Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Simon JB on May 20, 2012, 02:58:29 PM
-
Would anyone be interested in getting in a PbP game with me? I have one that has been running for about a year now, but I feel like starting something more to run parallel to that one.
I would prefer two or three players, but a forth might be fine as well. But anyone interested should shout out and we'll take it from there.
I could MC regular AW, but I would be happy to run my Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/General 40K inspired hack. I call it Dark Galaxy.
This link might lead to a folder of docs, otherwise I'll fix it when at a computer.
Okay, new link:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B06M_51wBJSFNzY1MDhmY2EtYzA1Ny00NDU4LThhMDktYmZjOTVmODlhNzg0
Some basic stipulations about the rules are here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1piowZ7V0JvzxwAr5VBBK04suSb31qJvdZqCb2sJj3Ag/edit
I've tried to keep the rules of Dark Galaxy as close to regular AW as possible, basically to do just as much design work as necessary to be able to play. Because this is not a hack that is made for distribution it remains full of holes to be handled when it is needed for play. However, I've used it now for a year and it runs perfectly well for enough of the time for play to be fun. But anyone who plays it needs to be aware that the rules are a work in progress.
I have some playbooks that are available, like Inquisitor, Trooper, Psyker, Ship's Master, Commander and Death Dancer, and some that I can finish if anyone wants them, like Hierophant, Ruler and Acolyte. I guess I could drum up something more if anyone would be particularly interested in something else that would fit, like Pilot or Scum Boss or something.
So, if anyone would be interested in this, I'd be super happy. Otherwise, as I said, I could very well run a game of vanilla Apocalypse World.
So. Any takers? :)
(EDIT: New links.)
-
Might just be me (haven't used Google drive before), but, as you suspected, the links don't seem to work, both just link me to a 'try Google drive' page.
-
Okay, thanks for letting me know! I'll fix it as soon as I can!
-
There! The links should work now!
-
Yup, working.
-
Im in!
Im new to ApW, and have only MCed 2 sessions so far. But Im an old hat RPGer anf hva played many a campaign of Dark Heresy :)
-
I'd be interested in this. I'm new to AW, I've read the rules but never played and would love to try it out.
I also love 40k so I'd enjoy playing either straight AW or Dark Galaxy, whichever you'd prefer.
-
Hey, that's great, you two. I'm quite confident both in MCing in general and in this form of PbP in particular, so I'm sure you will be in good hands. :)
One thing might be good to point out about this hack. Dark Galaxy is inspired by 40K, but it is not 40K. So that means there is no given canon from that universe and its lore. The only canon is what is stipulated in the rules and the playbooks we use, and what is stated on-screen in our particular game. All right with that?
So, if you look at my playbooks, does anything draw your eyes? I suggest we start some loose talk about what you will play here in this thread until we know if anyone else wants to join in. That cool?
We will run the actual game in a google doc, in two-column tables, with in-fiction talk on the left and game table talk on the right. Each player will pick a color for their text, and I will write in black. I've done it this way a lot now and it works really well. Ok?
-
Sounds cool to me - all the more fun to build a world, and it's not like 40k has much solid canon to build on! Probably better to start fresh.
I like the look of the Ship's Master, myself. That looks like fun! I'm thinking of a young character, someone who recently inherited command of a great ship and adjusting to the power and responsibility.
-
Something that I think might be useful to state would be how much posting you would want per week.
Reason is, I was in a PbP (a 40k one, actually) that ended a couple of months back. Don't get me wrong, it was fun, but it was also totally dominating over everything else I was up to, and I (and possibly others) don't want to get into that kind of situation again.
And additionally, I would quibble one thing: by my reading of the rules (which could be wrong), it's impossible to have twisted +3, as that means you're at 12.00 on the corruption clock and instant death/npc-hood. (I'm assuming the relationship is correlative, rather than inverse, but I don't remember seeing it spelled out anywhere.) This has the effect of not only making twisted-centric characters (such as, most notably, psychers) mechanically weaker, but also, they easily gain corruption, which makes them incredibly short lived as they need to take mutations/debilities pretty much every time. Not to mention the 7-9 results on twisted rolls often have some pretty nasty stuff happening.
Don't get me wrong, there are some interesting ideas there, but unless I'm missing something, twisted seems like it could do with more work.
But that's just my opinion, of course.
Edit: also, Chaomancer: 40k has a *ludicrous* amount of canon. I've played in a 40k game before (not the one mentioned above) with some guys who knew their stuff (I don't, I'm just familiar with the tabletop armies) and they were dropping references, histories, you name it, very regularly. I think it's all in the novels.
-
Perhaps a Mystic Warrior, then. They read a bit like a Jedi knight, but suitably 40k-ed up it needs big pauldrons and skulls :)
-
I've played and run PbP games before, and I like it very well. Your method sounds fine to me.
I'd like posts about once a day, as I find I lose interest if many days pass between turns. Anything more than that will probably not work over time.
-
Once a day sounds good to me, too.
Edit: also, Chaomancer: 40k has a *ludicrous* amount of canon. I've played in a 40k game before (not the one mentioned above) with some guys who knew their stuff (I don't, I'm just familiar with the tabletop armies) and they were dropping references, histories, you name it, very regularly. I think it's all in the novels.
Heh, yes, there is a lot - but much of it contradicts itself. Different novels can say very different things! Do tech-priests actually have mystic power? What is the place of abhumans in the Empire? Just how tough are space marines?
I find that 40k fans can have huge disagreements on what is 40k, with neither side being right or wrong. That's what I meant by it not having much solid canon.
-
Right, let's see. Twisted is -2 when Corruption is at zero, and +3 when it's at eleven o'clock. I see it's a bit unclear, I'll straighten it out where I can.
The twisted moves that most carry the risk of increasing corruption are the super-powerful specials, where you basically trade an automatic victory for guaranteed corruption. It will most likely be a very big thing when those are used, and the trade off is the player's choice. Actually, the idea is that corruption mostly always is the player's choice. Except, of course, when the MC makes a really hard move to that effect. :)
The Psyker, whose shtick it is to have and use high twisted, also has the option of taking harm instead of corruption.
I would like the pace of play to be a bit fluid. My work schedule is very different from week to week, so there will be periods where I can't make once a day, because all my creative energy is taken up by my work. But most of the time I check my games constantly on my phone, so at times when more of us can do that play should be able to advance a good bit in a single day. At least now and then.
Important is that we play when we can, are cool when the others can't for a while, and make an effort when it's been too long. That said, I guess once a day is a good overall pace.
Another thing that I would like is that we write as little as possible on each line. It might sound strange, but in my experience it is a good thing to keep in check the impulse to create a lot of things and do a lot of things each time you sit down to do your playing for the day. It's better to describe an action or answer a question too briefly and be prompted for more than to write in monologues. Much like when you play around a table. It makes play more communal and fun, and at the same time much less costly when it comes to time and energy. (This is maybe unnecessary to point out, but it has often taken some time getting used to, so I'm just mentioning it.)
Chao, the Ship's Master would be awesome. I've only had one in play for a single session, so I'd be super happy to see what happens with it over time!
The mystic warrior would be cool. As you can see, it's written to take the color closer to Star Wars than to 40K, with altered instead of twisted, and the Beyond instead of the Warp. How do y'all feel about that? I'd like to unify that in one direction or the other. Also, I'll write it a kicker special and a corruption special.
Soylent, if you'd be in, what would you like to play?
-
If I were in (and while I am leaning - aw, screw it, I'm in. Why not, right?) I'm considering between Death Dancer and Commander, currently leaning towards Commander (presumably of the on-ship security force if we have a Ship's Master).
[Re: twisted, yeah, I just forgot to factor in zero corruption into my calcs. My bad.]
As for colour, depends what colour hats you want us to be wearing. 40k is light black hats vs dark black hats, Star Wars is white hats vs black hats (IMO, anyway). Also, in SW, no-one aside from force users have to worry about corruption, while in 40k, everyone does. 40k would seem to be more consistent with everything else in the playbooks, but I'm convincable either way.
-
I'm cool with a fluid play timetable. Once a day seems like a good place to aim for, but occasional flurries of activity and the odd missed day aren't going to break me or anything. I'm sure we'll find our group rhythm.
Flavourwise, my preference is the dark awesomeness of 40k over Star Wars.
And I'm looking forward to seeing how a SHip's Master turns out too!
-
A commander would be awesome! I'm looking at a slightly more crunchy rewrite of the army rules, I'll put it up shortly. (It's only a little bit more crunchy, I promise!) The Death Dancer is not written by me, so that one follows a slightly different design logic, but I'm sure it will work as well.
One big piece of DNA that DG shares with AW is how the mystical stuff is accessible to everyone, both via the fact that opening your brain to it is a basic move (did I forget to put that in?) and the fact that anyone can take moves from the Psyker playbook with advances. On top of what everybody's corruption special does with them, of course!
-
My point was 'mystic deals/stuff available to everyone' is much more consistent with the 40k universe than the SW one.
Thinking about it, a role which obviously springs out would be to be the Commander. Older and more experienced. The kind with Opinions. Opinions which are Right. And the sooner Captain Babymilk stops crapping his diapers and starts taking the Opinions, the better off the Ship will be. ;)
However, the Commander is missing basic stuff like Hx and advancement (an opportunity to increase duty is basically a requirement), which would need to be done first.
-
That sounds like fun: dealing with the strong willed commander of my security force, who's a power in his own right aboard my ship while I try to fill dad's shoes and try to live the decadent lifestyle I dream of.
An interesting set-up for the Lord Captain. Or Lady Captain, I haven't decided yet. :) Where does the mystic warrior fit in? A witch or demon hunter maybe, either for the ship or as a passenger aboard? Or a mystical bodyguard to one of us, or possibly tutor? Sorry, I'm curious to find out who-all's aboard!
-
Soylent, I'm totally with you about how it works there. The specifics of how it will work for us will become apparent when we are in play! :)
I've fixed The Commander now. Will take care of Ship's Master next.
Smeg, I'm not totally sure about how Mystic Warrior fits into DG. Of course you can have it anyway, and we'll just rock and roll it. But still, is there any other playbook that draws your eye as well? Hierophant, maybe? That one can make a character quite similar to the Mystic Warrior.
-
Commander is looking good.
Questions:
1) Do the Heirophant move 'Advisor' and the Ship's Master's 'ask your officers' ability stack? (I would assume not, but thought I'd ask.)
2) The 'Armies and Military Forces' page seems to have completely different (and rather vague) army construction rules. Since you said Commander is finished, can you confirm we'd be using the rules on the Commander sheet? If so, what purpose is the Armies & Military Forces page?
3) The 'Your army is self-sufficient' option seems to be completely irrelevant now. It only removes 'vulnerable: breakdown'. You can only get that through the 'heavily dependant on a supply chain' disadvantage. All army modifiers are now 'add or remove one option', therefore you'd remove 'heavily dependant' rather than adding 'self-sufficient'. Correct?
4) Are you open to new/altered duties? Some seem less suitable, given our campaign/character concept. Example: replacing 'Raiding' with 'Reclaim lost areas (spoils/--/escaped monster!)'.
5) I'm presuming that once the character classes have been tidied up, you'll be tidying up(/translating) at least the moves of the other classes, to give us plenty of options. Correct? (*Whipcrack*.) ;)
Edit:
6) The crew numbers on the Ship Master page seem . . . sensible. For this to be truly 40k influenced, you need to take sensible numbers and multiply them by, well, 40k ;). The book itself says it's got a world-sized population (so, 6 billion or so?) and too big for anyone to know it all. 200 militia and a few thousand crewmen just doesn't sound nearly enough. FWIW.
Double edit: oh, wait. It also says a population of thousands. What world is that the population of? Pluto!?
-
Sure, I wasn't quite sure just how close to 40K lore you wanted to stick. ;ind you, in Dark Heresy you have the Templar Calix, which are pretty much Jedi as far as I can tell :)
But an obese Adept or a freaky Psyker could be good fun. The Hierophant too, though if we're not doing "real" 40K I'd be a bit for a loss as to just how the religion angle "works".
-
Soylent:
1) I'm not sure. It's basically a copy of the Quarantine's move Eager to know. I've put the question out on the forum.
2) The Armies doc is where I want to try and take it, just haven't finished updating the Commander because it is a hassle copy-pasting lists on the mobile. I wanted a bit more scalability, ranging from gangs/squads to armies.
3) Just didn't decide if dependency on a supply chain should be the default or an optional weakness. What do you think? If you look at it, is there a particular combination of options that you like that is only possible one way or the other?
4) Bring it on! We need more duties!
5) I might. But that's where my lack of interest in doing design work that's not immediately needed comes in. Basically, any playbook move from AW that makes sense is up for suggestion, possible adjusting and inclusion!
6) Yeah, I guess that's one point where the 'DG is not 40K' applies. The way I see it, a world with billions of people is not really a setting, gaming-wise, it's more like an endless collection of settings. I don't want the ship to be that. I want the ship-as-world to have factions that are people, not countries made up of thousands of factions themselves. So rather it's the other way around! This instead implies that in DG there are 'worlds' with as little as thousands, probably even hundreds, of people. Asteroids, space stations, colonies, surviving settlements on ruined worlds, etc.
However, I think I'll up it to tens of thousands, now that I think about it. :)
Smeg:
Both a Psyker or a Savant would be awesome as well, I think! (However, it's what you find awesome that counts, of course! :) Note that the Psyker is made to be able to work as a ship's Navigator if you want it to!
Re: the Hierophant, we'll take what the playbook implies or stipulates and move on from there! :)
-
1) Actually, kind of answering my own question, here http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=534.40;wap2 (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=534.40;wap2) is an (equivalent) answer.
2) Well, in the armies doc, you are aware that 'Elite is one size larger' advance seems useless until all 'command is one size larger' advances have been taken (given that, as written, increased command increases elites as well)?
3) Well, the general gist I was looking at was a large, mobile army of conscripts (other advantages spent improving the elites) who (probably) were able of hitting hard & fast, but couldn't maintain a long offensive (so, they did have breakdown). But this ran into other questions, like: does having another PC higher up in the command chain count as an 'Obligation'? Can I actually take 'large army', given the population of the ship we're in? Do non-'Small losses' scale according to the size of the army? (In other words, can a large army absorb non-small losses much easier than a small army?)
4+) Okay.
-
6) Yeah, I guess that's one point where the 'DG is not 40K' applies. The way I see it, a world with billions of people is not really a setting, gaming-wise, it's more like an endless collection of settings. I don't want the ship to be that. I want the ship-as-world to have factions that are people, not countries made up of thousands of factions themselves. So rather it's the other way around! This instead implies that in DG there are 'worlds' with as little as thousands, probably even hundreds, of people. Asteroids, space stations, colonies, surviving settlements on ruined worlds, etc.
However, I think I'll up it to tens of thousands, now that I think about it. :)
I think tens of thousands sounds about right. I always too the big as worlds thing to be hyperbole anyway, and even in 40k a ship with billions aboard would seem over the top. I could see millions for the biggest vessels, but that's it. And, obviously, the Ship's Master is unlikely to have the biggest ship around.
It's an interesting point of contention between the two influences, now that I look at it. For Apocalypse World style gaming, everything should be personal. For 40k, the major players are personal, and supported by teeming nameless hordes. It'll be interesting to see how the balance works out in play!
-
Yeah, I guess there is no reason not to let them add up. It's not certain the answers will overlap in such a sitch anyway. :)
Soylent, take a look at the commander now and say what you think!
I would assume that obligations would be to someone outside of the ship's master's and your control. Because that seems more fun!
I think the image of a ship where your troop contingent is as large as all the rest of the population together is hella cool!
What small losses mean will be entirely contextual, of course, but you can generally assume that it means smaller than if you didn't pick that option, since it is supposedly a good one.
It's an interesting point of contention between the two influences, now that I look at it. For Apocalypse World style gaming, everything should be personal. For 40k, the major players are personal, and supported by teeming nameless hordes. It'll be interesting to see how the balance works out in play!
Yes, that is a very interesting aspect of playing with this hack, I think.
-
I think the image of a ship where your troop contingent is as large as all the rest of the population together is hella cool!
That's going to make for an interesting command dynamic, to say the least! :)
-
Firstly, you seem (though I could be wrong) to have it in your head that I was asking about whether 'Advisor' and 'Ask your subordinates' stacked with 'read a situation'. I wasn't. I was asking if they stacked with *each other*. Because they are *always* the same circumstance, just from 2 different directions. (Asker asks, answerer answers honestly, asker gets +1 ongoing, answerer gets xp).
Troop numbers could equal the rest of the populace, but remember, for all that we don't have a planet's population, we do have a closed ecosystem. We need banks, shops, restaurants, firemen, farmers (in some form), etc. in addition to gunners, engineers, manufactory workers, etc. Equal numbers would equal a serious strain on the economic ecosystem. (Sure, handwavium. But thought I'd point it out.)
Right, not sure if you got my point, so I'll illustrate by way of an example. Two different commanders, A and B, are fighting an identical size 7 force. Commander A has a size 9 force. B has a size 6. Both are commanding from behind the lines.
Using battle commander, commander A doesn't appear to be at any advantage - they're still just rolling 'status'. Actually, if casualties are determined percentage wise, so let's say they suffer 10% casualties if 'Losses are small' and 30% if they're not, commander A is actually at a disadvantage, losing roughly 30 times as many men (absolute numbers) as commander B for the same result.
This is why I was asking if losses 'scale' according to the size - if so, having a larger army is an asset if you're fighting on the front lines and a liability when you're commanding from behind, because you need so many more replacements after a battle.
As for what I think about Commander, a few points spring up:
1) It is mechanically consistent, but logically impossible, for a force to be both well trained (+1 harm) and untrained (+unprofessional). (As distinct from mobile/grounded, where the narratively opposed elements are mechanically opposed as well). Not a *problem*, but slightly odd.
2) The new arrangement makes the elite squad much less prominent. The difference between elites and command is twofold: +1 harm, and better upgrades.
There is an option for the command to get +1 harm (and it is unclear if that affects the elite or not), which in one move makes them better overall than elites can ever be (assuming that each step in army size is equivalent to one step in gang size mechanically).
Also, you can have an absolute maximum, after all upgrades, of 5 positive things. After spending all bar 1 on all the elite upgrades, you have a 4-harm, 3-armour, 5-company, which isn't actually that impressive.
Personally (and feel free to ignore this), I'd start off the elites with the great equipment (so, 4-harm, 3-armour, 3-squad) and have the upgrades give them otherwise-inaccessible tags that give them a use - to do cool stuff that the main army can't do.
Examples:
Your elites are ghosts, able to enter and exit anywhere. +infiltrators.
Your elites are sharp-eyed master scouts. If there's an advantage, they'll find it. +scouting.
Your elites are experts at identifying and taking out enemy leaders, leaving them disorganised before the fight even starts. +assassins.
There's probably some overlap there, but you get the idea.
3) What effect does 'unprofessional' actual have?
-
Soylent, good points!
Yes, you're right, i did misunderstand about the stacking moves. The answer, I think, is that they do stack. If you have one person who is great at giving advice, and one person who is great at acting on others' advice, then the result is like fire and gasoline, as someone put it in a thread about the Quarantine! (You can get the exact combo of moves with a Quarantine and a Savvyhead.)
You're right about the strain on the ship's ecosystem, as well, but it's a feature, not a bug. It is a perfect reason for the Ship's Master to take the Ravenous option for her ship!
Right, not sure if you got my point, so I'll illustrate by way of an example. Two different commanders, A and B, are fighting an identical size 7 force. Commander A has a size 9 force. B has a size 6. Both are commanding from behind the lines.
Using battle commander, commander A doesn't appear to be at any advantage - they're still just rolling 'status'. Actually, if casualties are determined percentage wise, so let's say they suffer 10% casualties if 'Losses are small' and 30% if they're not, commander A is actually at a disadvantage, losing roughly 30 times as many men (absolute numbers) as commander B for the same result.
This is why I was asking if losses 'scale' according to the size - if so, having a larger army is an asset if you're fighting on the front lines and a liability when you're commanding from behind, because you need so many more replacements after a battle.
Yeah, I think I get your question, but it's hard to answer because it comes from a different direction than the philosophy of the rules here. Here's how I see it:
When you lead from the front, and seize an objective by force, with your command around you, that move gives you numbers on what kind of harm you and your people take. It is based on the enemy force's harm stat and adjusted by size difference, your guys' armor and of your choices from the move's options.
When you lead from the rear, with your guys out there without you, then they are at the mercy of your loving MC. And I'm looking at them through crosshairs. Like any other violence going on between NPCs, I will let you know how it goes. However, through your guidance from afar and this move, you can instruct me to go easy on them. And if you do, I will, because that's the rules. Exactly what that means is, as I said earlier, entirely contextual.
Of course, when I inflict harm, I do it as established, and it is well established that a larger force suffers less harm against an enemy force than a smaller one does. It's just not resolved using percentages. (See more in the rules about gangs and harm, beginning on page 168, and how they count fatalities as a few, several, many, etc.)
1) It is mechanically consistent, but logically impossible, for a force to be both well trained (+1 harm) and untrained (+unprofessional). (As distinct from mobile/grounded, where the narratively opposed elements are mechanically opposed as well). Not a *problem*, but slightly odd.
Nah, it's not that odd, I think. If you would take both those options, I would assume that they are well-trained in killing enemies, but untrained in maintaining discipline and coherency and generally not breaking or deserting when things go south. I looked at changing the wording, but I didn't think of anything better, so I think I'll let it stand.
2) The new arrangement makes the elite squad much less prominent. The difference between elites and command is twofold: +1 harm, and better upgrades.
There is an option for the command to get +1 harm (and it is unclear if that affects the elite or not), which in one move makes them better overall than elites can ever be (assuming that each step in army size is equivalent to one step in gang size mechanically).
Your assumption about harm is correct, but I don't agree that bigger is better, when we speak of these things. You can't take your regiment into a house as bodyguard, or send them to infiltrate an enemy position. For that you want a crack squad.
You have good suggestions here, about the elite, but I have rearranged things a bit now in a different way. I put supply dependence back in as default for the command in it's entirety (remembering the old idea that logistics win wars, not bullets) and given the elite unit the creatively named tag "elite", meaning they more or less don't break under the pressure of casualties. Also see the option of having only your elite unit. For those time when you want a space marine company!
Oh, yeah, unprofessional means that it takes less casualties to break them, and that they tend to desert when things are bad for a long time.
Remind me if I missed to address something now!
-
The key part of your answer that answers the thrust of my question was this:
The difference in size influences the base 'harm as established'.
Which is fair enough. It just wasn't particularly clear to me just on reading the move.
Okay, the elite tag makes a big difference there.
I'm trying to decide between having a massive army of conscripts that I constantly feed into the meatgrinder, or a small pure-elite group. Thing with the elite group is I'm having difficulty choosing a second disadvantage: savage and unruly don't fit with a well-disciplined group (no, I don't have Blood Angels), and I don't want obligation. So: would you consider a disadvantage along the lines of 'High maintenance'? It means that the hold you get from duty is worth less relatively (as replacing this expensive kit and elite troops is harder than 'normal' stuff). Although the current exchange rate is fairly vague - what does '1 for 1' actually mean in this context?
Edit: Actually, the more I think of it, the more I disagree with the remote command options for 'Battle Commander'. Well, one of them. Currently, it is very possible to completely and definitely achieve the objective with low casualties and still lose the respect of your commander or men. To my reasoning, the respect of your men should depend on the number of casualties, the respect of your commanders on if you definitely achieve the objective. Also, as a minor point, 'you don't miss something important' assumes there always is something important to miss, which is stretching probability rather. I can't help but think making it more directly equivalent to 'sieze by force' might be an idea:
10+: choose 2. 7-9: choose 1
Definitely achieve objectives.
Take few casualties
Inflict enough casualties to shatter enemy morale
Or something like that. Maybe less direct. But current results seem . . . odd.
-
I changed the default vulnerability to supply crisis, and put in a high maintenance vulnerable: breakdowns instead.
I haven't seen duty in play, so all that with hold is a draft that we will try out (my own commander character hasn't had any downtime since he changed from trooper to commander!), so I guess we'll find out if will be unclear when we get there. I think it will work itself out, like spare parts for your broken down vehicles costing one hold, replenishing the ranks with recruits costing another, fresh base supplies another, and so on. Spending hold for bonuses would probably be about anything from parading your troops through the streets to impress the ruler you want to manipulate, to getting the advantage of having scouted out or otherwise preparing the area you enter in force.
There is something I know I want with commanding from the rear that isn't in your version, but I can't put my finger on it. I'll put your alternative in there as well, and keep thinking (and talking) about it. That allright? (These things usually work themselves out in actual play.)
-
Vulnerable:breakdown implies more 'unreliable' than 'high maintenance' to me, but I'm happy enough to go with it - they're using cutting edge tech, which still has little 'niggles' in it. Works for me.
Talking of duties, there seem to be two kinds. Let's call them 'home' and 'away'. For the purposes of the campaign, 'home' is the ship, while 'away' is 'while the force is warring on the ground'. For example, law enforcement and border patrols only make sense at home. Raiding and scouting only make sense when away.
Given that duties come about during downtime, how likely is it that 'away' duties will come up? And the rules suggest you need to pick 3 and stick to them. Wouldn't it make more sense to freely choose dependant on circumstances, so you aren't stuck attempting to enforce law on a jungle populated solely with orks.
I'm fine with continuing the discussion on Battle Commander. I do appreciate my version is fairly minimalist.
Finally, why would you ever choose a bolt pistol over a plasma pistol? My experience as a gunlugger tells me that AP is *hugely* powerful. I feel the plasma pistol should have something like 'cooldown' (reload), or 'overheats' (1 harm AP on miss when using it) to make a boltpistol useful.
-
The way I think about breakdowns is that they are the consequence of you stuff not being maintained highly enough. Exactly what that means in your case is something I'm looking forward to finding out from you in play! :)
I agree about the tasks. Let's have you pick your tasks from time to time.
Good idea about the plasma pistol. Let's give it reload.
I say, let's have you write down your choices from your playbooks, even if Smeg is still undecided. I'm eager! As you can see I haven't made name lists, so pick something you like. And some titles you think are cool as well. I need a name for the ship as well, and your email addresses!
-
Sure. The disadvantage I was suggesting was more along the lines of 'pricey', where it cost 2-hold from duty to replace lost people/materiel rather than 1, since they're difficult to replace, but I'm happy enough with breakdown.
As for choices, well, I think ideas might change as we bounce ideas off each other. But my thoughts for now:
Gender: Male (I picture him as looking similar to Admiral Adama from (new) Battlestar Galactica)
Name: Silon Venris (Oh come on, after deciding they looked like Adama, on seeing the name 'Silon', how could I not?)
Scarred body, tired face (yes, I swapped the adjectives around. Okay?), judging eyes, worn uniform.
Cool+1, hard-1, sharp+1, status+2, twisted -1
Basically, I'm picturing someone who was once the terror of the battlefield, and now age, arthritis, old wounds and other sundry medical problems have worn them down, so they are held together with medicines, willpower and force of habit.
Noble rank: Lord (unlanded)
Military rank: Commander
Ship role: Chief of security
Duties:
Law Enforcement
Border patrols (of secure areas on the ship)
Investigations (mutineers, traitors, chaos worshippers, etc.)
[Escort-to get]
Gear
Power sword
Las Pistol
Power armour
Command
Now, as you've probably guessed, I've spent quite a lot of time thinking about this, but I have finally decided:
I am chief of security.
The ship is about more than just ferrying my personal army from war to war.
Therefore, a small, elite force makes a lot more sense than a massive army.
But, I have a question: does power armour inhibit stealth, or is the increased bulk and weight offset by inbuilt stealth technology?
So:
Command can transport itself swiftly (Jetpacks! Pleeeease?) +mobile
Well equipped (+1 harm)
Elite is power armoured (3-armour)
Only elite
High maintenance (Vulnerable: breakdown)
4-harm 3-armour elite 4-platoon (25-60 troops) +mobile +vulnerable:breakdown
[Yes, I have basically all but made assault marines.]
Their name:
Carrion Crows, after the story that crows flock to where there is about to be mass bloodshed.
If you are okay with the +mobile being jetbacks, can I get one as well; or do I need to give something up to do so?
So, there we go. First draft.
-
I like your character! :) Security chief is cool.
Okay, so this is all open to change. Particularly, SoylentWhite's post came up as I was finishing this - I was expecting a bigger military force aboard when I picked Military Power as something the ship traded in. But there's no reason we can't trade in force despite the small army! Assault troops are a premium resource, I guess.
Also, a small question arises - we have the Security Commander with his assault platoon. Ship's Master gives me a militia of my own, and a security force too. How are we going to work that? The security force is easy, that's my private bodyguard - theoretically the elite, but... :) However, the militia seems odd in this context, any ideas?
Here's my draft character:
Lady-Captain the Honourable Penelope Carver
Mistress of the Glorious Bringer of His Light
Looks: a woman with burning eyes, a striking face and an athletic body, wearing extravagant accoutrements.
Stats: Cool +1, Hard -1, Sharp +1, Status +2 Twisted 0
I’m thinking a young woman, raised as a decadent noble with lots of money and no responsibility far from the ship. On Father’s death, turns out to inherit (against the expectations of the rest of his scheming family, but the prime contenders killed each other off) and has taken command.
Gear: Power Sabre
Domain: the Glorious Bringer of His Light trades in Military Power, Transportation and Secrets.
4-harm, huge, 2-armour
Ship is huge, and well-armed. It is also Ravenous.
Specials: ancient, enigmatic, posh.
Most Trusted Officer: Felix van Ermien, ship’s pilot
Most Valuable Officer: Gerard Oleanth, purser of the ship’s treasury
Most Worrying Officer: Can I put SoylentWhite’s character here? :)
Biggest Threat to the domain? The other claimants to my father’s estate, who feel they should inherit over his daughter.
-
What makes sense to me, given that (a) I'm likely to increase the command size to 6-battalion eventually (300-1,500) and (b) for an old guy, I'll be improving fairly rapidly, is that the elite force *was* battalion size.
Something (what? It's a mystery!) happened, and the former captain took command of the forces and led them to a horrendous defeat where we suffered horrific casualties and I was wounded (and him killed), and while the harm has healed, I'm still getting back up to speed.
That explains (a) how the former captain died. (b) why we trade in military force. (c) How I can be so old and improve so fast. (d) how we have capacity for the forces to be arriving.
As this impacts on your ship and character, feel free to veto/amend this, but thought I'd suggest it.
Your security force acting as your bodyguard is basically pointing a massive finger at me saying you either don't trust me to do my job well, or you think I'll betray you. You can totally do that, but be aware there will be friction between the groups as well as the characters.
The militia is just a militia - it's the crewmen who know which end of a gun goes 'bang'. They just get drafted in when there are riots, otherwise they do their normal jobs.
A few things to perhaps consider:
1) What happened to your mother (I suggest either still alive, or only relatively recently deceased.)
2) How strong *is* your claim to the ship? Is it simply you were here first, or are you the oldest? The one named in his will?
3) Why wouldn't you have been raised on the ship?
-
What makes sense to me, given that (a) I'm likely to increase the command size to 6-battalion eventually (300-1,500) and (b) for an old guy, I'll be improving fairly rapidly, is that the elite force *was* battalion size.
Something (what? It's a mystery!) happened, and the former captain took command of the forces and led them to a horrendous defeat where we suffered horrific casualties and I was wounded (and him killed), and while the harm has healed, I'm still getting back up to speed.
That explains (a) how the former captain died. (b) why we trade in military force. (c) How I can be so old and improve so fast. (d) how we have capacity for the forces to be arriving.
As this impacts on your ship and character, feel free to veto/amend this, but thought I'd suggest it.
Looks good to me!
Your security force acting as your bodyguard is basically pointing a massive finger at me saying you either don't trust me to do my job well, or you think I'll betray you. You can totally do that, but be aware there will be friction between the groups as well as the characters.
I would think that having a squad of guards personally loyal to the captain would be appropriate in setting, and not a big insult, though I can certainly see how it would rub the Security Chief the wrong way. Also, of course, given Father's mysterious death, Lady Penelope will try not to rely too much on even the trustworthy old guard - even though you took a hit in the Incident, I won't be able to completely trust the security team that let Father die.
I'd expect rivalry and friction to result, of course :) part of the fun!
The militia is just a militia - it's the crewmen who know which end of a gun goes 'bang'. They just get drafted in when there are riots, otherwise they do their normal jobs.
A few things to perhaps consider:
1) What happened to your mother (I suggest either still alive, or only relatively recently deceased.)
2) How strong *is* your claim to the ship? Is it simply you were here first, or are you the oldest? The one named in his will?
3) Why wouldn't you have been raised on the ship?
1) Mother I hadn't considered. I will think about her, but my first instinct is to have her back home on the planet Lady Penelope grew up, anxiously waiting for word.
2) I think that the good claimants fought over the inheritance, and are dead or indisposed. I am a lesser child, but distantly loved by Father, and is technically the rightful heir (after Father's siblings and older children got themselves killed). Wait - better! I'#m not a legitimate child, so there is some dispute as to the status of my claim even though the old Lord-Captain acknowledged her as his daughter and heir. How does that sound?
3) Because I'm a child by a lover who lived on a planet the ship came past every once in a while. The Lord-Captain loved Mother dearly, and spent a lot of time with her when he was on-planet. And very much enjoyed his infrequent visits with me, too. But Mother was too important on her world to leave, and Father had his other lovers and wife to keep him happy while he was away. I was never seen as a real part of his dynasty, except (according to his surprising will) by him.
-
There's a good argument that the squad of guards loyal to the captain is the primary duty of the Security Chief.
That will be made. Repeatedly. ;)
If you're going to be an illegitimate daughter, you *have* to have your father's actual wife be alive and still on board the ship. There are no excuses (beyond doing the probably sensible thing and offing her as soon as you get on board). ;)
Edit: I should point out that when I suggested killing the widow of a recently-deceased, well-loved captain during the time you are trying to consolidate power as being a *sensible* idea, that was sarcasm. Realised it possibly wasn't clear.
-
This looks awesome! I've shared a folder for you in google docs now. Every doc in it will have the same sharing settings, so you don't need to share new docs when you make them and put them there. I hope you are okay with a first name basis, but if you prefer your forum alias, just change it in the doc.
I love your ideas about your characters and relations, but for the record I see specifics of what you have said here to be speculations about how it might be. Only what is on your sheets and what we see and state in-game becomes actual fact.
Soylent, of course it's okay to swap the adjectives! :) And, yeah, I prefer vulnerable: breakdowns for various reasons. For one, the hold economy in this case is so loose, I don't want to fiddle with it in that way, while the tag is something I know works well for this kind of stuff.
If you say you have jetpacks, I'm sure you do! But I would also assume that your 'mobile' means you have something like assault shuttles and troop transports under your direct command, on top of that. You know, for when jetpacks don't have the range covered.
Also, if you say your power armor is stealthy, I'm sure it is! I'd say it is still tagged with 'bulky' though, because of their size. If that's cool with you.
-
Un update about the Commander's gigs. You have your designated tasks (after all, that's what duty is about, right?), but they will change as soon as fictional circumstances make them.
Also, small changes to the gear. Advanced on laspistol was just a copy-paste error, for example.
-
I am thinking a corpulent, pale and unpleasant Navigator called Nostronox or something. A nasty little man who has a thing for getting into peoples heads to feel their feelings, as he doesn't really feel much himself. Some sort of trauma in his past made him all dead inside, and now unable to feel himself he preys on others emotions when possible.
A psyker who can mess with peoples heads is useful to have around, and if he hadn't been useful and protected by the guild I'm sure he wouldn't have been tolerated onboard for very long.
Perhaps the Captain (or the commander) actually managed to scare him once, and now he follows them around as much as possible, doing as they command or request, just hoping that he may cause another emotional outbreak.
Whaddaya think? Doable? Fits with the others? (Well, "fit in" is not the word. Compatible with the game?)
-
Sounds cool! But I suggest you keep an open mind about the specifics of who he is, on a deeper level, so you can discover and connect with those things in-game!
So, make a new doc, put it in the shared folder, and write down your choices from the playbook's options. And shout out with any questions, either here or there!
-
Just how would one use Take someones will, anyway? It seems like all it does is give the ability to hurt someone, not make them want to do something.
Is it used as leverage then, to force them to obey or face pain?
-
I haven't actually seen it in action, myself, but to me it looks pretty straightforward. It's more powerful against NPCs, obviously, since 1 or 2 harm is life-threatening to them, but I'd say generally that you want to use it to command people to do things they would rather accept than face incapacitation for refusing.
Don't forget that you can use the Read a person question "how can I get your character to..." to find out how far you can push your thralls.
Also, just to mention it, I can't take any credit for the move's design, since it is from the core Brainer playbook of AW proper.
-
I like the look of Nostronox :)
If you go for the idea of having been scared by one of us, then I'll remind you that Penelope hasn't been aboard her ship long - it might fit better with Silon.
As for tolerating him aboard, what are our options? Navigators are rare and vital, if we lose this one, who knows where we'd get another or what they'd be like.