|
It doesn't seem as setting defining as the quarantine though.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
I'm looking for a couple more people to play test Malleus over Roll20. Is it appropriate to post in this thread about that, or do I need to make a Game Room thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
thefakenews posted:I'm looking for a couple more people to play test Malleus over Roll20. Is it appropriate to post in this thread about that, or do I need to make a Game Room thread? I'd suggest doing both. It's the best way to get people. Make a nice thread explaining what to expect and link it here and in the TG Recruitment Megathread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The first new AW2 playbook was just released: The Waterbearer I like how you could use it to play both your soulful, conflict resolving religious healer type, or Immortan Joe... A Good playbook, and an interesting counterpoint/co-pilot to the Hardholder Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
I like how it's got elements of the Hardholder, the Maestro'D, and the Hocus, but takes the ideas in a different direction. Man, I'd love to play a Maestro'D in the same game as a Waterbearer. You could get some really interesting dynamics going on there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
JesterOfAmerica posted:It doesn't seem as setting defining as the quarantine though. There's more flexibility than the name and flavor say. If you ignore a couple of options you could make it gasoline, food, shelter, relics, something like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:There's more flexibility than the name and flavor say. If you ignore a couple of options you could make it gasoline, food, shelter, relics, something like that. It gets us one step closer to AW: Arrakis, which is obviously the most important thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
I didn't like how the relationship stuff was working in Impulse Drive, so I've decided to try a version that uses Monsterhearts-style social currency. here's some rules I'm toying with.quote:Impulse Drive Hooks I'm not sure about the +1 Healing and +1 Harm Hook moves, and how they would end up interacting with the harm and healing economy. Especially when they interact with Hook-gaining moves. edit: thefakenews posted:I'm looking for a couple more people to play test Malleus over Roll20. Is it appropriate to post in this thread about that, or do I need to make a Game Room thread? I'm interested! This game continues to intrigue me!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
Covok posted:I'd suggest doing both. It's the best way to get people. Make a nice thread explaining what to expect and link it here and in the TG Recruitment Megathread. So I have done did that thing. madadric posted:I'm interested! This game continues to intrigue me! Follow the above link. Although, from recollection, you are in Australia, so the current suggested playing times might not suit. Go ahead and leave a post in the recruit thread though as I'm happy to look at other times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
I like the idea of Strings, but Hooks are already a thing in RPG parlance. (Like Feng Shui's melodramatic hooks.) So YMMV. If you want the perfect word, rewatch/reread your source material and listen for phrases like "You owe me one" or "I'm doing you a favor." That's where the synonym will be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Covok posted:I can see this causing some controversy alongside the quarantine becoming core as it does define a bit of the apocalypse for you. It's called out in the Quarantine playbook that if it's not in play, then what it says about the setting is not true. I'd say the same should apply to the Waterbearer. But that's what I like about them. If someone in my game grabs Waterbearer, then I know they want THE source of clean drinking water (why would you choose another option, that's the best one). Same with Quarantine, that guy wants answers about the Apocalypse itself. I've had a player take Savvyhead and make the water purification for the cruiseliner everyone lived on be part of his workshop. It's a very fun dynamic. Worth noting is that by default the Waterbearer has no way to enforce his monopoly on water besides closing off access. You don't have a gang unless you take an advance. I like what that says about your relationships with other people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
I think the Waterbearer says less about the apocalypse than it first appears. Most of us are likely from places where clean water is an assumption, something we count on without thinking about it. But even a casual glance at the news right now shows just how tenuous that really is. There are a handful of regions where clean, fresh water is plentiful and easily found. But for most of the world, the fresh water available needs treatment to be safely potable. Or, its locked up in underground sources, requiring well digging and maintenance. You don't need a Mad Max style desertpunk world for clean water to become a critical resource, or even one with a particularly nasty apocalypse to contaminate it. Once the treatment plants and pumping stations shut down, once the pipes start to fail and corrode, once you start burying the people who knew how to make and maintain those things, readily available clean water rapidly becomes a thing of the past. It still says certain things about the world, but it's not nearly as narrow a concept as it might first appear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Threats preview for AW 2nd Edition The previews are doing a great job of getting me interested in running the game again soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Terrain makes perfect sense. Vehicles seems kinda meh, but I guess they have to after Fury Road.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Backer copies of The Sprawl just got sent out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
xiw posted:Backer copies of The Sprawl just got sent out. Is it any good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Covok posted:Is it any good? So far it seems solid. The approach it takes to cyberware is good - provides tags and narrative abilities, and also access to take cross-playbook moves as advances. That makes 'ware better than gear, but not in an unbalanced way. 'Ware is harder to get and has a higher cost, but the benefits accrue over time rather than providing an immediate jump in power above buying the synonomous gear. It does some smart things with pre-mission prep and resources. You get +intel and +gear, and can use it mid-mission to pull out just the right plan or piece of equipment to solve a problem. That is, to retroactively claim you were prepared for something. There's a lot of moving parts though and I'm not sure every playbook's starting moves have the narrative heft to hold their own. xian is running a game of it now, so I'll know more soon. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
I've only played one game of it and it was run by the author, so bias, but the bit I particularly liked was how everything ties back to corporations loving you over with the clocks etc - the corps being everywhere is a nice alignment of narrative and mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
I also liked it (and was in an author game), but the playbooks seem thick as a brick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
The wise men didn't know how they felt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
I'm thinking up a playbook for Monsterhearts based on the concept of the Familiar; witches cats, genies, ariel bound in service to prospero. On the teenager side, there's shades of the kid who can't fit in so they suck up to the crowd; the kid who's doing everyone's homework so he can hang out at the cool table or laughing at the back of the class while someone's getting bullied so she's not next. Conceptually I've got a split between a "true nature" they're hiding for fear of rejection or reprisals, and a master they're bound to. They're a kind of codependent character, stuck serving another one because they're only any good when they're acting on their interests. Core moves enforcing these things, probably going with darkest self:quote:Bound In Thrall Their darkest self probably needs to be "you snap and break your contract, acting according to your weird, demoney nature, and exit darkest self when you form a new one, willingly or unwillingly"; your master can abuse you to the point of death, but you'll hit Darkest Self at that stage and probably get another one. I'm wondering if the initial mechanics are too strong; "when you fulfil your wishes" seems a bit vague and easy as a trigger. The intent with the first move is that the wishes expressed don't have to be orders; you can be a jackass familiar who overhears "Man I hate how melanie gets better test scores than me" and then goes to screw up melanie's poo poo, and you also can try and both express your nature and do as wanted to score both the bonus and XP. "Rejecting your nature" seems thematically useful but it's also a hell of a leash. I wonder if it's too much of a leash, even, but probably it's lovely and terrible to be someone's magic slave? Other concepted moves are "the demon can come to you when you call it" (cool and definitely mythically appropriate but I'm not sure what's in it for the familiar), "I'm just following orders" (I initially wrote this as a "deflect conditions to your boss" move but maybe that's not how the move should work; feels like it's giving power to the demon to affect their boss), and a "tell me your secrets, eldritch one" where you can give advice when asked which grants bonuses, probably for a string or XP in return (though I feel it's important it's a "when asked" move, because it reinforces their position as someone else's serf and avoids the chance of them becoming a leader. You totally can try and goad your master into asking you stuff in any number of ways, but they can also always tell you you're a lovely demon and start dishing harm back at you for it). I have no idea if I'm onto a winner here or what. No idea what would work as a sex move and I'm even unsure on their stat layout; they're probably Dark, but on hot/cold/volatile I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
second new playbook from apoc world 2e revealed and it's simultaneously really cool and really  http://apocalypse-world.com/AW2ndEdChildthingPreview.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
If you're codependent on others, The Mortal is a great way in. If you rely on an otherwordly power, you're the Infernal. There are a lot of good genie skins already (one in the M+ community page) so I think the space is explored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Tollymain posted:second new playbook from apoc world 2e revealed and it's simultaneously really cool and really Not really sure what to make of this one.I like the maelstrom wolves though, that seems cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I like how it's got elements of the Hardholder, the Maestro'D, and the Hocus, but takes the ideas in a different direction. I'd really love to see a game where are four of those playbooks are together. Watch the various forms of hard and soft power butt up against each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
So is this the PbTA and *AW thread, and the other is just the Apocolypse world thread? It feels silly that one forum has two conversations every time a new playbook drops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:So is this the PbTA and *AW thread, and the other is just the Apocolypse world thread? It feels silly that one forum has two conversations every time a new playbook drops. Well, the intention is that this is just for discussion of Powered By The Apocalypse in general because people were getting tired of the AW thread being the general thread for PbtA. The AW thread used to get full up with discussions on fan hacks and professional products like Masks, Sprawl, etc. and it was distracting from discussion of AW. Technically, talking about AW 2nd Edition would pop in both threads, but it really should stay in the AW thread to avoid doubling up. What can I say? I did not make this thread under the assumption there would be a 2nd edition of AW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Yeah, this thread happened because back when I made the AW thread hacks were still pretty rare. I've kind of been wondering if it's worth closing the other thread once AW2 just to keep the discussion all in one place. Saguaro PI posted:I'd really love to see a game where are four of those playbooks are together. Watch the various forms of hard and soft power butt up against each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Arashiofordo3 posted:Not really sure what to make of this one.I like the maelstrom wolves though, that seems cool. Yeah, I'm all about the wolves of the maelstrom and some of the creepy flavor in the playbook ("Tell the MC that they're perversions of birth. She'll know what you mean."). Definitely a step beyond what I'm used to from the standard AW playbooks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
I have a come to a conclusion: I hate powered by the apocalypse games. Specifically, I hate the idea of moves. It makes role-playing into a purely mechanical thing in my experiences. If I want my character to be friendly with another character, but they fail there roll, I am forced to hate them. Similarly, the consequences being chosen by players makes me wonder why it even bothers with a GM. No one in real life can really control the consequences of their actions, so choosing the exact way I want things to go takes me out of the game. In a way, and players have far too little power over their characters, and for too much power over the world. This is not to say I think that I think that players helping to define the world is bad; but I think it goes way too far. However, I feel that I should try to make sure if it's as bad as I believe. Do you guys have this problem? Hiro Protagonist fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:If I want my character to be friendly with another character, but they fail there roll, I am forced to hate them. Can you give an example of this? I don't think that's ever happened when I've played a PbtA game. What system had that kind of rule in place?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Heliotrope posted:Can you give an example of this? I don't think that's ever happened when I've played a PbtA game. What system had that kind of rule in place?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Night Witches is about the inherent fragility of friendship during the stress of wartime. I'd say that 99% of other PbTA games let you control your ties and rewrite them as the circumstance changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I have a come to a conclusion: I hate powered by the apocalypse games. Specifically, I hate the idea of moves. It makes role-playing into a purely mechanical thing in my experiences. If I want my character to be friendly with another character, but they fail there roll, I am forced to hate them. Similarly, the consequences being chosen by players makes me wonder why it even bothers with a GM. No one in real life can really control the consequences of their actions, so choosing the exact way I want things to go takes me out of the game. In a way, and players have far too little power over their characters, and for too much power over the world. They can be a little heavy handed when it comes to narrative control and enforcing mechanics as metaphor. You get the good of higher tension, clearer stakes, emulation of themes and genres not served as well by other kinds of systems, and some clear GM direction as the tradeoff. I do think a lot of PbtA out there don't always fit the system well or take the liberties needed to do so, but sometimes it gels in a really good way. I'm kind of with you in that the system isn't my favorite, but there's some real gems out there with the system as the base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I disagree that nobody in real life can control the consequences of their actions. If you've DM'd PbtA, you may find that players picking options is tremendously helpful in telling you what kind of story you want to play. It's not simulationist and never claimed to be. It's a coherent model where the dice results have universal meaning. All games [except Fiasco et al] have "moves". In D20, they're the to-hit roll. In GURPS, your skills. Houses of the Blooded? Burning Wheel? 7th Sea? Maybe you don't see them in Nobilis or Happy Birthday Robot. But the model of PbtA is "fiction triggers the move which goes into the fiction." Can Indiana Jones swing across a 2' gap? Yes. Can the Punisher punch through a brick wall? No. You don't roll in either case. But when it's "Can Indy jump the gap and save Marion" or "Can Frank survive the Russian's beating?", you roll, because you're playing to find out. Edit: I mean, half your posts on this forum is "I got this new game" or "Will I like this game." I suggest you hit the table and play more. Golden Bee fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I have a come to a conclusion: I hate powered by the apocalypse games. Specifically, I hate the idea of moves. It makes role-playing into a purely mechanical thing in my experiences. If I want my character to be friendly with another character, but they fail there roll, I am forced to hate them. Similarly, the consequences being chosen by players makes me wonder why it even bothers with a GM. No one in real life can really control the consequences of their actions, so choosing the exact way I want things to go takes me out of the game. In a way, and players have far too little power over their characters, and for too much power over the world. Consequences usually are picked by a GM; it's the weaker hacks where your 6- results are player picks. Unless you mean positive outcomes? In which case maybe that's a preference kind of thing; I know generally in most games I go "I'll roll to open this door" and if I succeed I open the door. I'd generally get kind of annoyed if the GM goes "You manage to steal a magic apple!" or something instead*. The main difference is AW games tell you the kinds of stuff your game is usually about and what the stakes are, rather than have that happen whenever you encounter a thing you're going to roll, which isn't really bad, just different. *and, indeed, frequently do in social systems, especially when the GM tries things like "well they like you but you don't get what you want" or worse the "you succeeded so well now they will become annoying".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I have a come to a conclusion: I hate powered by the apocalypse games. Specifically, I hate the idea of moves. It makes role-playing into a purely mechanical thing in my experiences. If I want my character to be friendly with another character, but they fail there roll, I am forced to hate them. Similarly, the consequences being chosen by players makes me wonder why it even bothers with a GM. No one in real life can really control the consequences of their actions, so choosing the exact way I want things to go takes me out of the game. In a way, and players have far too little power over their characters, and for too much power over the world. I think you might be looking too deeply into what the moves mean. At no point should you be forced into an action or belief by someone else failing a roll. Sometimes not even failing your own rolls can force what you do. The mechanics may say something, but why that happens in the narrative is up to you as long as it makes sense to the rest of the players and the GM. Obviously, with physical actions, they're a little more literal, but the social moves aren't usually hard-and-fast decisions forced onto people. The GM is there for situations where there isn't an explicit 6- choice and something has to go wrong, and to keep the plot moving. They help create blank spaces for the players to fill, or to fill themselves if the players don't but they really need to be filled in. Also, depending on the game, they serve to add external conflict to push and pull internal PC conflicts. It's a different set of expectations but it's still needed for a lot of the PbtA games. I will say that, like others, it's dropped out of my favorite system slot and I've grown a little tired of the sheer number of PbtA games coming out. That being said, it's a solid system that can sometimes be hard to get or understand without playing it, and while it's hard to play "wrong", it's pretty easy to try to force it to do things that it really isn't made for, then get some bad results from what follows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:I have a come to a conclusion: I hate powered by the apocalypse games. Specifically, I hate the idea of moves. It makes role-playing into a purely mechanical thing in my experiences. If I want my character to be friendly with another character, but they fail there roll, I am forced to hate them. Similarly, the consequences being chosen by players makes me wonder why it even bothers with a GM. No one in real life can really control the consequences of their actions, so choosing the exact way I want things to go takes me out of the game. In a way, and players have far too little power over their characters, and for too much power over the world. I like DMing it (especially the aspect of collaborative storytelling that it seems to have as its core0 but my players got pretty frustrated with the system. One of the things that they said was the most frustrating was how the setting kind of assumes certain things about in-character and out-of character knowledge, and to what extent their abilities as a player lay in laying down the framework of the world around them. Alot of it revolved around how your characters find out about something, such as the DM answering a question they had about the setting/locales/people with another question, forcing them to make up stuff that their character should already know. They said it was a bit hard to get into the characters due to that. Some of the frustrations may have been due to the playbooks though, one player was a hardholder and another was the motorcycle gang guy, so they had alot more setting establishing work than the gunlugger per se. On my end, the end result isn't much different than any other game I would run, but I could see where they're coming from. I like the game but sometimes it feels more like an existential theorycrafting of the idea of a game rather than a game. I wish some of the moves were clearer in relevance and execution. Banana Man fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Hey thread, if I take an advance from another playbook, in monsterhearts specifically but I assume this happens in other games too, that triggers off something a different move establishes, do I have to take the first move first, or can it just be activated whenever thematically appropos? Example: I am a non-ghoul (vampire, why not) who takes the ghoul's Satiety, but I don't have The Hunger. Can I pick a hunger anyway, or trigger it on an occasion where I've done some other kind of feeding (blood, say), or do I need both moves for Satiety to do anything? Similar question for things like Ghost moves that work off Blamed, Mortal moves that need a Lover, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Gotta take the core move before you take other ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:43
|
|