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.

Topics - miedvied

Pages: [1]
Apocalypse World / Arvid's Playbook Foci
« on: November 07, 2016, 08:58:32 PM »
Is there any chance Arvid is going to make an updated and consolidated run at a collection of Playbook Foci for the release of 2e? Not that that much has changed, but I'd be interested in seeing his/her great insights with a couple of years more play under their belt.

The first set were absolutely amazing, and if (s)he were inclined to update them and throw them in a PDF... dear god of the wastes, I'd DriveThru that motherfucker in a heartbeat.

Dungeon World / Rations question
« on: September 19, 2016, 07:18:30 PM »
Forgive me if this has been answered before: google didn't help, and the search function brought up mostly "inspirations."

I've been asked to MC a DW game for the first time. Stupidly, I agreed, so I've been reviewing the rules. The ration rules are giving me pause, though, and I was hoping some might help clarify.

Salient points:
- Undertake a Perilous Journey suggests a journey costs 1 ration/day
- Human Hunter starting move states the character doesn't have to consume a ration when making camp (in context X), suggesting rations are 1/character/day
-Make Camp consumes a ration, and again, its phrasing suggests 1/character/day
-Quartermaster skill, on 10+, reduces number of rations required by 1. On a 7-9, normal ration consumption.

Things I'd like to clarify:
1) It's not explicitly stated, but it seems to me that the ration cost of Perilous Journey and the ration cost of Make Camp are the same cost; you make camp each night, and you measure your journey as 1ration/day. That is, this is a cost of 1/day, not 1/day of travel + 1/night of camping.

2) Again, I can't find the explicit statement, but it seems to me the cost is 1 ration / day / character. A five day journey with a party of 3 ought to consume 15 rations. Right?

3) If I understand the above two, it seems like the quartermaster skill check is a bit odd.

A 10+ on trailblazer, if it saves even a day, will save a number of rations equal to the number of members in the party. If it saves more than that, it grows in multiples. Likewise, a miss would be measured in large proportions of total ration cost. Scout 10+ can take a huge amount of sting out of an encounter; a miss can really hurt. QM, on the other hand, on a miss can theoretically be crippling, and on a 10+ seems to have essentially no value over a 7-9 (e.g., a party of four traveling for a week, on a 10+, saves 1 ration off of 28; by comparison, a trailblazer 10+ saving even one day of travel would save 4 rations).

That is, trailblazer and scout each have a "holy shit," "status quo," and "nice!" category, depending on the roll. QM seems to only have "holy shit" and "status quo".  It just doesn't quite seem to fit the magnitude of the other two roles, at least assuming I've understood the ration counts correctly, and the QM move correctly.

Any guidance?

The Sprawl / Move Stat Question
« on: September 06, 2016, 03:31:08 PM »
Hello there,

I recently picked up the sprawl and I'm dissecting it alongside my favorite co-player, and some questions have come bubbling up. I hope the community here doesn't mind if I share them in this thread as they do so.

The first big one:

The moves in AW tend to use a playbook's main stat for their function, and often include a move that allows them to use that main stat in other, highly-used moves for that playbook. To give an example: the brainer is going to have weird +2. Of their 6 moves, 1 is a weird bonus, 3 roll +weird, and 2 substitute +weird for other stats (one for hot, and one for sharp). In other words, this character is (a) fucking weird, and (b) highly competent. All the playbooks have a similar effect, though not all are 6/6 like the brainer.

By comparison, looking at the Sprawl book, I see the hacker in particular is quite diversified. The hacker seems to require +synth, +mind, +edge, and +cool to run the Matrix moves, and has no playbook moves to transfer their competence at +mind (or whatever else) over into other moves.

I was wondering what the intention here is? I see that for some things you can replace normal rolls with +synth if you have the appropriate cyber-parts, so I can see a general sort of push to incentivize people to chrome up. The flip side is, as far as I can see, even if the decker wanted to chrome up, it wouldn't affect most of their moves, so that doesn't seem like the underlying design decision.

Can anyone clarify for me what they feel the effect on gameplay is of this change in stats emphasis, and de-powering of deckers is? The other playbooks don't seem so diversified, so it seems like an intentional decision.

Pages: [1]