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 - Allison

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 26, 2011, 09:49:01 AM »
Also, makes sense in the context of the Apocalypse World. Death is all around, and someone who's able to stich people back on their feet would be a very desirable ressource. The Angel being independant in this context means they have the balls and the means to say no to any hardholder or warlord that tells them to work for them.

The playbook actually makes no particular insinuation that the character isn't in the employ, willing or otherwise, of some hardholder or warlord. (Also, dare I say that the doctor is not someone you want to piss off regardless of their Hard, but.)

Apocalypse World / Re: Sieze by force, again
« on: September 26, 2011, 08:32:10 AM »
It might mean any of those, but the most important thing is: if it's not clear what it means, don't choose it.

Very true; I generally don't (which makes for relatively easy decisions as to what options to pick). I did just expand Daryl the Muscle's seize by force, though, so I'm likely to end up getting the option for free at some point.

Apocalypse World / Re: Sieze by force, again
« on: September 26, 2011, 05:52:39 AM »
I'm glad to see it clarified that you can just straight-up seize a person or gang by force, which is how we've been doing it in the campaigns I've been playing in.

Incidentally, dare I ask what it means to pick the "take definite hold" option when straight-up seizing a person or gang? I'm going to guess in practice it's a little more like Arvid's idea of advancing/pushing them back, and that it might give you a situation where you can deny them escape, or deny them the ability to attack another target, or deny them the ability to fight back against the seizing PC (like allowing the PC to go aggro next move), or whatever.

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 25, 2011, 08:05:07 AM »
Oh, I'm fine with going aggro. You can certainly stick ice cold in the improvement line somewhere, as long as the arrangement has me doing something other than kicking my own ass just to kick my own ass (switching one of the +1hard improvements into "get the ice cold move" would be, sadly), considering good Cool makes perfect sense and being willing to pull the trigger fits the character just fine. But nothing in particular suggests to me a doctor would be any better at seizing by force.

Her starting line was Cool+1, Hard=0, Hot+1, Sharp+2, Weird-1 (now Cool+2 and Sharp+3). So perhaps changing one +1hard improvement into a +1hot improvement, which for some bizarre reason, the angel lacks, or dropping a point of Hard from the statline for a point of Weird (since dropping Hard by one point wouldn't be enough to improve her Hot to +2, because for some reason you have to pay extra to gimp yourself with a second +2 right out of the gate), or both.

That said, thank you; I'm glad that an actual medical professional has weighed in to point out that the "hardening" experienced in the medical profession is not really the same kind of Hard used in AW.

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 25, 2011, 07:46:00 AM »
It would mean that ability to go aggro and to seize by force are unrelated, except in the case of going aggro on PCs with whom her Hx is poorer than her Hard. The doc has good Cool (+2), so with Ice Cold, would go aggro at +2, but would not seize by force at +2--she's got steady nerves and the ovaries (OK, balls, whatev) to pull the trigger, but not so much ability to bring down an opponent who is actively fighting back.

But there'd be no point to doing that when I could just spend a couple of improvements to get Hard+2 instead, which is going to happen eventually anyway if the game goes on long enough to start filling out the angel's improvement list.

Also, in our game, we've never had the problem that article describes with seize by force. We use it by consequences, like Christian Griffen there does--if you're getting violent with someone who is immediately prepared to get violent back, or who is already getting violent with you, it's seize by force. As an example, when the doctor was attacked in her surgery by a violent woman over twice her size intent on infecting her with a horrible disease (no, it wasn't AIDS, ffs), the doc pulled her gun and went aggro first, of course--she failed, and then she got pinned and then the fight went right to seizing by force (which the doc somehow managed to succeed at, though I waived inflicting harm because obviously the doc would have her hands full just resisting, forget actually injuring someone that big with her bare hands, and doing that would be a case of using the rules in a way that makes no goddamn sense).

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 25, 2011, 06:56:30 AM »
OK, ctrail's response suddenly makes it clear to me what the disconnect between my experience and everyone else's is. In my experience, seize by force happens as much as going aggro, if not more, and I've seen as much unarmed combat in the game as armed.

Both of these are probably at least in part because my character in my other AW campaign is a nutcase who will willingly, even eagerly, attack thirty heavily armed raiders with her bare hands just because she totally told the owner of the establishment she'd try not to get any bullet holes in the wall (that, and getting her SMG would have involved taking a couple of moments to, y'know, go home and get it, and that's just inconvenient). Of course that's not the only thing, given that the MC in the game where I play the angel also does as much in the way of big firefights as intimate violence. This may have skewed my perspective a little, and in fairness, it does kind of colour what I imagine when I look at the Hard stat (at the very least, it has me imagining it in terms of ability to commit violence well rather than simply willingness to commit violence period).

Sadly the battlebabe's ice cold is not standard here, or else it would have fit the division much better (and sadly the system gives me virtually no incentive to get it--more of a disincentive, really--because I can just raise my Hard as high as my Cool instead, and save the precious cross-class move slot and be just as good at seizing by force).

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 01:52:52 PM »
I'm just saying! The medics I know, they'll never point a gun at you, but if they do, you cave and do what they want, or they shoot you.

See, and this is probably where I ended up wandering off. I don't usually make the mental leap from violence to guns--when I picture violence, it's usually something much more muscle-powered. (It's also why I got snippy about the best fighter class being guns-associated, despite the fact that it's the class that needs those FOBGs the least.)

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 11:35:32 AM »
I've never met a medic who couldn't effectively go aggro, ever.

Were they going aggro in the AW sense, or were they manipulating with screams and glares? Because my angel may have done the latter.

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 11:16:23 AM »
Not really. Starting equipment is just starting equipment (except for things like angel kits, cars, workshops, and maybe FOBGs, but gunluggers of all classes need FOBGs the least, so for them it pales to little more than garnish). It's not like you can't just go buy 2-armour and a shotgun or smg or machete or whatever with a little jingle.

Apocalypse World / Re: changes in the player-roster
« on: September 24, 2011, 11:02:53 AM »
Just go ahead and play, and next session, give the player who couldn't make it a bigger love-letter to give their character something to have done while the player was out and to keep them involved in the game.

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 10:57:17 AM »
Yeah, but I still haven't figured out what it is that prevents angels from being weaklings, or even means they're stronger than anyone else. I'm still not seeing a relationship between "I heal people" and "I'm good at hurting people." Or, for that matter, "I'm emotionally prepared to follow through on a threat of violence" and "I have any actual strength, skill, or other ability that allows me to physically follow through on a threat of violence."

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 10:51:00 AM »
You know, the twig might not be bluffing, but I hope that ganger is also kind of a weakling, otherwise she's going to be the one getting wrangled down--maybe getting a few cuts in first, but not where she was hoping.

Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I also make no conflation between willingness and ability. The former appears without the latter all the time, and vice-versa.

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 10:24:25 AM »
Perhaps I'm just an oddball, but I've never seen any relationship between what's often referred to as having been "emotionally hardened" and actually being any good at overpowering someone in a violent situation.

Apocalypse World / Angels and Hard
« on: September 24, 2011, 09:40:49 AM »
I don't know if anyone else has observed this before (probably), but I just noticed that all angel stat lines have either Hard=0 or Hard+1, meaning that there's no such thing as an angel who's bad at violence (especially considering that they get two +1hard lines, meaning an angel will never be created who doesn't have an easy path to Hard+2 at the least).

This has been starting to bother me, because I've been playing an angel who's a 98-pound weakling, and a Hard of even =0, let alone with the potential for +2, is becoming more and more plainly absurd. But there's no way to have a Hard below =0 without going out of my way to get crippled, and that's just... well, crippling myself for no reason.

So I'm not sure what to do about this, or why it's this way at all. Any help?

Apocalypse World / Re: Frustrated
« on: September 24, 2011, 05:07:59 AM »
In fairness, asking the PCs provocative questions is one of the MC's many jobs. It's not wrong to ask an MC to give a PC something to react to when that PC's in a spot where shit is apparently going so well for them that they don't presently feel the need to make a move and affect their environment. Sometimes, even extraordinary people hit a smooth patch.

In fact, if anything, it's a tool for the MC as much as it is a job for the MC. PC seems to be sitting around twiddling thumbs? Make a move: read them. Ask them what they give a shit about and act on it, ask them what their hopes and dreams are and bait your hook, ask them what'll scare them out of their goddamn complacency and do it.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5