Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Freebooting Venus / First Session, at last!
« Last post by Paul T. on July 30, 2019, 02:45:42 AM »
After years of wondering about the game and pitching it to people, I finally got some takers.

It was a group of rather OSR-oriented gamers who asked me to run it for them. So, tonight, we played a first session of the game. We didn't have a very long session (2 1/2 hours), so it was perfect for character creation and the resolution of the first scenario/situation.

We had a good time! There were a few minor awkward rules moments, but not too many - I reread this entire forum before running the game (!), so I was in good shape.

A big thanks, especially, to lumpley and Rafu for all the helpful examples and rules clarifications; many of them came in handy. I also used my "spell casting hack" (posted on this forum, as well, a while back), even though no one chose to take advantage of it; every single PC who chose a tablet managed to roll doubles, so they all had a rating of 3, and it's pretty unlikely to screw up your spell's purpose with three dice on the table.

I'd write more, but I'm not sure who is still reading this forum. Leave a quick reply or some specific questions, and I'll be back with more details!

Everyone enjoyed the Colour a great deal, and our starting situation turned out to be much more challenging and excited than I expected. A power Martian wizard was finally forced to retreat when the PC who was wrestling with his half-corporeal form Transferred his companions Wounds to the wizard!
Monster of the Week / Car monster design issues
« Last post by bighara on July 26, 2019, 12:07:01 PM »
I'm very new to running PbtA games and I'm trying to design a Monster of the Week foe. The idea I have is sort of a Christine-inspired haunted/possessed car. But I'm not sure where to go from there. I think it would be an Executioner/Devourer, but as far as powers & weaknesses. I'm kinda stuck. Any ideas?
Apocalypse World / Re: Is my campaing premise a bit too large scale?
« Last post by Munin on May 28, 2019, 03:08:09 PM »
Oh, yeah, OK. If you're prepared for everything to erupt into chaos and crash in flames, then I think you're in good shape.   ;D
Apocalypse World / Re: Is my campaing premise a bit too large scale?
« Last post by Roikka on May 23, 2019, 09:40:18 PM »
It seems you misinterpreted what I was going for somewhat. I don't want to build status quo for the campaign (which is why I'm killing it along it's personification, the High Overholder, in the campaing backstory), only enough of it to justify some semblance of it remaining when the campaign begins, and fully intend to look those remains through the crosshairs. So if the PC:s manage to kill an Overholder, the overhold will destabilize (unless there is an established reason for it not to) and if the PC:s stick around, they will be dealing with the immediate consequences of that. And possibly the long-term ones if they don't. The world descending into nothing but a handful of hardholds and smoking ruins with next to no contact to each other as a direct consequence of the PC:s actions is something I'm quite prepared to see.
Apocalypse World / Re: Is my campaing premise a bit too large scale?
« Last post by Munin on May 23, 2019, 07:53:05 PM »
While AW is certainly flexible enough to do what you want to do, it's worth noting that the themes of scarcity, isolation, and lawlessness are fairly "baked-in" to how the mechanical and narrative effects of AW work.

For example, many playbook-specific moves and even a number of the basic moves enable (and even encourage!) sudden, terrible, wanton violence. True, that violence should always have consequences, but in the "civilized" setting you're describing, it's harder to fit in the Chopper as a roving bandit or the Gunlugger as a gives-no-fucks death-machine. What happens when the Battlebabe takes a vicious dislike to a particular Overholder? If you're looking at said Overholder through cross-hairs (and you should) I think we both know the answer to that question. Thus, the actions of AW PCs can be massively destabilizing (especially if they are playing to their strengths and working together) to a world's "status quo," which I think is a big part of the reason that Vincent contends that Apocalypse World shouldn't have any status quos.

I'm not saying it can't be done (it can), just that you're going to need to contextualize the PCs' actions in a different way and that you should be prepared for a little bit of tonal dissonance.
Apocalypse World / Is my campaing premise a bit too large scale?
« Last post by Roikka on May 23, 2019, 07:03:12 PM »
A lot of campaign premises on AW I see usually has relatively few settlements, and they typically aren't very connected. Yet quite a few of them seem to contain a number of hardholds at a relatively bad reations, usually because one is trying to overtake another.

So here's the idea. Let's say a couple of Hardholders manage to subjugate a handful of other Hardholders in their areas, basically forming crude feudal kingdoms, either by forcing the other hadrdolder to submit, or killing them and placing their own puppet at the lead. Let's call those Overholds, and their rulers the Overholders. And let's say eventually one rose from among them, who managed to force all the other Overholders to bend the knee, but isn't strong enough to simply destroy them. Now that guy is dead/dying, and the Overholders and their underlings are preparing for the inevitable power struggle to come.

The idea here is, that the civilization, or at least something akin to that has had enough time to regrow enough for the world to become reconnected (motor vehicles are a part of default setting after all). Trade routes provide far-away holds with goods they require in exchange of goods required elsewhere, and warfare can include multiple vehicles and gangs from small to large on both sides, organized under one war leader, however temporarily. What would keeping multiple holds in line without destroying them look like in Apocalypse world? How about affairs between numerous such nations?

This is just the backdrop. I haven't submitted to the players yet (we are in the middle of another campaign), but the idea is that they can pretty much decide among themselves what they would like to do in such a world. My main concern is, that some potential results of such a world may be a bit too large scale to handle under AW:s normal rules, such as warfare with multiple gangs, or trade with the kinds of amounts of barter typically reserved for the Hardholder.
Apocalypse World / Re: Child-thing Mother's Heartbeat question
« Last post by Whiskeyjack on May 18, 2019, 04:07:24 AM »
In case anyone wanted more feedback on this move. Here's Lumeley's response via Reddit.

'It lets the child-thing try to use it on someone against their will.

There are a number of ways you can handle the attempt mechanically, depending on the child-thing's and the other character's exact approaches to the situation.

So, yes, the child-thing can in principle do it against someone's will, but there's no guarantee that the child-thing gets to do it against their will.'
Apocalypse World / Re: Child-thing Mother's Heartbeat question
« Last post by Whiskeyjack on May 09, 2019, 09:12:21 PM »
Thanks guys. Your response is pretty much exactly how I felt. But the player using the power wasn't very receptive on the take vs. bring distinction. We allowed him to take someone to calm the situation. And the repercussions of basically kidnapping someone in front of others are going to be pretty severe. Just another way to amp up the story. 
Apocalypse World / Re: Child-thing Mother's Heartbeat question
« Last post by Munin on May 09, 2019, 05:31:19 PM »
Apocalypse World / Re: Child-thing Mother's Heartbeat question
« Last post by Ebok on May 09, 2019, 02:13:35 AM »
I would say it is unlikely. It doesn't read that you can take someone with you, it says you can bring them. But in the end, it does what's best for you and your game.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10