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 - DeadmanwalkingXI

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
Well, the short version of the answer to both is that when doing The Road Warrior they straight-up just got all of Lord Humungus's people's (y'know, the villains) outfits from a BDSM shop. And that film is seminal to the genre's aesthetics. So...lots of people in fetish-wear, and many of them villains.

The making them villains thing is also partially because that's just a general tendency in media in general. A lot of forms of media do, in fact, just use BDSM/fetish wear as shorthand for 'evil monster'. Post-apocalypse fiction does it more than some genres, but honestly superhero stuff does it almost as often and several other genres also dabble in it (a lot of neo-noir has some of this going on, for example). Now, speaking as someone into BDSM, that's kinda unfortunate and has some seriously unfortunate connotations in some ways. Though the ominous vibe is part of the point for some people, I suppose.

But more importantly, the tendency to make people in fetish-wear the villains is pretty much completely absent in Apocalypse World unless you bring it with you. Several playbooks have fetish-wear, bondage gear, and similar things as an option, and those are only as evil as you make them. Ditto illustrations, many of those using fetish-y stuff are those associated with the playbooks, and again only as evil as their player wishes them to be.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: February 18, 2017, 01:48:03 AM »
I'm not actually arguing that not having hard moves on missed battle moves is better. In fact, I've never argued that. I'm just pretty thoroughly convinced that's the way the rules actually read.

Whether they work better that way is an entirely different question. It's certainly a relevant question, but it's not the one I was addressing, and indeed one I can't address given that, as I noted in my first post on this thread, I've never actually had a player roll a miss on a battle move.

I do think that having hard moves in addition to the listed effects on playbook-specific moves is a bad idea and makes many of them punitive to use to the point that people will be reluctant to use them, which is bad. Those moves have their own explicit downsides anyway and adding more is not at all needed.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: February 17, 2017, 11:58:55 PM »
That's from the section on when to make a move, though. An advice section rather than rules in the absolute strictest sense (not that the distinction is hugely important in AW, but still), and more importantly, is word for word from the 1E book, meaning it could easily have been overlooked. And every single other piece of rules text in the 2E book makes it pretty clear that that's not necessarily correct on anything other than the basic moves.

The combination of it being legacy text and every other bit of text disagreeing with it leads me to think it's not correct at all for 2E.

And, just to present a counterpoint to people who'd never considered others might feel this way, I never read that sentence quite that way and never considered that other people might. So I never considered that anyone looking at the 2E book could conclude that 2E works the same way as 1E in this regard. I obviously knew 1E worked that way, but it struck me as an obvious and fundamental edition change.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: February 15, 2017, 12:51:55 PM »
For the record I tend to agree that it's pretty definitively the rules as written, but people have disputed that based on Vincent's words on the subject at an earlier stage, and I was explicitly just noting what the discussion was about rather than trying to continue it.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: February 14, 2017, 10:13:49 PM »
My goodness!

So, what is our conclusion here?

Is the text not clear on this point? (I only have the 1st Ed.)

The text is very clear that there is no hard move on a miss on battle moves. Or indeed any moves where it isn't specified.

The question is whether that's an intentional choice or what, and whether it makes for a better or worse game that way.

Apocalypse World / Re: Session 1 advice
« on: February 10, 2017, 03:17:58 AM »
Well, if the player really objects, they can just say "I didn't. It was more like a year ago." or otherwise spin things in a whole different direction. Nothing requires the leading question to be agreed with or anything like that, it's the assumption but not an absolute rule. This is a conversation, after all, which is usually an attempt to achieve consensus and if someone is unhappy with the direction of the conversation, they can definitely make that known.

Not that this comes up a lot, mind you. In my experience, the players are usually quite willing to go along with ideas like this, but they could certainly object/redirect if they wanted to.

Apocalypse World / Re: Custom Playbook - The Huntress
« on: February 07, 2017, 11:55:23 AM »
I dunno, calling them The Frontier makes me think of them, personally, as the frontier that others explore. Like they are the wilderness on some profound level. Which seems about the right vibe to me.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: February 05, 2017, 11:01:35 PM »
You're quite correct (and that was me Vincent was responding to).

However, the quote is a year old, when the rules were still in flux. I'm curious if this change has carried through to 2nd Edition. From responses so far, it seems like people are playing it in different ways. What does the book say about this? Anybody?

The book doesn't have a section like that, but does specify what happens on failures...which does not include a 'prepare for the worst' on Seize By Force and other Battle Moves. That absence is pretty telling from a pure RAW perspective, though adding them back in seems an eminently reasonable way to handle things if that seems too easy.

Second, I was curious about the effects on play. On paper, it sounds a bit... undramatic. I'd imagine a Gunlugger with good armour can roll Seize by Force with basically no fear, unless they're seriously outclassed. I'd love to hear (or continue hearing) how this is panning out in people's games.

I dunno, even on successes I've found that you need significantly more than Armor 2 to be truly safe. AP ammo, gangs, and custom moves for particularly dangerous NPCs can make it more dangerous, too.

Besides, the Gunlugger is supposed to be the baddest ass, having them be almost unassailable when armored and ready for battle (which is when Seize By Force is used) is appropriate. They can still be murdered in their bed, ambushed, or otherwise get seriously messed up when not expecting a fight or not getting a straight one.

It's a strong contrast to the original intention of the move (and, in particular, earlier examples of misses on the move from Vincent, both in print and online).

Yeah, but a lot of things have indeed changed that much (the Ice Cold Battlebabe move, for example).

Apocalypse World / Re: Get a Stat Move From Another Playbook?
« on: February 05, 2017, 06:42:59 AM »
Yup, totally kosher.

It uses up one of your 'pick a move from another playbook' options, which is a not insignificant price to pay for the advantages it provides. After all, you only get two of those, and there are a lot of good moves to pick from. Using the stat-ups in your own playbook has no such cost, and is thus still a significant advantage.

Apocalypse World / Re: Custom Playbook - The Huntress
« on: January 25, 2017, 08:36:49 AM »
Why Huntress and not Hunter?

Hunter's a pretty unisex term, while Huntress is explicitly gendered...and this playbook really doesn't seem even implicitly gendered.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: January 25, 2017, 08:35:32 AM »
DeadmanwalkingXI, I apologize if I came across poorly.

No worries, it's cool. I was just clarifying my own point.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: January 24, 2017, 09:13:51 PM »
Alright, it hasn't happened for you, yet.  But, even with a +3 hard, there's an 8 percent chance of a 6-.  For those with a +1, that jumps up to almost 28% chance of a 6-.  We aren't talking about something that isn't supposed to be part of the game.  Heck, the entire engine is built around 10+, 7-9, 6-.

Sure, though with help from allies and strategic use of Read a Sitch (both used extensively in my game) those percentages go way down. But my point wasn't that it wasn't an issue to be considered, it was that I had no idea what I'd do if it happened and could thus be of little help, despite being interested in the discussion.

That's really all I was saying.

Apocalypse World / Re: Tips for a travelogue-style game?
« on: January 24, 2017, 09:07:22 PM »
I'd have them travel with a caravan of some sort, or possibly go through a set of locations on a set route in order to make the above problem a bit less severe.

Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« on: January 23, 2017, 06:35:27 PM »
Like I said, it hasn't come up. My PCs have yet to fail at a Battle Move. *shrug*

Which has worked out okay, really. Even successful battle moves are not exactly cost free.

Apocalypse World / Re: 1 question
« on: January 19, 2017, 06:23:17 AM »
Other players helping one in particular are risking quite a bit (if anyone fails the MC gets to make a hard move), and presumably not doing as much stuff on their own, so yeah, that can happen and is quite powerful, if risky. It's other bonuses that are rare.

But that doesn't change the fact that all bonuses stack with each other. A player with a +3 stat, three people helping them, and +1 forward could get a +10 on their roll in theory. That won't happen a lot, but no rule prevents it.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8