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.

Topics - Motipha

Pages: [1]
Apocalypse World / narrating outcomes.
« on: September 04, 2012, 03:38:29 PM »
ok, a thing that I've always believed to be true about the AW engine.

A move is triggered by an action of the PC in the fiction.  Once the appropriate thing has happened, the move triggers and dice are rolled.

The outcome of the dice are the domain of the MC.  By this I mean: it is the MC's place to say what happens as the results of what the PC did, staying true to a) what has happened so far in the game b) the intentions of the PC c) the wording of the move d) the intentions/drives/etc of the world and the NPC's.  he must respect that a hit and a partial hit both are hits and should be treated as such.

The reason I bring this up is that both while playing as well as hearing accounts of play, non-MC players have/seem to be narrarating the outcome of their action.  Which is fine, all is cool, but I interpret the subtext as being "The MC is ceding the right for them to do so because the outcome doesn't impact her fronts/the desires of the NPC's that she is responsible for."


Apocalypse World / AP: The Leviathan
« on: March 13, 2012, 09:56:25 PM »
So I'm on a podcast where three of the four hosts all game with each other on as part of our normal gaming group.  We recently finished an 8 session Apocalypse World game that we recorded, and we had a blast.  Here's the AP:

other lumpley games / [IAWA] mid-dice negotiation with shifting loyalties
« on: February 28, 2012, 06:35:32 AM »
Ok, so this is a complicated situation.  We have three PC's:

Tabni-Ishtar, Goddess of Fertility and the Harvest.  She wants to get rid of Ku-aya and convince Dolawat to not sacrifice children to her (though her best interest is to actually have the villagers give sacrifice unto her).
Ku-aya, the Demoness of Illness (formerly a river goddess). She wants to discredit Tabni-Ishtar.
Dolawat, Midwife and priestess of Tabni-Ishtar.  She wants to be impregnated by Tabni-Ishtar.

The three are mixing it up, and we enter the second round with both Dolawat and Ku-Aya having advantage:

All roll, the action order becomes Dolawat, Tabni-Ishtar, then Ku-aya.  Dolawat makes a plea to Tabni-Ishtar to prove that she is still loved by the goddess, and moves to embrace her.  Tabni Ishtar (losing but not by double) consents and draws her in to a relatively chaste embrace.  Ku-aya, in the form of creeping black shadows, insinuates herself between the two of them and forces them apart (They both answer, lose but not out, Ku-aya has advantage). Dolawat misinterprets this as Tabni-Ishtar pushing her away, and Tabni-Ishtar ends up with Ku-Aya's hand on her throat.

At the end of the round, Tabni-Ishtar and and Dolawat negotiate:  Tabni-Ishtar will give Dolawat a child, if she promises to help banish Ku-aya.  Dolawat is willing to agree, but here's the rub: Ku-aya still has advantage over both those two characters.  By negotiating, one of them has to agree to drop out of the fight, and Dolawat is the one who wanted to drop out, but Ku-Aya doesn't want her out yet: she still has a stick to wield.  How do we deal with this sort of negotiation?  In our game, we just said that the two of them can't negotiate a resolution between them if and drop out if Ku-aya isn't done with them, because even though Dolawat has advantage over Tabni-Ishtar, Ku-aya has advantage over both of them and to deprive her of her stick would break the rules.  Thoughts?

Another question that came up as part of this: I as GM am intended to be the arbiter of scene framing.  But with two supernatural entities, how much control do I have over saying "You're not in this scene?"  The fiction almost seems to dictate that I can't bar them from scenes, since they really could just argue the "I can be anywhere" angle.  It wasn't a problem in the game, but I did find myself having to worry about relative fairness, especially when I did explicitly set up some scenes without a PC where that PC would have had a very good vested interest for wanting to be there (a chance meeting between the demoness and the child of one of the PC's).  How have others handled this, how strict/strong is the GM's ability to limit participation in scenes?

We record our sessions for AP on the Jank Cast podcast, and I'll link when this one is shared, but I was curious about this for our next session.  The game is really great, I'm enjoying the format and play of it a great deal, just trying to work out some of the kinks.

the nerve core / Jank Cast review Apocalypse World
« on: January 19, 2011, 10:44:58 PM »
Hah, just noticed that I never posted this here.  The Jank Cast did a review of Apocalypse World.  Here's the link:

Apocalypse World / When the Hocus doesn't believe
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:53:36 PM »
Ok, so I'm running a game right now, and I've got someone running a Hocus, Silver, who does not believe any of what she's preaching.  Which is fine, I can totally see that, I've seen TV.  But my problem is specifically the Frenzy move, specifically: "When you speak truth to the masses."

So I interpret that as the truth of your faith, what your character believes to be true.  But in this case, what Silver believes to be true is not what she preaches.  So when she's used this move, she's preached... resonableness.  Rationality.  It just didn't jibe.  But it's what her character believes is "The truth."  but but but... You're standing in the middle of the Angel's overcrowded infirmary supported by one of your followers (who you are very much lying to) barely conscious.  You get up on the table, face the mob of well-armed guys who have come to hunt out and kill your cult members because they've been running wild over the hold messing with everyone's shit.

And then you preach that Raf (the Angel) is overworked, we're messing with his shit, and you guys are coming in here with guns ablaze killing more, you should give up your stuff and go away.  I'm oversimplifying, but... it just didn't really work for me.

My problem here is that mechanically, she got a full hit.  As the MC, I want to respect the players right to fully play her character.  But this just felt WEAK.  I think what I did to make it work worked, but it still felt really unsatisfying.

I don't know.  what are peoples thoughts about Hocus' who don't really believe?  Especially if they have things like Augury?  It's really the only big sticking point I have in the game, and while it's been getting better I'm still wrestling with it.

(I fully intend to make my problems hers, by the way:  If I'm dissatisfied with it, I bet for sure some of her followers are as well.)

Apocalypse World / Custom beginning-of-game moves
« on: August 27, 2010, 09:42:19 PM »
So there's a couple of threads now of people posting their beginning-of-game writeups, and it highlighted something about them that I like/dislike.

There seems to be some variations of how these are written, and I've come to think that the best have one thing in common: They are more about advancing fiction than mechanical bonuses

In my mind, the letters to the characters are about reintroducing them to the fiction at a run, rather than from a standstill.  It's a way for them to feel like they are drawn in to what is going on, have some stake in the action, have ropes pulling them to and fro. 

So the best are things like: "on a hit, choose 1, 7-9 choose two on a miss all 4 are true" like you see in Hatchet City.  You list things about the narrative: now the player has to decide which of those things (in this case complicating for the character) are true, and it gives them something to deal/react to.  Even the opposite, positive, if you give them fictional ties you give them something to act upon, and the rewards they get are the actions they take rather than just a numerical "gain +1 forward."

In many ways, it's also to help explain what's happened in the interim.  sometimes people miss sessions, and when they do their characters tend to get sidelined.  But they are still fictionally involved in the game, they still have a stake.  In this way, you can make those intervening moments they weren't there for seem real and persuasive.

Sorry, I'm a little unfocused right now so I'm not sure how much sense that makes.  What are peoples thoughts/questions?

the nerve core / Forum for custom playbooks
« on: August 27, 2010, 03:38:40 PM »
Just wanted to suggest this:  there's a number of custom character books being generated in the general Apocalypse World forum.  it would be kind of fun to see these get a forum all to their lonesome, so we can see the types and breadth of characters people are thinking about.  it's also different in tone: and element of creation rather than discussion, if you see.

Anyway, just a thought.

brainstorming & development / Mage: The Ascension
« on: July 05, 2010, 06:18:28 PM »
I see benhimself started a thread on world of darkness hacks, but started with vampires.  I have been meaning to get Mage in to a system I can stand for a while now, and AW seems like a great fit with some modification, so I hope no one minds if I start a thread for it by itself.

I've been thinking about how to do this justice.  My current thought is to keep most of the basic moves from AW as is except for opening your brain.  Along the same lines, weird would likely be replaced with Arete.  I would however have an overlying rule that says:  If you make a move using magick, then +arete -disbelief to the roll, and the MC get's access to magick-related moves if you miss.  In addition, I'm thinking a second clock in addition to harm called "Paradox" that works much the same way, and debilities that work with it as well.  I'm probably going to have them add descriptors to segments of the clock as well: from 12:00-3:00 water drains the other way, things like that.

But the real juice of Mage for me has always been the personification of magick: each mage in the world sees it differently, and does their magick differently because of that.  The question becomes how to reward/bring those aspects in to play?  So maybe we have a section called "Spheres", which are weapons, with descriptors and affects like in AW.  You want to do magick, you're using a weapon, and those descriptors are included.  All Spheres start with the descriptor <i>foci</i> meaning you need a foci to use it.  Those foci, being things in themselves, would also have descriptors.  Spheres would need to advance with understanding, but I'm not sure if I want to do that as part of overall mark improvement, or if I want a separate improvement track for them.

Finally, character books.  It would be real easy to make the traditions a character book each, but that doesn't capture the "PC's are unique" idea that resonates so from AW.  I think instead I'll have them as moves that can be taken, only one from this set ever.  So for an Akashic Brother, it might be something like "if you consult the Dharmic Record", or for a Dreamspeaker "When the spirits aid you in your cause."  Character books should be more.. specific. Perhaps:

The Man in Black
The Ghost in the Machine
The Prophet
The Freedom Fighter

hrm, these needs some thinking.  The WoD books are a little too unfocused, especially with Mage, to make me think of archetypes that are not just direct corollaries to traditions.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking right now.  More musing to be done.

Apocalypse World / Rules question: Hx going negative
« on: June 29, 2010, 09:05:44 PM »
So perhaps I'm just missing something in the text, but it seems to me that there is no way to go negative on Hx other than during character creation.  At the end of a session it says to just identify someone who understands you a little better and increase their Hx (rolling it over whenever it hits 4).  Is there any mechanic to show people reaching an impasse, or that Hx get's worse?

I can understand why that wouldn't be the case, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Pages: [1]