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.


Messages - made of cheese

Pages: [1]
1
AW:Dark Age / Apocalyptic Hierarchy of Needs (Player Motivation pt 2)
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:25:56 PM »
A modern Apocalypse World does somehow force us to do stuff. Maybe because we're incompetent ("we", meaning you and I, modern people). Who can farm or raise animals, let alone hunt for their own food? That's a small percentage of the population of the civilized world anymore. So it's all scavenging & stealing for survival because we suck. That's a big deal on the Walking Dead TV show - people suck, and that forces them to be assholes to other people.

In the Dark Ages, you're looking at an agrarian world, with a lot of serfs and peons who can farm, forage, and hunt. Many fewer lawyers, for sure. Survival (for the a-hole player characters) is about rounding up peons to make food for you, right? You can't scavenge for tins of SPAM & baked beans & ramen noodles because that didn't exist. Food is about getting peons under your thumb. So that means a very different experience for you, right off the bat.

Yeah, a gang of Chopper-riding a-holes might not be totally different than mounted cavalry, but you actually want to preserve peons in the Dark Age (from an economic perspective)... and you don't really need to care about the incompetents that you roll in a modern apocalypse. (Of course, brutal Dark Age thugs being what they were, a lot of peons were brutalized anyway...)

So... here's my simplistic apocalyptic hierarchy of needs (thanks Maslow).
  • Survival. So, this is the food, water, shelter stuff. Modern Apocalypse World does a lot here because we suck. AW:DA shouldn't do as much here because peons.
  • Safety. This is about making sure your area is Clear. Getting rid of external threats. Rally the in-group, defeat the out-group. Both AW & AW:DA play here, but I think AW:DA should be playing in this space a lot more than simple Survival stories.
  • Stability. (EDIT: Oooh, another S word (besides shit). Had to add this one in after I completed my list.) I'm talking about internal threats. Like Shane in Walking Dead. Like a bastard son, or someone in line for inheritance trying to take your shit. These are sometimes the worst threats, or the best ones because they're so dramatic. AW does play in this space when you can get it there, and AW:DA should definitely play in this space.
  • Succession. Self-actualization is kind of meh when you can barely keep alive sometimes. What's left after eliminating the external threat is accumulating wealth getting ready for the end. All true wealth is biological, as the Butcher of Komarr once said. This is why Rick is hauling Carl & Judith around... but really isn't a main thing for Walking Dead, and not a main thing for AW because you'll basically never address any of the other two needs to the point where they aren't a big concern. HOWEVER, for AW:DA, I think you need to get here. Who inherits the throne from the Keep Liege? Survival should not be an issue for most AW:DA games... and this is what should get folded in, on the top end of the hierarchy. Sons, marriages... setting up a society is more than this generation, and that's what changes a brute & thug from a real noble, with the right to rule.

We just have very little for anything in the game beyond fighting stuff, and I think that's only the first step in making a playable Dark Age.

Marriage might be way off the rails for some of you who want to be hard ass War Champions & Battle Babe Peasant Beauties... but succession wars are, I think, a big deal for the Dark Age genre.

2
Since I got nothing to add I d just like to thank you for expressing my own sentiments on this one Cheese. Do you think there is a relation between this post of yours and the one for the lack of A church?

There's a lot of relation between the two posts, I think. It was all kind of stream of consciousness, though.

Apocalypse World might be about a total collapse of order, but that's through our modern lens... and we don't understand how much we'd carry with us into the after-world, you know? How much law and order and society will keep going on when central authority stops? And in spite of that, you have the hard stops with Sex Move, and with the Hx ratings - these force you to establish a social order in your game.

With the fall of Rome, the barbarians loved the shit out of Roman ideals... so when they destroyed Rome, Roman traditions still went on. Barbarians converted, took up Roman names and titles, took up Roman customs. There was degeneracy, but it wasn't a total vacuum like post-human Atlanta in the Walking Dead.

So, the lack of Church (as in, "Roman Social Order") in the present AW:DA rules is a lot tied to this.

I set up the Roman Priest with a marriage rite that's directly pointed at this, even if that right/rite is over-the-top in a few ways. Marriage, as a means to bring the outsider within the clan, was a big deal... and, yeah, this will bring up issues like women-as-property & all sorts of bad gender inequality issues (that are supported by some parts of our history, and not supported by others (like the Celts)). Even if I don't know if the Priest is balanced or makes sense with what they want to write into AW:DA, I know I'll need something like it as an option in the current state of the rules.

Nobody has to be a Roman or a post-Roman in this game, I don't think... but the lack of social boundaries (Sex Move and Hx in AW) is very strange in AW:DA, especially because it shouldn't have backslid so far as to not need some sort of boundaries.

Maybe I'll post my post-apocalyptic hierarchy of needs next... partly because I like to b.s.

3
AW:Dark Age / Re: What binds the PCs together?
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:49:59 AM »
This is why I think some kind of Clan/Family setup would help. I don't care about individual Hx, per se. I think you do need divisions between people, though. It should be factional rather than individual like Hx.

I think a lot of individualism would make it too modern. Rugged individualism might work for a modern apocalypse, but clan/family dynamics are more important in this period. That's why I think a straight Hx wouldn't work. You'd not capture the dynamic of blood ties and blood oaths.

As for group setup...
Asking leading questions solves many questions about the PC relationships, I think.

...

To illustrate, I use my theoretical setup... Vikings in Ireland. A bay by the sea with an Irish village and a Viking longphort. The Vikings have taken over the area.

(Except it's the Ireland that never was, of course. It's not actually Celtic Ireland, and it's not actually Vikings.)

The big, blonde, pagan raiders have conquered the village. Let's say it's been 5-10 years since the raiders took over. The people of the village are slighter, dark-haired people (who are all converts of the Roman religion through the work of missionaries)... they mostly hate their overlords, but they're mostly powerless to stop them at this time.

Players can be part of either the blonde pagan people, or the slighter dark-haired people who all worship the son-god of the Empire of Eagles... but being one race or the other doesn't necessarily imply something about the drama, even if it could. (Racism & religious intolerance being meaty reasons to do bad things.)

Furthermore... let's say the self-made Jarl of the pagan raiders has just died prior to the start of the game.

Who will take over? (Is the new Jarl one of the players? How did he gain the right to rule?) What if the old Jarl only had a daughter, and she did not have the right to inherit? What does that mean about the new Jarl? Who might challenge the new Jarl, and why? What happens to the daughter, and what happens if someone marries her?

(And do we assume the Jarl died of natural causes? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. And if the Jarl didn't die of natural causes, who murdered the Jarl and why?)

What happens in the village? Who might rise up, now that the Jarl is dead? Who amongst the blonde pagan raiders might ally themselves with the village in order to overthrow the new Jarl?

And what about the 50 men who serve the Jarl? 50 men, supported by a village of 300 people... the logistics do not add up. What did the old Jarl do to keep his men fed and happy? Raiding? Trading? Killing people in the village & stealing their things? What will the new Jarl do?

What would the neighbors think about the close proximity of a band of pagan raiders? What local lords might want to attack the new Jarl and expel the pagans from the land?

...

So, binding the PCs together shouldn't be difficult if you're asking the right questions, even if I think the game needs some faction/clan-based approach to allegiances (and not a Hx).

I think Apocalypse World doesn't make binding-together a requirement, though. It works well as disorder and chaos within a faithful reading of the drama of the world.

4
AW:Dark Age / Re: Why so strongly Pagan & so little of an organized Church?
« on: November 25, 2014, 01:12:43 PM »
A thought on repentance and confession - you might have the right to call, but only the faithful would answer. A number of these moves presuppose that they are performed in the context of others of the faith. If the faith is far from universal, then many of these need to be reworked. Or maybe not, maybe it sets up situations where rights are routinely denied and maybe that's a good thing. Righteous indignation, and all.

I think that's a good tension for a Cleric to have in this Dark Age. Nothing should be universal in the Apocalypse except threats and danger, I think. Just because a Keep Liege has a Bishop around doesn't mean that good things will happen at all.

At the same time, I don't think any of the Rights in the game are Universal. I need not acknowledge the Keep Liege as a War Champion, so why should the Keep Liege care about being excommunicated? That should be why we play. The fact that you have to claim your Right, and I can choose to acknowledge it or not... that's great tension there :)

Of course, if Universality means "playable in the context of the game world", then I think it'd be a giant dick move on the MC's part to say, "You're a Bishop, but you have jack all to do because Catholicism sucks". Either it's in the world or not. I don't think it's necessary, but if a player wants to run organized clergy, it's a bad thing not to include it as a condition of the People (i.e. a Universal truth of the game world).

...

Organized superstition is a good thing! I wish there were more of it... both as a help to fight against the centrifugal tendencies of semi-civilized society, and a way to screw over the Keep Holder by using Canon law against the Rights of the Keep Liege.

Yes, we have the Bandit-Nobles... but there's also the Church, or the Blot gatherings of the Vikings, or whatnot. If the Dominus of the region must exert control over the peasantry, so should a Bishop over the congregation.

Religion isn't a natural state in itself, but a process of exerting control (and I say this as a Catholic)... I think that exertion should be part of a Dark Age, whether on behalf of our Roman Church or the Church of the Empire of Eagles or the Septons of Westeros or Neo-Paganist Asatru. Why not have those aspects of tension as well?

5
AW:Dark Age / Re: Why so strongly Pagan & so little of an organized Church?
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:10:59 AM »
Here's my BS for a Priest of the Roman Order because I hate (HATE) the marriage rites in the existing rules.

Cleric of the Order
(prime stat will be "Good", not "Weird" like a pagan)

Rights (some lifted directly from the rules, others invented):
  • You have the right to excommunicate any member of the faith. This allows any member (of any birth or station) the ability under religious law to deny the rights of the excommunicated.
  • You have the right to induct and confirm any person as a member of the faith, thereby conferring the rights of personhood and community upon that person. (Perhaps including the excommunicated... perhaps not.)
  • You have the right to receive gifts and offerings as the spiritual head of your community.
  • You have the right to consecrate a marriage.  Roll with Good. On 10+, the MC must ask you 3 of the following. On 7–9, the MC must ask you 2. On a miss, the MC must ask you 1. (The MC may answer any question left unanswered.)
    * Do the persons involved in the marriage consent to this Union? What is their relationship?
    * Do the Heads of each Clan or Family consent to this Union? What is their relationship?
    * Does the Union of these peoples settle the differences between their Clans or Families? What is their ancient grudge?
    * Is the Union of these peoples blessed by the god(s)? How might they be blessed or cursed in the days ahead?
  • You are literate in Latin and Arabic / Greek / Hebrew / Persian (circle 1 in addition to Latin). You have the right to own and read books, including religious, legal, historical, and administrative texts, and to conduct written correspondence beyond simple message-passing and note-leaving.
  • You have the right to write your betters for aid (i.e. the Pope in Rome). When you do, treat it as mustering warriors from among them, but roll Good instead of Bold.
  • You have the right to solemnize the funerals of the dead. When you do so, roll Weird. On 10+, choose 1 of the following; it is true. On 7–9, choose 1; we will suppose it to be true. (See the Options in the Rights PDF)
  • You have the right to throw down demons and lawless spirits. When you try to do so, roll Weird. On 10+, choose 2 of the following. On 7–9, choose 1. (See the Options in the Rights PDF)
  • You have the right to call others to repentance and confession. When you do, roll Good. On 10+, ask them 2 of the following
    questions. On 7–9, ask them 1. They must answer truthfully and aloud. Before they answer, they can ask for privacy, which you may grant but need not. (See the Options in the Rights PDF)
  • You have the right to declare any group (aside from the People of your lands) to be Anathema. (Whatever that means, but I bet the Jews are involved!)

6
AW:Dark Age / Why so strongly Pagan & so little of an organized Church?
« on: November 25, 2014, 03:44:14 AM »
I don't even need THE Roman Catholic Church... but I am curious about the lack of A Church. Will there be more or is the game rewriting a benign version of Roman polytheism as the dominant force in the Empire? (And thereby removing religion as a source of power and conflict in this game)

Even G.R.R. Martin has the Septons & the Red Witch to go with the Old Gods & the Weirwoods. The game just needs something there.

The idea that there ought to be a separation of Church and State is super modern, and yet I feel like there's a separation enforced by the way People & Strongholds are created.

Yes, places like England were not wholly Catholic at the start of the Medieval period... but even Ireland was indentifiably Christian by the fall of the Romans, and that's pretty far "West and North of Europe" when it comes to the game setting. A lot of the invading Germanics converted pretty early on, although the Scandinavians didn't do so until later in the Medieval period.

So is this a game about revisionist Paganism over all others in the world? Because really strong Paganism (aside from the Norse) seems like a very definitive statement about the game setting, especially amongst the ruling classes in the West & North, and how the game world never was like ours.

Should there be more tension between the Old Rights & the New in the development of a character? What does this clash between Clannish cultural traditions & the aspirations towards Roman glory really mean? Or is it just a check box?

I see that there was a "Common Knowledge" thing in the past of this game. It doesn't exist now in what we have to playtest. And, really, bits of knowledge/setting are not so important. I don't care if it's Christ or not for a Church. It's the temporal Church part that's important, and those are the parts that are not there (yet) that are open questions for me.

Priesthood. Marriage & the implications of succession. Clan/familial relationships (not Hx, but Rights & Power within a relationship). (I now see the Marriage Rite in the list of Rights, but it speaks of a mutual bond between a spouses... not the Clan & Familial links that make for interesting Medieval marriages.)

I don't want Hx in this game. I want Clans, and how Rights work with Clans & Families. Clan loyalties mean more than individual ones, I think. The game should be about Power relationships, I think, and not individual Hx. Almost every one of the AW:DA playbooks looks like a Gang leader of some kind when compared to the future Apocalypse.

I just don't get including Latin & Greek (and Arabic prior to the Crusades) if there's no Catholic or Orthodox church. It's an odd inclusion if this is a history that never was.

Okay, enough rambling. I don't write any part of this game, anyway.

7
I was just watching the Tudors, which is certainly an entertaining show. And I know certain pieces of AW don't come over to AW:DA, for various reasons. "Sex Move" just sounds kind of dumb to apply to a Dark Ages setting because we all can't play Henry VIII. At the same time, there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

I also play a lot of Paradox's Crusader Kings 2 with various mods (including the Westeros mod on occasion... and we all know what the "R.R." stands for in G.R.R. Martin). Marriage is an incredibly important part of that game... along with your ruler's bedroom habits. I had one ruler in Crusader Kings who had a political marriage with a neighboring sovereign's sister (who happened to be a lesbian). In spite of whatever incompatibilities in private, they declared a public mutual love for one another... for the good of the realm. It was one of the more interesting rulers that I played. Marrying & having children in that game are incredibly important, as are generational politics & the struggles relating to inheritance.

I guess I'm saying that I don't need a "Sex Move", but I'd like something about Marriage, as well as something about inheritance in the Dark Ages. (Crusader Kings 2 does this in a delicious way... including various traditions of Catholics & Orthodox folk, as well as Muslims & others. Ideas around inheritance were hardly confined to Salic law.)

And I'm not just talking about whatever the "Princess" playbook might bring, but across all of the characters. What does it mean to be married, and how does it point you towards screwing over the current Dominus that rules your little geographic setting? Courtly love (like the romanticized Camelot) would be nice... but then we'd be getting further afield from Westeros, especially when all I'd truly want is crap around Marriage & Power.

Yeah, I guess I can just take up Marriage as a story-hammer (if your dude marries the chick from the Bad-Wrong family, then all heck will break lose because Hard Move... or if someone marries the Hardholder's Sister, and has a Son by her, he's got every reason to depose the current Hardholder & murder all the offspring of the Hardholder...)... but it would be cool to have more stuff around it than the b.s. in my head if I'm MCing.

And, yeah, Gender has come up on this board in a way that it doesn't have to in other Apocalyptic settings... but the politics of Gender are so much more vital to the Dark Ages (as stated previously by others). I just wish Gender-stuff were more prominent in this because of the setting, even if we in our modernity should not be so judgmental about this stuff. The character sheets are just awfully quiet about Gender & Marriage, and I wish they weren't.

If anyone has advice on this topic or ways they've worked it in, I'd be interested in reading it. And I haven't playtested this yet, so I'm just spouting off at this point.

(Sorry if this is covered by other topics. I did a quick search on Marriage & didn't get back a ton.)

8
Monsterhearts / Re: MH in different settings?
« on: November 16, 2014, 01:39:31 PM »
Gosh, I hate Necro-ing, but...

I was thinking of other settings as well.
Jedi Academy (the Angelic sliding scale thingy doing the miticholorian whatever thingy)
Starfleet Academy (maybe a Cadet Cruise, dragging other stuff in from other Lumpley stuff, like Poison'd)
The White Lotus (a young Avatar, plus other youngsters, replacing Korra in the Republic City setting?)
Skyrim Mage Guild Apprentices (because Skyrim is the newest one, and we're ignoring the whole TESO thing)

The X-Men/Xavier's school sounds cool as well.
Hogwarts, ditto... but I'd rather do Skyrim or Tamriel (House Telvanni?).

Pages: [1]