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 - Shreyas

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Apocalypse World / Re: What does honesty demand?
« on: April 16, 2016, 01:00:55 PM »
Notice the wording of the move: You ask the player questions, not the character. The character's own MO does not play into how you handle the response.

So dishonesty by omission still qualifies as dishonesty

blood & guts / Re: Removing Barter
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:14:55 PM »
So I slept on it and I realized that I can't really afford to lose this system in its entirety - because you often use gigs or whatever to answer the question, "What are you up to today?"

So I'm sticking with not tracking numeric barter, but I'm going to go with your recommendation, Paul, and retain the idea of gigs and earning-your-keep so that players know what their dudes are doing. Thanks for your advice, both!

blood & guts / Re: Removing Barter
« on: April 07, 2016, 12:06:40 AM »
I'm not really looking for a replacement for barter though; it's assumed that your heroic antics and whatnot earn you your keep. If I wanted players to have to worry about that stuff, I'd just use the barter system as-is; it's fine for what it does.

What I'm asking is, does removing that system have any consequences outside of what I've already foreseen?

blood & guts / Removing Barter
« on: April 05, 2016, 11:42:33 PM »
So, I'm working on a very lo-fi hack for AW in the Dragon Age RPG setting*, and one of the things about it is, I'm not using barter. My reasoning is, wealth and scarcity don't enter into the source material's gameplay very prominently, and the PCs are not (in this hack) going to be landholders or other such persons that would be concerned with it as a core part of their character.

My question is, does this break anything big?

I know that it removes one way of provoking the PCs to action, and that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make, but I do want to know if there are any other pitfalls that I should be wary of.

*: Which you can look at here if you're interested; I welcome your critiques and questions.

Apocalypse World / Re: Seduce/Manipulate on PCs: too weak?
« on: April 13, 2012, 11:59:17 AM »
Well, if the single experience point isn't enough, you have lots of clear fictional routes that can help you put pressure on the situation, right?

I mean, "Hey, give me your bathtub," is not really a very strong bargaining position, but "Hey, I've got your motorcycle, so give me your bathtub or I push it off the side of this parking structure," is a lot more convincing, crunch concerns aside. Seduce/manipulate isn't hamstrung, but it isn't fun or convincing when you don't accompany it with good fictional context.

Apocalypse World / Re: Help me "get" the basic moves.
« on: April 12, 2012, 01:07:12 AM »
That is embarrassingly bad play advice and I think you know it. "When you do a thing, consider the result spaces of all the moves as specified, and if your thing has a result space that is similar, use that move," is an incredibly tedious and laborious procedure with a much heavier processing requirement than "When you do a thing, check if it's a thing in the description of a move, and in case it is, use that move."

You shouldn't advise play methods that are bad because they patch gaps in the text!

Apocalypse World / Re: Help me "get" the basic moves.
« on: April 11, 2012, 11:49:28 AM »
Acting Under Fire is just so abstract, that there isn't a great phrase to universally describe when it happens (Acting Under Fire isn't one), but that doesn't mean that it isn't a consistent fictional occurrence.
Well, isn't that because it's abstracted? "Being under fire" is actually a phrase that means something, (I take it to mean, "being in the line of fire of something that is actively dangerous to your body") and when we extend the move out past that meaning, the extended usage makes less sense. That's my argument with SBF too - it's fine when you use it within its natural-language meaning (although, frankly, "seize" contains "by force" in its meaning so I find it to be an onerous pleonasm) but when you extend it out past that, it becomes harmful to the game.

I would say that AW is designed such that you kinda have to know how a Move works mechanically to know when its happening - Players don't arrive with a perfect understanding of what Going Aggro means, Seizing By Force doesn't necessarily require that you're really trying to acquire anything, but it does require that your target is fighting back, for instance. Maybe the learning curve is worth it, maybe it kind of sucks.
It kinda sucks, because there's nothing that prevented it from being written more clearly. The book is huuuge and there's basically no imaginable excuse for it not including simple, clear language like, "Go aggro is the move you use when you're threatening someone with violence but you're not executing violence yet, and Seize is the move you use when a guy has something you want, and you're violently taking it (see how I used the definition of "seize" there) from him."

My better half Elizabeth SOME PERSON wisely suggested that V likes to write examples of play about edge cases, and the Seize example is one such edge case. I think that person is right, and that's highly problematic unless you're quite familiar with Vincent's opus and you are conscious of this tendency. If you don't have that corona of knowledge, the example is misleading, and there's no example of a core case usage of Seize, to compound the problem. Familiarity with a writer's tics and bad habits should not be a prerequisite to playing a game effectively. The move is not precisely mechanically bad, but it's mounted in this surround of badly written instruction and examples that confound it.

Apocalypse World / Re: Help me "get" the basic moves.
« on: April 05, 2012, 10:55:01 AM »
Well, it's multiply problematic, and I'll tell you why:

AW tells you that all its actions should be grounded in the fiction, right? You execute a move, mechanically, iff you perform an appropriate descriptive action.

Then it goes and like a lying serpent, it tells you that you should use Act Under Fire abstractly and people take a cue from that to abstract SBF as well - but no other move.

Consider: When in your entire life has someone been like "man I am so under fire from this one person's persuasion...?" That is a thing that no native English speaker would say. Note the parallel oddness of saying, "That dude was in between me and that chaise lounge, so I seized his life by force and had a nice long sunbathe in that son of a bitch." That and the previous are idiotic things to say, and that should indicate that they are idiotic ways to use your moves. Notice that "That dude was in between me and that mai tai, so I was forced to seize it by force," is still kind of stilted and odd, but it does not seem to be a shameful misuse of language. I think this is important! The moves are expressed in conversational language, so one should expect that, if described in conversational language, they make sense and don't sound stupid.

I think this gross contortion of language and the tendency to abstract the target of Seize by Force are clear and obvious indicators that something is wrong with SBF.

Usually that "something wrong" is that people misread the move, not least because like all the moves it lacks a procedural description of what you must do in the fiction, and leads players to believe that it's the move for "doing violence for its own sake." There's no move for that in AW; SBF comes closest, but systematically the game presents violence as something you do when you run out of easier options.

The move (along with the persuade/manipulate/act under fire precedent) lead to bad, principle-violating uses of the moves that lead to unsatisfying and confusing cases. By removing the license to abstract, or removing the move entirely, you eliminate these confusing cases. The latter is preferable! If you want to lay a siege, you still have the (entirely reasonable) peripheral moves for battle.

You lose exactly nothing, and gain clarity and elegance, by removing the move, so why use it?

(Edit: I find it equally damning that the only thing one can say in defense of SBF is, "But I'd have to have an even bigger and more awesome fight, if I don't have a move to charge in guns-blazing all on my lonesome! Because NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH is that move, buddy.)

Apocalypse World / Re: Help me "get" the basic moves.
« on: April 04, 2012, 05:21:30 PM »
I personally think SBF is a terrible move and you should avoid using it at all costs. In the early playtests it did not exist and I did not perceive a gap in the moves. As far as I can tell, all it does is create ambiguity about whether you should use it or GA.

When you just want to do harm to a guy, no ifs ands or buts, there's an MC move for it. It is, "Do as honesty demands" or whatever. If the PCs have set up a situation so that there is no way that it can happen otherwise than Disco Fries dies in a horrible cheese accident, then he damn well dies in a horrible cheese accident, no roll.

The problem with these moves as-written is not that they do not dictate responses - if you look carefully, you will observe that the same thing is true of moves in AW.

The problem is that these moves are decoupled from the fiction in a profound way. There is no text at all that reflects what the fictional events are when you successfully shut someone down, for instance. Instead of creating constraints in the fiction (compare seduce/manipulate) they are creating mechanical tags. It's less good.

Apocalypse World / Re: New Playbook: The Abacus
« on: March 13, 2012, 11:29:13 AM »
Gigs and moonlighting make sense.

I'm not sure that a gang and leadership do.

Apocalypse World / Re: Games to play after AW
« on: December 13, 2011, 11:27:11 PM »
D&D4e, obviously.

IME, when a game of AW is over, you want to play something dissimilar for a while, in much the same way that after you eat a lot of mac & cheese, you want to go have some sushi and seaweed salad. Contrast contrast contrast.

Apocalypse World / Re: The sleeping Gunlugger and the shitty knife.
« on: November 28, 2011, 04:07:45 PM »
I dunno man, how is it "going aggro" if there is no alternative to taking the hit? If the things the move says can happen after you do the move don't make sense, the move doesn't make sense.

Apocalypse World / Re: The sleeping Gunlugger and the shitty knife.
« on: November 27, 2011, 01:21:26 AM »
Oh for god's sake. If this were any other game, wouldn't you just make an on-the-spot ruling?

"Well, okay, so you've spent half a session incapacitating this guy and succeeding, and now you're going to assassinate him? Okay. Nice work. He is dead on the floor."

gunlugger objects

"I guess you can wake up while bleeding out of both sides of your head if you want to, but you're not going to make it to ...a resurrectionist... before you run out of alive. How much of a ruckus do you want to make on your way down?"

brainstorming & development / Re: Fate points? In AW?
« on: November 23, 2011, 01:57:37 PM »
I don't think 'fate points' or whatever belong in AW. Part of the premise is that the world is merciless and awful, and no matter what you try, there's no escaping that.

If the system isn't built around nihilistic failure (I don't love the character improvements that give you high stats, either), it takes a lot of teeth from the game, and I just really dislike being gummed by Apocalypse World.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11