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: Playbook: The Gladiator
« on: September 16, 2011, 03:20:07 AM »
So, what happens if you're fucking one person and they like just how too-much you are?

(really, that's the thing that gets me about sex moves, they tend to assume too much about the person who's going to be playing the book or the person/people they're going to be fucking)

Apocalypse World / Re: Understanding Basic Moves
« on: September 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM »
I am starting to think "when I just want to kill a guy" just isn't a thing that HAS a move in AW. When you want to do that, you've got two options:

- Reexamine your motives, figure out what you actually want.

- Maneuver into a place where you can just inflict harm as you like.

I'm pretty sure my motive is to make some goons into ex-goons, and that my place in which I just inflict harm as I like is "right at the centre of the storm of red stuff."

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholders, Choppers, and Hocuses, oh my!
« on: September 08, 2011, 03:49:30 PM »
On the subject of getting angels more involved, I'm playing one. The MC has done a great job so far. Her first love letter to me gave me a choice of things I was getting work from, and I ended up picking one that went places: a pernicious, communicable, and eventually fatal disease-causing mould, which went on to spawn a cult which has raised a considerable amount of shit in the game. And then there was getting attacked in my surgery and the meds used for treating the mould stolen, which resulted in a tense subplot where we got them back (and the thief turned out to be the hardholder's son, which spawned more drama), and then the MC felt bad about having me attacked in my surgery by a big scary woman with a severe communicable disease and brought a biker gang of potential romantic interests (and subplots of their own, like being able to recruit the gang against enemy mutants, and having to deal with the hardholder who wants to run them out, and so on) into town, and yada yada.

Also, angels have wicked Sharp. I highly recommend using it. Having Sharp+3 (after an improvement, admittedly) is like being a goddamn mind-reader: you excel at seeing through people (and situations), and you should damn well make sure everyone knows it. I also picked the stat array with Hot+1, which helps for following through when I read someone for their buttons.

So I guess where I'm going with this is, you need to consider both what angels as a class do (they cure the sick and heal the injured--a disease or battle that calls for a doctor to save the day will put attention on them), and their individual motives, as you would for anyone. You could try asking the angel's player what the character's goals and desires are, then act on that information. That, and cater to their great Sharp; throw situations at the PCs where NPCs around them aren't wearing their motives on their sleeves or into uncertain situations with dangers that are hidden and not right out on the table.

Apocalypse World / Re: Understanding Basic Moves
« on: September 08, 2011, 03:20:35 PM »
Usually, what I'm seizing when I just want to kill somebody is the person I'm targeting. If you're attacking a single target, I would imagine grappling them or otherwise taking the fight to the ground would be appropriate uses for "take definite hold," but I'm less certain where gangs are concerned. I don't worry about it too much, though--it's just one less option competing for my spends. (Though, I did just expand my seize by force, so maybe I should start thinking about it for those moments where I roll a 12+.)

Apocalypse World / Re: Hardholders, Choppers, and Hocuses, oh my!
« on: September 06, 2011, 12:28:22 AM »
Just a few ideas I'll throw out there that you may wish to pass on to your gangless players:
* One of the groupless players could snag NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH, which would mean they are a gang.
* Many of the non-hardholder, non-chopper playbooks can obtain gangs of their own.
* A character with a high Hot or otherwise in possession of good ability to seduce or manipulate can try turning the gang-having characters against one another, or turning an influential NPC who can rile the community against them (if the hardholder's rule is contested, their income is cut off).

On the Maestro D' and the Skinner: the Maestro D' makes an excellent "prestige class" for a Skinner who's become an "ascended performer" and obtained their own establishment. I was actually leaning towards that with my own old Skinner before the campaign got canned (sadness).

(I will admit that the class-changing rules as written can be, uh, problematic, though. It basically means that moving from a class with a lot of intrinsics to one with a lot of extrinsics is awesome, but that if you're a class with a lot of extrinsics and you try to pick up one with intrinsics, suddenly you're screwed and damn near starting over.)

Also, a cult leader and a warrior fighting for a better tomorrow are two entirely different things. They can merge, yes, much as any two archetypes can--the Touchstone actually does have an improvement that gives them followers and the fortunes move. Think of it this way: the Hocus is not only supernaturally oriented, but a leader (and they may even be one more interested in power and exploiting their cult than their stated goals), whereas the Touchstone is more naturally oriented (as observed), and while they absolutely can lead and especially inspire, they do it from the front lines: they are hero first and leader second, and all that. Though you seem like you might already have that down, so I'll  reiterate they absolutely can become the same thing: it's just a matter of things like getting cross-class moves, finding ways to bolster a Hocus's Hard and a Touchstone's Weird, and probably going on to change playbooks when one gets the opportunity.

Apocalypse World / Re: New Playbook: The Scholar
« on: August 17, 2011, 05:29:35 PM »
Since this thread's a little quiet I'll throw something else out there:

You listed glasses in the scholar's looks. Perhaps the scholar should have the option to take eyeglasses (worn valuable) as per the skinner luxe gear if they also choose for the scholar to need the eyeglasses to see properly (+1sharp when sight counts and the glasses are being worn, but -1sharp when sight counts and they aren't being worn)?

Apocalypse World / Re: Combat issue during play.
« on: August 17, 2011, 02:04:38 PM »
Lumpley, even as my group's resident seize-by-force expert (the muscle, a slightly modified gunlugger), I've been looking for something like that so the rest of the group can get in on violent situations more. This is getting passed along to my MC.

Apocalypse World / Re: Problem: gunlugger that's not a gunlugger
« on: August 15, 2011, 04:10:44 PM »
Sounds like you have a handle on your character Allison :) And I get your concept of a gunlugger as a 'warrior', but that's your brilliant interpretation of the playbook, are you able to bring to life via the suggestions above? Just beacuse you are an intrinsic warrior, doesn't mean that you are automatically competent with all your toys!
So what do you think about Vincent's 'technique' tag suggestion as tradeoff's to the playbook as written? Or are you happy with the way your interpretation of the gunlugger playbook stands as it is?

Belatedly... I don't think it's too bad as is, though the technique tag was a brilliant idea on his part and we may need to begin playing with it. I did trade away my FOBG plus one serious gun and the option to take AP ammo away for getting impossible reflexes added to the Muscle's class list, so I can grab that as an in-class move (none of fuck this shit, prepared for the inevitable, or battlefield instincts really cry out to me, even though some are pretty nice, so that means I can go ahead and sink my other in-class move slot into it without worry), and NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH grants me 3-harm before bloodcrazed in battle. The only other thing I'd really be in a huge hurry for is perhaps one particular technique--we could call it "sucker punch" or "bloody knuckles"--with 2-harm hand technique or 3-harm hand technique tags, so she could hit a little harder outside of a "battle." Techniques for stuff like +ap to unarmed attacks would be cool, but aren't necessary to realize the concept (she has things she can use weapons for, but she doesn't stop being a warrior without them, and the MC can still inconvenience her with equipment loss). I'm fine with Daryl getting things like +ap or +area and the like from her equipment; I don't really need something, like, say, Miracle Moon (3-harm hand area messy technique, heals 1-harm for user if it inflicts at least 1-harm as established) here.

On the other hand, Daryl's SO, Frost, the Skinner assassin with devil with a blade, is interested in these "techniques" things. He may have gushed a little at the whirlwind of total knives and death.

blood & guts / Re: Brainers theoreticals
« on: August 14, 2011, 04:35:37 PM »
I'm in a campaign that happens to include the brainer, and two things that have been noted as common came up: one, she was a little detached from the rest of the group whereas the rest of the group had a very thick web going (admittedly, the brainer kind of lends itself to that), and two, she took the violation glove. She's not still detached--she put herself out there, took risks, acted on and spoke about what she's passionate about--and she's getting closer to the other characters as a consequence of these things.

That said, I don't think the brainer is there for people who want to be detached from their own characters. Hell, you could do that with any of'em--and the brainer is not necessarily that hard to relate to, but I speak as someone who, if asked to generate myself in Apoc World, would go brainer. They're unusual, sure, but if you look past the creepy psychic powers, they represent someone who's really out there: someone who's introverted, who maybe didn't have the best social skills on the surface when they were growing up or perhaps even today, but these days, even watching and learning from the outside, they've come to understand people. Their distance lets them see the things that people who are closer would miss due to emotional attachment or because the person being observed shows closer people some other side of themselves. Their ability to step back and see people as they are rather than as they want to see them gives them understanding that the more emotionally invested would not want to have. Also the words "GET OUT OF MY HEAD" are the funnest words to hear, no shit; that moment when someone realizes that you're telling them exactly what they're thinking is a blast. Of course in real life I can only torment my inner circle with it, but hey.

Or maybe some people just want to play the creepy psychic stalker weirdo who watches people sleep. To each their own.

Apocalypse World / Re: New Playbook: The Scholar
« on: August 14, 2011, 08:51:25 AM »
Hmm. I don't actually mind ten-barter words. That said, if you want to change it as per the previous poster's recommendation, I would add an additional suggestion for a replacement: I see right through you. When you seduce or manipulate another player, roll+Hx. When you seduce or manipulate an NPC, roll+sharp.

I can see not liking the roll+Hx part, in which case, I'd restrict it to manipulation only and straight-up roll+sharp like the mechanics you were using to begin with. My logic is twofold: one, other moves that allow for substitution of both seduction and manipulation use the +Hx/+stat split (see the Operator's easy to trust), while moves that allow for straight-up +stat substitution allow it for either seduction or manipulation (see: the brainer's unnatural lust fixation or the hocus's charismatic); two, it's based upon how well the user understands the target, which wouldn't only be Sharp--it could just as easily be Hx.

I would, however, add that the statlines are pretty weak. They only add up to +2, and they should be adding up to +3 (exception: a statline with two stats at +2 adds up to only +2 total; the battlebabe and driver also have their own shit going on which doesn't really apply in the scholar's case). So go back through the statlines and give them a bonus point somewhere. (For no particular reason, I'll quietly recommend one Cool+1 Hard+1 Hot-1 Sharp+2 Weird=0 statline.)

I'd also try to find something to drop among the improvements to make room for a second line of "get a new scholar move." Also, stat improvements cap at +2, not +3, unless they're the veteran +1 to any stat (max+3) that all classes get or the class gets its "improve your main stat to +3" in its improvements rather than in its moves. Neither of these apply to the scholar, so its stat improvements should cap at +2.

Apocalypse World / Re: Problem: gunlugger that's not a gunlugger
« on: August 13, 2011, 08:16:33 PM »
I think that Allison just wants her choices as a player to refelct her vision of the Gunlugger as a perfectly legitimate without-guns-killer. I love that Vx's technique tag solution is elegant and can be particular to Allison's table as advanced fuckery rather than a broad ruling by the author. Her curiosity on how to implement her vision through moves and tags and choices is vital to the conversation that is roleplaying at her table.

[ . . . ]

I love Allison's emergent view on how her Gunlugger-without-guns is going to intergrate moves to fiction, its total badass, and fully in the spirit of the playbook (without too much fuckery of the moves).

I dunno that it's entirely in the spirit of the playbook per se (given it's called, well, the gunlugger), but it was the best mechanical fit for the character, at least of the options available. Hence rejiggering it and renaming it the muscle, to better reflect the spirit of the character.

(Apologies in advance for being about to ramble like a motherfucker.)

I will say, though; regarding the "without guns" bit, she actually did start with a hunting rifle, and she's since picked up an SMG as a spoil of battle. The trick is that I have a real problem with how I do warrior concepts. They aren't always "no weapons 24/7," but the trick is that with the way I design with a character's intrinsic qualities taking prominence--and warrior as one of Daryl's intrinsic qualities--she's gotta be a warrior in and of herself even before toys come into play. She can't stop being a warrior and start being a victim waiting to happen just like everyone else simply because something extrinsic was lost. I do have concepts that fight and for whom unarmed combat isn't such a big thing, but there's generally a reason for it. Examples being the concept of the seven-foot, socially awkward, naturally mild scholar who's more than capable of fighting simply because of her size, but who isn't as emotionally invested in it and so takes the shortcut of being vulnerable when she isn't armed; or the Littlest Badass Who Could, who, while a pretty bad little kid, is still a little kid who needs to rely on something extrinsic to make up for her physical limitations if she plans on going toe-to-toe (and if she loses these extrinsic things, it's time to improvise or think her way out).

As for "So why is starting with weapons an obstacle to this," well, it wasn't, necessarily (and again, hunting rifle). I just didn't feel like starting with a stable of high-quality weapons others would have to bend over backwards for in-game really fit the character for another reason: in addition to being a warrior, Daryl is not really established yet, and doesn't have so much in the way of wealth or valuable stuff as the playbook assumes. As the game progresses, weapons may fall into her hands, and in those situations where the properties they give (like the SMG's area, or the hunting rifle's far range) are needed, she can use them. Just don't think she needs them to break you.

I believe that invested players get the most out of AW (and any story game really). As Chris says, Choose how to play your character (whilst following the principles) don't let the moves and tags choose your player actions for you.

Absolutely. Even if I'm playing Dungeons and Dragons, the quickest way for me to get bored or otherwise dissatisfied is lack of connection to the character. Sure it's just a scene where we raid a dungeon, murder the inhabitants, and take their shit, but I still gotta feel my motivation, y'know?

the nerve core / Re: hot custom moves
« on: August 13, 2011, 07:27:27 PM »
Johnstone's "When you reset Hx, learn a secret."

It's awesome, and a good offset for Hx dropping all of a sudden because you got closer.

Apocalypse World / Re: Combat issue during play.
« on: August 12, 2011, 10:21:38 AM »
Seize the guy himself. "Take definite hold" could mean grappling or pinning him, or you could simply choose options like doing more harm and taking less harm to straight-up duke it out.

Apocalypse World / Re: Problem: gunlugger that's not a gunlugger
« on: August 12, 2011, 10:00:51 AM »
Regarding Merciless and Bloodcrazed stacking: I totally would allow this.  Why?

[ . . . ]

If you are merciless, you *cannot show mercy* or you lose the move (as you're no longer merciless).  If you're bloodcrazed, you can't talk down a tense situation, or choose a less violent option, or you're no longer bloodcrazed.

(This was likely a suggestion rather than a Vx ruling, but it really clicked for me).

I'll admit, we don't really enforce that at either of my MCs' tables, and I don't think they would choose to do so. If only because they've been having a ball with all the drama we've had where Daryl has reacted like a human being with a shred of sanity left rather than just being a buzzkill and offing the drama-generator. Hell, my group awarded Daryl the campaign's first Crowning Moment of Awesome for solving a problem in the (non-violent) way she did when she could have just gone offing people, particularly the local crazy dictator (not because she was feeling charitable, or because she was scared, but because a) she didn't feel like throwing the entire hold into chaos, b) she didn't care to let the asshole who'd probably end up taking the current dictator's place get the chance, and c) she sure as fuck doesn't want to run the place herself, because seriously, fuck that kind of responsibility--she has enough of it just looking after Frost, which, incidentally, was the nature of the problem she was solving).

It's not that Daryl has no taste for blood; she's eagerly thrown herself into the centre of a melee to crack some skulls the fun way more than once. It's more that there are kinds of violence which are stimulating and exciting, like ten-to-one odds against raiders and savages out for blood, and then there are kinds that she just finds kind of tasteless and unrewarding, like poor scrubs who can hardly fight back or throwing her home hold into political chaos. That's just shit she doesn't care to be bothered with.

The second is that they're not optional moves.  Given these two, I don't really think there's a balance problem, or Vincent presumably wouldn't have written them both!  (Since nearly every character in the game can have them both if they really wanted to.)

They're not optional moves? I wasn't aware of that. So far the MC of the game Daryl's in has allowed for restraining ourselves and doing less harm than we could when it makes sense that we'd be able to do so (like, just because Daryl could crack some guy's skull doesn't necessarily preclude logically being able to just smack him around enough to cow him instead).

Seriously though. Even as a player who stands to benefit from doing so, I would facepalm at Bloodcrazed and Merciless being allowed to stack (or Daredevil and Rasputin, for that matter--well, maybe, with the limitation of capping at the higher of 3-armour or actual armour equipped plus one, perhaps). It is simply not something I would push for, and I would openly tell the MC "please don't let me pull this shit at your table" (though I could see myself taking both Daredevil and Rasputin to increase the availability of that +1armour, at least).

Yes I had forgotten about Bloodcrazed, and it does what I meant. You were asking about the guillotine doing more harm by default which, with this move, it does.

I don't have the guillotine rules in front of me, but are you talking about implanted items?

OK, probably, yeah. The guillotine chokehold is a technique that was written up as an implanted item--essentially a special attack the character can perform, as opposed to a weapon they wield per se.

Either way, this is wrong:

but doesn't tell me exactly where.

In my opinion, there's no 'exactly' anything in Apocalypse World. (further words)

All right, you got me. Not exactly, then, but good guidelines. "No 'implanted technique' gear that basically duplicates the effects of an existing move" (i.e., "implanted" 2-armour) comes to mind.

That said, I'm not trying to make a guillotine chokehold do more damage (it does s-harm anyway; that's the point). The idea is that I was just using it as an example of a technique written up as "implanted equipment," and my curiosity was about other things that might be appropriate for such treatment.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5