2nd Edition Kickstarter

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.

Does this mean if I want some I'm missing (I.e, maculoso, space marine mammal, etc) I should buy another copy of AW 1.0? That was my very happy plan A before I knew about AW2, so no worries if so.

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

Super jazzed about this! Did anyone else notice that in manipulating a PC, the mean option got a lot meaner?

Other things I think are cool and want to know more about: lots more vehicles (everyone has the option in the gear section, it's automatic for hard holders), the new battle moves (I see you finally put SBF as not a basic move), the new gig structure.

Is the operator gone forever? I saw bits of them scattered around the landscape. I realize that they may not fit anymore, but I'll admit I'm a little sad. Maybe this'll be the spur to dust off the Abacus...

Is the new crossbow option for Battlebabe custom ranged weapons intended to totally obsolete pistols and rifles, in a mechanical sense?  It's functionally like a pistol or rifle with two extra options built in, which you can then choose two more options for.  It just seems very odd, next to the options available in 1E.

Good catch!

-Vincent

Super jazzed about this! Did anyone else notice that in manipulating a PC, the mean option got a lot meaner?

Oh, interesting! Meaner, and much more symmetric with the carrot. It's a good change; it was sometimes uncertain where/how to apply the "acting under fire" with the old rule.

It doesn't seem clear to me how one goes about gaining the Supplier option for the Angel, the one that lets the Angel begin each session with +1 Stock. Am I missing something?

Charles

It doesn't seem clear to me how one goes about gaining the Supplier option for the Angel, the one that lets the Angel begin each session with +1 Stock. Am I missing something?

Charles

One of the Angel's Advancement options is 'you gain a Supplier'.

The Savvyhead move "Spooky Intense"... is that really meant to read that you can use +Weird on any Hard battle moves? It feels like it should read "Cool battle moves." Otherwise... damn, there are some lethal weirdoes in 2nd ed.

Some more notes on the new playbook pdf, and some questions, in case they're wanted (if not, ignore)...

The Angel's healing moves:

* Stabilizing someone has an ambiguous clause ("...and choose 2..."), which doesn't specify *who* does the choosing. The context implies that it's the Angel who does, but the grammar suggests that it's "they" (the victim/subject). Reading the options makes it fairly clear that it's the Angel, but I can imagine this might trip some people up.

* "Speeding the recovery" of someone. I'm still not entirely sure what happens when a character *isn't* treated. Are they experiencing some kind of game-impacting agony? Does that mean that, as MC, I should inflict all kinds of suffering on any PC who's taken one or two segments of harm? Why would I want an Angel to treat my 3:00 harm, in other words?

* The last line implies that *none* of the Angel moves apply to NPCs. Is this correct, or just the last one? (That sounds a bit disappointing - it would be fun to roll the healing moves on NPCs sometimes, it seems to me - particularly important ones, where their survival or their debt or them blabbing secrets could be very interesting to us. But I could be wrong, of course!)

Battlebabe:

The Battlebabe who is Ice Cold rolls +cool on all Battle moves. In the First Edition, the Battlebabe still rolled +hard on seize by force. Does that mean that it's no longer true that "you're better at getting into trouble than out of it"? If not, what else does this refer to?

(This is similar to the Savvyhead question, above.)

Battle Moves:

These are quite interesting, especially the various broken-out forms of the old seize by force.

Is there anywhere online where you have discussed the why's and how's of this change to the rules? How were the old rules failing players, and why did you feel the new rules were necessary and/or an improvement? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Thanks!

With 1st edition history, the owner of the playbook told one player how their Hx would work. Now the question is posed to the group, and one person answers. What happens if more than one person thinks that designation applies to them? That is to say, who gets the final call on Hx? The MC, the owner, or the group?

First dibs, unless the player with dibs defers to the other.

-Vincent

Vincent:
There are a lot of moves that don't tell us how to adjudicate PvP. Like Assault vs Defend, or hell most of the other battle moves. Do the options that cancel each other out actually cancel each other out and call for us to, let's say, decide if you're still assaulting/defending or something. In other words, ought we to take a cue from the single combat move here?

The options that cancel each other out do cancel each other out, yes. It's just like if you choose to inflict terrible harm but I choose to suffer little harm.

In general, this gives an advantage to the defender, it's worth keeping in mind.

From there, you can take a cue from single combat when circumstances demand it, but I wouldn't presume it or proceduralize it. Usually it'll be perfectly clear in play, you'll just say "that's that, so what do you do next?" and the players will tell you.

(Full explanations and examples will be in the book, of course.)

-Vincent

Paul: Having the angel treat your 3:00 harm is interesting. It's a bit like spending 2 barter for lifestyle. You choose it because you want it, not to get benefit from it. You choose it even though it's wasteful, or maybe you choose it because it's wasteful!

I can see wanting to spend stock to get over on an NPC in your care, sure. Maybe I'll add a note to the MC to allow it, unless they have some reason not to.

I'll write more about the battle moves later, I imagine.

-Vincent

Thanks. More:
1) When you shoulder a vehicle, are you also using your vehicle as weapon, and hence trading harm in addition to v-harm?

2) To go with what you said above, should we have the players decide their PvP choices blind, without knowing what their opponent chooses?

Probably more after this.

1) Nope.

2) Yep.

-Vincent