|
Halloween Jack posted:Well, on the face of it, that's clear-cut. At the one end, you have "Do as I say or get hurt" and at the other end, you have those movie scenes where the hero goes bugfuck crazy and relies on nothing but firepower and luck (armor and cocaine optional). Well, any specific situations that come up you should direct to me (  ) but given what you said - if you were to say "hey rear end in a top hat," draw and fire, that's Seize By Force. If you were to say "hey rear end in a top hat," draw and not fire, that's Go Aggro.That being said, sniping in AW always reads a little different to me. Not that there's anything about a sniper rifle, but the whole act of committing violence on an unsuspecting person from a distance where they're unlikely to know you're already there. In that case you'd always Go Aggro. You're not SBFing while sniping unless there's already some sort of pitched battle going on (in which case NOT TO BE hosed WITH would trigger also). That's just my GM's take on it, and every situation is different. Things are only too aggro to Go Aggro if and only if there's actual violence going on RIGHT NOW.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Hey guys, Dr. Idle is currently recruiting for tremulus, AW's Lovecraftian Investigative Horror offshoot. We could use a couple of players! If you're like me and are always curious to check out how the Engine got adapted for something new, we'd love you to join. As always, you don't really need to buy the game to play as the playbooks are free and are pretty much self-explanatory. Their storefront where you can download the playbooks: http://realityblurs.com/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=24 I've also uploaded them to a file-sharing thing for those who can't be bothered to go through the purchase windows for a $0.00 file: http://www.filedropper.com/theclassicplaybookpackage Megazver fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Oct 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
One of my players is The Dean, a seventy year old Hardholder who's been around since Before, and runs a community out of an old community college. His hold details don't really matter, but he claims to have spent the years since the world ended trying to set up a center of culture and learning. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble with his default sized hold (150 souls) and his assumption that he has experts ("Faculty") in a wide variety of fields. I passive aggressively jotted this down on the back of my Fronts worksheets after it became a problem: When the Dean does that thing where he thinks his hold has anyone he wants in it, roll +? 10: Fine, whatever, you've got it. 7-9: Fine, but pick one -He lacks field experience, his knowledge comes exclusively from textbooks -She's part of the Cult Of She, and is likely to be whacked out on stolen pharmaceutical narcotics when you need her -He doesn't support the war effort against the University; he'll drag his feet on any project -She can do it, but she needs more department funding. Make some more promissory Deanbucks. <6: Ain't got poo poo As written it doesn't work so well, but I think the Hardholder could really stand to have a loving Thieves type move for people in the community. Fiat is all well and good, but I like being flexible with a story game like AW, but at the same time I don't want to just give the Hardholder everything he wants, especially when it devalues the other PCs ability to contribute meaningfully to the story. Any ideas? (Yes, we talked about it like adults, but we couldn't find a good solution. The move I jotted down was never used, I was just brainstorming during a smoke break.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
That's a wicked cool hardholder, right there. Anyway, the thing about the Hardholder is that their hold often comes with more responsibility than perks. Like, they get to lead their gang in battle, but they don't get to control everyone in the hold. Every single faculty member is a unique person with their own agenda and the hardholder doesn't necessarily dictate what they do. They only get to directly control their gang and even then, it's just for battles, right? I don't think you necessarily need a move for it (although that could work fine too). What I would do is go "oh, you're looking for the communications guy? Yeah, no one's seen him around lately, I wonder what that's about?" Or "huh, yeah, your anthropologist is in her office but she's pissed right now. Why's she so mad?" poo poo like that. Make them real people with their own problems and goals. They make demands, they go on strike, that kinda thing. The hardholder is in charge but he has to actively maintain that authority. What happens when the faculty goes on strike and his only obvious form of control comes from his army? How do they react? How else does he keep them appeased? The Hardholder is a lot of fun but it's actually the most troublesome playbook to pick. Everyone wants you to solve their problems. Give him problems along with his resources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Agreed on this. I had a lot of fun playing a Hardholder but also a lot of pressures both internal and external. Really, the Hardholder should have more problems than anyone else. But that's part of the fun, because you're looking at a larger scope than most everybody else. I was feeling more involved and invested in that game than I'd been feeling in the other AW games I've played. Makes me want to play a hardholder again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
The advice in the book says "always give them what they earned, what they work for." That doesn't mean "what they want, whenever they want." Honestly, this is a cool and unique vision of a hardhold and I'd encourage it. Just be sure to stress all the o ligations and bullshitthat comes with leadership. It's not all bossing people around and getting what you want. It's really about keeping everyone happy, keeping them in line, and balancing the firmness of authority with the benevolence required for respect to blossom. Before I had any's management positions, I imagined it was more money and less grunt work. Totally off-base. I'm curious what specific demands he has that are creating issues, so we can dissect them more. But my instinctive answer is "these are not slaves. They follow the Holder fora reason, and that includes him meeting their demands and earning their respect. Push that stuff and push it hard. Sometimes, make them refusenorders. See what happens. Make triangles with the other PCs, like the Botanist is in love with the Skinner. When the Holder wants his botanist, he has to get flavors through the same Skinner. Stuff like that. Finally, if he's sending his faculty out on missions, they're not a gang. You get to decide their fate. These are all ammunition for making his life interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Well, any specific situations that come up you should direct to me (
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Thanks, Foo, I was going to direct your attention to this post. Now I'll stop being a prick and post what Dozer's been doing. hey, it's cool. My first apoc world experience ever was playing a gunlugger with a sniper rifle, and I definitely agree, it complicates already one of the most nuanced distinctions in the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
The most basic generalization is always: one-sided violence is Aggro, two-sided violence is Seize; this is true. But it really goes much deeper, for reals. Just spending your move to hurt someone is always gonna give you less than if you state your goals first. Tell the MC why you're doing it and what your real goal is: "to protect X," "to keep them from doing X,"etc. Then you will not only hurt or kill them, but you will get a shot at a larger goal. Vincent has written a lot about this if you poke around his blog and forums. He stated that one of his goals was to show that violence israrely useful for its own sake; it's usually a means to an end. So he wrote a resolution system concerned with the ends and not just the means. It is hella cool to see it used for big-picture goals in conflicts and clears up most confusion. It really sings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Boing posted:I played in an Apoc World game for the first time the other day, having come from playing/GMing Dungeon World previously. It had a rocky start since the GM was new and he didn't set us up in medias res. Basically he had us start out in a fairly peaceful settlement on a normal day, which is terrible for pacing. There was the town doctor (Angel), the town stuff-fixer (Savvyhead) and me, the wasteland justice vigilante (Brainer). Since I was the only character who had any motive beyond "just get on with my life", and the GM didn't throw anything at us, I felt I was backseat GMing a lot. It turned out ok in the end, and the next session should be better, but AW in general feels like a slightly more awkward system than DW. DW's Defy Danger is a really nice all-around move to have, whereas AW has the whole Seize By Force / Go Aggro bumble thing which none of us really understood, and the GM didn't know what to do when I make moves like "I shoot the running guy in the kneecap with my 9mm". Are you meant to use Act Under Pressure as a sort of Defy Danger-type move in that sort of case? Out of interest, are you at Nottingham University? I think I had this exact game described to me in real life the other day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Scrape posted:The most basic generalization is always: one-sided violence is Aggro, two-sided violence is Seize; this is true. But it really goes much deeper, for reals. Just spending your move to hurt someone is always gonna give you less than if you state your goals first. Tell the MC why you're doing it and what your real goal is: "to protect X," "to keep them from doing X,"etc. Then you will not only hurt or kill them, but you will get a shot at a larger goal. Vincent has written a lot about this if you poke around his blog and forums. He stated that one of his goals was to show that violence israrely useful for its own sake; it's usually a means to an end. So he wrote a resolution system concerned with the ends and not just the means. It is hella cool to see it used for big-picture goals in conflicts and clears up most confusion. It really sings. VB should put together an AW Advanced that includes the clarifications on Aggro/Seize and some of the other useful things he's said on his blog or in the forums.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:VB should put together an AW Advanced that includes the clarifications on Aggro/Seize and some of the other useful things he's said on his blog or in the forums. He's mostly done with the game and experimenting with new things. That's the impression I get when talking to him, at least: he's been into nanogames recently but said he s working on something new right now (I'm lucky enough to play in a DCC campaign with him, of all things). I was considering writing up a guide similar to the DW guide that Evil Mastermind and I did, but the game has been out so long and is pretty saturated with hacks, forums, and blog posts. Still, it might be fun. Edit: honestly, I wish John Harper would write "ApocEngine Under the Hood", that guy has brilliant insights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
MadRhetoric posted:VB should put together an AW Advanced that includes the clarifications on Aggro/Seize and some of the other useful things he's said on his blog or in the forums. I'd love to see an annotated edition like Ron Edwards did with Sorcerer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Because this got me thinking about the old Seize/Aggro debate: People usually define Seize/Aggro depending on whether the violence is one-sided, or if blows are being exchanged. I used to do this. But if you look a little deeper, that's not really what the moves are about. When you Go Aggro, you're making a demand and backing it up with violence. If you're notwilling to commit violence, it's a Manipulate using "the threat of violence" as leverage. But if you are 100% willing to pull that trigger, it's Aggro. The interesting thing is, you don't always get to make that choice. Sometimes your victim gets to choose to suck it up, or back down or whatever. The move happens, though, not when you pull a trigger but instead when you decide that you're willing to. That's an interesting thing to say about violence in our hobby, yeah? That the character's skill with a gun is less important than their capacity to commit violence. That's why the stat is Hard and not Weapon Training. So Seize comes into the mix when you're no longer making demands. You're not asking for anything, you are taking, god dammit, and you don't care about consequences. In simplistic terms, it's a two-way battle. Both sides will get hurt. That's why it's an oft-used "combat roll." But on a deeper level, both sides get hurt because we are past demands and concessions. You're no longer saying "give me the map or I shoot" (that's Aggro). Now you're saying "I want the map and I want it now and I'm shooting him, gently caress it." There are no "hands up, give them what they want" options in Seize. Seize is a hosed-up violent move for when reason has failed you and you've given up on concessions. It's a peripheral move, not the default combat move, because it's really some "fight like animals no backing down no negotiating" poo poo. I think this dichotomy is really neat! I think it's cooler than a hit-roll, this thing where we ask what violence is really for and what you're tryingto accomplish by resorting to violence. This is the true meaning behind Seize vs Aggro, as I see it. Scrape fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Scrape, so in your understanding of the moves, my example of "gently caress you" draws and fires doesn't provide enough information to actually determine which move it is? Reason hadn't failed per se, it wasn't even attempted. Thought: the Go Aggro non-dichotomy of suck it up (getting shot) or forcing their hand (to get shot) stops making sense, when put the way you have. In fact, that's not the choice even presented. What do you want? For them to stop being a threat. Suck it up -> They bail out / Force your hand -> violence (Go Aggro) What do you want? For them to die now. -> Seize Life by Force Seems like unless your end goal is 100%, no questions asked, to loving hurt them, you're always Going Aggro. Even if you'd probably RATHER shoot them than not, unless you're flat out going to, you're Going Aggro. e- in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that your conception is wrong because (or even though) it violates the book-given example of the get-shot/get-shot (non-)choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Hmmm, no, I don't mean to imply that the usual "one-sided or exchanging blows" paradigm is wrong, just that it goes deeper than that. Most roleplayers are trained to make a hit roll, but these moves encompass much more than just that. You can totally say "I am going Aggro and what I want is for him to die." That's valid. What I'm saying is that it's sub-optimal; that you can get much more out of your move by saying "I want him to leave Mamie the gently caress alone, forever, and I'll kill him if I have to" and it's the same roll with better results for you. My previous post was just delving a little into the meaning and psychology behind the moves. Vincent has said that one of the statements he wanted to make was that violence is rarely just committed- it's committed for a reason[, to accomplish something, and he wanted his rules to reflect that. When you bypass bargains, threats, demands and just go straight for the killing, reason has failed you whether you attempted it or not. The character has chosen to go the hard route, to not offer concessions or the chance for surrender. It's a choice more often than not, and if you choose Seize, that means something. Does that more sense?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Like, sometimes your goal is totally 100% to just hurt them, and you're going for Seize. But that involves trading harm. You could have used threats first, you could have given the situation a chance to de-escalate. But you didn't. It's a great example of how the game showcases consequences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Hmmm, no, I don't mean to imply that the usual "one-sided or exchanging blows" paradigm is wrong, just that it goes deeper than that. Most roleplayers are trained to make a hit roll, but these moves encompass much more than just that. You can totally say "I am going Aggro and what I want is for him to die." That's valid. What I'm saying is that it's sub-optimal; that you can get much more out of your move by saying "I want him to leave Mamie the gently caress alone, forever, and I'll kill him if I have to" and it's the same roll with better results for you. So it's sort of like "I'll kill him if I have to" vs. "I have to kill him"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Scrape posted:I was considering writing up a guide similar to the DW guide that Evil Mastermind and I did, but the game has been out so long and is pretty saturated with hacks, forums, and blog posts. Which is exactly why it needs a concise, streamlined resource for consultation about all of this information that is scattered around, especially for new players and GMs who have trouble getting over the initial hump in thinking required to play AW. I remember reading the DW thread and seeing how hard it was for people to wrap their heads around it, and that game benefits from everyone and their grandma being familiar with the genre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Maybe I'll try my hand at an AW guide. Hell, a lot of my previous DW advice applies anyway. Anyway, I'ma muse a little more on Seize while we're on topic. Here's a Seize example from my campaign. The Gunlugger is prowling around some ruins, checking out this gang that's moved in. He discovers that a bunch of local kids have followed him (because they think he's Rambo or something, they love him). The kids are loud, they attract the attention of the local gang, poo poo goes south quickly. The Gunlugger races toward the gang, guns blazing, and his player is like "I'ma kill 'em all! That's Seize, right? I'm Seizing their life or something?" That's fair, sure. We can do that. But I don't think he's really interested in just mayhem here. I think he's got a goal. I go, "sure, you can handle eight gangers, you're Not To Be hosed With. But this gang, they're gunning for the kids. If you chase them around the ruins you'll probably be able to mop them up but there's a good chance they'll find some of those kids while you're at it." The player thinks about this. "What I really want is to protect the kids. Can we say I'm Seizing their safety? Or securing a safe zone for them?" HELL YES, that's what he really wants out of the fight. Not just to slaughter; to gain something. Mechanically it's thesame Seize roll, but fictionally he got way more out of his success: I can't kill off a kid if he succeeds, because we made the roll about that instead of about killing baddies. So he nailed his roll, killed off a bunch of gangers and took a flesh wound. All that would've happened anyway, but he also saved every single kid. So that's what I'm getting at. You can absolutely use Aggro/Seize as standard rpg combat rolls, but they're much more valuable and nuanced. Using Aggro to shoot a guy from a distance istotally viable but it's not exactly interesting, right? Making a threat and backing it up, that's interesting. There's a reason they're not called Kill A Guy, y'know? (In case it's not obvious, I love these moves)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Hmmm, no, I don't mean to imply that the usual "one-sided or exchanging blows" paradigm is wrong, just that it goes deeper than that. Most roleplayers are trained to make a hit roll, but these moves encompass much more than just that. You can totally say "I am going Aggro and what I want is for him to die." That's valid. What I'm saying is that it's sub-optimal; that you can get much more out of your move by saying "I want him to leave Mamie the gently caress alone, forever, and I'll kill him if I have to" and it's the same roll with better results for you. I definitely like what you're saying (and your other posts too), but I still want to go through this line of thinking. Isn't Go Aggro "I want something OR I will hurt you?" Manipulate with violence as leverage is "I want something, and I could hurt you if I don't get it." Seize is "I want something AND I am hurting you to get it." I know the move isn't called Kill a Guy, and I agree that makes it a lot more useful. I definitely need to start asking "what are you really trying to get" when people want to kill a guy. Do we agree that my propositions are appropriate framework statements of intent for each move?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
I think Foo and Scrape are basically saying the same thing, but one thing that I think people keep overlooking is that you can also just deal damage, no move required. Here's the situations that I see: Joe walks into the crowded bar, steps up to Bob who is unarmed and unaware. Joe pulls out his big loving gun and shoots Bob in the back of the head.  Damage is dealt, Bob is dead on the floor and now Joe has to deal with the consequences of shooting an unarmed man. Joe walks into the crowded bar, steps up to Bob who is well armed and aware. Joe pulls his big loving gun out and tries to shoot Bob before Bob can shoot back. Joe is trying to Seize the initiative. Now Joe has to deal with the consequences of getting shot at in a bar full of people. Joe walks into the crowded bar, steps up to Bob who is well armed but not aware. Joe pulls out his big loving gun, points it at the side of Bobs head and says "Give me the goods or I'll blow you away" Joe fully intends to follow through so he is going aggro. Now Joe has to deal with the consequences of blowing away the only guy who could give him what he wanted. Joe Walks into the crowded bar, steps up to Bob who is well armed but not aware. Joe pulls out his big loving gun, points it at the side of Bobs head and says "Give me the goods or I'll blow you away" Joe doesn't actually want to kill Bob so now he's manipulating him with the threat of violence as his leverage. Now Joe has to deal with the consequences of Bob calling his bluff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
That's an excellent point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
I don't know if it's me or my players but I think a lot of the subtler nuances of Go Aggro/SBF are lost on us. Generally, in a combat situation, my players generally just want the other guys to die, as quickly as possible. If I were to ask them what they want out of this combat the answer's probably going to be "Me to survive and them to not" I just feel like a lot of the confusion could be abated if there was a move for Kill This Person. So that I could crack that out when my Faceless is being attacked by horrible flesh hounds he doesn't give a poo poo about apart from he would like them to not be attacking him and preferably dead and I don't have to feel like I'm ignoring the moves' intended purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:I don't know if it's me or my players but I think a lot of the subtler nuances of Go Aggro/SBF are lost on us. Generally, in a combat situation, my players generally just want the other guys to die, as quickly as possible. If I were to ask them what they want out of this combat the answer's probably going to be "Me to survive and them to not" As Scrape said, think about WHY you're in a conflict situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Hell, in the situation you just explained, it very well could be Acting Under Fire. e - oops double poast
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
If the PCs aren't trying to accomplish something through the violence that's going on, then why are they involved in a fight in the first place? If its because things keep attacking them, then I would guess that the game's not really following the agenda/principles. The PCs should be proactive, and the action should focus on what they're doing as a result. If they're being proactive, then there should be some goal to their violence. If they're just being attacked by dogs in the wilderness, that's not a terribly interesting scene as far as AW is concerned. I'd agree with Foo and call it Act Under Fire real briefly and move on to something else. edit: By the by, I'm not saying you can't play a game about fighting dogs in the wilderness, I'm just saying that's not really what AW is built for, so yeah, it will resist you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
I think it's profoundly silly to nix "have a big fight and kill bad guys dead" as a goal in a post-apocalypse game. Edit: To be less glib and more profound myself, I get that violence is always instrumental unless a PC just plain hates someone. (I'm playing a character who just plain hates someone right now, and even then, I could phrase a Seize by Force move as seizing my reputation or my dignity.) But in a game where everyone expects combat, the genre is full of combat, and the MC will probably embroil the PCs in combat for everyone's entertainment, a call for clarification on how violence works isn't misguided. It's great that the game plays up what should matter in a post-apocalypse--humans dealing with one another in a state of constant devouring scarcity--but sometimes you just want to show a pack of brutes you are NOT TO BE hosed WITH on your way across the rag-wastes to the next hardhold. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Yes, Foo and I are agreeing. There's a psychology behind the moves and we're explaining it in different ways, that's all. I don't think there should be a Kill A Guy move; the whole point is that violence isn't something you should easily commit, not for real people. And that's the player agenda, yeah? To portray real people. It's a means to an end. If your players' goal is just to kill people, what does that say about them? Whatare they fighting for? I really like that Vincent built motive into his resolution. A lot of rpg players' first instinct is to shoot their way past a problem. The game wants them to think deeper about the how and why. It's cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
I'm not saying that sometimes you don't wanna just kill someone. I'm just saying that Vincent wrote the move so that you have to think about it. Rather than Kill A Guy, the Aggro move is "Make a Demand and Back it Up With Violence." If your demand is "I want you to die," the book says that is valid. But you have to consciously go "I'm not demanding anything but death here. I'm not telling him to get lost, I'm not telling him to hand over the suitcase. I have chosen to kill and only to kill." Other games might let you threaten and then back it up with your Shoot skill, but here they're inseparable. That means that first of all, you can get more by consciously making a demand from your violence, some outcome beyond killing. It also means that if you don't do that, if your only stakes are "I wanna kill," it's more meaningful because you didn't have to do that. You could've said "I want you to go away and never come back. If not, I will shoot." And instead you went "I'm gonna kill you, I'm not giving you a way out." It's visceral and palpable at the table. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I had a situation where Mama Shark, my hardholder, was facing a rival she had history with, this warlord that was giving her trouble and that she'd once had a child by. And she basically decided she wanted him dead for the security of her town. She just distrusted him that much. It was a battle she'd been specially gearing up, and the reason why she had a large and well-equipped small army. It ended in her gang mowing down him and most of his gang in a full-out battle. I didn't understand the subleties of the Hard moves as fully (or at least consciously) as I do now especially after seeing this discussion, but I still wouldn't have changed my choice. Someone else? She might've wanted to capture them alive, even if just for a trial and execution. But this particular guy? All she wanted was him dead. It's too bad the game died out--it'd have been interesting to see what followed from that (and there were assorted other problems going on, most of which required more than violence to deal with).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Other games might let you threaten and then back it up with your Shoot skill, but here they're inseparable. That means that first of all, you can get more by consciously making a demand from your violence, some outcome beyond killing. It also means that if you don't do that, if your only stakes are "I wanna kill," it's more meaningful because you didn't have to do that. You could've said "I want you to go away and never come back. If not, I will shoot." And instead you went "I'm gonna kill you, I'm not giving you a way out." It's visceral and palpable at the table. I love it. Yeah, exactly  I'm not sure I fully understood before this discussion, but at no point do I think I disagreed. My understanding of the two moves (and really, all four [AUF, S/M, SBF, GO]) have been enhanced and I hope my games will be as well!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:Yeah, exactly Oh yeah, I never thought we were arguing or anything, it's good to discuss this stuff and even disagree. That's how insights happen, I think. The more I play, read, and think about the ApocEngine, the more nuances I discover. Vincent puts a lot of thought into his game mechanics but he's often very obtuse about explaining them. It's fun to peel away the layers and see the moving parts. If you haven't already, read John Harper's blog and his posts in the apoc forums, because he has written seriously awesome stuff that will really up your game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Oh yeah, I never thought we were arguing or anything, it's good to discuss this stuff and even disagree. That's how insights happen, I think. The more I play, read, and think about the ApocEngine, the more nuances I discover. Vincent puts a lot of thought into his game mechanics but he's often very obtuse about explaining them. It's fun to peel away the layers and see the moving parts. I actually wasn't sure at some points if we were disagreeing, haha. I'll have to check some of Harper's stuff out. Do you have any recommendations in particular?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Scrape posted:Yes, Foo and I are agreeing. There's a psychology behind the moves and we're explaining it in different ways, that's all. I don't think there should be a Kill A Guy move; the whole point is that violence isn't something you should easily commit, not for real people. And that's the player agenda, yeah? To portray real people. It's a means to an end. If your players' goal is just to kill people, what does that say about them? Whatare they fighting for? I guess part of the problem is that the particular character I'm thinking of is an unabashed murdersatan. The current plot is actually really cool and I think I can definitely make something of this situation - the character's arc so far has been a hell of a wild ride: he started out as an enforcer for the Chopper and now, months later, the Chopper lying dead in the dirt at someone else's hands, the Faceless is the hardholder of a reasonably prosperous town. The problem is that he got there by a small amount of thought and a whole lot of murder. He rubs every NPC the wrong way, he's an obvious crazy person, his professed agenda is psychotic at best and nobody feels safe with him around but a) he's demonstrated that he is not to be hosed with and after the fourth or so time he personally murdered fifty armed bastards sent to kill him, people kinda got the message and b) having an unkillable doombot for mayor does send a message. The current development is that the Angel and Brainer have implanted the idea of socialised health care into the hardhold - partially because they believe in it and partially because jingle is good - and the townspeople went to the Faceless mayor about it. He agreed that everyone contributing resources to the betterment of the town would be a good idea and promptly went to go visit the town's richest citizens to convince them to back the plan. First guy he walked in, flatly told him to back the plan or die, Seized By Force when the guy refused, then walked outside and publically lambasted him for his selfishness while holding him up in the air. He said he'd be back - the NPC is planning on leaving town. In addition to this, the Faceless flat-out ignored the man's bodyguard shooting him with a magnum because of how the armor rules work. Second trip, the big one. The centrepiece of the town is a weapons factory run by a tyrant named Rigg. I'm really happy with the relationship between Rigg and the party - he's been an on and off badguy turned ally. The one thing that's been clear is that the weapons factory is the reason the town exists and Rigg is the only one who can run it. Faceless walks in, gives Rigg the same deal and then literally just murders him and all his men singlehandedly when Rigg tells him to gently caress off. He only went up to 6:00 while fighting a gang. This is a turning point. Without being a snide John Wick GM and making the party's life hell, I want to let the Faceless know that he hosed up big-time by calling Rigg out on his bluff that he's irreplaceable. Without the factory, the town is doomed - even though its citizens will be happier without the tyrant. More importantly for the Faceless, no factory means no delicious AP ammo. This is the point where I want to make it clear that simply killing one's enemies is not good enough. Partially because holy gently caress is AW busted at high levels and that character is unkillable so there's no a lot of point challenging him with badder asses to kick, but also because dammit character development. Anyway, I don't want to mess this game up and the advice of you fine people would be appreciated, but back to the original point - how do you express these higher ideals of Going Aggro and Seizing By Force by philosophically asking the character what they want out of this conflict when said character is a dead-eyed mask wearing stone cold freak whose only answer is going to be "I want them to die" Edit: Regarding John Harper's stuff, he's written some very good pieces but I absolutely disagree that SBF is a peripheral move. The way we've been playing, at least, it's the go-to for loving people's poo poo up. By putting yourself at risk of harm, a decent SBF roll lets you clean house. The potential for -1 harm received +1 harm done turns you into a loving powerhouse. My players have gone toe to toe with large gangs and won because of that move. Doodmons fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:First guy he walked in, flatly told him to back the plan or die, Seized By Force when the guy refused, This is clearly a Go Aggro situation. quote:Faceless walks in, gives Rigg the same deal and then literally just murders him and all his men singlehandedly when Rigg tells him to gently caress off Thus, this is a Go Aggro situation. As you say, you can do a lot of damage and become extremely powerful with a good SBF roll, but it shouldn't be there all the time. Your Faceless isn't murdering to murder, he's fighting because they forced his hand. That's been done, though. So now consider other threats that won't be quite as easy to flat-out murder. So the hold is less secure now? Maybe you've got maelstrom cultists popping up...but you can't tell who they are, other than that a psychic buzz is settling in, starting to drive people mad(der). If the town is doomed, doom it. Let them figure out how to get out of a situation that shooting doesn't work in. e- you don't get to go aggro and then immediately sbf. At best, you get to inflict harm as established, and then maybe you're acting under fire, and then who knows.... Captain Foo fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:This is clearly a Go Aggro situation. In the latter, he Go Aggro'd and Rigg forced his hand. He did harm as established, beating the poo poo out of Rigg. When the guards showed up, much Seizing By Force of their lives was had. In the former, I believe what actually happened is that before we got to rolling for the Go Aggro, the man pointed out that Faceless was standing on top of a bomb and Faceless said "I guess I'll put him in a headlock then"
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
All this discussion is really good, and making me thing a lot about the combat moves in my hack. Right now I've got two moves that are basically gently caress a guy up, as a matter of fact they're called "Smoke his rear end" and "Deliver a Deatdown" and they work like Dungeon World's Volley and Hack & Slash moves. Although just busting a guy up is appropriate for 70s action movies, I really dig the idea of purposeful violence the way it works in ApocWorld, I love that the determining factor in dealing damage isn't your skill at dealing it but your actual determination to go through with it. My concern is that the Go Aggro/Seize/Act Under Fire system is so hard to articulate to a new player or GM. It's so easy to say "Here's the move to punch somebody" as opposed to "here is the move if you intend to punch somebody and really mean it." Anybody got any ideas on how to condense all this discussion into a couple of paragraphs that a newbie to *world games could understand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
A 70s action movie hack is the thing I want most in the entire world. Please have a move for all playbooks that grants experience if you make really morbid or inappropriate quips. Knife to meet you
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Boing posted:A 70s action movie hack is the thing I want most in the entire world. Please have a move for all playbooks that grants experience if you make really morbid or inappropriate quips. There is a general rule about the GM giving people +1 to a roll for especially funny or cool one liners. I should have a document for people to check out in a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 09:00
|
|