Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: Selyuna on August 17, 2010, 07:54:18 AM
-
I have a question about "When a gang suffers harm".
One of my fronts is a warlord and he has a gang. I treat this gang as a part of "warlord threat", right? Let's say its 3-harm large 2-armor.
One of my PC (funlugger, ofc) attacked some of the gang members, there is not a whole gang present, so let's say it's 3-harm small 2-armor (about 10+ people).
My question is - who is considered a leader of that gang? A warlord itself (in fiction, leader of the holding)?
Or maybe it's NPC who was introduced as a sergeant and warlord's second in command, and is present in the scene?
-
Good question. I'd like to hear the 'official' take on it, but here's what I think:
I don't know if the text specifies any "chain of command" rules, however I would think it'd be reasonable to implement some kind of situation where you could have "sub-leaders". The easiest method would to make anyone not the leader, a weak leader.
That way, the gang doesn't suffer the consequences of having both a weak leader and an absent leader if they have a "sub-leader" there.
-
Well, the situation in fiction (session I'm MCing) is: first, there was said that this NPC is a sergeant and warlord's second in command. And some time later PC decided to revisit him and attack him. I think it would be reasonable, if he will be a "temporary" leader, but I can be wrong, right?
-
Well, the situation in fiction (session I'm MCing) is: first, there was said that this NPC is a sergeant and warlord's second in command. And some time later PC decided to revisit him and attack him. I think it would be reasonable, if he will be a "temporary" leader, but I can be wrong, right?
I'd say go with what the fiction tells you. If it makes sense for him to be the leader of that gang, he's the leader.
-
Yeah, if the second in command has a hold over the overs, if they listen to what he or she says, then she can act as a leader. Do what honesty and your prep demands. I think what would be wrong here would be if the gunlugger attacks some random goons, separated from the leader, and you're like, "Oh but uh... one of them works as a leader for them even though they're just a bunch of goons! Yeah! That's the ticket!"
-
I think what would be wrong here would be if the gunlugger attacks some random goons, separated from the leader, and you're like, "Oh but uh... one of them works as a leader for them even though they're just a bunch of goons! Yeah! That's the ticket!"
Well, naturally I don't want to do things like this!
But in the first scene my NPC Dork was introduced, funlugger visited him and I described Dork as a sergeant, working for Foster (NPC, leader of the holding). I said Dork's job include stuff like leading members of the gang; I mean, in a fight / battle.
Now, in the fight scene, we have funlugger, Dork and some gangers. I think it's crystal clear that Dork will lead them.
My point is, this rule about gang fights refers to gang leader. If it's a PC - chopper, hardholder, other characters that bought a gang as an improvement - it's all clear. it's their gang, they are leading it (with "pack alpha" or "leadership").
But when a gang consists all of NPC, and this gang is a part of "warlord" threat. The leader of the gang can be anyone. Fiction in the first place.
-
A gang can have multiple leaders in a hierarchy. Take out Dork, for instance, and the gang goes from strong, present leader to absent leader, because leadership of the gang reverts back to the warlord.