Custom Playbook - The Huntress

Google Docs Link

Been working on this playbook for a couple weeks. Interested in seeing what someone outside of my friend-group thinks.

I like it.

For critique:

Natural Camouflage should probably be rewritten to use "you" instead of "she" like the rest of the moves.

I feel like In Your Element should somehow reference the cat and mouse combat moves, but I'm not really sure how, or sure whether it is in fact necessary.

I feel like a miss on The Hunt, where you fall prey to two features, might end up being kinda samy if it happens multiple times. You only have two features (from start), so it'll generally be the same two features, and with some of the combos I'm hard pressed finding more than one or two ways you could fall prey to both. Maybe make the 7-9 a less serious danger (is that what beholden is meant to suggest? I'm not actually sure how to interpret beholden), and make a miss "You fall prey to a feature of your hunting ground".

Why Huntress and not Hunter?

Hunter's a pretty unisex term, while Huntress is explicitly gendered...and this playbook really doesn't seem even implicitly gendered.

Natural Camouflage should probably be rewritten to use "you" instead of "she" like the rest of the moves.

Thanks for the catch.

I feel like In Your Element should somehow reference the cat and mouse combat moves, but I'm not really sure how, or sure whether it is in fact necessary.

My play experience is in 1E exclusively which is part of this. I think I got the cat/mouse combat moves conflated with the baiting a trap one in my mind. That's going to take some further thought I think.

It definitely needs to interface with them in a greater capacity than it currently does.

I feel like a miss on The Hunt, where you fall prey to two features, might end up being kinda samy if it happens multiple times. You only have two features (from start), so it'll generally be the same two features, and with some of the combos I'm hard pressed finding more than one or two ways you could fall prey to both. Maybe make the 7-9 a less serious danger (is that what beholden is meant to suggest? I'm not actually sure how to interpret beholden), and make a miss "You fall prey to a feature of your hunting ground".

I originally wanted to have more features so you'd start with more. You're probably right about reducing them. I'm not sure offhand what would be a fitting "lesser threat" though.

Why Huntress and not Hunter?

Hunter's a pretty unisex term, while Huntress is explicitly gendered...and this playbook really doesn't seem even implicitly gendered.

The answer is just that I like the read of this better. However it is something I griped over a lot, since none of the playbooks are gendered. I'll probably change it if I can come up with something I like better.

Thanks to you both for your replies.

For the most part I like it.

I have a natural tendency to dislike sharp play books because they're just so much stronger in practice then they appear on paper. I'd rather see this class be cool based then sharp based. This would also interface better with the subterfuge moves which are all (and should remain) cool based.

I'm going to dwell on the hunting ground a bit more before going into that. It semi-solid, but feels like there's something missing. I dunno, maybe it just feels like the hunter should feel like a hunter even when not in this specific place. So, a more thought out reply will come later. I do really like the idea that the hunter can detail the environment, just maybe it should encompass more then just "a specific hunting ground". I'd like to see them define the landscape in a similar way to the hard holder defining the town/people/civilization, which this does but might not go far enough.

I think the subterfuge moves might be a stronger place to build from, making these occur more often or provide incentive for the hunter to use them over other solution methods. I think that the partial for Ambush sounds pretty much like a fail. Perfect spot, but missed them. Perfect time, but they're not here? I get there's room for maneurvering, but it seems like being able to cat and mouse without them knowing they're being hunted would be more useful. Similar to a Skinner's Lost (but not as magically immediate), a Hunter can lure people into a place they're able to make cat and mouse moves. Dunno, I'll think on it.

In response to the post above, what about a move that goes like "When you Read a Sitch or a Person while hunting, roll+cool, and you don't need to interact with them to do it" or something along those lines, and then switch sharp and cool? Then Keen Senses becomes +1 cool (which has it's own downsides but nevermind that, Quarantine has that anyway), and everything is fine and groovy. Would a Hunter really be that observant of people they aren't hunting? I say: No.

I have a natural tendency to dislike sharp play books because they're just so much stronger in practice then they appear on paper. I'd rather see this class be cool based then sharp based. This would also interface better with the subterfuge moves which are all (and should remain) cool based.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from. It'd be really easy to take a +3 sharp into +1 forward into basically any situation.

I'm going to dwell on the hunting ground a bit more before going into that. It semi-solid, but feels like there's something missing. I dunno, maybe it just feels like the hunter should feel like a hunter even when not in this specific place. So, a more thought out reply will come later. I do really like the idea that the hunter can detail the environment, just maybe it should encompass more then just "a specific hunting ground". I'd like to see them define the landscape in a similar way to the hard holder defining the town/people/civilization, which this does but might not go far enough.

I'm curious to see your further thoughts on this.

I think the subterfuge moves might be a stronger place to build from, making these occur more often or provide incentive for the hunter to use them over other solution methods. I think that the partial for Ambush sounds pretty much like a fail. Perfect spot, but missed them. Perfect time, but they're not here? I get there's room for maneurvering, but it seems like being able to cat and mouse without them knowing they're being hunted would be more useful. Similar to a Skinner's Lost (but not as magically immediate), a Hunter can lure people into a place they're able to make cat and mouse moves. Dunno, I'll think on it.

I think bridging cat/mouse to a Lost-like move is kind of moot since the successes on those moves already involve driving/luring someone to a place of your choosing.

Ambush is specifically meant to live outside the cat/mouse rules anyway (IMO). It's about setting up to get the drop on someone without them knowing. It's finding out that Rolfball's gang runs his guns through a canyon once a moon, and going there and setting up and waiting for him. There is no baiting a trap, theres no being the cat, or the mouse.

I think maybe instead of describing the information you get going into the ambush, the move should color the resulting scene. Maybe a success is that the ambush begins w/o a hitch, but a 7-9 means that you got some details wrong (theres more baddies than you thought, they're better armed, they have something precious to me, ect.), and a 6- is just outright your the one that gets ambushed.

In response to the post above, what about a move that goes like "When you Read a Sitch or a Person while hunting, roll+cool, and you don't need to interact with them to do it" or something along those lines, and then switch sharp and cool? Then Keen Senses becomes +1 cool (which has it's own downsides but nevermind that, Quarantine has that anyway), and everything is fine and groovy. Would a Hunter really be that observant of people they aren't hunting? I say: No.

I think that's already accomplished by "Depth of the Track".

Why Huntress and not Hunter?

Hunter's a pretty unisex term, while Huntress is explicitly gendered...and this playbook really doesn't seem even implicitly gendered.

As a continuation of my previous thought. I'm thinking about The Frontier now instead. I think it still covers the niche I want, sounds cool and vaguely playbooky, and isn't gendered.

As a continuation of my previous thought. I'm thinking about The Frontier now instead. I think it still covers the niche I want, sounds cool and vaguely playbooky, and isn't gendered.

Though The Frontier makes me think of a Frontiersman. So a more civilized hunter (a dominator of wilderness) rather than the uncivilized/one-with-nature vibe I got from Huntress.

I dunno, calling them The Frontier makes me think of them, personally, as the frontier that others explore. Like they are the wilderness on some profound level. Which seems about the right vibe to me.

The flavor text would be hugely important in making that distinction though.

I havent had any time to ponder and expand on my prior thought though, about how the "frontier" seems stuck in a mud puddle everyone else could avoid. I think they should have something more when it comes to invoking the landscape then simply some benefits while within that one. A Hardholder has the people in the holding, the walls that surround it and the guns to fill it. They've a huge depth into what they can influence on a setting. ( and importantly, the implication that they need the things they have, they define their opposition in a way too )

I think the Frontier needs to be as deep and influential. They are describing the land, the thing that stretches beyond those walls, that can invoke a bit of whatever landscape hell is out there, maybe forcing enemies to get lost in a maze they knew their way through, or forcing someone to get trapped in a prison, or invoking some pit to generate badness. The potential is HUGE here, because they provide an intelligence to the otherwise hidden desires of the landscape. They should be able to define how people interact with it, why people must interact with it, perhaps what they need that lies inside it. Then they can do things like play cat and mouse with people there. This is close to what you've got, but I think it needs to REACH further.

Lets say another PC heads out into the landscape (not his landscape, but ANY landscape), and someone misses something and a hard roll forces them into whatever traps the landscape offers. Perhaps the Frontier has a move to be there instantly, with a way out. Like a faceless responding to battle, but instead responding to the land. I think this approach provides a boon to quality of narrative the playbook could add to the gameworld. There are many ways to approach it, but that is why I wanted time to dwell on those reasons.

Hmm..

The Hunt [Starts Marked] - At the beginning of each session, roll + sharp. On a 10+, your hunt was bountiful, gain the fruit of your labor. On a 7-9, you can abandon your fruit, or keep it and invite a soft move from the Landscape. On a 6-, the Landscape acts according to its nature.

Hunting Grounds
You have a preferred ground for going out and hunting prey. While you may not have uncontested control of this land, it is yours just the same.

Choose a landscape for your hunting ground. Then choose a direction. The hunting ground will Near in a direction of your choice on the MC's threat map. Talk with him about it, he knows what we mean.

•Prison (impulse: to contain, to deny egress)
•Breeding pit (impulse: to generate badness)
•Furnace (impulse: to consume things)
•Mirage (impulse: to entice and betray people)
•Maze (impulse: to trap, to frustrate passage)
•Fortress (impulse: to deny access)

Choose the fruit of your hunting ground. When you succeed on a hunt, you will gain the fruit, but others might seek it also.
Rare valuables [+barter]
Old world Salvage [+gear]
Medicinal Herbs [+remedy]
Cuts of meat [+tastes]

Choose 2 features of your hunting ground. These add an additional Threat Move to the terrain.
The predators are fearsome (Attack an interloper with shock and power)
The predators are intelligent (Stalk an interloper)
The prey are diminutive (Get into an interloper's stuff)
It is open and windswept (Reveal an interloper to a foe)
It is haunted (Stalk an interloper with a ghostly apparition)
It is being worn away by time (Crumble away or fall apart)
It is growing as time goes on (Consume nearby territory)

Finally detail the hunting ground according to its Landscape, Fruit and Features.

My Thoughts
So, making the hunting ground into a Landscape means that it becomes a Threat, giving it more of a presence and potentially active role. Making it a near Threat means that there is a good chance that stuff will happen there. If you want to go east, you need to go through Bodak's Canyon, or take the very long way around.

I gave the features Threat Moves instead of tags, to make them more immediately useable by the MC (not that tags aren't useable, just that the moves are faster to use). That does make the playbook rather MC mechanic heavy (revealing stuff that is usually in the background), including the way The Hunt move has been written.

This is just a quick thought I had, so more tweaking is definitely appropriate, if this is the path we go with.

I like that a LOT.

A playbook which interacts with the whole landscape subsystem would be a great addition to AW.

Your take on it above is really good as is, I think. There's only one thing I didn't totally dig: I'm not super inspired by "open and windswept"; it's a bit too specific and too vague at once. I can see two good interpretations of it, though:

* There's nowhere to hide out there. (Reveal an interloper to a foe.)
* It's ravaged by unstoppable forces (wind, sandstorms, maelstrom, other). (Inflict harm; particularly maybe d-harm.)

Maybe something about the "labyrinth" option? Getting lost? (I can see that not "playing nice" with the Hunt move, though.)

That's definitely more like it. So long as NONE of the moves that invoke the landscape require that the player be within THAT landscape. Or that the landscape provides so much to the character that they no longer need playbook moves to do their stuff (at which point they can start adding too or removing from the landscape through advances ) They should probably have an advance to re-locate, or to describe a second landscape as well, though they should only be able to "Hunt" from one in any given session.

My reasons for this are, that a hard holder carries the influence of his location with him, even in other holdings. Via trade, his gang, his people, etc. I don't like the idea that a Hunter leaves his hunting ground and is now just like everyone else. It's also harder to justify a moving a landscape then a moving hard hold, especially for those on the road type games where a hunter would DEFINITELY be an ideal character archtype.

@Ebok I kinda disagree with you point about the hardholder. Some of the hardholder's stuff goes with him (the gang), but the hold doesn't. The hardholder can't leave the hold behind and still be a hardholder. He would still be a character with Leadership and a gang, but he would lose some of his stuff.

So as long as the Hunter can use a sufficient amount of his stuff outside the Landscape, then I'm okay with it. And it probably needs to be more stuff than the Hardholder, since the hold invites other characters to play around in it, while the hunting ground doesn't. And I think the current version works. The Hunt requires the hunting ground, just as I'd say that Wealth requires the hold. Of the other five moves, only 1 requires the hunting ground, and as long as the hunting ground is generally near, I think it is thematically appropriate that the Hunter would draw people from elsewhere and into the hunting ground to take care of them.

The hunting ground is the defining part of the Hunter, and making it so that the Hunter can leave it behind and be just as effective anywhere would kinda defeat the point in my eyes.

For an on the road game, I could kinda see saying that the hunting ground is the dominant terrain. So the hunting ground would be "The Wastes", which is everything that isn't the small patches of other terrain. So the stationary holds would be in small oasis or canyons and stuff, but it would all be surrounded by The Wastes a short distance away.

We could potentially rewrite my suggestion to make the Hunter always like this, making it setting-defining like the Quarantine/Waterbearer/Marine Mammal. If there is a Hunter in play, then there is a dominant terrain, his hunting ground, which is everywhere that isn't somewhere else. But that kinda moves the Hunter from a guy who knows one specific piece of terrain really well, to am all-round ranger guy who can do well in most of the wilderness (since most of the wilderness is his terrain).

When I said leave the hold behind, I meant, march his army into a neighboring holding. The fact that He has a holding himself is not suddenly irrelevant. He can make offers to people there to come with him instead, he can force competition on merchants, he can do any number of things. But he is absolutely still The Hardholder, even while he's not standing in it.

The tail end of your post is pretty much exactly what I was getting at. The hardholder makes his own landscape (the holding) important, just like that landscape makes the hardholder important.  The success or activity of the story there is easy because there are people that inhabit it. One needs to keep in mind when developing a playbook that defines a landscape, that there is enough in that landscape to draw constant streams of story from, or else people could just avoid it and that's that. So the success of a Hunter/archtype requires that being in that landscape is interesting, desirable, and active in the narrative in an unavoidable way.

As this is the dominant feature of this type of playbook, I feel it is definitely worth considering the merits on how one could do that.