Without figuring out how the persons involved fundamentally become allies instead of being threats in the fiction... The Allies will just become not-threats. That's... something, but not much.
Well, what does your violent, savage motherfucker mean? That relationship needs to be defined. Does he hang out with you all the time now? Does he bring you coffee? Give you information?
These guys will be using the same MC moves, but just not on you. It's really on the MC to make sure that the guy is relevant, but the player can help by going to that new ally with problems. He's not just a "non-threat". He's an ally. Look at how this guy can help the PC per his role in the fiction and his new ally type. Was he a warlord? Sure. Now he's a:
- ally: friend (impulse: to back you up). Now he's there for you, gang and all, in physical or social situations.
• ally: lover (impulse: to give you shelter & comfort) Now his hold is a safe zone, a sanctuary.
• ally: right hand (impulse: to follow through on your
intentions) Now he takes suggestions/orders.
• ally: representative (impulse: to pursue your interests in your
absence) Now he makes decisions based on what he thinks you want.
• ally: guardian (impulse: to intercept danger) Now he takes active steps to protect you from your enemies.
• ally: confdante (impulse: to give you advice, perspective, or
absolution.) Now he's there to talk to and guide you.
One important thing here is to make sure that Ally is not equal to "No conflict". They're safe from casual harm, but there are more conflict types than physical. Another person wants to get down with you; how does your lover feel about that? Your guardian really disagrees with you about how you keep running out to that burn flat to fight the ninja pirates. Nothing super dangerous or gun-fu invoking. Just scenes and conflicts designed to explore that relationship through interesting situations.
-
Say, there's a guy who's under fire from circling raiders of some sort. He tries to get out and busts his roll... Do I now as the MC make life hard for him? Or, if he has an appropriate ally (guardian, say!), do I instead go all "They catch you sneaking out! One of them, Wolf you think his name was, lunges towards you, and just as he's about to cut you open, there's suddenly a big hole in his head. You look at where the shot was fired from... It's <ally: guardian>!"
That actually sounds kind of cool, now that I've written it. How do I put it in principle form? "When I make a hard move, I make it with an ally against the threat instead of the actual threat, hmm?" seems a bit... iffy for a reason I can't quite place.
Sounds iffy to me too. I'd suggest that <ally: guardian> should move into the trouble in your place, prompting the player to help him out. (It's "intercept danger" not "neatly resolve danger".) However, that might also be crossing a line by putting the ally back in the crosshairs.
I suppose the MC can still THREATTEN the ally, right? Players aren't in the crosshairs and the MC fucks with them all the time.
-
One important thing here is to make sure that Ally is not equal to "No conflict".
Very good post Chris, I love the sample ally types with impulses and examples, great advice too!
-
The violent, savage motherfucker (G-something, his name was) became, based on the situation we were in (me asking for him to explain to his boss to not savagelly beat and maim my character when we next meet) an ally: representative. The violence, savagery and motherfuckery was a bit of a problem, given that my character's interests were peace, love, and understanding.
These guys will be using the same MC moves, but just not on you. It's really on the MC to make sure that the guy is relevant, but the player can help by going to that new ally with problems. He's not just a "non-threat". He's an ally. Look at how this guy can help the PC per his role in the fiction and his new ally type.
That is not something I normally do as a MC! While a warlord and his hold is, uh, pervasive enough for his presence to matter at most times... What do I do, as a MC, with a single sneaky has-been grotesque? When do I bring them into the scene? How do they interface with the player's rolls?
I as MC can do making life hard for other PCs with this PC's allies. I know how to do it and I'm good at it.
I also would know how to play an ally of any type when there is a scene with them. Play to their interests, which are to be helpful to the PC! Play them as regular people. I can do that!
But. When do I bring in an ally? If he's there, he's there, of course. But what if he's not?
If a PC is in the friendly warlord's hold and someone inside decides to cut him open, do the friendly warlord's men interfere during the attack? Help him afterwards?
Those are equally good choices. I don't like equally good choices when MC'ing, it makes me have to do mental coinflips. They bug me.
-
But. When do I bring in an ally? If he's there, he's there, of course. But what if he's not?
Well...then, he's not.
If a PC is in the friendly warlord's hold and someone inside decides to cut him open, do the friendly warlord's men interfere during the attack? Help him afterwards?
It shouldn't be an equally good choice where the generic men of the generic warlord help or don't.
Is the boss's right hand man Roark there? Are the men there? Do they see it happen? Do they feel the same way about the PC that their boss does, or is Roark jealous of the attention?
If you want to involve them, make an MC move. If you don't, then don't. It is a call, on your part, but it depends entirely on the fiction as its happening.
-
Speaking only for myself as MC, I am profoundly unhappy with the shift of 'make someone an Ally' from an Unbidden Future advance (conscious decision of the player) to the result of an opened 12+ on Manipulate/Seduce (semi-random result.)
(For those unfamiliar, in the playtest version if you wanted to take someone off the threat list you could pay for it with a past-the-first-five advance, much like getting an extra character, changing playbooks, etc.)
I just feel like basically my PCs occasionally acquire completely random allies, for reasons basically outside their control -- and often requiring a very serious amount of improvisational effort in order to justify in-fiction. Besides working out how the sudden shift in relationship comes about, it also elevates these NPCs in importance largely at the whim of the dice, instead of through the deliberate interest of the players. This has some interesting aspects to be sure, and perhaps mimics some element of how Apocalypse World works, but so far in play I have found it very disconcerting.
Maybe after a few more sessions, when I've had some time to figure out how to re-fit these NPCs into the game world, I will have changed my mind, but if not I will certainly be house-ruling it back to the previous setup.
-
The thing is, the move is not random. A player has to decide to manipulate or seduce someone in order for them to roll the dice. They have to have some kind of leverage in order to perform the manipulation, so it requires some degree of setup. And if they have advanced the move, that means that they know they have the potential to change this person with their words. Each manipulate roll made for a person with advanced moves is done with that possible outcome in mind.
Take a look at page 197. "Asking someone straight to do something isn't trying to seduce or manipulate them. To seduce or manipulate, the character needs leverage - sex, or a threat, or a promise, something that the manipulator can really do that the victim really wants or really doesn't want."
So with that in mind, the dice only come out when that criteria is met. If a character just asks someone, you consider the NPC's simple wants, and decide on the answer.
One of the players in my game deliberately didn't take the advanced moves, switching playbooks instead. Another player deliberately took the advanced moves, because they wanted to change the world.
Those moves represent true high level play. The manipulate/seduce ability allows the player to actually permanently change the world in a way that doesn't involve destruction and murder. Instead of shooting a character in the face, that character is instead redeemed. This is pure agency over the Apocalypse World, an ability to bring a little bit of security into a horrible pleace.
The important thrust about No Status Quo in Apocalypse World is that it applies for good news as well as bad. This advanced move represents the ability to change a person's mind, to get them to reveal some of the good inside a person. Until this advanced move, every single NPC is considered a threat. It is not possible to trust an NPC until you have an ally by your side. This means that until this advanced move, the characters have no real friends, no real lovers.
-
I do agree with Daniel that it can be difficult to work in terms of fiction. You can easily have a hated enemy that is now your best friend because you rolled a 12. It's hard to come up with stuff that justifies that. It's really just up to the player to not go wild with it in a Step On Up way.
You could use the Seduce/Manipulate Advanced Move to "solve" your problems, collecting NPCs like Pokemon.
"What are you doing?"
"I'm going door-to-door, offering barter to people to become my friends. I wanna Manipulate them. I'll keep doing it until everyone in town is an Ally."
Trust me, one of my best friends is exactly the douche player who would try to do this. We're having an intervention.
-
"I'm going door-to-door, offering barter to people to become my friends. I wanna Manipulate them. I'll keep doing it until everyone in town is an Ally."
Here's what the Barter peripheral move has to say to that in the book:
"When you give 1-barter to someone, but with strings attached, it counts as manipulating them and hitting the roll with a 10+, no roll required."
They'll never get a 12 with handing people barter. Never never. To manipulate with the intent to get advanced moves to activate, you need actual in fiction leverage. A bit of jingle only goes so far, and the barter move backs it up.
-
To manipulate with the intent to get advanced moves to activate, you need actual in fiction leverage.
Which can be barter. We don't really use that peripheral move, but I see your point.
Change my example from barter to kittens. Proceed. :)
The point is still the same. The game can be broken with a gotta catch 'em all mentality. As the book says, I don't recommend it.
-
The thing is, the move is not random. [snip] This means that until this advanced move, the characters have no real friends, no real lovers.
Fantastic post Glendower, I will have to copy that and refer to it every now and then.
-
Change my example from barter to kittens. Proceed. :)
The point is still the same. The game can be broken with a gotta catch 'em all mentality. As the book says, I don't recommend it.
"Hey little girl, if you do what I want, you can have this kitten."
"Fuck your kitten, there ain't enough meat on it!"
Is a kitten leverage? Well, the MC looks at his NPC and follows his principles, specifically the one where he names people, and makes them human. Page 112 details all this.
So wandering down the street offering the same thing to each person isn't going to work. Manipulate works when you offer something that someone actually wants, or have some sort of information on someone that you can hold over them. People are different, they want different things.
Now, if this player is going to go up to a person, finding out about them so that they can get just the right thing to manipulate (reading a person is good for this), then manipulating them, what's wrong with turning them into an ally? I mean, they've done the work on this person, and clearly they care about getting this person on their side, so then... awesome!
But here's the funny bit. All NPCs in the game have cross hairs on them. So, killing them is par for the course. Any one of your NPCs can be slaughtered, at any time, by crosshairs, or by the player characters. Hell, some of the players can do it even with a weak hit from the hard moves (or act under fire if it calls for it).
So, Killing NPCs is really easy. So when a player decides not to just slaughter someone, and interacts with them instead, and finds just the right buttons to push, why not have them, on a 12, make that human connection?
I mean, everyone in the game is fundamentally human, even the grotesques in the game (it's in the rules!). So in this horrible world where life is cheap, choosing not to just point a gun in someone's face is a bold statement, and if a 12 is rolled, I think it makes for an interesting world when the spark of actual human decency occurs.
The die roll creates the uncertainty, and it prevents any status quo from happening. You don't know when you'll touch the heart of even the most stone cold killer, but when you do, it's something special.
-
So, Killing NPCs is really easy. So when a player decides not to just slaughter someone, and interacts with them instead, and finds just the right buttons to push, why not have them, on a 12, make that human connection?
Because the button has nothing to do with the connection. It's a purely mechanical conceit.
I think we're arguing specific examples when the rule is still true: you can give "leverage" and make your hated enemy into your best friend in a purely mechanical way.
Because whatever the leverage is, it's not connected to them becoming your best friend. It's part of whatever deal you have going on. So it's not you "researching" them and trying to get them on your side. It's you needing food, hitting a 12 and now the MC is like "Hey, I guess you need to describe how you're now one of the central things in their life."
So you get fictional situations where you went to negotiate a resources deal and now you have a protector for life, in an entirely arbitrary manner.
-
It can't be because of the leverage - the leverage is by definition inadequate. If leverage could do it, it'd be in the basic move.
As MC, though, you aren't allowed to make it purely mechanical, either. What to do!
It's easy, nothing could be easier. The NPC falls in love with the PC.
Maybe romantic love, or not, but bam, like that, the NPC sees past the immediate circumstances and recognizes in the PC something true and precious. It doesn't matter how inexplicable it is; whatever this sudden revelation of truth is, it cuts through everything the NPC thought he knew and makes secondary every commitment the NPC thought he had.
So that's all. Just make the NPC fall in love with the PC and go from there.
-
Chris seems to at least be acknowledging what I am talking about. Obviously I don't mean completely, utterly random -- they have to interact with the NPC obviously, and try to manipulate them. But it is random in the sense that there is no reason it is that NPC over any other you tried to manipulate. And consequently there is often absolutely zero precedent in the fiction for the shift in relationship -- it all has to come after the fact.
And no, that's not impossible either, it's just a) often somewhat difficult in the short term and more importantly b) I am not sure what I am doing it for. Having a player consciously choose to spend an advance seemed like a very satisfying approach to a major shift in the fiction -- comparable to retiring a character to safety, for example.
Vincent's suggested solution to the fiction problem works okay for some situations -- but you know, I have lots of NPCs who are in love with PCs already. And this hasn't made them less of a Threat. The transformation into an Ally is obviously about more than just falling in love, unless this is some special Cosmic Whammy love -- which to be honest sounds awful, since I don't really want an Apocalypse World where there is an extra-special kind of love reserved only for particular rolls of the dice. I want the extra special love to be the result of player/character choice and investment. (And yes, they invested in opening the move, but I don't find the extra remove from just spending the advance directly adds anything to play.)
-
I agree with Daniel that there's not enough weight to making an NPC an ally. Since this is supposed to be an experience thread, let's be specific.
Our PCs are infiltrating an enemy compound. I've brought some NPCs along, partly because I want to transfer their loyalty from my boss to me so they can be part of my gang when/if I take that advance.
After one of the heavies gets killed, my PC Hellish puts the other one, Pierre, on point. He balks and I tell him who's boss. I get a 12+, he becomes my ally.
At the end of the line, another PC, Mule is trying to diffuse the tension between him/her/it and another NPC, Fauna. Mule gets a 12+, and Fauna becomes an ally.
So, in these situations, the MC can't just kill these characters off-hand. If the PCs put them in danger, they can die as a consequence, but not otherwise. That's how I interpreted the ally tag, anyway.
However, later on, the two of us (PCs only) have been captured by Parcher. I'm trying to set up my Eye on the Door move through some elaborate fiction, while Mule threatens Parcher with the retribution of my boss Cobra. So, in this case, if he rolls a 12+, Parcher becomes an ally? This dude who wants to poison us becomes an ally because dude threatens him with somebody else's wrath? I don't see it, in this case.
-
However, later on, the two of us (PCs only) have been captured by Parcher. I'm trying to set up my Eye on the Door move through some elaborate fiction, while Mule threatens Parcher with the retribution of my boss Cobra. So, in this case, if he rolls a 12+, Parcher becomes an ally? This dude who wants to poison us becomes an ally because dude threatens him with somebody else's wrath? I don't see it, in this case.
Was it really enough leverage to begin with to actually trigger the manipulation move then? If it was, then why wouldn't it make sense that Parcher got so damn scared that he decides to let you loose and side with you instead of facing the wrath of Cobra?
-
Leverage enough?
I don't know. We've played pretty fast and loose with leverage at times. It's entirely possible there wasn't enough leverage in all three cases I mentioned. I'm willing to accept that. Maybe we have to tighten that part up.
Parcher siding with us in fear of Cobra?
Well, I went to see Parcher so I could kill him. With my boss's authorization. And my boss is Cobra, and everybody knows that. So... I mean, even if we had been really strict with the fictional leverage, and made a deal with Parcher that he gets to pack up and leave and we won't come after him if he lets us go, how would he become an ally out of that, even? Even then it's a stretch.
I get that a character can stop being a threat when you give them what they want, and you roll 12+. I'm cool with the inherent randomness. But when you're manipulating by threats and consequences?
-
Maybe romantic love, or not, but bam, like that, the NPC sees past the immediate circumstances and recognizes in the PC something true and precious. It doesn't matter how inexplicable it is; whatever this sudden revelation of truth is, it cuts through everything the NPC thought he knew and makes secondary every commitment the NPC thought he had.
So that's all. Just make the NPC fall in love with the PC and go from there.
Yeah. With the maelstrom and general weirdness, this could be a solution. I guess it's sort of a chicken and egg problem for me. The truth isn't there first. At first there's a dead pig I've got and some water I need from the cannibals, who I hate dealing with and who hate me as well.. I reach out, tentatively, both sides trying to keep their distance, everyone fingering their weapons.
MC: They're not sure.
ME: I add another dead pig from the cart I have. "Look, here's my last pig." I really need this water!
MC:You're manipulating them, using the two pigs as your promise?
ME: Sure. (Rolling)
MC: (Eyes dice) Looks like the cannibal you're dealing with sees past the immediate circumstances and the two dead pigs and recognizes in you something true and precious. He's now in love with you. Congratulations.
I can't tell my players that, Vincent. :) Maybe it's a failing in me as an MC, but I just can't. Hahaha.
-
Chris,
Sure, that example makes no sense, but that's because ally:lover hasn't been built up here.
You could maybe make a case for representative or confidante or even friend here? It depends on what's led up to it all, really.
I guess that doesn't really make it less of a bolt from the blue kind of change, but the point is that the PC is now such a force of nature that people may just become their allies like this now.
-
Yeah, the post above was just a response to Vincent's "just make them fall in love with the PC".
I'm not really against the rule. I agree with Daniel that it made more sense before, narratively. But I also like the whole disease vector of goodness thing that you get with a +12.
Fictionally, what's beyond my maelstrom handles this perfectly. I just think that MC should be ready for questions of this type when and if their players start s[reading their friendship seed through the desert.
If you do want to house rule it, Daniel, I'd go with putting the ally thing back as an advancement and making the advanced seduce/manipulate move not require leverage at a +12.
That's way more cynical than Vincent's version and I don't plan to use it myself, but it would work.
-
MC:You're manipulating them, using the two pigs as your promise?
To me this would be using the Barter Move, which results in a 10+ Manipulation hit, not a 12+.
-
MC:You're manipulating them, using the two pigs as your promise?
To me this would be using the Barter Move, which results in a 10+ Manipulation hit, not a 12+.
Again, I think we end up arguing specific examples when you still get an Ally for no fictional reason at all. All this conversation is doing is saying "you shouldn't let your players roll manipulate as much as you are" and not really dealing with the problem of +12 Allies. But it's not a big deal.
We tend to play as Barter = currency, not as barter is the thing bartered for. It's a result of the fact that our game has a built in, enforced currency that has very firm rules. Just a function of our setting.
-
But here's the funny bit. All NPCs in the game have cross hairs on them. So, killing them is par for the course. Any one of your NPCs can be slaughtered, at any time, by crosshairs...
Except, the text explicitly states:
Take that NPC out of whatever front she’s in, list her in a whole new place, home instead of the home front.
Furthermore, stop looking at this NPC through crosshairs. She has been set apart, safe from casual death, to a higher purpose.
So, killing every NPC the PC makes an ally isn't really a solution is it?
I personally don't think having an ally is a big deal. All it really means is they are not a threat anymore. It doesn't mean all of a sudden you guys are the bestest of friends or lover or whatever (although it could mean that if the fiction was right). It just means that they see you in a light that doesn't mean they're after you [anymore].
For example, in the cannibal and pig example, maybe the leader of the cannibals simply likes the way this PC has dealt with them. Two pigs? Hmm. Wasn't expecting that. "Hey man, you're different. Look, I wasn't gonna tell you, but a few people from the hold we come from are planning to ambush you in the hills on your way back. Don't tell 'em I tipped you off. I'll see yah around."
Ally: confidante
-
But here's the funny bit. All NPCs in the game have cross hairs on them. So, killing them is par for the course. Any one of your NPCs can be slaughtered, at any time, by crosshairs...
Except, the text explicitly states:
Take that NPC out of whatever front she’s in, list her in a whole new place, home instead of the home front.
Furthermore, stop looking at this NPC through crosshairs. She has been set apart, safe from casual death, to a higher purpose.
So, killing every NPC the PC makes an ally isn't really a solution is it?
That's not what I'm saying in my post. I'm saying that instead of Manipulating someone (and turning them into an ally), you can kill them, and it's easier, and it totally changes the NPC in a fundamental way (they're now dead). So a 12 on a manipulate or a 7-9 in a seize by force (Seizing their life with, say, a shotgun) will alter the NPC in a fundamental way. Why is one a problem, and the other not?
-
Gotcha! Agreed!
-
So a 12 on a manipulate or a 7-9 in a seize by force (Seizing their life with, say, a shotgun) will alter the NPC in a fundamental way. Why is one a problem, and the other not?
Is this a trick question? It's like saying that swimming up a waterfall and swimming down a waterfall are both going through water, so what's the difference.
NPCs dying easily and NPCs being threats are both part of the fundamental crappiness that is Apocalypse World -- an NPC that is both alive and not a threat is a complete reversal of that crappiness, a major shift in the nature of the world (on a local level.)
If one of the former happens easily or randomly or without much specific fictional support, that's not a problem, because they have the fictional support of the entire game/world/setting behind them -- if the second happens easily or randomly or without much fictional support, there is no secondary support at all, and in fact quite the opposite. Therefore, in my experience, it seems to be more of a problem.
-
NPCs dying easily and NPCs being threats are both part of the fundamental crappiness that is Apocalypse World -- an NPC that is both alive and not a threat is a complete reversal of that crappiness, a major shift in the nature of the world (on a local level.)
If one of the former happens easily or randomly or without much specific fictional support, that's not a problem, because they have the fictional support of the entire game/world/setting behind them -- if the second happens easily or randomly or without much fictional support, there is no secondary support at all, and in fact quite the opposite. Therefore, in my experience, it seems to be more of a problem.
My philosophy with Ally stems from my interpretations of the Ally move, and in playing the game with Allies cropping up. It's based on two pieces in book, one about playing to find out what happens, and the second about there being "no status quo".
When I play the game, I don't know exactly what the various NPCs are going to do, how they're going to react. Their threat type has their impulse and moves, which helps me keep orientated and gives me some inspiration, but I try to play them like actual people, with all kinds of human emotions.
These individuals are all hard from a harsh world, but at the same time, I keep in mind that they are subject to changes of mind and heart. I don't know if they'll change their mind, change their impulses. I play to find that out. It's why I don't connect with your "fictional support", people make judgments and decisions and changes all the time, sometimes taking years, sometimes in moments. These decisions are arbitrary and not necessarily predicated on any particular event. Sometimes they're a surprise as much to the person as to the recipient. People are messy, and they don't necessarily follow any kind of narrative momentum.
I also don't view the world as fundamentally anything. I view things in terms of status quo. Right now the Apocalypse World is a horrible place. The only way to truly ensure that the person next to you isn't going to victimize you in some way is to threaten them, bribe them, or shoot them.
But it is a place that can change. I figure that If I can make moves to bring home that apocalyptic badness, then the players can certainly use moves to make things better. This opportunity to shift the nature of the people in this world, and to shift the nature of the world, is the ultimate expression of "No Status Quo".
Now, in my opinion, it also adds an element of hope, which I think is quite useful as a contrast to the starkness of the setting. Without a sense of hope that you MIGHT be able to change the people in this world, then I think the game becomes a lot less interesting.
-
Yes, Glendower. That's it exactly.
-
Yes, of course. The problem I'm discussing is not about whether you can make people into Allies, but how that occurs. You are right, though, that I am overstating (or maybe too invested in) the "fundamental" crappiness. But I stand by the fact that an NPC becoming an Ally on the spot based on a die roll often requires more effort on the part of the players to fit into the fiction than an NPC continuing to be a threat or dying because of a shotgun wound. To my mind, most moves and move results are very well-designed in the sense of the proximity of the move to the fiction, and this has so far felt like an exception to me in-game.