spectralent posted:

Probably dumb questions that're answered elsewhere, but:

1. If you take zero or negative harm, do you still roll the harm move?

2. Does a gang still boost damage on single vehicles and buildings?

spectralent posted:

Probably dumb questions that're answered elsewhere, but:

1. If you take zero or negative harm, do you still roll the harm move?

2. Does a gang still boost damage on single vehicles and buildings?

spectralent posted:

Probably dumb questions that're answered elsewhere, but:

1. If you take zero or negative harm, do you still roll the harm moves?

Heliotrope posted:

I have a small question here. I'm thinking about trying to run a PbP game here and was wondering how you set up the world when not everyone who makes a character will get in.

Heliotrope posted:

For 0, you can. It's also possible for negative harm, but the book suggests only if the circumstances seem to fit, so probably not that often.

I have a small question here. I'm thinking about trying to run a PbP game here and was wondering how you set up the world when not everyone who makes a character will get in. I have to admit I don't have any particular idea for what kind of setting/world to go with. Normally that would be something we establish as a group but it doesn't work that way with this format. Should I just wait until something concrete comes to mind or is there another answer.

Lemon-Lime posted:

...or you don't pitch a premise at all and build out a setting based on which applicants you accept.

tokenbrownguy posted:

Take it from someone who's played and run AW in-person, through PbP, and chat rooms: Don't run a AW (or any tradgame) game through PbP.

The best part about our hobby is the immediacy and personability. AW especially thrives on fast paced back and forth. You'd think it'd be easier that crunchy D&D style games, but it's actually worse.

Run a discord-chat game. You'll be way, way happier and have a lot less work.

someone awful. posted:

Do people ever recruit for like, roll20 games on here? I follow the "advertise your new game" thread but it seems like people only do pbp, and that sucks, 'cause I just can't do pbp.

someone awful. posted:

Do people ever recruit for like, roll20 games on here? I follow the "advertise your new game" thread but it seems like people only do pbp, and that sucks, 'cause I just can't do pbp.

malkav11 posted:

PBTA works great for play by post, better than a lot of games with more numbers and mechanical crunch floating around. But it's definitely different than the live experience and my experience with PbP in general is that if you manage a full, conclusive narrative before so many people flake that the game is unsustainable you should go out and buy a lottery ticket because you are loving charmed.

Captain Foo posted:

rumble in the bunghole posted:

where's a copy of the playbook? I can't find it online.

malkav11 posted:

PBTA works great for play by post, better than a lot of games with more numbers and mechanical crunch floating around. But it's definitely different than the live experience and my experience with PbP in general is that if you manage a full, conclusive narrative before so many people flake that the game is unsustainable you should go out and buy a lottery ticket because you are loving charmed.

Lemon-Lime posted:

Did he post it on the site he's posted Patreon rewards on previously? I can't remember what the URL is and haven't checked back in a little while, but Patreon is down right now so I can't look at the actual thing.

Evil Mastermind posted:

http://lumpley.com/index.php/window/installment/73

Heliotrope posted:

While browsing around the Barf Forth Apocalyptica forums, I started thinking that having a reference to some of Vincent Baker's advice/rulings/etc. might be handy. I went through his posts on Reddit, Barf Forth Apocalptica, and Story Games and put links to his posts there. A lot of them are from when the 1st edition of the game was out, but that shouldn't really matter:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y7E4yWtY92EAbBl2Klf4S3dMDjIu1rufst34hcLLy7I/edit?usp=sharing

Some of the posts are clarifications on rules, some of it advice on running the game, and some of it his thoughts/intentions on the design behind the game because that kind of stuff interests me. I figured it might come in handy for other people too, so I made the document viewable to everyone and decided to post it here.

Halloween Jack posted:

Also, Cross-posted with the PbtA thread because I got confused: I presume the Operator was dropped from the corebook because its core conceit is something every playbook should be doing?

Halloween Jack posted:

I'm a little behind here, but what do y'all think of how the new edition nails down how moves work, particularly combat moves? I see it as wholly positive. The whole aggro/seize ambiguity was always the trickiest part of the game for me.

quote:

Paul: Only the basic moves leave misses unspecified. This was true in the 1st Ed and remains true in the 2nd. "The MC makes a hard move on a miss" only applies to the basic moves, and always has.

...

In the battle moves, yes, when you're defending something you hold, on a miss you can choose to hold it decisively. When you lay down fire, on a miss you can choose to pin Dremmer in his shed. Yes, this is better for you than "on a miss, choose 0," and if keeping Dremmer in his shed was the entirety of your objective, then yeah, you've done it even on a miss. I think you've understood correctly how it's supposed to play out.

The general pattern is: moves that are more dramatic on a hit, more heroic, are more risky. There are several moves that are freebies, including laying down fire (but not the seize & hold moves, because of the exchange of harm, just as you've realized). This is because laying down fire puts you as a player into a supporting position, not a heroic one, and I want to reward that, not punish it, even on a miss.

quote:

When you spend a battle laying down fire, hold 1. Spend your hold during the battle to choose 1:
• You provide covering fire, allowing another character to move or act freely.
• You provide supporting fire, giving another PC +1choice to their own battle move.
• You provide suppressing fire, denying another character to move or act freely. (If a PC,
they may still act under fire.)
• You take an opportune shot, inflicting harm (but -1harm) on an enemy within your
reach.

megane posted:

I'm... frankly not a huge fan. One of the things I like about PbtA is that moves aren't safe; when you try something and roll low, bad stuff happens to you (as opposed to "nothing happens" or, even worse, "nothing happens; roll again after 5 imaginary minutes pass" as is often the case in e.g. d20). In particular, this makes it at least a little risky to just spam attacks at people, since eventually you'll roll a 6 and probably get hosed.

With the new combat rules, however, you can lay down fire or overwatch or whatever, and not only does nothing bad happen on a miss, you get a loving benefit:


I can sort of get where he's coming from, but at the same time... this makes it true, both RAW and RAI, that I can stop any NPC from doing literally anything, indefinitely, with zero risk to myself ever, with -3 hard and a big pile of small rocks. No hard moves. No cost. My roll is meaningless, except that sometimes I'll randomly also get other benefits, again for no cost or risk. And apparently this is okay because... I deserve to get rewarded for not being heroic?

I guess the intent is that I'm now "in battle" in some abstract sense, which means the MC can make moves at me. Except... she can already do that. She can always do that. And this puts the burden on her to make up a reason to punish me for doing something that is explicitly allowed by the rules, and to decide exactly how far I'm allowed to push it before she needs to put her foot down. And if I (a reasonable but pedantic player) go "hey but here's the creator of the game explicitly stating that I don't get hard moved for this ever," then the burden is on her to go "yeah, I know, but I'm hard moving you anyway." That's the sort of poo poo I picked PbtA to get away from.

And the thing is: there's already a mechanism that fixes this problem automatically. Roll 6- -> the MC makes a hard move (but can choose not to if she doesn't want to). Done. Everything works; I have no incentive to do this dumb thing, and if I try I get punished by the rules, not the MC. Why remove it?

e: There's another obvious fix. If you really want players to be able to take supporting positions in a fight, with no specific risk to themselves beyond the general risk of existing in an AW game, and to reward them for not being awesome and risking their lives (why do you want this), then here is how you word the move:

A roll should mean risk. Rolling a 6- should be bad. This move has no risk, so there is no roll. You get a benefit for nothing, but that's okay, because you get 1 hold "during the battle" -- you can't spend your hold and immediately go "then I lay down fire again!" Non-heroic actions rewarded, no dumb rules interactions. (On the other hand, if a player wants to lay down fire, spend her hold, and then go whole hog and charge in, that's great.)

Captain Foo posted:

I think the cleanup of sbf is generally positive, (the addition of Sucker addresses a lot too) but i don't see the explosion of tactical combat moves in general to be a great addition. The road war and cat+mouse and single combat stuff is kinda cool.

Heliotrope posted:

You roll because there's a range of results.

megane posted:

I understand that, but I guess I don't find rolling to see whether I get exactly what I want, or everything I want plus more, all that interesting. Yes, there will be situations where I want more than 1 of the things on the list, sure. But there are also situations where I only really want 1 of them, and I would argue that especially for seize by force that's going to be the vast majority of cases. Why am I rolling if I win no matter what numbers come up? Like you said, if I roll a miss on SBF to escape... I still escape! It is literally impossible to fail to escape from someone if I want to do so. How is the game better now that that's true? Keep in mind that, in 1E, I could roll a miss and still escape if the MC thought it would be interesting. In contrast, in 2E, if the MC thinks it would be interesting for me to not escape? Tough cookies, I'm gone.

Here's another example. My character is struggling with Jay's character over a gun, and I happen to say "I roll to seize by force" half a second before Jay does. Result: my character ends up holding the gun. Period. I don't even have to, like, take additional harm or anything; the worst result for me is that I only win the fight and take the gun. Why? How is that better than "10+: I win and get the gun; 7-9: I can get it but it'll cost me; 6-: something bad happens (which will likely, but not necessarily, include the other guy getting the gun)"? The fact that the MC can make whatever moves she likes afterwards doesn't change a thing -- she could make those moves after the 1E version of SBF as well. In what way or situation is the new one better?

Pg. 169 posted:

When two players’ characters seize the same thing by force, as enemies—maybe both are going for the same can of peaches, maybe one is assaulting the position the other holds—both roll, both make their choices, and their choices apply to a single exchange of harm. Have both players make their choices and commit to them without knowing what the other’s choosing. You can have them write them down on scrap paper if you want but I just use the honor system.

Contradictory choices cancel out. When one chooses to inflict terrible harm and the other chooses to suffer little harm, the +1 and the -1 cancel out, right? If both choose to take definite control, or one chooses to force her way into her enemy’s position but the other chooses to keep definite control of it, same thing, they cancel out.