1
AW:Dark Age / Re: Rank
« on: March 03, 2014, 03:54:39 PM »
It's a choice on the playbooks.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
3
AW:Dark Age / Re: Welcome
« on: March 03, 2014, 02:43:05 PM »Quote
If you're looking for a real departure, not a more modest development, you'll be disappointed.
It definitely has a different feel than AW. It's more of a departure than I expected!
4
AW:Dark Age / First Thoughts: Fates
« on: March 03, 2014, 02:26:24 PM »
Love the Fates as a damage track. Really awesome stuff. Not entirely sure how Player Fates tie to the fiction, but I could probably make a guess. Probably need a term for Player Fates so people can refer to them separately from other kinds of Fates.
Group Fates seem weak. My gut says that group dissolution should be an option here. Groups fall apart and rout before they all die.
Group Fates seem weak. My gut says that group dissolution should be an option here. Groups fall apart and rout before they all die.
5
Apocalypse World / Re: New hardhold from new playbook
« on: November 14, 2010, 07:23:09 PM »
There is, but it's for character creation. The special advances break all kinds of "rules," so it's not clear that I can't duplicate a playbook.
But as I said, the players at the table want to see if Ebb can create a better world (well, hold) after criticizing Kava for running her hold so awfully, so we want two Hardholders.
But as I said, the players at the table want to see if Ebb can create a better world (well, hold) after criticizing Kava for running her hold so awfully, so we want two Hardholders.
6
Apocalypse World / New hardhold from new playbook
« on: November 11, 2010, 03:12:31 PM »
So Ebb, my operator, just took the "choose a new playbook" option to become a hardholder. Two questions. Daniel Levine (MC) and I could probably come to reasonable conclusions but it's useful to get some outside opinions.
1. Is this kosher even though there's already another Hardholder in the group?
We're likely going to do it anyway, even if the answer is 'no.' It makes sense for this game. Ebb confronted Kava (the existing hardholder) about how shitty a job she was doing running things, offered to take over the leadership, and when she said she wouldn't feel safe unless she was in charge cuz she wasn't convinced Ebb could protect her, Ebb said he'd go start his own hold and prove to her he could do things better. So it makes sense for our story to have two hardholders.
2. Should Ebb's new hardhold use the regular Hardholder creation rules? or the nerfed gang rules?
The nerfed gang rules seem to be for the weaker "you get a hold and a gang" advancement move, not the full-on "you become a fucking hardholder" advancement move. But I'm biased. What y'all think? I couldn't find anything particular in the rules to say either way.
In any case, I'm excited to prove that there's a better way. Even if Ebb dies trying.
1. Is this kosher even though there's already another Hardholder in the group?
We're likely going to do it anyway, even if the answer is 'no.' It makes sense for this game. Ebb confronted Kava (the existing hardholder) about how shitty a job she was doing running things, offered to take over the leadership, and when she said she wouldn't feel safe unless she was in charge cuz she wasn't convinced Ebb could protect her, Ebb said he'd go start his own hold and prove to her he could do things better. So it makes sense for our story to have two hardholders.
2. Should Ebb's new hardhold use the regular Hardholder creation rules? or the nerfed gang rules?
The nerfed gang rules seem to be for the weaker "you get a hold and a gang" advancement move, not the full-on "you become a fucking hardholder" advancement move. But I'm biased. What y'all think? I couldn't find anything particular in the rules to say either way.
In any case, I'm excited to prove that there's a better way. Even if Ebb dies trying.
Pages: [1]