Barf Forth Apocalyptica

the swamp provides => A Song of Ice and Fire Hack => Topic started by: Jeff Russell on July 02, 2010, 02:42:23 PM

Title: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 02, 2010, 02:42:23 PM
Okay, this thread is gonna be to talk about the characters to play in the game, their moves, and how to divide them up. Right now I'm working on the assumption of playbooks as in standard AW, but Gregor Vuga's Sagas of the Icelanders has a more modular approach (that's divided by gender! Damn!) that looks cool. So I'm open to other suggestions.

Under the assumption of 'defined playbooks, no duplicates' as in the regular game, I'm thinking it works best to have the players be members of the same house, which still leaves plenty of room for cooperation and competition.

Okay, so, I want to do some pretty extensive hacking, but I'm thinking that the following character types will be "inspired by" the standard playbooks listed, meaning not just borrowed and modified moves, but the sort of role they play in relation to one another:


Okay, so I can't think of any sort of driver analogue, and obviously the missing brainer is a big hole, especially since I do want there to be some subtle weirdness (prophetic dreams, skinchangers, et cetera). Moreover, any more jobs I can think of from the Ice and Fire direction start to seem super specialized and less genre-central, like sailors or singers or what not.

Oh, also, I don't want this to be a 'no girls allowed' kind of game, and right now the lady is the only role up there really 'for' women in the setting. Oh, and the septa. But there are lots of powerful and influential women in teh series, and there should be in the game too!

So who's got some ideas on why the above sucks or what other characters should be available and anything else?

Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Antisinecurist on July 02, 2010, 04:17:47 PM
Driver-analogue... how about some sort of mounted character who spends some of his time away from the holding; perhaps a high messenger, or otherwise someone who moves between areas on some sort of business for the Lord? I've only read the first book, so I'm not sure how it fits, but it's a thought.

Any involvement (esp. as a playbook) for the Night's Watch? Or would that be too distanced from the centralized, all-one-house structure you have so far?

What about more elegant swordplay, in the vein of Water Dancing? Perhaps as the Battlebabe, or as it's own thing.

Just some thoughts.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 02, 2010, 04:22:51 PM
Hmmm, a messenger/outrider type very well might work for something like the driver (i.e. an impetus for mobility among the players).

And so far, I have (sadly) been excluding the Night's Watch, much as I love them. My thought process is kind of to get 'normal' Westeros workable, and then see how the more exotic stuff like Night's Watch and the Free Cities and Dothraki and all the rest fit in.

And yeah, good call on the Water Dancerism. I love Syrio Forel. One option would be to make the 'Retainer' able to cover that, but it's a distinct enough concept that it just might deserver its own playbook.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Vasco A. Brown on July 04, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
I don't think you necessarily have to address this through game design. If it's your intention for any gender to play any character type, then just leave it at that. The books have several examples of character acting outside expected gender roles (Brienne "the Beauty" of Tarth, forex). If a player wants to play a female knight or an influential lady, they should just make a character as usual and chalk themselves up as the exception to the rule.

Hmm, now that I think about it, however, it would be interesting to have a special move that kicks in "when you are challenged on account of your gender"...
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Antisinecurist on July 04, 2010, 10:16:28 PM
Have you read the Maestro'D yet? I think some modification of it could work really well; it's not hard to imagine a lord having this guy on hand who manages the feasts and takes care of (and schmoozes) the guests, and so on.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 05, 2010, 04:50:40 AM
I have read the Maestro D', and using him as a basis for a seneschal type character isn't a bad idea at all, thanks!
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 05, 2010, 04:52:42 AM
Oh! Or as a smallfolk innkeep (or have the option to be either).
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Christian on July 09, 2010, 05:59:37 PM
First of all: yay!

You definitely need a playbook for the Spider (master of spies).

I think a modular approach could work very well, too. Have moves per culture, profession, and nature, and PCs pick from those. That would allow otherwise difficult characters like wardens to be implemented.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 11, 2010, 06:01:58 AM
Christian, that's not a bad idea on the modular approach. I'm thinking about it very hard.

On the one hand, I like the way that prepackaged 'classes' with included social roles builds in 'what to do' and 'what sort of conflicts are likely' from the get go, with almost no work. I think a more traditional (heh, yes, I'm aware of the irony of calling something that was once 'cutting edge' traditional) 'build your own' approach requires the players to have very clear ideas on what they want their character to do in the game, what kind of social role to play and so forth.

This ties into some thoughts I've been having but not sharing about incorporating 'qualities'. As I re-read the stuff on the knife and candle hack, I realized that it was coming fairly close to a 'generic stat and specific skill' type system, and I'm not positive that's what I want to do here. On the other hand, without doing that, the moves might not leave much room for expansion with 'qualities'.

I guess at root, this whole issue gets at how much (and what, exactly) of AW I want to keep in the hack, and how much to change. I just want to make sure any changes are to better serve the game I'm going for, and not just be changy changefulness for change's sake.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: FigureFour on July 11, 2010, 08:01:49 PM
  • Vassal (or the heir?) - Chopper
I believe the term the books use for "A guy with a pack of knights in service of a lord" is "bannerman."
I'll also second a desire for a "Spider" playbook.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 12, 2010, 04:43:01 AM
Well, not to be a pedant, but aren't bannermen only the large houses in service of the 'main' house of a region (e.g. like Karstark to Stark, and so forth)? I seem to remember their being some distinction between bannermen and 'regular' guys sworn to a lord. But hell, 'bannerman' is a cooler name, so you're right that I should go with it.

And I can't believe I overlooked poor Varys. Some spideryness seems called for.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Chris on July 14, 2010, 09:05:13 AM
I wouldn't worry about having an straight version of each playbook. Just throw driver out.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 14, 2010, 04:18:58 PM
Hey Chris,

   Yeah, it's not so much that I'm like "oh man, I gotta keep it as much like vanilla AW as possible", and that's why I'm looking at correspondences with the playbooks. It's more that the playbooks as is do a really good job of creating a pretty dynamic situation with characters going at different, interesting angles to one another, with just enough setting creation built in to make thins unique and interesting while still leaving lots of room to grow.

So, I see the driver's role being a goad not to just hang out at the same old hardhold all the time. He's got a vested interest in going places and so forth. I'm just wondering if Ice and Fire needs a similar role fulfilled, regardless of whether or not it's anything like 'driving'.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: FigureFour on July 14, 2010, 05:01:44 PM
Well, not to be a pedant, but aren't bannermen only the large houses in service of the 'main' house of a region (e.g. like Karstark to Stark, and so forth)? I seem to remember their being some distinction between bannermen and 'regular' guys sworn to a lord.
Strictly speaking, I believe a bannerman is a knight who is responsible for raising an army in his lords service. The term comes from his right to carry his own banner into war to act as a rallying point for his troops.
I guess the playbook could be expanded to handle guys like mercenary captains, who have a similar gig but aren't sworn to a lord and therefore aren't strictly speaking "bannermen" though.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Bret on July 26, 2010, 12:22:28 PM
I like what you're doing with Qualities in the other thread, and I like that more than I like Apocalypse World style Playbooks. I think maybe Playbooks would be a good starting point but man how would you cram all the really great concepts of the protagonists into niches? Like the Noble bastard turned Night's Watchman or the reviled dwarf noble turned general turned fugitive.

Qualities are the way to go here I think.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 27, 2010, 10:30:18 AM
Thanks, Bret, I'm starting to agree with you. As I mentioned up thread, I just really like the clear player directions playbooks give you, and the way they interact with each other. If I could figure out a way to get something similar out of customized qualities-based characters, I'd really be cookin with gas.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Antisinecurist on July 27, 2010, 07:50:10 PM
Archetype books which are collections of Qualities for characters.

Depending on how many Qualities a given archetype contains, you could "buy" some or all at start up. And you can also mix-and-match or choose only parts of an archetype.

So you still have playbooks, but with the flexibility and coolness of Qualities.

Maybe?
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 28, 2010, 12:48:22 PM
I was thinking something along those lines, but I know that whenever I saw "archetypes" in traditional RPG books I sneered and thought "I'm too creative for that, I'll make a character from scratch". I think presentation here might make a big difference, something like "if you know AW, then trust me that these are good stuff" and/or "I strongly recommend using these unless you have a particular concept in mind".
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: FigureFour on July 28, 2010, 01:40:08 PM
I like what you're doing with Qualities in the other thread, and I like that more than I like Apocalypse World style Playbooks. I think maybe Playbooks would be a good starting point but man how would you cram all the really great concepts of the protagonists into niches? Like the Noble bastard turned Night's Watchman or the reviled dwarf noble turned general turned fugitive.

Qualities are the way to go here I think.
I like qualities, but I like Playbooks too. I wouldn't want to see playbooks disappear completely. Besides, those characters obviously just went past 5 advances and changed playbooks, right?
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Bret on July 28, 2010, 04:22:52 PM
Yeah, you could see it that way, but I think Qualities are SO BIG that I'd have to see them implemented in a Playbook because my suspicion is that they make Playbooks redundant.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: FigureFour on July 29, 2010, 12:06:11 PM
Hmmm . . .
I've always thought of Qualities as modifying a playbook instead of a character creation system on their own. Basically adding mechanical weight to some of those lists of traits in the playbooks.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 30, 2010, 02:12:03 PM
Figurefour,

   The qualities I'm envisioning for this hack, at this point at least, are a little more comprehensive than that. I'm thinking that they will be somewhat like 'mini-moves', in that they expand on your basic moves' options.

Here's an idea I just had while responding to this: perhaps 'playbooks' (or the equivalent) will be a set of moves based on what your 'job' or 'social role' is. Qualities will be where the customization comes in predominantly (with later advances allowing moves from other playbooks, switching playbooks, et cetera).

So, it might work that you pick a 'fighty person' playbook if you want to be any of a range of water dancer, knight, sellsword, or whatever. They way you distinguish between these would largely be through qualities, rather than oodles and and oodles of specific playbook moves.

In other words, I want the character creation to be fairly modular, but for each module to be distinct and whole enough to make sense and be worthwhile.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Antisinecurist on July 30, 2010, 02:53:18 PM
And you could have qualities that expand playbook moves instead of basic moves, I imagine, and so on. Qulities that affect your stuff, qualities that affect... well, near-anything. It's pretty flexible.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 30, 2010, 02:56:50 PM
Right! Exactly! That's what I'm going for, at least. But it's a tall order. I need to knuckle down and actually make some stuff that doesn't use words like 'fighty' and 'sneakthief' :)
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Christian on July 30, 2010, 04:12:52 PM
The qualities definitely need to follow the "prescriptive and descriptive" path.  That is, if you have "Nobility 5", people treat you that way, but if you get screwed out of your title in-game, you lose that quality and go to "Outlaw 1".  Right? :)
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on July 30, 2010, 04:39:47 PM
Super good call, Christian. The whole prescriptive/descriptive breakdown in the rules made me really happy, and not just because I'm tired of feeling like one of 3 people who uses those two terms in everyday conversation the way they're used in the rules. It's also just good stuff :)

That being said, it'd come with the same MC caveat that the 'scriptives get in AW: don't take away stuff that makes the characters cool and themselves, and remember your job is to make things not boring, not to fuck them over necessarily. So, yeah, if you get screwed out of your title, you lose that quality, but it damn well better make life more interesting for your character and not just happen because the MC doesn't know what to do with your success as a schemer and maneuverer.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Simon JB on October 13, 2010, 10:22:17 AM
Strictly speaking, I believe a bannerman is a knight who is responsible for raising an army in his lords service. The term comes from his right to carry his own banner into war to act as a rallying point for his troops.
I guess the playbook could be expanded to handle guys like mercenary captains, who have a similar gig but aren't sworn to a lord and therefore aren't strictly speaking "bannermen" though.

You might have left the playbook aproach for something more modular, but still, if we keep thinking playbooks, did you consider this:

Lord
You lord over lands and men, yadda yadda. Choose one:

I've only read a third of the first book, but I get the impression bannermen are definitively 'lords', just not high lords like the wardens of entire regions. And with good reason, since feudal power comes from lording over lands and having soldiers in your service.

And for something parallelling the driver, wouldn't it be awesome with an Outrider type, one with his horse, scouting and screening an army's flanks? A virtuoso on the horseback?
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Jeff Russell on October 13, 2010, 11:57:45 PM
Hey Simon,

  That might be a good approach! I've sort of let this simmer (okay, okay, I've been doing other things and occasionally feeling guilty about my lack of visible progress, but I have been thinking about it) and I'm somewhat torn.

On the one hand, as a generic concept, I love modularity, and I think it might help get the sort of variety of characters you see in SOIF.

On the other hand, having played some for reals AW, I really really appreciate how the playbooks a) give clear but not overly constraining direction to what the players are about and the sort of conflicts they should gravitate towards, and b) they concisely convey the world in intuitive bits and pieces. With a game set in an established setting, this latter consideration might not be as necessary, but would be helpful for people who get pitched a highly political historical-feeling fantasy game, rather than knowing Martin's work already.

The other AW related thought I've been having recently, and I think will *really* apply to SOIF is that the MC's job is soooo much easier when a) the characters have strong agendas and b) the situation generating moves come into play. The very first session I ran, the Hocus's followers provided loads of juicy NPC-PC triangles, potential conflicts and future badness, and so forth. When I ran again and all I had to work with was a successful operator's roll where the player played it safe and only did one gig, it was much harder.

All of this is a way of saying I'm very fond of building in MC fodder into the character types, and a purely 'pick your moves' modular approach might have the players avoiding such moves unless the potential gain is just too darn juicy to pass up.

So, to come back around to your suggestion, having written this post, I'm liking it more and more. I might make a number of playbooks that then have subtypes (come to think of it, like the monsterhearts playbooks). So you can be a high lord or a bannerman if you pick "Lord", you can be a sellsword or a sworn sword if you pick "Stabby Guy", et cetera.

And then maybe have some optional "make your own" rules akin to the custom moves and what not in "Advanced Fuckery", like the way Lady Blackbird gives you pregens and a super tight opening situation, but later on gives you complete character creation rules.
Title: Re: Playbooks
Post by: Simon JB on October 14, 2010, 04:44:07 PM
(okay, okay, I've been doing other things and occasionally feeling guilty about my lack of visible progress, but I have been thinking about it)

Never feel guilty! :)

Quote
On the other hand, having played some for reals AW, I really really appreciate how the playbooks a) give clear but not overly constraining direction to what the players are about and the sort of conflicts they should gravitate towards, and b) they concisely convey the world in intuitive bits and pieces. With a game set in an established setting, this latter consideration might not be as necessary, but would be helpful for people who get pitched a highly political historical-feeling fantasy game, rather than knowing Martin's work already.

The other AW related thought I've been having recently, and I think will *really* apply to SOIF is that the MC's job is soooo much easier when a) the characters have strong agendas and b) the situation generating moves come into play. The very first session I ran, the Hocus's followers provided loads of juicy NPC-PC triangles, potential conflicts and future badness, and so forth. When I ran again and all I had to work with was a successful operator's roll where the player played it safe and only did one gig, it was much harder.

All of this is a way of saying I'm very fond of building in MC fodder into the character types, and a purely 'pick your moves' modular approach might have the players avoiding such moves unless the potential gain is just too darn juicy to pass up.

So, to come back around to your suggestion, having written this post, I'm liking it more and more. I might make a number of playbooks that then have subtypes (come to think of it, like the monsterhearts playbooks). So you can be a high lord or a bannerman if you pick "Lord", you can be a sellsword or a sworn sword if you pick "Stabby Guy", et cetera.

And then maybe have some optional "make your own" rules akin to the custom moves and what not in "Advanced Fuckery", like the way Lady Blackbird gives you pregens and a super tight opening situation, but later on gives you complete character creation rules.

If you will permit me some more opinions on your hack, I think you're spot on here. As mentioned upthread, the option of switching character types after a bit of play covers a lot of your need for complex characters moving between different strata of the world, especially with the possibility of having rather different options within the types.

Oh, and, a shameless suggestion! Consider making a playbook for 'Lordling', for high-born youths. This would of course be quite different from the Lord, since they don't hold the power themselves, but have lots of connections to different people with different skills. Maybe with a move like the fucking thieves but for finding people with certain skills or professions. It would be wonderful to see this kind of character enter the game, and then, when the time is right, switch playbooks in any number of directions, depending on what comes out in play!

And maybe pairing that with an 'Urchin' type, as well! Imagine starting as that and later turning into a Sword, or Spider, or Lord, even!