|
Okay, so I guess we just roll until one of us dies or gives up? Because we can't fail to control it, ever. Again, my argument is not that the system is, like, impossible to adjudicate, or non-functional. It's that it's worse than the old system, which also worked, but which additionally had the possibility of me wanting a thing and not getting it.UrbanLabyrinth posted:You know that you don't get to decide when you roll for a move, right? You don't get to say "I seize by force". You say what you're doing, the MC says "that sounds like Seizing by Force. Roll for it." If you're both describing what you're doing, the MC can pick a more appropriate move. Yes, of course. But that doesn't change my example at all. What move is more appropriate than SBF for me and Jay trying to tear a gun out of each others' hands? megane fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Dec 7, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
I mean, if you and Jay are both like "I will literally die before I let this fucker have this gun" and are equally capable of doing violence, then... yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
The thing about SBF is that it's tied to a harm exchange, which means there's always going to be a cost to using it; choosing narrative-control options means sacrificing options to do more harm or take less, which is a meaningful opportunity cost in a conflict with a threatening opponent. Even if you're using SBF to escape, you're still taking harm from the exchange, which should fundamentally have consequences. In a PC-vs.-PC conflict where both sides are focused on narrative control, that probably means several rounds of swapping harm -- somebody's going to die (maybe both somebodies if they're equally matched), or somebody's going to have to decide the objective isn't worth their life and change choices to harm mitigation or disengaging. That's not an unreasonable model of that sort of confrontation, and if the two characters can't meaningfully harm each other, you probably shouldn't be resolving with SBF anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Yes, SBF is the least problematic one, since at least there's some sort of downside to automatically winning. Overwatch etc. don't even have that; you just win or win harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
megane posted:Why am I rolling if I win no matter what numbers come up? Like you said, if I roll a miss on SBF to escape... I still escape! It is literally impossible to fail to escape from someone if I want to do so. How is the game better now that that's true? Keep in mind that, in 1E, I could roll a miss and still escape if the MC thought it would be interesting. In contrast, in 2E, if the MC thinks it would be interesting for me to not escape? Tough cookies, I'm gone. You roll because it might cost you a lot to escape. You're not reducing harm, or impressing/dismaying/frighting your enemies (which could have an effect on them following you). The reason Seize By Force doesn't say "be prepared for the worst" is because it's not a basic move, it's part of the battle moves and is meant to lead into the other battle moves. If you're interested in reading some of Vincent's thoughts on it, here's a thread on it where he talks about it with. It's pretty long though, so here's a post from him that summarizes it if you don't want to go through the whole thing: quote:Ebok, the purpose of the change is to create more space in play for the other battle moves. That's what we gain. UrbanLabyrinth posted:You know that you don't get to decide when you roll for a move, right? You don't get to say "I seize by force". You say what you're doing, the MC says "that sounds like Seizing by Force. Roll for it." If you're both describing what you're doing, the MC can pick a more appropriate move. You can say "I seize by force" or name your move though. You just have to also describe what you're doing and the MC may say a different move applies depending on what you say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Well, I read through that thread, and it's interesting to read his intent. I wish the move or book communicated some of these things better... or at all. There's no hint anywhere that "hitting the first move with a 10+ means that you go into the second move with momentum and initiative. Missing the first move means that you go into the second move with lost ground to somehow make up," and considering that a character in armor stands a good chance of taking 0 damage and getting their goal anyway on a miss, I think it's pretty fair to say it isn't even implied. It makes the move a bit more reasonable, but of course, it does so by, well, making it more like the 1E version, where a miss led to the possibility of a hard move. Regardless, he still never came up with an example that addresses my problem, which is: why is this version better than the other? "It creates space for the battle moves" and "the consequences will be in the snowball" make no sense to me; surely battle moves and snowballing can happen after a 1E miss, can't they? In what specific situation does something cool happen because of this change that couldn't have happened before? On the other hand, I can think of tons of cool things that could arise because a player missed on 1E SBF, and those can never happen now. Instead, they have been replaced by, effectively, "exactly the same thing as on 7-9, but you take/deal 1 more/less damage." I fail to see how that improves the game, or even furthers the stated goals about battle moves etc. Anyway, I don't mean to imply that anyone shouldn't play 2E or anything. The new versions of these moves just don't float my boat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
I've been trying to put my finger on what I like better about 2E and I think it boils down to how the move works if the GM is having a bad night. Given that the move only triggers if it's clear from the fiction that the PC could manage to seize the thing, a 1E fail leaves the PC just totally screwing up, getting nothing but getting lit up, and then you're right back where you started but with more harm. A good GM can find some way to show that your efforts accomplish something, but a bad one can easily stick you with "you failed, now you have to try again." In 2E, the fact that you can always accomplish something means that even in the worst case, you don't come away feeling like a hopeless scrub, and now the burden is on the GM to make an interesting hard move that, as you say, differentiates it from exactly the same thing as a weak hit, but with more harm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Stand Overwatch, Lay Down Fire, and Keep An Eye Out all capture things players definitely describe narratively, but had pretty thin adjudication options that were almost entirely in the hands of the MC in 1e. All three take common corner cases, give them a clear narrative space, and make that space properly player centric. At least, in concept. Stand Overwatch I like as is. It covers a case where narratively it makes sense for the player to inflict harm on a success, but it also doesn't flow naturally from Exchange Harm, SBF, Go Aggro, AUF, or Help/Interfere. In each case you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's closest to Go Aggro but still a weird fit - Go Aggro assumes the player making a proactive, goal oriented push, where the narrative beat is more reactive. SBF is a real poor fit - what is the player seizing, exactly? AUF and Help don't have harm options included so you're also bringing in the Exchange Harm proto-move in an awkward way. It also does have a clear negative - if your narrative goal is to shoot down someone who's going after your buddy, only being able to shout a last second warning is nearly always going to represent a significant consequence. It's a classic fiction moment. Also worth noting that it requires the player to specifically provide fiction for it to happen. Now that it's its own move, it clearly sets the default state as negative, so no more arguing about whether it makes narrative sense to assume the gunlugger is covering the savvyhead as they work. The player needs to establish it in the fiction first. Lay Down Fire is on the surface the "crunchiest" but its still narrative driven. I've lost track of how many times a player will literally say "I want to lay down covering/suppressing/supporting fire." It also ties that narrative to a couple of mechanics that are welcome additions - the ability to stop someone from acting without having to do weird gymnastics with "harm as established" or to intentionally give someone an opportunity to act. I like it for that a lot. While it was easier for the MC to handle the fiction for those cases in 1e than it was for Stand Overwatch, Lay Down Fire makes it player centric and easier to work with from a mechanics standpoint. It's just a nice quality-of-life improvement. However it has two issues. One is it lacks a clear cost, the other is that the existing menu options are such that often you'll really only need one of them. Personally I would just add one or both of "You don't expose yourself to enemy fire" and "You don't have to stop and reload afterwards" to the menu. Keep An Eye Out might conceptually be the strongest and fill the biggest gap, but it's got the same problem as LDF only more so. For the good, players running combat light playbooks - Skinner for example - in my experience describe that move narratively quite often. They aren't mixing it up, but they want to shout warnings or point out opportunities so they aren't just sitting around. Help/Interfere can cover that, but it puts a lot of adjudication on the MC and also is a weird fit since it runs off Hx. You can justify it, sort of, by saying Hx represents how likely the other party is to listen to advice, but there's two issues. The way Hx fluctuates across time, especially the roll over at +3/-3, doesn't always mesh with established facts if you apply it that way. Second, the mechanical effects push back against player intent - a miss will always matter but a hit often doesn't, so either you end up with problems resolving competing narratives or players just avoid it. Keep An Eye Out puts the narrative control in the hands of the player and allows it to have its own narrative space that makes sense. But there's a bad side to it, as it currently exists. It rightly changes things so players aren't avoiding this common fictional concept because the chance of making things worse vastly outweighs the potential benefit. It unfortunately swings too far the other way - there's never a reason not to Keep An Eye Out for the kind of characters who inhabit that narrative space. You will always improve the situation. If it worked more like the other battle moves, where the assumed outcome is kind of bad and the menu included choices to offset badness, then it would be a better move in my opinion. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Gorbash speaks to a good point, which is that I think the default outcome of every move should be considered bad. It goes back to the reading of Read a Sitch to me: you can read any Sitch you like, but the act of doing so charges it, if it wasn't already. Similarly, if you Keep an Eye Out, well, there's certainly something you should be keeping an eye out for in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
megane posted:I wish the move or book communicated some of these things better... or at all. There's no hint anywhere that "hitting the first move with a 10+ means that you go into the second move with momentum and initiative. Missing the first move means that you go into the second move with lost ground to somehow make up,"... Because AW2E has removed 1E's "battle clock," there's no mechanism for automatic harm-per-tick anymore. As such, I'm going to be way more liberal about doling out awful consequences every time it's my turn to talk, even when narrating a success. Essentially, when a character is "in battle," the moves I make as an MC are going to be much harder. If your position is getting suppressed by the opposition and you want to fight your way free, that's totally cool - but you're going to take harm before you even make your Hard roll because your move is predicated on standing up into a hail of bullets. So sure, even on a miss you'll win free from your immediate situation - but you'll have taken harm twice, once for me inflicting harm as established (because it fits the fiction and you're "in battle"), and again for the trade of harm that comes as part of your roll to fight your way free. Also, as has been pointed out previously, the narrative situation in Apocalypse World is as much about the options you don't choose as about those you do. Fundamentally, I don't have a problem with this approach, I just wish it had been explained more clearly in the book, or that MCs were given more concrete advice about how to shift the tone of things when the players are "in battle." For experienced MCs, it also probably doesn't look terribly different at the table than it did before, but for new MCs, I think it's a bit of a lurking trap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I was looking over the child-thing and despite some discussion I feel like some of the den options are kind of weirdly matched to each other. On the list there's options like 5-barter worth of food and paths into people's places even if they're otherwise secure. Additionally there's options like a small supply of pure water or paths into alien places; not inherently valuable, maybe, but certainly potentially exciting fictional permissions or assets. Then, on top of that, there's a few things like the preserved calendar and the gutted monoplane where it just seems like you'd be picking them purely for the aesthetic. Which isn't to say that's not important; guidance of the aesthetic is definitely a thing AW does at times and often prompts interesting interpretive discussion. But, it also has the effect of both implying that the decoration of your den is the kind of thing that requires resources (since you're taking an option that's about setting the aesthetic), while also being only an aesthetic on a list that includes a bunch of mechanically or fictionally valuable things. Does anyone else have a different take on it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 12:30
|
|
|
There’s a lot of things that only have an aesthetic reason to pick, like two harm weapons, +Messy, motorbikes for the Driver, no armour, stuff like that. It’s often evocative enough to still have upsides in the fiction, but that’s no help in a fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:There’s a lot of things that only have an aesthetic reason to pick, like two harm weapons, +Messy, motorbikes for the Driver, no armour, stuff like that. It’s often evocative enough to still have upsides in the fiction, but that’s no help in a fight. Yeah, for sure, but the last bit is usually key; "paths to an alien place of shifting luminosity and unscratched glass" is evocative enough to have fictional effects. I can't see how a nice calendar or having smartphone cases for bricks is, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Just because the text says something is broken or dead doesn't mean the thing is useless, or beyond salvage/repair, or of no interest to anyone. As GM and player both, it's your job to interpret these things in whichever way is the coolest and most interesting. The preserved calendar is an antique, possibly worth a lot of money to someone - or a good source of trouble if an NPC collector hears of its existence. The gutted Cessna is something I'd personally allow the players to repair as a GM, but YMMV on that. Dead smartphones are salvageable for electronic components, and another potential source of barter/trouble. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
The preserved calendar is fantastic if your Maelstrom involves messing about with time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
My Maestro’D won an argument with someone by pulling out a birthday calendar and proving it was their birthday. (She also gave them a cupcake.)
Golden Bee fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Feb 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Vincent just posted the 2E Macaluso, now the Symbiote. I gotta say, this might be a "I was a really dumb kid" thing, but I get the concept of it way better now. I'm kind of curious to hear what other people think of the playbook, though, especially what the playbook "is".
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Vincent just posted the 2E Macaluso, now the Symbiote. I gotta say, this might be a "I was a really dumb kid" thing, but I get the concept of it way better now. I'm kind of curious to hear what other people think of the playbook, though, especially what the playbook "is". I was going to use this concept for the macaluso in my "spores are xenoforming the earth" game once players started changing playbooks but it didn't survive that long. I love the new interactions with the other weird playbooks in Rival Colony.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Vincent just posted the 2E Macaluso, now the Symbiote. I gotta say, this might be a "I was a really dumb kid" thing, but I get the concept of it way better now. I'm kind of curious to hear what other people think of the playbook, though, especially what the playbook "is". The Macaluso was always pretty weird, I don't blame you for not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Questions arising from actual play: I had a gunlugger say he wanted to lay down fire, ostensibly in support of a friend bailing out from baiting a trap. Another PC had already kept an eye out, since they were expecting the gang chasing to appear any minute. The gang had already taken 1 harm previously from exchanging fire with the bait. Gunlugger hits with 2 options, the important one being an opportune shot. This is their 4-harm messy grenades. Small gang vs small gang, so no change, -1 for opportune shot, +1 for the help. 5 damage, widespread fatalities and few survivors... without even establishing an exchange of harm. Now, that's a big gun and the gunlugger is meant to be a badass, that I get, but I'm also questioning why you'd ever want to not lay down fire, as it stands, given it rolls the same stat as seize by force without establishing an exchange, and with the potential of inflicting some serious complications on anything that survives. You could argue that it doesn't get a grip on things, but if you're comfortable with things being dead first before taking their stuff then it's a pretty nice alternative. I guess there's the option of being really demanding with the fictional positioning of it, and maybe ruling stuff like "no suppressive fire with grenades", but still, it blindsided me a bit with how... efficient that was. To be clear, I don't think this was him fudging the move to get a more efficient outcome, it just lead to us all going "Wait, why would you want to seize by force?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah, that feels like it should probably be changed to "you inflict 1-harm" and not "harm -1."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Yeah, that feels like it should probably be changed to "you inflict 1-harm" and not "harm -1." That was my gut feel on it, too, that, like, it's an incidental shot to you mostly trying to pin people. It's a bullet clipping someone's thigh so they go "poo poo!" and duck back behind their rock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Yeah, I always read it as 1-harm. It's what makes sense in the fiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
I'm OK with the harm-1 option, honestly, because that's normally a pretty big penalty. In marginal situations, it can be enough to make a character harmless. When it's the gunlugger rocking the the grenade launcher, OK, yeah, it's a lot of harm, but as spectraltalent says, this is the Gunlugger we're talking about. Did the fiction really mean that the Gunlugger could just stand there and pop off a grenade without an exchange of harm? I know the move doesn't require an exchange of harm, but the GM is always free to say, "hey, wait, you're at close range, you're out in the open, everyone sees everyone, you're going to take fire here." Or else the Gunlugger somehow has such a great position they they can sit there at short range but not worry about incoming fire, in which case, I guess that inflicting 4-Harm with impunity is their reward for good play. I might disallow the +1 for the helper in this situation, on the grounds that there's a difference between laying down fire and attacking the enemy. If you want the bonus for attacking, then Seize By Force like a proper vertebrate. Otherwise, I'd tell the PC that taking an opportune shot doesn't count as an attack. A real attack involves an exchange of harm. A grenade launcher is also area messy, and I'd hammer that. If there are any PCs or vehicles at close range to the Gunlugger, they just took 4-Harm too, and that might apply to the person keeping an eye out. Grenades are bad news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
I think the key point here is "an enemy within your reach." To me, this implies one of two things might be going on: first, if they're in your reach, you're probably also in theirs. There's nothing in the move that says you won't take Harm in return, so if you're going to stand there capping off grenades, expect to draw fire. Secondly, if the enemy knows or suspects that you're going to start capping off grenades, they're going to be more circumspect. I'd give the receiving party the option to back off prior to getting totally hosed just like I do before applying harm to a PC who elects to stand up into suppressive fire or some other physical danger. One thing to keep in mind with the battle moves is that they are predicated on the idea that you are "in battle," and while AW2 is unfortunately pretty scant on what this actually means in practice, for me it means I make much harder moves against PCs. So sure, you can opt to make that attack of opportunity while laying down fire, but I am absolutely willing to make an inflict harm, as established move of my own because you're not the only participant in this gun fight. There's a pretty interesting discussion about this concept on the AW forums. It's worth pointing out that AW1's "peripheral battle moves" included a harm-per-clock-tick mechanism, where even being in the situation meant you were likely getting shot at. AW2 dropped this, but in various threads Vincent has talked about pushing the consequences of the battle moves "into the snowball," meaning that while damage or a trade of harm may not be predicated in a move (although it is for single combat and seize by force), being "in battle" is a narrative/fictional situation that can have mechanical consequences (i.e. harm).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
If the Gunlugger was protecting someone from being attacked and the group could attack him back, that seems like the Seizing by Force variation. Otherwise he's a NTBFW grenade launcher toting Gunlugger who had a PC take time to keep an eye out for him for assistance, and managed to get into a position where the small gang couldn't fire back on him. That's pretty much going to lead to them being annihilated. You said he got a 7-9 and picked to inflict incidental harm. That means he either didn't provide covering fire so the other character could get injured, or he didn't provide suppressing fire meaning the survivors could still move around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
All good points, I guess I should probably be more aggressive with harm exchanges, from the sounds of it. It did feel like a bit of a dick move to exchange harm despite having just noted it doesn't force you to exchange harm, though. I was also considering using the messy trait to make it dangerous, but "yeah she also takes five harm" felt like a bit of a dick move from the first battle in the game (and this group's first experience with battle moves). Would people feel like it's fair to say, as a general rule, if you're participating in a battle and there's no good reason otherwise, you're always exchanging harm or subject to having harm inflicted when you're taking an action? Or, maybe "before you go, act under fire to see if you're getting shot"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
The GL excelled at what he's meant to excel at, with other people assisting in order to help him excel even further, against an unprepared enemy. That's very good, to me? Seems like the consequences shouldn't be confined to the fight in this case. Instead, the survivors or hidden onlookers tell of this feat, and maybe future fights lure him into giving cover fire to clock his position while a camouflaged scout sneaks up behind him with a garotte? Or a spy seduces him and poisons him or sabotages the launcher to blow up in his hands? Or a cult starts following him and worshiping him as an avatar of violence, getting in his way and annoying him, but also leading to jealousy from another cult leader who doesn't like competition? Basically just rack him where he isn't strong, which is anywhere that isn't tied to "wasting unimportant, immediately replaceable peons in a firefight"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Since October, I've run about 8 different one-shot Dungeon World sessions, with varying degrees of success, but with all of them I had the players understand that "This is a one-time thing, but we can do more in the future", since it's difficult to get adults to commit to a full on RPG campaign and I don't have as much time to run 8 groups' worth of sessions continuously. However, when I discovered Fellowship, that all changed and now I am super excited about running a longer scale campaign similar to how I used to run 5th edition DND. Our first session went great, with very good world building, I have my own irks about the system that I'm working on encapsulating (no basic attack really messes with me, and the whole gang-group-army system of monsters). Yet what I actually need help on is figuring out how to run the second and further sessions. I know I shouldn't "write" a whole adventure, but I don't really have fronts set up since Fellowship works off of a heavier Bond-Based system. I've found that starting the scenarios (one-shots and others) off with a combat encounter really helps people get into the game, but I'm unsure about what to do after that. The Winter's End podcast that I've been following does a lot of world building and I plan to brush up on Perilous Wilds since so much of the "fun" of the system seems to be exploring people, places and problems that the Overlord has created. Any advice/material on how to structure a Campaign built off of a one-shot would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
spectralent posted:All good points, I guess I should probably be more aggressive with harm exchanges, from the sounds of it. It did feel like a bit of a dick move to exchange harm despite having just noted it doesn't force you to exchange harm, though. I was also considering using the messy trait to make it dangerous, but "yeah she also takes five harm" felt like a bit of a dick move from the first battle in the game (and this group's first experience with battle moves). Every battle is a little different, so the most important thing is, as always, to keep the fiction first. Who is shooting? What is the terrain? Is it reasonable for a given PC to avoid incoming fire in that situation? You have no immunity just because your move doesn't say you exchange harm. Seize By Force is special because it requires an exchange of harm, not because it includes one. In terms of the "Inflict Harm, as Established" GM move, I think it's best to clarify the situation to the table. "OK, so now several of Dremmer's men are in the draw with you, and since they first took fire, they've been rocking and rolling. Bullets are ricocheting everywhere, so anyone who exposes themselves risks 2-Harm from a small gang. Bungstone, you're the one Dremmer wants dead, so they're using bounding overwatch to move toward you, what do you do?" In your original example, I think you did just fine. Regardless of which specific moves got used, the bad guys got drawn into a trap, and the trap was a Gunlugger, Not To Be hosed With, carrying a grenade launcher. No small gang can make that sort of mistake and live. Edit: Regarding the messy trait, I wouldn't spring it on the PCs as a gotcha, but it's more than fair to mention it to the Gunlugger before they shoot. "Hey, not for nothing, but as you were setting up, you realized that this entire gulch is only about 15 yards wide, which is all inside grenade range. If you fire that thing here, your spotter's not safe. Did you intend to take that chance, or would you rather engage with your SMG, so you can be more precise?" Don't be reluctant to take advantage of that Messy tag. If the Gunlugger didn't want to be messy, they should have taken the assault or silence sniper rifles. Zorak of Michigan fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, that's fair, I'm just worried I've set a precedent that the safest way to do things is have the gunlugger do supporting fire, which is risk-free and wipes most gangs (3 harm, gang with an absent or weak leader fucks off, which I'd assume is most of them that aren't hot poo poo in some way; for a hot-poo poo gang he needs an assist or a slightly better weapon but, those things exist). The advice on harm cycling gives me ideas on why that's not totally trivial though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, that's fair, I'm just worried I've set a precedent that the safest way to do things is have the gunlugger do supporting fire, which is risk-free and wipes most gangs (3 harm, gang with an absent or weak leader fucks off, which I'd assume is most of them that aren't hot poo poo in some way; for a hot-poo poo gang he needs an assist or a slightly better weapon but, those things exist). The advice on harm cycling gives me ideas on why that's not totally trivial though. If you're worried about precedent, just say something before next session to make it clear. This shouldn't be a big deal. The PCs in AW are such badasses that they hardly need a risk-free move to be able to kill everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:If you're worried about precedent, just say something before next session to make it clear. This shouldn't be a big deal. The PCs in AW are such badasses that they hardly need a risk-free move to be able to kill everyone. Yeah, probably good advice! The only reason I'm worried about this is because it's this group's first game with PBTA, period, and their first serious fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
OfChristandMen posted:Since October, I've run about 8 different one-shot Dungeon World sessions, with varying degrees of success, but with all of them I had the players understand that "This is a one-time thing, but we can do more in the future", since it's difficult to get adults to commit to a full on RPG campaign and I don't have as much time to run 8 groups' worth of sessions continuously. I'd recommend checking out pages 38, 39, and 40 from the Apocalypse World Basic Refbook (available free from the AW website). http://apocalypse-world.com/ApocalypseWorldBasicRefbook2ndEd.pdf It doesn't explain a ton, but it shows the basic outline for Threats and the Threat Map. It's not one-to-one with Fellowship, but I think you could get a lot out of thinking about the way AW handles threats. Take whatever notes you have from your first session world building and try to lay them out as if you were filling out a Threat Map. Without getting into it too deeply since it's only in the paid book - the inner ring of the map is for non-PC stuff the PCs control (mercenaries, hirelings, holdings, etc), the next ring is for "near" threats, the outer ring is for things near or just beyond the horizon, and "notional" problems are written outside of the circle but still recorded. You use arrows to indicate movement if there is any. Here is a really quick example I dashed off: https://imgur.com/a/O4GBj The Dwarven Kingdom may be your allies, but what happens if they are overtaken? If your enemy reaches the mercenary fortress things could get much more complicated for you. Monsters are also approaching from the north and you have environmental issues to contend with due to the Dark Lord's sorceries. This is all stuff that your party could know through different means, and now they have to decide how to progress. Handling one problem means letting another one get worse. For AW that might mean certain situations become untenable, but Fellowship is typically more hopeful than Apocalypse World so maybe this means your heroes show up in the nick of time and you get to hop into a huge battle already in progress. Create a few threat card style cards. They can be allies (or potential allies) as well. It really just means NPCs and/or foes with agency, as well as terrain (crossing a dangerous ravine) and more conceptual problems (famine). Make a few that you can throw a name on and drop in the game anywhere. If you feel like you don't have enough world building done to do this stuff, make a bit up on your own and let that first combat you like to do be a spy that your group intercepts or something like that. I think it's generally OK to create some of the world as long as you let the players be the ones to navigate. You can also just come up with the really broad strokes and have the PCs fill in the rest. "There's a list of cities here - Grey Wall, Brookehaven, and Redonia. We know the mages' guild and their research is in Redonia already. Why would they be interested in Grey Wall and Brookehaven though?" The elf jumps in "Brookehaven is home to our people's ancient weapons. The traitorous Sklithe may have told the Dark Lord of them." Let the players tell you, then let them decide which place to go first. They'll have a starting point and you'll have at least two or three more things to do next. Fumaofthelake fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
OfChristandMen posted:Since October, I've run about 8 different one-shot Dungeon World sessions, with varying degrees of success, but with all of them I had the players understand that "This is a one-time thing, but we can do more in the future", since it's difficult to get adults to commit to a full on RPG campaign and I don't have as much time to run 8 groups' worth of sessions continuously. When I plan for future stuff in Fellowship, I mainly use two things. 1: I invent some NPCs to get in their way, usually using threats from the back of the book. I also like to base those threats in the heroes' backstory, since they did all that worldbuilding - include some enemies to their people, if they have an Orc make one of your threats an Orc, that kind of thing. Once you have a couple of those in your back pocket, pull them out when you need them. 2: The Overlord's Plans give you, the GM, a goal to work towards. Figure out what the Overlord wants, then just play them making the moves they need to get that. As long as you then broadcast what the Overlord is up to to the players, it is up to them to try and stop you, so you can just wait and figure out how they're going to do that. Less related to your specific question, Keep Them Busy is the basic attack move, for when you do not have an advantage to try and Finish Them with. It also creates an Advantage, so someone else can try to inflict lasting harm while you're fighting them off. And in practice, I have only very sparingly used the group/gang/army system, and mostly to present a near-insurmountable threat the players want to avoid. Groups are tough to fight but beatable, Gangs and beyond are nearly impossible to handle without serious firepower. The Piercing tag is especially powerful against them, since it lets the player attack the Army/Gang/Group stat to break them up early, but without it they're in for a tough tough time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Geez gnome if I knew you were going to post right after me I wouldn't have bothered with all my bad advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Fumaofthelake posted:Geez gnome if I knew you were going to post right after me I wouldn't have bothered with all my bad advice. The threat map was actually super helpful, and something I would have never seen if I gnome7 posted:Less related to your specific question, Keep Them Busy is the basic attack move, for when you do not have an advantage to try and Finish Them with. It also creates an Advantage, so someone else can try to inflict lasting harm while you're fighting them off. Thanks for the explanation, I guess with the stats-based damage system, it's hard for my players to have them feel like an attack when it doesn't cause numbers to change as we're all used to. I'll mention that Keep Them Busy is more of an "attack" that doesn't directly affect HP/Stats. I gush to all my tabletop buddies about how awesome it is to have a sheet and play "Sauron" instead of just feeling like an empowered Narrator. When I told the Fellowship that I also get to level up and chose to form a Bond with their ship, to know where it was at all time, a gasp went out among the group which might have been the most fun I had GMing in quite a while. So thank you, the system is awesome. If (When) the party defeats the Overlord, do you recommend continuing the storyline with a badder enemy or start N generations down, with a new threat rising? I know one of the Overlord's "Secret reasons" are "When the fellowship defeats you: reveal this new threat, It Is their problem now." But I was wondering what choices you've seen Overlords make in that scenario. I was thinking of having a possible sort of "continent" shift, similar to a game of Civ where, everything going on in the storyline is happening here, but there's another continent with an even meanier beastie jerk. I suppose that sort of devalues the bond economy system though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
OfChristandMen posted:If (When) the party defeats the Overlord, do you recommend continuing the storyline with a badder enemy or start N generations down, with a new threat rising? I know one of the Overlord's "Secret reasons" are "When the fellowship defeats you: reveal this new threat, It Is their problem now." But I was wondering what choices you've seen Overlords make in that scenario. I dunno if it's on the list, but "Evil cannot die; I will rise again in 1000 years, foolish mortals" sounds like a pretty badass Overlord Secret.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
I would also say "the heroes enjoy a well earned victory, move on to a different game or a completely fresh campaign of Fellowship" is a valid outcome. After all, PBTA tends to favor discrete, finite narratives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Here’s an odd question for gnome7 - is there anywhere to get the icon/images for the stats (blood, grace, etc) that are on the playbook?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2018 06:29
|
|