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 - Motipha

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Apocalypse World / narrating outcomes.
« on: September 04, 2012, 11:38:29 AM »
ok, a thing that I've always believed to be true about the AW engine.

A move is triggered by an action of the PC in the fiction.  Once the appropriate thing has happened, the move triggers and dice are rolled.

The outcome of the dice are the domain of the MC.  By this I mean: it is the MC's place to say what happens as the results of what the PC did, staying true to a) what has happened so far in the game b) the intentions of the PC c) the wording of the move d) the intentions/drives/etc of the world and the NPC's.  he must respect that a hit and a partial hit both are hits and should be treated as such.

The reason I bring this up is that both while playing as well as hearing accounts of play, non-MC players have/seem to be narrarating the outcome of their action.  Which is fine, all is cool, but I interpret the subtext as being "The MC is ceding the right for them to do so because the outcome doesn't impact her fronts/the desires of the NPC's that she is responsible for."


Apocalypse World / Re: AP: The Leviathan
« on: March 14, 2012, 05:25:51 PM »
*grin* yeah, Goldie is a lot of awesome.  I love tai, but she's only really getting started on telling her story.  We talk about picking up the game at a later point, so there might be follow-up.

Apocalypse World / Re: AP: The Leviathan
« on: March 14, 2012, 04:52:56 PM »
Tai.  It was a really great game.

Apocalypse World / AP: The Leviathan
« on: March 13, 2012, 05:56:25 PM »
So I'm on a podcast where three of the four hosts all game with each other on as part of our normal gaming group.  We recently finished an 8 session Apocalypse World game that we recorded, and we had a blast.  Here's the AP:

Apocalypse World / Re: Using gang independently from weapon?
« on: February 29, 2012, 09:43:27 AM »
the game doesn't have rounds as part of it's basic play.  So if you are adding rounds in, it's really your call.  Play it however you see fit.

However, if you are saying that the players should make one move and then wait for a response, it seems to me that those would be different moves: One move would be about the hardholder attacking with his gun, the other him attacking with his gang.  But that's all about what is happening, fiction-wise.

other lumpley games / Re: In A Wicked Age question
« on: February 28, 2012, 01:38:38 AM »
Quick question:  Where you describing what happened because you were the GM, or because you lost the initiative (i.e. you were the answerer)?

other lumpley games / [IAWA] mid-dice negotiation with shifting loyalties
« on: February 28, 2012, 01:35:32 AM »
Ok, so this is a complicated situation.  We have three PC's:

Tabni-Ishtar, Goddess of Fertility and the Harvest.  She wants to get rid of Ku-aya and convince Dolawat to not sacrifice children to her (though her best interest is to actually have the villagers give sacrifice unto her).
Ku-aya, the Demoness of Illness (formerly a river goddess). She wants to discredit Tabni-Ishtar.
Dolawat, Midwife and priestess of Tabni-Ishtar.  She wants to be impregnated by Tabni-Ishtar.

The three are mixing it up, and we enter the second round with both Dolawat and Ku-Aya having advantage:

All roll, the action order becomes Dolawat, Tabni-Ishtar, then Ku-aya.  Dolawat makes a plea to Tabni-Ishtar to prove that she is still loved by the goddess, and moves to embrace her.  Tabni Ishtar (losing but not by double) consents and draws her in to a relatively chaste embrace.  Ku-aya, in the form of creeping black shadows, insinuates herself between the two of them and forces them apart (They both answer, lose but not out, Ku-aya has advantage). Dolawat misinterprets this as Tabni-Ishtar pushing her away, and Tabni-Ishtar ends up with Ku-Aya's hand on her throat.

At the end of the round, Tabni-Ishtar and and Dolawat negotiate:  Tabni-Ishtar will give Dolawat a child, if she promises to help banish Ku-aya.  Dolawat is willing to agree, but here's the rub: Ku-aya still has advantage over both those two characters.  By negotiating, one of them has to agree to drop out of the fight, and Dolawat is the one who wanted to drop out, but Ku-Aya doesn't want her out yet: she still has a stick to wield.  How do we deal with this sort of negotiation?  In our game, we just said that the two of them can't negotiate a resolution between them if and drop out if Ku-aya isn't done with them, because even though Dolawat has advantage over Tabni-Ishtar, Ku-aya has advantage over both of them and to deprive her of her stick would break the rules.  Thoughts?

Another question that came up as part of this: I as GM am intended to be the arbiter of scene framing.  But with two supernatural entities, how much control do I have over saying "You're not in this scene?"  The fiction almost seems to dictate that I can't bar them from scenes, since they really could just argue the "I can be anywhere" angle.  It wasn't a problem in the game, but I did find myself having to worry about relative fairness, especially when I did explicitly set up some scenes without a PC where that PC would have had a very good vested interest for wanting to be there (a chance meeting between the demoness and the child of one of the PC's).  How have others handled this, how strict/strong is the GM's ability to limit participation in scenes?

We record our sessions for AP on the Jank Cast podcast, and I'll link when this one is shared, but I was curious about this for our next session.  The game is really great, I'm enjoying the format and play of it a great deal, just trying to work out some of the kinks.

other lumpley games / Re: [DitV] Raising / Seeing question
« on: February 22, 2012, 12:22:51 PM »
Nah, but that's part of the fun of the game!  liek a gun fight where one of the raises or see's is "sweat drips in your eyes."

Using description of the environment and activity AROUND the PC's makes the world come alive, rather than having the rest of the world go grey around some technicolor characters.  As long as you're building on the fiction so far, and you are continuing to satisfy the most demanding player, you should be fine.

Apocalypse World / Re: The sleeping Gunlugger and the shitty knife.
« on: November 29, 2011, 12:27:04 PM »
Hrm, you're right, the both of yus.  I was thinking of what happens on a full hit, or on a miss, but not the partial hit.  The list of reactions on the partial hit for Going aggro presupposes the target can make a decision to do something, rather than being utterly and completely helpless.  The closest would be "give them something you think they want" but that still means some thought or consideration.

Antisinecurist, I don't like the first miss option on that move.  one, it tells a character what they are thinking.  two, in my opinion it works almost directly against the rest of the colour of AW: it suggests a basic idea of humanity and honour that isn't part of the setting as a whole.  To be reluctant to kill in Apocalypse world is a thing that you can do, but it's not part of the mechanically enforced and encouraged colour.  Plus, attacking someone unsuspecting and defenseless is already covered by going aggro:  Attacking someone who cannot conceivably react is the real situation here.

But, custom move, whatever floats the boat of people using it.

I guess I am back to "this presents the MC with a golden opportunity" and it really is his call one way or another: either the PC is dead, or he's not.  Just depends on what being a fan of the PC's means in this circumstance.  And if it'll save strife at that point, making it a custom move might make sense, but I'd only bother with that if it's necessary for the players to feel ok with what goes down.

Apocalypse World / Re: The sleeping Gunlugger and the shitty knife.
« on: November 28, 2011, 12:33:21 PM »
It really is personal call:  Of the MC, but really of the group at the table.

That said, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of "It's your character, but you don't get a say in what happens to them."  It's one of the reasons I like this game: that in essence you always have a say in what happens.  But I do agree that the consequences of moves have to matter. 

I'm going to blather here for a bit, to clarify thoughts.

The framing of this is interesting:  the original setup describe Rouge making a series of moves (and succeeding) against Fifi, but doesn't say anything about Fifi making moves in response.  In a way, I see this as a tacit agreement same way that if the MC's indirect moves go unstopped then they just come to fruition:  if another PC is trying to kill you and you do nothing to stop them, well, you're dead.  your choice.

But if Fifi is making moves trying to get out of this situation, then the only way to get to this position is for a lot of Fifi's moves to have been failures.  And here the MC has chosen to make this situation possible:  in essence, failures must have been interpreted as "You become more vulnerable to Rouge."  In theory, the MC can interpret that failure to do something else, to inject more craziness to the situation from outside, but I can see that Fifi failing shouldn't lead to Rouge failing directly, but is it kosher to introduce situations that not only fuck with Fifi, but indirectly make Rouge's life more difficult?  or is that not being a fan of Rouge?

Moves are one-sided, but it would have to take a serious run of good luck for one PC and ill luck of another PC to get to a position where one is completely at the mercy of another.  And still, I would argue that this is a move:  This is still going aggro.  As I interpret Going aggro, this is just an injection point for the games colour.  You go to bury your knife in to another guys eye:  you can still fuck it up.  Someone comes upon you, something unexpected happens, there is no such thing as a situation that is completely under control and a miss is not the same as failure.  scaling the damage appropriately, yes, but it's still a move.

blood & guts / Re: Investigative moves
« on: January 19, 2011, 06:05:27 PM »
It seems to me that AW procedural is all about what that procedural is playing towards, right?  So each one has their gimmick, dependent on what they do: CSI was all about the lab work (interspersed with cultural commentary), law and order was about due process and law, Lie to me about deception and the interpretation of personal response.  Just saying "I'm doing a procedural" doesn't really describe most of these, even if the term is technically accurate to "doing what the police/justice system do."

So moves for this would depend on your gimmick, right?  Or maybe that's the difference between character splats and character moves.  hrm.

My favourite from a generalised move view:  Whenever you take significant time away from the case, roll +intuition.  10+ something happens that makes clear something you didn't know before.  7-9 you couldn't stop thinking about some piece of evidence.  If there's nothing more to Know, the MC will tell you.

the nerve core / Jank Cast review Apocalypse World
« on: January 19, 2011, 05:44:58 PM »
Hah, just noticed that I never posted this here.  The Jank Cast did a review of Apocalypse World.  Here's the link:

Apocalypse World / Re: Who's this Maestro D' dude I keep hearing about
« on: October 20, 2010, 02:23:15 PM »
I will.  I will hunt you all to the ends of the earth.  I will track you like vermin, the scent of your cowardice and betrayal thick and redolent in my flaring nostrils.

so yeah.  Don't do it.  n'stuff.  This little act of humour actually made me think that there seems should be a splat called "Driven" or something of the like:  Someone following revenge, or some goal to the exception of all else.  Sounds very z-axis to me, no?

Of course, I might just be spouting off something someone is already doing.  I'm known to do such things.

Apocalypse World / Re: When the Hocus doesn't believe
« on: October 01, 2010, 11:41:10 AM »
It cAn be a tricky line.  Our hocus has used frenzy a couple times since then to beautiful effect.  We got over our difference in opinion pretty well.  Sometimes she's just said things that were true to her, sometimes things that were true to her audience.

That said, if you look at the extended description of the move in the back of the book it doze say that what the truth is is up to the mc, page 228: MC, you're the judge whether the hocus is speaking truth to a mob.

blood & guts / Re: Playbook Directions
« on: September 24, 2010, 10:28:39 AM »
So we're not talking about an X-y axis, but a slider labeled maybe 'implicit/explicit power'.  And then you have something connected to it like 'narrative autonomy/dependency'.   The Battlebabe can pick up and go from situations that any other character is locked into.  I could imagine a Golem playbook, moving in the opposite direction as the Battlebabe, where having sex or bartering with another character binds him to a course of action.
Not really.  If were looking at it from a mechanical point of view, the gunlugger and the driver are at least as untethered.  The drivers special move is explicitly about picking up and getting away: prove that your not tied down.

We are most definitely talking about axes though.  The concepts that Vincent describes are not opposite from each other, they are orthogonal.  You can imagine a character who is both fictionally and mechanically effective, and can even create that character by selecting appropriate combinations of moves when you improve.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5