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 - judson

Pages: [1]
1
AW:Dark Age / A stab at building threats
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:58:43 AM »
(I dunno if anyone in the Crown of Towers game wants everything to be a mystery, but I'm going to lay out most of my thinking as a Co-MC here, so...)

So, as Josh was laying out in his posts, our last session was a dual attempt to reconcile moral philosophy and to figure out how we as a table were going to proceed next session. One of the big takeaways was that we needed there to be some kind of techniques on the MC side of things, and that addressing the rights of the PCs was kind of important (at least to us.) So, I collected a list of the rights everyone had actually chosen, as well as trying to get a quick gist of where their character was coming at (i.e. asking some provocative questions, with the intention of acting on the results.)

So, here's what we've got:

Idus, the surrogate father of orphans and outcasts, himself something of an outcast, nonetheless War Champion of the Crown of Towers
He has the rights to
  • be known by reputation
  • confront you betters for justice
  • own an enchanted weapon
  • single combat

Tatbirt, the effective Castellan, fulfilled in her role but unrecognized. She is also a new mother, though no one knows who sired the babe. (Josh is also clearly interested in the questions about a female Castellan and her unclaimed offspring - maybe not their answers, but certainly the questions.)
She has the rights to
  • Commit or withhold the stronghold's resources
  • Feel the pulse of the stronghold's walls and stones
  • muster laborers
  • offer sacrifice for luck, harvest or victory

Tinitran, the ne'erdowell, wastrel, above-it-all Outranger. Tablesaw was clear that the hook for her will be opportunities. She's sort of a pre-medieval backpacker.
She has the rights to
  • find your way by road and trail
  • keep acquaintance with the people you've met
  • of noble blood, but a lesser descendant
  • step out of your earthly life

Lastly, Agerzam, my character, is the War-Captain, already beset by duties and demands. He wishes mostly for a quiet life, even if he has to decimate all hereabouts to accomplish that.
He has the rights to
  • at the beginning of a session, roll War
  • own a trained warhorse
  • supplicate the gods of war
  • wage war as you see fit

Likewise, the peoples hereabout:
The Abrika, of which stock all the PCs descend, are the descendants of governors and the owners of the stronghold by inheritance. Irat is a notable of this people and the Keep Liege.
The Magdolna, remnants of a former crown, descendants of Queen Magda, for whom much nearby is named.
Including the local trade town (Magdavros) and its inhabitants the Magdavronites.
Clan Ixones, one of many clans hostile to the Abrika and the stronghold.
The Walhaz, a populous group of rebelious landowners, farmers of the pastures and fields near the stronghold.


2
AW:Dark Age / Before play: counting the fallen
« on: September 04, 2014, 06:01:48 PM »
Counting the fallen just happens when we know a battle is over right? When one side surrenders or flees and the other accepts the surrender, accepts the escape, or falls to butchery or thereabouts.

There isn't a circumstance, seems like, where you'd forgo counting the fallen - where there'd be any benefit at all to skipping that.

(Now I want to set up an escape and pursuit after a fight such that the fallen can't be counted right away. Then what?)

3
AW:Dark Age / Before play: battle
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:57:29 PM »
A PC Leads and Attack and rolls, chooses options. Then her enemy Comes Under Attack.

If her enemy is an NPC, does that mean the MC rolls for that War Company and chooses options?

I notice that nowhere does this text say "the MC never rolls dice" but that seems like enough of a divergence from PbtA to warrant calling out. (Also in the Soldering season move.)

4
Murderous Ghosts / LA Gamers: 3s
« on: October 07, 2011, 12:35:41 AM »
We got together last night, with the intention of running Murderous Ghosts while some of ate and then move on to Durance.  Outcome was the 4 of us played 3 times and nitpicked afterwards.  Josh took good notes on our thoughts, which I hope I won't miss much of.

3 Games: Josh -> Mark, Judson -> Tony, Mark -> Judson.

We were playing with the "pencil in" rules of more violent ghosts.  I'm not sure it helped a whole lot.

I'll note first that we worked out after play the the way that the "involved in the ghost's story" paths are meant to work, once the Player knows how many times they can ask about their interaction, the GM should be on page 10, watching for one of those things happening.  I think every time we actually hit that path, the player busted, and there was a brief awkward scene until we strayed from expectation and got assaulted - the GM didn't have the Interacting with Ghosts choices in mind, and I don't think any of us as players considered them in those scenes.

We definitely hit on "loops" in the graph.  It seemed like there are a few places in the graph of "player draw" node that form a 3-cycle, and where the turn-to directions align with the hands such that reasonable play will lead through the loop.  Does that make sense?  Something like, A) draw: low-hand -> B draw: high-hand -> C draw: bust -> A.  (It's really hard for me not to use graph theory jargon here.)

Part of that was also that the "reasonable" actions of a character were often "run the fuck to the exit," and once the player realizes that that's the only way to not be murdered (or otherwise lose), they tend to align with the "fucking run" tactic.  

Tony sort of nailed the problem we had as a result, and that I recalled reading in other playtest reports: the player's goal is to survive, and is playing against the mechanics.  The GM's goal is to give herself the wigs.  Once we start falling into loops in the mechanics, Tony especially (the rest of us somewhat but less so) got frustrated, and so weren't interested in playing to the wigging.  "I give the giant bloody slavedriver a hug."  That moment was pretty sudden and irrevocable, I think.

Likewise, the decisions the GM makes for the ghosts, and about evidence and how they behave didn't feel significant, since it's the player's job, essentially, to run away from it, regardless of what it is.  

We wanted, as a result, for there to be opportunities for the player to confront the backstory somehow (as well as running away), so that we'd engage more over what the ghosts were like and why.

Final note: Mark seemed to have the smoothest time as GM.  He was flamboyant in his descriptions, and direct in the threats the ghosts represented despite because he wasn't paying much attention to his booklet and frequently was getting off the track with things.  (E.g. GM - 3, described the ghost being in the location still, player draw: high hand, so no ghost.)  Awesome junkie pimp ghost, complete with a separate victim already in thrall.  Result: murdered.

Pages: [1]