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 - nomadzophiel

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11
46
AW:Dark Age / Re: What Is a Right?
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:39:28 PM »
I have a hard time seeing "You have a Right to X" as different from "Most people agree that you have a Right to X". After all, it's not like the right is an objectively extant thing you can put on your shelf and point to; it functions only if people respect it.

Except if people don't respect it you get a lot of dramatic potential/screen time. I'm better at examples. Say there's a a particularly urban stronghold. They hold to the New Nobility ways to the extent that the Old Ways aren't just absent but actively disbelieved. There's never been a troll in living memory and they are chalked up to old wives' tales. A Wicker Wise is not going to have her right to a sacrifice respected by these people because human sacrifice is horrifying. A Troll Hunter won't have his right to kill someone who is a harbinger of worse things because those worse things are just fanciful stories. So there's no assumption that you right will generally be respected but there is an assumption that when its not, something important will happen.

By playing one of those characters, though, you're telling the other players and the game world that these things are important to you. By the very fact that the Wicker Wise exists, we know that in the fiction, sacrifices to the Wicker Man are important at least to that player. Anyone can still deny those sacrifices but doing so is explicitly consequential and the Denied Right moves are the vehicle that the player has for making it consequential.

47
AW:Dark Age / Re: What Is a Right?
« on: September 15, 2014, 02:26:37 AM »
Sure. A right doesn't imply your ability to do something. Its softer than that. In the case of writing allies for aid, anyone can write but not everyone has a mechanical system for the aid that they receive. They have to rely on the MC's interpretation of the principles instead. You can write for aid but you have no right to expect aid. If they refuse, they're not denying your right.

I used an example in a different thread something like this:

If someone in your town is a werewolf and you don't have the right to kill people for the greater good, you can still do it. You can also expect to be treated as a murderer.
Anyone can try to talk to god(s) but only the Court Wizard has a right to expect a reply and possibly only he has the right to do it within the stronghold's laws.
If you don't have the right to contest the crown, you can take a shot at it anyway, The Petyr (Baelish) Principle, but if you win you are denying the rights of everyone who had the right to do it.
If you don't have a right to an enchanted weapon, you can own one anyway if you acquire one in play. On the other hand, if someone else has the right but no weapon and they take yours, its theirs by right. You can still try to take it back but you're denying their right then and they were not denying yours by taking it from you. He has recourse that you don't through his gods, his people, even on a player level.
In the event of some odd emergency, someone without the right to command the stronghold's armies may do so but only the War Chief can take for granted that the army will always follow his orders.

But as I was writing for this thread, something even bigger came to mind. A War Chief who isn't allowed to command an army isn't really a War Chief. A Troll Hunter who's tried for killing the werewolf isn't really a Troll Hunter. Denying someone's rights is a direct attack on the core of their identity, or even an attack on the validity of that position existing at all. You're not just denying the right, you're denying their place in society. Considering there are at least two major ways of life coexisting and coming into conflict in the game, that's a perfectly sensible mechanic to have. Maybe your goal is to say that the Wicker Wise and her annual sacrifice have no place in society. Its a valid move but its also a huge deal. The whole thing is a bit system light but its quite consequence heavy.

Come to think of it after the Petyr Baelish joke, this would all map pretty well to Westeros.

48
AW:Dark Age / Re: What Is a Right?
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:32:02 AM »
I realize I kind of comented on the discussion s opposed to the original question. Here's my take on some of that:
Yes, NPCs have rights gut they don't have Rights in a character sheet sense. Just like NPC in AW have a history with PCs or other NPCs but no Hx score. That seems like a strictly mechanical answer but it goes to both the agency of NPCs compared to PCs and their ability to do and be things not set out in playbooks.

Yes, Pcs and NPCs have duties. Those duties are defined more by the game world that your group comes up with than by systems. If there's a supernatural menace, the Troll Hunter is expected to kill it. The War Chief has a duty to defend the stronghold. However, there is no "if someone fails in their duty" move.

I actually think player and NPC rights are an interesting discussion but entirely separate conversation. Both certainly have expectations of what they're allowed to do and can hold it against the MC or each other if denied them.

By and large, rights have a social or mystical support system but the details are left to the individual player/group. I feel like a PC should be able to explicitly count on the default response of his people being to uphold his right. If his people aren't nearby, it is important to figure out whether some other group supports those rights or if they are regularly in conflict with the local people.

Yes, characters without a right have no right to x. The presence of a right implies a lack of that right to everyone else.

As for appropriateness, I think its a fascinating idea. I like that it makes the players and the characters confront where these rights come from and what to do when your rights are denied. They're a big motivator for PC action and they help define both the expectations of what the game will be about and a way to create tension from the difference between those expectations and the game's reality.

49
AW:Dark Age / Re: What Is a Right?
« on: September 14, 2014, 07:21:17 PM »
I feel like, while its necessary for our modern mind set to understand all of this, to your character it would sound a lot like over thinking it. In the real Dark Ages, there was a concept that rights came from God, either directly or indirectly through priests who interceded between people and God and kings who rules by divine right themselves. In a more anthropological description, we'd say that the belief in divine right was a tool for maintaining a social order. Whether that social order came from agreement of the people, force of arms or whatever is not something your average person living in that system puts much thought to. Where does our modern right to free speech come from? It comes from a system that to a greater or lesser extent protects that right and thrives from its existence.

Why does the Wicker Wise have a right to cast enchantments? Because that's part of her job as an intermediary to the old gods. She casts enchantments, sacrifices people to ensure a bountiful harvest etc. If you take those things away from her, you're denying the position of Wicker Wise itself in your society. The fact hat an angry Wicker God may also take vengeance on you is almost an aside to the fact that by denying her, you are denying your culture. You are breaking the rules that the world works by just as surely as you would be through murder or building a perpetual motion machine.

Why does the Court Wizard have a right to a day off? Because he's a holy man and holy men have a sabbath day when they're not supposed to labor. Taking away that right directly undermines what the character is. Its wrong in his eyes, its wrong in his god's eyes. Its wrong in the people's eyes.

The last one is a big point that I think hasn't come up much.  Regardless of where rights come from, its a safe assumption that your people respect them. So if you take a grievance to your people and they judge it fairly, they're going to come down on the side of someone whose rights have been denied.

50
AW:Dark Age / Re: Where Do Rights Come From?
« on: September 10, 2014, 10:57:28 PM »
They don't even have to be gods. If you disrupt someone's investments, the wider world (no caps) doesn't trust you in trade agreements. If a Keep Liege denies the Wicker Wise's demand for a sacrifice, the followers of the old ways will be affronted. If you harm someone who has a right to hospitality. . .well, Walder Frey will get his sooner or later.

51
AW:Dark Age / Re: Right to call upon god or gods for the Court Wizard?
« on: September 10, 2014, 10:54:30 PM »
You've got me wondering/riffing on this whole "your right according to who" thing now. :)
Like the Wicker Wise's rights are clearly recognized/given by her culture/people. The Keep Liege's come from the crown. The Court Wizard's rights seem to come partly from his religious organization, partly from his gods (the more supernatural stuff).  Someone who recognizes the Court Wizard's rights may well not recognize the Wicker Wise's and vice versa.

52
AW:Dark Age / Re: Court Wizard - No Enchantments?
« on: September 10, 2014, 09:55:40 PM »
I'm late to the conversation, so I don't know if there's been previous discussion about how all characters who don't explicitly have a right implicitly have "you do not have the right to. . ." but it was something that struck me almost immediately. The average NPC does not have the right to petition his betters for redress, to own a war horse, lance and kite shield, to own an enchanted weapon, to enchant another, to command the armies in defense of the stronghold, to contact the gods of his people etc.

People may not question the one without a right but if you don't have the right, you have no recourse. If someone with the right to an enchanted weapon or a war horse steals yours, you had no right to it and now its theirs by right (which is kind of like law). If no one else will command the war party, you might be able to do it this one time but its not your right.

53
AW:Dark Age / Re: Right to call upon god or gods for the Court Wizard?
« on: September 10, 2014, 09:48:17 PM »
I don't know, it seems to me that there are several implicit priesthoods here. Its an interesting question whether consulting the other world is a right given by the gods (ie they listen) or by men (ie the priesthood has a monopoly on revelations). I guess I more easily imagine the latter since the thing that the Wizard has a right to is mechanically identical to a thing anyone can do. See also my take on right to enchantments.

54
AW:Dark Age / Re: Right to call upon god or gods for the Court Wizard?
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:38:57 PM »
I think its worth noting that not only does the Wizard get the Denied Right move here but the implication is that no one else has the right to call upon the god or gods of their people. Someone without a right to Consult The Other World can still do it in the same way that someone without the right to kill for the greater good can still kill someone. Don't get caught.

55
AW:Dark Age / Re: Court Wizard - No Enchantments?
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:35:06 PM »
I feel like (and I may be wrong here), that Enchantments are open to anyone in a mechanical sense. If you go a shrine of your gods, offer them a bounty and inflict 1-Harm on yourself, you can make an NPC fall in love with you for a night or talk to the ghost of your dead mother. The rules even say "You can perform any enchantment, at any time you choose to do so." That's the stuff of fairy tales right there. On the other hand, if you don't have the right then you are performing unholy black magic and are a witch! The Court Wizard is "trembling before God" and so does not have the right to use unholy witchcraft. . .but he does ave the ability.

56
AW:Dark Age / Re: Denied right
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:09:09 PM »
Given two characters with Strong +1 vying for the crown, I'll put my money on the one whose gods are outraged or who will not rest until vindicated. Given that we're talking a human sacrifice at Midwinter, I'd be really really worried about someone whose gods are outraged.

57
AW:Dark Age / Re: A bunch of questions and a comment
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:01:09 PM »
Should I as MC be trying to find flaws in the hide and spears to make that choice meaningful, or find advantages for picking swords and chain, or should I just look at it as a flavor?

My two cents, I feel like the mechanics sort of give you a fictional answer. You roll up on this stronghold and the guys there have metal armor and weapons instead of hides and wood. What does that tell you about it just based on the world that the system implies? Well, first off, they're wealthy. Second, that they've probably got all the other cool upgrades that they want because they can afford to focus on better weapons and armor with no mechanical benefit. It probably also implies the new nobility but that's more strictly in the fiction than the system.

58
blood & guts / Campaign Countdown Clock
« on: September 10, 2014, 03:02:02 AM »
Vincent,
This was something that I noticed in the design but I'm curious how many levels of consequence were deliberate and what the thought process was overall. The Advances chart seems to set a maximum limit on campaign length. What I mean by that is that at a maximum of 16 advances the player
1. is playing a second character
2. has no choice but to retire his original character to safety.

So if we assume that everyone is advancing at more or less the same rate, you'll eventually have a game full of second characters with all of the first ones dead or retired. That's essentially a new campaign where the second generation is dealing with the fallout of the first. As an MC, if everyone still wants to play at that point, I'd definitely consider breaking for enough years of game time to effectively start a new campaign with the second gen characters. I found that a really cool concept. The faster you improve, the faster forced retirement is looming ahead of you. From day one, every character has a 16 tick countdown clock.

Now there are also moves that put a PC in a position to give other PC's XP. Seduce & Manipulate, Insight, Visionary, Eager To Know and Oftener Right (both indirectly) and. . .um. . .the Quarantine one that gives XP for assisting him. and I'm sure there are others. Get a few of them going at once (say a Visionary and a Quarantine) and its a high speed XP factory. Is there a thought behind this that the campaign will find its own satisfying length based on how aggressively players are chasing XP?

59
brainstorming & development / Re: Steampocalypse
« on: September 10, 2014, 02:12:47 AM »
Still in the notes phase, obviously but I wanted to toss some stuff out and see what sets people's imaginations on fire.

Stats and moves - to be narrowed down later
When you wish to convince someone with your charm and wiles roll +Sanguine
When you attempt to get what you want through application of force of arms or personality roll +Choleric
When you apply dispassionate observation and deduction, roll +Melancholic
When you keep a stiff upper lip, roll +Phlegmatic
When you contact forces from beyond the physical plane, roll Etheric

Playbooks - I'm aiming for two of each primary stat. Each one has a basic concept, a conflict that comes from it, a location with its own choices to make and an assistant. Some of them are more solid than others.

Resurrectionist
Your Victor Frankenstein, who can heal, poison and bring dead things to life. Sure you can create life, but can you trust it?
Lab and assistant - Melancholic

Nechanic
Mad scientist who uses life force (ie souls) to power things. How many souls is it worth to you to save the world?
Workshop and assistant, soul fire and tech - Choleric

Sharp
A card shark who matches wits with with demons for power (think Deadlands' Huckster or Malifaux's. . .um. . .the guy with Brilliance). Can anything good come from fighting fire with fire?
“Establishment” and Imp - Sanguine

Spiritualist
One foot in the land of the living, one in the land of the dead. When push comes to shove, which one matters more?
Seance room and spirit guide - Etheric

Action Archaeologist
Digs for (and possibly owns) ancient relics. How much of yourself is the truth worth?
Museum or Warehouse with a curator - Phlegmatic

Ancient
Cold, rational, probably undead. Humans don't trust you but the bad things are even worse. Can you find a fine line to preserve your immortal existence?
Lair/Tomb and toadie - Melancholic

Captain
of an airship or a submarine, pirate or remnants of a military fleet. How far can you trust your crew when the world is ending in fire and horror?
Ship and first mate - Choleric

Hunter (gunslinger/vampire hunter)
Whether its a lion on the plains of Africa, a dragon in the mountains of Hungary or the most dangerous game, you fellow man.
Trophy Room and Native Guide - Phlegmatic

Dreamer/Prophet - Dream Demesne and Dream Guide - Etheric - I'm actually not liking this one as much. Better to keep everyone more or less on the same plane of existence.

Alien Princess
Graceful and poised, you stayed behind when the rest of your people fled. Why?
Temple and priest/ess? - Sanguine

60
Apocalypse World / Re: The Maestro D' and Barter
« on: September 10, 2014, 01:59:51 AM »
In the same way that a Gunlugger can do enforcing of murder to make barter, the Maestro has things beyond the basic venue that are worth barter. What's it worth to a pair of gang leaders to have a private meeting on neutral ground? The Maestro can make it happen. Want some private time with one of the dancers? Sure but that's a premium service. Does Balls owe the Holder money? Well he's a regular and the maestro can collect for a cut. Need someone dead? Devil With A Blade and Give Me A Motive are nasty. The Operator has Moonlighting but the Maestro has the skill set to get out there and hustle in play.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11