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 - hobbesque

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 24, 2017, 01:35:14 PM »
arak_ne: Right! If there are no other tactical considerations - no other objectives, no advantage of ground, just bloody battle Gangs of New York style - it's single combat. Keeler and Dremmer are using their gangs as weapons, no big deal.

Vx cathedra! I stand corrected. :p

Some of my inclination to have groups of npcs not necessarily oblige the PCs in bloody battle was thinking that, playing them as people, they'd make it more complicated. But then again, they're not that complicated, sometimes.

I realized the other thing is that I might be biased against the single combat move. Thinking as a PC, seizing is much more advantageous - more choices, even on a miss (hence Ebok hacking it, I think?). My players seem to reach for it quickly, although that might be being more familiar with 1E. Also might might be a sign I should make them tell me what their character does, not what move they make, and take it from there.

Another source of bias is that I'm a fan of fiddly "on a 10+, choose X, on a 7-9, choose X-1..." moves, and zooming in on combat and tactics in general. I think the 2E battle moves as a whole are really neat and want to use 'em. Single combat has that cool decide-in-secret-to-keep-going element, but otherwise is pretty simple.

Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 24, 2017, 08:39:33 AM »
You read it in the intuitive English way! "Single combat" means one-on-one, it uses the singular "someone," etc. I think it's fair to say Ebok's read is a bit of a hack -- "whenever two sides fight each other without an objective other than the other's destruction...". Intuitively, it makes sense to me that on any scale larger than 1 vs literal 1, it inevitably gets tactical. Admittedly, my most applicable experience is in paintball, but even in a fight of 2 people vs 2 people, each side is trying to move up the field so they can shoot the other side without cover (seize "tactical advantage"?). Even if there was literally no immediate cover, just a featureless plain, each side is going to be hoping the other side breaks and leaves rather than keeping on blowing them to pieces (seize "the field"). The PC's choices are not the only determiner of what happens -- NPCs on any side are going to try to run, take cover, etc. AW is not by default in a genre where you stand, shirtless, atop rather than behind cover, firing your machine gun from the hip, and it certainly isn't as far as the NPCs are concerned!


Keeler has a gang. He faces Dremmer's gang in a western situation style. Everybody is ready to fight.

Keeler : "These dogs are gonna die, now, we just open fire on them, we want them dead."

MC: OK, cool. Do you take cover or something? If you just stand there in the open it's probably not going to be fun.

[If no, that's a golden opportunity! Whatever else happens, they're taking harm, or more harm than they would otherwise, if yes...].

MC: OK, you open fire, you tell your gang to open fire. Dremmer and their gang dive for cover, and your gang does too. [some NPCs on both sides] are hit, but nothing decisive yet. What do you do?

Or: They dive for cover and are retreating in good order, covering each other. Your guys aren't breaking cover to chase them yet. You'll get some of them but not nearly all of them, at this rate. What do you do?

The answer to the next question can and probably should be framed in a SBF kind of way. Seize their cover, or maybe the variant where you hold on to something you have (you have tenuous hold of Dremmer and their people, but if you got decisive hold, they'd be surrounded, no way out).

Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 23, 2017, 12:05:36 PM »
I also wanted to say that I appreciate the discussion. The new battle move setup is really interesting to me, and I'm excited to play with it more and better (relatedly, for some reason I didn't realize that all the new battle/car/subterfuge moves got examples and explanations in the core books, like everything else; suggested reading if you haven't yet!).

With respect to Go Aggro, I take a lot of the "hard" that goes into being good at it as "psychologically prepared to shoot an unarmed unresisting person" as well as the "has good aim and reflexes" that I associate with Seize By Force. So I think in the same way that the MC is allowed to say "he barricades himself in before you get a chance to shoot him, so you neither get what you want nor get to inflict harm" [this time, your reflexes were not good enough] they're allowed to say "he backs off, hands where you can see, so you neither get what you want nor get to inflict harm" [this time, you were not case-hardened enough to shoot him just because he was acting nonthreatening while not doing exactly what you asked]. It's like in Act Under Fire where you have them flinch on a 7-9 -- the player can't just say "Well, obviously flinching is the worse choice, I really wanted to just plow through, so I don't flinch, I plow through."

At that point, if the character decides to overcome their moment of weakness by saying "I just shoot him anyway," I'd probably make it more of an exchange-of-harm type deal, similar to how people who are suggesting that a drawn gun could be part of "backing away with hands where you can see," but in this case because their hestitation between "I point by gun at him and demand the narcostabs" and "fuck it I'm just going to shoot him and take the narcostabs" gives the NPCs a chance to dive for cover, draw weapons, etc., instead of having drawn already (which does seem like an non-colloquial reading of "hands where I can see 'em"). So that part's pretty similar.  I just wanted to point out that while players are the captains of their characters' intentions and desires, they are not of their characters' abilities, and there's a fuzzy place that Go Aggro occupies in that respect.

(p.s ever since I saw the title of this thread I've been imagining a pulp novel cover with "Seize by Force -- to kill!" across in in lurid red letters)

Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 12, 2017, 05:10:58 PM »
Paul T wins the "that sounds like what I meant, but better" award. The only thing I'd add is that you can zoom out and abstract the action, or not; you've got all these specific questions you can ask and moves you can use if you want, but you don't have to. maybe Dog head and his boyz are a bunch of gnats whose immediate future is being a greasy spot in the dust, if that's what the PCs choose, and fighting them is just a single seize by force move. If not, if it's more interesting or more real, you have total authority as MC to zoom in on the action more than that.

Wrt to seizing someone's "life," I agree generally about not seizing abstractions, but I remember the 1st edition thing being "their meat," which is what I assumed that people meant when they were saying "life." I wouldn't tell a player "no, never!" if they asked to seize Dremmer's life, I'd just do like I'd do if they asked a question for read a sitch that's not on the list, and direct them to what I think they mean.

If you seize so-and-so, and take definite hold, you've got them in your hands and at your mercy. If you say you waste them, well, inflict harm as established (on top of whatever seizing dealt). I wouldn't mess around with their success, their definite hold, by making the act under fire to inflict more harm (that sounds indefinite -- although they did not seize an escape route, so post-wasting I may ask them to do any number of things). If the fiction says it shouldn't be that easy to waste Dog head, then that should be established before seizing Dog head is a move that gets rolled.

Wrt to lay down fire: I'm also not sure 100% of the time I'd let an opportune shot pick out single NPC, again, all depending. I haven't played a lot with the battle moves yet, but when I have, I think what I'm gravitating towards is that in the chaos of a fight with a dozen+ people, there's some set-up before you can pick out just one person (at which point, maybe seize, maybe sucker, maybe go aggro, etc., depending). I've made the PCs act under fire most commonly, or use one of the subterfuge moves, or have their friend use one of the battle moves that lets them move and act freely, etc.

Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 10, 2017, 06:35:04 PM »
Most of the time, sure!

Some of the time, I think it's fair for the MC to ask if the character has the right fictional positioning to do something. Obviously, there are some things a player could ask to seize by force where the MC would go "uh, no? At least, not until you...". Like, the MacGuffin that is hidden somewhere in a bustling marketplace ("Cool, but you have to find it first"), the Hardhold across the sea ("Cool, how do you get there?"), the psychic maelstrom ("Cool, but, uh, how?"). If the character is in one trench a rifle shot away from the enemy trench, and beyond that is Dog Head's fortress of spikes and girders, and all of his gang in between, there's probably a couple more steps before "I seize him!" makes sense (depending on the scale you were playing the scene on). If Dog Head is leading his gang into battle from the front? Sure, of course. If the character is fighting Dog Head's gang, but Dog Head is hanging at the back, mmm, it depends (easier with a sniper rifle than a chainsaw). I might make them break the gang first, or use a trickier non-seize move to get close enough to Dog Head to seize him.

tl;dr Yes, but if it feels weird, ask questions, and if any of the players' answers sound like another move should come first or also, make them roll that.

Thanks, folks! These are all very helpful. I'm hearing that the News and Waterbearer both have interesting dynamics around having a thing that others are interested in, but the power it gives them is not directly or obviously capable of letting them keep it against a hard, direct move.

Right now I'm thinking the News love letter will be about the tension between journalistic/artistic integrity and the need to remain fed and in one piece (and even selling out will be complicated by multiple possible allies). The Waterbearer one I want to set up similarly, with the tension being between... maybe sanctity/ceremony (the Source as a thing above and beyond the grit and grime, and the hope that brings), peacemaking for its own sake, and power politics. Or something. Need to come up with actual costs and benefits for them to choose among, too...

Spwack, I'm very interested in your experience with the Child-thing! What did you do? Where were you in control, and where were you vulnerable? How does it compare to the brainer?

Hey folks! I'm trying to compose a Hatchet CIty/Sunken Sydney-style one-shot (that is, a scenario that simulates a game that's really popping off in session 4-5 or whatever). Player interest meant that I'm including some of the extended playbooks (the ones in the subject), but unlike, say, the Gunlugger, I've never seen one in play for more than a session or two (or at all). So, help me out:

Whether you've played one/seen one in play or not, what sort of character of that playbook would interest you? Why do you think it's cool, what sort of situations or in-game position do you think you'd aim your character towards?

(Ex:  "I like that the Gunlugger is the baddest ass" "I'd want to play then as a rootless nomad but I keep on liking helpless people with fixed addresses"/"I want to play them as fixated on constantly finding bigger badasses to test self against")

If you have played one or seen one in play over a few sessions, what'd they get up to? Where were they going, or where did they end up?

(Ex: "after doing lots of gigs for both of two rival holds for a while, they ended up brokering peace by seducing the head of one into abdicating in their favor" / "they piled up so many bodies that the game area was depopulated and barren")

Obviously, I'm asking the actual players these questions, but I'm interested in what other people have been up to, and figured I'd get more grist for the mill.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: April 29, 2016, 04:18:44 PM »
One thing I've noticed looking over the kickstarter preview is the changes to the battlebabe. Is it just me or is it just silly broken now? It was all ways a favorite of mine due to being an interesting mix of strengths and weakness, frail, but kick ass, depending on how the encounter goes.

W/r/t to the battlebabe, since Vx took a pass this round:

I'm a little confused as to why this has caused so much consternation. Gunlugger has always had a cool-for-hard stat swap, which got upgraded to all Cool battle moves in 2nd ed. That means that a starting Gunlugger can have...

*+3 Hard, which they use every time they would use Cool
*1 more gunlugger move
*a LOT of weapons

And a starting Battlebabe can have...

*+3 cool, which they use every time they would use Cool
*1 more battlebabe move
*Two weird/cool weapons

The Battlebabe can defininitely have a better overall statline, and the difference from 1e is bigger, but there's plenty of reasons to be either kind of badass.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:17:59 PM »
I'm really digging the new playbooks. I think I see the limbs and entrails of other playbooks. Besides the Operator, what other playbooks (LE or otherwise) have gone into the workshop, never to emerge again? Which are getting remade for 2nd edition? Are there some that are neither, and if so, why?

Edit:  Also! Is it on purpose that the Maestro'D and News Hot-for-X stat sub moves don't have the note about also applying to Battle moves like, say, Ice Cold? If so, why?

Dungeon World / Steadings
« on: March 01, 2016, 10:52:34 AM »
Hey folks! Has anyone played much with steadings and is willing to tell me what was cool, worked, didn't, ended up hacked?

They seem like a cool mechanic and I want to steal them for my AW game (where the hard holder is all about post-apoc geopolitics). I've run a lot of World games, including DW one-shots with dungeon starters, but not anything that used these rules.


Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: March 01, 2016, 10:35:30 AM »
Rad.  I will miss the operator (mostly because I played it real hard once), but that totally makes sense.

It also answers one of my other questions, namely, "the new emphasis on vehicles is totally because Fury Road was awesome, right?"

So about those:

What do power/looks/weakness mean without A No Shit Driver?

How do the hard holder/MC define their vehicles? Utility vs. Battle means what? (and do small holds gained by advance get any, or is that like gangs?)

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: March 01, 2016, 07:57:33 AM »
Here's 2 mechanical questions and a maybe-bigger development question:

1) Do Leadership and Combat Driver give +1 choice even on a miss (that is, a minimum of 1 choice for most battle moves?)

2) If a PC and their gang are in the same fight, can they do two different things? ("Lay down fire, gals, I'm going to assault a secure position!"

3) What marked the operator for death and dismemberment?

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: February 23, 2016, 04:00:44 PM »
I'm a Patreon newb -- if we wanted to see more of the AW2 design process, how could we use that avenue to find it? I realized I had a lot a lot of "Oh man, what's behind THAT one?" but I didn't want to either demand essays of response or try to make you give away for free what you quite rightly realized people will pay for...

In terms of other stuff, I'm also super curious about vehicles. Power and Looks seem to only give you lists of adjectives, rather than anything number-based mechanical effect, and I wonder how defined the Hardholder fleets are (what is a "war vehicle" vs a "utility"

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: February 14, 2016, 02:18:00 PM »
I wondered similar things as Paul; also whether "In Battle" if intended to be advanced like "seize by force" was (many of the moves are variations on it, but not all).

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« on: February 09, 2016, 05:39:41 PM »
New emphasis on vehicles makes me wonder -- is ap harm still all or nothing? My car might be a 3-armor tank, but being T-boned by even a motorbike wrecks it. Is that intended?

AP always did double duty as "this punches through stop sign armor and kevlar alike" (ap bullets, whole-body-pulverizing falls and impacts) and "this has nothing to do with armor" (poison, brainer stuff, etc) or just "I want you to take 1-harm, yes, even you, person who stacked the +armor moves." It might be worth breaking them out (-1 armor ap vs. armor negating).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6