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 - caitlynn

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
AW:Dark Age / Re: How many players?
« on: March 03, 2014, 08:03:25 PM »

Hangout game of this sometime in the near future if at all possible?


AW:Dark Age / How many players?
« on: March 03, 2014, 07:59:10 PM »
Didn't see this anywhere - I'm guessing at least three, plus MC?

AW:Dark Age / Making Additional Characters and Politics
« on: March 03, 2014, 06:12:23 PM »
When you mark the XP thing to create an additional character, do you think that would impede on the political aspect of the game? I haven't watched Game of Thrones or any of the source material, to be honest, so maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it would seem to me that having an additional major player in the game would give you a bonus over the other players, as far as politics goes. Ugh, this sounds too vague. Do you see what I'm asking, Vincent, or do I need to rephrase?

other lumpley games / Storming the Wizard's Tower playtest document
« on: August 03, 2013, 10:47:15 PM »
Is the Storming the Wizard's Tower playtest thing up anywhere? I'd love to get a look at it again.

Apocalypse World / Re: Another Go Aggro / Manipulate debate
« on: September 25, 2012, 06:36:37 PM »
What I'm saying is that if you aren't willing to shoot someone in the face, you don't put your gun in their face with your finger on the trigger. By putting your gun in their face you've demonstrated your fundamental willingness to kill them. If they force your hand, you pull the trigger, and if you didn't want to do that, you shouldn't have put your gun in their face.

I'm saying that deciding to put your gun in someone's face and telling them to do it or else, that is the point of no return. If you don't intend to shoot them, don't do that. No take backs. It's gone too far for you to be all "oh no I didn't mean it I was just kidding I didn't intend to kill them just to make them think I would." That's bullshit.

I'm saying that not bluffing is what it means to roll your hard.



But, can I say, that I feel like this goes completely against what's already been told about some of these moves. Like, I'm usually pretty good at explaining the moves to new people, and helping people decide which move applies where, but I can't for the life of me figure out how this pegs in to the rest of it.

It makes sense, yes. I 100% understand what you're saying. I just don't see where the moves support it. I can't see why it's bullshit to decide to pull your gun away at the last moment.

I'm not arguing with you or calling you wrong, I'm just explaining my confusion, because I love hearing little bits of enlightenment like this, and it's just not grokking with me.

Apocalypse World / Re: Another Go Aggro / Manipulate debate
« on: September 23, 2012, 03:42:18 PM »
This thing? Where you put a handgun in someone's face and tell her to give you the fucking car keys or you're going to blow her brains out, but secretly you're bluffing? It's bullshit.

If you put a handgun in someone's face and tell them to do something or else, you're giving them the choice. Do it, or else.

Live with it.

"How come my hard+3 shitkicking motherfucker is bad at bluffing?" No. Your hard+3 shitkicking motherfucker isn't bluffing at all. If she were bluffing, she wouldn't be hard+3.


Can you elaborate on this some more, Vincent? I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to say here. Specifically, I don't get how it's not bluffing if you're not really going to pull the trigger, and what impact having hard+3 has on it all. It was my understanding that simply saying: "I'm not really going to fire, no," was how the move worked.

other lumpley games / Re: [Dogs] Can a woman become steward?
« on: April 18, 2012, 11:27:07 AM »
It's the town I'm making for a con game, and ultimately the Dogs will decide and all that, but I needed to know what the Faith actually said about the matter. Even if it's make-believe, it's a make-believe thing that's at the heart of the make-believe game we're all going to be playing! So I wanted to make sure I had that right.

Thanks guys.

other lumpley games / Re: [Dogs] Can a woman become steward?
« on: April 17, 2012, 08:57:39 AM »
But as it applies to the Faith, I mean. There's a specific rule, for example, that says "the husband has Stewardship over the wife," or that, "women are expected to do this." So is there a specific rule within the Faith that says, "men are allowed to be Stewards, but women are not?"

And also, is there: "A female Dog holds a special place, and thus may become Steward," since there's talk in the text about how much more privilege a female Dog gets?

I know it can totally be a plot point, something for the Dogs to agree on and talk about and fight over, but what does the Faith say about it?

other lumpley games / [Dogs] Can a woman become steward?
« on: April 17, 2012, 06:38:19 AM »
I can't find the information! Can a woman become steward? Is that a sin?

What if she's a former Dog?

other lumpley games / Escalation in Poison'd and IAWA
« on: April 11, 2012, 11:37:08 PM »
So, in Dogs, you just keep on going until someone taps out. We're talking conflicts here. But Poison'd says at three rounds, we stop. Apocalypse World, too, if you use the combat moves, they give you the clock countdown and say, after a certain limit, we stop. In a Wicked Age says this as well: after three rounds, stop.

A few questions about that, Vincent!

1) Is there a reason for that? Talking about design here, what is it about conflict in these games that made you say, "these shouldn't keep going. I want to come to a decisive winner after three rounds," or whatever.

2) Why doesn't Dogs worry about that, but later games do? Dogs can keep going as long as they have dice as ammo. I'm betting this isn't a general game design statement and it's more situated with each individual game, but I don't know these things until I ask. Dogs can escalate forever and ever (as long as dice are there), but you can't do that in Poison'd or IAWA.

3) If the answer to the first question is anything along the lines of, "I don't dig when conflict just goes on and on and on back and forth and wanted to avoid that," then can you elaborate more on that? Do you feel it's bad design, or that it gets old and boring? In your opinion, and broadly, of course, not accounting for every game ever.

4) What do you think the three-round structure solves about conflict and about back-and-forths, if anything?

I'm tinkering with a game that goes back and forth repeatedly and these games came to mind!

Apocalypse World / Re: Opening Questions
« on: March 22, 2012, 03:26:53 PM »
Any question you can use to connect two players in any way is good. Start off slow: "Who brings you gas? Who works on your car? Where do you keep it?" Start off with facts, then move into opinions: "Who would you let ride your car? Do you like giving him a ride, or her?" etc.

Pretty much as you said, ask things, and when they give you an answer, ask questions about that answer. You're on the right track if you're asking three or four questions in a row. Pretend to be a journalist, covering articles for Apocalypse Weekly.

Now, a standard set of questions you should ask is difficult, because it all depends on what the players are playing, who the characters are, what the setting is like, etc. So these are kind of general, and you fill in the details yourself. But:

- Try to get a few conflicts going. Don't force it, but get people thinking. Start with the small stuff: think about the people you know, your actual friends, and model it on that. "Do you like hanging out with Jag? What's best about crashing at Fido's place?" You're looking for opinions, trying to cultivate them, because that's what conflict is in Apocalypse World. (It's not like D&D, for example, where the conflict is, "the evil wizard is kidnapping maidens! We must bring glory to the forces of good!") Conflict in Apocalypse World is hardcore social. Conflict here is, "That motherfucker stole a gun from me when he stayed here the other night!" - "Dusk has been talking shit about me, let's go settle this."

Apocalypse World is a lot like reality television. But imagine it as really unscripted, not just pretend unscripted. Just an honest documentary on limitless people in limitless situations.

That's why it's so important to really zoom in on them in the first session, A Day In The Life style, to learn what's what.

So find out who thinks what of whom, but also start to promote this line of thinking: what do you think of her? How do you behave around him? Then when you sense the slightest bit of friction: "You prefer staying with Vision? Why? What's wrong with Absinthe?" Remember, you're not making enemies - just friends with opinions of each other. I like my room-mate, for example, but he can be really passive aggressive and that's annoying. That sort of thing. Conflict.

- Find out three things: how people get around, where they make money, and where they get supplies. What's important to us, as people? Getting rides places, having correct bus fare, not running out of gas. Keeping our job, paying rent, getting groceries in. Paying bills. Same in Apocalypse World, but with a different face. Isn't it neat how this game is just everyday drama, it's our real lives, but the simple fact that society has collapsed makes shit dangerous all of a sudden. It's like living in a bad neighborhood: talking shit about someone means they're going to find you and hurt you.

- It's optional, but a lot of fun, to make a love triangle, or at least a relationship. Don't force this, but definitely nurture it when you see it.

- Find out what's making life difficult. There's something out there, above and beyond, that's making everything less than cozy. Is it the radiation storms that can kill you? Gnarly, the warlord, demanding money and blood? The crumbling infrastructure of the hospital we all stay in? It doesn't need to be a time clock or anything, but something to put stress on the characters.

And really, just go from there.

Apocalypse World / Re: Firefly -> Apocalypse World?
« on: March 16, 2012, 07:00:15 PM »
It's also fun to catch how the AW book relates to Firefly. How it's all about putting characters in pairs and triplets and seeing what happens. And how screw the NPCs, they're just there to complicate things and get thrown away.

Apocalypse World / Re: 1 player game?
« on: March 12, 2012, 09:15:47 PM »
I know there's been some threads about this, but short answer: it works fine, it's just lacking. I've both played and MC-ed in this situation.

Most people do some wacky complicated Hx with important NPCs to take advantage of the mechanic, but under Vincent's suggestion (can't find the thread), in our games, we just dropped it completely. Didn't notice any difference.

It plays very differently, just be aware!

brainstorming & development / Re: The Boy and The Girl
« on: March 06, 2012, 05:20:38 PM »
If anyone's testing it and finding the d4 problematic, try this:

Instead of white 1-3, each move works on a white 1-2.
Instead of a white 4-5, each move works on a white 3-4.
Instead of a white 6+, each move works on a white 5+.

I'd suggest trying it with and without the +1. The bonus using the +1 means that even now, a d4 can reach the highest option - it's just difficult!

brainstorming & development / Re: The Boy and The Girl
« on: March 04, 2012, 04:52:48 PM »
The previous version was a bit wackier. I trimmed a lot of junk out to streamline. If you get a chance, please do give a try, tell me if it ends up as complicated as you fear!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4