I can confirm that everything above really applies in the real game, even just on its own.

One of my players took Child as a second character and without anything else, she immediately ran to other characters asking for help with The Bugs (= her perception of wolfs) which integrated her quickly (and weirdly) into the group and its dynamics.

I see :)

I'm sorry but one more follow-up, just to by crystal-clear sure about it. Regarding Jerson's question on battlebabe's custom weapon's mix. Is it:

a) that battlebabe gets 2 custom weapons, period. If it is 1 firearm and 1 hand, or 2:0 or 0:2 is only up to battlebabe's player.
OR
b) that battlebabe gets, by default, 1 custom firearm and 1 custom hand. But it shouldn't be problem for MC to allow otherwise, if that is what the players wants.
?

(originally I thought that it is B, since player is supposed to "circle" the options and logically s/he can circle-out one column only once, but now I see that "Creating / Gear" says only "yout get 2 custom weapons" without further specification and that under the columns, there is a field for write-down, so I got it wrong and it is probably really A?)


EDIT: belt-fed magnum sounds awesome!

Himalayan Salt: well, no offense(-ivness) meant, just as a point to the discussion: "having played" is not that strong of an argument - by my experience, what people know from their own games do not necessarily translates into other people's games and what is (not) common for players on discussion boards is not necessarily what is (not) common between players at large. I see this when I meet and talk to people at gaming conventions - or with players on other non-gaming conventions. The problems THEY face in their games and the way they deal with it (and the options they have to deal with it) are often significantly different from what is being talked on boards. And these people from conventions are still "biased sample" - players who are not active in community at all are even more shifted from "us" (as we all could see in practice during DnD 5e development, where truly wide form-feedback which hit these otherwise passive players differed vastly from feedback from boards and active community; developers even made few comments on it back at the time).

The point being - when you are "stuck" with one group of players you don't want to leave or break (since you are all friends and this is your mutual activity for many years and many years to come) and when there are players in your group who will give any rules "hard pressure test" (for whatever reason - legitimate (!) power playing, guidance-seeking, annoying rule-lawyering, tendency for spotlight self-centrism, curious experimentation... and so on), then you need a "slightly" different kind of advice than people who are "hardcore RPG nerds". "Do whatever the player wants" in regards to something what directly affects power-balance not just in the game but between PCs is usually not the kind of advice they find helpful, because the balance of the rules themselves is not the thing they need and seek - they need and seek the rules providing them with tools to keep the balance around their table. (DAMN - this is a thought I've been dancing around for some time now and finally I managed to formulate it clearly! Cheers for that opportunity!)


Regarding PvP: yeah. Battlebabe can start with 4-harm ap and Ice cold (= 5-harm ap) as well and with Impossible reflexes (ignores opponent's ap) and can easily take NTBFW (6-harm ap 3-armor ap-resistant) as the first level-up. (And I suspect that the players I'd be afraid of in this regard are exactly the players who will do it like this). And that is with all playbook restrains (use only listed base weapons, choose only 2) in place. It is strong, but manageable and somewhat balanced with some drawbacks which give gunluger the edge and (mainly) the niche and specific-spotlight (Battlebabe still has low HARD and there is no "autofire" option for custom weapons etc.)

Now with the boundaries erased... actually, now when I think about it in the context of spot-light and paybooks protected niches in the game, the possibility to go with 2 firearms (no matter that the playbook is formulated in a way suggesting you have 1 and 1...) is even more worrying than the question of the tag itself on its own. I mean - Battlebabe could already create some crazy strong weapons, so giving it a little bit more of a boost doesn't make THAT much of a difference. But when you can create 2 such boosted weapons - then you can really have 2 crazily strong weapons for every opportunity.


Now as I'm reading Lumpley again (and again), I'm not that sure I understood him completely. More specifically I'm not sure how much he actually means "let player do whatever s/he wants" or "let player do whatever s/he wants within the boundaries of the playbook". It seems to be the later, but allowing option to add "-reload" as well even when it is not listed suggest the first. I must say I find this quite confusing. But may be this is just not my brightest moment.

notabotatall: thanks for the reddit link, Vincent's clarification is the kind of the thing I was hoping for (and couldn't find). That makes the armor question settled I believe.

Regarding reload/autofire: I have no problem with having automatic weapon which needs to reload after being used. Makes sense. But having base weapon which by default requires frequent reloads being turned into automatic feels really weird. It either loses the original "reload" tag (in which case ONE option does TWO things - it adds 1 tag and removes 2nd - which goes directly against how the rest of the thing there work) or it doesn't lose the original "reload" tag (in which case I end up with a gun which still requires constant reloading, but which somehow can go automatic as well, which... ok, I could interpret it just as area-optional, but that also feels kinda weird - it's a mechanical weapon, not a scalable DnD spell...)

What I mean is - that probably wrong write-up with automatic option adding "+area" tag, although it was also weird, made actually more sense (mechanically, at least).
Tha "automatic" option adding "autofire" to the weapon could work, but then it should cost 2 options (the same as adding +2harm in case of melee weapons), not 1.

As it is, none of the variants make sense to me.

notabotatall: ok, that's fair enough interpretation (and I came to a similar one myself), but is there an actual passage in the rulebook which this derives from?

I based this interpretation on Honesty principle and from the fictional consistency for myself and my group, but it feels... weak, somehow, considering how many implications it has which are not mentioned nor shown anywhere:

Rules say that ap simply ignores armor, yet it seems to mean "may ignore armor when appropriate" - but this is not mentioned nor shown anywhere in examples. By the same logic Hocuse's move which gives 1-armor when unarmored works pretty much always and ignores all ap (including Brainer's psionics), since it's source is some kind of kvasi-divine (or simply weird) power which protects the character. So does daredevil, when applied (since it seems to represent sheer luck) and grace of the battlefield (since it is also some weird-powers-in-work). But it also means, that sometimes only part of the armor can be applied - which is also a logic which is not being mentioned nor shown anywhere. For example if I shoot Angel during battle with ap ammunition, this logic says it goes through standard physical armor, but grace of the battlefield still counts; same with gang's armor - ap would negate their "natural" armor, but not their size armor.

This might rise some unclear points players could "too easily" argue about - for example one could argue, that Battlebabe's reflexes do not count against solid area effects like really large explosions or big flamethrowers, since when there is nowhere to dodge or hide, reflexes are not very useful, but another could argue that they do count, since these are impossible and a hero rising alive from completely ruined place is a common trope which is to be embraced. (What I dislike about this most is that I'd go with the second argument, but only because it feels right - unfortunately it depends strongly on one word in the name of the move and Vincent is generally... let's say he doesn't have much of an OCD when it comes to exact wording :D Which I'm usually fine with, but here it raises questions.)

To be clear - I have no issue with what I just wrote and intuitively I'd play it like this and interpret it like this. But I have nothing but my own gut feeling to back it and other people are asking me about it for their own games, so I'm looking for some more solid foundations for this answer OR for a better answer if I understood it wrong.


(About the battlebabe custom weapon choices - people are asking me too, but in this case I'm completely confused myself so I have no idea what to answer.)

It always seemed to me that Vincent "just" wrote down all the practices / answers / kick-offs he and GMs in general use/say in the game and which he finds good and productive and wrote them down as as-much-comprehensive list as-possible.

Therefor the fact that Vincent always refers specific MC move is by my opinion not to show MC "should be using them", as much as a "mere" consequence of the fact that:
- Vincent already wrote down all things he does/say, so its hard to find something what is not already on the list
- pointing out which move it is is also a reference to its description (=where to find more advice on the topic)
- ...and it is kinda reminder to MCs that "advice on this with inspirational list was already given, please do feel free to use it anytime"

By the same logic the fact that most productive things any MC does/say can be classified as a move is also a consequence of the list comprehensiveness.

(Once again if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to stand corrected.)


And while I do see how it might be helpful and inspirational to see MC moves as restrictive for some (as it is known - boundaries empower creativity), there are others who find it counterproductive - it makes them "think of the moves all the time" which distracts them from the players and game and causes some anxiety ("did I played it correctly?" etc.)



Vincent: ...a friend of ours ("Jerson", if he ever showed up around here - he had some other questions on different topics, so it might happen) suggested a new possible MC move of "hit them with consequences" - the "content" of the move is that when players do something what should "obviously" cause some kind trouble in response, you do play out the trouble.

I've pointed out that it might not be that useful, since it doesn't help you to actually decide what to play. Like, for example, "split them" or "hurt them" or "take their stuff" all tell you what specifically to do next, while this kinda feels to me like just "do something" or "if they acted, play the reaction", which is sort off too fuzzy advice to give (compared to the rest of MC moves). Plus basically most of the other MC moves already listed are the possible consequences, so "hit them with consequences" is somewhat redundant - like "hit them with some other MC move".

But that being said for cases when the consequence / reaction is obvious, this move can be a good reminder to "just play it out". And of course if it helps somebody to lead the game, than it is good move for them. (Or not?)

Vincent: oh, quite contrary for me, I'm more than happy with every sentence of all of your posts :D But you've been around, so you know how it goes. I believe once the dust settle, we'll be all fine again :D

Anyway, it seems you've actually managed to answer all the other questions some people were throwing at us for you and which we didn't even passed - but one, so if I could ask for just one more quick clarification (for myself, at least):

You write that MC is free to make hard moves at every opportunity etc., especially "as soon as threats are in play". Since this is quite important for some and it might have an impact to many actual game moments, to avoid any misunderstanding - is there some structure to how and when are threats supposed to come intoplay? Sorry. Specific question: Can MC just throw a new threat into the play out of blue (improvised on spot or prepared but yet unannounced) OR is MC obliged, or at least supposed to, make some kind of warning or at least forshadowing of a new threat to the players (characters) before s/he strikes them hard with the threat move?


Thanks a lot for your answers, it is really helpful to us.