Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Allison

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
blood & guts / Re: Vincent: Why stat substitution moves?
« on: October 28, 2011, 03:30:44 PM »
I'd note that character-wise, a lot of stat-substitution moves can be easily envisioned. (Not all of them, granted.)

An example would actually be the gunlugger's battle-hardened. Ordinarily, Hard just means you're good at fighting and good at threatening people. But when you're battle-hardened, you've been at risk of death so damn many times that you are just plain desensitized to fear and personal risk, and so when you have to act under fire, shit, whatever fire you're enduring can't be any worse than the shit you've already gone through, right? Alternately, it may mean that you're good at acting under fire because you just have no fucking cool to lose to begin with. You may be emotionally unstable and unreliable over the long term, and thus suck at things like a steady job (moonlighting) or managing your reputation (reputation, naturally), but when there's an acutely stressful threat right now, like you give two shits and a fuck about the danger, right? Custom moves that actually require you to keep a truly cool head and even hand and thus use Cool will be the pain in the ass for you, but taking risks with life and limb and telling manipulative assholes to fuck off? No sweat. (That said, I can understand your misgivings about it being so non-specific and applying to any kind of acting under fire--personally, I would be fine with my MC limiting the purview of Daryl the Muscle's battle-hardened to resisting fear of violence or pain or the like, and thus letting her risk life and limb in combat or dangerous environments, or manipulation through intimidation, but giving her no such power to resist seduction or accusations of cowardice or more subtle forms of fire to which self-destructive, foolish bravery and aggression does not apply.)

Another example would be the battlebabe's ice cold. It means that you have the cool nerves and willingness to hurt someone and that look in your eyes to threaten someone with violence and have them know that you will follow through. Against a PC, it means that if you know what makes them tick, you can use it to cow them with a threat of violence. What it doesn't mean is that you're actually good at down-and-dirty fighting. Someone with high Cool and ice cold has balls (or ovaries) of steel and doesn't think twice about pulling the trigger when some mutherfucker pushes their luck, but doesn't have the sheer strength and endurance to throw themselves right into the heart of a battle and prevail when others are resisting and fighting back right the fuck now. You have the willingness to use violence, but not necessarily the ability to pit your violence against someone else's (or at least, you're not quite as good at it--a battlebabe with the last statline and one improvement can still be seizing at +1, at least). Of course, that's one of those "more specific" examples.

That said, there are some I don't understand, especially among the limited-edition playbooks. Like the maestro D's you call this hot (using Hot to act under fire? what?) or the touchstone's move that lets them read people with Hard (again, what?).

Apocalypse World / Re: What's a "charged interaction?"
« on: October 28, 2011, 03:06:09 PM »
Well, I would note that reading other folks doesn't necessarily require a situation be hairy, or even at immediate risk of it. People read each other all the time in non-hairy situations, like reading people they care about (or at the very least are on fine terms with) to find out what they're really feeling or what they would want them to do. The "charge" in that case is not suspicion or hostility. Hell, in one session in the campaign where I play an angel, our faceless was turning down a perfectly good meal, so I read him to figure out what was going on. Turns out it wasn't because it was the cannibal chef doing the cooking (the food in this case was not people, as far as we were aware) or that he wasn't hungry; he just didn't want to take his helmet off to eat. I made up some bullshit favour to ask of him that would involve him going off dealing with some shit out of sight and handed him a plate, and off he went. In other situations, you may want to ask if someone is lying not because you don't trust them per se, but because they're making an extraordinary claim or asking you to take a risk. And so on.

In another thread, lumpley noted that the non-coercive, non-socially-violent move for getting people to do what you wanted them to do was read a person. So perhaps sometimes the charge really is as simple as, "I don't know how to get Person Y to do X thing, and I want to know."

Of course, the risk is that if you blow your roll in a non-hairy situation, the MC has the opportunity to make it into a situation that is as "charged" as they like, in whatever way they like.

blood & guts / Re: Advancing character moves
« on: October 12, 2011, 04:10:03 AM »
NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH: in battle, you count as a gang (3-harm gang large), with armor according to the circumstances.

I think 3-harm gang medium would be plenty, but then again, I have done some insane shit even with the move as written. (Really, you want to break the game? Take your well-built mass-seize gunlugger and a measly submachine gun and add indomitable. Bam, armies are now your bitch.)

Apocalypse World / Re: "It's a... trap???"
« on: October 08, 2011, 11:27:04 PM »
I'd also note that if someone fails a Sharp roll, you could give them a "false conclusion" by acting as though you had successfully manipulated them: they can choose their own action (or at least attempt to), but they get an XP by playing along and acting as though the false idea is true, or have to act under fire to think better of it, or both. Or perhaps the false idea just gives them a -1 when they try to deal with the situation through other moves. Or whatever.

Alternately, you aren't obligated to make a move. If it seems interesting or fits the fiction to make a move, do so, but if you're feeling merciful (like, say, the player has been roleplaying well or doing the "right" things but the dice have been screwing them, or whatever), or just don't feel like it would make things more interesting to make a move at the moment, you can just say "You don't know."

Apocalypse World / Re: Battle moves... without guns
« on: October 08, 2011, 10:25:07 PM »
So how should they be altered for fights where there's melee combat? And how would they differ if some combatants are using guns and others are using melee, or when only melee is involved? What about non-gun ranged weapons, like thrown weapons or bows? What about differences between armed melee and unarmed melee, or, perish the thought, the difference between armed melee vs. guns and unarmed melee vs. guns?

I ask because those scenarios have actually come up in vanilla AW in my experience. Hell, in one of the campaigns I'm in, the MC declared an action not involving a weapon to be cover fire (the driver zipping through the middle of a battle in the mud to kick a curtain of mud into the air to make a distraction for friendlies to escape, though in fairness the pursuers were using primitive weaponry and not a hail of bullets). So of course I'm curious.

Apocalypse World / Re: Battle moves... without guns
« on: October 08, 2011, 07:59:51 PM »
It's not like hand-to-hand combat doesn't happen in AW proper, what with machetes and fistfights and everything else.

Hell, my character in my Tuesday night campaign uses her fists all the time. Usually against enemies with guns. (She wins.)

Apocalypse World / Re: Playbooks as initial situation generators
« on: October 03, 2011, 11:53:57 AM »
Oh, it was pretty simple, really, but... all right, my MC is awesome.

I am so, so sorry. I know you became an angel in order to help people, but really... a doctor is one of those jobs that you *never* want business to be good. And right now, business is a booming. So, what has been the most prevalent ailment that people have required your services in order to treat?
o Disease has broken out amongst several, hampering thier health.
o Knife or gunshot wounds from some infighting and disagreements over divided interests.
o Malnutrition and dehydration because of difficulty getting good food and water.
o Drug overdose and withdrawels. Someone is creating a lot of victims, and the people are indulging.
o Infections from animal attacks, parasites, or some other creature that is preying on the people.
I know you care, even if you pretend otherwise. Help them! I'll be here the whole time, rooting for your success!
Hugs and kisses, The MC

I just picked the disease, and it turned out to be greenlips, a disease caused by mould in the lungs that stretches all the way up to your mouth (hence the green lips), and generally results in death. It can be treated, delaying the inevitable for several years to maybe a decade, but not cured (yet). I began my first session ripping the hardholder's son a new one for making out with a girl who had it and coming in with a case of his own.

Apocalypse World / Re: Playbooks as initial situation generators
« on: October 02, 2011, 11:01:13 PM »
Actually, in the campaign where I'm playing an angel, the problems the MC decided to give me ended up playing a strong role in shaping the campaign. The first-session loveletter I got was about why business was so good for me, and I ended up picking a terrible disease stemming from a ubiquitous mould caused by the setting's unceasing rain. That disease has gone on to be a serious plot point, including a cult that worships the mould and the rain that causes it.

So I suppose the angel may not be as automatic in the situation that it generates, but if the MC is thinkin', well.

Apocalypse World / Re: Help me with the Witch's special...
« on: October 01, 2011, 08:17:16 PM »
How about something similar, but a little less permanent:

When you have sex with someone, roll +Weird: on a 10+ hold 3, on a 7+ hold 1. Either person may spend hold to use a move that the other person can use.

The temporary nature means that it will be used more often and, interestingly, it also allows you to take advantage of moves associated with NPCs.

Damn, this is a spiffy idea. Do this.

Apocalypse World / Re: Hard moves for Sharp/Hot
« on: October 01, 2011, 08:16:05 PM »
So we understand each other, then!

Apocalypse World / Re: Hard moves for Sharp/Hot
« on: October 01, 2011, 03:45:31 PM »
"People notice you staring" is a good one for reading a sitch, yes. Though some people might look at some of your hard moves as opportunities, not simply problems. ("I'm looking at the hardest mutherfucker here, obviously, and the only person around worth paying any goddamn attention to. If I offended you, maybe I could make it up to you somehow? Like, buy you a drink? Least I can do, right?")

Apocalypse World / Re: New Playbook: The Scholar
« on: September 29, 2011, 07:05:04 PM »
Because I don't want the thread/concept dying, and this just popped into my head.

The scholar is a prime candidate for a move like the touchstone's long history that lets it take a move from any other class. In fact, I came up with a name for it: broad study. I also came up with a few examples of ways to use it to play to type, not unlike the suggestions for long history in the touchstone playbook.

Examples: The angel's professional compassion (roll+sharp instead of +hx to aid another character: you excel at using your knowledge to help others), the battlebabe's perfect instincts (take +2 instead of +1 when following the MC's advice after reading a sitch: you can think your way out of any tight spot you find your way into--I think this one fits so well it should also be considered as a straight-up scholar move), the driver's good in the clinch (roll+sharp instead of +cool to act under fire: even when you're shitting bricks, your wits never leave you) or weather eye (roll+sharp instead of +weird to open your brain: you have studied the phenomenon of opening one's brain to the psychic maelstrom and can do it well through knowledge rather than by instinct or talent), the gunlugger's prepared for the inevitable (you get a first aid kit that works like an angel kit with a capacity of 2-stock: your studies include medicine as well as less hands-on academic endeavours), the savvyhead's deep insights (+1weird, to a maximum of +3: kind of like the driver's weather eye, only you've studied maelstrom-related weirdness in general rather than just the opening of one's brain, and you're starting to understand it, at least as well as anyone does), and the skinner's artful & gracious (roll+hot to perform with special effects upon NPC audience members: your studies include hands-on art and culture, such as music, painting, fine crafts, or whatever, and what do you know, you're really fucking good at it). From other fan-made classes: Mike Sands's/Matt Strickling's juggernaut's spyfly (you have a little flying drone and can roll+sharp to find things out with it), the ruin runner's good enough! (roll+sharp to repair things: your studies include mechanics and electronics and whatever the fuck else), and Dragonraven's tribal's somewhere out there (roll+sharp to know where to find people, places, or things out in the wastes: your studies include a lot of contemporary geography and whatnot).

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Apocalypse World / Re: When to use Manipulate
« on: September 28, 2011, 12:59:06 PM »
I would say that if you propose something we both agree is in both our interests, that's not manipulation. If you propose something that you feel is obviously in my best interest, but I resist doing it. If you coerce me into doing it, whether through preying on my greed, libido or fear, that's manipulative. Even if you tell yourself we're both clearly better off. Even if we're objectively better off by any metrics that make sense.
How can you coerce someone with greed or libido? Isn't coercion by definition the use of force or threats? Imagine someone tells you they were coerced into giving up a secret. When you ask how they were coerced, they say they were bribed, they were coerced through their greed. Wouldn't you say them accepting a bribe was totally voluntary, and calling it coercion would be inappropriate?

Oh, I agree that "coercion" would be a funny word to use in such a case. But "manipulation" still works fine. In fact, here we have a fine textbook example of when to roll to manipulate, or to seduce for that matter. You're offering them something they want but still know they shouldn't take, and they're trying to do the thing that's "right" (relative to why they think they shouldn't take the offer) while you're trying to get them to do the thing that feels good.

Now, I don't know about "social violence"--I suppose it depends upon how exactly you define "violence." I might draw the line between social violence and social not-violence based upon, say, whether the two parties involved could still go out for pizza together afterwards, and that standard would suggest that not every usage of seduce or manipulate is social violence. But I suppose it's really up to you.

Apocalypse World / Re: When to use Manipulate
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:57:59 PM »
Thanks for the replies!

Allison, I think the considerations you suggest for whether a Manipulation roll should be called for seem like good ones, and I found that helpful. But it seems like you are also suggesting the player's may roll Manipulation even when the fiction doesn't call for it in order to generate experience, which I am not sure I agree with. Am I correct about that, or did I misunderstand you?

That was me speaking a little loosely. If it seems like a silly situation in order to seduce/manipulate, you can veto it. (Or you can let them do it and punch them in the gut with a hard move if they roll a whoopsie, but what tack you choose is entirely up to what you feel like at the moment.)

Sheryas, it seems like you are saying that all moves can be used whenever a player wants. Wouldn't that conflict with the "to do it, do it" rule, which states that a move must exist within the fiction to be rolled, and visa versa? I took the point of that rule to be that it isn't totally up to the player to decide whether a move applies or not, they must take specific actions in the fiction to use a move. Now of course there isn't a clear line between player intent and the fiction, so maybe what you meant was that any given situation can be manipulation or not based on the approach taken, and that is within the control of the player? What I am looking for here are the fictional cues that tell me whether or not a move is applicable, I don't have trouble deciding with most other moves but I'm having a hard time telling what is meant by "manipulation" here.

Hm. In this case, I think it's as much about who the potentially manipulating player is dealing with as it is about their own actions. Like my example about how if the target would just plain accept, no roll is needed. If a player wants something from an NPC (or, for that matter, another PC; it's the target PC's call, really) and that NPC is kinda "ehh I dunno," you can tell the player that if they want to convince them, that's a seduce or manipulate attempt. (Or they could use Sharp to read them and ask how they could get them to do it, as an example of an alternative.)

Apocalypse World / Re: Angels and Hard
« on: September 26, 2011, 03:50:18 PM »
Okay, I might be defending my initial superficial understanding of the Angel here but since they're PC material, they're de facto independant unless they choose not to be.

Oh, of course. But angels aren't the only people in demand. Consider the skinner, savvyhead, and brainer, all of whom are precious, precious people, yet can have quite shitty Hard.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5