About the move Turn someone on- is that always about sex and love, or could it be about anything?
I think being turned on rarely has something to do with love, and usually has something to do with sex. But - just look at the effects of the move: taking Strings.
If someone's like "I pat Billy on the shoulder and I tell him that if he ever needs to talk, I'm here for him. It's turning him on," well... that sort of makes sense. Reassurance from a cool, collected peer is kind of a turn-on. And Janine getting Strings on Billy for touching him and reassuring him seems pitch perfect. It's not romantic, nor really sexual, but there's an element of turn-on there, viably.
The move Shut someone down. - what does it mean in the fiction? That I humiliate you by telling you how stupid you look, or what?
Yeah, sure.
To shut someone down means to keep someone at a distance, to insult someone, to refuse to open up to someone, to be an emotionally abusive dick, etc.
Here's a staple scenario in the genre: Awkward New Girl (ANG) has a Perfect Vampire Boyfriend (PVB). The PVB will constantly make overtures of his ecstatic love for ANG, which totally counts as turning ANG on. ANG's biggest turn-on is being told that someone notices her. So, PVB is wracking up tons of Strings on ANG because he's just. so. dreamy.
But then ANG asks PVB for a commitment, or pressures him for sex. And that's when PVB shoves her away, says, "I'm too dangerous to be with you," and then disappears for a few days. Because he's "only looking out for her best interests."
THAT'S shutting someone down.
Shutting someone down is how you weaken the control they have on your heart. Behavior that would do that will typically be on the money.
Keep it together seems a bit hard on the 7-9. To lash out at someone could really be destructive- though I actually didn´t miss the roll. Why didn´t you keep the alternatives from Act under fire?
Notice you only have to do one of those things. You can just choose to freeze up. Or you can
lash out. Or you can garner suspicion, by being all "monster-y" in front of the wrong people.
That's a way more broad set of options than Act Under Fire. It is less prescriptive of your response and your actions, too.
Strings seems cool- but I don´t get how you give strings to npc´s and how that works? Also, it´s seems strings are most fun when you have at least three players. (We are going to be MC +2 next weekend).
Ah, yes. I forgot to write about this. I'm going to start another thread momentarily, to talk about NPC Strings. In short: PC's can take Strings on NPC's just like normal. The MC is supposed to have a move that goes "Have an NPC take a String on a PC."
Check the thread!
I´m thinking a lot about how much the MC should keep the game about everyday situations with humans and how much the MC should introduce other monsters and stuff- and how fast? Should it be about a monster among humans or a world populated by strange beeings??
Let's look to the agenda:
make the players’ characters’ lives not boring.
make the players’ characters feel unaccepted.
play to find out what happens.See, there's a turning point in True Blood, where being supernatural no longer means being an outcast. There's vampires, fae, maenids, werewolves, weretigers, shifters, witches... and they all get to participate in real society.
Never get to that turning point. That violates the second agenda. These characters need to feel unaccepted, and part of how you achieve that is by keeping the number of supernatural things down. Leave them lonely.
At the same time, though, make the players' characters' lives not boring. Which means that sometimes you're going to want to bring a rival Vampire into the mix, or a Secrecy Demon, or something.
The game should primarily be about the conflicts between PCs, and the internal conflicts of each of them. Use dark supernatural threats to highlight those things. Use everything external to the PCs to highlight what's going on inside them and between them.