Hello all,

I would like to raise a topic about fronts, specifically grotesques.

First off, can grotesques be more than one person? and if so how many can they be approximately? In my waterworld game, I have this good idea for a place filled with desperate ship-wreck survivors who've had to resort to cannibalism, but I am unable to decide whether they should be multiple cannibal grotesques or just a hunting pack set of brutes, who happen to also be cannibals. 

Second, what is a mindfucker per se?

Other than that I am interested to hear other people's examples of grotesques that they have had in their games, I've already got one in my game who collects peoples skin and stitches it onto his own body as a way of remembrance, so I'd be enthused if people could donate their bizarre creations for all to see or the best ways they can have used the "put them in someone's path, part of someone's day or life" move.

Its a very powerful combo with probably only the pain grenade with it innately (and even then that only does one damage), but I do believe that the Gunlugger can also have it if they have an area weapon and then take the ap rounds upgrade.

Go Aggro applies and fit very well the function is just to do damage, effectively it just becomes;

When you Go Aggro trying to snipe someone, Roll + hard
On a 10+ they take your weapons harm or a injury you name (up to and including death)
On a 7-9
• get the hell out of your way
• barricade themselves securely in
• give you something they think you want
• back off calmly, hands where you can see
• tell you what you want to know (or what you want to hear)
• + the 10+ options

As you can see, in that representation unless the GM wants you to succeed then you need a ten plus to really do the business. Sniping is hard but in some respects it should be hard, sometimes it is a very anticlimatic way of dealing with problems in games which can rob games of novelty and it can be a very dispassionate way of dealing with problems which in some respects is counter-productive to building up drama and narrative.

And if it was me GMing then I would probably tack a act under fire afterwards if it seemed appropriate to get away without being caught/spotted/discovered.

Hello,

Act under fire is a solid move that does apply to alot of situations, notably useful as a catch all for any task that requires a roll but doesn't fall under the others (for things like stealth or movement or simple tasks done under duress), although I wouldn't say that its the most important one as you will suffer in some way from the absence of any of the basic moves.

If you are trying to shoot someone then it either comes under Go aggro or seize by force; Go aggro if they are unable or unwilling to defend themselves with violence and seize by force if they are willing to fight back. To better phrase it, if you are trying to just flat kill someone and they can't/won't stop you then effectively you demand a unfair request i.e I want you to die choking on your own blood or take the harm I am capable of dealing. If on the other hand its a straight up fight then its a seize by force, in theory you could try and seize something intangible like 'victory' but I've found its useful to try and steer players towards tangible goals "Take the bunker." "drive them from behind the rubble" "force a rout" or something but if you are just looking to disdain fictional advantages in favour of a straight brawl then you would just disdain the "you take definite hold of it" in favour of the other options that allow you to do more/take less damage until the other side withdraws or falls over.

Several moves don't need to used and are active all the time; alot of the stat boost ones, like 'insano like draino' or 'fucking wacknut', are just straight boosts that the character adds onto their stats in effect trading a move slot for a stat option. If it doesn't say they need to activated, typically by the crucial 'When', then its active all the time.

Hope that helps.

I like the Arrears mechanic alot, its a good way of bring in the problems fairly (which you were correct in saying was a problem) as it would be probably mostly voluntary; you would have to choose not to pay your bills or to take more crew options than your network supported.

I'm glad you like the idea. :)

I agree, less options but some options with higher/lower balances is probably a good idea, I was thinking about it later and what occurred to me was that there was all these nice crew options that people wouldn't be able to take unless they wanted to be heavily out of balance (just to have +1 sum balance you would have to take 3 barter paying ones and then you would only get one crew option of five )
So maybe add on like another wealth one, say obligation like you suggested, and have 3 +1's, 2 +2's

Whilst its something to be aware of, I'm not certain that a playbook should be designed with end-level characters jumping into it from others in mind but rather give a good progression for the playbook they are in till it reaches the end.

I have no problem with Obligations as an option, I was, rather ambiguously, referring to obligation gigs and options which were purely detrimental

So how about this as the new example:

Businessman -
As long as you can pay the upkeep, you get the services of your network for the session. If your balance is positive then you get that much Barter at the start of the session. If a component of your network becomes contested then remove its balance till it is no longer contested.

By default, your network is few goons willing to do your bidding, who know the area well and the people in it. Balance -1 barter

Pick 4 [this number can change] options from the list below:
[ / don't indicate fractions but 2 possible values for that option]

• You've got an understanding with the local warlord (Jonathan) that you're the gatekeeper of something necessary, like food, medicine, services or gear and he'll allow you leeway when it comes to dealing with 'problems' as long as he gets his cut. Balance -1.
• You've got three no-nonsense enforcers (Vega, Anders and Ezekiel) who know how to rough someone up and get them to play how you want. Balance - 1/2.
• You've got a F***ing psycho (Soap) on hand who is good at taking people out and getting away with it too, but his services don't come cheap. Balance -2/3.
• You've got a front or a patsy (Quentin) who is your public face, if there's attempt on you, as if they would dare, or your rep goes down the toilet; he'll take the bullet for you but he demands the highlife till that day comes. Balance -1.
• You make sure to keep a looming threat sweet so that they won't come after you and steer clear of messing with your ventures. Balance -1.
• Your network has transportation options; Vehicle/s and associated drivers, enough to carry your goons + more. Balance -1.
  
  
• You've got a rare contact (Milk) for something luxe or rare, like weapons, drugs, or transportation but they expect your protection, direct or indirect [by which I mean if you can leverage someone else into doing it then thats good too], when they need it. Balance +1
• You've got most of the local merchants or premises paying you 'protection' but if one of them steps outta line you gotta hammer them down before the others get ideas. Balance +2 [bumped this up because of the likely strong pc blowback]
• You've got a real whiz, maybe a mechanic (Grass) or a sawbones (Key) in your pocket who passes you a share of the profits as long as you help them out with their little indiscretion (it's not so little) and make sure it stays your little secret. Balance +1.
• You're the backer of a pimp or madame (Dust) and their primo tail (Grace, June, Frost), set of dealers (Badger, Jez, Combo) or some other quasi-legal venture who give you a slice of the action but keep attracting the attention of the big fish around. Balance +2/3.
• You owe the local warlord (Dog head) your obligation, he pays you for your services, but he expects them how and when he needs them. Balance +1.

End Example

So like how to do hard moves is pretty well defined; when a player misses a roll, or when a well established setup isn't acted against, right?

But when you guys are Mc'ing how frequently do you guys do soft or prep moves? the playbook recommendation is 'when ever there is a pause in the conversation and the players look to you to say something' and that combined with the way things are portrayed in Moves snowball is kind of to me whenever there is a lull in the tension or when the pc's are doing something that isn't a move or leading up to one. But I am earnest to hear you guy's thoughts as well?