New playbook: The Abacus (evil middlemanager edition)

Subtext is hard! Especially since the volume of text is an issue.

If it's any help, if you're playing the Abacus, imagine you're this guy (because I do):



I don't watch Mad Men, mind, so I'm working solely off the image. I wouldn't be surprised if the show supports the archetype I'm aiming for, though.


Anyway, regarding Swimming with sharks... I don't know. It's not that different from using your own gang as a weapon, is it? I'm sure I'm stretching go aggro a bit, but not by much. I'll leave it as is, phrasing aside, until someone who played it tells me it doesn't work.

The advantage of my way is just clarity. The disadvantage is space/word count.

My concern is just that, reading your text, I'm not sure what it means. Surely I won't be the only one?

But, yeah, it's worth a try! I might just be slow or something.

One of them has refused you access to their assets or is disrupting a profitable venture. Whatever number that players tells you, ignore it and write down Hx+3 next to their character name instead.
Everyone else, whatever number they tell you, add +1 to it and write it next to their character's name. You stay informed.

I like all of this except the last bit, which seems to forcing the player's hand in the current time.  Lots of existing playbooks set up antagonism by referring to past events, which adds spice, but this wording implies that Bob the Savvyhead is deliberately screwing with you, regardless of what Bob's player thinks. 

It might be better to put it as the Abacus thinks this character is deliberately screwing with him, or simply say something like, "One of them has skills, access or resources that are essential to your enterprise, and knows it..."

That way, there's immediate tension there because the Abacus' player has to make himself vulnerable to another player character, right off, but we get to find out in play what happens -- maybe the Abacus puts a lot of energy into finding alternative sources for his widgets, or maybe the Savvyhead makes the Abacus solve all his problems for him.  Either way it's interesting.

Paul - I'm not gonna lie, I'm secretly hoping that my words flow like a magnificient rainbow and you're just too awestruck to see their majestic beauty clearly.

But yeah. There is actually an important reason why I want to keep the 'go aggro' phrase in there.

Let me begin with an example. Compare:

You're a Gunlugger. Before you is a gang of bikers, along with their leader. They attack you.

You're a Gunlugger. Before you is a gang of bikers lead by a Chopper. He goes aggro on you using his gang, and they attack you.

Which one registers as something that would matter more, in the context of AW?

In AW, there is a PC way of doing things and a NPC way of doing things. The NPC way of doing things generally crumples when it gets in the way of PCs. Mostly this doesn't matter because who really cares about NPCs, right? But this matters for cases where the NPCs are part of a player's ability. If a PC has an ability that gets a bunch of aggressive NPCs on another PC, but does not take away at least part of the players right to initiative, it'll be a NPC-like move in it's effectiveness.

My worry is that if an Abacus uses a move with your phrasing, it'll be like:

"Hey, Driver, a bunch of dudes show up to beat you up, like the Abacus said they would." "I run them over. *dice rattle*"

As compared to:

"Hey, Driver, a bunch of dudes sent by the Abacus have just beat you up. What do you do?"

So it's not just clarity that's at stake, it's the question of mechanical bite as well. Phrasing the move in terms of go aggro lets the Abacus get some of that bite at least some of the times.


Danny - fair enough! I didn't want "disrupting" to mean "intentionally disrupting", but that Hx option is definitelly the most flailing sentence of the group.

"One of them has skills, resources or people that would be managed far more profitably if you were in charge of them. Tell that player Hx+3."

Better?

Daumantas,

Yes, I see what you mean! It's worth thinking about, and a good point.

My hunch is still that people will get confused about how to actually use this move in the game, though. Only time will tell, however!

(Also: I posted about this playbook on Google+, you may get some more traffic soon...)

Haven't played AW at all yet, but this playbook looks really cool. Badger is probably my favorite Firefly "NPC", so having the opportunity to seem someone like him as a main character in something is exciting. I'm going to keep this in my back pocket for my group's second run at AW (going straight vanilla at first). Thanks for sharing this!

I ported this into a pdf and this is what I have so far
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9cu0IVYfHtiRDlKdXhsV3h3YTg/edit

As you can see, it does need a lot more work.

I agree with earlier sentiments that you need an actual move here that brings in barter. You can't just assume from a design standpoint that an MC will be able to cover it or fill in the gaps that you leave here. As it is, the Maestro'd playbook doesn't have a barter-producing move and it's assumed their business is always breaking even.

Also, there definitely isn't enough sour here. Between starting moves and improvements a player will pretty much pick up all of the Abacus moves available. It could probably could use one more.

I would suggest killing two birds with one stone. Create a barter-producing move that the Abacus comes equipped with. Then they choose one extra move from the ones already available.

Fleshing out the Network with some cool options, tags, and weaknesses couldn't hurt either.

Where is the big difference between this guy and am Operator with

Brokering Deals, Surveilance, Infiltration and Deliveries as Gigs?

A Crew is not so different from your network idea.

Praion: The difference is between Badger and Malcom Reynolds.

You play the tentative status quo in a world without any, not a guy who flits from job to job just to keep afloat.

I'm not sure if that's enough for you, but it is for me.


Anyhoo. Due to some money woes and having to finish my master's, I probably won't be updating this anytime soon. My apologies if there are people waiting for such updates!

If anyone wants to use this playbook but feels like there are gaps that are missing (like a barter move or such), feel free to add them on if you want.

I'd do it myself, but I feel like there are some things fiction-side that I'd need to nail down better before I add extra moves (and change existing ones).

Per DWierd's instructions and nerdwerd's suggestion, here's what I might do to the Abacus.

A starting Abacus gets Businessman and 1 other move.

Businessman: as per Moonlighting (with 2-juggling and gigs as defined by your Network) but every time you roll, pay Upkeep. If you don't, pick one vulnerability which is most pressing (rather than just extant). If you miss two payments in a row, well, I guess they're all "most pressing."

note: Some of the vulnerabilities take a little mental massaging to fit in the context of a Network (rather than a gang, hardhold, or followers), but only a little. As usual you have a vulnerability go off twice, it's extra fucking true (also, if your people are idle or deserting, who's working your gigs, your own sweet self?).

Network

By default, your network is a loose-knit group of castaways and cutouts. Upkeep 1-barter, +desertion.

Choose 2 for your bread-and-butter and day-to-day.

You've got a rare contact (Milk) for something luxe or rare, like weapons, drugs, or transportation. +Making Deliveries (1-barter/bushwhacked).

You've got two no-nonsense enforcers (Vega and Ezekiel). +Enforcement (1-barter/overthrown).

You've got an understanding with the local warlord (Jonathan) that you're the gatekeeper of something necessary, like food, medicine, or gear. +Honest Work (1-barter/impoverished).

You've got a front or a patsy (Quentin). +Making Deals (1-barter/shut out).

You've got cachet and an envoy (Trigger) with the distant looming threat (Greer's gang). +Raiding (1-barter/embattled).

Your network is loyal (or maybe they just have nowhere else to go). If aren't paying them, though, they still need to eat. -Desertion, +Idle.

Your people are the best, and they know it, the bastards. Take +1 ongoing to Businessman, Upkeep +1-barter.

Your people are the dregs and the desperate, but you only have to pay for what you get. Take -1 ongoing to Businessman, Upkeep -1-barter.

Choose 1 for your big earners (who else wants in?):

A real whiz, maybe a mechanic (Grass) or a sawbones (Key). +Technical work (2-barter/Shut Out).

A pimp or madame (Dust) and their primo tail (Grace, June, Frost). +Fucking (2-barter/entangled).

A no-nonsense tracker (Jaim) and their sharp-eyed, long-rifled gang. +Compound defense (2-barter/inflitrated).

Some slick hired killers (Cloud and Feather). +Doing Murders (3-barter/embattled), +Reprisals.

Choose 1 for your problems (or Choose 2 and +1 juggling if your ambition exceeds your resources):

You owe a shark (Mercer – for startup costs, recent expansion, expensive tastes?) and they aren't patient about it. +Paying debts (you keep up with them/they come due).

You didn't get where you are without seriously pissing off someone connected (or pissing off someone seriously connected – either way, it's Chack). +Avoiding someone (you keep well clear/they catch you in a bad spot).

You rely heavily on following or appearing to follow a code when you do business (what is it?). +Maintaining your honor (you keep your word and your name/you cross a line).

Choose 1 for your people's totally manageable shortcomings:

They're always ready to ditch for greener pastures. +desertion

They regard you as the lynchpin. +judgement

They have other shit that takes precedence if you aren't paying. +idle

They're assholes. +reprisals

They have seriously split loyalties (or at least someone thinks they should). +obligation.

See, for me I wouldn't choose to have the Abacus given gigs because I feel that then he invades the operators niche too much but I do feel that a strong option to personalise the the network is a good idea.

 Perhaps what I would do is something akin to how the hardholder chooses options for their hold; they have a list of options, with limited picks, that contains both useful resources and potential treasures.

Anyway, hopefully this is a tad more permanent than the operator in spirit but more focused on gigs and people than say the hardholder whilst actually earning barter unlike the Maestro'd.

(Many thanks to Hobbesque, i cribbed a fair bit.)
Example

The Abacus takes Businessman and one other Abacus move;

Businessman -
As long as you can pay the upkeep, you get the services of your network for the session. If your balance is positive then you get that much Barter at the start of the session. If a component of your network becomes contested then remove its balance till it is no longer contested.

By default, your network is few goons willing to do your bidding, who know the area well and the people in it. Balance -1 barter

Pick 4 [this number can change] options from the list below:

• You've got an understanding with the local warlord (Jonathan) that you're the gatekeeper of something necessary, like food, medicine, services or gear and he'll allow you leeway when it comes to dealing with 'problems' as long as he gets his cut. Balance -1.
• You've got three no-nonsense enforcers (Vega, Anders and Ezekiel) who know how to rough someone up and get them to play how you want. Balance - 1.
• You've got a F***ing psycho (Soap) on hand who is good at taking people out and getting away with it too, but his services don't come cheap. Balance -1.
• You've got a front or a patsy (Quentin) who is your public face, if there's attempt on you, as if they would dare, or your rep goes down the toilet; he'll take the bullet for you but he demands the highlife till that day comes. Balance -1.
• You make sure to keep a looming threat sweet so that they won't come after you and steer clear of messing with your ventures. Balance -1.
• Your network has transportation options; Vehicle/s and associated drivers, enough to carry your goons + more. Balance -1.
  
  
• You've got a rare contact (Milk) for something luxe or rare, like weapons, drugs, or transportation but they expect your protection, direct or indirect [by which I mean if you can leverage someone else into doing it then thats good too], when they need it. Balance +1
• You've got most of the local merchants or premises paying you 'protection' but if one of them steps outta line you gotta hammer them down before the others get ideas. Balance +1
• You've got a real whiz, maybe a mechanic (Grass) or a sawbones (Key) in your pocket who passes you a share of the profits as long as you help them out with their little indiscretion (it's not so little) and make sure it stays your little secret. Balance +1.
• You're the backer of a pimp or madame (Dust) and their primo tail (Grace, June, Frost), set of dealers (Badger, Jez, Combo) or some other quasi-legal venture who give you a slice of the action but keep attracting the attention of the big fish around. Balance +1.

End Example

I did think about giving purely sour options like obligations and that but I feel that the paying options give enough of that on their own to justify their own cost and the options you pay for have enough incentive with having to find a way to pay for them.

I would change the name to "Legitimate Businessman"

I would change the name to "Legitimate Businessman"

This makes me feel like some move needs to be Root in the Community. ;)

Some more thoughts:
I had been thinking about this playbook yesterday and how I would change their core mechanic to avoid having a roll. Good job!

Pick 4 [this number can change] options from the list below:

I would say you want to have more options that give barter than they are allowed to choose. Otherwise, what's stopping a player from taking their maxed out Gunlugger or Chopper and then switching to an Abacus and scooping up all the positives?

Also, I'm playing a hardholder right now and I managed to have 12 barter in three sessions. With +3 Hard and +2 Sharp I don't fail a lot of rolls and the MC hasn't been able to force my hand a lot. I'm down to 4 barter now but the only reason I'm down is because I've been spending it like crazy, every time I throw a party for my hold I spend 3 barter which means the population fucking loves me, and I just got an improvement last session which raised my 10+ result on Wealth to +4 barter.
Point is: Barter is not hard to come by for the right playbook, or the right combination of decent stat+moves.

You've got four options that give barter so I would think you should be able to pick 2 or 3 starting out. But I think there need to be more things that give +2 barter and the good things in the network need to cost more. In general.

You want good shit? Then you should be forced to pay! Soap (an awesome name for an assassin) needs to cost -2 or -3 barter, for instance. Because he's good. Like, really good!

You willing to take obligations? Then you should get paid for helping out. The warlord whom you have an understanding with, that should be +1 barter, but then you have to help out the warlord, who should also be the most unsavory kind of motherfucker. Think: Toecutter from Mad Max.

I'm glad you like the idea. :)

I agree, less options but some options with higher/lower balances is probably a good idea, I was thinking about it later and what occurred to me was that there was all these nice crew options that people wouldn't be able to take unless they wanted to be heavily out of balance (just to have +1 sum balance you would have to take 3 barter paying ones and then you would only get one crew option of five )
So maybe add on like another wealth one, say obligation like you suggested, and have 3 +1's, 2 +2's

Whilst its something to be aware of, I'm not certain that a playbook should be designed with end-level characters jumping into it from others in mind but rather give a good progression for the playbook they are in till it reaches the end.

I have no problem with Obligations as an option, I was, rather ambiguously, referring to obligation gigs and options which were purely detrimental

So how about this as the new example:

Businessman -
As long as you can pay the upkeep, you get the services of your network for the session. If your balance is positive then you get that much Barter at the start of the session. If a component of your network becomes contested then remove its balance till it is no longer contested.

By default, your network is few goons willing to do your bidding, who know the area well and the people in it. Balance -1 barter

Pick 4 [this number can change] options from the list below:
[ / don't indicate fractions but 2 possible values for that option]

• You've got an understanding with the local warlord (Jonathan) that you're the gatekeeper of something necessary, like food, medicine, services or gear and he'll allow you leeway when it comes to dealing with 'problems' as long as he gets his cut. Balance -1.
• You've got three no-nonsense enforcers (Vega, Anders and Ezekiel) who know how to rough someone up and get them to play how you want. Balance - 1/2.
• You've got a F***ing psycho (Soap) on hand who is good at taking people out and getting away with it too, but his services don't come cheap. Balance -2/3.
• You've got a front or a patsy (Quentin) who is your public face, if there's attempt on you, as if they would dare, or your rep goes down the toilet; he'll take the bullet for you but he demands the highlife till that day comes. Balance -1.
• You make sure to keep a looming threat sweet so that they won't come after you and steer clear of messing with your ventures. Balance -1.
• Your network has transportation options; Vehicle/s and associated drivers, enough to carry your goons + more. Balance -1.
  
  
• You've got a rare contact (Milk) for something luxe or rare, like weapons, drugs, or transportation but they expect your protection, direct or indirect [by which I mean if you can leverage someone else into doing it then thats good too], when they need it. Balance +1
• You've got most of the local merchants or premises paying you 'protection' but if one of them steps outta line you gotta hammer them down before the others get ideas. Balance +2 [bumped this up because of the likely strong pc blowback]
• You've got a real whiz, maybe a mechanic (Grass) or a sawbones (Key) in your pocket who passes you a share of the profits as long as you help them out with their little indiscretion (it's not so little) and make sure it stays your little secret. Balance +1.
• You're the backer of a pimp or madame (Dust) and their primo tail (Grace, June, Frost), set of dealers (Badger, Jez, Combo) or some other quasi-legal venture who give you a slice of the action but keep attracting the attention of the big fish around. Balance +2/3.
• You owe the local warlord (Dog head) your obligation, he pays you for your services, but he expects them how and when he needs them. Balance +1.

End Example