Angels and Hard

  • 28 Replies
  • 12016 Views
*

noclue

  • 609
Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2011, 12:17:20 AM »
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.)

Can't you just not roleplay your angel getting physical with people?
James R.

    "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2011, 04:05:23 AM »
Maybe there will be less of a disconnect if we look at what Hard does in the game? Most of the time rolling Hard means Going Aggro, where a higher Hard doesn't mean more damaging blows, or better accuracy. It means when you have a gun pointed at someone or a knife at their throat, they have to choose between doing what you want, and getting shot/cut. A higher hard means they are less likely to get away without you shooting them (the first two options on a 7-9) or to be able to placate you (the other three options). That's all about how emotionally hardened towards violence you are. And it's most of what Hard is used for.
It's not like Angels have to have a high Hard anyways, just the baseline. You can totally have a physically weak character who is no worse than average at following through on a threat of violence without straining credulity.

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #17 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).
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 07:11:01 AM by Allison »

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2011, 07:18:04 AM »
You might find this post interesting on the subject of Seizing by Force.
http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2010/11/aw-seize-by-force-is-peripheral-move.html
There are a couple playbooks where I could see Seizing by Force getting used more (Gunlugger comes to mind) but yeah, like you say it's mostly Going Aggro with firearms more common than melee weapons.

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).
I'm not sure what you mean here. What would it mean for Ice Cold to be the standard?

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #19 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).

*

noofy

  • 777
Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2011, 07:53:16 AM »
Interesting Discussion!
Allison, I am an intensive care paramedic in the real world and have been for many years. I would have to say that of my colleagues, few of us are truly HARD. Jaded, burnt-out, cynical maybe, as well as compassionate, empathic and giving, but hard? Hmmmm. That said, the 'badge' gives somewhat some sort of +1 forward to any need to manipulate or go aggro.

If I want something bad enough, I would suggest that manipulating is far and away the first choice as a medic. Going aggro only, ONLY if life and limb were threatened.

So I get your dilemma, but I also see it as a characteristic of Angels in Apocalypse world, and I like that. So if your vision is compromised  on how you 'see' your Angel, work toward a custom stat block.

'Hey MC, I would rather a -1 Hard and a +1 Hot for my Angel and here's why.....'

I'd totally go with your justification. I would also always always always put you in a hard spot where you NEED to go aggro rather than seduce to wriggle free, but thems the breaks! :)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 08:00:10 AM by noofy »

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #21 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.

*

noofy

  • 777
Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2011, 09:52:02 AM »
No Worries! :)
I like the -1 Hard, +1 Hot Compromise too.

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2011, 06:27:54 AM »
As a medic in the Royal Navy I can safely say that not all medics in real life would have a high Hard rating in AW!

The combat Medics in the Royal Marines though have definetly taken the 2 Hard advances!

Most experienced medics I have met, civilian or military, generally are good at not taking shit from anybody. Especially when a patient is involved.

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2011, 09:41:45 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.

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #25 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.)

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2011, 10:18:52 AM »
Okay, I might be defending my initial superficial understanding of the Angel here but since they're PC material, they're de facto independant unless they choose not to be.

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2011, 11:50:18 AM »
Okay, I might be defending my initial superficial understanding of the Angel here but since they're PC material, they're de facto independant unless they choose not to be.

Oh, of course. But angels aren't the only people in demand. Consider the skinner, savvyhead, and brainer, all of whom are precious, precious people, yet can have quite shitty Hard.

Re: Angels and Hard
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2011, 12:51:54 PM »
Good point, though they all have other means to secure their independance. They're all about Weird after all, and Weird scare people.