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 - Roikka

Pages: [1] 2
It seems you misinterpreted what I was going for somewhat. I don't want to build status quo for the campaign (which is why I'm killing it along it's personification, the High Overholder, in the campaing backstory), only enough of it to justify some semblance of it remaining when the campaign begins, and fully intend to look those remains through the crosshairs. So if the PC:s manage to kill an Overholder, the overhold will destabilize (unless there is an established reason for it not to) and if the PC:s stick around, they will be dealing with the immediate consequences of that. And possibly the long-term ones if they don't. The world descending into nothing but a handful of hardholds and smoking ruins with next to no contact to each other as a direct consequence of the PC:s actions is something I'm quite prepared to see.

Apocalypse World / Is my campaing premise a bit too large scale?
« on: May 23, 2019, 03:03:12 PM »
A lot of campaign premises on AW I see usually has relatively few settlements, and they typically aren't very connected. Yet quite a few of them seem to contain a number of hardholds at a relatively bad reations, usually because one is trying to overtake another.

So here's the idea. Let's say a couple of Hardholders manage to subjugate a handful of other Hardholders in their areas, basically forming crude feudal kingdoms, either by forcing the other hadrdolder to submit, or killing them and placing their own puppet at the lead. Let's call those Overholds, and their rulers the Overholders. And let's say eventually one rose from among them, who managed to force all the other Overholders to bend the knee, but isn't strong enough to simply destroy them. Now that guy is dead/dying, and the Overholders and their underlings are preparing for the inevitable power struggle to come.

The idea here is, that the civilization, or at least something akin to that has had enough time to regrow enough for the world to become reconnected (motor vehicles are a part of default setting after all). Trade routes provide far-away holds with goods they require in exchange of goods required elsewhere, and warfare can include multiple vehicles and gangs from small to large on both sides, organized under one war leader, however temporarily. What would keeping multiple holds in line without destroying them look like in Apocalypse world? How about affairs between numerous such nations?

This is just the backdrop. I haven't submitted to the players yet (we are in the middle of another campaign), but the idea is that they can pretty much decide among themselves what they would like to do in such a world. My main concern is, that some potential results of such a world may be a bit too large scale to handle under AW:s normal rules, such as warfare with multiple gangs, or trade with the kinds of amounts of barter typically reserved for the Hardholder.

brainstorming & development / Re: Dark Heresy Apocalypse
« on: May 02, 2017, 12:15:54 PM »
I would almost suggest you crack open the rulebooks and write the career paths and backgrounds there into something the player compiles their own playbook from.

Apocalypse World / Re: Springing custom moves
« on: March 09, 2017, 04:00:19 PM »
I'd say that honesty demands you tell them the consequences (that's why it's an MC move). Remember, you are having a conversation about the events in your shared fictional space, so if something happens only inside your head, it really doesn't happen in the game. The PC:s are not the party unfavourite until you tell (or at least imply) it to the players.

If you do things behind the players back, there is a risk that they feel like you just pulled stuff out of your ass in a bad way (bad as in "Rocks fall, everyone dies.") when they made a bad call because they had no way of knowing it would be a bad call.

That's actually a pretty good angle I had not considered before! I don't think it is the only one though.


That the "weapon" has the same kind of weight or impact as a "mask".

Being "unmasked" is a powerful image, and one that's easy to create an recreate. Taking away someone's weapon is... interesting, but not to the same degree.

Some of the outcomes/costs don't work as well, for me, as for someone being unmasked.

I don't have a solution to point out, unfortunately, but that's what I see. Otherwise, this is really good!
One way that is already reflected is that somebody seeing you unarmed doesn't get stunned by the fact. Being disarmed has consequences, but those are inside the PC:s head rather than in the way the rest of the world sees them, bacause they are based on PC:s relationship to their weapon.

But yeah I see your point and shall give it due consideration.

Here's a fixed version.
Changed the names of some moves to fit better, fixed some fluff points, and removed an embarrasing number of typos.

Apocalypse World / Re: Disciplined Engagement - Quarantine
« on: March 01, 2017, 04:30:55 PM »
Yeah, he pretty much has to explain how he intends to pull off the amount of harm, and failing that it's fiction first.

With one possible exception. I don't feel like Roaring Rampage quite fits. Or rather not always. It fits nicely if you're a huge beast of a swordsman. But for the wiry/tall gangly/more human-sized swordsman it doesn't quite fit being able to bash through walls. Maybe make it more about the navigation, than the destruction of the scenery?

Roaring rampage: roll+hard to get past a scenery obstacle to get to or away from
something. On a 10+, you bypass or smash through the scenery and you get what you want. On
a 7–9 you get what you want and bypass or smash the scenery, but you take 1-harm (ap),
and are disoriented and under fire in follow-up actions, leave something behind, or take
something with you. On a miss, you get caught in the scenery.

Maybe something like the above, though I'll admit, that doesn't seem quite as evocative. Maybe an entirely new move to perfectly fit the Bladesoul archetype?
I think I'll replace the word bypass with slip, but otherwise it makes sense.

Also, in the minor stuff, I've just noticed that Scent of Blood hasn't been bolded.
Yeah, noticed couple of other hickups as well. I can't edit the post apparently, so I'll put up a google docs file in the weekend at the latest. I'll rewrite some flavour text points while I'm at it as well.

Apocalypse World / Fallen Empires: The Bladesoul/The Faceless conversion
« on: February 28, 2017, 11:51:27 AM »
I liked the concept of Fallen Empires when lumpley presented it in the kickstarted, but noted that it faded into obscurity and hasn't received any attention. I had some ideas though, so I thought I'd try my hand at converting some of the extended playbooks since lumpley hasn't shown any interest in doing so himself. The Bladesoul is meant to be the "tragic" swordsman of the genre that lives (and usually dies) by the blade they wield and the mistakes they make in doing so. Less Norman Bates or Jason Voorhees and more Túrin Turambar or Elric of Melniboné.

The Bladesoul
In the fallen empires, your only companion is the blade. No one else you can trust. No man, woman, child or beast. Everyone else betrays and deceives you. But this you can trust. It shares your pain and guilt and fear. It’s the only one you can talk to. And through its hardness and its edge you keep sane.

You can trust the blade, right?

Jalhar, Lacrak, Elvir, Big Fucker, Softy, Blonde, Hjolm, Corpse, Ork, Blag, Dent, Deg, Frog, Trench, Zuto, Kray, Momo, Gigg, Meat, Stomp.

Man, woman, ambiguous, transgressing.
Dark skin, light skin.
Distinct helm and dark cloak, Well-kept chainmail, black armor, piecemeal armor
Hard eyes, blank eyes, merciless eyes, dead
eyes, or calculating eyes.
Huge body, muscular body, tall gangly body,
wiry body, or obese body.

Choose one set:
• Cool+1 Hard+2 Hot-1 Sharp+1 Weird=0
• Cool=0 Hard+2 Hot+1 Sharp-1 Weird+1
• Cool=0 Hard+2 Hot-1 Sharp+2 Weird-1
• Cool+1 Hard+2 Hot-1 Sharp=0 Weird+1

The Bladesoul moves
0 Wovs of vengeance: whenever your life becomes untenable, name the person you hold most
responsible. Take +1 ongoing to all rolls versus them, forever. (All rolls with them directly
as a target count, of course. Rolls against their family and friends, minions, or property
may count, in the MC’s judgment. MCs, remember your job is to make Apocalypse World
seem real and keep the characters’ lives interesting, not deny the PCs bonuses.)
0 Master of Fate: shot, stabbed, and poisoned, you just keep coming. When you are being
scary as fuck and coming at someone, you get +1armor. You still get shot and stabbed,
bleeding just doesn’t bother you that much anymore.
0 Juggernaut: take -2 on all “when you suffer harm” rolls.
0 Roaring rampage: roll+hard to smash your way through scenery to get to or away from
something. On a 10+, the scenery is moved or smashed and you get what you want. On
a 7–9 you get what you want and smash or move the scenery, but you take 1-harm (ap),
and are disoriented and under fire in follow-up actions, leave something behind, or take
something with you. Think smashing through walls or pushing through burned out husks
of carts. On a miss, your foot gets pinned under something mid-smash.
0 Scent of Blood: at the beginning of the session, roll+weird. On a 10+ hold 1+1. On a
7–9 hold 1. At any time, you or the MC can spend your hold to have you at the scene of a
battle (a real battle, not intimate violence between a couple people). If your hold was 1+1,
take +1forward now. On a miss, the MC holds 1, and can spend it to have you there and
pinned down.
0 Stormbringer: you seek the advice of your weapon. Roll+weird to see what it directs you to do.
On a 10+ mark experience and take +1forward if you do as your mask wishes. On a 7–9,
take a +1 if you do what it wants and act under fire if you don’t. On a miss, it has its own
agenda. Act under fire if you don’t follow it.
0 As one: attempts by other PCs to seize your weapon by force, or to disarm you by going aggro or seduction/manipulation, are at -2. NPCs will never
succeed at disarming you against your will, even if you are completely at their mercy.
0 Beastly: you get +1hard (hard+3).

You get:
• Your weapon
• fashion suitable to your look, including at
your option a piece worth 1- or 2-armor
(you detail)
• oddments worth 2-keep
Your weapons (choose 1):
• Bastard Sword (Deadly: On the field)
• Battle Axe (Deadly: On the field)
• Sword (Deadly: On the field & hand-to-hand)
• Spear (Deadly: On the field)
• Falchion (Deadly: hand-to-hand & infighting)

Everyone introduces their characters by name, look and outlook. Take your turn.
List the other characters’ names.
Go around again for Hx. On your turn, ask 1, 2, or all 3:
• Which one of you once helped me do something terrible? For that character, write Hx+3.
• Which one of you was once kind and unafraid toward me? For that character, write Hx+2.
• Which one of you do I think is pretty? For that character, write Hx+1.
For everyone else, write Hx=0.
On the others’ turns, answer their questions as you like.
At the end, choose one of the characters with the highest Hx on your sheet. Ask that player which of your stats is most interesting, and highlight it. The MC will have you highlight a second stat too.

Your weapon
Choose it’s looks (pick 1)
Anquated, battered, rusty, black, wicked, large, well-kept

Choose its details (pick as many as you like)
Decorated with runes, gilded handle, prominent spikes, text on the blade, metal parts polished to mirror sheen.

Disarmed, you are (pick 2)
0 Vulnerable. Whenever you suffer harm, you suffer +1harm.
0 Open. Every PC who sees you goes immediately to Hx+3 with you.
0 Afraid. You take -1 ongoing until you hold it again.
0 Irresolute. When you inflict harm, inflict -1harm.
0 Ashamed. You have hard=0 until you hold it again.
0 Powerless. You lose access to all of your character moves. You can still make basic moves.

During play, it’s your job to have your character make and pursue goals. ?ey can be any goals you want, long term and short-. Begin by thinking what your goals might be this very morning, as play begins

Whenever you roll a highlighted stat, and whenever you reset your history with someone, mark an experience circle. When you mark the 5??, improve and erase. Each time you improve, choose one of the options. Check it off; you can’t choose it again.
— get +1hot (max +2)
— get +1sharp (max +2)
— get +1weird (max +2)
— get +1 cool (max+2)
— get a new bladesoul move
— get a new bladesoul move
— get a war-band (you detail) and bloody-crowned
— get a holding (you detail) and wealth
— get a move from another playbook
— get a move from another playbook

— get +1 to any stat (max stat+3)
— retire your character to safety
— create a second character to play
— change your character to a new playbook
— choose 3 basic moves and advance them.
— advance the other 4 basic moves.

Your Keep

At the beginning of the session, spend 1, 2, or 3 keep for your lifestyle. If you can’t or won’t, tell the MC and answer her questions. You can earn your keep by: working the hard earth; extorting, raiding, or robbing a wealthy population; executing a murder on behalf of a wealthy NPC; serving a powerful NPC as bodyguard; or other means as you can negotiate them. In addition to your lifestyle, you might spend your keep on: a night in high luxury and company; someone else’s protection, service, or labor; a weapon or other equipment; tribute to a warlord; the bribes required to turn someone’s eye or secure someone’s complicity; rich or beautiful clothing; or other things as you can arrange for them.

Apocalypse World / Clarification regarding advanced Go Aggro
« on: February 26, 2017, 09:31:15 AM »
Okay, so, if a PC has advanced go aggro, and the PC is suckering someone, but the MC calls for a roll, and the PC hits it on 12+ what happens? Is the advancement still in effect (the target must give me what I want) or does this count as a sucker someone (as in a separate move that cannot be advanced) that merely uses the exact same rules as go aggro as the resolving mechanic, except on 10+ the target must force the PC:s hand?

Rogue Trader: Apocalypse / Re: Building Your Ship: shipbooks
« on: October 24, 2016, 09:05:33 AM »
Do you have more of these stored away, or did this idea end up to the cutting room floor? My regular gaming group might be interested to run Rogue Trader Apocalypse, and at least one of them thought the shipbooks were needed. I think they might also bring a bit more character and focus to the party's ship.

Also, if you don't have any of these, mind if I make some? I've probably played too much Battlefleet Gothic Armada for my own good lately.

brainstorming & development / Don't Fear the Eyes of the Dark Lord
« on: June 13, 2016, 07:38:04 PM »
So yeah. Things happened, test campaing kicked off, and inspired by that I ended up reviving the whole thing on Fallen Empires.

The Core book (early bare bones version)

I'm beginning to rewrite the playbooks, and hope to start posting them soon.

Is the problem with language, or the fact that it wasn't nearly as coherent as I thought?

Apocalypse World / What does honesty demand?
« on: April 14, 2016, 07:15:22 PM »
Lately in my campaing, I've had it become the shtick of a certain NPC, that she tells the PC:s the truth (because they have an Angel with high wisdom and a hair trigger on reading a person) but usually not the whole truth (because she considers manipulating the PC:s the easiest way of getting things done, and telling them the whole truth would likely make them sabotage her plans). And as such, frequently when the she is done giving the PC:s an info dump on whatever she ask of them, or her plans or something else like that, the Angel spends his hold to ask whether she's telling the truth. My answer is always the same: "All she has told you is true, so if she is lying, she is lying by omission."

I have begun to wonder, is this telling what honesty demands. Or to be precise, am I using the wording and not telling whether she's lying by omission as a way to obscure her intentions and the developments in the world?

Then again, implying that she may have been lying by omission has made the PC:s really suspicious regarding her (not lessened by asking what she intends to do next giving some pretty incriminating results) and as such, theorizing (usually correctly) what she has omitted.

Pages: [1] 2