New playbook: The Abacus (evil middlemanager edition)

You're right. You shouldn't design from a "is this playbook going to picked second" viewpoint. I just immediately saw the +1 options and thought it was a little unbalanced.

I think you could get rid of the plurality of numbers. If you want to remove the roll you'd have to give a concrete number that the player (and the MC) knows the option is worth.

What if each +barter option gave an obligation that needed to be performed every session and every -barter option gave an accompanying thing that could be accomplished every session? Like, if you have Soap in your network he could whack one NPC but if you have Dust in your network than you have to keep them from getting killed by a rival or imprisoned by whatever passes as the local law.

I only gave a plurality because I didn't know what number to put, in any finalised case I imagine it would be a set number.

I would rather not give a mechanical thing to each of the options; the strength of the network is in the thematic, you have npcs you control to do your bidding who can bring some nice skills if they are upgrade ones and I think that is balanced by the fictional requirements that the paying options have which I hope I implied strongly enough in their descriptions

Secondly because then they would just be either rote and quickly become annoying if every session or would have to then incorporate a random element. I would rather provide a rich ground for the MC to pull problems from as merited rather than obligate the player or the MC to do it unnaturally.

Secondly because then they would just be either rote and quickly become annoying if every session or would have to then incorporate a random element. I would rather provide a rich ground for the MC to pull problems from as merited rather than obligate the player or the MC to do it unnaturally.

Good point.
But maybe this idea could then be: Each option provide a threat impulse for the MC to work off of.

For example, Soap could have potentially killed somebody which will bring heat to the Abacus'es network OR Dust's supply is always in danger of running low so he might try to cut a deal with one of your rivals or undercut your own stock.

The idea being that the options of your organization not only reflect the character of your organization and what is being accomplished through the network, but the MC is given their own list of options to poke and prod at the character with.

I like the fictional descriptions you've added to all of your Network options, Hidersine. That's one of the things that I liked about Dweird's original writeup: all of it provides fictional hooks, both in terms of leverage and trouble.

However, I don't think we should discard the dice mechanic just because other playbooks use it. Followers and Wealth are pretty similar, but they have very different feels because the Hocus is different from the Hardholder and they could both totally be in the same game without it being a problem.

The other reason the "payoff/payoff and some trouble/all the trouble" moves are great is because of that line at the end of how you have the Network written:  If a component of your network becomes contested... Contested says who? The MC is supposed to throw fuckery your way, but as both MC and player I like the dice to come in to help disclaim decision making.

For example: The first session opens with Key showing up at your door, needing you to cover up her indiscretions with a dead boy or a live mutant. Oh, and it's also Jonathan's favorite boy/mutant, and your position with him is now in jeopardy. That sounds like a great scene! But as the MC, I'd be reluctant to drop that much hammer and as a player, I might feel put upon if that much hammer was dropped on me – unless a miss was rolled on Businessman, fair and square.

That being said, I think I'd put in on all of the gig-options from my list stuff like "as long as you hide their little indiscretions (not so little), +Technical work" and so on. And then have Businessman have something like "instead of or in addition to catastrophe on a gig, the MC may have one of your contacts come to you with (as) a problem." I'd probably also change the Upkeep-to-trouble mechanic to be "For every Barter less than your upkeep you pay, gain 1-Arrears. Every session, the MC gets hold equal to your Arrears that they may spend, 1 for 1, to either make a vulnerability pressing or have one of your contacts come to you with (as) a problem. You can buy off Arrears with an equal amount of Barter."

However, I don't think we should discard the dice mechanic just because other playbooks use it.

I really like the idea of having a playbook that feels totally unique yet fits in with the fiction perfectly. Dice are going to come out regardless, so I see no reason to force that onto it. However, you gave the perfect solution to keeping a diceless mechanic...

I'd probably also change the Upkeep-to-trouble mechanic to be "For every Barter less than your upkeep you pay, gain 1-Arrears. Every session, the MC gets hold equal to your Arrears that they may spend, 1 for 1, to either make a vulnerability pressing or have one of your contacts come to you with (as) a problem. You can buy off Arrears with an equal amount of Barter."

That's perfect. Every option could have an Arrears (or a tag) along with the Barter they bring in, and instead of having negative Barter costs for option the move could just state that MC could gets 2 Hold at the start of every session to activate Arrears (or tags). If the MC doesn't use the hold it doesn't add up but goes away by the end of session.

So with gigs and Moonlighting the consequences are sometimes a job goes bad.
With a hold and Wealth the consequences are sometimes money isn't rolling in and the population is suffering.
With a network and Businessman the consequences are you're always getting paid but you have to constantly keep on top of things to keep that money flowing.

I think that works thematically a lot better than the usual roll+stat mechanic.

I like the Arrears mechanic alot, its a good way of bring in the problems fairly (which you were correct in saying was a problem) as it would be probably mostly voluntary; you would have to choose not to pay your bills or to take more crew options than your network supported.

I still think dice need to come in or else you can create overly deterministic and/or steady states.

Maybe a mechanic like the Hoarder (or, elsewhere on this board, the Turncoat)? Your Network has attributes, one of which is Arrears (arrears doesn't actually make the most sense in this context, but whatever). Bad Stuff goes up when you use your Network's assets. At the beginning of session, GM rolls +Arrears, gains hold to mess with you.

(Do you guys know what I'm talking about? Troubles of LE playbooks...).

I still think dice need to come in or else you can create overly deterministic and/or steady states.

Deterministic does not equate to consistency.
Check out Undying, a diceless AW hack for Vampire role-playing: http://enigmamachinations.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/undying-beta-v3-0-play-sheets1.pdf

I've been giving this playbook some more thought.
Instead of choosing a number of options for your Network and having to maintain some kind of balance of barter coming in and out, what if you got the ENTIRE Network but you just always start every session with a flat 2-barter?
Doesn't matter how much you made last session or or how much you spent down to, you start with 2-barter.

I think this would be big enough to make the playbook stand out from the Operator as it throws a TON of named NPCs at the MC to use, and it's also pretty powerful for the Abacus. Maybe lower their starting moves to the Network and +1 move.

I realize this might make the Network seem like just another gang, but not really, because you can't utilize them as a gang. They're disparate personalities that you know from all over the place but who are never all in the same place at the same time and definitely not fighting for you. The choices you would make during character creation would become purely narrative as well.

I think this would change our interaction with the Network as well. Maybe you'd have a start of session move which would give you access to your Network. A 10+ means you'd have most of our Network to call upon, and a missed roll means you only have 1 or 2 members of your Network in contact with you.

What if you get Hold that you can spend to call on your Network?

A theme I kept in my head but didn't really put into writing is the possibility of an Abacus profiting from other people's crises (by virtue of being prepared and having a network to call on). So he makes money when people lose things, get injured or go hungry.

That was a bit difficult to turn into a mechanic in terms of which crises count? And why should other people care?

I like the two-barter flat idea, but having things like that stop other people from attacking the Abacus through his money, which would be fun times if it happened.


It should ideally be fun to hate the Abacus.

Would it work if the "person in crisis" was the one who activated the mechanic?

(Like: spend 1-barter to have the Abacus's gang come to your rescue. That's not great, but just for illustration. It makes the transaction a little more abstract. Better would be if you could collect "debt" with the Abacus, like Monsterhearts Strings, and pay for such interventions by accruing debt.)

If you could tie it in to when other playbooks end up with Wants (or whatever). Perverse incentives for the Abacus to interfere with other player's beginning-of-session moves (that would make me hate the Abacus, but also make them maybe too useful to just kill on sight).

Maybe "Other players may call for your help with a Want; you get to pick one (They owe you money, you assume some of their powerbase, etc)."

Hm. How about this?

I.O.Who? - when you use your network to help someone in need, get 1-debt over them. Debt counts as barter for anyone who wants to buy it. Otherwise, exchange debt 1-for-1 into hold as per the 'In your pocket move.' Works on NPCs only (does work on NPCs that are part of a PC's group for PC debt purposes).

Really, really crappy wording, but you get the idea. Abacus collects debts, pawns them off to other people or makes use of the person he 'helped' temporarily. Doesn't work on PCs, but if they have a bunch of people under them, it works on those.

I like the implied dynamic even if I don't quite like the move itself. Maybe someone has a better idea for a different move, or a different dynamic altogether?

I like that pretty well. You help people (doesn't say whether they asked for or wanted it!) and get to take their stuff. Maybe take out the "if they want it" clause, at the very least in reference to the person you helped - that way, you can always spemd it to get a 10+ on manipulate, thus giving alternate over-PC leverage.

There were some cool debt moves someone made, including a custom operator move that could just be an Abacus move instead. I'll link to them here when I have time later if no-one beats me to it.