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 - DeadmanwalkingXI

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Right, but absent the direction to make a hard and direct move on a miss, how do you apply that collateral damage? Or are you just saying, "Yeah, sure, you mess those guys up, but you spray so many bullets that [thing you care about] of which you've taken definite hold is somehow fucked up" in response to the Gunlugger, regardless of success or failure? That's putting your bloody fingerprints all over something for sure, but is it being a fan of the character? Are you telling me that if I'm willing to burn my hold to keep someone safe and eat whatever damage comes my way that that someone might still be harmed in the process? That seems kind of raw. use a messy, area, or autofire weapon (and most really nasty weapons are one of the three), and you can expect some collateral damage even on a hit. Not on something you 'take definite hold' of, no, but other stuff remains fair game. You certainly don't need a miss to say that some stuff got messed up in the scuffle, and even if you do, you can probably get the players to make another move or two in response to the battle (reading the sitch to see if it's really over, for example) and note the collateral damage then. That's when the characters notice it, after all.

And of course you can apply that collateral damage to other stuff that's not part of the immediate stakes of the conflict (i.e. I'm keeping Person X safe but inadvertently kill Person Y in the process), but that's something that's incredibly situationally-dependent. In most of the examples given, it's not like these conflicts are taking place around a bunch of innocent bystanders. For sure you can add innocent bystanders to increase dramatic tension, but see above under: maybe warn new MCs that this is an issue.

Well, if you're out in the middle of nowhere with no potential for collateral damage, the consequences have to be at one remove, but these are people you're killing. Their family and friends aren't gonna be happy about that. Nor is their boss. But yeah, it's a lot safer to go all out in the middle of the burn flats than in town. I think that's a good thing, and properly reflects the fictional difference between those two situations.

And in terms of responding to these situations, before under AW1 it was easy: miss on SBF? You have failed to do what you set out to do, and can expect a hard, direct move from the MC in response.

Now, miss on SBF under AW2? You might still succeed. But the cost will be higher. Unless you're heavily armored up, in which case it won't. And there's nothing that says the MC can't make a hard move. So maybe he or she will. Or not. But you're still in battle. Probably. Or whatever.

That's what I mean by ambiguity.

For an experienced MC, the change probably won't make a whole lot of difference at the actual table. But I have a hard time seeing how the new way provides any additional clarity for people new to the system.

See, I'm not sure I agree. I mean, I'm not exactly new, I owned AW 1E, but the first game I ran of it was right after 2E came out (I'd run MotW before that, but that's not quite the same). I actually found the way it works in 2E made combat flow better. I mean, the necessity of an MC move on a miss really does just bring things to a halt, while the 2E method leaves things open for battle moves to flow into each other better. Any one is less risky, but assuming you don't kill everyone immediately, I think the total is generally more dangerous simply because there are more battle moves chained together.

The Harm move is also a bit more front and center, and really, does a lot of what you want and happens even if you take 0 harm. Heck, even a Gunlugger who always takes 0 Harm has a 1/6 chance of being knocked unconscious every time he's hit if the MC feels like it (10+ on the Harm roll...) Really, almost all the logical consequences of a failed Seize By Force are covered by one of the 7+ results on a Harm roll.

Depends on how you make them dangerous. Personally, IME, AP ammo is uniquely dangerous to Giunluggers and other combat specialists. It's a little more dangerous to less combat-focused people, but only a little. And the consequences of using violence remain very real, I mean, collateral damage leaps immediately to mind as a likely one that isn't stopped at all by anything a Gunlugger does.

But yeah, generally a dedicated specialist in combat is pretty hard to take out. And people should indeed be aware of that. I'm just not sure that's a new development. A Gunlugger with NTBFW has always been extraordinarily difficult to kill, that may be a bit more true now, but I'm pretty sure the game acknowledges it as super difficult just about everywhere.

My point was three things, actually. None of which are quite the one you're saying (though #2 is close, I guess). And was not directed solely at you, but at the conversation in general. Here are the three things I was getting at, summarized:

#1. In response to Munin's point referencing Gunluggers taking advantage of being badass to be 'vicious dickheads' I noted the consequences of that.

#2. The Gunlugger isn't better off than other playbooks to an unbalanced degree. This is the part you're saying was unnecessary, but really, it seems a relevant point to make.

3. Things can still very definitely hurt Gunluggers (who are some of the hardest PCs to hurt, I won't deny), including NPCs and gangs. A large gang with 3 Harm can just flat-out mess a Gunlugger up. Custom NPC moves can mess them up even more. Anyone with AP ammo can wreck them. They can punch above their weight class, but not hard enough to be invincible by any means.

As I mentioned, one of the PCs in my last game was a Faceless with Juggernaut, Rasputin, Beastly, NTBFW, and Bloodcrazed. Plus a willingness to murder the shit out of anyone who pissed him off, and his Mask was part of his armor so he never took that shit off (well, to sleep or have sex he did, but no other time). He walked around with an effective 4 Armor basically all the time. I still scared him and messed him up fairly regularly (not every session or anything, mind you, but not only once or twice either). It's not that hard to do, as long as you're willing to make NPCs badass and interesting and give them corresponding custom moves.

The thing about a Gunlgger who abuses the fact that they're unbeatable is they'll get murdered in their sleep. Not necessarily literally, but metaphorically. NTBFW is great, but only applies in battle, which makes murdering a Gunlugger an excellent option. One sniper shot from a Battlebabe with AP ammo and they're suddenly in very deep trouble. Pissing off anyone with 'Just give me a motive' will also result in serious unpleasantness for the Gunlugger. Even NPCs can easily screw a Gunlugger over by stabbing them before battle is joined and while they aren't wearing armor. Having consequences like this is part of 'making AW seem real', IMO.

And the 'unbeatable' facet of the Gunlugger is a bit overstated in this discussion as compared to other playbooks, even in a straight fight. I mean, a Hardholder with a Large 3-harm gang vs. a Gunlugger with NTBFW, Bloodcrazed, and a 3-harm, AP ammo, weapon is a net 2 Harm to the Hardholder's gang while the Gunlugger takes a net of 3 (both before Seize By Force comes into play). A Battlebabe can easily be doing 5 Harm-ap (via an AP shotgun and Merciless), which makes the exchange with the Gunlugger 4 Harm to the Gunlugger and the same to the Battlebabe before Seize By Force. The SBF advantage goes to the Gunlugger, obviously, but they can't get it down below 3 Harm per exchange, and that means they're as dead as the Battlebabe by the time it's over (2 exchanges in). Heck, any Driver can get something with Massive 3 and slam into them for a minimum of 4 Harm after everything (6 harm ap for hitting someone with a semi is nice).

Now, I'm aware that this is more about how a Gunlugger deals with NPCs, but even there a Large Gang is a very real threat, and even Medium gangs are very capable of messing you up. Or NPCs with custom moves to emphasize them as personally scary in one way or another. I know I've given NPCs stuff that gave the Faceless in my game some trouble, and he grabbed NTBFW as his first 'move from another playbook'. And Bloodcrazed as his second. Adding custom moves to NPCs is always interesting, too, and adding some stuff freaks PCs out in a fun way.

Are Gunluggers tough? Absolutely. They are, in fact, 'the baddest ass', but they aren't actually any harder to kill than anybody with 2 armor and a small gang backing them, and are actually easier to kill than those with larger gangs. It's clearly intended that a small gang vastly better equipped than another (via, say, 4 harm weapons and 2 armor) will annihilate the other gang if they're the same size. The Gunlugger counts as one size category larger, but that's not anywhere close to enough to make them invincible.

Apocalypse World / Re: ANGEL: Sixth Sense + Healing Touch
« on: March 21, 2017, 01:43:28 AM »
Yeah, it's not technically correct, and I wouldn't do it that way, but changing things mid-stream without getting the player who has an ability's approval is pretty much always a bad call. It changes enough context that they might not have grabbed Healing Touch in the first place, after all.

Apocalypse World / Re: Are histories exclusive for Player Characters?
« on: March 19, 2017, 01:45:46 PM »
Yeah, Hx is for mechanically meaningful history between the characters, and given the difference between how PCs and NPCs work, giving them a Hx score simply doesn't make mechanical sense. You want NPCs to know you better? That's fine, but it's not a Hx score in the mechanical sense and treating it as such is a bad idea.

...and what do you do on a miss (for those interfering rolls)?

Personally, I complicate things.

'So, while Vasquez and Saffron are having their little gunfight, you all hear the sound of a bunch of bikes pulling up outside. Looks like Dremmer's goons have arrived.'

Or someone comes in to help the person you just failed to interfere with. Or their gun runs out of ammo during this exchange (very relevant if there's a next one). Or they lose some barter as something valuable they have on them breaks. In short, any move I feel like making that becomes a collateral event to the fight rather than taking center stage.

Ebok's totally right that you don't need to do anything, but you certainly can without the system breaking down or anything.

Vincent wrote:

"At Berg's word, AT rushes the guy trying to get behind the van, and Berg and Clarion rush the guy in cover on the right. They're straight up seizing by force.

[...] Berg rolls+hard and gets ... a 5. A miss! It's a miss even if Clarion gets to help.

I get to make as hard and direct a move as I like. I could just exchange harm for harm as established, that'd be easy, but instead I'm going to turn Berg's move back on him. "Excellent!" I say. "The gang guy inflicts terrible harm, suffers little harm, and keeps definite hold of his position." Holy crap, that's bad news."

A reversed move on a miss is much more appropriate for a move vs. NPCs (which that example is) or in a situation where a PC was targeted by a one sided move like Go Aggro, than one with PCs in a situation like seize by force, since that tends to remove a lot of player agency and works weirdly an inappropriately mechanically (it makes the Skinner better at getting that result than the Chopper, for example...since Hx matters and Hard doesn't).

Like Ebok suggests, I've always had one person roll seize by force while the other rolls to interfere, then have them swap roles (with the person who just rolled to interfere rolling seize by force and vice versa), but I then apply both rolls results to a single exchange of Harm. I think that's probably the fairest way to do it, since otherwise, again as noted, whoever rolls seize by force has a huge advantage that's not necessarily reflective of the brutality is better done with Go Aggro. Yeah, that's a lot of rolls, but it's pretty quick to figure out since two of the four just apply penalties to the other two.

This sometimes results in both people saying they 'took definite hold' and canceling each other out on that front, but IME they usually pick 'suffer little harm' as their first option, and then more often 'inflict great harm' than 'take definite hold'. That might just be my players in particular, though.

This has worked out perfectly well in play, with nobody feeling screwed by it or anything.

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholder's Vehicles
« on: March 17, 2017, 11:45:35 AM »
Well, if they don't have the range to hurt the Gunlugger, and he does have the range to hurt them, Go Aggro is absolutely appropriate regardless of whether they're ready for a fight, and should be handled with them simply taking the damage or surrendering (or, on a 7-9, taking one of the other options). Go Aggro is made for situations where only one side can harm the other.

If the situation were the same, only the Gunlugger were within the ambushers' range, then Go Aggro would be the wrong move, with Seize By Force being the appropriate one.

So yeah, go with one of the options you state at the bottom of your post.

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholder's Vehicles
« on: March 16, 2017, 01:57:50 PM »
Yeah, the gang are a weapon the Hardholder can use, he gets to roll for them while they're on a mission for him. That wouldn't be the case if they were just hanging out and the Gunlugger decided to shoot them or something, but while on a mission from the boss, the Hardholder should definitely get to roll for them.

Also, it sounds from that description like you responded to a successful Go Aggro with the necessity for a Seize By Force roll, which, if true, is deeply wrong. 'Force Your Hand' means they immediately take damage with no chance to hit back, they could then attempt to attack, but only if they survived the flat damage they just received.

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholder's Wealth
« on: March 15, 2017, 06:58:54 AM »
Aren't they though? Honest question here.

Well, it rather depends on what you mean by a gang. They're a group of people, and if they wind up fighting someone en masse you'd use the gang rules, yeah, but they aren't an organized group one can command to do things and expect to be obeyed. And to be a gang, you need to be organized, or united in a purpose anyway. Most populations are not such a group and cannot be made so readily.

My interpretation has always been that a gang is just a sufficiently large group of people. So if the hardholder gathered up his entire population and sent them to war, he would have a large gang (or maybe depending on population, a new category, a huge gang). Sure, their weaponry and amor most likely stink (to the extent of having only their bare hands), and morale probably isn't good. But if you can get 200 people to ambush the traders in the market place, they are still going to do some damage. You could just resolve that on the fly. Or you could use the gang rules.

Okay, let me put it another way: They may be a gang under certain circumstances, but they aren't your gang. They live in your city, but they don't necessarily do what you say, and aren't united in any way. They certainly don't do as you say if it's risky to them. There are moves that let you make any group of people you talk to a gang ('Frenzy' from the Hocus leaps to mind)...but those specifically unite them, and the Hardholder doesn't have one at all.

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholder's Wealth
« on: March 14, 2017, 05:19:46 AM »
So wait. If my total barter surplus is +3 does that mean if I roll in surplus at the beginning of the session I have 3 spending barter?

Yes. The barter you get is equal to your surplus.

And if so, if I choose not to spend it (as it's my personal cut of my hardholder) can I roll it over into the next session regardless of my next wealth roll?

No. It goes away if unspent.

Also a dumb question, what's the standard staring spending barter for a hardholder? Is it my starting surplus? Feels kinda low for a Warlord.

Yep, it's the surplus. And remember that Hardholders don't have living expenses at all, so it goes a bit further than it might seem. Plus they don't have to pay salaries to their gang or anything, basic expenses are deducted before you get to the surplus (so your actual income is more like 40-60 Barter, plus other expenses, plus your's just that not paying your gang isn't really an option). And you actually have unlimited additional Barter for purposes of gifts to people you sleep with...

Really, Hardholders feel pretty rich in play. They never need to actually worry about money to live, and have some for incidentals when they want them, and can start with just about whatever gear they want. And actually, the fact that their Barter goes away every session makes them feel richer since they can spend it like there's no tomorrow. Only the Maestro'D feels richer (since they can get anything via 'Fingers in every pie'). Everyone else (except for Hocus, which feels similar to Hardholder in many ways) might have more Barter occasionally, but it goes quick so they feel the need to save it, not spend it. And that's what being rich is, the ability to spend money without worrying about it.

Also, a hardholder gets 40 violent bastards starting, so does that mean he has absolute command over others in the hardhold? Like if a hardhold has a population of 150 to 200 can he technically command them around, take barter from them, March them into combat, mass manipulate them?

He can command them (ie: force them to do what he wants like give him Barter) as much as his gang allows him to, though there will be repercussions. He can persuade them en masse if he has leverage (and he usually does, lets be honest)...but so can anyone else. Really, there's no limit other than logic to who you can Go Aggro on or Manipulate, regardless of playbook. A Hardholder using his gang as a weapon can Go Aggro on his citizens very effectively, and one who has things they want can Manipulate them.

He can't command the population as a whole with Leadership, though. Or use them as a weapon in battle or when Going Aggro. Those require a gang, and, well, they aren't one. They aren't an organized military force, heck a fair number are probably small children.

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholder's Wealth
« on: March 05, 2017, 09:52:15 PM »
Another quick question - If the Hardholder scavenges and retrieves some oddments worth 1 barter, does he get to carry those forward to the next session, or does it disappear like the barter from the wealth roll?

I'd certainly assume they keep them, nothing says they can't after all.

Seems well done given the premise, but to be honest, if doing a medieval-ish conversion of The Faceless I'd feel almost compelled to make it something like 'The Monster' or 'The Ogre'. The terrible creature from the wilderness that lurks in a cave, fears the fires of man, and probably eats people. Grendel would be an excellent example, just as a for instance.

Stormbringer reference aside a warrior bound to their blade just lacks the same thematic resonance, at least to me.

Apocalypse World / Re: Disciplined Engagement - Quarantine
« on: March 01, 2017, 07:45:38 PM »
Right. It lets him shoot people and graze their ear for zero harm, not shoot them in the gut for zero harm.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8