Barf Forth Apocalyptica

barf forth apocalyptica => Apocalypse World => Topic started by: lumpley on February 01, 2016, 03:01:55 AM

Title: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 01, 2016, 03:01:55 AM
Hey, we just launched a Kickstarter for the 2nd Edition book. Check it out if you want:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/226674021/apocalypse-world-2nd-edition

Questions and comments welcome!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 01, 2016, 05:21:23 PM
Exciting stuff!

Nice to see a D. Vincent Baker game being updated.

Questions:

* Will anything about gameplay be dramatically different? (For example, would a person unfamiliar with Apocalypse World have a different experience playing "First Edition" versus "Second Edition", or are we talking mainly just improved functioning/text in small details?)

* Will anything about the book/product be different, either physically or in content? (The change to Front organization sounds interesting, for example.)

* What's the best move for someone who already owns the game? Will there be an errata sheet or download of some sort, or are previous customers essentially out of luck?

Thanks, Vincent!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on February 01, 2016, 08:40:37 PM
Also, is it okay to talk about the game and some of the changes, or should we keep that sort of chat to the patreon forums? I only ask because I'm in the cheap skate "get to look at the game but not talk in the forums" level of donation myself.

Thanks!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Wambly on February 02, 2016, 07:25:20 AM
Will the 2nd edition be as generously hackable as the 1st? I am referring to your current permission to do so rather than whether the game will be as easily adapted. I am guessing your answer will be "yes," but it doesn't hurt to ask.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 02, 2016, 05:12:16 PM
Paul: Gameplay won't be dramatically different, no. The changes are significant but technical, not far-reaching. Like, assigning Hx is much improved, but you still assign Hx, you know?

You'll be able to see from the upcoming previews what I mean.

Almost all of the changes appear right in the playbooks and other reference sheets, so they'll be freely available to people who own the 1st Edition but not the 2nd, yes. Including a rules update is a good idea. I don't intend to leave anybody out of luck.

Tim: Speak freely!

Wambly: Absolutely yes.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on February 02, 2016, 08:53:51 PM
If we have less-than-all the LE playbooks, does this interact with them at all?

Very excited to see the changes!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 02, 2016, 10:28:02 PM
Yeah! I'm going to update some of the LE playbooks but not all of them. All of the ones I update I'll make freely available. The ones I don't update, you'll probably be able to update them yourself if you want to keep playing with them, but I intend to cannibalize them for parts down the line.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 03, 2016, 01:21:34 AM
Good stuff, Vincent!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: ColdLogic on February 03, 2016, 03:25:17 PM
Based on the preview documents, assigning HX is my most favorite improvement. Holy cow does it go so much smoother now, just from a tiny little procedural change!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 04, 2016, 12:09:10 PM
I know, right?

The preview is here, by the way. It's the new set of basic playbooks:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/226674021/apocalypse-world-2nd-edition/posts/1482036

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 05, 2016, 12:14:31 AM
This is wonderful to see! Lots of nice touches and improvements in there, as can be seen.

However, two things seem strange:

"Do Something Under Fire"

What does "now you're doing battle with them" refer to? That seems pretty hard to parse, unless the intention is now that "do something under fire" be interpreted more literally than before (i.e. bullets flying). Was this supposed to be in the "go aggro" text, instead?

"Sucker Someone"

Again, there's a confusing sentence: "If they canít, you simply inflict harm as established." Should this read, "if you couldn't", instead, perhaps?

(I've also often wondered: in this version of go aggro - where you're attacking someone helpless - it looks like you can only hurt your target on a 10+. Is that as intended? If so, it would seem that attacking someone helpless - granted, there has to be a reason why you could miss, but still - is very rarely successful. That doesn't feel very Apocalypse World to me.)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 05, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
Do something under fire: a relic!

Sucker someone: a typo!

You can also hurt your target on a 7-9 if they choose to force your hand and suck it up. Under some circumstances, that may be their only legit choice.

But yes. Generally, if you can miss, a 7-9 is a miss that nevertheless forces your target to react.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 05, 2016, 05:10:05 PM
Interesting, thanks!

I've always found "act under fire" (particularly the "hesitate, or a worse outcome/ugly choice" part) a better fit for suckering someone than "go aggro", but that's just me. It seems kind of unfortunate that getting the drop on someone is so ineffective in Apocalypse World, given how violence usually works.

I suppose my view is that attacking someone because you care what they do next and attacking someone because you want them dead is pretty different business. Doesn't using "go aggro" lead to a lot of D&D-esque "whiffed" attacks?  I suppose applying "you couldn't possibly miss" very liberally would solve most of these, but...

Most of the 7-9 options on a "go aggro" involve the acting character to pause (while, for instance, their target tells them something they want to hear), which seems pretty hard to apply if the acting character has no interest in holding back (and isn't looking for their target to do anything in particular).

Vincent, how do you normally handle a 7-9 on a "sucker someone"?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 05, 2016, 08:22:47 PM
That's a weird concern, Paul!

As MC, I handle it by choosing the option that makes the most sense at the moment, given the circumstances and my agenda and principles. Sometimes the NPC takes the harm, sometimes the NPC dives for cover, sometimes whatever. It's not noticeably whiffy.

In fact you could solve D&D's whole whiffing problem just by treating missed attack rolls as a 7-9 on going aggro.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 05, 2016, 10:08:53 PM
Ah, so you often choose the "suck it up" option (from the 10+ results)?

I think that wouldn't occur to me because my own MC instinct would be to just inflict harm instead of rolling if I was looking through crosshairs anyway.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on February 06, 2016, 01:05:20 PM
The ones I don't update, you'll probably be able to update them yourself if you want to keep playing with them, but I intend to cannibalize them for parts down the line.

Does this mean if I want some I'm missing (I.e, maculoso, space marine mammal, etc) I should buy another copy of AW 1.0? That was my very happy plan A before I knew about AW2, so no worries if so.

The preview is here, by the way. It's the new set of basic playbooks:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/226674021/apocalypse-world-2nd-edition/posts/1482036

-Vincent

Super jazzed about this! Did anyone else notice that in manipulating a PC, the mean option got a lot meaner?

Other things I think are cool and want to know more about: lots more vehicles (everyone has the option in the gear section, it's automatic for hard holders), the new battle moves (I see you finally put SBF as not a basic move), the new gig structure.

Is the operator gone forever? I saw bits of them scattered around the landscape. I realize that they may not fit anymore, but I'll admit I'm a little sad. Maybe this'll be the spur to dust off the Abacus...
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 06, 2016, 01:08:15 PM
Is the new crossbow option for Battlebabe custom ranged weapons intended to totally obsolete pistols and rifles, in a mechanical sense?  It's functionally like a pistol or rifle with two extra options built in, which you can then choose two more options for.  It just seems very odd, next to the options available in 1E.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 06, 2016, 08:41:10 PM
Good catch!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 07, 2016, 04:43:01 AM
Super jazzed about this! Did anyone else notice that in manipulating a PC, the mean option got a lot meaner?

Oh, interesting! Meaner, and much more symmetric with the carrot. It's a good change; it was sometimes uncertain where/how to apply the "acting under fire" with the old rule.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Charles Perez on February 07, 2016, 05:28:49 AM
It doesn't seem clear to me how one goes about gaining the Supplier option for the Angel, the one that lets the Angel begin each session with +1 Stock. Am I missing something?

Charles
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 07, 2016, 06:11:07 AM
It doesn't seem clear to me how one goes about gaining the Supplier option for the Angel, the one that lets the Angel begin each session with +1 Stock. Am I missing something?

Charles

One of the Angel's Advancement options is 'you gain a Supplier'.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on February 07, 2016, 06:21:18 AM
The Savvyhead move "Spooky Intense"... is that really meant to read that you can use +Weird on any Hard battle moves? It feels like it should read "Cool battle moves." Otherwise... damn, there are some lethal weirdoes in 2nd ed.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 07, 2016, 08:08:27 PM
Some more notes on the new playbook pdf, and some questions, in case they're wanted (if not, ignore)...

The Angel's healing moves:

* Stabilizing someone has an ambiguous clause ("...and choose 2..."), which doesn't specify *who* does the choosing. The context implies that it's the Angel who does, but the grammar suggests that it's "they" (the victim/subject). Reading the options makes it fairly clear that it's the Angel, but I can imagine this might trip some people up.

* "Speeding the recovery" of someone. I'm still not entirely sure what happens when a character *isn't* treated. Are they experiencing some kind of game-impacting agony? Does that mean that, as MC, I should inflict all kinds of suffering on any PC who's taken one or two segments of harm? Why would I want an Angel to treat my 3:00 harm, in other words?

* The last line implies that *none* of the Angel moves apply to NPCs. Is this correct, or just the last one? (That sounds a bit disappointing - it would be fun to roll the healing moves on NPCs sometimes, it seems to me - particularly important ones, where their survival or their debt or them blabbing secrets could be very interesting to us. But I could be wrong, of course!)

Battlebabe:

The Battlebabe who is Ice Cold rolls +cool on all Battle moves. In the First Edition, the Battlebabe still rolled +hard on seize by force. Does that mean that it's no longer true that "you're better at getting into trouble than out of it"? If not, what else does this refer to?

(This is similar to the Savvyhead question, above.)

Battle Moves:

These are quite interesting, especially the various broken-out forms of the old seize by force.

Is there anywhere online where you have discussed the why's and how's of this change to the rules? How were the old rules failing players, and why did you feel the new rules were necessary and/or an improvement? I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Thanks!



Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Spwack on February 08, 2016, 05:48:40 AM
With 1st edition history, the owner of the playbook told one player how their Hx would work. Now the question is posed to the group, and one person answers. What happens if more than one person thinks that designation applies to them? That is to say, who gets the final call on Hx? The MC, the owner, or the group?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 08, 2016, 02:45:16 PM
First dibs, unless the player with dibs defers to the other.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: ColdLogic on February 08, 2016, 02:53:07 PM
Vincent:
There are a lot of moves that don't tell us how to adjudicate PvP. Like Assault vs Defend, or hell most of the other battle moves. Do the options that cancel each other out actually cancel each other out and call for us to, let's say, decide if you're still assaulting/defending or something. In other words, ought we to take a cue from the single combat move here?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 08, 2016, 03:33:12 PM
The options that cancel each other out do cancel each other out, yes. It's just like if you choose to inflict terrible harm but I choose to suffer little harm.

In general, this gives an advantage to the defender, it's worth keeping in mind.

From there, you can take a cue from single combat when circumstances demand it, but I wouldn't presume it or proceduralize it. Usually it'll be perfectly clear in play, you'll just say "that's that, so what do you do next?" and the players will tell you.

(Full explanations and examples will be in the book, of course.)

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 08, 2016, 03:50:12 PM
Paul: Having the angel treat your 3:00 harm is interesting. It's a bit like spending 2 barter for lifestyle. You choose it because you want it, not to get benefit from it. You choose it even though it's wasteful, or maybe you choose it because it's wasteful!

I can see wanting to spend stock to get over on an NPC in your care, sure. Maybe I'll add a note to the MC to allow it, unless they have some reason not to.

I'll write more about the battle moves later, I imagine.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: ColdLogic on February 08, 2016, 03:57:21 PM
Thanks. More:
1) When you shoulder a vehicle, are you also using your vehicle as weapon, and hence trading harm in addition to v-harm?

2) To go with what you said above, should we have the players decide their PvP choices blind, without knowing what their opponent chooses?

Probably more after this.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 08, 2016, 03:59:34 PM
1) Nope.

2) Yep.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 08, 2016, 04:42:49 PM
(Thanks, Vincent!)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 09, 2016, 03:56:40 PM
When an Angel uses someone who's died in their care for augury, is that person's dead body their "antenna", or something else?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 09, 2016, 05:40:12 PM
Ooh, great question. I think that must be it. That's just begging for fuckery!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 09, 2016, 07:41:59 PM
My recommendation is to make a note about it in the rules/book. Sounds like a Thing People Would Argue About.

As for fuckery with the antenna?

Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting if it was a *living* person?

I mean, a corpse can get reanimated or some such other weird apocalyptica thing, but, aside from that, we don't care TOO much, likely, if they're already dead.

Now this way:

"When someone is dying in your care, on the threshold of life and death, you can use them for augury..."

That sounds juicier to me, with all the same opportunities for fuckery...

It's got nice fictional colour to it, too - maybe something about being half-in-this-world-and-half-in-that-world gives you a special conduit into the maelstrom?

I imagine one PC on the Angel's table, bleeding out, and the Angel decides to use them for augury, because the maelstrom's sending some storm this way and it's about to hit any minute - it's a desperate situation, and it might be their only chance to survive what's coming.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 09, 2016, 08:22:06 PM
Ha! How about, "when someone is in your care, you can use them for augury." THERE'S fuckery.

I'll think about it!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on February 09, 2016, 10:39:41 PM
New emphasis on vehicles makes me wonder -- is ap harm still all or nothing? My car might be a 3-armor tank, but being T-boned by even a motorbike wrecks it. Is that intended?

AP always did double duty as "this punches through stop sign armor and kevlar alike" (ap bullets, whole-body-pulverizing falls and impacts) and "this has nothing to do with armor" (poison, brainer stuff, etc) or just "I want you to take 1-harm, yes, even you, person who stacked the +armor moves." It might be worth breaking them out (-1 armor ap vs. armor negating).
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 10, 2016, 03:19:19 AM
(I like that, too, Vincent! I suppose it depends how often you want them to have access to augury. Simple is good, but there is something cool about waiting for opportunities when someone's on the verge of death, especially player characters.)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 14, 2016, 06:45:19 PM
Vincent,

A lot of the new moves (and some of the old ones!) now have a "on a miss, choose 1" clause.

What is the thinking behind this? And how does it interact with MC moves on a miss?

Is the idea always, "You do this thing, but also the MC now makes a move"? The moves without a miss clause say, "...and expect the worst", but the moves which have the "choose 1 on a miss" clause do not, so I wonder how you're looking at this.

Is it intended to be more forgiving (as some of the moves seem to be)? A few of the newer moves read as though they are almost *always* beneficial for the player to make, even on a miss. (For instance, I can achieve my goals with most hold and assault moves, even on a miss, it seems - I can choose to "hold it decisively", for instance, when defending something. Is the idea here that the exchange of harm is enough "stick" for the miss to hurt, or is there an implication that other bad things happen, as well?)

Here is another example: there's a battle going on, and I want to make sure that Dremmer, who is holed up in the reinforced shed, can't get out to join the fight. I lay down fire, and what I really hope is that I keep him trapped in there. I roll a miss, and I choose 1: "You... [deny] another character to move or act freely".

Doesn't that miss feel like a success?

How is this supposed to play out?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on February 14, 2016, 07:18:00 PM
I wondered similar things as Paul; also whether "In Battle" if intended to be advanced like "seize by force" was (many of the moves are variations on it, but not all).
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 14, 2016, 08:48:18 PM
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.

New to the basic moves in 2nd Edition: when you read a person or read a situation, you still get to ask 1 question on a miss, before I make my hard move. This is because I always played it this way anyway.

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.

Oh and Hobbesque, no, the battle moves won't advance.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 14, 2016, 09:31:42 PM
Interesting, thanks!

I wasn't sure if I was reading something into the text that wasn't there, or not.

Is there a particular reason you feel that the peripheral moves should have more specific miss clauses? I'm thinking for example that "when you shoulder another vehicle" explains that on a miss you take damage from the attempt. My instinct as an MC would be to make a move of my own (either inflict harm, as in that example, but maybe also different things, like missing the vehicle altogether as they swerve and sliding off the road, or a passenger falling out onto the road, or one of the enemies jumping onto your vehicle).

Is there a danger that specifying misses for all these moves can kill the snowball a little bit? (Instead of the MC introducing new dangers, we sometimes have simpler consequences, like a vehicle taking damage.) I'm curious what the rationale is behind this design choice.

By the way, in case it matters:

My favourite updates so far are the combined "who are the characters" and "why you should play..." blurbs at the beginning of the document. These were placed *after* the playbooks in the First Ed, which was awkward, and I had to make my own "combined" blurbs. So that's a huge help! Also, I really dig the subterfuge moves. There's lots of juicy stuff there! My favourite moves in the update, I think.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 14, 2016, 09:48:16 PM
Cool!

On killing the snowball: no danger whatsoever. If anything the opposite.

Like I say, most of the moves in Apocalypse World have had their misses specified from day 1. I've never heard a complaint about it. After all, when it occurs to you to have a passenger fall out of a vehicle or an enemy jump onto it, the specified miss doesn't stop you.

No, the complaint I do occasionally hear is from MCs stuck for hard moves on unspecified misses. By all accounts, that's what can mess up the snowball.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 14, 2016, 09:59:16 PM
If you're in a PC-versus-PC single combat situation, do both roll, or only the one with "narrative initiative"? 

What would you do if two PCs wanted to enter a "formal duel" situation?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 14, 2016, 11:50:43 PM
Thanks, Vincent.

However, I'm still confused about something: so, when you make a peripheral move like Lay Down Fire or whatever, the MC doesn't make a move on a miss, except as specified? I'm cool with that, but that seems like it *would* potentially stop you from making certain things happen. (As in the "shouldering another vehicle" example.) Maybe I'm not getting it! It seems to me that moves which have a clause "on a miss, nothing particularly bad happens" (e.g. "In a Free-for-all") don't "snowball" as hard as other moves.

I'm also curious how Battle Moves work with PC vs. PC. Single combat seems clear (once we know whether one or both roll), but the other Battle Moves have some overlap. For instance, if I'm trying to seize your position, and you're trying to hold it, who rolls and when?

Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 15, 2016, 01:55:16 PM
You can have an NPC fall off a car or jump from one car to another without waiting for a miss to do it. You might say, "meanwhile, one of Dremmer's guys is crouching on top of Dremmer's bus, about to jump onto your car. What do you do?" You might say, "at that moment, you hear a thud, one of Dremmer's guys has jumped onto your roof. What do you do?" Hit, miss, whatever, there's nothing stopping you.

PC vs PC: both roll and there's a single exchange of harm. If we choose contradictory options - I force my way into your position, you decisively keep me out - that's the same as when I inflict terrible harm and you suffer little harm: they cancel each other out.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 15, 2016, 03:25:52 PM
Nice, Vincent. Makes sense.

I'd feel less confident as an MC about *when* do bring those things in, but I'd imagine your answer to how to do that will be simply "case-by-case", following the AW conversation. An open-ended miss gives me a clear opening to do that, whereas a defined miss means I'm more likely to make a soft move or move on to the next PC to act, instead.

I guess I'll have to see it play and then get back to this conversation. Thanks for all the responses; it's great to get this level of feedback.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 15, 2016, 04:48:45 PM
Sure thing!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 16, 2016, 06:51:08 AM
Vincent,

Can you talk a little about the changes to Debilities? Why the switch here, and how is improving gameplay?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: ColdLogic on February 16, 2016, 04:23:50 PM
Vincent, for the battle moves, do the rules permit players to stack their choices on 10+? So, put two points in 'take definite hold' or whatever, similar to AW:DA?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 16, 2016, 04:44:38 PM
Good question. They don't, no.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 17, 2016, 11:34:18 PM
Vincent,

1. Would still like to hear about the changes to Debilities. "Change to another playbook" seems like a *perfect* fit for an "avoid certain death" scenario, and I like that it's mandated after your third "near death experiences". Sweet! So, overall, this seems like a *great* change.

Why the "+1 Weird", though? Is the idea to actually *tempt* players into dying once? That's kind of interesting. Or do you have to choose the options in that particular order (top to bottom)? That could be interesting, too.

2. Thinking further about why "Sucker Someone" is bugging me, and why you thought it was a weird concern. Here's my reasoning:

If a PC is attacking someone helpless, I could be thinking of one of three things -

a) I'm looking at the NPC through crosshairs, and/or it makes no sense for them to "miss" -> I inflict harm on the NPC, straight up. I don't need a move here.
b) I don't have a particular outcome in mind, it seems like anything could go, so I'd like to disclaim responsibility. If it makes sense to ask one of the players, I can; if not, it would be nice to roll a move and to see what happens.
c) The situation seems difficult, and I feel it is my role to advocate for the NPC, test the PC's resolve - letting them off easy here is wrong for this moment in play, or it wouldn't make apocalypse world feel 'real'.

Having a move for this situation is unnecessary in a), but very helpful in b) and c).

Here's my concern with Sucker Someone:

* If the situation is a), I probably wouldn't bother rolling at all. Rolling, getting a 7-9, and THEN saying, "oh, they suck it up!" seems like waste of game time: the procedure really didn't add much value to the game just then.
* If it's c), then I'll choose an outcome with the NPC in mind, as though I'm playing them. "Oh, Dremmer would totally go and barricade himself in, given how poorly things are going for him!" Here's where a 7-9 could really feel like a miss, or kind of "whiffy" - the PC has the upper hand in this situation, but the odds are against them (their chances of a 10+ are slight, after all).
* If it's b), then I want to roll to see what happens. But the most common outcome here (a 7-9) is one where the ball is back in my court and I have to choose: do they suck it up, or not? That seems like the move didn't help me at all.

For comparison's sake, in many "sucker someone" situations (like the classic "sniper scenario") the *miss* outcome would look very much like the 7-9 options from "go aggro". ("You shoot and miss! He throws his hands in the air and backs away/barricades himself into a safe place/offers you the hostage so long as you don't shoot again...")

That seems to *me* like a reasonable parsing of the move, in terms of the MC's thought process. How do you intend players to think about this, instead? What's your thought process like in this situation?

(For the record, my own approach has been to use a custom move: "When you attack someone who's not ready to defend themselves, is there a danger? If so, roll as though you were acting under fire" - and if, I want to be a stickler for what the stats mean, I could say, "but roll+hard instead of +cool." Is there a strong reason why using "go aggro" is superior here? What's an example of a situation where would it make a difference in play?)

Interesting stuff, in any case. Thanks again!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Chris Mitchell on February 18, 2016, 10:43:54 PM
The better question is why people think getting a plus one weird is good.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 22, 2016, 04:02:02 PM
Paul:

First, about suckering someone: You should always bother rolling. The player's making a move, so they roll it. THEN you decide whether to inflict harm or choose one of the other options.

For instance, what if they have their hard highlighted? It's your positive duty to let them roll it.

I strongly disagree that a miss on the "sniper scenario" should look like a 7-9 on going aggro. On a miss, your target's unfazed and you've given away your position, or your target executes a hostage, or whatever hard move I feel like making. It's the weak hit, the close call, that leaves your target alive but rattled, fleeing, or eager to back down.

The reason to use going aggro instead of acting under fire is just because going aggro already lays out the appropriate worse outcomes. Too often when I'm the MC I find myself struggling to come up with a hard bargain, when there are obvious and suitable worse outcomes. I know I'm not the only one!

-Vincent



Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 22, 2016, 04:09:58 PM
Now about the new rules for when life becomes untenable (no longer called "debilities"): I see two questions there. The easy one is, why does the game reward you for getting yourself killed? The answer is, because the game rewards you for practically everything.

It might be instructive to sift through and find the few things remaining that the game does punish you for.

But meanwhile, the harder question is, why does the game push weird like it does? The ways the game gives you to increase your weird are completely out of balance with the ways it gives you to increase the other stats. How come it's that way?

edit: This is the same question as Chris' question, of course.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 22, 2016, 04:25:23 PM
Good answers, thanks, Vincent.

In the new version of "Sucker Someone", I like that worse outcomes are spelled out, as you suggest, but I don't like that I'm expected to always make the call on a 7-9 (I can't easily disclaim responsibility here). Perhaps that's a worthwhile tradeoff! I'll have to try it and see.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 22, 2016, 06:01:58 PM
But meanwhile, the harder question is, why does the game push weird like it does? The ways the game gives you to increase your weird are completely out of balance with the ways it gives you to increase the other stats. How come it's that way?

Huh. I mean, it is and it isn't completely out of balance; there are more routes to high-weird than the other stats, but it's not difficult to max out any one you care to by the 6th improvement, is it? Some you'd have to plan ahead and start with +1...

"When life is untenable" doesn't specify, but should it be max weird+3?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 22, 2016, 07:05:03 PM
Yeah, max +3. (I thought that was on there! I MUST have published the second-to-newest version.)

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 22, 2016, 08:15:19 PM
Funny! I could have sworn I'd seen that in there, too. (But maybe my brain just automatically adds "max+3" everywhere, since that's a trend throughout the rules, and therefore seems logical.)

On the subject of rewarding death, I think that's great. It seems that the new version 1) rewards death (although it's mixed, given that changing playbooks *could* be against your wishes, and the -1 Hard is generally not desirable), but also 2) doesn't give the player as many "lives" to play with, as the fourth time you snuff it, it's for reals. I was curious to hear how this change came about, but I support it 100% - much more interesting this way. It's actually one of my favourite updates.

I always thought the almost-purely-mechanical Debilities were a bit dry, and this makes the choice you make when you "die" much more intense, I think ("and this is the time when I came back broken/the time I came back unhinged/the time when I came back a totally different person and started anew"). Having "you die" on the list is a nice touch of scary, as well - your character's mortality is right there on the sheet, staring you in the face (even though we know that it's not too likely to happen).

As for rewarding weird, that's an interesting question. I know it's been a design feature of AW since the start (increasing your weird, and then, secondly, your hard, seem to be the most available directions for character development). I always figured it was to draw us deeper into the mysteries of the maelstrom, which leads to raising the stakes of the larger-scale weirdness in the game, twisting the characters, and encouraging people to take more +weird moves as well as, eventually, advancing the "open your brain" move. We're more likely to interact with the maelstrom, and, eventually, pierce its mysteries.

Interacting with the maelstrom gives the MC more opportunities to bring in even higher stakes (it's easier to craft a fictional situation where dealing with the maelstrom means that global or large-scale issues are at stake than, say, something like "read a sitch") and for the players to enact some truly meaningful changes to the world at large. So, it's a push towards larger stakes, increasing weirdness, and exploring the mysterious, underlying nature of Apocalypse World. "Opening your brain" is the most open-ended move, and gives the group an avenue to explore some of the weirder and larger challenges they can't engage with their guns, their cars, or their sexuality.

(I think it's a bit more misleading to say that getting a +1 weird could actually be "bad" for you, though. Maybe it could tempt a person to take on greater challenges, but that's hardly a *disadvantage* - just a temptation and an incentive.)

The second most common advance seems to be increasing hard (and related combat abilities), which is, of course, the second most likely method available to PCs if they want to establish something meaningful and change the nature of the world. But it's less flexible and more costly, so it gets second billling. That's my guess, anyway.

I'm not entirely sure where the game punishes you, exactly. I'll have to think on that. Anyone else have some guesses/ideas?

Vincent, have these things changed meaningfully in the second edition, in your opinion? They certainly have when it comes to dying, but otherwise I don't know. Does the move from Fronts to a threap map affect gameplay (and have any long-term ramifications), or is it just a better/smoother procedure, like the change to Hx?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 22, 2016, 10:24:29 PM
Paul, your analysis of weird's place in the game seems dead-on to me.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on February 23, 2016, 11:12:28 AM
I'm sure Vincent already talked about this elsewhere. Being alive in Apocalypse World doesn't make you Cooler, or Sharper. It makes you messed up, violent, spooky, gibbering and liable to lash out. I think that's why Hard and Weird go up so much more. (I remember someone pointing out that the Angel has 2 +1 Hard options. Because you start out trying to put people back together, and then...)

Anyway, Vincent, thanks for the EU print run. I've switched over and it has saved a bit of cash. Does it seem likely there'll be a European hardback run? Also, I'm thinking about starting an AW game in the next month or so. Am I right in thinking that the Keep and Lifestyle rules from AW Fallen Empires can be pretty easily ported into AW2? (Of all the changes, it's "spend barter on lifestyle each session" that has me most excited.) And, I don't know if you're planning on any further previews, but the Vehicle and Prosthetic creation stuff would be very welcome.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 23, 2016, 03:42:20 PM
About weird: Right on, Paul.

The switch from fronts to the threat map is just an easier way to get the same goods, yeah, same as the changes to Hx.

Tim: There won't be an EU hardback run, no. We need to do as big a hardback print run as we possibly can. It's not affordable for us to split it up.

The keep and lifestyle rules in AW:Fallen Empires are the same as the ones in AW 2nd Ed, so, yes!

We do have a couple more previews planned. I'll see if I can get the vehicle and prosthetic rules onto a sheet to include with one of them, sure.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on February 23, 2016, 09:00:44 PM
I'm a Patreon newb -- if we wanted to see more of the AW2 design process, how could we use that avenue to find it? I realized I had a lot a lot of "Oh man, what's behind THAT one?" but I didn't want to either demand essays of response or try to make you give away for free what you quite rightly realized people will pay for...

In terms of other stuff, I'm also super curious about vehicles. Power and Looks seem to only give you lists of adjectives, rather than anything number-based mechanical effect, and I wonder how defined the Hardholder fleets are (what is a "war vehicle" vs a "utility"
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 23, 2016, 09:22:28 PM
I've written very little about it for my Patreon, just given people some previews and released some playtest materials:
http://lumpley.com/index.php/window/installment/8
http://lumpley.com/index.php/window/installment/18

You might find some of the conversation threads interesting.

But really your best bet is to just ask. I'll answer what I can, and be polite about what I can't!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on February 24, 2016, 08:34:19 AM
The Waterbearer.

Step into the Flow might very well be the most powerful move in Apocalypse World. Wow. I am in both terror and awe of that kind of power.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 24, 2016, 12:58:55 PM
Between it and d-harm!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Chaomancer on February 24, 2016, 01:30:54 PM
I love the look of the new version! AW has been my favourite game for the last few years, and this looks like a great addition. The Waterbearer is great, as well!

I have a question though, about highlighting stats. A lot of this applied in 1st ed too, but now that things are being updated it seems like a good point to ask:

Firstly, I've never been sure how Highlighting was really supposed to work. For example, maybe the Battlebabe's low Hard is something that interests me - she's not actually that tough, just cool. But if she's taken the right move, she'll never roll Hard unless there's a custom move in play that lets her - so am I being a dick by highlighting the stat that interests me but she can't choose to focus on? That seems worse in 2nd ed, since there are more chances to simply overwrite one stat with another - the Battlebabe can roll Cool for all Hard moves on the sheets, the Gunlugger can do the reverse, etc.

Secondly, doesn't that mean that there's a double incentive to take the stat-swapping moves? It not only lets you use a much better stat, but it means that if the good stat is highlighted, you'll get a lot more xp out of it. And if it is a dick move to highlight someone's swapped-out stat, that also means they are more likely to have the good one highlighted - there are less options for the other players to pick from.

And thirdly, now that manipulating a PC can strip highlights off them if they don't go along... that seems like a weird incentive to me. Firstly, towards the end of the session it becomes less meaningful since there'll be less chances to roll left. Secondly, if you refuse to be manipulated twice, there's no longer any penalty for refusing since you're out of highlights.

Maybe there's something about how highlights are meant to work that I've never gotten, but I was half-expecting the xp system to have changed for the new edition. Since it hasn't, figured I might as well ask.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 24, 2016, 05:05:47 PM
Firstly, I've never been sure how Highlighting was really supposed to work. For example, maybe the Battlebabe's low Hard is something that interests me - she's not actually that tough, just cool. But if she's taken the right move, she'll never roll Hard unless there's a custom move in play that lets her - so am I being a dick by highlighting the stat that interests me but she can't choose to focus on? That seems worse in 2nd ed, since there are more chances to simply overwrite one stat with another - the Battlebabe can roll Cool for all Hard moves on the sheets, the Gunlugger can do the reverse, etc.

Highlighting a stat that someone *never* uses because of substitution is, yeah, usually a dick move; it's good form to ask the subject if there are stats they don't use. In 1e, it's not *totally* uncool to tell an Ice Cold Battlebabe to highlight hard; it means you want to see them try (and maybe fail) to Seize by Force. There might also be custom moves in play that aren't subject to stat substitutions; if the MC expects those moves to be relevant in a session, highlighting accordingly is okay.

Quote
Secondly, doesn't that mean that there's a double incentive to take the stat-swapping moves? It not only lets you use a much better stat, but it means that if the good stat is highlighted, you'll get a lot more xp out of it. And if it is a dick move to highlight someone's swapped-out stat, that also means they are more likely to have the good one highlighted - there are less options for the other players to pick from.

Yeah, all true. 

Quote
And thirdly, now that manipulating a PC can strip highlights off them if they don't go along... that seems like a weird incentive to me. Firstly, towards the end of the session it becomes less meaningful since there'll be less chances to roll left. Secondly, if you refuse to be manipulated twice, there's no longer any penalty for refusing since you're out of highlights.

I haven't seen how it plays out yet, but I really like the highlight-removal stick on Seduce/Manipulate. It's symmetrical with the XP-awarding carrot now, and much more clear in application than the "acting under fire" penalty of 1e. You're correct that the "weight" of it changes over the duration of a session.

If a PC is refusing manipulation-with-stick repeatedly, well, they're clearly a stubborn individual. Seems like a person who's stubbornly saying "no" repeatedly ought to find it easier and easier, while learning less and less. ;)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 25, 2016, 05:33:17 PM
I've always thought that it's fairly reasonable to change stat highlighting to "move highlighting" - in other words, instead of highlighting your hard, you highlight any moves normally associated with that stat (go aggro and "seize" moves, for instance - since they're listed right by the "highlight" circle on the character sheet, it's not too hard to remember which). This can help bypass some of the problems of stat substitution moves and stat highlighting (where characters can't score XP, or score too much, and, as a result, the incentives stop working quite right).

However, this may be more challenging in 2nd Edition, especially depending on how the battle moves interact with stats and stat substitution moves.

Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 26, 2016, 12:05:13 AM
Is there a particular reason that the Gunlugger only starts with two moves, now?  I recall discussion of balance in 1E, where the Battlebabe got +3 Cool because they functionally spent a move option on +1 Cool.  With the improved Ice Cold, the Battlebabe's +3 Cool, and the reduced number of moves a Gunlugger starts with, the Gunlugger's position as the baddest ass, as they're supposed to be, seems a bit more precarious, or possibly obsoleted.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 26, 2016, 12:36:10 AM
An accident! It says 3 now.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Chaomancer on February 26, 2016, 01:02:34 AM
I think there's a typo on the Child-Thing playbook - which I love, by the way.

But all the statlines give Weird +2, and there's an advance for +1Weird, max 2.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 26, 2016, 01:16:05 AM
Vincent: the last Driver statline (Cool+2 Hard-2 Hot=0 Sharp+2 Weird+1) sums to +3, even though it has a second +2.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 26, 2016, 03:51:18 AM
In the threats preview, under Essential Threats, i'm not getting how the gang/NPCs/vehicles part works.

"For any PCs' vehicles, create as vehicles." Does that mean create an external threat in vehicular form to drive vehicle-vs-vehicle combat? Or that the PC's vehicle itself is a threat?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: korik1 on February 26, 2016, 04:03:38 AM
I have a question about the Child Thing's The Mother's Heartbeat move. On a miss you lose track of time and many hours pass. Doesn't this essentially remove one of the PCs from play for that period? Such a scenario feels like it goes against AW's heart.
Would it be reasonable to make a Hard Move as the MC instead of doing the missing time, or is that miss condition really necessary for the move?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on February 26, 2016, 10:56:35 AM
Korik1, create The Mother as a threat and then see if you feel the same way. It's just a specific version of the "Separate them." MC move, right? I think one of my players is excited to play The Child-Thing, how it will turn out in play I don't know.

There's an interesting realisation I'm having with all these playbooks. The Waterbearer's Source is a Threat. The Mother is a Threat. Heck, maybe The Faceless's mask is a Threat. I wonder why I didn't see it before?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 26, 2016, 04:24:27 PM
Seduce or Manipulate and similar moves are carefully structured to avoid taking away PC agency. However, the Waterbearer move Peacemaker doesn't address the PC-as-subject case. Can a Waterbearer conspire with another character to bring a PC, unarmed and alone, to an ambush?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: drmigit2 on February 26, 2016, 04:26:13 PM
Hi Vincent, I've been playing Apocalypse World pretty regularly for about 3 years, and I have been in a discussion about your new class the Waterbearer on reddit, and wanted to get your opinion on a few questions:

What exactly is keeping the Hardholder from waltzing in and taking the source? I mean, it's just water, right? I'm really not seeing how any Waterbearers are going to be protecting their things.

Also, this seems like the kind of class that might be tempted to never leave their hidey hole. This is the problem I ran into with angels who made a drug lab. After all, with all the violence going around the angel literally never had to leave his med bay as people just kept bringing dying people to his doorstep. And then when he would run out of equipment, others would just go out and get it for him. Like, I can very easily see this person just being rewarded for hiding in their sacred water hole.

Another thing is that this resource doesn't seem like it needs the player character to be fully usable. Take for instance the Maestro D's establishment. NOBODY can run it like the Maestro D. Nobody can manage a hold beyond 50 people EXCEPT for the hardholder, and nobody can command a cult's respect like a Hocus. But if the Hardholder takes the water source, there isn't anything saying that ANYTHING bad happens. I mean sure we could say that the gods are angry or something if that's what the player picked, but would that really stop anyone? It just sounds like having this person around does nobody any favors (the laws) and that they don't do anything that can't be replaced.

My concerns are that this is a character who the other players should play ball with, but don't have to. All of the power of this character is located in people respecting her command of the resource, but if people don't then that power vanishes. Add to it that this person also has no inbuilt way to protect said resource and you might have a real problem.  Especially with the way that people I know play Apocalypse World.

To be clear, I actually really like the concept, and probably will get around to playing as the Waterbearer at some point myself.  I was just was wondering how you would suggest handling these problems.  Foreign entanglements are always an option, but that forces more NPCs in than I might want, and of course they would need to be powerful enough to challenge a Hardholder's control of an area.  I was also wondering how I might get a Waterbearer to leave their area, and that is a lot trickier.  I guess that game would need to be a lot stricter on daily routines.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Ell975 on February 26, 2016, 05:18:23 PM
Can we talk about the new playbooks? Because I think there are some fascinating design choices there that deserve picking apart.

First, the Child-Thing's den is seriously well described, it talks about smartphones and calendars. But these are things of the past, the savvyhead has their weird-ass electronica, but a Child-Thing's book knows what the electronica used to be. My thoughts are because the CT is something different from all the other playbooks, everyone else is born in the apocalyptic world, all they know are what they can piece together from ruins of the past. But the CT is different, they're not from the apocalypse but instead from the Maelstrom. Of course they know some things no-one else does: its yet another reminder of their otherness.

Also the Waterbearer's Lawbringer move is triggered strangely, not by the WB doing anything but instead the move is triggered by someone else breaking the law. I'm interested in whether that's an intentional difference because I can't (off the top of my head) think of any others like that.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 26, 2016, 05:56:27 PM
Lots of questions! Let's see.

Chaomancer: corrected. Those first 3 improvements weren't correct at all. Redownload!

nweismuller: a -2 counts as a -3, for basically the same reason that a second +2 counts as a +3.

Borogove on vehicle threats: yes, the vehicle itself is a threat. I hope that looking at vehicles' impulses and threat moves will clarify the reason why. The thing about all threats is that, when they're on the PCs' side, they're still threats to the PCs' enemies.

korik1: it is necessary, yes. It contextually balances risk and reward.

Tim on threats: right on.

Borogove on peacemaker: if it's a trap, you can't justify making the move.

drmigit2: first off, it's not important to me that the waterbearer ever leaves the source. Having a waterbearer in the mix means that you have a strong central location where the characters are likely to be, and that's fine.

Now, it's possible for the hardholder to rob the waterbearer of all power, if that's what the hardholder commits to doing, yes, but it's not a sure thing. Far, far from it. The waterbearer has the single best trump card currently in the game, which is d-harm(water). To take the waterbearer out, the hardholder must accomplish it decisively before the waterbearer can take the move embargo. Otherwise the waterbearer can hold the entire hardhold hostage, for real.

And in general, it's never a question for me of how the playbook's going to defend itself against the others. They aren't designed to that purpose. It's a question of how the playbook's going to be useful to the others as a friend and ally. My suggestion is that the hardholder is far better off not getting into an escalatory war with the waterbearer, but instead making the waterbearer part of their approach to dealing with the rest of the world.

Still: the waterbearer starts play in a tenuous position, and it's in their interest to solidify it by making allies and gathering reinforcements. That's very true.

Ell975 on lawbringer: it's an intentional choice, yeah. It's all about the waterbearer's initially tenuous position.

On the child-thing and more generally: along with the faceless, these playbooks aren't going into the core set, so they're an opportunity for us to play around a little more with how the game works and what the things in it mean. You should consider them to be variations on Apocalypse World, not simple expansions of it, if that makes sense.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 26, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
I think that makes *total* sense (to the point where it's almost a relief to hear it). Many of these playbooks mess with basic assumptions (like the Quarantine did, in a different way), and that's a good thing to keep in mind.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 26, 2016, 06:48:31 PM
lumpley: That statline is the only one where a -2 is counted as equivalent to a +2.  If you're going with that, then the Battlebabe's third statline, the Brainer's third statline, every Gunlugger statline but the first, and the Hardholder's second statline need fixing for consistency.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 26, 2016, 07:03:53 PM
nweismuller: really? Oh for butt sake. It better be the driver's stat line that's wrong then.

Thanks! Good catch.

edit: I just looked closely at it with the others and there's no fixing it! It gets to be the exception to the rule.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 26, 2016, 07:15:09 PM
I'm still not getting PC-vehicle-as-threat (like, why is the Driver's car different from the Gunlugger's MG in that regard?) but I'll meditate on it.

Re. Peacemaker, okay, the Waterbearer's motive has to be to settle the beef. Can they still force a PC to come to a meeting against the player's will?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 26, 2016, 07:17:06 PM
They can, yes.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 27, 2016, 12:56:42 AM
Given my last couple of posts were about that Driver statline, I may as well ask another question.  I'm sure there's a good reason that statline is an exception to the general rule, but I'm curious if you could offer any insight as to the reasoning.  If I understand why you made that call, I may be able to understand some things a little better in the future.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 27, 2016, 05:07:48 PM
Oh sure! No problem.

Here are the driver's statlines:
1. Cool+2 Hard-1 Hot+1 Sharp+1 Weird=0
2. Cool+2 Hard=0 Hot+1 Sharp+1 Weird-1
3. Cool+2 Hard+1 Hot-1 Sharp=0 Weird+1
4. Cool+2 Hard-2 Hot=0 Sharp+2 Weird+1

There are only two possible corrections for line 4, given that I want to keep the Hard-2 and the Sharp+2.

4a. Cool+2 Hard-2 Hot-1 Sharp+2 Weird+1
This would give the driver Hot +1 +1 -1 -1. I try to avoid this kind of polarization in principle, but can't always, but in this case I can't bring myself to polarize the driver across hot this way. The source material on the driver isn't exclusively hot, but it's notably hot, and the Hot +1 +1 =0 -1 spread better reflects it.

4b. Cool+2 Hard-2 Hot=0 Sharp+2 Weird=0
This would be fine for some other playbook, but again, for the driver I can't bring myself to do it. Compare line 1. For a driver to swallow that second -1 to Hard, plus a -1 to Hot, a +1 to Sharp doesn't quite balance it, even though it gives them that second +2. Since Hard-2 and Hot=0 is a weird choice for a driver to make, +1 to Weird seems fitting.

So now I have a choice: the line as it appears is how I want it, but it breaks the usual rule. The corrections I could choose from are within the usual rule, but I don't like them. What to do?

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 27, 2016, 06:19:22 PM
Vincent,

I'm looking at the "Single Combat" move, and I'm very tempted to add two options to it:

* You seize an advantage. (Take hold of a weapon within your reach or take +1forward.)
* You press hard or give ground, moving the fight to a nearby area of your choice.

Should I, or shouldn't I, and why so?

I like the idea of the fight being a little less static, or changing meaningfully from turn to turn.

(Options chosen by both parties cancel out, as usual. It would probably also make sense to increase the options chosen to 2/3, like Seize moves.)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on February 27, 2016, 08:12:14 PM
A hard-2 statline seems vulnerable in a way that other stats at -2 doesn't. Weird-2, fine, the maelstrom freaks out out, maybe you go briefly catatonic if things get non-consensually spooky. Sharp-2, you just do not get what makes people tick.

But hard-2 means if things get violent you're going to get hurt.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 27, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
(My first AW character was a Brainer with -2 hard... and I agree! Only cool can be as bad; you can more easily avoid hot, sharp, and weird rolls, roughly in that order, if it's not your thing.)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Chaomancer on February 27, 2016, 08:42:32 PM
Though now, with the way the Gunlugger and Battlebabe's moves work, if you have either a good Cool or a good Hard, you can effectively ditch the one you're weak in by taking a Move from the relevant Playbook.

I'm not sure if that makes it better, really, but it's there.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on February 28, 2016, 03:54:40 AM
Thanks for the explanation, Vincent; it makes more sense to me now.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: drmigit2 on February 29, 2016, 06:52:07 AM
I have a question about The News.  So, it seems that the radio station is pretty well hidden, unless you take the flaw that it really isn't.  I know there is some variance on this based on player input, but on average how easy should it be for your average schmuck to stumble on the place.  Added to that, how easy should it be for your average schmuck to find the place if they wanted to find it?  Are we talking one or two hot rolls to get the general area out of an informant, and then a sharp roll once you get to the area?  Or should it be basically impossible unless The News fucks up royal?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on February 29, 2016, 09:13:35 PM
Vincent,

I'm looking at the "Single Combat" move, and I'm very tempted to add two options to it:

* You seize an advantage. (Take hold of a weapon within your reach or take +1forward.)
* You press hard or give ground, moving the fight to a nearby area of your choice.

Should I, or shouldn't I, and why so?

I like the idea of the fight being a little less static, or changing meaningfully from turn to turn.

(Options chosen by both parties cancel out, as usual. It would probably also make sense to increase the options chosen to 2/3, like Seize moves.)

This seems even more relevant with Fallen Empires. Pressing or giving ground can be used to change the range of engagement, so you can, for example, get inside your opponent's guard and stick them with your knife...
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on March 01, 2016, 12:47:25 AM
Oh lord Paul, run screaming from that line of thinking. It's already a bad idea in Apocalypse World, and Fallen Empires' weapon reach system is predicated on there being absolutely no such thing.

First of all, you've been thinking of battles as lasting rounds, and they don't. They sometimes go into a second round, and almost never into a third. Even between two heavily-armored high-hard crushers, by the end of round 2 one of them can see which way the wind is blowing and that it's time to cut their losses.

But even so, in no case is it to your advantage to give up the +1harm or the +1armor for a +1 to your next roll. You'd prolong the fight in return for giving your opponent a leg up. The math on that is clear! +1choice would be break even; +1 to the roll is for chumps. Similarly, for a change in venue to be worth choosing, it would have to guarantee you better than +1choice.

And in Fallen Empires, it's strictly your environment and your weapons, not any character's action, that determines the range you're fighting at. If we're in an open courtyard and I have a longsword and you have a knife, we're fighting on the field, and there's nothing you can do about it. If you roll way better than me, so that you inflict terrible harm and suffer little harm, we can explain it by saying that you got within my guard, but "getting inside my guard" comes after the fact, it's not a game-tactical move.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on March 01, 2016, 12:48:40 AM
Interesting!

Thanks, Vincent.

I'm not sure I agree 100% (after all, in Fallen Empires, changing the range means a +1 harm for you, and an effective -1 harm for your opponent), but your point is taken!

How did you go from the original version of "both roll Seize by Force" to this new formulation of "Single Combat"?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on March 01, 2016, 12:57:33 PM
Here's 2 mechanical questions and a maybe-bigger development question:

1) Do Leadership and Combat Driver give +1 choice even on a miss (that is, a minimum of 1 choice for most battle moves?)

2) If a PC and their gang are in the same fight, can they do two different things? ("Lay down fire, gals, I'm going to assault a secure position!"

3) What marked the operator for death and dismemberment?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on March 01, 2016, 02:14:12 PM
Paul: Right. It's a huge advantage. The tactical consideration is where we fight, because given our weapons, that's what determines which range applies. If I have a longsword and you have a knife, you attack me in a kitchen or a narrow hallway, you don't meet me in an open courtyard. You might make any number of moves to get me into the kitchen or the hallway, but they come before we fight. Once we're fighting, the range is set and we have to live with the choices that put us there.

Seizing something by force is built on the idea that there's something other than killing that both want. When a fight's just for killing, neither party chooses to take definite hold of anything anyway, so it might as well be out of consideration.

Hobbesque: (1) Yes. I think the battle moves with choices all give you 1 on a miss, so with leadership or combat driver, you get 2 on a miss.

(2) Sure. The player would roll for both their character and their gang. You can also split your gang up and have some of them do one thing, some do another, and the rest do something else, or whatever.

The tradeoff is that you calculate harm and armor separately for each. In your example, when you assault the position, you inflict and suffer harm as an individual, not as a gang.

(3) It started when I saw Fury Road and decided that the driver needed improving. That had me eyeing the operator's moves. Then I decided that spending barter for living expenses needed to be per session, not per "month," and that had me eyeing the operator's gigs.

I went into my workspace and the MC said, sure, no problem, but you'll have to take the operator apart, and that was that.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on March 01, 2016, 03:35:30 PM
Rad.  I will miss the operator (mostly because I played it real hard once), but that totally makes sense.

It also answers one of my other questions, namely, "the new emphasis on vehicles is totally because Fury Road was awesome, right?"

So about those:

What do power/looks/weakness mean without A No Shit Driver?

How do the hard holder/MC define their vehicles? Utility vs. Battle means what? (and do small holds gained by advance get any, or is that like gangs?)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on March 01, 2016, 03:44:24 PM
Power / looks / weakness are out of the rules as stats! Now it's all about speed, handling, and mass, with looks and weaknesses as tags only (the way they always were for the chopper). Redownload the preview file to see what I mean.
http://apocalypse-world.com/AW2ndEdPlaybooksPreview.pdf

There will be complete rules for creating vehicles in the text. For now, copy the driver's rules, and for specialized battle vehicles, just add +1armor and a mounted weapon or two.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Smittumi on March 01, 2016, 07:32:37 PM
I went into my workspace and the MC said, sure, no problem, but you'll have to take the operator apart, and that was that.

-Vincent

I don't have a question, I'm just really excited that Vincent sees himself as a Savvyhead, I don't know why but its just so cool that he's *in* his own game.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on March 02, 2016, 12:55:55 PM
Have I missed the bit where it says The Driver starts play with a vehicle? It feels like it's implied, but whereas everyone else gets the option under Gear for a vehicle, The Driver as written suggests you need the Collector or My Other Car is a Tank move to have a vehicle at start of play.

I think The Operator was a small price to pay to give every playbook a slice of gigs - it's motivation all around.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: clayalien on March 02, 2016, 01:06:49 PM
@Tim Ralphs

The wording of  the Collector or My Other Car is a Tank moves (2 *additional*, *other* car), the number of car slots on the sheet, and the vibe of the class suggest that they are supposed to start with one. It's probably just an oversight that it doesn't explicitly say it.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on March 02, 2016, 02:21:52 PM
The Creating A Driver summary line explicitly says "choose ... car", distinct from gear, so there's car #1.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Tim Ralphs on March 02, 2016, 02:31:12 PM
That's the line I was missing Borogrove. Thanks!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: July_Smith on March 05, 2016, 02:04:43 PM
Hey Vincent,

First of all, just wanted to say that I'm loving 2nd Edition as I read over the moves and other new changes.

I did have one question: With the "Battle Moves" now defined as they are, has the definition of being "In Battle" changed from what it was in 1st Edition?

In particular I'm thinking of that line on pg. 225 in the Gunlugger's move section that says "...going aggro on someone or acting under fire or even seizing something by force doesnít make it automatically a battle. It has to be a battle."

But now the "Battle Moves" heading in the new Basic Moves section says under it: "When you're in battle, you can bring the battle moves into play."

Bottom Line Question: Is Single Combat a "Battle"?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on March 08, 2016, 08:08:45 AM
I have a question about the Waterbearer's Lawbringer move.  I can understand why the Waterbearer needs to be held responsible if nobody else can, if they can't catch a culprit.  What I'm not entirely clear on is what's happening fictionally when they flub the Cool roll and end up getting held to the penalty regardless of if they can catch the culprit or not.  This is a thing that actually makes me a little wary of playing a Waterbearer, since I'm not sure how fun it would be to be on the hook for somebody else's lawbreaking in a way that's not terribly fictionally clear to me.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on March 08, 2016, 12:43:24 PM
You know how when your kid breaks the law, it's your responsibility? Same kind of thing.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on March 08, 2016, 09:17:59 PM
I'm really digging the new playbooks. I think I see the limbs and entrails of other playbooks. Besides the Operator, what other playbooks (LE or otherwise) have gone into the workshop, never to emerge again? Which are getting remade for 2nd edition? Are there some that are neither, and if so, why?

Edit:  Also! Is it on purpose that the Maestro'D and News Hot-for-X stat sub moves don't have the note about also applying to Battle moves like, say, Ice Cold? If so, why?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Eonas on March 11, 2016, 08:14:34 AM
Hey Vincent,

First of all, just wanted to say that I'm loving 2nd Edition as I read over the moves and other new changes.

I did have one question: With the "Battle Moves" now defined as they are, has the definition of being "In Battle" changed from what it was in 1st Edition?

In particular I'm thinking of that line on pg. 225 in the Gunlugger's move section that says "...going aggro on someone or acting under fire or even seizing something by force doesnít make it automatically a battle. It has to be a battle."

But now the "Battle Moves" heading in the new Basic Moves section says under it: "When you're in battle, you can bring the battle moves into play."

Bottom Line Question: Is Single Combat a "Battle"?

That was the first thing I thought of when I read through the 2nd edition playbooks.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Eonas on March 12, 2016, 05:56:49 AM
Oh, and while I may or may not have your attention, one of my players has brought up an interesting question: given that Wolves of the Maelstrom are painted as essentially being out to kill or severely harm the Child-Thing, wouldn't a PC answering "Yeah, I'm a wolf of the maelstrom" essentially reduce the Child-Thing and the Wolf's interactions to deadly animosity and outright flight?

Or is there something we're missing?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on March 12, 2016, 05:44:15 PM
Oh, and while I may or may not have your attention, one of my players has brought up an interesting question: given that Wolves of the Maelstrom are painted as essentially being out to kill or severely harm the Child-Thing, wouldn't a PC answering "Yeah, I'm a wolf of the maelstrom" essentially reduce the Child-Thing and the Wolf's interactions to deadly animosity and outright flight?

Or is there something we're missing?

Yeah, there's absolutely nothing saying the wolves are out to kill or harm.

The Child-Thing's book just says "the maelstrom's wolves are hunting you". Maybe the PC wolf is misunderstood. Maybe they're hunting the Child-Thing to protect it from something worse. Maybe they have to make common cause against a more immediate threat.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Spwack on March 14, 2016, 12:06:18 AM
Maybe the player knows that they are a wolf, but not the character. Maybe they are an unconscious agent of the maelstrom, just waiting for a chance to shed its skin and tear into sweet, unprotected Child-Thing flesh.

Or maybe the wolves are purely metaphorical, harbingers of the new age.

As is the Child-Thing.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Simon JB on April 14, 2016, 11:59:50 AM
Very excited about getting the whole text at some point! Lots of interesting changes, super keen on hearing about what makes a fight a battle in the new rules, especially considering the Battlebabe's Ice Cold.

I just noticed a few things!

The Battlebabe seems to be the only one that can pick "an ally" as an improvement. Very interested about seeing more about what Vincent has thought about this!

Since the Quarantine is now amongst the basic playbooks, that means anyone can take their move Combat Veteran and get cool+3 even before their fifth improvement. That's an interesting change.

What does "push reading a situation" mean?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on April 14, 2016, 01:16:15 PM
The Battlebabe seems to be the only one that can pick "an ally" as an improvement. Very interested about seeing more about what Vincent has thought about this!

I assume ally here is the same as the ally from 1e's advanced seduce or manipulate -- hit an NPC with a 12+ and turn them into an ally (friend, lover, right hand, representative, guardian, confidante). Allies are no longer a threat to that PC, and no longer looked at through crosshairs by the MC. So Battlebabe can get allies earlier than other PCs (because advance a move is a below-the-line, Ungiven Future improvement), and without risking a roll.

Quote
What does "push reading a situation" mean?


I think "push" in the threat moves means "encourage", directly or indirectly. Which is interesting, because it means when someone throws a 6- when a Grotesque is in the scene,  and the MC is looking for a move to make, a legitimate move would seem to be to ask "do you wanna read that guy?"

Like, maybe Dremmer's a Grotesque/Pain Addict, and you're trying to manipulate Wisher with pain, and you roll 6-. MC says "you twist Wisher's arm and he moans out in pain, but he doesn't give in, and you suddenly notice Dremmer's eyes have lit up, he's almost drooling as he watches what you're doing to Wisher. I wonder what's up with that?" It's pretty close to "announce future badness" but playing towards a particular PC response.

I'm not sure how to interpret a Landscape threat's "push terrain" though, unless it's supposed to be the same as Terrain's "push dealing with bad terrain."
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Simon JB on April 14, 2016, 01:32:04 PM
Ah, thanks, Borogove, that's great!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on April 14, 2016, 06:51:05 PM
On further thought, maybe Landscape threat's push terrain means to zoom in on a particular Terrain threat, maybe created on the spot? It's weird how 7/8 of the time I feel like I understand exactly what lumpley's trying to say and 1/8 of the time I'm totally baffled, rarely any middle ground...
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: clayalien on April 20, 2016, 11:40:27 AM
I'm running a game tomorrow (first time GMing a campaign, wish me luck)

One thing I've noticed looking over the kickstarter preview is the changes to the battlebabe. Is it just me or is it just silly broken now? It was all ways a favorite of mine due to being an interesting mix of strengths and weakness, frail, but kick ass, depending on how the encounter goes.

Namely "Ice Cold". In 1e, it only rolled cool on going agro. There was this balance of being terrifying, but balancing that with having to set up the situation and getting the drop in, staying on the fringes of a battle. The player could deliberately build themselves towards reducing this, but it took some thought to do. Now they roll +cool for all battle moves, and can wade right into the fray, even with -2 hard.

They also start with +3 cool, which is meant to be one of the harder stats to get and is used in a lot of important rolls. They don't even have to use up a starting move to get it, like the quarantine does. Take the -2 hard option and they've got effectively +3 in 2 stats and +1 in all others. Take Ice Cold and Impossible Reflexes, then as early as the first improvement, Merciless, which won't take long. They pretty much have nothing to fear, ever.

Other combat focused characters such as the faceless or gunslinger either have to depend on others or struggle in social situations, or have to keep their wits about them and not get caught unequipped. Their power depends on things than need to be kept appeased or in good working order. Battle babe doesn't care for these things.

I know I'm supposed to be a fan of the characters. But I'm also supposed to make the apocalypse feel real and make the character's lives interesting. But I'm not a fan of superman. He's the most boring superhero and not exactly realistic either. The battle babe is super man. Both almost untouchable, and still decently smart, good looking, and popular.

The most experienced player of or group wants to play a battlebabe. Any tips on how to reconcile these things and challenge the player without just fucking him over? It seems like he'll just whirlwind over any gm threat, and not have a huge amount of trouble with other players. I trust him not to hog the limelight, but he could very easily do so, he really has no need for the others.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: JustusGS on April 20, 2016, 07:06:23 PM
The Battlebabe actually does use a starting move to get that Cool+3; it's just implicit rather than explicit so other classes can't take it. This is how they were conceptualized in 1e as well, according to Vx. I do agree that the way the battle moves have been re-adjusted means that they are now dramatically more powerful and adept at combat, though, and I'm hoping this will be compensated for by the final release of 2e, since they seem to be even better at straight-up battle than even the Gunlugger in many ways, unlike before. If it isn't, then I guess there's just the old standby of threatening the people they care about or need. No matter how aloof the Battlebabe might be, there's surely someone they need to get what they want. Whatever their goals are, there will probably be something that killing more people won't get them.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: clayalien on April 21, 2016, 05:31:44 PM
I was going to point out that it still gets to choose 2 moves, but thare's actually a lot of playbooks that get 3 starting moves. That does make sense.

In most ways they are way better than a gunlugger. Right from the start they are +3 on all battle moves, where even if the gunlugger takes the option for +3hard, she's still rolling cool for some battle moves now, which can be rather low. And the gunlugger depends on her gear, which can be interesting to explore how she keeps in mantained, who she talks to and the like. The battlebabe dosen't need to care about maitining anything. Even if caught stark naked, most npcs and even some pcs still wont make him break a sweat.

Then even if the game goes in a non combat social direction, some smarts are required, ot it just gets plain weird, the battle babe remains fairly competent where the gunlugger might need to turn to her allies or make friends with someone who can get her into a place pure brawn isn't going to work. Battle babe just keeps laughing and sails on through.

I try not to think about concepts such as "balance" in a game like AW, it feels "wrong" to be to analyse the game in this way. But this one just jamed out at me as being completly out of whack. Maybe I'm bitter because it used to be my favorite. It was a nice balance of kick ass and frailty, with MANY differnt ways to put one together to make very differnt and interesting battle babes. Maybe saying it only applies to single combat in battle would "fix" it. Or a look at the other starting stats. Chaotic free for all is all ready cool which leaves battle babe amzing one on one or when things are a mess, but struggles when it's a long drawn out ordered fight. I'm just worried doing that would make things too "fiddly".
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: JustusGS on April 21, 2016, 07:28:43 PM
I agree that arguing about if one class is overpowered or not is generally kind of silly in AW. Which is more powerful, being a mind-reader or the leader of a settlement? Being a really good healer or having a really cool car? There's no way to even try to balance playbooks against each other because they're so different and have such different goals (versus other RPGs where balance is all about damage per combat round or whatever). But the Battlebabe and Gunlugger seem to be something of an exception because they fill similar narrative spaces: they're both people that are good at killing other people. They do that in different ways, but their basic niche is similar. Previously, the Gunlugger was the undisputed king of being able to just straight-up kill people, and the Battlebabe wasn't quite as great at battle but made up for it in other areas. Now it's a little unclear why you'd pick a Gunlugger when the Battlebabe is available, since the previous distinction (Battlebabe starts fights; Gunlugger ends them) no longer holds true.
Title: 2nd Edition Kickstarter: The Show
Post by: Fleuri on April 26, 2016, 09:43:00 AM
The new playbook is a weird one.  It has a very cool premise and possibilities but there are also things that concern me and things I don't understand.

Crack Open the World is wicked: The open-endedness allows for some fuckery on MCs part but is also super powerful. I fear that in the worst case scenario the Show just gallops into scenes, strums their instrument and resolves it in one way or another. While the outcomes will certainly differ, this modus operandi repeating enough times is likely to get stale fast. Is it intended that the Show's rig limits this behaviour? Like, the Show needs to have their Apocalyuitar amplified in order to make sound of any kind or is this just up to players' discretion? I can see myself as MC taking away Show's stuff quite frequently just to mix it up a bit.

Then pandering to your audience. Does the cough up have to make sense? Can a single hobo  as an audience hand the leash-holder 10-barter just like that? If so, why would you ever go for anything but 10? Why are there even other options? If you can't tell, I'm a tad bit confused.

BONUS: While probably a non-issue in AW, I kinda like mechanisms in some other more dice rolling heavy RPGs which allow the GM to reward players for good role-playing. Is something similar even considered in the 2nd ed.?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on April 26, 2016, 11:55:30 AM
Good questions!

I think you'll find that cracking open the world basically never resolves anything. It'll occasionally be useful in battle - not overpowered, just useful - but outside of battle, it'll usually only stir things up, not settle them. So no, I wouldn't take away the show's stuff any more often or prejudicially than anyone else's.

Coughing up doesn't have to make sense, no. It's the show's choice; if they want it to make sense, they can choose accordingly.

You'd choose 1- or 6-barter whenever you don't feel like giving the person who holds your leash 10-barter. The barter you generate by pandering to your audience doesn't benefit you directly at all, so you can use it as leverage over the person holding your leash.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Fleuri on April 26, 2016, 01:09:08 PM
Good questions!

I think you'll find that cracking open the world basically never resolves anything. It'll occasionally be useful in battle - not overpowered, just useful - but outside of battle, it'll usually only stir things up, not settle them. So no, I wouldn't take away the show's stuff any more often or prejudicially than anyone else's.

Coughing up doesn't have to make sense, no. It's the show's choice; if they want it to make sense, they can choose accordingly.

You'd choose 1- or 6-barter whenever you don't feel like giving the person who holds your leash 10-barter. The barter you generate by pandering to your audience doesn't benefit you directly at all, so you can use it as leverage over the person holding your leash.

-Vincent

Thank you for the clarifications! It is much appreciated.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: JustusGS on April 26, 2016, 08:43:51 PM
It's amazing how often my concerns about some detail of this game are totally alleviated by Vincent saying "This works as intended; trust me."
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Borogove on April 26, 2016, 10:01:59 PM
The 7-9 on pander to your audience says "take -1weird to the next time you try to crack open the world"; does this mean something different than simply "take -1"?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on April 27, 2016, 03:32:35 PM
It doesn't!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: hobbesque on April 29, 2016, 08:18:44 PM
One thing I've noticed looking over the kickstarter preview is the changes to the battlebabe. Is it just me or is it just silly broken now? It was all ways a favorite of mine due to being an interesting mix of strengths and weakness, frail, but kick ass, depending on how the encounter goes.

W/r/t to the battlebabe, since Vx took a pass this round:

I'm a little confused as to why this has caused so much consternation. Gunlugger has always had a cool-for-hard stat swap, which got upgraded to all Cool battle moves in 2nd ed. That means that a starting Gunlugger can have...

*+3 Hard, which they use every time they would use Cool
*1 more gunlugger move
*a LOT of weapons

And a starting Battlebabe can have...

*+3 cool, which they use every time they would use Cool
*1 more battlebabe move
*Two weird/cool weapons

The Battlebabe can defininitely have a better overall statline, and the difference from 1e is bigger, but there's plenty of reasons to be either kind of badass.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: clayalien on April 29, 2016, 09:20:30 PM
Yeah, I was just looking over the sheets today and it's not AS bad as I had thought. Most of the characters are silly powerful, and I think that's just a part of the game (remember be a fan of the characters)

The only really "off" thing about it now is the stat lines, the gunlugger is going to have zero or negative in other areas, and so usually has interesting decisons to make when faced with a problem he can't just shoot at. The battlebabe has +1 to everything else, so is actually resonably competent when violence isn't needed. I know, I know, try not to focus on the stats too much, but it really influences how players react to situations. And the options when life becomes untennable are a bitter nicer, although as I've never seen a character go into that state once, let alone twice, it's a bit of a nitpick.

I still liked it better under "the battlebabe starts fight, the gunlugger finished them" way of thinking, and the battlebabe had to work around the fiction to get some cruel, crushing blows in, but it's much less of a problem than I first thought.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on May 02, 2016, 09:08:10 PM
I always liked the image of the Gunlugger being the one who is really useful in battles, whereas the Battlebabe is more of a "James Bond" type - can get into the right place at the right time, and seduce or assassinate when necessary.

This change takes that away, making a Battlebabe tremendously competent in any violent arena. Takes away the Battlebabe's "soft spot". It's probably not game-breaking, but it does make the Battlebabe much less interesting mechanically, I think.

And if you don't take the "Ice Cold" move... then the Battlebabe is completely incompetent in violent situations. I appreciated the rather interesting middle ground the old "Ice Cold" move brought to the table.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Daniel Wood on May 04, 2016, 10:35:35 PM
Coughing up doesn't have to make sense, no. It's the show's choice; if they want it to make sense, they can choose accordingly.

Strange. I assumed that if they chose a higher barter amount than the crowd could reasonably have, they are basically forcing people to destitute themselves in order to cough up in a sort of frenzy of fandom. Like, handing over their only pair of boots, or the community's one gun, offering to give over their children, etc. The Show strikes me as very closely aligned with Johnstone's Four Horsemen playbooks, or an exploitatively-played Touchstone.

In any case that will be how I'll run it, if I ever have to MC someone picking the playbook (which, ugh, just not my thing.)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Fleuri on May 05, 2016, 03:28:02 PM
Coughing up doesn't have to make sense, no. It's the show's choice; if they want it to make sense, they can choose accordingly.

Strange. I assumed that if they chose a higher barter amount than the crowd could reasonably have, they are basically forcing people to destitute themselves in order to cough up in a sort of frenzy of fandom. Like, handing over their only pair of boots, or the community's one gun, offering to give over their children, etc. The Show strikes me as very closely aligned with Johnstone's Four Horsemen playbooks, or an exploitatively-played Touchstone.

In any case that will be how I'll run it, if I ever have to MC someone picking the playbook (which, ugh, just not my thing.)

I love this. Imagine, what measures a small audience giving 10-barter has to go!
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Lukas on August 30, 2016, 05:07:52 PM
Looking through the final preview now. One thing that I noticed: on page 75-76, in the section about introductions, the possibility of the other characters being part of the Operator's crew shows up, despite the operator not being in the game. Seems like an oversight that would be easily fixed.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on August 30, 2016, 05:38:11 PM
Good catch. Thanks!

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on August 31, 2016, 04:25:39 PM
I've noticed there's inconsistency through the rules about the tags that SMGs and MGs currently have.  In the playbooks, they're listed as 'area', but on page 230-231, they're listed as 'autofire'.  Might be worthwhile to render those consistent.  The SMG is also listed as a 'SMF' on page 230.  Also worth noting that there's inconsistency between the wants created by a holding having a bustling market; the new playbook lists it as 'strangers' while the material on page 252 still lists it as 'idle' as per 1E, as does the example of holding creation.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: insomniac on September 15, 2016, 04:19:49 AM
So I wanna start this off by saying I'm not talking as a backer, just looking at the playbook previews on the site. I can't see the corebook as a whole until I can get it for money.

But the first thing I wanted to mention is that the Driver advances look off in the preview copy I saw. Offers a +1 cool advance, to a maximum of +2, when the Driver starts out as cool +2. Looks like that one's supposed to be the spot for sharp.

The second is that the Battlebabe's Ice Cold move doesn't let you use it on battle moves like in the kickstarter preview, just on go aggro like back in first edition. Was there an interesting behind-the-scenes process to the change? Or was it just something that was tried and didn't work?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: nweismuller on September 16, 2016, 12:38:36 AM
So I wanna start this off by saying I'm not talking as a backer, just looking at the playbook previews on the site. I can't see the corebook as a whole until I can get it for money.

But the first thing I wanted to mention is that the Driver advances look off in the preview copy I saw. Offers a +1 cool advance, to a maximum of +2, when the Driver starts out as cool +2. Looks like that one's supposed to be the spot for sharp.

The second is that the Battlebabe's Ice Cold move doesn't let you use it on battle moves like in the kickstarter preview, just on go aggro like back in first edition. Was there an interesting behind-the-scenes process to the change? Or was it just something that was tried and didn't work?

The version of the Driver in the final full preview document has that error fixed- there's only one +1 Cool advance, to a maximum of +3.

I can't speak directly for the Ice Cold change, but I suspect it's related to the intent to have ways in which the Battlebabe gets 'brittle' in situations of serious violence- bring back their 'weakness' in some situations relative to the Gunlugger.  Whether that's the reasoning or not, I can't say for sure, but that's how I'd bet.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Paul T. on September 16, 2016, 03:47:45 AM
Which are the two versions of the document you're talking about?

I don't see that in the playbooks on the Kickstarter page.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: insomniac on September 17, 2016, 05:50:26 AM
There's the playbook preview on the kickstarter page, the newer playbook preview on the homepage of the site (you need to sign on with e-mail), and the final preview available to backers.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: wightbred on September 18, 2016, 02:43:00 AM
Love the Crossbows!

Am I far too late to suggest a Bow (2-harm close slow) as a graceful weapon for a Skinner so we can have some Katniss / Mad Max 2 action?
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on September 18, 2016, 01:46:48 PM
Too late, sorry! Also, I will never, ever forgive Inara's laser bow in Serenity, as long as I live.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Bloodspoor on September 26, 2016, 02:42:15 AM
Just downloaded the PDF from both places. On my PC, everything loads fine. On my iPad, the PDF loads very slow. This is concerning as I use my iPad for almost all of my PDF reading. The first few pages seem to load much like the first edition PDF and all of my other PDFs, but after the image on page 10, The Basics. After that, the loading takes far too long to load to be usable (up to 30 seconds). I know my iPad isn't the newest one, but I've had very few issues with PDFs taking this long to load since I had an iPad 2. I'm just wondering if there's a reason why it would be taking longer than any other PDF I own, including Apocalypse World 1st Ed or if there's a fix for it requiring so much memory.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on September 26, 2016, 05:11:03 PM
Sorry about that! After I get the files to the printers, my next priority is a web- and reader-optimized file for you all.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: galafrone on September 27, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
also i found out in the pdf an error in the page count.
we havent page 135 (there is a jump between 134 and 136)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: JustusGS on September 27, 2016, 09:23:29 PM
also i found out in the pdf an error in the page count.
we havent page 135 (there is a jump between 134 and 136)
There are a number of missing pages. For the print book, they will be blank pages in between chapters (so each new chapter starts on a right-hand page) but I believe they have been removed from the PDF for convenience.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: galafrone on September 28, 2016, 12:13:40 AM
ah ok thanks !
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Coalhada on October 03, 2016, 06:28:38 AM
Sorry about that! After I get the files to the printers, my next priority is a web- and reader-optimized file for you all.

-Vincent
Please add at least one more permitted download to the Payhip version when you do that :)
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: Matsci on February 10, 2017, 09:30:59 PM
I hate to point this out now, but I just noticed a typo on the back cover of my print book.

Quote
Drivers search and scavenge, looking for that opportunity, that one perfect chance. Skillers and the maestro d' remember beauty, or invent beauty anew, ....
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on February 13, 2017, 06:45:36 PM
Yep.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: warzen on May 12, 2017, 06:55:08 PM
One quick question: when are we supposed to receive the softcover in Europe ?

Thx.
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: lumpley on May 12, 2017, 07:16:44 PM
Soon! I'll announce that we've begun EU shipping as soon as I can.

-Vincent
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: warzen on May 12, 2017, 08:33:00 PM
Great news !! Thx !
Title: Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
Post by: warzen on July 16, 2017, 09:45:35 AM
What is the issue about the shipping in EU ?