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 - SoylentWhite

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
brainstorming & development / Re: The 'Hood is Open for Business
« on: November 18, 2014, 08:00:03 AM »
Ah, cool.  I'll wait for that, then, in whatever form it may take.

And thanks for the clarification.  That makes more sense, now.

brainstorming & development / Re: The 'Hood is Open for Business
« on: November 17, 2014, 07:56:27 AM »
Sorry for the necromancy, but did you ever manage to apply the errata?  I was going to wait for that before ordering, and you never clarified.

Secondly, what's happening in the narrative with the Pimp's 'Weekend Promotion'?  It clears payback to your hoes, and generates +1 Heat, and I'm having difficulty linking the name with the mechanics with the narration.

The Sprawl / Re: Version 0.3: Basic Moves and Playbooks
« on: July 30, 2014, 07:47:30 AM »
I just skimmed over the Basic Moves sheet, so it's possible I missed something, but it seems that Play Hardball has no 10+ result when used against a PC.

Also, I assume the Discussion segments are deliberately incomplete?  For example, you have 'Difference between Play hardball and fasttalk', but nothing actually following to explain what the difference is.

brainstorming & development / Re: The 'Hood is Open for Business
« on: May 19, 2014, 07:43:32 AM »
Sorry, I should have picked up on that: the rules regarding Heat & Experience were changed at a quite a late stage, after Tommy had designed the playbooks, and I completely missed that the old rule was still there.

To clarify: when you take heat, you mark experience and when experience alone reaches 5, reset it to zero and take an advance, just as with AW itself.

Thanks, that's clear now.

It's meant for one roll per interaction, whether that's a single NPC or a group and it isn't necessarily just when you ask them for a favour, but for when your actions impact them directly, i.e. you invite someone into your family home that they don't want there. Deal with it situationally, so one roll whether its a single NPC you're making trouble for a or a group of them; on a 10+, they turn their back on you until the situation changes, which is part of the conversation between the PCs and MC.

This should have also been listed under the moves the MC can make: it's largely intended as a hard move they can make against you after a miss in applicable situations, e.g. you've tried to argue the toss with them and they've turned your offer down flat, so now you check to see if they're prepared to deal with you at all.

Thanks, that's helpful, the bolded part especially.

No, when you lie low, you establish in the fiction how you are doing so, so you need to clearly state whose help you are getting and how; having heat won't effect this and won't require you to make trouble before you can try to lie low, but if you miss on the lie low move, then the MC might ask you to roll to see if this refusal makes trouble for you.

I hope that's been of help. :-)
Again, much clearer now, thanks. 

Further question: that Heat & XP thing is clearly errata.  I know you can update a pdf on drivethru to correct that, but can you do the same with Lulu, since it's PoD?  If so, do you intend to?

brainstorming & development / Re: The 'Hood is Open for Business
« on: May 18, 2014, 02:56:16 PM »
Rules questions:
The 'Career Criminals' section says that you mark XP when you gain Heat.
It also says that 'Whenever experience reaches 5, reset it to zero and choose one [advancement option]'.

However, the character sheets agree that you mark XP when you gain Heat, but say that 'When ever your experience + heat reaches 5, reset experience to zero and choose one'. (i.e. that Heat effectively 'double dips' for XP purposes)

Which is correct?  The Stats section implies the latter, by stating 'you’ll learn faster when the heat is on', but it's unclear to me.

Secondly, what's the intent for 'make trouble'?  'The Heat is On' section strongly implies that if you have Heat, you're always making trouble, so you'd have to roll for it. 
a) Is it 'one roll determines all reactions', or 'one roll per NPC', or 'one roll per group of NPCs'?  So, say I go to my mother for help, and I roll a 10, is that it, no NPCs will help me until I lose some heat?  Or can I try a friend or colleague, but not another family member?  Or can I then go and ask my brother?  Obviously, narrative will inform some of these decisions, but what's the generic intent here?

b) Say there's a neighbour who's helped me lie low before, and the heat is on.  I want to use him to lie low again.  I have Heat, so clearly I'd be making trouble for them.  I roll, and get a 7-9.  I choose to mark them for payback so they don't turn their back on me, but 'As long as an NPC is still listed in your payback box, you can’t make use of them any further', so now I can't actually get them to help me Lie low?
My best guess is that Lie Low is a generally-applicable move, rather than 'asking one person specifically', so you don't roll to Make Trouble, you just roll to see if anyone will take you in, and if you owe payback, the MC will tell you who you owe.  Is that right?

brainstorming & development / Re: The 'Hood is Open for Business
« on: April 09, 2014, 05:25:05 PM »
Fair enough.  Not like either of them are that pricey.

brainstorming & development / Re: The 'Hood is Open for Business
« on: April 09, 2014, 08:03:55 AM »
Are there/will there be any combo deals to get print + pdf?

Apocalypse World / Re: Glorantha with Apocalyse World ?
« on: September 15, 2013, 09:20:50 AM »
Probably not as the only system, but maybe give XP for living up to their cultural ideals (rather than just the obligations, which have narrative penalties for not doing).

What I mean is, every time a player can cite one of their gender's beliefs (so: 'Violence is always an option', 'No-one can make you do anything' for men, 'There is always another way' (and maybe 'she sleeps, she is not dead', somehow?  Maybe to keep hope alive?) for women), and acts accordingly, they get xp.

Up to you, I personally just like 'soft' inducements to act in the 'culturally expected' manner than in the 'objectively most effective' manner.

Apocalypse World / Re: Glorantha with Apocalyse World ?
« on: September 13, 2013, 03:07:15 AM »
Moonrise over Karse is based on the Lunar perspective, but might give you some ideas.

Apocalypse World / Re: Playbook focus: The Battlebabe
« on: August 12, 2013, 03:35:55 PM »
You've obliquely referred to this comment, but for the sake of those who missed the talk of the z-axis the first time round (hidden as it is in a totally different board):
And some further commentary:

For the record, I've played a battlebabe before, and am running a game with one in at the moment, and I've not had any problems.  But in each case, the character was deeply involved with others.  (By choice, naturally.)  The one I played was the 2IC in a PC Chopper's gang, and actually walked away from the gang after the chopper's death, then spent the rest of the campaign trying to undo the consequences of that terrible, terrible mistake.  The BB in the game I'm running is a part of the (PC) Operator's crew.

Point is, they're only a loner if they want to be.  Basically, I agree 100% with and wish to emphasise this:
[. . .]it's so important that the Battlebabe choose their connections, their friendships, their allegiances.

Apocalypse World / Re: NPC gang leaders
« on: July 27, 2013, 07:38:52 PM »
Personally, I'd say 'yes', but have it not a sure thing.  Maybe have it require them to choose 'take definite hold' as a 'seize by force' option.  Maybe have them Act under Fire to get in a position for a clean shot.  Either way, if they're inflicting harm on an individual, they're doing negligible harm to the gang as a whole, so the gang won't take harm, and I'd still have the leader get the gang size defensive bonus (bodies getting in the way, blocking the most damaging targets).

But ultimately, I'd do what made the most interesting story without violating 'what honesty demands'.

Apocalypse World / Re: How populated are you Apocalypses?
« on: July 16, 2013, 08:16:08 AM »
I'm currently studying Economics and Anthropology, and this thread got me thinking about how various real life unit of social organization map into Apocalypse World.

I'd just like to say that was a fascinating read, thank you.

I'm running a game via chat at the moment, set basically in post-apocalyptic rural scandinavia/Canada kind of place.  There are 12 known settlements, each has, on average, about 200-ish people (though the majority live in farms scattered around the main settlement, except in Winter).  They are, on average, 3 days' caravan ride apart from each other (though there are a few sleds that can make the journey in one.  For a price.).  One settlement has already been lost over winter.  Factional fighting between settlements has happened and is threatening to explode into near-war.  And no child has been live-born since the apocalypse.

Actually, is the map I gave my players at the start of the campaign, though it needs a bit of an update now.  I made the routes between them using the cluster generation rules from Diaspora.

So, about 2,000 pretty scattered people in total, and only dropping.  Things are going to be getting interesting pretty soon . . .

Apocalypse Galactica / Re: Version 2 Complete
« on: June 15, 2013, 11:35:40 AM »
Glad I could help.

A few points

Re: 'Are you telling the truth'
I'm watching through the series again for inspiration, and there are at least a couple of times when that question could have confirmed/denied a cylon.  *Spoilers, obviously* One being Baltar giving the results of his cylon detection device (to Boomer or Ellen, for example), another being when Saul is charging the Chief with being a cylon (admittedly, that one's a bit more complicated, but the point's there) after Sharon was revealed to be one.

I'm slightly dubious over giving the pilot 'officer on deck'.  At least, if there's a CAG in play.  Simply put, it seems to be treading on the CAG's toes a bit more than I'm comfortable with.  (Piloting = pilot.  Leading pilots = CAG.)

If you want a result better than yours but worse than the core, you can just say on a 7-9, half your actions (round down) result in catastrophe.  Personally, I wouldn't - one crisis, properly handled, is bad enough for a 7-9, but up to you.

Finally, can you break down why you've disallowed -1Hx at the end of a session?  I'm not saying it's a bad call, I'm just interested as to your reasons.

Monsterhearts / Re: New Skin: The Incubus
« on: May 24, 2013, 02:17:44 PM »
Firstly, you seem to have quotes the power of summoning instead of warding.

However, since you've updated the .pdf, I can comment on the move:

Yes, this now makes sense and is an improvement.  If you want to avoid penalties without negating the move entirely, you could say it means you can ignore the next harm inflicted on you, but not any secondary effects.  Thus, if someone successfully lashes out physically at you, they can still choose to force you to hold steady before you can retaliate, for example, though that is a bit of a nerf to how the move stands at the moment, I think.  (Especially since it doesn't affect attacks that don't do harm.  Though that does avoid arguments about whether, say, hypnotism counts as an attack.)

Anyway, think that's me done here.  Nice one.

Monsterhearts / Re: New Skin: The Incubus
« on: May 22, 2013, 08:10:49 AM »
Predatory instinct is *much* better now, I feel.

However, regarding the 'power of warding' I at least suggest you change the word 'advantage', as that actually means something in the mechanics, though only to NPCs, as well as the fact that it's unclear exactly what it means.  +2 forward or ongoing means something, but even then I don't really get it.

Okay, an example to show where I'm getting confused.
PC2 is standing behind PC1, who is unaware of PC2.  PC1 is an incubus with the power of warding active.  PC2 hits PC1 with a bat, lashing out physically and getting a 10.  PC1 has a +2 'advantage' thanks to the ward, but as they're not rolling, it has no effect and they get hit.  Not much of a ward.  If PC1 had to be aware of the attack, they could get a bonus to a 'hold steady' roll to dodge it, I guess, but they don't.

Now, it's possible I'm missing something, but if you're not going to change the move as I suggested before, can you at least explain here what you intend for it to actually do, please?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5