Wants: How do they work?

Hey all --

So getting ready to run a game of AW, trying to figure out how the heck wants work. Does any group with a want form, after the first session, a front? Is that it?

yrs--
--Ben

Wants are just for organizing your session 1 notes. There's no procedural link between wants and fronts.

The procedure for creating your first fronts after session 1 is the same as for creating all fronts, as laid out in the fronts chapter. You can refer back to your 1st session worksheet, organized by wants, for inspiration and direction, but there's no special procedure that does so.

So all the details about wants and surpluses and such don't matter after session one?

yrs--
--Ben

Oh wait! I was answering about fundamental scarcities. You mean a holding's or followers' wants?

For a holding, at the beginning of every session the hardholder makes a Wealth move. It determines whether, as the session opens, the holding has its surpluses, its wants, or its surpluses and one of its wants.

For instance, in my hardholder Barbecue's holding, at the beginning of every session I roll to find out whether I have 2-barter, 2-barter plus either anxiety or idleness, or no barter but both anxiety and idleness.

The hocus has a similar move. I think that the equivalent to wants for a chopper's gang is called vulnerability, and the equivalent to wants for an operator's gigs is called disaster.

Right. So how do those actually figure in, in play? Like, let's say the hold has Want: Hunger. Does that make them a Hunger front? Or is that just like, additional bullshit in excess of the fronts?

yrs--
--Ben

As far as I played the wants, they are descriptive facts that inform about the state of the holding, the followers, the gang or the gigs.

They are immediate informations about the present state and you (MC and players) must immediately translate them and give them meaning.
What really happened?
Answering this question leads mechanically to another "what do you do?"

Great levers for beginning a new session with pressure on the PCs's shoulders.

When the leadership move determines that the hold suffers hunger, it suffers hunger. If the hunger can be brought about by an existing threat, use it ("that warlord's been raiding our farms and silos for almost a month").
If not, add an additional threat to account for the hunger ("somebody sneaked into the silos and set them on fire").

Ah!

They're colorful triggers for threats' impulses. "Tum Tum's family's impulse is to close ranks and protect their own. How do they respond to hunger in the holding? Hooch's gang's impulse is to victimize the vulnerable. How do they respond to hunger in the holding?"

Now I wish I'd drawn that connection in the book, but I didn't think of it until now.

-Vincent

Also, there's the move "activate their stuff's downside," and wants and vulnerabilities are definitely downsides.

Thanks, folks. So, basically, they're an excuse to make shit worse. Like everything else?

Make it worse in a way that the player flags, though.

You can pick your wants via the moves, so the player is likely asking for that flavour of fuckery.

Wants and the their kin are flags for you too, if you're out of ideas or want to change the pace of the session.

In my game, the holding is reliant on a well established system of caravans through dangerous territory for food. The hardholder soft-hit his wealth roll and the consequence is hunger.

Guess what happened to this week's caravan. (Hi guys, you don't know this yet)

For instance, in my hardholder Barbecue's holding, at the beginning of every session I roll to find out whether I have 2-barter, 2-barter plus either anxiety or idleness, or no barter but both anxiety and idleness.

Excuse me, your Hardholder's holding?

Though this does bring up a question I had, which may be of use to others so I'll ask it here in public: If a Holding changes hands (like hypothetically if the Hardholder changes playbooks and someone else steps in by taking the 'Gain a Holding and Wealth' advance, like maybe from the Chopper Playbook, just to pull a random example out of the air), is the new boss of the Hold bound to the choices the original made, or is it reasonable for them to change some stuff around when they take over (assuming, of course, that you follow it up with fiction that supports the changes) as if they were creating a new Holding?

-JC