Hey all!
Here is a hypothetical inspired by play: The Hardholder fails his leadership, and later, when his lieutenant confronts him, it leads to a heated exchange. The Hardholder fails to manipulate the lieutenant, and then asks whether or not he can't just order the lieutenant to quit bickering. The table agrees that it fits within the parameters of holding discipline, but we're still unclear on the legality of solving a failed leadership roll through another leadership roll: It can quickly turn into a situation, where you can never really fail Leadership. On the other hand the player should enjoy the full benefits of the move.

My question is this: What would you rule and why? And if you'd let the Hardholder use leadership to shut down problems originating in a failed leadership, how would you then make failure feel real and consequential?

We're playing 2ed and loving it!
However a couple questions have popped up during play. Some of these are as of yet hypothetical, but they might come up in the not so far future.

Firstly, an issue has come up with hypnotic: A player wants to use it multiple times on the same npc, before all the hold has been spent. In the beginning of the game we allowed it, because why not. But since then it has essentially meant, that it's impossible for the MC to exhaust the hold, before new hold is gained. Normally I'd just rule that hypnotic could only be used on someone when you don't already have hold on them, but I fear that wouldn't be being a fan of the player's character.
How'd you guys rule it?

Also, about the Waterbearer's "peacemaker": I assume it works on PC's, but what if they don't want to meet with their rivals? Do they just have to, because the move says so?
And an aside: Has anyone played a game with both Angel and Waterbearer? I could imagine issues, but I haven't tried it yet.

And lastly, let's say a character has both "leadership" and "pack alpha". When he want's to order his gang to do something, that they rather wouldn't, which move would you make him roll? My gut says leadership, because it's better, and then if he fails, he can use pack alpha when the gang complains about it later. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

Best regards,
Lars

Hey all!

So, I was sitting and doing nothing, and as usually happens when I do nothing, my mind started wandering around the alleys apocalypse world, and a question popped in to my mind.

The situation is this:
Snow and Blake both want to get it on with Joe's Girl, and who can blame them? She's cute, she's funny and her dad controls half the trade in the Valley.
So: they both sit down at her table in Barbarossa's saloon and start hitting on her. Now, Joe's Girl likes the attention of both of them, because they're fucking hot (+2 hot), and she'd be inclined to get down with either of them. For reference, they both have +2 Hx with each other, because they're besties who've seen a lot of shit through together.
Now they're rivals however, and both of their players insist that they were at Joe's Girl's side at the exact same time.

My question is this: how do I handle the mechanics? I could just make a custom move, but that might be hard to do on the fly. And considering the obvious solution, that one seduces and the other interferes, how do I decide who does what? Flip a coin?
Maybe I should let them both roll to manipulate and interfere, and if both get 10+ Joe's Girl is up for a threesome?

What do you guys think?