2nd Edition Kickstarter

Hey, we just launched a Kickstarter for the 2nd Edition book. Check it out if you want:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/226674021/apocalypse-world-2nd-edition

Questions and comments welcome!

-Vincent

Exciting stuff!

Nice to see a D. Vincent Baker game being updated.

Questions:

* Will anything about gameplay be dramatically different? (For example, would a person unfamiliar with Apocalypse World have a different experience playing "First Edition" versus "Second Edition", or are we talking mainly just improved functioning/text in small details?)

* Will anything about the book/product be different, either physically or in content? (The change to Front organization sounds interesting, for example.)

* What's the best move for someone who already owns the game? Will there be an errata sheet or download of some sort, or are previous customers essentially out of luck?

Thanks, Vincent!

Also, is it okay to talk about the game and some of the changes, or should we keep that sort of chat to the patreon forums? I only ask because I'm in the cheap skate "get to look at the game but not talk in the forums" level of donation myself.

Thanks!

Will the 2nd edition be as generously hackable as the 1st? I am referring to your current permission to do so rather than whether the game will be as easily adapted. I am guessing your answer will be "yes," but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Paul: Gameplay won't be dramatically different, no. The changes are significant but technical, not far-reaching. Like, assigning Hx is much improved, but you still assign Hx, you know?

You'll be able to see from the upcoming previews what I mean.

Almost all of the changes appear right in the playbooks and other reference sheets, so they'll be freely available to people who own the 1st Edition but not the 2nd, yes. Including a rules update is a good idea. I don't intend to leave anybody out of luck.

Tim: Speak freely!

Wambly: Absolutely yes.

-Vincent

If we have less-than-all the LE playbooks, does this interact with them at all?

Very excited to see the changes!

Yeah! I'm going to update some of the LE playbooks but not all of them. All of the ones I update I'll make freely available. The ones I don't update, you'll probably be able to update them yourself if you want to keep playing with them, but I intend to cannibalize them for parts down the line.

-Vincent

Good stuff, Vincent!

Based on the preview documents, assigning HX is my most favorite improvement. Holy cow does it go so much smoother now, just from a tiny little procedural change!

I know, right?

The preview is here, by the way. It's the new set of basic playbooks:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/226674021/apocalypse-world-2nd-edition/posts/1482036

-Vincent

This is wonderful to see! Lots of nice touches and improvements in there, as can be seen.

However, two things seem strange:

"Do Something Under Fire"

What does "now you're doing battle with them" refer to? That seems pretty hard to parse, unless the intention is now that "do something under fire" be interpreted more literally than before (i.e. bullets flying). Was this supposed to be in the "go aggro" text, instead?

"Sucker Someone"

Again, there's a confusing sentence: "If they can’t, you simply inflict harm as established." Should this read, "if you couldn't", instead, perhaps?

(I've also often wondered: in this version of go aggro - where you're attacking someone helpless - it looks like you can only hurt your target on a 10+. Is that as intended? If so, it would seem that attacking someone helpless - granted, there has to be a reason why you could miss, but still - is very rarely successful. That doesn't feel very Apocalypse World to me.)

Do something under fire: a relic!

Sucker someone: a typo!

You can also hurt your target on a 7-9 if they choose to force your hand and suck it up. Under some circumstances, that may be their only legit choice.

But yes. Generally, if you can miss, a 7-9 is a miss that nevertheless forces your target to react.

-Vincent

Interesting, thanks!

I've always found "act under fire" (particularly the "hesitate, or a worse outcome/ugly choice" part) a better fit for suckering someone than "go aggro", but that's just me. It seems kind of unfortunate that getting the drop on someone is so ineffective in Apocalypse World, given how violence usually works.

I suppose my view is that attacking someone because you care what they do next and attacking someone because you want them dead is pretty different business. Doesn't using "go aggro" lead to a lot of D&D-esque "whiffed" attacks?  I suppose applying "you couldn't possibly miss" very liberally would solve most of these, but...

Most of the 7-9 options on a "go aggro" involve the acting character to pause (while, for instance, their target tells them something they want to hear), which seems pretty hard to apply if the acting character has no interest in holding back (and isn't looking for their target to do anything in particular).

Vincent, how do you normally handle a 7-9 on a "sucker someone"?

That's a weird concern, Paul!

As MC, I handle it by choosing the option that makes the most sense at the moment, given the circumstances and my agenda and principles. Sometimes the NPC takes the harm, sometimes the NPC dives for cover, sometimes whatever. It's not noticeably whiffy.

In fact you could solve D&D's whole whiffing problem just by treating missed attack rolls as a 7-9 on going aggro.

-Vincent

Ah, so you often choose the "suck it up" option (from the 10+ results)?

I think that wouldn't occur to me because my own MC instinct would be to just inflict harm instead of rolling if I was looking through crosshairs anyway.