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 - Munin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
Monster of the Week / Re: Newbie Questions -- Newbie Keeper
« on: April 01, 2019, 03:27:50 PM »
No worries. Let us know how it goes!

Monster of the Week / Re: Newbie Questions -- Newbie Keeper
« on: February 26, 2019, 11:05:21 PM »
1) Yup, you got it.

2) In general, these sorts of things are handled narratively. If the amount of time it takes the hunter to break down the door is important (e.g. the monster is on the other side of the locked door attacking someone and the hunter is trying to bust in and save the victim), the I'd generally treat that as acting under pressure. The results will dictate what happens next (10+, you break through the door in time to save the victim and confront the monster, 7-9 you get a worse outcome - maybe you save the victim but the monster gets away, and on a miss, well, by the time you get through the door the monster is slain the victim and made a clean getaway.

But apart from a situation where something important hangs in the balance, if a hunter wants to bash down a door or destroy an object, consider that door bashed or that object destroyed and move on.

3) I'll let someone with more familiarity with MotW's magic system tackle this one. But as a fan of the characters, my usual approach is: "sure, why not?"

4) Generally this sort of thing is handled like gangs in Apocalypse World. You aggregate a number of creatures together for the sake of handling things in fewer dice rolls. Groups of enemies can be extremely dangerous because they generally inflict more harm collectively and suffer less (which is where weapons with the "area" tag become super useful).

5) Not really, no. Change is inevitable.

6) PbtA games don't really work that way. "Rounds" aren't really a thing. How long it takes to accomplish something is based purely on the ongoing fictional narrative. So the Mongolian Death Worm is going to kill you "soon" - can you make it to the crusty old hunter-turned-surgeon in town to get it pulled out of your body before it kills you? That sounds like acting under pressure to me. See how this works?

7) Not I, but others may.

As an aside, if you haven't already it's probably worth checking out Apocalypse World (the base game upon which MotW is based). It has tons of insights into how PbtA games are supposed to work.

Apocalypse World / Re: LE Playbooks in 2nd Ed
« on: January 29, 2019, 12:17:13 AM »
Awesome! From an MC perspective, the Hoarder is one of my favorite 1E playbooks, hope your group has fun with it as well!

Apocalypse World / Re: LE Playbooks in 2nd Ed
« on: January 22, 2019, 08:36:41 PM »
The fundamental difference in Hx between 1st Ed and 2nd Ed is that in 1st Ed you used to be able to straight up say stuff about other peoples' characters and make it true (like, "You left me bleeding and did nothing for me" or hilariously, "you are my lover"). Now you ask for people to step up to those roles. 2nd Ed also eliminates the step where you tell other people what your Hx with them is (and they use their options to change that), which means you are doing Hx in a single pass. In many cases, the switch is simply taking the options you had before and keeping them (though asking for volunteers now instead of just naming someone) and coming up with an Hx number that works for "everyone else."

Because of how the Hoarder's Hx is structured, you can't make as direct a port with this approach. But the key point about the Hoarder is, well, the hoard! Hx should be about that. As such, I might suggest something like the following:

Go around again for Hx. On your turn, ask either or both:
Which one of you have I stolen something from to feed my hoard?
For that character, write Hx+1
Which one of you once took something from my hoard and never gave it back?
For that character, write Hx+3
For everyone else, write Hx-1. Other peoples' motivations are less immediately materialistic, and this confuses you.

That gets across the essential weirdness of the Hoarder's (generally larcenous) relations with others. It also gives you as the MC the ability to ask all sorts of provocative questions about the circumstances of the above answers during character creation.

Apocalypse World / Re: Some questions on handling Savvyhead's Workspace
« on: September 21, 2018, 05:34:12 PM »
I think the best thing to nail down with it's going to take several/dozen/hundreds of tries is "what's the downside of trying again?" At its most basic, this could be viewed as already being a combination of expensive and time consuming, but this option is better use when even making an attempt has some weighty (and irrevocable) consequence. Like, sure, the Savvyhead can construct a fully functional cyber-arm, but actually getting it properly hooked up requires, well... "experimentation." And it turns out that if it doesn't work, it fries the attached nerves, and thus really can't be attempted again on the same subject. See where this is going?

Ebok, while I generally agree with the rest of your assessment, it's worth noting that the violation glove counts as both time and intimacy for the purposes of Brainer moves.

Yeah, that's generally my interpretation. "Hide this device in Rolfball's tank" or "At the end of your shift, turn off the shield-generator." That kind of thing. The coercive power of go agro is generally limited to being in someone's presence because its very trigger is predicated on doing immediate, one-sided violence to them. In-brain puppet strings has a much less immediate, much longer-term coercive effect.

Yeah, it's likely. Most of running AW is shades of interpretation, and like I said, the fiction is king.

My interpretation of the Hocus' followers comes from the fact that nowhere in the Hocus playbook, nor in the rules for Followers themselves in the GM section does it specify any of the tags associated with gangs: size, harm, and armor. In every context in which a "gang" appears, it has these things (and in order to be used as a weapon it has to). Between that and the description of "dedicated to you but not fanatical," that implies pretty strongly that this is not a combat force. They are disciples, not soldiers. Could you perhaps convince one of them to embark on a suicide mission or voluntarily give his or her life for a cause? Sure, go for it! But to fight as a cohesive group on your behalf? That's not immediately clear, and made less so by the fact that you have no associated tags to tell you what kind of a gang they might constitute.

And frenzy[/I just says a mob. The requirement that those be non-followers is never specified. Ergo, if you want to whip your followers into a frenzy of violence in order to act as though they were a gang, go for it. Just realize that unlike commanding an actual, dedicated gang, frenzy has its own requirements and drawbacks (i.e. you have to be speaking the truth, and there's the remote but very real chance the mob turns on you).

I don't think it's necessarily an issue of "being a Grinch" but rather one of what the interplay of mechanical and fictional effects might be. Not all groups of people are "gangs."

For instance, in the case of a Hardholder or a Chopper, you have a group of people who are dedicated to doing violence at your behest or on your behalf. But in the case of a Hocus, you have a group of people following you because of their beliefs, but who may have no interest in doing violence on your behalf. Your followers are expressly not a gang (unless you whip them up to it through the use of frenzy, which has its own risks and consequences).

So no, a rag-tag caravan of people following a Savvyhead around is not a gang. It's a motley group of people who figure you're their best ticket out of whatever misery they were in before. But the moment you tell them, "OK, I need you all to go over there and kill those guys," (i.e. use them like a weapon) they're likely to balk. Why? Because they're not a gang. They're just people, and in all likelihood people who don't want any trouble. Not everyone who lives in a hold is part of the Hardholder's gang. In fact the gang is usually a pretty small minority of a hold's population.

My advice is therefore a bit different from ColdLogic's, which is that you should make a distinction between "people who follow your lead" and "people willing to do violence for you," and that you should generally reserve the latter for people who felt that it was important enough to spend an advance on. The fiction is king, obviously, but it's important to keep the underlying game mechanics in mind in that fictional context.

While these moves do kind of the same thing (get someone else to do what you want them to do), they accomplish it by different methods and in different contexts. In the case of direct-brain whisper projection, you are putting the immediate whammy on someone. You make eye-contact and kapow! The effect is immediate, and is therefore limited to the immediate context; "Drop the weapon," or "Let the girl go," or "Give me the Loc-Nar." Further, the coercive nature of this move is also immediate. Once the person is out of your presence, there's no guarantee that they'll continue to do what you want them to do (just like any other use of go agro[/I] once the threat of immediate physical violence has passed).

In the case of in-brain puppet strings, however, you are planting a seed for future payoff. The phrase "no matter the circumstances" is important here. Time, distance, you name it - once that command has been planted, you have leverage over someone - they either do what you want (and thus discharge the hold), or you have carte blanche to mess with them (potentially lethally, in the case of NPCs). You don't have to be in their presence and the effect doesn't "expire." But the trick here is that the NPC is under no compunction to perform that command immediately, nor does the presence of that command prevent the NPC from otherwise acting counter to your interests (knowingly or unknowingly). Unlike the immediacy of go aggro (which is an attention-consuming, direct physical threat), the payoff for in-brain puppet strings is definitely best used "down the road."

Additionally, even with a violation glove, you'd still need to touch someone in order to pull off the latter move. With direct-brain whisper projection, they just need to be able to see you. That's a hell of a lot easier to pull off, and is useful in a much wider array of situations.

Looks like a good mix, with lots of tension just under the surface and ready to explode.

Is Dream Apart the spiritual successor to Klezmers and Kabbalists?

Yeah, that makes sense. FWIW, I'm a "bloody fingerprints" kind of a guy when it comes to a 7-9 on act under fire; Yes, you'll get what you needed, but with consequences that you probably didn't want. I'm also a fan of occasionally putting failure to achieve your goal as one half of the "ugly choice," as it's interesting to drop a big ol' "OK, but what's it really worth to you to accomplish this?" in front of the players and see what they do.

Not really. I mean, like anything else it largely depends on your goal/intention when grabbing them from behind. Furthermore, just because you grab someone doesn't automatically mean you control them. Gods know I've studied martial arts long enough to know that grabbing someone is usually only a brief prelude to getting your ass kicked. Even if someone's not actually trying to hurt you, the way they generally flail about trying to break your hold means they're all hip-checks and stepping on you and flying elbows, and if you're not careful you're likely to get clocked regardless of their (or your) intent.

Ebok, I think it boils down to the fact that I'm not a fan of making 0-Harm attacks. It feels like a lame way to bring Hard into the equation, which seems kind of cheap considering that Hard is literally a measure of how willing you are to inflict bodily harm to get what you want. If you're not inflicting any Harm - indeed have no intention of inflicting Harm - then that's doesn't really read as "Hard" to me, which takes the Hard-based moves more or less off the table.

That said, I do agree with Ebok whole-heartedly in that I think the issue is one of what's at stake. I also think that's where clearly determining the PC's intent should happen as well.

And yes, part of the issue is "what happens after," right? OK, so what if you can stop Dremmer from going through the door? Does that give the quarry time to get away? Or does it just kick the can down the road a minute or two and Dremmer is still in a homicidal fury?

If delaying Dremmer by grappling - with the intention of not hurting him - gives the quarry time to get away, then sure, this seems like a good fit for act under fire. 10+ you do it, by the time Dremmer breaks free the quarry has vanished. 7-9, you get the standard worse outcome (you slow Dremmer down a little bit, but he slips out or your grasp quickly enough that the chase is still on, though in another location and certainly under different circumstances), hard bargain (Yeah, you manage to restrain Dremmer long enough for the quarry to make a clean get-away, but he fucking bites you in the process - have some Harm, chuckle-head), or ugly choice (You can stop Dremmer long enough for the quarry to make a clean get-away, but you'll actually have to inflict Harm on him to do so - do you want to? Also, hope you're not merciless; oh shit, you are). 6-, you probably get popped/bitten/thrown and Dremmer gets his hands on the quarry while you're still seeing stars.

But if there's no where for the quarry to go, what you're actually talking about isn't slowing Dremmer down, but changing his mind, and that's a whole different kettle of fish. As I see it, your options are to a) throw Dremmer a serious enough beat-down that he re-thinks his position (and whether or not he's willing to fight you back determines whether this is go aggro or sieze by force) or b) convince him that there is a better time/place/method/opportunity to handle whatever his beef with the quarry may be, which is classic manipulation. This might be a tough sell, and as the MC I'd be pretty fucking specific about having the PC establish just what leverage he or she might have over ol' Dremmer. You might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and I'd probably pretty brutal about what constitutes the "concrete assurance" required to get Dremmer to stand down if the PC managed only a 7-9.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27