Changing Character Type

So, I know that the details are for the player and MC to work out, which I am totally on board with. I also know that AW is not designed for "Balance" per se, focusing more on style of play than mechanical equilibrium. So with those things said, I was seeking some clarification on the following observation.

For the "Change your character type" advancement option, it states "Leaves behind everything belonging to her old life." As mentioned, I like that the player and MC work out the details themselves, but after having been playing for a little while, it seems like what is left behind has some major disparities between playbooks. The hardholder, chopper, and driver all have character focuses that are very external, so it makes sense that these things would be left behind as the character took on a new life. Other characters, like the Brainer, Battlebabe, and Skinner, have very internal focuses. Since the player "Keeps everything belonging to her intrinsic self. Her stats, including Hx, her moves, her improvements, all for sure. Many other things too." it seems like some A) there is little to leave behind, and B) that these characters simply get more out of this advancement option than the outwardly focused characters. Is this just how things roll, or am I missing something in the essence of this advancement that would effect more intrinsic characters?

I think seeing how well your hardhold fares without you can be a reward in itself. Letting go of responsibility, even found a new one. For the chopper I could imagine keeping the gang in practice but abandoning the chopper way (raiding etc) and instead do other stuff.

This is a tricky advance, at least for me. You want to be true to the intrinsic/extrinsic philosophy, but I also like to keep the other players in mind.

I do it this way; and I fully admit my way may be in violation of the spirit of this advance, but it's still how I roll.

If you change playbooks, you get one new move from the new playbook. Unless it's something like Hardholder or Chopper, in which case I consider both moves the value of one new one. If the player wants to gain any additional moves from the new playbook then they need to drop one from their old playbook to balance it out (again treating the hardholder/chopper/hocus-fortune moves as half-moves in this regard). As for new gear, they can take all that's listed in the playbook if it makes sense, obviously a Driver should get his new car and a gunlugger should get his guns.

Ewokbloodhunt: You aren't missing anything.

-Vincent

Thanks all. Vincent, your design continues to boggle my mind while simultaneously draw in my interest. Any chance of you sharing as to why this designed disparity between playbook types?

Oh sure. It's not a big thing, it's just that differences in value are what make decision-making possible.

When you go to choose a move from another playbook, all the moves from all the other playbooks aren't equally valuable. You'll reject most of the moves without even weighing them, and really consider only a subset. For instance, if you have weird-2, you're most likely going to skip over all the moves that have you roll+weird, right? But if I have weird+2, those are the moves I'm going to be looking at first.

Same thing with the ungiven future advances. Is it all equally advantageous to you to advance some basic moves, change playbooks, increase a stat, and retire to safety? No! Not at all. Depending on details of your character and her circumstances, some of those will be obviously better choices than others.

There's no reason for all your options to be equal, and, in the same way, no reason for any given option to mean the same thing to you as it does to me.

Mechanical game balance is useful in some types of games - games where your character's effectiveness in combat is the same thing as your ability to participate as a player, for instance, like D&D4 -but Apocalypse World balances across non-mechanical lines. In Apocalypse World, your ability to participate as a player is your character's ability to disrupt and/or pursue stable situations, not your character's mechanical effectiveness.

Does that even make sense? I'm always happy to answer followup questions, so feel free!

-Vincent

Wow, thanks Vincent - that makes a lot of sense!

Interestingly, I had been looking at changing character types as the only real option to long-term character advancement, since this opens up a new set of advancement options to a list otherwise limited. This begs a followup question - what does a character who stays as their original playbook do when all of their other advancement options (other than retire your character) fill up?

If you're playing absolutely strictly, that 5th experience means that they have to retire or change.

There's no reason to play that strictly if you don't want to. The MC can create custom advances, or else the character can just stop tracking experience and advancement, or whatever the player and MC work out.

-Vincent

Cool, got it. Thanks Vincent!