Welcome, Guest

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

I wonder if I can fit instructions for that somewhere, like when gear/Relics/artifacts come into play you can grab am index card and write some notes/ draw a picture. I think this would be especially handy for multi-session play.
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on May 26, 2017, 05:12:07 PM »
In that case, it sounds like we're agreeing on scope (in this case, it's a call the group makes together, and informs their playstyle throughout the game). (I tend to lean towards "zoomed in" moves, as opposed to abstracting away the whole action, by, say, "seize by force" including stuff that's in the next room which the character can't even see yet. But other groups might like that feature.)

What you're saying, essentially, is that it's nice to have a "violence for the sake of violence" move.

I agree to some extent: I've pondered a version of AW where you have a "just really hurt them" move, with appropriate incentives and costs.

However, I find Seize by Force with an uninteresting "object" pretty good in this regard. (And, in this example, we don't even need that - we already know that the player's goal is to get past the guard, so he's "fighting his way out or through".)
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Munin on May 26, 2017, 12:24:28 AM »
OK, let's break this down:

Here's the above situation - you're fighting with a guy. He's not the only guy you need to fight to get what you want (there are others), but as of this moment, he's the guy between you and the next step towards your ultimate goal. You have decided that dedicated violence is needed to get past him (because he's in no mood to negotiate). What is your next move?

ASIDE: Note I did not say, "What do you do?" I think we all understand the relationship between the fiction and triggers for moves. I am explicitly talking about moves here, this discussion is largely mechanical in nature. END OF ASIDE

Under AW1, there is only one move for mutual violence. You are seizing by force. That's it, it's really your only option. Established harm is traded, and you pick several from 4 choices. But if you look at those 4 choices, one of them - "take definite hold of it" - essentially gets blurred by the fictional situation; there's more than one opponent between you and your ultimate goal, and I think if as MC you say, "No, taking definite hold here will not get you all the way to the MacGuffin," then you have to do either one of two things: either you invalidate one of the four choices (essentially take it off the table ~because fiction~), or you come up with some other fictional snippet (short of your ultimate goal) that can be taken hold of to offer to the player (e.g. "If you 'take definite hold' here, you can put this guy out of the fight for a tick or two whether he's dead or not").

And if you do let the PC make it all the way to the MacGuffin on a single roll, then there is a disconnect between your fictional conflict (there are multiple enemies/steps between you and your ultimate goal) and your mechanics for resolving it (fuck it, one roll takes all!)

Under AW2, you have more options. If the fictional situation is such that you're not really "seizing" anything, then you can just use single combat instead. You don't have to take one of the SBF options off the table or come up with some fictional tidbit to make that option attractive. The move only has two options and both are meaningful. It also has a built-in miss condition that is exactly a flipped move.

Ultimately, this is a stylistic choice. For the most part, I like having all of the move-related choices presented to the player be meaningful. Even in something like read a person where you think you may know the answer to something before you even roll, the move lets you confirm it beyond any doubt. Similarly with read a sitch, every one of the questions should give the player meaningful information. It might not be the information they necessarily expected and it may be an "unwelcome truth," but IMO you should never be "paring down" the options to only what is "appropriate" in your mind. And for what it's worth, I love it when they ask the questions I don't expect.

Finally, no, I didn't choose single combat because he was fighting the guards one at a time; I chose it because he was fighting them with the express goal of killing them. Had both been within arm's reach, I still would have used the same move (though how the harm was exchanged might have looked different).
I want there to not just be armor but to have an exo-suit, with micro assist electro-gel motors and built in emergency environmental seals. But yeah where would I put all that?

Sounds like what you need are palm cards! Yup. Palm cards, long names, lots of colours, and room on the back to draw the thing.

If you have one of those pens with four colours, you could even match the core structure, benefits, detriments and weirdness to black, blue, red and green in turn.

If something gets changed or damaged in the field, scribble it out! Yes. In pen. If you get it fixed up in a dedicated facility, redraw the whole thing (because you won't be in combat).

Yes, this goes against the whole "everything on one page" but excessively complicated gadgets goes with the territory, and I feel like that shouldn't be crippled by lack of page space, or take up valuable retail. Palm cards! Do it.


Ship sizes are determined by how much room it takes to draw them i.e. A4, A5, A6, with more blank page space increasing the relative speed.

Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on May 25, 2017, 04:20:00 AM »
Hmmm! I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but let me comment on the first two notes, first:

* I also like the implications of relatively ever-present harm. However, AW, as written, nerfs that big time with the armor rules. In the last couple of AW games I've played, it's a rare fight where a PC actually takes *any* damage at all.

I'd prefer a version where harm is more meaningful and injury is a big deal. In that context, I don't mind a version of the rules where occasionally you can get out of a fight unhurt.

In any case, I think it would be very rare: it would require two people to get into a fight and BOTH be totally unwilling to hurt each other. I'm guessing... that would pretty much never happen.

* I'm not sure what you mean by your second comment! Care to clarify?

As for the main gist of your last reply here, you can still colour me confused.

First of all, the way you're describing is definitely much more satisfying. That's the way I've always played AW, though. (Because it's more satisfying!)

How does this have anything to do with AW1 vs. AW2, though? I mean, seize by force is still a move, and it still does the same thing. What about the 2nd Ed rules would give me to your example there?

In short, I agree entirely with what you're saying, but I have no idea why you would treat it differently in 1st Ed and 2nd Ed. The only different rule you're using in your example is the Single Combat move... but I don't really see how that changes anything here. Is it just the implication of the word "Single" in the title leading you to apply it only two one-on-one fights? Because I would do that with go aggro and seize by force, too, if it felt right. (And if it didn't, that would be any different in 1st Edition for me.)
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Munin on May 25, 2017, 01:21:16 AM »
I like exchange of harm being a prerequisite - if it's worth inflicting violence, the expectation of harm should be built in.

I also have no particular problem with "you fight harder for [thing], even if ultimately you don't get it."

We had a combat in a recent one-shot where the PC (a heartless assassin based on the Battlebabe playbook) engaged in a fight with three opponents. Ultimately, the assassin's goal was to abduct the crown prince (a mere suckling babe), but rather than jumping straight into SBF, the fight shook out as a go aggro (the surprise initiation of combat, killing the first guard), two single combats (to kill the other two guards, who - due to their positioning - couldn't attack him simultaneously), and another go aggro (to get the wet-nurse to hand over the kid). In this case, single combat seemed like the appropriate move because the PC knew he needed to deal with the guards. A single "seize" roll might have gotten him the kid, but he'd still be in a fight (and at that point he'd have been applying his harm to the wet-nurse, not the guards - and they'd have been carving him up while he did it, applying more harm whether he missed or hit). Similarly, a single "seize" might have gotten him out the tower-window and to his escape, but he wouldn't have had the kid.

Like I said in one of these threads, I think the granularity of what is being seized is intended to be more specific under AW2. And if there's nothing specific you're trying to seize, then single combat is the fall-back. It seemed to shake out pretty well in play.
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on May 24, 2017, 05:31:39 PM »
This whole conversation inspired me to write out a few different formulations of the move. I may type them up at some point.

For instance, I like the idea of giving both parties various choices to make, and one of them is to "exchange harm".

This way, you could occasionally have a relatively bloodless or one-sided battle, but it would require both parties to be committed to that. Most fights would end with both parties hurt, however.
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Ebok on May 24, 2017, 07:16:00 AM »
It was on purpose. I was just playing with other ideas.
the nerve core / Re: Edge of the Verse playtest
« Last post by dorianwinter on May 24, 2017, 06:00:18 AM »
Thank you for the reply.

You're right. We are looking for a native speacker who can help us with the proofreading and adptation.
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on May 24, 2017, 05:03:51 AM »
Those aren't bad ideas.

However, if we're going to hack away, there's no need. :)

Whether by coincidence or not, your hack of Seize by Force (ref. p. 2 of this thread) balances with Single Combat perfectly!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10