Palm cards and such

Reprinting for my own gratification:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBtnnDeZDeYX2IYV1x5rktykgoEvxQKecJLxK3yOI0Y/edit?usp=sharing

It's a mix of introducing the starting rules, getting some roleplaying going, and just stirring shit. Looking back at it, the Angel card is literally just a 12+ roll of an advanced Read a Sitch. Which is kind of interesting.

Oh, and the Gunlugger card? That gives me a lever. If they are being interesting, that extra NPC just exists, and is an Ally (probably Lover or Confidante depending). If they are being kinda boring, I have them be taken hostage. However, if I'm feeling super cruel and I feel they can take it, this happens immediately -

“Well guess what, they’re fucking dead at your feet.“

To a non-violent character (Angel, Savvyhead or Driver):

“How’d they die huh? Shotgun or axe to the face? Electrocuted? Were they tortured before they died? Come on, give me something to work with. No no, I’m not blaming you for it. You just know something. Well, in that case, pick a number from 2 to 5. Yeah, they’re on your doorstep in [X] different pieces."

“And you know who did this?”

Point at a violent character (Faceless, Chopper, Battlebabe):

“They fucking did this. Did you do this? Did one of your guys do this? Then who fucking did it?”

“Gunlugger, it’s time to make a choice: Who’s to blame here?”

____________MESSAGE ENDS____________

Paul, you mentioned a "different kind of AW play", and that my text pointed towards a specific style of play. Basically my question is... what IS, my style of play? Was there anything specific that led you to reach this conclusion? What would you change for them to be your style?

Spwack,

I really jumped on this when you posted it, because the "cards" are really well done. You've managed to use a very brief/low-detail format to convey a LOT of information and that's really cool.

These brief writeups give the player a sense of who the character is *and* orient them to how to play at the same time in a really concise way. I'm not normally a fan of blurring the lines this way, but I really like the way you do it here.

So, what about my comments on style? Well, I don't know what "your" style is, but I can tell you some things that jump out at me from the "cards".

Now, discussing differences in style and answering your questions is going to be hard to do without sounding like a critic. No! I really like what you've put together here. So, keep that in mind as you read on! Ask me what seems awesome about this thing you've put together and I'd write an entirely different post. :) That said, I'll answer your questions:

The first thing about the "style" of this thing you've put together is that there is a lot *personality* and verve in the descriptions and the details, but little about the Situation or the Setting. We know very little about the world, the people who live in it, or what thematic concerns might be important to us as players.

Only the Gunlugger's NPC is a real reference to something in the setting/situation to interact with (and you rightly point that out as the lynchpin to get the whole thing rolling). [The Brainer's "puppet" also helps define the world quite a bit, but you were correct to notice that, absent the emotional connection, it's not a good "direct" focus of action - still, the knowledge of an existing gang, androids, or whatever such thing is an important piece of worldbuilding.]

I think we can really see this from the way you've omitted all the playbooks which tell us something about the situation or setting - or give players input into what and where we are and who's around - except for the Chopper. There's no Hardholder, nor Maestro'd, nor Hocus, for example. Where do people live? What do they do for fun? What do they believe in? We don't know - and, by implication, we don't care.

I'm always pretty curious about the apocalypse itself when I play - what has the world become, and how has it come to be this way? What remains of civilized society, and what has been lost? How are people living now? Do they remember anything?

Your writeup just jettisons all that and screams "let's get to the action!"

This is, in many ways, a smart choice for a one-shot, but a very different approach from what I or others might do (look at Blind-Blue and Hatchet City for an example of quite the opposite approach in terms of setting detail! We have disease and weird mud fish and threats at large and various factions squabbling over it all...).

Secondly, there is an implied focus on high-octane attitude and wild action - this writeup, to me, says guns and gasoline and explosions. It's very Mad Max.

Perhaps that's why you've omitted the Skinner, as well, but included the Faceless.

It's also very low on the "psychic maelstrom" weird business. (In contrast, I've been watching a bit of the Roll20 AW game on YouTube, and pretty much *everything* that happens in the first four sessions is directly related to the psychic maelstrom. It's very interesting, but also makes me crave some focus on, I don't know... shooting some guy, or maybe trying to figure out how to replenish their stock of canned foods. Something normal and down-to-earth.)

Compared to the gonzo style of these cards, my approach to AW is much more low-key. It's always to find the humanity and to ask the players, "The world is fucked up. What are you willing to do to fix it?" I enjoy having the weird psycho business and the grotesque, bloody future... but largely as a foil for what is left under there to salvage - what remains of humanity, and how can we protect it? Is it all loss, or is this new world better in any meaningful ways?

Even Mad Max (Fury Road, I mean) has something to say about the nature of motherhood and the loss of innocence and liberty for women, although it doesn't get explored as much as the visuals and the action.

By way of example, here are a couple of contrasts:

1. Here's a thing I wrote for an AW campaign. As you can see, the direction is quite different stylistically:

http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=5248

2. You include the Faceless and describe him thus: "You are a psychotic masked murderer. Did… did you need any more information?"

That's pretty much the entirety of the character description. Again, this is very Mad Max! Who is this guy? We don't care; we just want to see him being scary and awesome on screen!

My own tendency if playing or offering a Faceless would be precisely to ask about the things which do NOT align with the obvious image of a psychotic murderer. I'd be all "Hey, do you own a stuffed animal?" or maybe "Whose forgiveness do you crave most?" or perhaps "Why do you wear that mask? What do you hope people don't learn about you? Are you afraid of seeing yourself in the mirror?"

In other words, the things that would make the Faceless interesting to me would be the contrast between the obvious "masked murderer" and the real human being underneath. To focus on the "psychotic murderer" angle basically removes any interest I have in the playbook.

These are not criticisms, by the way: first of all, they are all valid artistic choices, and, in many ways, smart for a one-shot (and especially so for a large group). I know a lot of people want AW to be Mad Max (and the 2nd Edition plays into their hands very intentionally, so maybe Vincent does too, at some level). Guns, gasoline, explosions and fucked up crazies!

Second, I am reading a lot into a few short blurbs - it's entirely possible that "your" style of play is quite different in practice. It's just the "vibe" I'm picking up from these descriptions, and extrapolating from there, since that's what you asked about!

I'd love to play this sometime and see what happens. Whether I'm reading it right or not, I bet it would be a ton of fun to play out. What kind of environment/scenario to you see yourself using this in? Is it a large-group one-shot in a party atmosphere, or something else entirely?

One question: what do you do (or intend to do) if you don't get the full complement of players? Some of these seem fairly central to making it work as a game (especially the Gunlugger), while other characters are less so.

Wow, thanks for your interest. I'll try and respond to each point. Criticism is good! I always want to improve at my hobby/obsession, and extra points of view are a godsend. The style of the cards matches the style of the game, most of the time, so it's as good a place as any to start.

I remember reading your AW:E post a while ago and what caught me was the issue of time. Fundamentally, my experience with running RPGs has been fighting tooth and nail for a couple hours squeezed in to run something fun. AW:E is all about broadening the scope of things, both in background and introducing rules. Everything is measured, quiet, and more than slightly disturbing as you drip blood on the things they describe. I love that style. I really enjoy being able to take my time with stories, even if they are style fundamentally adventures. But I've rarely had that luxury. I need my players to make character sheets quickly, learn the rules even faster, and be able to start exploring nearly immediately. I've worked hard at reducing the time from sitting down, no, getting in the front door of my house, to killing something interesting. The main thing I've always struggled with is the initial "Where do you go?" and getting sheep-like looks. Or worse, seeing a table half illuminated by phone screens. I often feel like my engagement would be enough to invigorate the table, even just slightly, so I do my best to share it with everyone.

So I have to make them PANIC.

I cajole, I sneer, I snicker, I cheer at their funny/interesting suggestions, I say "Yes, but..." and sometimes it works.

I like to call these bits of paper drama cards. Or better yet D R A M A C A R D S. They are designed to just make things happen, and I think they work ok for just that purpose. If people are being interesting/interested, I don't even need them. Their role is to just kick-start the chaos. If the game ends up being a deep and insightful introspection on the interrelation of the Maelstrom and the human condition, I'm all for it. But a game can take so long to get there, that sometimes it never gets anywhere at all. Yes, my playstyle is a hammer, and I am completely aware of that. Sometimes it fails me. But plenty of my problems are nails.

I should make one thing clear, I haven't created cards for the playbooks you mentioned for a couple of reasons, not because they are banned outright

Reason 1:

These eight are, in my experience, the faster ones to create and get going. While I probably should, I don't recommend the detail-heavy Hardholder or Maestro to beginners or the mildly interested, because once again, speed is key. Needs must when the devil drives. But if someone wants to, really wants to play the Waterbearer, they've likely played before, so I can A) throw the playbook at them and help the Gunlugger with their gun tags and B) safely hope that they will DO something. ANYTHING. So a card is therefore not particularly needed.

Reason 2:

Quite often, these playbooks come with drama attached, likely in the form of extra NPCs under or against them. Maestro, Waterbearer, Child-Thing, and especially Hardholder. The Hardholder has the perfect plot booster-shot built into one of their moves: At the start of session, let's find out what is going horribly wrong with the township. Savagery and Hunger, huh? Excellent.

Reason 3:

I'm lazy, and haven't made one yet XD. I should probably make one for the Skinner, or maybe I'll just share that one with the Driver. Better yet, give the Driver one to the Skinner and make up a whole new one. Hmm... Child-Thing needs one, Waterbearer could do with one. Maestro has interesting NPCs stashed everywhere. Like the Hardholder, the Quarantine and Hocus both have start of session rolls. I find the Hocus strangely lacklustre, but I have no idea why yet. The Quarantine though, that's some good stuff. Regarding Skinner, Child-Thing, Waterbearer, oh, and Touchstone, any suggestions?

Reason 3.5:

If they pick something social like the Skinner or Hocus, or something cuddlier like the Child-Thing, they will possibly get overshadowed by the Gunlugger's feud with the Chopper. In a "normal"-er game, having a social-focus plot is perfectly acceptable. But I'm very young at heart, and get a little too excited by explosions, so they may not get as much of the spotlight as they deserve. Also, it slows down the game. Not a bad thing! Never a bad thing, except when the ticking clock is hanging around your neck.

Reason 3.9:

Disregard Reason 3.5. It's trash. The drama cards for the "non-combat" characters is going to be entirely about them having massive* leverage over another player of their choice. Maybe. Possibly. Stay tuned!

In regards to the possibility of missing several "key" members of the cast, yes, that is highly likely. But for smaller groups, that structure isn't as necessary. Each player can get a larger portion of my attention, as can their characters and what they are doing. More focus, more drama, more things happening. The larger the group, the more I'm divided, but also the more likely that the fun, pre-planned interactions will take place. It's a balancing act, where more players adds slightly more structure to the initial few minutes, rather than just being a large reduction. So far I have yet to see it in play, but here's hoping. These cards are definitely aimed at one-/two-shots, though many long running games have had humble origins, so who knows?

Regarding the Faceless (and the Battlebabe as well, since they are similar and linked), they are given strong, very strong prompts as to how they might want to play their characters. A new player, one who might not be sure what their playstyle is, is given a big, shiny button to press. And in this, as you describe it, guns and gasoline and explosions setting, they can make a BIG splash. I want them to Go Aggro on all of their problems. I aim to provide descriptions of gore that make half the table laugh and the other half wince. They will probably die in the process, but in a one-shot scenario, who cares? And it will be glorious.

They also don’t have a whole lot on their cards apart from “play this way”, because fundamentally, the Faceless/Battlebabe are D R A M A cards in and of themselves! They bring everything they need, just about. As you rightly point out though, this is a very one-dimensional way to view complex and interesting characters. And I agree. A savvy, more "skilled" player could fight against these violent origins, and use these tools of destruction to excise evil from the world. But then they wouldn't be doing what is said on the card! They wouldn't be following the rules!

How excellent! :P Of course, if they don't break the mold, and just play a bog-standard boring psychopath... Well, it might not be a very meaningful conversation, but did you see what he did to the legs of that bandit?

What else, oh, the setting! You are correct in observing the style and verve and lack of substance in these. It is very much on purpose. 30% of the time, I’ll come to the table with half an idea, and nearly always I’ll ditch it immediately in favour of something said by the players. More often then not, if I don’t know the answer to one of their setting questions, I’ll ask them. I make this clear to them while explaining how Read a Sitch works. If they ask me a question and I say “I don’t know, is there?” and they are quick enough, there usually is. It’ll be blood-soaked, but it’ll be there for them to use and abuse.

RE: Psychic Maelstrom. Every game I've played in and run has focused on it quite a lot, more than would make sense really. Lumpley has done a brilliant job of somehow creating some kind of semi-invisible narrative magnet. I'm not going to get it dirty with my grubby amateur hands, and really, I don't think I need to. The Brainer card is very much about humanity, and I like that as well.

While I’ve mentioned I also enjoy slower games, these cards somewhat paradoxically give me more control over the pace of the game. In a normal game, we start in first gear. We trundle along, fighting AW-equivalent rats, and maybe there’s a (second gear) suggestion of a rival warlord, or a bit of inter-party squabbling.

Oh shit, the Gunlugger has to leave early, and we’ve only got an hour till then. Shit shit shit shit shit…

And things kinda happen, the Brainer mentions some interest in the Maelstrom and I scatter cool things around them. It’s interesting. It’s fun. A favourite NPC, who was randomly generated and didn’t expect to have to act out but they focus on for half an hour, dies dramatically (still second gear though). But the warlord is never bought to justice. No concrete progress is really made, and we can’t meet up again for another four weeks.

This is a very, very negatively exaggerated example. It’s still fundamentally fun, and I love it. But the time constraints, for me, have gotten very frustrating, and I think that can rub off on my players.
The aim of the drama cards, whether they achieve it or not, is to slam the game straight into third gear. The Chopper is yelling, the Gunlugger is furious, the Brainer is cackling, and the Hardholder is panicking and using their gang like a sledgehammer. Can it be brought down into second gear as they work together to try and improve the lives of the random scum of the earth that survived the petroleum plagues? Absolutely, and in my opinion, it can be easier to do that than bring the pace up. Can I ram into fifth at nearly a moments notice? Well, fundamentally I could always do that, but the players have at least an inkling that that’s the kind of bullshit stunt I might pull, because they’ve read the cards and they know what to expect.

I guess that last point is maybe my main one. I might never use the actual stuff on the cards. I just want to set the tone of the game, or rather, set the tone of the game on fire. Not because I want to (ha! I totally do) but because I need to. I just don’t have the time for anything more cultivated.

Thanks for your feedback and interest, it's really crystallised some of my own thoughts.

Again: what I wrote wasn't a criticism. It was an observation of style differences. (And I like how thoroughly you've dissected it here!)

I think, given your play culture and design goals, what you've got is exactly the right tool! I think it will work wonderfully for what you're going for.

(And I know where you're coming from, too: I haven't had a chance to play Apocalypse: Emergence for precisely the reasons you mention, for example.)

One thing that jumps out at me: given your goals and limited timeframe, I would think AW character generation to be too bulky for you, as well. I'd want faster, simpler character generation.

I put together some rules for a Monsterhearts one-shot which is similar to this in principle (and I got rid of Skins, to make character creation fast and focused on what we need for the game - rules complexity accrues in play, instead). (Notably, it has basically no NPCs at all, however.)

It worked great; however, everyone agreed afterwards that it was a little too frantic and fast-paced. I may redesign it slightly before I play it again to try to slow down the progress of events, and play again.

How many players do you expect to have for this (or would, ideally)?

It's very interesting that you bring up the slow pace of character creation, as that is exactly what I'm working on right now... It's less interesting thematically than the cards, but basically, the slowest parts I've found are choosing the stat-lines and the moves. The method I'm using right now is to translate each of those into "plain english" as it were. For example, the Angel stat-lines look like this:

Cool+1, Hard=0, Hot+1, Sharp+2, Weird-1

Cool+1, Hard+1, Hot=0, Sharp+2, Weird-1

Cool-1, Hard+1, Hot=0, Sharp+2, Weird+1

Cool+2, Hard=0, Hot-1, Sharp+2, Weird-1

And I've described them, in turn, as Charismatic, Don't take shit from nobody, Blessed by the Psychic Maelstrom, Smooth mover.

How I come to these terms is a mix of, "which stat is higher or lower on this one than any other line?", and "what playstyle do I suspect this would produce?"

The moves are just a basic translation of "what do I get if I take this move" as opposed to the accurate and interesting jargon Lumpley uses. The biggest issue I've had so far is the replacement moves. Exhibit A is the Gunlugger, with both Cool and Weird substitution. Taking Cool-1 and Battle-Hardened makes you better at Acting Under Fire than the 'lugger with Cool+1. Which works... I guess. Maybe I should go the other way? Have them choose the moves first, and then the stats... not sure yet.

The bottleneck with character creation, I've found, is usually how fast and effectively the MC can explain the rules, or rather, the outcomes of the choices of the players. As I'm writing this, I'm considering splitting up all the potential holding/establishment/gang etc. options on, once again, palm cards, with short descriptions of what each option will functionally do (along with some rules and style, as per the drama cards). Maybe the ones that contradict go on one card, and they put a tick on the one they select? Have to look at it in more detail.

Do you still have those MH one-shot rules anywhere? I'd be keen to see them. One lever that you have for controlling the pace is the rate of complexity introduction, by the sounds of it. Then again, that might be counter-productive if you want to slow things down - by introducing new toys, they might be overeager to play with them XD

I don't envision a particular number of players for this, as I always go for 4, or at a pinch, 3-5. The reason I pick four specifically is because the action usually develops into two pairs of characters, meaning I can focus the spotlight on A-plot and B-plot as the drama dictates. Three, and one play can sometimes get left out, and five is edging towards chaos. Six, is right out. Two is interesting, I've found, but it definitely depends on the players.

 

Agreed on all of the above.

The playbooks also have a lot of dense jargony information in them, stuff which must be asked about ("what do these tags mean?" "what's the apocalypse like? do I need a gun?" "how does highlighting work?"), and then some lengthy procedures like Hx. A lot of character creation is kind of "lonely fun", as well (like the Savvyhead detailing their workspace), instead being handled "on-screen".

In a tight one-shot I'd want each mechanical choice to be linked to learning about the characters, situation, and the game. I'd want the opening questions to determine Hx as well as the starting situation.

For example, maybe when you come up with a rumour about another character, that gives you Hx+2 with them, whereas being the one who found the Gunlugger's friend dead means you get +1Hx with the Gunglugger or whatever such other thing.

There's just a LOT of information on the character sheets which will never come up in a one-shot (or ever appear on-screen), and too many choices to make.

My Monsterhearts scenario isn't written up for public consumption yet, but I've played it and it was really fun. Setup involves asking people questions and thereby assigning Strings between the characters. Only character details which matter to relationships are discussed - basically, it's all Hx questions, and those determine the starting situation.

Each character gets to choose one stat, which they are "good" at (the others are just assumed to be 0).

There are no stats or moves until later in the game - supernatural interactions give characters better stats and/or moves, turning them into monsters.

Your hunch about slowing down the pace of the game is quite right: next time I play, I'll just make accruing new moves less available to everyone, and that will slow down the pace somewhat.

When we played, it was a mad scramble from the second scene onwards, with no room to breathe or think. It was fun, but the hectic scramble ruined some potential for drama (or to set up stronger conflicts).

For the stats, you might consider something like my Apocalypse: Emergence rules, with a way to adjust them after you start playing. Or maybe just assign one stat to begin and leave the others open!

For instance, for the Gunlugger:

* You start with Hard+2.
* Hold the following four stat scores: -1, 0, +1, +1.
* When you roll a stat for the first time, assign one of these scores and cross it off.

While I do agree that Hx takes up a long time, I've found it is actually quite effective in getting the setting created. The process of answering questions is one that prompts a lot of further "ok, so how did that work out? Who were you fighting, and why?" However it is quite slow... Maybe just writing them out larger...

Topical idea! Each Hx question is written out on, you guessed it, even more palm cards, with room for a name (but only one), and the number written quite large. If it changes at any point during play, it is then written into the Hx section. If it doesn't, no biggy, they've got a reminder of how they were connected to some other player.

I love palm cards. They solve all my problems.

Palm cards palm cards palm cards.

While you're point on the stat-lines is perfectly valid, I do recall vaguely reading something Lumpley said when someone complained about how restrictive they were. If I can find the post I'll link it here, but it was to do with how the numbers added up vertically not just horizontally. As in, if you add up all the non-main stats (e.g ignore Cool for Battlebabes) down the line, you can come up with rather interesting numbers. Like, add up all the Sharp values for the Driver, and you get +4, while if you add up all the Gunlugger Hot stats you get -7. Which certainly tells you something about the Gunlugger as a playbook. Another thing would be the max and min values, Hardholders rarely have a Hot score other than +1, while Choppers are the exact inverse with Weird.

You feel me? I'm not sure I feel comfortable diluting the... poetry? Of the stats just for the sake of a few extra minutes.

Oh. Wait. That contradicts everything I've said about speed being key. Hm... Maybe a midpoint would be, some of the playbooks have a strong stat, while some have a strong AND a weak stat already written in...?

I think while I was trying to create a quick start sheet for the Hocus, I was stumped. I couldn't figure out any rhyme or reason for their stats, and none of them go above or below ±1. Maybe this represents the fact that Hocus's can come from any walk of life, and be any kind of person? Design purposes aside, your A:E rules would work fine with them. I wonder whether any other playbooks are (un)arranged like this as well.

Yeah, I think giving some thought to how "in line" with the playbooks you want the options to be is worthwhile.

There are definitely better options than what I wrote here. I like Monsterhearts' (1st Ed) "baseline" stats, which you can add 1 to, for example.

For Hx, I think some of the options are really great ("Who's been watching you sleep?") while others are fairly vague or "soft" (in terms of implications). For the goals of the game, this works pretty well. For a really tight one shot, however, I find having two sets of Hx details between each character to be too much to remember and bring into play. I'd rather see each option or question tie directly into a) something about the character, b) something about their relationship to someone else, and c) the situation we're about to play out.

I'd prefer to see something like:

"Your stats start at [some baseline]. Add 1 to a stat of your choice.

Now, choose 2 of the following moves:

* Bloodcrazed.
   - Add 1 to your Hard.
   - You add +1harm to any harm you deal.
   - You are notorious because you killed: [choose one NPC].
   - Another PC was there when it happened: ask the other players who it was. At the time, it seems like that character stood in your way and you left them bleeding. Tell them to write Hx+3 with you.

* [another move] ..."

And that's it for your character, maybe.

Meanwhile, the other players have lists of names to choose from, too. Maybe the [NPC] the Bloodcrazed person decided they killed is listed as a member of the Chopper's gang, or was the Angel's assistant, or was in charge of the water supply... So now we know they effectively have history, right? This Bloodcrazed person killed someone in your gang! What are you gonna do about it?

This way we only have a few choices to make (I like your idea of putting them on cards and handing them out), but we instantly have a pregnant situation, and we get all our stats and other mechanical bits in ways which instantly connect to something fictional, as well.

Something like that. You grab two-three of these cards and you have your character, and by answering a couple of questions, we have the situation, too.

Wow I love that! Never thought of linking the moves and Hx in that way. Linking to both an NPC and another player seems like a cool move as well. It's official, there are no issues that cannot be fixed by small pieces of paper. I'd have to chop and change, but the whole "Just pick up two/three cards and follow all the instructions" really clicks with me. To the drawing board!

EDIT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16LfJFE9xub500oK8sJt1EtLowgHMmuzmaJGaUottpYk/edit?usp=sharing

Yeah, that's kind of the idea.

I'd want character creation to be that simple, and then also to connect people to the fictional situation (the way your original cards do).

Simplifying mechanically can be good, too, like if you get one move to start, and then the game is set up so that you'll score an advance after an hour of play or so, to get a second move. Less front-loading; more to explore in play.

The downside is that you have to redesign AW character creation, of course, as well as the playbooks. :)

the only issue I see with that draft Spwack is that the angel I'm currently playing has none of those moves! Give me my weird-ass battlefield healer!


I shared the palmcards on the RPG talk discord to general love. One request was edit and choose font to ensure can be read in dim lighting.

Ahh! It's not finished! Every move will eventually be written up, and the only thing that's being ACTUALLY changed so far is Hx. And maybe stats. But those might just be made into cards as well. It's not so much changing the rules, as changing the formatting to assist with a specific kind of play. That is, throwing a bunch of stuff at a player and getting them to pick things, but in a less neat (i.e. one page) fashion.

I would do font thingies, but G Docs aren't my favourite for editing in that fashion, but I do see why that would be important. What was the name of that channel, by chance? I love positive reinforcement feedback in all forms.

https://discordapp.com/channels/306423168921370625/306423168921370625

powered by the apocalypse channel.