[The Art of Game Design]

Anyway, Vincent Baker's blog, is a good start : http://www.lumpley.com/toc.php?by=cats

It's a bit overwhelming but here's the tip : take a category you like, start from the bottom and click on the first link with a lot of comments.

Also, antiquated posts are good too : http://www.lumpley.com/archive/

EDIT : for example, this : http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html

I'm quite fond of two books on the subject :

• The Art of Game Design by Jess Schell (http://artofgamedesign.com/), that taught me that game design encompasses so much — economics, maths, sociology, group dynamics, psychology, semantics, systemics, aesthetics, dramatic writing and shit I don't know yet — but that's okay and here's where to begin, and

• Theory of Fun by Ralph Koster (http://www.theoryoffun.com/) who has tons of great insights about games, why they are fun, how they are fun and what they do to us in general. I take issues with some of what he says (please don't ask me about gendered learning dispositions unless you like streams of incoherent rage) but the rest is pretty solid.

Hope that helps.

I'll defend the idea that barring optimized built, the battlebabe attracting enough people to form a gang but not having a reliable mean to manage them is part of the point.

For what I've seen at my table, it's a hoot. The battlebabe either screws a lot of hard rolls and end up with entertaining authority issues, or becomes a manipulative leader instead of a dril sergeant.

[Give every character good screen time with other characters.]

I didn't have that that much in my first campaign. I think that's because I did this a lot in the first session:

Give every character good screen time with other characters.

Bring them onscreen in pairs and triples, in obvious groupings and unlikely ones too. Play with their natural hierarchies and bring them into circumstances where they might have something to say to each other.

If you do that the first session, in conjunction with the Hx rounds, you'll probably have a group that plays more with each other. I think.

Now, there's still moments when characters go do their own things and that's cool, but when shit hits the fan, they're quite enclined to call each other for help and stand together.

(Also, I noticed first session advices are wicked good for when your group has solved a front or two and the momentum is a bit low. Like a second season first episode in a TV series.)

But the thing is, everytime a PC make a roll, they look at the MC to know what happens, that's how the game works...

Say what the rules say.

Each move tells you exactly what happens when the roll is 7-9 or 10+. They should look at them, not at you, for what happens next. In those case, you're there to help them figure out what actually happens in the context of your game, usually by asking them questions. Lots of them. Also, ask them before the roll to give the situation a good context. You'll see it helps you figure out which move to make when and how.

"So, you're behind the rusted car debris, bullets sparking around you, pinned down... what do you do?
-I'll take their position by force!
-Cool! How do you do that?
-I guess I'll exchange fire then run towards them like a madman so they run away.
-How do you figure it'll work? There's five of them and only one of you, and they have cover too.
-Well, all they have is a bunch of puny pistols and I have a bitchin' machine gun! Also, I'm the gunlugger and I'm NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH.
-Cool! Yeah, that should do, roll for it, +hard.
-8! Let's say I inflict a lot of harm and take definitive hold of their position.
-Cool! How so?
-Let's say I wait for them to reload their six shots? And I jump over my cover and I'm all like "AAARGH!" like Ahnold in Commando, and I run toward them like a mad rhinoceros blasting my machine gun?
-...and let's say one or two of them aren't reloading and you take one or two small caliber bullets, for 4-harm, before they run away like chumps?
-Good for me! How's the rules for gang-vs-gang harm go again? Because I'm totally counting like a small gang here."

Am I being waaaay too picky, or is this a sensible way to play up scarcity and underscore just how costly generosity can be?

Just as you, I'd try to push the scarcity aspect and make that generosity something to pay for. I'd do that the same way I deal with ammo, though.

Now and then, when it's my turn, I'd just make the Hardholder buy. No tally or anything, maybe a reminder on a sticky note, and when it's my turn and it fits : "hey, Uncle, that's a lot of gifts you've been giving, isn't that? You're 1-barter poorer than you thought. What do you do?"

what is the actual difference of yelling "go ahead" and just getting shot? How about the "Direct-brain whisper projection" in the Moves Snowballing example? It counts as going aggro but without going aggro, is "Forcing hand" the same as "You know, fuck you I'm not going to tell you shit, just fucking shoot me already you pussy!" aka not doing what the one going aggro wants. How does this works when someone is just threatening someone?

Okay, the thing is, when you go aggro on someone and hit a 10+, it's not your decision anymore, it's your victim's player's.

It's up to them to decide, by any means they deem fit, if a) their character suffer harm as established, like that, no more roll needed or b) their character does as they are told.

It's their only choices, you get no saying about that choice (other than, say, picking your biggest gun to threaten them with if you really want them to cave) and it's a player thing, not a character thing.

So yeah, you're free to say "no" every damn time someone goes aggro on you and hit 10+. But that means you're also going to suffer harm as established, just like that, every time.

That said, "to do it, do it", and "make your move, but misdirect". When the victim's player's made their choice, it's also up to them to present this choice a) in fiction and b) in a way that makes sense.

If you just want to threaten someone, not actually hurt them, but make them believe you're going to, that's manipulating someone and the leverage is "I won't hurt you", not going aggro on them. Go aggro when you're absolutely 100% determined to inflict harm if they don't cave (or you just want to inflict harm).

What if the characters can't pay? And must they pay if you choose "make them pay" or could they just walk away? Or does that move just mean, you wont get that for free this time, can this be either Barter or exchange in a favor?

If they can't pay, they don't have what they were asking for, and feel free to escalate by following with another move, and this time, be mean.

If they don't pay the rent, take away their stuff. If one PC don't pay the train fare, seperate them. If they don't pay for a gun but take it anyway, announce the consequences and ask : "the old guy's just behind you and his hand is close to HIS gun. If you take those gun and run with it, he's going to open fire. You do it ?" If they try to negociate, put them in a spot ("that's okay, of course we can forget the rent this time... if you kill your mother.")

Any move is good in return, provided it makes sense in the fiction. Any move will push the thing forward and keep the game moving.

Of course, the PCs can also seize the initiative and responds with a move of their own. "Fucker III is coming to get the rent? Fuck it, I wait for him by the size of the door and when he comes in, I put my gun on his fat head and whisper "how do you like lead for payment, motherfucker? Forget about the rent or I blow your brains all over." I go aggro." And that's good! That's perfect, even.

(And then you think off screen and ask yourself "wait, if III comes back to Uncle empty-handed, what's gonna happen? What would III do in that situation? Use his own barter to pay Uncle and try to get back at the PC afterward? Tell Uncle straight about it to come clean? What would Uncle do about it?" and you're going somewhere interesting.)
 
Hope that helps!

Forcing your hand means forcing you to do violence upon them. It's about going agro, right? "Force your hand and suck it up" means you've got your gun against their forehead, and they yell "go ahead!" or just stand there and you shoot them. Blam. Inflict damage as established.

Barter is just, sometimes as a MC it's your time to talk, and you pick a move, and it's "make them pay for it" and you decide barter is the price. 1-barter, 2-barter sometimes, sometimes more. If they have it, they spend it and it's gone, but they got what they want. Like they're in a shop, and they ask you "so, any gun in there ?" and it's your turn to talk, so you pick "make them pay" and misdirect : "yeah, there's a bunch of automatics behind a chained door. You're looking at them, and a guy pops up and say "like what you see? It's one barter apiece.""

Basically, it's just money, but in large chunk, no pennies.

Sometimes the game itself tells you how much it costs (like 1-barter gets you 2-stock for your angel's kit), sometimes it tells you how much some character get (like moonlighting or wealth).

1-barter is enough to get basic shelter and food for a month. More on barter bottom of p. 101 and full pp. 236-238.

Yeah, I can grok that. Thanks!

[MotW]

So, there's no specials in MotW.

And here I am, watching Supernatural for the umpteen time, and there's lots of sex. I mean, capital-l Lots. And it's relevant, too. Dean Winchester definitely classify for "get +1 and if you want, give +1 to your partner" special, or maybe the "it's not like it means anything" special. Sammy get his freak on less often, but it's still a couple time a season, and it counts likewise.

I started to think about the other source materials. Buffy ? A lot of people get some, and it's relevant. Angel ? Well, having (or not having) sex is actually a big deal for the titular character, and others get plot-relevant sex couple times a season too. X-Files is less sexually gratifying for their heroes, but damn, Fringe has a relevant sex scene in the first half of the first episode.

So, why not ?

I'd love to hear why some playbooks get 2 moves and some get 3. In some cases, I can see various other factors accounting for "balance", but in others I can't (e.g. the Skinner). Will you still speak about this sometime? Or have you already?

I'm not Vincent, but the Skinner's special is crazy powerful, and their hot+2 base makes it a reliable tool.

Also, I'd like to apologize for the autocorrect software of my ipod who went crazy in the first post, and now I can't edit it :(

And then John was a zombie I think I got it. Not like "Vincent put a joke in there" got it, more like "if you tilt your head and squint a litte" got it.

Opening your brain to the psychic maelstrom is really the character getting a direct line to you, the MC.

So next time I'm MCing I'm go try this: whenever a character opens their brain to the psychic maelstrom, I'm just gonna be me. Take a step back, casually review the situation like I'm watching a TV show and tell them whatever I feel about it, how I can direct this better. Like "yeah, don't you think it's a little boring all this? I think storming someone all guns blazing, gang and all, is a great idea." And when they blow it, I'm gonna judge them as I would some character in a show and give them what I think they deserve. Mean is good, of course, 6- and all, but not necessarily. "Yeah, Uncle is a dick, always picking on the weaker and all. A fucking bully. I'm going to show him how it feel to be bullied upon, should teach'im a lesson or three."

So? Am I onto something? Is it so obvious how come I didn't get it before? Or is it so far-fetched it's like "the death star is real an ovum and the starfighters are spematozoids"? A good idea? A boring one? A stupid one? Or what?

I'd give it +1armour like the transportable cover it is. Maybe I'd add a clumsy tag I could activate as a move if I'm feeling procedural.

Totally awesome indeed. Totally stealing that.

I really can't tell, sorry. That was the publisher's job to negociate things like this. I think you might want to get in touch with Narrattiva, the italian publisher who translated AW and Dogs.