Fronts and a couple of questions

Two elements of Fronts rules were non-starters for me- Fundamental Scarcity and Stakes. But I suspect I may just not be getting something, so I was curious if anyone could make a pitch for them, or tell me about your positive experiences using them. I'm hoping something will "click" for me so they can become useful elements of my prep.

I'll comment a little more about my experiences in the hopes that it will help you zero-in on what isn't working for me.

Fundamental Scarcity: On my first read through, I liked how they drew attention to scarcity as a core theme of the game, but found it odd that Hunger and Thirst were distinct, and found some of the examples strange (why are the Burn Flats associated with Ignorance?). When I first used the rules after my first session, there were threats I wanted to group together but which didn't share a common scarcity, like the cultists and the disease they were spreading- the cultists represented despair to me but the disease threatened the water and so were associated with thirst, but it seemed to me they should belong to a common front. Or the slavers, whose Warlord was ambitious, but whose lieutenant might have been a better fit to despair and whose foot soldiers are more motivated by hunger. Should I be grouping these threats into fronts by scarcity rather than the conceptual groupings that seem more natural to me? Is there an advantage to tying them into a common scarcity instead of whichever seems most natural for each?

Stakes: My problem here is that the things in the story I am the most interested in finding out are mostly about the decisions the PCs will make. What moral lines they will cross, what they are willing to do to achieve their goals, whether they can put aside pride to work with a common enemy... Those kinds of questions about NPCs aren't as interesting to me since I am usually the one who decides those, and the questions about the physical welfare of the NPCs, which the examples seemed focused on, just haven't gripped me as much. Maybe as I get better at fleshing out human NPCs I'll get more concerned with their welfare, but so far there haven't been a lot who I really cared whether they thrived or suffered.
The other problem I ran into here is I didn't find that picking out a couple stakes changed my MCing during the game. When I decided that which NPCs got sick was at stake, I couldn't really see any difference in how I MC'ed the next session versus how I would have handled it if I hadn't singled that out as an issue at stake.

Also, on a totally different note, I saw two oddities in the rules that looked like they could be typos, but I wanted to check...
1. Page 59 and 252
"your gang is a pack of fucking hyenas. Want: savagery."
Should that be "Cue: Savage"? From the chapter on stuff it looks like gangs can have the savage cue to indicate that they behave horribly, and the savagery want means that when a holding is in want that society breaks down. The cue seems appropriate here.

2. Page 58
"• an armory of scavenged and makeshift weapons.
• a gang of about 40 violent people (3-harm gang medium unruly 1-armor)."
Is that really supposed to be a 3-harm gang? My impression was that gangs get harm assigned based on the weapons they are armed with, and every other example of a gang using scavenged and makeshift weapons gets 2-harm, which makes sense to me since crowbars, knives, and handguns all do 2-harm. Or is it just a perk of the Hardholder that their gang inflicts one more harm than a similarly armed gang would for anyone else?

I found Fundamental Scarcity to be a similar roadblock, and eventually had to accept that there would be threats associated with other types of scarcity in my Front or I'd never have made it. (This last night, following a game a first session game a couple days ago.) I had less problem with Stakes, but I have consequential NPCs in play in sach a way as to make the PC's involvement or lack of it key.

I'd really be interested to see what Vincent has to say about this, in fact. I was going to post a similar thread eventually, but then I saw this one.

Since you've been using Stakes...
Do you find it helps generate ideas during prep, or changes how you run a session to determine some stakes ahead of time? I could imagine that with better developed NPCs I could determine stakes more easily, but even then I'm having trouble seeing how taking the extra step of assigning stakes would improve my play. What has your experience been?

Well, to be honest, we'll see where the next session goes. I have yet to run the second one and use my Front, but it was helpful to see what the potential irrevocable effects of the threats are going to be. Like, sure, Dark Future and all, but furthermore, these characters are supposed to have veracity, so we need to see or at least think about what happens to them if everything goes up in flames.

I think when I put the suspected murderer of a PC's lover in the threat as an imprisoned and starving victim of a Warlord - well, even if that PC doesn't find the NPC, eventually it'll be interesting to see what happens with that. I'm not going to push an agenda, but I need to skip forward a little chronologically as a player we had last week isn't around for a few weeks, and we were starting to lose focus. So, I figure some love letters are in order, shape things up and smash some status quo.

What problem are you having writing stakes?

Just hoping to bump this for further input from ctrail and maybe others?

Heya,
I think the Savagery Tag on P.59 is correct, they are both descriptive and prescriptive. Because of you pack of fucking Hyenas, your want on a failed Wealth roll adds Savagery into the mix. Also, your gang has the cue for savagery (p.250) ie: they are not 'well disciplined'.

For the Hardholders gang, I see your correlation and subsequent point, but I think its more about which move you want to use with your gang. Remember to do it, do it. Sure, its to attack with my gang, but how? Namely Leadership or Pack alpha. I've narrated it as the default hold gang using Leadership means that they are bit more organised and motivated than a similarly sized (and armed) raiding or chopper's gang using Pack Alpha.

I think its also to account for the mechanical fact that you could choose that your armoury is for shit, and resultant -1Harm. Wheras (for instance) a Chopper's gang's Harm is not affected by having poor weaponry, only that they can have good weaponry and thus +1Harm.

Don't forget that these mechanical tags and cues are just starting points. They can change during play and maybe the focus of both player moves and MC hard moves, as well as simply the emerging story. My Chopper player's gang's Armour has been steadily ablated to the point of nil effectiveness and thus become the focus of the players desires in gaining some better armour for his steel horse posse.

In regards to stakes, I think that's great that you are interested about the decisions of the players! That's where the story is! Announce future badness that drives toward those decision points, ask lots of questions of the characters that push toward answering those questions. Make your NPCs simple, driven by one emotion and one body part that gets in the way of those player decisions.

Scarcity is the fuel that drives player action. Without it the characters don't have to do much. Ask them what they want? Then make it scarce. As NPCs and places come up in play, attach them to the identified scarcity in a front (or the home front) and make them want the scarcity too. Always tie it back to the characters.

Remember that you are creating threats and fronts that you (as MC)want in the game, stuff that jazzes you play. Stuff that you want to ask questions about (stakes). Sounds like you are doing just fine!

@Noofy- My problems with stakes were (a) I didn't really care about what happened to the NPCs as much as what the PCs would do, which maybe would be less of an issue if I was better about "naming everyone and making them human" (b) I couldn't really see how assigning stakes changed the game much. I felt like I played every situation about the same as I would have if I hadn't written them.

To turn the question around a little, how has writing stakes improved your MCing?

@Noofy
Savagery- I'm really not sure what you mean when you say it's descriptive and prescriptive. In the AW text Vincent uses that phrase to mean that the mechanics influence the fiction but the fiction also influences the mechanics. I can't see how that applies here so you are either using those words in a different sense or I completely missed the point you were making.
To clarify my issue- Savage (pg. 250) is a cue a gang can have, and Savagery (pg. 257) is a want a holding can have. They are fictionally and mechanically distinct, since you can have a gang and not a holding or a holding and no gang, or you can have both and the gang is savage but the citizens aren't or the people living in the holding can descend into savagery but the gang still not be savage. In the rules on page 59, there are two ways to get the Savagery want, the first of which also reduces surplus by one. Since the second option references the gang, I'm like 90% sure it was meant to add the Savage cue to the gang and not the Savagery want to the holding, and just wanted confirmation.
...And I just noticed that in the rules on pg. 252 for other character's taking Leadership, there is an option to give the gang +Savage. So now I'm nearly certain that my reading was correct.

Leadership- So your reading is that the Leadership move means the gang is better organized than the Pack Alpha move, and that's the source of the additional point of Harm? That had crossed my mind as well, but again on pg. 252 the gang does only 2 harm, so it's not something specific to the Leadership move. Maybe something specific to the Hardholder, or maybe a typo? It also looks like you can choose to have a poor armory even if that reduces you to 1 harm, if you get Leadership as another playbook, not sure how that plays into this.

The rest of your post all seems like good advice, thanks!

Well, first of all, I also had a bit of trouble making the NPCs human, though I named them all, and that seemed to help somewhat. We have our second session tomorrow, so as far as stakes assisting my MCing, I guess we'll see.

Secondly, stakes are helpful for reminding you what things are in the balance for NPCs. Since the action focuses on the PCs, it can be easy to forget that their actions and the Threats' actions have reprecussions. I suspect at least partially that stakes are there to give you things and consequences to narrate so the players understand that consequences are a big deal. But, again, I have no firsthand knowledge of this as of yet.

Oh, you're clearly right about the +Savage thing. Not sure about the second thing, though.

G'day Ctrail,
Yup, I think we are on the same page regarding gangs and holds, just mixing terminology. I read the Hardholder's (remember there is only one Playbook in play at any given time....though other players may pick up a hardholders' move, or small holding on p261, or a gang, none of them would be the Hardholder.) gang influences his Hold's want and surplus through their tags during the Wealth move. This is both prescriptive in that the hold's want includes savagery, and descriptive in that when the hold is in want, the society breaks down, presumably in part to the narrative cue that your gang is a pack of fucking hyenas.

In addition, I would add that the during a Leadership move your gang fights with the savagery cue - without mercy, discipline or honour - descriptively influencing the resultant fiction arising from the move.

I think this is what you are saying too? At any rate, is it bringing the game to a standstill? They are just cues for the fiction, so if folks are having a blast why stress?

And Yeah, I concur that being the Hardholder gives you a mechanically 'better' gang than other gang leaders. Remember that having a gang lets you use them as a weapon, just like any other weapon for the basic moves. Only the Hardholder gets Leadership (and the distinctive attatched gang profile) and only the Chopper gets Pack Alpha (also with its own distinctive gang profile).

In terms of threats and fronts, they are a bit of an odd paradigm, but simply a different way of approaching prep. I find that if you focus on the players and their troubles, great! Just ask lots of provacative questions and barf all over them with shit that you want to see / explore in play. It works for me. :)

Hope I haven't muddied the water further!

G'day Ctrail,
Yup, I think we are on the same page regarding gangs and holds, just mixing terminology. I read the Hardholder's (remember there is only one Playbook in play at any given time....though other players may pick up a hardholders' move, or small holding on p261, or a gang, none of them would be the Hardholder.) gang influences his Hold's want and surplus through their tags during the Wealth move. This is both prescriptive in that the hold's want includes savagery, and descriptive in that when the hold is in want, the society breaks down, presumably in part to the narrative cue that your gang is a pack of fucking hyenas.

In addition, I would add that the during a Leadership move your gang fights with the savagery cue - without mercy, discipline or honour - descriptively influencing the resultant fiction arising from the move.

I think this is what you are saying too? At any rate, is it bringing the game to a standstill? They are just cues for the fiction, so if folks are having a blast why stress?

That's not quite how I understood it to work, but part of what I am looking for is other perspectives so that's interesting to see how you interpreted it.
So there is a cue, Savage (pg. 250) that a gang can have, which means that the gang fights without mercy, discipline, or honor.
And there is a want, Savagery (pg. 257) that a holding can have, and when the holding is in want due to a bad Leadership roll, the people of the holding descend into savagery.
Now, these are distinct mechanics- if you have a gang and a holding, your gang could have the Savage cue but your holding could not have the Savagery want, or the opposite, or both, or neither. For example, the Chopper has a gang with the Savage cue (which can be removed with one option), but no holding so of course they don't have the Savagery want.
Now what I find odd is that the Hardholder has two ways to add the Savagery want. They can either have the population decadent and perverse, or their gang can be a pack of fucking hyenas. The first has the additional downside of subtracting one barter. I found it strange that this option was duplicated, and that one was strictly worse than the other, until it occurred to me that the Savagery want had probably been inserted where the Savage cue should have been. There is a precedent for changing cues in how Savage works for the Chopper and Unruly works for the Hardholder, so I suspect that is what was intended.
What you seem to me to be saying is that you think the "pack of fucking hyenas" gives both the savagery cue to the gang, and the savage want to the holding. I'm not seeing this myself- it doesn't seem to me that one should imply the other, either in the rules or in the fiction. In fact I'd like to be able to play a game where most of the holding is descending into savagery but where a gang tries to keep order, or a savage gang in a civilized holding.

And Yeah, I concur that being the Hardholder gives you a mechanically 'better' gang than other gang leaders. Remember that having a gang lets you use them as a weapon, just like any other weapon for the basic moves. Only the Hardholder gets Leadership (and the distinctive attatched gang profile) and only the Chopper gets Pack Alpha (also with its own distinctive gang profile).

That's not actually true- anyone who takes a gang gets either Leadership or Pack Alpha, they are not exclusive to the Hardholder and the [/i] Chopper. Checking the playbooks, it looks like Battlebabe and the Savvyhead can take Leadership, while the Gunlugger can take Pack Alpha. And the rules for Leadership (pg. 252) describe the new gang as doing 2-harm with scavenged and makeshift weapons. So it's not something specific to the Leadership move, but it may be something specific to the Hardholder. What I'm confused about is whether the Hardholder's gang just does more damage with the same weapons, whether they are supposed to be better equipped and the description is in error, or whether the 3-harm in the Hardholder playbook is in error.
It's actually the very fact you point out, that the gang can be used as a weapon, that makes the Hardholder gang description confusing to me. The rules for using a gang as a weapon say that you use the quality of weapons to determine the harm done when using the gang. That would mean the Hardholder gang should be Harm-2 since that is what "scavenged and makeshift weapons" do for every other gang. Is the Hardholder an exception to the rules for how much harm a gang does? If so I wish it had been pointed out explicitly. As it is now, I strongly suspect that there is a typo somewhere.

Sounds like a typo to me.

There was a period in the game's development when harm for weapons, armor for armor, and what happens with gangs were all shaking themselves into their current forms. I wouldn't be surprised to find that somewhere there's a number off by 1, a relic in the text of that process.

I bow to Vx, I guess Typos do happen! That said, we've been playing with the RAW and it hasn't caused any arguments about your gang being 'better' or tagged with confusing cues. We just make the move and follow the prescriptive outcomes based on the roll. Seems to work O.K. So we'll narrate some cool shit into the story to reduce the Hardholder's gang to 2-harm. I feel some future badness coming on!

After re-reading the relevant passages, I really grok your arguement ctrail, and understand now the specific mechanical difference based on a gangs use in either the wealth or leadership moves. The byproduct of this reflection is that you have made it clear to me that I was trying to argue an untenable position. *blush* Ooops.

Sorry to have been so misleading. You were right and I was wrong: I hope when you play, you can instigate the changes you feel are needed to balance the cues and remove any conflicting precedents in relation to gangs, their harm and associated holding / wealth moves. The main thing is you and your group are having a blast and telling cool stories!

So, one thing I learned last night while MCing, ctrail - Countdown Clocks are the shit. Saved my ass, and I'm not exaggerating. I find them a pain in the ass to make, but I will NEVER skimp on them. Shit's golden, no joke.

@Lumpley- Thanks for clarifying! I was reasonably sure but didn't want to nerf a Playbook until I was certain.

@noofy- No sweat! As you say, these aren't game breaking issues. Just something that seemed out of place to me, and I wanted clarity on.

@Pooka- That sounds interesting, tell me more about how you used them?

Well, without writing an AP of the session, the pacing was slightly difficult in the first half of the game, partially because I'm trying to become accustomed to MCing. Then I started hitting on sections of the clocks - stuff started ticking over nicely then. Essentially they're cues for colour and scene-setting that can really jump in and give you something to say when you're otherwise at a loss. And we had a clock go to 9:00 just as a character opens their mind to the maelstrom and sees what's coming down the line. Really, really good note to end the session on.