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 - Decivre

Pages: [1] 2
AW:Dark Age / Re: Wicker-wise
« on: March 19, 2014, 08:49:28 PM »
We had another question about wickerwise - do you have to touch the thing you are charming?  If you want to set an enemies clothing on fire, does that require a roll, or just 2 sacrifices?

So far as my games go, I simply require you to either see who you are charming, or be holding something that belongs to them.

AW:Dark Age / Re: Maps/Holdings
« on: March 13, 2014, 12:51:44 AM »
I think this is something that should definitely be addressed. I am definitely no artist, and it would be nice to get some guidance on how best to handle this part of it all.

AW:Dark Age / Re: Choosing Rank
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:29:09 PM »
The cost can be pretty high in terms of setting. A peasant deals with bandits and fellow peasants, new laws, new taxes, and other such threats. A landowner deals with similar problems, the economic growth of their holdings, larger taxes, bandit occupation, civil unrest of the peasantry, and other laws. Nobles deal with political backstabbing and potential war with fellow nobles, the complaints of peasantry and other sworn people, and the actions or declarations of their king.

Each groups threats increase in scale as their rank increases. These threats should pose about an equal problem for them as the threats of a lower ranking person should pose in kind (so a peasant dealing with the local bandit should be about on par a challenge with a prince dealing with rival claimants; a noble warring with a noble should be about on par with a king warring with another nation).

AW:Dark Age / Re: Bloodless Xristos
« on: March 12, 2014, 05:13:42 PM »
Oh, I hope we keep the ambiguity. The ambiguity is part of the reason I assumed that Bloodless Xristos broadly covered all Abrahamic religions, and I like that fact! I want my playgroup to be able to define the religions for their setting themselves, rather than the books; that's why I love the original Apocalypse World, and that should be no less true for this one.

Also, please don't be afraid to potentially insert new possible faiths and such. There's no need just to stick to real ones. Other than the big ones, the rest should be easily removed if unliked, and it might be interesting to see some things that never were.

Then again, that might force you to write more playbooks, so I suppose its up to you (or perhaps expansion playbook material?)

AW:Dark Age / Re: Choosing Rank
« on: March 12, 2014, 04:58:39 PM »
I think your best bet is to balance them as MC. The player with the highest rank should also court the most powerful enemies; kings rival kings, and could care less about the individual actions of a peasant or even landowner.

AW:Dark Age / Re: Proposition with Dragon Herald
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:35:17 AM »
Hmmm, I read that playbook as very much saying "there is a literal dragon, and it will treat you as an equal." There's no reason you couldn't slightly tweak the playbook to be about any other doom, though: a plague or anything. I bet it would rule! But it'd be different for sure. This playbook promises a big-ass dragon to me, real and deadly.
As it should. It just doesn't have to be a flying lizard-esque dragon. It has to be huge, it has to have a vast and patient hunger, and has to distort the environment to reflect its nature. All other aspects are up to you to define, and nothing in any of that inherently screams flying lizard.

AW:Dark Age / Re: Proposition with Dragon Herald
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:23:12 PM »
No, I love everything about the Dragon Herald, it's the name "Dragon".  The class is spectacularly well written, and I love it's story changing ideas in awakening.  I just think the word "dragon" is to specific a connotation of doom compared to the word doom, destruction or its ilk.  Your game could be made its semantics and I should really stop talking about it, but the word I feel evokes the idea of Giant creatures, when you don't need those to have destruction, and doom.
I think that the idea behind the dragon-herald is that they are the heralds for supernatural forces beyond humanity. It isn't "dragon" in the traditional sense of lizardy flying creatures that hock fire-loogies, but "dragon" as in a living force of destruction that wreaks havoc upon the world. It has a different meaning in this game, just as the word "troll" has been expanded to reference other lesser monstrosities.

So your setting might have completely different dragons from mine. Your dragon might be a leviathan, consumer of worlds looking to turn whole kingdoms into something it can digest; it might be the first lich, who births the undead hordes that march in its wake; it might be the world serpent, hunting the land for the last roots of the World Tree; it could be Satan him-fucking-self, come to bring the war of angels to the land of mortals.

The dragon isn't just doom. It is a living embodiment of doom, an incarnation of its coming. To let it live is to let the doom be wrought. To slay it is to give the world reprieve.

AW:Dark Age / Re: Bloodless Xristos
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:13:23 PM »
Well, proto-Christianity was basically just a sect of Judaism. Their tenets didn't deviate too much for the first few years of presence, other than to eliminate the reliance on Rabbis and older traditions. As time went on, they adopted baptism, many of the classical tenets of altruism, and expanded the holy texts with books of their own.

Maybe it's my fault for implying I meant old-world Judaism (which was largely extinct by that time period, having been replaced by a new orthodoxy that only sort-of held onto those classic beliefs), but I was talking more of the "liberal" Judaism that existed in the 1st century and helped give rise to Christianity as we know it today.

But if that's not what you were implying, does your setting basically assume no Jewish analog gave birth to the Bloodless Xristos faith?

AW:Dark Age / Re: Bloodless Xristos
« on: March 11, 2014, 03:41:50 PM »
I find that the Bloodless Xristos is less of a take on Christianity, and more as a look at all Abrahamic faiths as if they were one gigantic collection of sub-faiths.

Plus, the descriptions of Xristos himself do not seem to reference Christ except in name. Rather, they set him as either the sole god or the head of a pantheon, more akin to the trinity's Father than anything else.

Plus, with no reference regarding sacrifice in a mortal form, or any other concrete aspects that generally make Christianity distinct, Bloodless Xristos can be used just as easily for a Jewish or Muslim analog within the setting. Or even something more unique than that (I definitely see how these three religious factions could also be analogs of the Old Ways, Faith of the Seven, and Lord of Light from the Song of Ice and Fire).

AW:Dark Age / Re: New names for old stats
« on: March 10, 2014, 06:35:51 PM »
I'm glad there won't be changes to the stat names or different stats. I always felt that these specific stats are sort of based around core protagonist excellencies in the context of fiction. Cool is based around the protagonist that is unshakably resolute, and does not flinch to danger or threat (pretty much every antihero in fiction). Hard is based around the protagonist that is unassailable in battle (Conan, who could never lose a battle so long as his back was against a wall). Hot is based around the protagonist that commands the room with their presence and can speak people to tears or action (Mel Gibson's interpretation of William Wallace). Sharp is based around the protagonist that lets nothing miss their eye (Sherlock Holmes). And Weird is sort of a wildcard for all those mysterious forces that permeate fiction, and the tendency for protagonists to be special in the context of their use (the Dragonborn of Skyrim).

What other stats could you really possibly use that capture these classic protagonist cliches, and why would they be superior? Why change the names, when they are signature to the original game?

Apocalypse World / Re: Gigs and how they work
« on: February 23, 2014, 07:54:50 PM »
I consider it a limitation of our language that the only key word we really have for discussing the complex interplay of game mechanics and how they should be tweaked to fit each other is "balance".

Apocalypse World / Re: Gigs and how they work
« on: February 22, 2014, 05:41:20 PM »
We don't actually disagree, Decivre.  I was indeed talking about the mechanical definitions of game balance that Simulationist and Gamist approaches tend to abide by (i.e., affective parity), and you are of course correct in your observations about shared narrative influence.  Well said.  Alas, I fear we have strayed even further from Radan's OP.
But to some extent, mechanical elements are part and parcel to narrative balance. For example, I have no doubt that the lack of situational modifiers in AW is intentional; most games that have them have serious balance issues with regards to using skills (if one skill incites more penalties than another skill in more situations, then it is not as effective). Furthermore, stat layouts in AW follow fairly specific guidelines that have been detailed on this forum. That wouldn't exist if mechanical balance weren't part of narrative balance.

But I agree, this digression is a bit much.

Apocalypse World / Re: Gigs and how they work
« on: February 22, 2014, 05:46:16 AM »
Game balance? Is that a thing now?
It's always a thing.

AW is not about (quasi-)realistically simulating an entire world-system, and it is DEFINITELY NOT about tabletop mechanics with the goal of making everyone's situation and challenges as "even" as possible.
I disagree.

You are making the mistake of assuming that balance is always about mechanical parity. It isn't. Balance is about evening things that, in their current asymmetrical state, are potentially unenjoyable for the playgroup. Even if you take gamist and simulationist aspects out of consideration, a narrativist game is about portraying multiple protagonists in a fictional gameworld. Most importantly, it's about multiple protagonists sharing the spotlight while individually handling their own motivations and dilemmas.

Balance in this case is about giving each of those protagonists an equal impact on the fiction, and giving them equal capacity to handle their own dilemmas as they are presented by the character's archetype. So for example, the Skinner should have equal capacity for solving social quandries as the Gunlugger has capacity for handling pure conflict. And all of that should be equal to the Chopper's ability to handle and work with his gang, which should be equal to the Hardholder's ability to deal with his Hold's drama. If any given character seems incapable of handling the dilemmas that character was built to solve, then there is a "balance issue".

And let's not pretend that balance is not an important aspect of every game. Apocalypse World does a very good job of handling balance, and one of the game's key conceits is all about ensuring party balance. What other reason would there be for everyone to choose a different playbook if not to ensure that no one steps on each other's toes?

AW is about generating a great STORY, just like a great movie.  Do you expect movie heroes to begin at level 1?  Does DIE HARD begin with its hero at level 1?  Of course not.  This is a movie about a hero who has already reached "kick-ass" levels, and we want to see him do his stuff.  Over the course of the STAR TREK series, did Mister Spock advance at exactly the same rate as Captain Kirk?  Did he get pay raises at the same rate?  Nobody cares.  That's not even a concern, as long as the stories are good.
Whether they advance at the same rate is not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is whether those characters get equal air time, and equal chance to shine. If you went to see Star Trek because you're a huge Spock fan, and he spent a collective total of 30 seconds on screen (during the secret ending), you would have gone home pissed. At the same time, if a player at the table gets no chance to be their character, to be kick ass or impressive, or to resolves their character's conflicts, they are not going to enjoy the game.

Apocalypse World / Re: Gigs and how they work
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:53:51 AM »
even the author of AW, Vincent himself, answered me, that the Operator is involved in the gigs (THANK YOU AGAIN, dear Vincent!:)).
Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool. Always nice to have your statements lauded by the creator.

The forum won't allow me to quote you entirely, so I'm going to brief your questions and whatnot. Please don't be offended if I didn't not brief them too accurately.

Why are all gigs worth different amounts of barter despite requiring the same number of rolls and effective effort?
Remember that consequences are a core element of Apocalypse World. Yes, murdering people does give you more money than making business trades, despite having the same effective difficulty. But you piss less people off by making trades than by murdering their friends and family.

MCs should snowball events off their PC's actions. If they're murdering people for quick cash, they should expect that to bite them in the ass down the line.

Is a night enough time to moonlight, or do you need more time?
You could, theoretically, do your moonlighting literally at night. As long as you have downtime during the night. But it's up to the MC to decide what is "enough time" for you to do your moonlighting thing. For instance, at my old table, the operator needed at least one full free day to do his moonlighting. That means no other interactions and adventures... he's spending the next day doing odd jobs for quick jingle.

It is possible to got +1 juggling WITH gig (SEE SEX MOVE of the Operator ;) ) or as independent advancement?
So far as I can see, you always get more juggling when you get a new gig. It's part of the Moonlighting move.

As a rule of thumb, once you get the advancement that allows you to lose an obligation gig, you can just stop keeping track of juggling. You always have enough.

I think, that the Operator should be (or at least COULD BE) busy more with OPERATING (with crew etc.) than in other stuff (especially if not connected with the ROLE of the Operator).
The Operator is technically always working a gig. In a sense, the core plot of your AW game is itself a broader gig that your operator is a part of. The Moonlighting move is more about the things he does when he's not chasing the plot of your game.

What I mean is relationship as crew BELONG to the Operator (as present time EMLOYEES) and not just PARTICIPATING (as the gang with the Chopper - even as alpha role).
No, the crew doesn't belong to the Operator. They too are moonlighting, and thus taking time away from their day jobs and lives to help the operator out for quick cash. Which is why your crew doesn't have any hard mechanics really associated with them. They aren't like the Chopper's gang, who is loyal and follows him into battle. They are a bunch of misfit mercenaries looking for bank, and you're finding them jobs.

Is the relationship between an operator and their crew comparable to an employer and their employees?

--- Uff, it was not easy to think about it even in my native language ;). ---
I can imagine.

You can probably think of the relationship between a crew and the operator as similar to the relationship between an athlete and an agent. The agent finds athlete potential work, but it is inevitably the athlete that decides whether they want to do it. The big difference between the operator and the agent is that the operator is himself an "athlete". He isn't just looking for jobs for other people, but ones he can make cash from himself.

And in the end, it's the operator's name that will be tied to the success or failure of a gig. Not the crew's.

That's up to you and your MC to decide if it is relevant. As is true with any and every gig. For example, I don't particularly see why you would need your crew for a "F*cking" gig. Unless it's group s*x, or something....

Wow, just learned that this site has a language filter. Crazy.

Apocalypse World / Re: Gigs and how they work
« on: February 12, 2014, 06:55:16 PM »
I mean, there are gigs from 1 barter to 3 barter (with upgoing risk), so the cut could be appropriate, noot?
The idea is that your crew only supports you. You do all the heavy hauling, and management. Their collective cut is always 1-barter, while you pocket everything else (assuming they even had to help you with the job).

HOW MANY GIGS (and how "hard" in mean of barter value - see above) can be reasonably done IN ONE MONTH (aproximately or / and average)?
There's no answer to this. If your character is constantly busy, they won't be able to run gigs at all. They need some downtime to do gigs (that's why it's called "Moonlighting"). It's right in the move's description.

DOES THE OPERATOR HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL GIGS and if not in some, than in what can be out and why. RULES say just CREW PINNED DOWN (noot the operator), but EXAMPLE in MC section say that the operator can be buckwashed.
Yes you need to be involved. Your crew doesn't do anything without you leading them. The age of middle management is long gone.

CHANGE OOF THE CREW cann also mean MORE members, or just one out for one in?
Yes, to both.

Can CREW WITH OPERATOR BE A PART OF A GANG or whole gang (see above)?
Your crew does not count as a gang when they aren't on a gig (unless you have pack alpha and your gang is your crew). They have day jobs just like you.

Also note that you are part of your crew, just as a chopper is part of his gang. Leaders tend to be members, you know.

Pages: [1] 2