A horror is an unnatural creature - something inherently inhuman or inhumane. It either exists on the periphery of reality, barely understood, or its presence suggests profane and aberrant mutation, and more horrors to come.
- Beast (impulse: to hunt and feed)
- Progenitor (impulse: to breed)
- Butcher (impulse: to slaughter)
- Mockery (impulse: to sow turmoil/bedlam)
- Magpie (impulse: to steal and hoard valuables)
- Flood (impulse: to spread and claim territory)

Threat moves for horrors:
- push opening your brain
- display evidence of its inhuman nature
- attack suddenly, during a moment of calm or rest
- attack silently and/or without emotion
- leave behind evidence of brutality/savagery
- defy someone?s expectations
- snatch someone into it?s clutches
- seize space/something/someone and hold it
- maim or cripple someone
- destroy someone, transforming their nature

A horror threat should always be foreshadowed. Foreshadowing should be simple and easy to follow, but doesn't have to be believable.
I wrote this because I have often wanted to include monsters in some of my games. We played a campaign that included a zombie apocalypse and the regular threat types in the rulebook didn't always seem appropriate for what we were doing. I'll probably expand upon this more later.

No takers?

I'm just seeing this thread now. Without reading all the responses here, I *have* had this happen in a game. The player thought maybe he could just finesse taking over a hold without taking the associated improvement, and I never told him he couldn't make the attempt, but I did make it explicitly clear that he would not get barter from being in charge until he took the move ("What honesty demands"). Basically, I treated the whole thing as an invitation to make new threats, it was a lot of fun and I spent a great deal of time looking through crosshairs and responding with fuckery and intermittent rewards.

For example, he can say he's in charge, and if he's got a big gun people will be pushed around face-to-face, but as soon as he would leave the populace would plot against him and actively undermine his authority. He got fed up and started bombing buildings (he was a Driver with an APC) and that's when an open revolt occurred. By the end of it he took the improvement, but his holding had been decimated - mostly by him - so I told him he'd either have to have a small population or make his gang +savage. I forget what he took, but he spent the rest of the game regretting the rebellion he created.

Hey! I made a legal-size trifold version, here is a link

Apart from the Driver's sex move, there is nothing inherently "loner" or "I don't like being tied down" in the Driver playbook. If a Driver never has sex, they can be committed to anything and anyone they choose.

Sorry, further comments in the other thread since it was there first.

The Driver has lost their "thing" - they used to be a badass behind the whell of any vehicle but now they feel like the most generic of playbooks.

I'm not seeing a lot of reasons in this thread for what makes the Driver so special - using the rules themselves.
"The Driver is mobile"
"The Driver is a loner"
"The Driver makes the world larger"
These are unique perspectives based on what people played and how they interpret the playbook, but not how the playbook is written.

I've got a Driver in one of my current games and he has literally never left the town he started in and he has spent all his time putting down roots and making a name for himself. Every single thing people define Drivers as in this thread is refuted by this one player (who has also never played AW before and so he's not coming to the game with baggage or preconceptions of *how* he's supposed to play a Driver). Yet, he is also kind of shafted because the other players (a Brainer, a Hocus, a News, a Maestro d' and a Savvyhead) all have their "things" that make them special. Starting with a vehicle didn't even make the Driver in this game special because both my Brainer and Savvyhead asked to start with vehicles, and now the Hocus has even managed to acquire a bus for his family.

I'm tempted to just give the Driver combat driver for free since that's the most driver-y move, and he's managed to avoid taking it simply because he hasn't gone anywhere and he has no compelling reasons to. Believe me I've tried to lure him out, but he's a single-minded player.

I hated the Driver playbook before. Now it's one of my favorite. So... disagree. :)

Your entire post here is weighed down with how you perceive the playbook. As I said in the other thread, personal preference doesn't carry any weight with me. I would really like to know what the 2nd ed version has for you that the 1st ed doesn't.

Almost makes me wish we had some version of the Moonlighting move to handle the type of person who gets their hands into all kinds of pots...

I'm gonna write one.

Paul, a question. The Driver isn't the only immensely mobile playbook. Do you have similar issues with the Chopper?

The Chopper also starts with a decent Cool, there is very little separating the two mechanically. One starts with a car, the other starts with a bike (and a gang).

I feel like a Driver who spends a whole game without driving the car around would be... somewhat disappointing, at the very least.

...

With the Driver, I'm not sure what the focus IS, except for "I have a cool car and I don't like being tied down."

The player of my aforementioned Driver has expressed dismay that his "thing" is that he starts with a car. He's mentioned several times that he wishes he started with a different playbook because he doesn't see what the appeal of the Driver is since there are other characters that started with vehicles, and he thought starting with a car would make him more unique. (He added a prosthetic to his character to give him an extra layer of coolness: a laser eye that he uses to spy on people whenever he opens his brain.)

Sorry Paul, if I had seen that thread I wouldn't have posted this. Even in that thread, I'm not seeing a lot of reasons for what makes the Driver so special from the rules themselves.
"The Driver is mobile"
"The Driver is a loner"
"The Driver makes the world larger"
These are unique perspectives based on what people played, not how the playbook is written. I've got a Driver in one of my current games and he has literally never left the town he started in and he has spent all his time putting down roots and making a name for himself, so literally every single thing people define Drivers as in that thread is refuted by this one player (who has also never played AW before and so he's not coming to the game with baggage or preconceptions of *how* he's supposed to play a Driver). Yet, he is also kind of shafted because the other players (a Brainer, a Hocus, a News, a Maestro d' and a Savvyhead) all have their "things" that make them special. Starting with a vehicle didn't even make the Driver in this game special because both my Brainer and Savvyhead asked to start with vehicles, and now the Hocus has even managed to acquire a bus for his family.

I'm tempted to just give the Driver combat driver for free since that's the most driver-y move, and he's managed to avoid taking it simply because he hasn't gone anywhere.

I hated the Driver playbook before. Now it's one of my favorite. So... disagree. :)

Convince me that the new Driver is better Ebok. Personal preference doesn't carry any weight with me.

My hero!