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 - eliashelfer

Pages: [1]
Freebooting Venus / Re: Ideology skill
« on: November 16, 2015, 06:01:36 PM »
I found this skill odd as well. It is the only skill which at least seems to have its most significant effect outside of the fiction. Is there a reason not to encourage all players to read that booklet? Also, if I've already read it in a different game, should I not refer to anything contained within it?

I was considering if you would want to make it a "Science, Philosophy and Ideology Playbook", in which the GM creates some ideas of the mindset of the cities they visit. That would give someone with this skill the ability to exploit the taboos and ideas of a particular society.

Freebooting Venus / Re: Contents to come
« on: November 08, 2015, 10:11:28 AM »
I'm thinking it's a bit like picking a playbook in AW: If I want to lead a gang, I take Chopper. If I want to lead a war-band, I form it, then pick up the Banners of War - except here I do it during play.

Freebooting Venus / Re: Recover, Regroup, Prepare
« on: November 02, 2015, 03:25:27 AM »
I think it makes good cinematic sense for a game like this that you can regroup on a big scale, taking a few days, or on a small scale, taking a breather behind a rock while the enemy is busy attacking one of your friends. And I can see most of the options making sense in both circumstances:

The ongoing effects of any bad experience come to an end.
  • You take a few days to lick your wounds.
  • You take a minute to gather your resolve after being forced to flee, or to stop my bleeding.
You regroup with your allies. Compare experiences, if you like.
  • We all hole up in a safe place and share experiences
  • After being forced apart by our enemies, I find my way back to the others and find out what their situation is.
You study the situation and make a plan. Ask the GM what you’re able to
determine, and declare your plan.
  • After doing some digging around, you sit down to determine a course of action.
  • You survey the battlefield and try to scout out a good way forward
See to your equipment, supplies, defenses, stores. Ask the GM their
current state.
  • You go through you stores and make an inventory
  • You hide in the corner and take a look at your quiver.
Use a spell tablet to wrest a spell from its native world. See “Spellcasting”
for details.
See, this one I'm a bit more hesitant about. On one hand, it's very thematically appropriate to have someone sitting there, frantically trying to read the tablet with arrows flying around their ears. On the other hand, that might be the kind of thing that requires a bit more time.

...and you do it quickly
  • It only takes a few hours, and your foe will not have time to make a move while you're doing ti
  • You are only out of the combat for a round or two.

Freebooting Venus / Re: Losing spells and other trifling matters
« on: November 02, 2015, 03:11:20 AM »
Great! Thanks for clearing it up.

To my mind, it seems weird that you can lose a ghost like that. The spells are in your mind, but the ghosts are attending on you because you do something for them or because you have a hold on them. That service/hold doesn't go away just because I get a new spell. But I guess that I choose to gain a new spell, so I get to decide if I want to risk losing a ghost.

Also, I do like that the GM assigns for the ghost - it's a pleasant surprise. Though I can't help thinking that it might get a little clunky, the GM having to assign for all npc's and for the ghosts.

I'm wondering if it would be an idea to use tokens or chips for assigning in combat - I can make stacks for damage, defence and advantage. It would make it possible to see what everybody is doing. Then the GM's chip just goes on top of the relevant pile, just like I can add tokens for my weapons and armour.

Freebooting Venus / Losing spells and other trifling matters
« on: October 31, 2015, 02:47:48 AM »
Hey Vincent! The document is looking awesome! I hope I can find an opportunity to play it!

I have a couple of detail questions:

- When losing a spell/ghost, you roll to find out which one goes away. I'm assuming this is an example of "roll and choose", and that you roll two dice, since nothing else is specified? Then what happens if both are 5 or 6?

- If I have an attendant Ghost, and it gets to assign one on my behalf, will it be the GM or me doing the assigning? My immediate instinct would be that the ghost is an npc, and so the GM does it. In that case, will I know beforehand?

AW:Dark Age / Re: Impressions of the basic moves
« on: March 08, 2014, 06:44:09 PM »
@Vincent: Right. So you could follow up with Commanding Presence from Troll-Killer, or you could actually do the incite-the-mob thing with Frenzy from Dragon-Herald. That makes sense. I guess I was, to some extent, seeing the Basic moves as a "complete set", covering everything I need to be able to do. Not everyone has moves like that, though - the Outlaw Heir doesn't that I can see (but I guess it is slightly appropriate that he'll have a harder time claiming his right; seems to be what he is all about).

@Adams Tower: I am a bit surprised at your statement that there is no face to lose - I would see face as extremely important in this kind of setting. To me, that is what the 10+ options on claiming your right is about: Do you give them what they want, or insult them and force them to stand up for themselves?

I still can't see drawing someone out as an active conflict move. It is a social interaction move, of course.

AW:Dark Age / Re: On Jousting
« on: March 08, 2014, 06:19:14 PM »
I do think I would have jousting be a custom move. Maybe:

When you joust, roll +hard. On a 10+, you gain a point on your opponent. On a 7-9, choose one:
- You and your opponent tie. Neither gain a point.
- You gain a point, but you are injured in the process. Take 1-harm.
- You gain a point, but your horse is injured in the process. It takes 1-harm. Continue riding it at your peril!
- You gain a point, but you seriously injure your opponent (2-harm).
- You gain a point, but it is regarded as gained by chance, trickery or outside interference. The onlookers do not approve.
- Your opponent gains a point, but it is regarded as gained by chance, trickery or outside interference. The onlookers do not approve.

On a miss, your opponent gains a point, and expect the MC to do worse.

AW:Dark Age / Re: Impressions of the basic moves
« on: March 08, 2014, 04:10:52 AM »
Hold Steady: sneaking up on somebody sounds like acting in the face of danger/urgency to me. Depends on the fiction of course.

It could do, I guess. It doesn't exactly ring exactly true to me, though. It's only urgency if you need to do it fast - what if you have all day? Danger... well, depending on the circumstance, it might only be the danger of being found out. Of course, that IS a kind of danger.

Drawing out: It does not seem to be a social combat move. Also, do you need to talk to people, or can it be used in, say, combat? Does non-verbal interaction count? The rules don't state precisely.

Claiming your right: That makes sense. But like you say, I would like some kind of "active" social move with a consequence. Drawing out seems to be a perceptive move, and it seems like claiming your right lacks an outlet that's not claiming your right and going into battle.

AW:Dark Age / Re: PC NPC PC
« on: March 08, 2014, 03:34:08 AM »
The oath system strengthens the bonds between them instead of create antagonism. Is still useful to build this kind of triangles or could be against the approach of the game?

I definitely don't see this as a problem. Let's say a PC has an important NPC ally. That NPC and a PC hate each other's guts. That's more of a pickle for the first player if he is working with the second PC - if they are at each other's throats, it's just a pretext for having it out at each other.

AW:Dark Age / Impressions of the basic moves
« on: March 07, 2014, 06:43:24 PM »
Here's my thoughts on the basic moves.

First, a small linguistic pedantistry: You’ve added a standard phrase to misses, telling the players that the MC may hit them hard: “…expect the MC to do worse.” I like having a phrase spelling out the consequences for missing, but I’m not sure I’m a fan of this one. The MC will do worse than what? Worse than you’ve just done? Look, pal, the MC can’t do no worse!
Speaking of misses, I do like that there is usually some kind of benefit, even in failure – a little choose/mark 1.
The Basic moves:

  • Hold Steady: I assume this is a replacement for Act under fire. It’s different in two major ways, as far as I can tell. The first is that you’ve moved “You do it” down to 7-9, and added a +1 forward to the 10+ one. The second is that it seems to cover different – and less – ground than act under fire. Holding steady seems more… heavy, in a sense. It doesn’t immediately seem to apply to, for instance, sneaking up on someone, something expressly covered by acting under fire, and which I don’t see anywhere else.
    Claim your right: This seems to be a mix of Going Aggro and Manipulate. It is Going Aggro in a society where there is less “might makes right” and more “right makes might”.  I do think the move presupposes a superior stance that is not written into the move. What happens if I claim my right from my rightful king? I might write into the move that you need some footing on which to base your claim. Also, what happens if your opponent stalls, begs or disputes your right? Can you then claim your right again? Can you Hold Steady on your claim? The +1 you get from being refused at a 10+ I interpret as a reflection of the breach of protocol inherent in calling someone a liar or a fool, and the fact that you have a casus belli to go into battle with them. I’m wondering which other options there would be. Drawing them out?
    Go into battle: I was considering why there was no other moves for attacking people, like going Aggro - but really, you can claim your right, then go straight to this move, and you’ve basically got going aggro, but with an option for retaliation. Also, if you go into battle with someone unarmed, their established damage is none I assume? One thing I may have to wrap my head around is the scope of this move. Is it a few blows, or a long exchange? I know that can be variable, but I’m also considering what happens if you have several rounds of going into battle. What happens if I fight one of the other players? I choose to disarm him. Can he then lunge for his weapon to try to get it back next round? Would we both be going into battle, or would he be holding steady? How does holding steady interlock with this move? How about Drawing out?
    Draw someone out: So, this is a place where my background as a non-native speaker gives me a bit of a disadvantage, because I’m not entirely sure what this move is for. I can see it is a variant of reading a person. But what does “…to draw them out…” entail? Is it just reading a person? Am I trying to expose them? Am I negotiating with them? Does this move also replace manipulate/seduce? A small comment regarding layout: when the marks are on the rules sheet, you (theoretically) need a rules sheet for each player. Could they fit in the playbooks?
    Take stock/ take bearings: These moves seem to be mostly the same, except for the circumstances of their use and the questions you get to ask. In AW, you have “read a charged situation”, which is all about reacting to some circumstance. With this division, you have the tactical take bearings, where you look for options in your current situation, and the strategic take stock, which I imagine taking either at home at the planning table, or over the campfire at night, thinking about your options. I like that many of the questions incite story, and that many of them not only reveal strengths and opportunities, but also weaknesses and threats. Your options for your +1 seem a little slim, however, what with the missing manipulate and act under force. But maybe that’s because I’m missing something there.
    Pray: I’m not entirely sure what I think of this. It’s more straightforward than open your mind, which is in some ways a relief. But... if the gods accept your offering, will they tell you how you might conceivably make something come to pass, or will they tell you what to do to make them help you? Also, it seems that 7-9 is a pure MC fiat result – the MC will give it to you if he feels like. That seems counter to how you usually do things. Finally, I’m surprised that you just have to say what you offer the gods. What if I offer the gods something clearly inappropriate or inadequate? I assume the MC will just say so?
    Helping: I like the idea that helping is not just a bonus, but a second chance. It means you can do it on your own, but if you don’t quite make it, you can get help. A quick calculation says the average bonus you gain is 1.9 if you roll with a +0 stat, 2.3 with -1, 1.4 with +1 and 1.06 with +2. In other words, slightly better than gaining a straight +1. On the other hand, the move also underlines the need to actually do something to help, so there’s a bigger reward for a bigger effort. I like all of that – it makes it more significant to help. My biggest issue is that the timing and causality will be a bit confused – I fail, so you tell me you will help me by doing something before I do my move.

Have you considered a social “attack”? Shaming someone, for instance. It’s built into Claim your right, but you might be able to go into battle on words.

Pages: [1]