Welcome, Guest

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Ok! I'll look over the text and get back to this. Thanks for engaging in this mad discussion with us!
2
Tell me which passages in the text you're having trouble with and maybe I can help.

If you're looking for guidelines or a consensus that isn't in the text, I don't endorse any.

-Vincent
3
Apocalypse World / Print 2ed?
« Last post by vinrocco on Today at 12:59:11 AM »
Any ideas where a print edition can be purchased?
4
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on March 27, 2017, 11:24:29 PM »
In particular, I would love to hear an example from your game(s) of this:

"• There is no need for an explicit miss
Since we can always make the worse possible thing occur, there are less guidelines on when we should. In contrast, if the scene doesn't have an obvious "hard" move to make that makes sense, we are no longer asked to think up one and make it. Thus it's not the miss that matters, but the seize by force. So we no longer watch the dice, instead, leave our full attention on the fiction to decide what comes next."

It's not entirely easy for me to imagine what this looks like in play, since it could be interpreted a number of different ways. Would you consider illustrating with an example?
5
Apocalypse World / Re: 2nd Edition and Seize by Force (and similar moves)
« Last post by Paul T. on March 27, 2017, 11:21:45 PM »
Did this thread die? That would be a shame; it was very interesting, and educational. A few of us are still hashing out various other things as a result in other threads.

I was still hoping to hear about interfering and misses and the harm move. (Vincent, any chance you're still interested in this? The rest of us don't seem to be able to reach consensus on those things, so it would be fun to hear how you do it.)
6
The Regiment / Is this still a thing?
« Last post by Colvin on March 27, 2017, 10:24:57 PM »
Hey folks,

I know colonial marines is a thing, but the world war 2 rpg elements, do they still exist?
7
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on March 27, 2017, 03:12:13 PM »
Very interesting, thanks, Ebok!

I'm having a little bit of trouble grasping exactly what the problem was, because I can't really imagine that being an issue in games we played, but I can try to imagine harder, perhaps.

Any chance I could talk you into giving me an example of a situation where a) the rules don't tell you to make a hard move, and how it is better if you do (a contrast between the "old way" you used to play and the "new way"), and b) someone rolls a miss on a Seize by Force and you think the game is better off when you don't make a move? I was really hoping for an actual example from your games, because talking about it in the abstract, it's really easy to misunderstand each other.

(Also: I'm not talking about opposed rolls; those are clearly better off without MC moves. This is really about PC vs NPC here.)

I agree with your assessment of the benefits of your new move, by the way. It's a bit messy, which I don't love, but it does have some significant benefits, as you point out. I like, for instance, the stronger distinction between a 7-9 and a 10+.
8
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Ebok on March 25, 2017, 10:27:39 PM »
Paul T, if you check out the start of our 12page Seize by Force thread, you'll see that I've been playing with the choose 1 and expect the worst for my last couple of games. I have many examples there, and it clearly worked. However, over the course of that I bought into some of the 2e design, and realize that the previous pattern was playing into some of my bad habits.

1.) Munin is right. PvP + unexperienced MC might do strange and hacky feeling things here.
I know I did when I first started and we had misses in PvP. Sure we can just ignore the clause when its a problem.

2.) But wait, we can ignore it too if there doesn't happen to be a good hard move to make against NPCs, or maybe we just want it to end there. Such as if the enemy is dead either way, and there's nothing else around, or if another player was following up with something battle ending anyway.

3.) We should make hard and direct moves when the character provides us with a golden opportunity, whether that's following a hit or miss. Most misses are golden opportunities anyway, even without the clause.

That's why I tend to be in the "pick 1 and prepare for the worst" camp - because I'm probably going to fuck with you on a miss anyway. At least this way everyone involved knows it's coming.  ;)

My bad habit was this: I got into the pattern where I exclusively made hard moves only on a miss. Then my players saw the clause on a miss, and we all thought, okay, the MC doesn't make a move on a hit. So we had many battles that were "brushed over" on a very high level, because a 7+ means they won, and a miss means they lost. That was our AW1 pattern (right or wrong we started it because of the moves)

Adding the choose 1 on a miss when I started Aw2 actually worked out fine. I still made a hard move on a miss, but they still got at least something out of it. Many of the battle moves dont actually talk about the Player risking harm either, giving us the impression that they only took harm on the seize by force. That was not a good pattern, we solved it by scrapping all of them entirely. Turns out, if I had just realized I could be hard when I should be hard fictionally, we never would have had these issues.

I was talking about this with one of my players after the other discussion. He told he that he honestly had more fun when he missed, because everything got exciting. The hard moves putting characters in peril made things more fun. Huh. Maybe reserving that for misses (especially in a group that might rarely miss) is a bad idea.

conclusion: If 1, 2, and 3 are true, then be prepared for the worst is basically just flavor text reminding us to spice it up by prompting our players into looking to us for a move.

4.) My group didn't notice or care about hitting a 10+ on seize by force. It was a gimme move. We always wanted 7-9 to feel more half and half, rather than auto success. It was an issue from the very first time we played and continued without a good answer through my last game. This hack provides this.

a.) Opposed rolls work with this move already.
b.) It doesn't give anyone the impression the battle will not turn deadly on a 7+
c.) It provides some descriptive agency to a 7-9 option, in a familiar act under fire pattern
d.) It boosts the importance of a higher Hard when seizing by force for 2e.
e.) It falls in line with the same pattern as the other battles moves for 2e.
f.) It contains a miss criteria that is the only thing we lost out on by removing "be prepared for the worst".

Overall, that's why I like it. Could it be better? Absolutely, we should have different battle moves and a different armor / harm setup entirely that could set up more nuanced fights, but for a high level move, seize by force has always been pretty effective in my fiction.
9
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Paul T. on March 25, 2017, 09:47:22 PM »
Indeed. Is that the only objection, Ebok?

It seems simple enough to ignore it in PvP, especially since you already do so for the "interfere" move (as I believe you said in the other thread).

Incidentally, has there ever been a concise/complete ruling as to when and how to engage with the interfere move (particularly in opposed rolls)? I've never seen a coherent take on it, really.
10
Apocalypse World / Re: Alternative Hack for AW2 Seize by Force
« Last post by Munin on March 25, 2017, 07:27:29 PM »
Ebok's main complaint against that interpretation was that it was a little less clear for PvP, as it implied that the MC would be inserting complicating narrative into the middle of two PCs' actions. I don't think that's a big issue, but I believe that was his concern.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10