Author Topic: 2nd Edition Kickstarter  (Read 43649 times)

Paul T.

  • User
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2016, 03:25:52 PM »
Nice, Vincent. Makes sense.

I'd feel less confident as an MC about *when* do bring those things in, but I'd imagine your answer to how to do that will be simply "case-by-case", following the AW conversation. An open-ended miss gives me a clear opening to do that, whereas a defined miss means I'm more likely to make a soft move or move on to the next PC to act, instead.

I guess I'll have to see it play and then get back to this conversation. Thanks for all the responses; it's great to get this level of feedback.

lumpley

  • Administrator
  • User
  • Posts: 1270
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2016, 04:48:45 PM »
Sure thing!

-Vincent

Paul T.

  • User
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2016, 06:51:08 AM »
Vincent,

Can you talk a little about the changes to Debilities? Why the switch here, and how is improving gameplay?

ColdLogic

  • User
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2016, 04:23:50 PM »
Vincent, for the battle moves, do the rules permit players to stack their choices on 10+? So, put two points in 'take definite hold' or whatever, similar to AW:DA?

lumpley

  • Administrator
  • User
  • Posts: 1270
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2016, 04:44:38 PM »
Good question. They don't, no.

-Vincent

Paul T.

  • User
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2016, 11:34:18 PM »
Vincent,

1. Would still like to hear about the changes to Debilities. "Change to another playbook" seems like a *perfect* fit for an "avoid certain death" scenario, and I like that it's mandated after your third "near death experiences". Sweet! So, overall, this seems like a *great* change.

Why the "+1 Weird", though? Is the idea to actually *tempt* players into dying once? That's kind of interesting. Or do you have to choose the options in that particular order (top to bottom)? That could be interesting, too.

2. Thinking further about why "Sucker Someone" is bugging me, and why you thought it was a weird concern. Here's my reasoning:

If a PC is attacking someone helpless, I could be thinking of one of three things -

a) I'm looking at the NPC through crosshairs, and/or it makes no sense for them to "miss" -> I inflict harm on the NPC, straight up. I don't need a move here.
b) I don't have a particular outcome in mind, it seems like anything could go, so I'd like to disclaim responsibility. If it makes sense to ask one of the players, I can; if not, it would be nice to roll a move and to see what happens.
c) The situation seems difficult, and I feel it is my role to advocate for the NPC, test the PC's resolve - letting them off easy here is wrong for this moment in play, or it wouldn't make apocalypse world feel 'real'.

Having a move for this situation is unnecessary in a), but very helpful in b) and c).

Here's my concern with Sucker Someone:

* If the situation is a), I probably wouldn't bother rolling at all. Rolling, getting a 7-9, and THEN saying, "oh, they suck it up!" seems like waste of game time: the procedure really didn't add much value to the game just then.
* If it's c), then I'll choose an outcome with the NPC in mind, as though I'm playing them. "Oh, Dremmer would totally go and barricade himself in, given how poorly things are going for him!" Here's where a 7-9 could really feel like a miss, or kind of "whiffy" - the PC has the upper hand in this situation, but the odds are against them (their chances of a 10+ are slight, after all).
* If it's b), then I want to roll to see what happens. But the most common outcome here (a 7-9) is one where the ball is back in my court and I have to choose: do they suck it up, or not? That seems like the move didn't help me at all.

For comparison's sake, in many "sucker someone" situations (like the classic "sniper scenario") the *miss* outcome would look very much like the 7-9 options from "go aggro". ("You shoot and miss! He throws his hands in the air and backs away/barricades himself into a safe place/offers you the hostage so long as you don't shoot again...")

That seems to *me* like a reasonable parsing of the move, in terms of the MC's thought process. How do you intend players to think about this, instead? What's your thought process like in this situation?

(For the record, my own approach has been to use a custom move: "When you attack someone who's not ready to defend themselves, is there a danger? If so, roll as though you were acting under fire" - and if, I want to be a stickler for what the stats mean, I could say, "but roll+hard instead of +cool." Is there a strong reason why using "go aggro" is superior here? What's an example of a situation where would it make a difference in play?)

Interesting stuff, in any case. Thanks again!

Chris Mitchell

  • New User
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2016, 10:43:54 PM »
The better question is why people think getting a plus one weird is good.

lumpley

  • Administrator
  • User
  • Posts: 1270
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2016, 04:02:02 PM »
Paul:

First, about suckering someone: You should always bother rolling. The player's making a move, so they roll it. THEN you decide whether to inflict harm or choose one of the other options.

For instance, what if they have their hard highlighted? It's your positive duty to let them roll it.

I strongly disagree that a miss on the "sniper scenario" should look like a 7-9 on going aggro. On a miss, your target's unfazed and you've given away your position, or your target executes a hostage, or whatever hard move I feel like making. It's the weak hit, the close call, that leaves your target alive but rattled, fleeing, or eager to back down.

The reason to use going aggro instead of acting under fire is just because going aggro already lays out the appropriate worse outcomes. Too often when I'm the MC I find myself struggling to come up with a hard bargain, when there are obvious and suitable worse outcomes. I know I'm not the only one!

-Vincent




lumpley

  • Administrator
  • User
  • Posts: 1270
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2016, 04:09:58 PM »
Now about the new rules for when life becomes untenable (no longer called "debilities"): I see two questions there. The easy one is, why does the game reward you for getting yourself killed? The answer is, because the game rewards you for practically everything.

It might be instructive to sift through and find the few things remaining that the game does punish you for.

But meanwhile, the harder question is, why does the game push weird like it does? The ways the game gives you to increase your weird are completely out of balance with the ways it gives you to increase the other stats. How come it's that way?

edit: This is the same question as Chris' question, of course.

-Vincent

Paul T.

  • User
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2016, 04:25:23 PM »
Good answers, thanks, Vincent.

In the new version of "Sucker Someone", I like that worse outcomes are spelled out, as you suggest, but I don't like that I'm expected to always make the call on a 7-9 (I can't easily disclaim responsibility here). Perhaps that's a worthwhile tradeoff! I'll have to try it and see.

Borogove

  • User
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2016, 06:01:58 PM »
But meanwhile, the harder question is, why does the game push weird like it does? The ways the game gives you to increase your weird are completely out of balance with the ways it gives you to increase the other stats. How come it's that way?

Huh. I mean, it is and it isn't completely out of balance; there are more routes to high-weird than the other stats, but it's not difficult to max out any one you care to by the 6th improvement, is it? Some you'd have to plan ahead and start with +1...

"When life is untenable" doesn't specify, but should it be max weird+3?

lumpley

  • Administrator
  • User
  • Posts: 1270
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2016, 07:05:03 PM »
Yeah, max +3. (I thought that was on there! I MUST have published the second-to-newest version.)

-Vincent

Paul T.

  • User
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2016, 08:15:19 PM »
Funny! I could have sworn I'd seen that in there, too. (But maybe my brain just automatically adds "max+3" everywhere, since that's a trend throughout the rules, and therefore seems logical.)

On the subject of rewarding death, I think that's great. It seems that the new version 1) rewards death (although it's mixed, given that changing playbooks *could* be against your wishes, and the -1 Hard is generally not desirable), but also 2) doesn't give the player as many "lives" to play with, as the fourth time you snuff it, it's for reals. I was curious to hear how this change came about, but I support it 100% - much more interesting this way. It's actually one of my favourite updates.

I always thought the almost-purely-mechanical Debilities were a bit dry, and this makes the choice you make when you "die" much more intense, I think ("and this is the time when I came back broken/the time I came back unhinged/the time when I came back a totally different person and started anew"). Having "you die" on the list is a nice touch of scary, as well - your character's mortality is right there on the sheet, staring you in the face (even though we know that it's not too likely to happen).

As for rewarding weird, that's an interesting question. I know it's been a design feature of AW since the start (increasing your weird, and then, secondly, your hard, seem to be the most available directions for character development). I always figured it was to draw us deeper into the mysteries of the maelstrom, which leads to raising the stakes of the larger-scale weirdness in the game, twisting the characters, and encouraging people to take more +weird moves as well as, eventually, advancing the "open your brain" move. We're more likely to interact with the maelstrom, and, eventually, pierce its mysteries.

Interacting with the maelstrom gives the MC more opportunities to bring in even higher stakes (it's easier to craft a fictional situation where dealing with the maelstrom means that global or large-scale issues are at stake than, say, something like "read a sitch") and for the players to enact some truly meaningful changes to the world at large. So, it's a push towards larger stakes, increasing weirdness, and exploring the mysterious, underlying nature of Apocalypse World. "Opening your brain" is the most open-ended move, and gives the group an avenue to explore some of the weirder and larger challenges they can't engage with their guns, their cars, or their sexuality.

(I think it's a bit more misleading to say that getting a +1 weird could actually be "bad" for you, though. Maybe it could tempt a person to take on greater challenges, but that's hardly a *disadvantage* - just a temptation and an incentive.)

The second most common advance seems to be increasing hard (and related combat abilities), which is, of course, the second most likely method available to PCs if they want to establish something meaningful and change the nature of the world. But it's less flexible and more costly, so it gets second billling. That's my guess, anyway.

I'm not entirely sure where the game punishes you, exactly. I'll have to think on that. Anyone else have some guesses/ideas?

Vincent, have these things changed meaningfully in the second edition, in your opinion? They certainly have when it comes to dying, but otherwise I don't know. Does the move from Fronts to a threap map affect gameplay (and have any long-term ramifications), or is it just a better/smoother procedure, like the change to Hx?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 08:20:13 PM by Paul T. »

Borogove

  • User
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2016, 10:24:29 PM »
Paul, your analysis of weird's place in the game seems dead-on to me.

Tim Ralphs

  • User
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: 2nd Edition Kickstarter
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2016, 11:12:28 AM »
I'm sure Vincent already talked about this elsewhere. Being alive in Apocalypse World doesn't make you Cooler, or Sharper. It makes you messed up, violent, spooky, gibbering and liable to lash out. I think that's why Hard and Weird go up so much more. (I remember someone pointing out that the Angel has 2 +1 Hard options. Because you start out trying to put people back together, and then...)

Anyway, Vincent, thanks for the EU print run. I've switched over and it has saved a bit of cash. Does it seem likely there'll be a European hardback run? Also, I'm thinking about starting an AW game in the next month or so. Am I right in thinking that the Keep and Lifestyle rules from AW Fallen Empires can be pretty easily ported into AW2? (Of all the changes, it's "spend barter on lifestyle each session" that has me most excited.) And, I don't know if you're planning on any further previews, but the Vehicle and Prosthetic creation stuff would be very welcome.