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 - Nocker

Pages: [1] 2
Apocalypse World / Questions on Act under fire because of Manipulate
« on: December 13, 2012, 09:14:38 PM »
I've been wondering how each of you manage the Act under fire that come out of the Manipulate move (the stick). I can imagine some cases, but not the majority. I tried several hypothetical situations, and came to the conclusion that I would be totally lost if this was to happen in a game. I'll provide examples later, but now I'll explain more generally what's bothering me.
This move result has a similar problem than the result of Healing touch, that of a forced Act under fire with no fire coming first from fiction. But where Healing touch is a very specific situation, Manipulate cover a huge bunch of cases.

Examples :
- Dremmer is pointing his gun at Dawn, who is holding a blade on the throat of Dremmer's daughter. Dawn wants to run away from the town, and demand that Dremmer put his gun aside (acting with the leverage of the daughter as hostage), and chose the stick. If Dremmer's player says he shoots anyway, I can create a fictional reason for Acting under fire. The fact that his daughter is held as a shield is making him hesitate and wait for an opportunity, so the fire is that Dawn reach cover before he can Go Aggro (would it be Go Aggro, by the way ?).
For situation with immediate dangers and hot action stakes, I think I can find reasons to act under fire pretty easily. I'm a little weirded out by the necessity to create fiction that enable a move, which is unheard of in AW otherwise, but that's all.

- Felicia the Hardholder is asking Beef the Angel to heal her sister June, who is feverish and dying. Felicia Manipulates him with the leverage of social position, and chooses the stick. Beef doesn't want to approach June, because he thinks she's contagious.
What could possibly be the fire ? When does he make the roll ?

- Helios the Skinner is asking Beef the Angel to heal her sister June, who is feverish and dying. Helios Manipulates him with the leverage of sex (it has been previously stated that Beef was attracted by Helios thin naked torso), and chooses the stick. Beef doesn't want to approach June, because he thinks she's contagious.
What could possibly be the fire ? When does he make the roll ?

When the consequences of hesitation, doubt aren't immediately dangerous and because the fire cannot be something that force a feeling or thought in a PC's head, I am totally stuck for this cases. How do you manage internal feelings and doubt ? Do you put them at stake mechanically ? What would be the results ?
But even in action cases, I'd like a set of guidelines to have it easy.

Thanks in advance.

PS : For the record, I am aware of these related topics where I posted, but they are outdated by far, and my experience made my thoughts evolve. However, they can expand the vision of my problem.

Apocalypse World / Re: what MC move to just describe ?
« on: January 18, 2012, 06:18:16 PM »
No harm, DWeird. I was a bit unclear about the reason behind my question.

So I think I begin to understand. You use a Move when there is nothing that comes naturaly (i.e. describing things). And you must keep the Moves in head to move (no capital M) things. Because if you always have something to say, but it's not pushing the fiction, then you aren't doing your job. So the Moves are reminders as well as safeguards. The rule I quoted is more of an advice than a mandatory action when the trigger appears.

I already was a bit afraid of the advicy feeling of Principles, Moves and Always Say in AW, and now that the rule I hanged to is crumbling into another advice, I really fear the moment where I will be in a game not knowing what to do.
My last campaign fell out of gas as I failed to provide serious adversity and I resented the players not making any opportunity or flaw in their characters, nor human relationships. When Vincent says "hit them where they aren't in control", he doesn't say it is fun to look for weak points, and that's because it isn't. At least to me. It's a game of power I don't want to play.
I feel like I have disgressed a lot. Sorry

Apocalypse World / Re: what MC move to just describe ?
« on: January 18, 2012, 02:18:15 PM »
Ok, I'm not dumb, thanks. I was not asking because I can't "just" describe, but because I'm trying to understand the conversation structure created by the rules in AW.
And as far as I know, it's written "Whenever there's a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things and say it", so I assumed the MC never do anything apart from using moves. Until that question came out to me, it felt like it covers pretty much everything, so the all-is-a-move rule was conceivable. But if a player looks to me to say something after he entered the Brainer flat, I need to take a move, by the rules.

Now that Vincent himself announces that a MC does say things beyond moves, I'm a bit lost. It seems that the rules I just quoted is wrong. So when do you use a move, and when do you not ?

Apocalypse World / what MC move to just describe ?
« on: January 18, 2012, 07:31:53 AM »
What can a MC use when he just want to give further description of a scene or character, after a player asks ? Offer an opportunity seems to work when it could be an advantage for the PC, announce future badness if this could go wrong, but if it's obviously neutral ? Like I just said "you enter the room of the Brainer, it's tidy and the smell is awful, what do you do ?" and the player want more details. I want to add that there is many lumps of earth, shaped into people of the village, or that there is a bed with pictures scattered on, what do I use as a move ? And I don't even talk about really common details, like the stairs, wooden walls, or chimney in a concrete block.

My question stands for Dungeon World, too, although I believe the answer will help me for both.

It has been 4 sessions, and I was not able to find any opportunity for a triangle. They all face the world together, even as they believe and behave differently.

The PC :
- Sundown, the Brainer. He psychically manipulate people into giving him their food.
- Shade, the Skinner. A cow-girl who dance (and more ?) in the saloon for a living.
- Ruth, the Angel. A mad doctor who experiments on anything/anyone unclaimed.
- Marcus, the Gunlugger. A big tribal guy, with a MG and a machette.
- Fate, the Hocus. His twenty followers believe in the fatality of life, and disdain possessions. They have to eat, though, and can go into wild savagery for it.
- Camille, the Savvyhead. A little boy/girl (ambiguous) hiding in his/her workspace, tinkering with electronics and sensors.

Their relations :
- Marcus and Sundown are both disciples of Fate.
- Marcus and Shade are lovers, but Shade soon bind him to her, and she dominates the couple. He is jealous and violent, but she makes sure not to cross the line in front of him.
- Fate secretly loves Shade, but his beliefs and Marcus stop him from following his sentiments.
- Shade and Sundown are friends.
- Fate knows very much Ruth, and has seen the truth in her soul.
- Ruth feels Marcus self destructive.
- Camille finds Ruth the most strange and resents the violence of Marcus.

The community :
- The 20 disciples, the PCs, the two Angel's assistants and the saloon owner (Jack) is all the community
- They earn resources by trading with all the travelers (it's on an important road between other communities)
- A deep fog surrounds the hills composing the landscape, and nobody ever returned from it. So nobody knows what is in the valleys.

The recent events :
- A part of a gang of bikers has arrived in the town, and it all lead to big trouble. First, they broke a statue belonging to the Hocus faith, so all the community tried to killed them. But as another biker offered to repair it, all went well.
- The followers, from hunger, push to kill the bikers and take their stuff.
- Finally, the biker boss and his lieutenants were taken to jail, and the PCs tried to find their base camp (to take the food), but I had already decided that they live in the fog, knowing paths to travel it. So the food-taking assault isn't an option anymore.
- They found a Gollum in a scrap yard, a nearly blind creature that eat rats and is very sneaky. Everyone think he/it has a contagious disease.
- Marcus stopped a follower, Rice, from taking one of his guns and devastate Ruth's infirmary to find food.
- Jack doesn't want any issues of violence with his customers, and continually asks the PCs to stay far from the saloon when doing their shit.
- Sundown has followed Gollum during one of his/its walk outside the town. He discovered that the creature steals food from another community, and offer it to Shade. There, he met Last, a young girl who proved really interested in following him into the fog, and he accepted (he lied and told her he lived in the fog).

But I failed entirely in providing tension between the PCs. Entirely. They behave like any classic dungeon party, with the classic twist that they have their little secrets, but nothing too big to severe the relationships. They share information and try to defend the community, they plan and act toward that. I hate that, I came into AW to fly away from classicism.

I tried very hard, last time, by searching for things a PC wants, that a NPC can give, but at the expense of another PC.
And find nothing significant. They all want power, in their own fashion, but they won't take it if it means being chased by the rest of the community. Their personal goals seem to stop right in front of their roles in the community. Even their belief is not a reason of conflict, because there is this couple Marcus/Shade, that seems to glorify openness, and I don't want openness in AW.

What can I do ?

Have you got some deeper and clearer advice than "try to make PC-NPC-PC triangles" ?

Apocalypse World / Re: MC mis-steps and how to deal w/them
« on: October 05, 2010, 07:27:49 AM »
Thanks to all.

I thought Apocalypse World would be easier to MC. But your advice are all useful, and make sense. I just wasn't able to think clearly and follow every bit of Principle, Move and Agenda because you need nothing more than that to understand the MC job. It's pretty hard to have it all in mind at every second when all players yell, ask and plan around the table.

This hack is a great idea, I'm following its advancement.

Apocalypse World / Re: MC mis-steps and how to deal w/them
« on: October 03, 2010, 05:07:31 PM »
I didn't consciously limit the rolls, but either I failed a lot of times in recognizing an action as a Move, or they did lots of thing that were not Moves. Also, I think they do things knowingly to avoid Move, as I feel it : they poisonned calmly and with a great plan a NPC, and so there were no Seize by Force of Go Aggro. All I could do is say "ok, it works" because nothing in the rules seems to prevent it.
I feel like it kills the suspens and the drama, when a situation gets resolved without rolls.

Apocalypse World / Re: MC mis-steps and how to deal w/them
« on: October 03, 2010, 06:38:24 AM »
My first two session ended without a fight, and the PCs are all together against an external threat. I really should include an internal threat, but it's tougher.

Also, I have asked for no more than 3 or 4 Move rolls, and there is way too much discussion/plan between PC to advance the fiction.

I have the feeling that we are too close to classic party rpgs, and I don't like that.

MCing is really harder than I thought...

Apocalypse World / Act under Fire and internal fire
« on: September 14, 2010, 09:38:18 AM »
I'm not sure I understand perfectly the rules and their spirit, here. For external fire, it's pretty clear :
When trying to be sneaky, the fire is you are discovered, if you miss you are discovered.
When running in the middle of a battle, the fire is you get hurt, if you miss you certainly take Harm.
When defusing a bomb, the fire is the bomb explode, if you miss you certainly take Harm.

But when the fire is internal (self-loathing, culpability, respect for life), what is the result of missing the roll, beyond not making the action.
When trying to betray a friend, the fire is your culpability, what happens if you miss ?
When trying to kill an innocent, the fire is your respect for life, what happens if you miss ?
When trying to go against a Manipulation attempt, the fire is you deny the leverage, what happens if you miss ?

Apocalypse World / Re: manipulate and acting under fire
« on: September 11, 2010, 03:15:18 AM »
To me, the Act Under Fire applies to the very non-action that the PC wanted him to do, not to the other action he's doing in place of it. It's the refusing that is hard, not the replacement act.
And in my opinion, the fire is the culpability feeling, the self-loathing, the inner conflicting desires that are burning in the character's head.

I don't get it :
Are you saying that a Right To Dream play mandatory involves either 1) dull characters (nobody would chose such a PC), 2) plain and reasonable situations (nobody would initiate such scenes), 3) no escalation (straight resolution, without exploring the back and forth), 4) no resolution (infinite question, nothing achieved), or 5) that the fiction or part of it is established before play (all established parts aren't rpg) ?

Not only it portrays me Right To Dream with a very sad and static tone which I think it doesn't deserve, but also it puts all the interesting Roleplaying in Story Now (because I can't imagine an interesting fiction, whatever the Creative Agenda, with one of the above conditions unmet. If you have an example, my ears are open)

Right, but conflicts are the meat of Situation (a Situation without conflict would be pretty tasteless, and no player would want to Explore it), so escalating is just Exploring more Situation, by letting it spread onto several conflicts or scenes. So in my opinion, even in the purpose of reveal, escalate and resolve conflicts, it sure can be pure Exploration, and so Right To Dream play. Conflicts are exciting.
I'm not sure, but are you trying to tell me that a bunch of conflicts makes Story Now ?

Yes, this make sense.
But I'd argue that if the purpose is just to Explore Character and Situation, then isn't it pure Right to Dream ? I mean, yes you can have great Exploration in Story Now, but this isn't enough. If all there is is pure Exploration, we're in RTD.

To understand completely my examples selection : I've chosen not to include situations where my interest obviously comes from theme or thematic choices. So I show only situations where the interesting elements are not related to theme, or so I think : you can prove me I'm wrong and all interest comes from theme.

Pages: [1] 2