I have a rules question. In the basic moves, Take Down and Serve and Protect seem to have a triggering conflict. If I confront an immediate threat and thereby stand in defense of a person place or thing, which trigger takes precedence? If neither, is it up to the MC or the player? I would look to the spirit of the stats for assistance, but you can Take Down with Protect, so that doesn’t clarify for me. Thanks!
Edit: I hadn’t noticed this before but Negoitate has a similar oddity since you can Take Down with “words charm or presence.” How do you decide whether that is a Take Down or an attempt to reach agreement or compromise through argument? Negotiate can presumably trigger during a charged or dangerous situation and in response to a threat; is the difference one of immediacy or what? How is that distinction found in play?
Similarly, Defy Danger and Take Down seem to have trigger conflicts when using Influence, sort of when using investigate and very much when using protect. While I can make a case for the first two, I’m having a lot of trouble distinguishing between “confronting an immediate threat by enduring or withstanding force” and “acting despite an imminent threat and/or digging in to endure a danger by enduring [or withstanding force].”
The wording for triggers is definitely tricky and something that our dev editor will be looking at specifically but here are the intentions and reasoning behind the moves:
First off – Take Down and Defy Danger. Take Down is not just about confronting a danger, it’s also about dealing with it. Take Down is all about being active, no matter which stat you use. Defy Danger is passive and is all about things happening to you. When you DO something to deal with a threat you use Take Down. When a danger befalls you, you Defy Danger.
The difference between Take Down and Negotiate is in that with Take Down there are no compromises to be head and you’re not trying to sway public opinion or change their mind. You’re basically fighting with words – trash talking, trying to get in their head, intimidate. With Negotiate you’re having an actual argument, trying to change opinion or sway public, reach a compromise or an agreement. It doesn’t have to necessarily be civil, but the way it’s approached is different in terms of intent and possible consequence.
Again, for Take Down and Serve and Protect. The trigger for take down is not simply confronting a threat, but dealing with it. If you stand in defense of something, you aren’t dealing with the threat. You’re just trying to mitigate the damage it does.
Hope that helps!
It helps understand the fiction of the moves and gives me some purchase on how to explain them to a play group, so thank you. 😀
But I’m still confused about the mechanical side. When would you want to mitigate the effects of a danger instead of simply dealing with it? Why would you as a player seek to protect by holding fast against danger instead of by overcoming it? In a system like FATE or DnD these things would have different difficulty levels which would create tactical reasons to pick one or the other, here it’s a bit more abstract and the moves don’t have associated dynamic difficulties that make it easier to Defy Danger or Service and Protect or Take Down.
Also I’m still very much unsure of how to differentiate between Protect and Serve and Defy Danger by Enduring.
Thank you for your response. I’d also like to add that I’m really enjoying the character builds. It gives me a nice sense of how to build characters and how you envision the system working so I have a better understanding of where you’re coming with the various game elements even while everything is still being worked on. Character Creation here is a lot more involved than in a typical AW game, so having these examples is immensely helpful. 🙂
P.S. I should clarify that I understand the motivational difference, but I’m unsure if a motivational difference is sufficient especially given the level of abstraction that could be at work How immediately is it my goal to protect the citizen from the asteroid vs. endure the hit of the asteroid vs prevent the asteroid form being dangerous once and for all? For most heroing situations, protecting and overcoming are ALWAYS on the table and thus it comes down to which motivational trigger is the most relevant and immediate right now. I could see it being difficult to figure out that side of things which is where a more superficial trigger rather than an intent-focused trigger would be helpful in play.
As an example, Go Aggro and Seize by Force could be thought of as intent-based as-written in the move itself, but it is clarified elsewhere that Seize by Force is used when there is an opposition that will resist, whereas Go Aggro applies when no violent resistance will be given, but the character/world doesn’t want to just do what your character wants without you applying pressure. It’s not that there aren’t edge-cases and complications, but the excision of PC motive from the equation makes deciding what to do in those edge cases that much less tricky and arbitrary. The AW basic moves don’t really ask what your PC’s motivations are–though they do sometimes ask the MC to know what the needs and wants of the NPCs are. I think that’s a real strength of those moves and while some of that is merely a thematic gesture, I believe that bringing PC motivation into play in a mechanical fashion is a very tricky proposal because it creates a conflict of interest AND puts the player on the spot in a way that other expectations do not–at the very least, I feel motivational matters should be used with the utmost of caution in the Basic Moves.
Characters are complicated, especially when they’re balancing weird powers, and weird enemies and possibly double lives. Their motivations aren’t always clear to THEM let alone to US. Asking if a character is doing this to protect someone from danger or to overcome a danger themselves is inherently somewhat paralyzing compared to asking whether they are trying to apply force to an obstacle or survey their surroundings.
It depends on the fiction and how the EiC (MC/GM) narrates it. Imagine if I, the EiC, tells you this, “You arrive at the missile base to find it in chaos. You see a figure high up in the sky, you can’t make at just who or what it is because of glimmer around it but it looks humanoid – dressed in purple and red with a cape billowing out behind it as it stays fixed in the air. On the ground immediately below the figure it seems that everything metal has suddenly taken on a life of its own. Guns writhe and twist in their owner’s arms, doors burst open as if blown by an unseen wind. The soldiers of the base are trying to mount a defensive but their weapons are turning in on themselves – civilians are running around in chaos. As you look a tank deconstructs itself and its parts go hurling outward at high speed, becoming shrapnel and endangering everyone around it. Unfortunately for you, you are in that radius along with 3 civilians immediately around you. What do you do?
How are you going to answer that? Don’t look to see what you can do with moves. Don’t worry about mechanics. Just tell me what you do. Fiction always comes first – the part of the move that we’re talking about is called a trigger. When we talk about the game and what your character does, some of the things might trigger a move. So if you were to say “oh crap, I better put up my shield, grab the civilians close to me and protect them from the shrapnel!” That would mean the Serve and Protect move would be triggered. If you were to tell me, “well, looks like the only way to deal with this is to cut the head off. I know that guy up there is causing the problems so I’m going to open up with an optic blast to bring him down to my level.” Then that would mean you trigger the Take Down move.
How about this: “You let loose an optic blast and is splays across the sky. It blasts across the surface of something shiny and what looks to be somewhat reflective, but that crackles with energy when your blast hits it. The blast strikes the field and is redirected by an unknown force. It comes straight toward you, it looks like it’s going to smash right back into you if you can’t get out of the way. Since it’s your own blast, I’m going to give you a chance to Defy Danger but remember that shrapnel is splaying out all around you – you don’t really see anywhere safe right now.
“Alright, well it looks like there’s no way I can dive out of the way to, so I’m just going to brace myself and take it.” That triggers a Defy Danger move, using Protect to endure it. If he dives out of the way, it would be Maneuver, etc. Defy Danger is also about you avoiding danger. Serve and Protect is mitigating danger befalling another.
Sorry that turned out so long!
You’re right that sometimes we aren’t sure about what, exactly, is being triggered in terms of moves (there could be many or none). What matters is what’s happening in the fiction and what is being said to trigger the move. But more than that it’s the intent of the player making the move.
If the intent or fiction is unclear, you work together to clarify that. It matters what they’re doing though just as much as the intention. If a player says “I’m going to Serve and Protect by punching that guy in the face. He won’t be able to harm anyone then.” Then you’re going to have to clarify that they’re actually triggering Take Down by dealing with a threat, not standing in defense of someone else. If they charge by some civilians to punch a guy in the face, all kinds of stuff could still happen to the civilians (shrapnel could still hit them, etc).
You might be right that it might be hard for them to know their motivations behind their actions, but I think with proper explanation, examples and perhaps better wording for triggers, I don’t see it being too much of an issue.
Also, I’d ask you to consider that protecting someone from danger or overcoming a danger yourself are pretty different things and might actually be the difference between being a hero or not to some.
“Also, I’d ask you to consider that protecting someone from danger or overcoming a danger yourself are pretty different things and might actually be the difference between being a hero or not to some.”
Consider: I want to protect the citizen from Destructor. I stand in the way of his mighty swing. I want two things possibly exactly as much as one another: to successfully withstand the blow for myself, and to defend the citizen from harm. Overcoming the hammer blow would suffice both conditions … but BLOCKING the hammer blow with my body might not satisfy either. The heroic action of facing danger has been performed, but the result is yet to be determined. Which move do I trigger?
Here it is most likely protect and serve because dinner is on the way and I’m rushing my example. But hopefully through the way I worded it you understand where I’m detecting ambiguity.
Since you said it, I’m afraid I have a bone to pick with the particular kind of “fiction comes first” idea as posed here: “Don’t look to see what you can do with moves. Don’t worry about mechanics. Just tell me what you do.”
I come to things like Apocalypse World and Danger Patrol for the system because that system does something for me that free-play does not. I am not even remotely capable of not thinking about what the moves do. While some people are, I don’t think it is a fair thing to expect of your players. The moves should stand up to good-faith meta-gaming. Obviously systems don’t need to stand up to bad faith–that’s when the system just isn’t right for that player. But they should stand up to good-faith and/or accidental meta-gaming, and they should stand up to human weakness. If I’m not supposed to think about how the mechanics work, they should not be player-facing. They should be secret. Otherwise we’re getting into forbidden-fruit type nonsense. We’re gamers–Pandora might have through about it for a while, but we’ll open that box without a second thought. It’s what we DO. We PLAY.
One thing I love about Apocalypse World is that it allows the players to be mechanically minded, but lets the GM focus almost entirely on story–the MC has moves and count-down clocks and any number of mechanics at their disposal, but they are essentially fictional elements written up as mechanics so as to slot nicely into the player-facing system. We should bear in mind that the character and the player are not the same–we might misdirect by addressing the character and not the player, but like any good magician worth their disappearing salt I feel we should understand that this is convenient sleight of hand.
/sub … Good discussion on some of the question and about Basic Moves I have had as well.
P.S. Put another way, I need to trust the mechanics for the game to work. The system and I might not agree on what happens when I defy a danger (small case) in a given circumstance. That’s ok–that’s not a design failing or even a problem at the moment of play. But it certainly reduces frustration when I know I don’t like the implications of move X in context Y if I am presumed by the design of the system to understand the implications of it’s parts, The system shouldn’t snub me just becasue I’m not blind to it’s mechanics–which is why I’m skeptical of motivational triggers as they presume a certain level of abstinence from game-play. Nothing stops me from just declaring my character’s intent however I want; the rules should discourage this not by saying it is discouraged but by not conferring that behavior explicit mechanical advantage except where necessary to encourage desired play states–which is almost always more important the discouraging undesired play.
This is made all the more pronounced by the aforementioned issues with character motivation to begin with. I don’t always know what my character wants … and that shouldn’t stop me from deciding whether I smash the thing or not. It certainly doesn’t stop Peter Parker!
“Consider: I want to protect the citizen from Destructor. I stand in the way of his mighty swing. I want two things possibly exactly as much as one another: to successfully withstand the blow for myself, and to defend the citizen from harm. Overcoming the hammer blow would suffice both conditions … but BLOCKING the hammer blow with my body might not satisfy either. The heroic action of facing danger has been performed, but the result is yet to be determined. Which move do I trigger?”
– That’s why I said that while intent also matters – so does what you say you do in the fiction. That’s why I say don’t think about the mechanics, tell me what you do and then we’ll decide what move is triggered. Take Down is not about overcoming a blow though either right – it’s about dealing with an enemy. As a player, you’re reacting to what the MC just told you – a swing is coming toward you and apparently some citizens? So if you attack him in the hopes that if you Take him Down then, by implication, you’re not protecting the citizens (or yourself). If you successfully Take him Down then he can’t harm anyone, that’s great but in that moment you aren’t using your body to protect someone, you’re using it to attack someone (and some MCs might say ok, well you take damage as you charge into his blow, trying to attack him). Again, I don’t see this as a problem because if you tell me what your character is doing, we can easily figure out what move is being triggered, if not just from the intent of the player. Again, the trigger to Take Down is not only facing or confronting danger, it’s dealing with it (acting to resolve it).
-The moves do stand up to meta-gaming but, in the end, moves only trigger if you do something in the fiction. If you do one thing but your intent, as a player, was to trigger another move you have to clarify and narrate the fiction properly to have that move trigger. Intentions alone do not trigger moves. Like you say, it’s all about what you DO. I understand what you are saying and I’m not saying you have to blind yourself to the mechanics to play but I am saying that moves trigger by what you say. If your intent as the player is to withstand the blow and to defend the citizen from harm, you’re serving and protecting. You can’t say you’re not, because that’s the trigger for the move. If you intention was to Defy Danger then you shouldn’t be including that you want to defend a citizen from harm (because you are now defending someone) and would have to clarify the fiction. As I said, Defy Danger is about you, Serve and Protect is about others.
“If your intent as the player is to withstand the blow and to defend the citizen from harm, you’re serving and protecting. You can’t say you’re not, because that’s the trigger for the move. If you intention was to Defy Danger then you shouldn’t be including that you want to defend a citizen from harm (because you are now defending someone) and would have to clarify the fiction.”
But what if they’re both exactly the same thing and the only difference is motivation?
“So if you attack him in the hopes that if you Take him Down then, by implication, you’re not protecting the citizens (or yourself). If you successfully Take him Down then he can’t harm anyone, that’s great but in that moment you aren’t using your body to protect someone, you’re using it to attack someone (and some MCs might say ok, well you take damage as you charge into his blow, trying to attack him).”
See, the trouble here is that you can Defy Danger, Protect and Serve AND Take Down “By Enduring” not just with the Protect stat. That’s fine. A stat is a stat. But the moves state that you can do it “by enduring.” That’s a problem. The distinction there becomes incredibly fuzzy. If take down is really all about, well, taking down … how do I do that by enduring? Similarly, if Defy Danger is all about Enduring .. how do I do that by aggressive and direct smash-like action?
Just so … if I Protect and Serve by enduring harm … that’s fine. But if I Protect and Serve by punching the rock that is flying at a civilian … am I Taking Down the rock or am I Prtecting and Serving vs. the thrower of the rock?
But lets set the trigger aside for a moment. I think having two use-any-of-your-stats basic moves is what is making this so confusing. As a player, I want to use my best stats as often as possible, right? So even if the trigger confusion gets resolved, as long as two moves accomplish roughly equivalent things I’m going to take the option that is most likely to accomplish my and/or my character’s goal. If by simply focusing on the rock instead of the civilian, or the enemy instead of the rock I can avoid my low Protect stat … that’s what I’m going to do. In AW this isn’t a problem because the stats have more limited purviews. Your character is more likely to go up against their comfort zone and your group is more likely to have more of the basic moves covered as default behavior.
But here, that’s not the case.
P.S. Also what do you mean I can’t say I’m not? We’ve established and agreed that intent is a complicated matter that isn’t easily ferreted out. Peter might honestly not be sure if he gives a damn about Osborn dying after all Osborn put him through … it’s a lot easier to decide if I want to mix in than why I wan to mix in.
Here’s a better example, then. Rhino charges Ben to get at a wounded Peter. “If you’re so chummy with the Spider, rock-boy, I’ll run you both down.” Ben’s tough, so he could punch Rhino out when he gets close–Take Down +Smash. But he’s tough, so he could let Rhino hit him and hope the impact takes down Rhino but not him–Take Down +Protect. Or he could try to protect Peter by holding his ground and hoping Rhino doesn’t get to Peter when the collision happens–Protect and Serve +Protect. Or he could stand still and try to withstand the blow with no further motive–Defy Danger +Protect. Or he could slam the ground hoping to make it rise so as to cause Rhino to trip or otherwise veer off-course mid-charge–Defy Danger +Smash.
The trouble is that most of these are inelegantly similar actions that can easily have exactly the same outcomes. But they’re spread across three different moves and two different stats. that’s a lot of fine-tuning just to decide what to roll when your basic premise is “I want to stand my ground and hold position. I would like not to be hurt in the process if possible and I would like Peter not to be hurt if possible because he’s wounded and Reed is taking too long with the Fantasticar. Rhino threatens my motives by charging with the primary intent of hurting peter. What do I do?”
I feel like it should be more straight-forward. It’s not so much that it is impossible to decide which move is best here, but I think there is too much overlap. That’s one fairly striaghtforward example. Even with the much more simply distinction between Seize by Force and Go Aggro, I’ve run into some odd situations that arise as players abstract the moves, meta-game in good faith, or simply do crazy stuff. With little difficulty, I run into enough oddness and fuzz with this setup that I’m very concerned as to what might happen in organic play with five minds all bent toward mad-cap super-hero antics.
But what if they’re both exactly the same thing and the only difference is motivation?
-I don’t see how it’s possible for it to be the same if the fiction is clear.
See, the trouble here is that you can Defy Danger, Protect and Serve AND Take Down “By Enduring” not just with the Protect stat. That’s fine. A stat is a stat. But the moves state that you can do it “by enduring.” That’s a problem. The distinction there becomes incredibly fuzzy. If take down is really all about, well, taking down … how do I do that by enduring? Similarly, if Defy Danger is all about Enduring .. how do I do that by aggressive and direct smash-like action?
-The times you use Take Down with the Protect stat will be few, that’s for sure. And as I said, it would have to follow the fiction. I can only really think of examples where you rope-a-dope a villain or something similar at the moment. “I’m going to grab him and bear hug him. Let him waste all his energy struggling to get free” or that kind of thing. Also, Defy Danger by using Smash might be, like you say, hitting a rock that’s coming at you. I understand that it could confuse people though so I may just change it to say what you do, the MC will tell you what stat to use.
Just so … if I Protect and Serve by enduring harm … that’s fine. But if I Protect and Serve by punching the rock that is flying at a civilian … am I Taking Down the rock or am I Prtecting and Serving vs. the thrower of the rock?
-If you’re punching a rock, you’re punching a rock. Serve and protect is about standing in defense of something so if you’re punching a rock, you’re not triggering Serve and Protect. You’re dealing with an imminent threat, so you’re using Take Down on the rock.
If by simply focusing on the rock instead of the civilian, or the enemy instead of the rock I can avoid my low Protect stat … that’s what I’m going to do
– I don’t see that as a problem though. If you’re playing a character that would punch stuff instead of protecting something, that’s what they’d do. Your stats inform how your characters acts and what they’re good at. It makes sense that they’d do what they’re good at. That looks different in the fiction too. Though I don’t see how you’d be able to focus on the enemy to deal with a rock coming at you.
I feel like it should be more straight-forward. It’s not so much that it is impossible to decide which move is best here, but I think there is too much overlap.
– Remember though that you as the MC don’t ask what your intentions are really, you ask what do you DO. If they say I want to hold my ground, then they Defy Danger. If they clarify they actually want to protect Peter, then they’re Serving and Protecting. Those are the only two possibilities in your Rhino example. I don’t really see anyone talking like that in a game, but I get where you’re coming from and I think you understand the moves.
– I agree with you that there may be some fine lines though and simplification is always good. Is the solution you’re suggesting getting rid of Defy Danger and rolling it up into Serve and Protect? ‘Cause I can see doing that. I was going to change the list of stats to instead of just describing everything in a list to say “the EiC will tell you which stat to roll”. How would that sit with you?
“I don’t see that as a problem though. If you’re playing a character that would punch stuff instead of protecting something, that’s what they’d do. Your stats inform how your characters acts and what they’re good at. It makes sense that they’d do what they’re good at. That looks different in the fiction too. Though I don’t see how you’d be able to focus on the enemy to deal with a rock coming at you.”
I should have been clear: Someone throws a rock you and it’s big enough to hurt the civilians next to you. You punch the rock–are you focusing on Serving and Protecting the civilians from the villain? Are you Defying the Danger of the villain? This is a bad kind of ambiguity because whether you say you protect the civilians or protect yourself you do exactly the same thing–you punch the rock. I LOVE when the MC/EiC puts me in the spot (and I love putting my players in the spot)–so if I punch the rock and the results of the move +roll +stat give me a tough choice between getting hurt and letting the civies eat rock? Delicious. That’s what I’m playing Worlds in Peril for. But part of the joy there is that all I had to do was decide whether or not I wanted to punch the rock, and then the interesting decisions came to me in a natural sort of way. I didn’t have to decide, ahead of time, whether what I’m doing in a metaphysical sense is punching the rock away from me or protecting the civies with my punching powers.
One thing that’s clear is that it’s up to you and the MC to decide if the Rock or the Villain is being defied or protected against–that’s fine! That’s an acceptable ambiguity in this kind of system. That sort of ambiguity leads to emergent play in and cool abstract uses of the moves and thus to more of the interesting decisions and contexts that makes this kind of game soar.
One other thing that is clear (and is likewise fine and familiar to Powered by Apocalypse players) is that I could Take Down by punching the rock BACK at the villain … and it’s not necessarily any more difficult than punching the rock in a random direction because AW isn’t about difficulty of tasks but difficulty of contexts. But if the MC wanted to make it harder or thought it was interesting to do so, they COULD make me Defy Danger with Smash and/or Protect (protect rationale: that might hurt even your hand, tough guy! It’s a big rock!) and THEN roll either Serve and Protect to keep the fallout away from the civies or Take Down to get the rock heading toward the villain. That kind of choice and overlap and ambiguity is fine–that’s just the system being flexible.
But then we come back to that punching a rock away from a crowd of civies issue. What if all I want to do is punch the rock? I want to protect me AND the civies. So I’m just going to punch it and hope for the best. The moves as written put me on the spot; they aren’t asking me “What do I do?” they’re asking me “What do I want?” Putting me on the spot by making me choose which is my priority on that small a scale (i.e. the only difference is intent, I’m punching the rock either way and in theory I could punch the rock differently for each result but again that kind of scale feels WAY more fine-grain than feels right here) feels like a Hard Move–that’s something that should be the consequence of a move as written or the consequence of a missed roll. It’s a very fine-grain decision compared to deciding whether I want to protect myself from the raging inferno by ducking into a side-hall or protect the child from the flames with my body. THAT’s a point where I should have to decide whether I’m Defying Danger or Serving and Protecting. Not when I’m punching the rock. The difference in mechanical stakes in that decision are not commensurate with the difference in fictional action–either way I punch the rock and try to control what happens to the rock by virtue of punching.
“
– I agree with you that there may be some fine lines though and simplification is always good. Is the solution you’re suggesting getting rid of Defy Danger and rolling it up into Serve and Protect? ‘Cause I can see doing that. I was going to change the list of stats to instead of just describing everything in a list to say “the EiC will tell you which stat to roll”. How would that sit with you?”
Hmm. I think what I would do is avoid making a move to which any stat could apply. That would indicate to me that either the stats aren’t doing their job or the moves aren’t doing their job in differentiating between what characters do and are good at doing overall (stats) and what they do moment to moment (moves). To me, the point of the stats is to represent how I do what I do and the move what I do: and that works here. But I think about it one step further–the moves and stats work together to describe how my character fits into the world compared to other characters; I like being able to look at the move sheet and look at my stats and Grok what that says about my character. Ok. I have a -1 Hot–what that means to me is a circular system: I’m likely to receive complications from (and sometimes fail, MC’s call) actions that use Hot which means that when I Seduce and Manipulate I don’t get my way as much. I get to define a bit about what that means and I get feedback about how do to that from the game world and the moves.
But I also recognize that the all-in-one move concept is a perfectly valid mechanic even if it wouldn’t work in Worlds of Peril as designed by Gwathdring–it doesn’t have to be something I could make work as a designer, just something I can make work as an EiC and player (or well, not even that, but you know what I mean hopefully).
That in mind, I wouldn’t get rid of Defy Danger. I feel it occupies an important space much like Act Under Fire in that it is vague enough to allow everything else to be more specific without sacrificing overall flexibility. It’s the sacrificial move that allows the other basic moves to be really, really tight while still making the basic move set feel complete. It doesn’t have to be Act Under Fire–exactly what it is and how it works speaks to the fiction of the system. But that KIND of move is important.
I don’t quite like having the MC pick the stat. That doesn’t feel quite right. I feel like the stat should be established by the fiction of the action, just like the move, though potentially modified by items or powers or playbook moves that substitute move usages in certain contexts. But I suppose it’s workable as long as you make it clear that this system is totally down with take-backs as follows:
“I punch the rock; he’s not gonna hurt any of us! That’s Defy Danger, right?”
“Sure is. Roll +Smash”
“Oh … I was thinking I was enduring it with my fist” “Well, I think of it as you smashing the rock … hmm. Want to try something else?”
“Ok, what if I leap up and do a bear-hug catch? Hopefully I can take the hit and keep control of the rock while I’m flying long enough to avoid any trouble.”
“I like it, +Protect”
(though EiC could have asked for +Maneuver without being unreasonable–that’s not the bad kind of ambiguity, that’s just people thinking differently from one another).
I guess I’d turn the question back on you: What problem are you solving with the multi-stat moves? What do you like or not like about Defy Danger and what do you think of the overall basic move set without it or with it bundled with Serve and Protect? Would you consider making Defy Danger a one-stat move and if so which stat would it be and would that leave you happy with the connection between the stats and the moves?
I think part of the problem is, well, verbs. My stat in Worlds of Peril isn’t how [stat] I am, it’s how well I [verb]. That’s totally fine except … normally that’s what the moves do. How well you do a thing depends on what stat [move] requires and thus on how [stat] you are. Here how well you do a thing depends on what stat [move] requires and thus on how well you [verb]. That leaves a lot more room for perceptual misunderstanding and less room to define the fiction through stats. I Defy Danger by … well, it could be any verb, right? We know that from Apocalypse World! I can go aggro by leveling a shotgun, but hovering a hand over a hot poker, by forming a fist, but moving into position. But there I never said how good my character was at running, jumping, sneaking, or shooting. I said WHAT my character was (Hot, Hard, Sharp, Weird, Cool) and the moves and thereby the game world tell me what that means I can do and how much complication I receive from trying to do it.
Here, I say how good I am at something [verb] and then the game tells me how good I am at something else [move] … and then I get confused. I said I was good at Maneuvering, right? So surely when I protect someone using how good I am at Maneuvering I should be doing awesome at it right? But the moves don’t say that. They say that’s Serve and Protect which means it’s about how good I am at Protecting people.
Put another way … most systems use verbs. DnD does, too! Climb, Acrobatics, Sneaking, Lockpicking, etc. But they have a lot of them because there are lots of things characters can do. One great thing about AW is that I don’t need a laundry list because the game doesn’t need to know what I can do–the moves adapt to me and to the fiction so that between me, my character’s stats, the moves, and the MC we can SHOW what my character can do. We play to find out what my character can do. You’ve given me verbs to describe my character, but I only have five of them! Even if mechanically it’s a very similar situation, from a character-translation standpoint it feels much more limiting. I could fix that by adjusting my expectations or renaming the Verbs as Stats in my printouts for the game, and maybe ultimately when the final draft comes out that’s all I’ll need to do. But maybe this also speaks to something else going on in the design. I’m not sure. That’s something you’d know a lot better than me.
Put one last way, as an author in the game’s story I want to say who my character is, but as a player I also want to know what they can do. So I look to the moves. In World’s in Peril, two of the basic moves has no stat attachment. If I have a lot of bonds, I can burn them to succeed at anything (which puts me in sticky situations, but those make things interesting so as an author in the story I’m all over that!). Two of the basic moves use any of my stats. My Protect, Influence and Investigate allow me to do anything in the basic game–not anything in the fiction of that game, of course, but anything in the moves. That doesn’t mean I won’t make a strong, fast, distracted and annoying character. But it does mean I will have less of a guidepost for understanding how that character is mechanically supported.
So let’s turn that back as a question: Why don’t Smash and Maneuver get featured in their own moves? Why are they important enough to define 2/5ths of my character’s stat block, without requiring and/or deserving their own Basic Move or even Special Move? They clearly take up an important part of the fiction–you want characters that Maneuver and Smash. But what can they do that other characters can’t? In the fiction, that’s obvious. In the game … less so. For a game that’s all about fiction first, that seems like a problem to me. How would you resolve that problem either through clarifying the game as-is or modifying it in future drafts?
I don’t quite like having the MC pick the stat. That doesn’t feel quite right. I feel like the stat should be established by the fiction of the action, just like the move, though potentially modified by items or powers or playbook moves that substitute move usages in certain contexts. But I suppose it’s workable as long as you make it clear that this system is totally down with take-backs as follows:
– Yeah, I just mean the EiC will let you know to avoid analysis paralysis. Tell me what you do, that sounds like X, yeah? Sounds good, let’s do it. Clarifying the fiction is definitely something that’ll happen and that happens even without the EiC letting you know what stat applies.
I guess I’d turn the question back on you: What problem are you solving with the multi-stat moves?
– Multi-stat moves allows for any kind of player, playing any type of character to be effective at what they want to do – you can Impose Conditions and contribute just as effectively as any other character. You can Defy Defy in any way that you can think of in the fiction, etc. But when you’re Serving and Protecting it’s not about getting there in time (if you’re fast, then you do it and you’re there and now you’re protecting or it’s not possible and you don’t get there (or maybe you don’t get there in time as a result of a 6-, or maybe you make it about that first to Defy Danger to get there in time if it’s appropriately dramatic). You establish what you can do with powers too, not just stats), it’s about taking on a blow (damage, harm, whatever) that was meant for another. Hence Protect being at the root of it.
– I’ll address that last part more once I have time as I’m about to head into an exam and would like the moves in front of me when I speak more on them. Still, what you see as causing more confusion (by having the stats be verbs that is) I see as being pretty helpful for new players or for when the fiction isn’t clear enough for you. At the very least if you aren’t sure if a move is triggered and you feel there should be one triggered, roll 2d6 and add the stat modifier of what you’re doing.
– You can’t really do that with Cool, Hot, Sharp, etc. can you? I mean there’s a lot of abstraction in any stats and there’s going to need an agreed upon definition between everyone at the table for them and what they do. If I say, ok, the Rhino is coming at me and I want to send him off course, so I hit the ground. If the EiC asks me ok, so does that sound like “Hot, Hard, Sharp, Weird, or Cool to you?” I’m guessing it’s not going to be quite as intuitive as saying “well, I’m hitting the ground, so smash.” Even if it means you have to expand your definitions a bit at times. (And I say this just to point out my intention in designing it that way, not to say that it’s a better way of doing things, of course.)
“You can’t really do that with Cool, Hot, Sharp, etc. can you? I mean there’s a lot of abstraction in any stats and there’s going to need an agreed upon definition between everyone at the table for them and what they do. If I say, ok, the Rhino is coming at me and I want to send him off course, so I hit the ground. If the EiC asks me ok, so does that sound like “Hot, Hard, Sharp, Weird, or Cool to you?” I’m guessing it’s not going to be quite as intuitive as saying “well, I’m hitting the ground, so smash.” Even if it means you have to expand your definitions a bit at times. (And I say this just to point out my intention in designing it that way, not to say that it’s a better way of doing things, of course.)”
Well, an MC doesn’t ask you “Does that sound like Hot, Hard, Sharp, Weird or Cool to you?” They ask you “Ok, so you’re inflicting harm as-established?” Or, because the cases could be made: “Ok, so you’re Seizing [control of the situation/control of the immediate physical area] by Force?”
So it sounds like what you want isn’t that, though. You seem to be saying you want the Verb to come first and the move to come second–in which case, yeah, Verb is what you want not AW-style stats. But in that case, I still think there’s a problem with the way that’s syncing up with the moves right now. It sounds like you want the EiC to ask not “Ok, so you’re Defying Danger” but rather “Ok so you’re Smashing, specifically it sounds like you’re Defying Danger by Smashing?” Not as in that’s literally how you want to EiC to word it, but it sounds like that’s the mechanical vision you’ve got going based on this:
“At the very least if you aren’t sure if a move is triggered and you feel there should be one triggered, roll 2d6 and add the stat modifier of what you’re doing.”
But I’m not sure if you just mean “When in doubt, Defy Danger +verb” or if you mean “when in doubt roll +verb and we’ll works something out on the fly” or if you meant “when in doubt, roll +Verb and find the move that matches that verb.” I presume not the last one because it runs into redundancy problems.
Back to Protect, so the reason some of the moves have only a single stat and some have multiple stats is because you want everyone to be able to do the ones with multiple stats and only some people to be able to do the ones with single stats, correct?
Ok. So if that’s where we’re at, why is the stuff only some people need to be good at in the basic move set? What makes them basic moves instead of playbook moves or special moves? Why don’t all of the basic moves conform to whatever stat makes sense? Or, turning that question around the other way, if you have trouble seeing Take Down +Protect as workable except as an edge case, why is THAT a basic move instead of a playbook move or similar that lets you use +Protect to Take Down?
Or are the basic moves not the main interface of play in Worlds of Peril? That’s cool too! There’s nothing inherently wrong with that kind of break with form. But as it stands, they seem like the main interface of play.
You say you want it to be clear that when I do a thing, a certain stat gets used. That’s great. That part is clear. But to me, what isn’t clear is what move gets used as a result. You say that in vanilla apocalypse world what stat gets used isn’t clear from what you do. That’s true. But what is clear is what move you use based on what you do. From how you’ve discussed this it IS clear that, as in AW, you want the focus to be on what you do.
So that begs the question: do you want stats to be more important than moves, and if so what does that mean for how you write moves and how you decide which Verb/stat goes to which move?
Sub
“Multi-stat moves allows for any kind of player, playing any type of character to be effective at what they want to do – you can Impose Conditions and contribute just as effectively as any other character. You can Defy [Danger] in any way that you can think of in the fiction, etc.”
I wanted a separate reply to this, because this is really interesting to me. My gut tells me that I DON’T want that in my games, because it’s really interesting to have everyone doing different things and trying to figure out where they belong in the action–it gives the player a taste of what the character is going through by forcing the player to solve a mechanical puzzle of “How can I be effective here?” even as the character is trying to solve two puzzles “How can I be effective here?” and “What do I really want in all of this?” The conflict between what the player wants to do and what the mechanics let them do can create really interesting states of play that turn into really interesting character moments. When the player has too much power to assert their vision explicitly into the fiction, I feel, they encounter less that challenged their assumptions about their own character and consequently the character’s story is less interesting.
But you say you want every character to be equally effective at certain things. That’s very interesting to me. Why do you want everyone to be equally good at Defying Danger and Taking Down … but not Investigating and Protecting? I understand your explanation of that in terms of the verbs, but what’s your explanation of that as a design goal? What are you trying to say about the world and do to the state of play in World of Peril by saying: only some characters can serve and protect well, negotiate well, and learn about their situation well … but everyone is just as good at getting out of danger as everyone else? Why are Negotiate, Serve and Protect, and Extrapolate worth specializing within the basic moves with no specialization for Smash and Maneuver?
And finally, why would I pick a character with a high Smash or Maneuver? What does the game do to make that seem interesting to me? Sure, I might already know I want to smash things like The Hulk. But let’s say I’m not sure. What does the game do to sell me on Smash? I can still smash things with a low stat, I just get into more trouble and honestly that’s kind of great in some respects. So what does the game do during character creation to make me excited about putting a +2 in Smash? Investigate says “You can figure out what’s going on!” Influence says “You can change people’s minds and avoid conflict through compromise and get your way without violence (that’s really useful when you don’t have Smash!, too! Double awesome!) Protect says “You can save people from harm, and in doing so control enemy behavior, inflict conditions just as efficiently as someone might through Take Down, and help your friends AND boost bonds!”
Here comes the good-faith meta-gaming. I’m a hero. What do I do? I protect people. Does Spider Man protect people? Hell yes. Endure harm? Hell yes. What comic super-hero doesn’t? There are some but … it’s sort of their main thing, right? So in that sense you design is an accurate work. But that still leaves us wondering why any hero worth their salt would have a low Protect. This isn’t just because it’s a Verb, either–though for reasons I could explain if you’re curious the Verb aspect makes it more potent. In any case, same deal with Tough. What super hero isn’t physically Tough? When is it in bad faith to put Tough? I guess for Professor Xavier? But when we use personality traits … now we’re cooking. What hero isn’t Cool? MANY OF THEM. What hero isn’t Sharp? MANY OF THEM. What hero isn’t Hot? Well … ok, that one and Hard are a problem in Marvel-verse. 😛 I’m not saying you should us AW’s default stats or even that you shouldn’t use verbs. I’m just trying to tie my critique to as many reference points as possible to help clarify where I’m coming from.
But yes. I’m a hero. What hero doesn’t Protect? The system certainly doesn’t give me any reason to want to be THAT guy! Ok, so the system says definitely go with Protect, and then maybe Influence or Investigate. It then says go for broke with Bonds. Bonds Bonds Bonds. And that’s fine. I’m with you there. Nothing wrong with that. But that feeds back into our “why wouldn’t you protect” problem because Serve and Protect is a way to get more bonds! Heck, you could get a free success for burning a bond to Serve and Protect because it gives you a chance to get that bond back AND makes it more likely you’ll get to Hold 3 and thus not “waste” the roll by spending a bond just to gain/transfer a bond! In any case, you want Bonds which means you also want to take on limitations.
So to recap, I have no mechanical incentive to be powerful (really, “powerful” in fiction means I’m less likely to succeed). I have very little mechanical incentive to Smash or Maneuver. Of the 30ish playbooks, six moves used either Smash or Maneuver, most of them by far using Investigate and Influence with a few suing Protect. Of the basic moves, Influence, Investigate and Protect are the only verbs given special treatment, and of those Protect is the most versatile and powerful. Is all of that ok? Is all of that intentional? It’s not how I would do things, but this game doesn’t need to be designed for me let alone the way I would design it. But those are things that your Moves say. How does that play into your fiction, and is that what you want your mechanics to say about the game and the world it takes place in? Is that the message you want the mechanics to send?
That’s not meant to be a loaded question either! If the answer is a resounding yes, go for it.
P.S. I just remembered! One thing you wanted all characters to be able to do was Impose a Condition. This solidifies for me that Protect doesn’t need to be part of Take Down–Serve and Protect can impose a condition, so you can safely remove +Protect from Take Down while still meeting your goal of allowing all character types to Impose a Condition and help out. At least, that’s my read on it but you might see it differently.
Firndeloth Dinsule, you make a great point about stat balance ….. something that may not be perfectly evenly distributed …. but should have some representation throughout the playbooks.
But I’m not sure if you just mean “When in doubt, Defy Danger +verb” or if you mean “when in doubt roll +verb and we’ll works something out on the fly” or if you meant “when in doubt, roll +Verb and find the move that matches that verb.” I presume not the last one because it runs into redundancy problems.
– Yeah, I mean when in doubt – the move you can always go back to is “when you feel like you need conflict resolution, roll and add the modifier of whatever verb makes sense for the situation. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7-9, you do it but there’s a complication or unexpected consequence. On a 6- the EiC will tell you what happens.”
– Basic moves are Basic Moves for the one and only reason that they are used often in the fiction. If you start from the one move I stated above, you add basic moves because those are the things that players will be doing most (or that you want to encourage in the fiction since by simply having them there you’re telling them this is how you play the game). Like you said, it’s the main interface. Again this is obviously biased by my experience, what I enjoy in a game and how I see superhero stories (at least, what supers stories I want to tell)
– I totally agree with you that most heroes are going to want to be good at Protecting – that’s heroic. But plenty of people are going to choose their stats first (and it’s the first step in character creation). Depending on the type of hero you want to play, you may choose a low stat in protect (Wolverine comes to mind, maybe Emma Frost, etc.). They still protect people of course, but they mostly do it by smashing people around more than anything else and can be pretty ruthless. You’re right that there isn’t all that much in terms of mechanical benefits to smash if you’re talking about diversity. But I think for what you normally use Smash for, you’re pretty much covered. If someone puts there main stat as Smash, I don’t think they really care that it won’t help them Negotiate or Extrapolate because they don’t want to be best at those things, as long as they know what Smashing entails, there’s no confusion or regret there, I think. They’re still going to be able to do what they want to do and the mechanics will support that.
-I also think that stats can be relative too, right? It’s not a far leap to assume that a hero that has a -2 to Smash is still going to be a lot better than you or I at Smashing stuff up, yeah? It’s not a physical attribute to measure how much toughness or how much strength you have. That’s why I like verbs – they’re more evocative. It’s not an inherent thing – my +2 Smash and your +2 Smash might look completely different. Whereas +2 strength, and +2 agility are going to look pretty similar between characters because that’s what they are there to do – measure and scale inherent abilities. What hero isn’t good at Maneuvering? Many of them. Which hero isn’t good at Protecting/Being Durable? A whole bunch, especially when talking about not being able to take punishment. What heroes aren’t good at Influencing? Tons, etc. What heroes aren’t good at these things when compared to other heroes? Even more. I get what you’re saying though and that’s why Protect is encouraged in the mechanics.
So to recap, I have no mechanical incentive to be powerful (really, “powerful” in fiction means I’m less likely to succeed). I have very little mechanical incentive to Smash or Maneuver.
– The fact that you might do something else, and be bad at doing it, is no way a bad thing. In fact, it’s going to produce more conflict and more interesting stories. I see no problem there. Now, if the question is do you think those stats are limited (I can’t do the things I want to do with them – and, of course, it fits the fiction and superhero stories) THEN I’d think there’s a problem. You have every mechanical incentive you need to be powerful. You want to smash stuff? Go at it, how is there less incentive? Because there aren’t as many moves? Does that limit the fiction and what you can do? I don’t think so. Same goes Maneuver.
– In fact I might go so far as to say that there might be even more of an incentive. More moves does not mean more incentive, or it shouldn’t anyway. Sure, moves are cool but that doesn’t mean you can’t do something if it’s a move. If you do something and there’s no trigger in the fiction you just do it. In fact, having “skill (or “power gaming”) in a *World game could be seen as getting your way without setting triggers off for moves sine that means there’s no way a hard move is getting made, right?
One thing you wanted all characters to be able to do was Impose a Condition. This solidifies for me that Protect doesn’t need to be part of Take Down–Serve and Protect can impose a condition, so you can safely remove +Protect from Take Down while still meeting your goal of allowing all character types to Impose a Condition and help out. At least, that’s my read on it but you might see it differently.
– I see where you’re coming from there and have been there myself. The one reason I left Protect in Take Down as well is because it feels different right – it’s not about being able to Impose a Condition with every stat, but that you don’t necessarily have to protect someone in order to use it to impose a Condition, in this case (I mean that in terms of the fiction).
For example, think of this situation: There’s a villain right? He absorbs kinetic energy, makes him stronger, more powerful. The more you hit him? The stronger he gets. What are you going to do? “Alright, well I’m just going to grab and bear hug him. He’s not going anywhere. I’m not hitting him or anything, I just want to bear hug him and endure everything he throws at me. He should get weaker as he expends energy and not take anything in because there’s nothing for him to absorb.” In this case you’re actively working to Take him Down but no other stat works in that case. You are literally enduring him into submission. It’s not a common case, I grant you. But I left it in there not for redundancy, but for possibility.
Contrast that with “the Green Goblin goes to smash J.J in the face. I know you hate him, but are you going to let that happen?” “Nah, I guess I better not, I swing into the line of fire, prepared to take what he’s dishing out. Sweet, I rolled a 10+, I’m going to use my hold not only to redirect the blow to me and lesson the damage, but I’m going to Impose a Condition on him as well.” “How do you figure?” “Well, I swing in right and as I’m in midair I use my web shooters to make a kind of protective vest to cushion the blow. He hits me, right? But it’s cushioned by my vest and his fist sticks to it! I smoke him in the jaw and tell J.J to get out of there!”
Where does “choose what stat to use” come from? Dungeon World. DW has 6 stats. You always have a stat you are really bad at. Because there are 6 stats and the Defy Danger move comes up a lot, limiting it to only 1 stat puts a lot of pressure on this one stat, however you might not have the stat points to spare to raise your Defy Danger stat. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to link it to every move, so that there is a chance you can Defy a Danger.
ApocW has only 5 stats. As has WiP. But the Opportunity Cost is lower here. You can choose your stats in a way so that you could have the chance to act under fire with a good cool.
The ability to be able to get out of trouble is one of the reasons to play a battle babe. Because you are awesome under pressure. In WiP, everyone is awesome under pressure since most of the time it doesn’t make much difference what you are rolling. Every character is great at taking down and defying danger and using the environment. You can’t be “Take down girl”. By allowing everyone to be good at X, no one is.
Tim Franzke Exactly! It’s all very well to say I can still do fiction smashing, but again we can’t forget that these are players. Sure, if I don’t pick Smash I can’t punch villains in the face very well … but I’m just as good at taking down villains. Maybe I really want to punch villains in the face. Ok, so I take a high Smash. But … everyone else is just as good at taking down villains. My character doesn’t get spotlight taking down villains. Ok, fine. But they get spotlight Negotiating, Influencing, and Serving and Protecting. The game takes time to give them things to do and overcome challenges that I can’t overcome. If the main interface has special time aside for people with +Investigate, +Influence and +Protect … those are obstacles the EiC will throw at us unless all of us take +Smash and +Maneuver, right?
But all I can do is Take Down and Defy Danger. And everyone else can do that. Where’s my time in the spotlight? Players and heroes both are very creative. Unless I railroad by throwing challenges at them with the specific purpose of making them only solvable through Smash and Maneuver (and that’s not really what we’re playing Worlds in Peril for, is it? It’s at the very least not the kind of GMing we play most Apocalypse games for, I feel, but maybe Worlds in Peril is different), players who can’t Smash and Maneuver will find a way around Smash/Maneuver obstacles. They’ll be creative, use their powers, etc. So you’re a player with Smash. There are 4 other players all vying for screen time, eager to solve problems and be awesome. This isn’t mean or competitive of them; they don’t want to shut you out. They just want to be awesome and you want them to be awesome to! That means if you’re all good at the same external problem (Take Down) … the person who is ONLY good at that gets less time to be awesome. Defy Danger? That’s more reasonable, I feel, because it occupies that Act Under Fire sort of space that really belongs in pretty much every Powered by Apocalypse game ….
Well, except maybe Worlds in Peril. If you can always roll +Verb and Do it/Do it at cost/Look to EiC. So do you need Defy Danger? Because that’s really just a more generic Defy Danger, isn’t it? So it makes Defy Danger irrelevant. Also I’d be worried it makes all of the moves irrelevant. Why are move the main interface of your game, why is it that we can subvert them by rolling a stat whenever we want? The later isn’t a bad approach … it just sort of makes the moves irrelevant. Moves don’t necessarily give us what we want–they tell us that the fiction DOESN’T give us what we want. They limit us in interesting ways and give us interesting choices. If we can, in moments of doubt or confusion, choose between making a move and getting our way more directly … which are we going to do? At the very least it makes a general-use move like Defy Danger a little unnecessary.
One thing to consider, if you want to focus on Verbs, is to make Verb moves. Rather than using the default structure (moves that look like Stat moves from AW) and trying to adapt that to a Verb-based conceptual space, maybe you need the verbs to BE moves, and just explain them in the basic move sheet.
“When you Smash, roll +Smash. [move text]”
You could give them special contexts, too, if you like. “When you Smash heads” vs. “When you go out into the world looking for something to Smash” (not a useable example, probably, but hopefully an illustrative one). Or you could just have one archetypal move for each verb and give each of them something more than the basic Act Under Fire template. Make them reflect the nature of the verb. I like Protect as a hold–that makes sense! It’s flavorful. It’s reactive and defensive so you get a hold you can spend in response to things that happen after the move is made. So making this “change” doesn’t necessarily mean your basic moves change all that much.
If you want to generalize your approach to actions compared to AW … maybe you need to take that conclusion to a further extreme and divorce your game further from AW concepts to make it really shine. That doesn’t mean Powered by Apocalypse is the wrong thing, if sounds like Powered by Apocalypse is exactly what you want. Just that it seems like you want to challenge some basic assumptions AW and associated hacks make, but I feel your systems structure fails to challenge those assumptions and the result is confusing.
That’s where I’m at right now based on our discussion thus far.
Alright, so a couple of thoughts on what you’ve said so far that I don’t really agree with:
But all I can do is Take Down and Defy Danger. And everyone else can do that. Where’s my time in the spotlight?
– I think it’s important to remember to that a character is defined less by their moves and more by their stats. Having more moves can actually be more limiting as you’re rolling the dice more and there is more chance for failure. If you do stuff in the fiction without it triggering a move, you just do it. So leaving Smash open by having less triggers for it does not limit it, I feel. This takes care of spotlight time as well, most of the time players are reacting to things the EiC says and spotlight time is being distributed. Not only that, but you can still obviously roll for other moves, just you just aren’t as good at it as your +2 (but I realize that is not the point being made).
– The base move I described is the building block of any *W game, I don’t mean to say that that is the default move you’re always using. I’m saying, when in doubt, you’ve got this. It’s not there to subvert or bypass existing moves – it’s what moves are built on.
– Again, I’d only see a problem if I thought that players felt limited and that they couldn’t do the things they wanted to do by having a higher Smash. I will think on that but I haven’t run into any issues in play.
– Moves as verbs and archetypal moves for each verb is interesting and definitely worth thinking about. I don’t mean to say that I don’t find what you’re saying interesting, because of course I do. It’s obvious you find the moves lacking and that Smash and Maneuver needs more moves to represent them but I’ve yet to experience that. If you do something and it doesn’t trigger a move you still affect the fiction, stuff still happens, you still do things.
– The moves are there to codify things that players will do the most often in this game, which is meant to represent a comic book. So what do things do you think Smash and Maneuver should be able to do that that they cannot, is the main question (which fits a superhero game and that is done with enough frequency such that it needs codifying to help inform the fiction when done, would be a secondary caveat too I suppose).
– While I consider the cool mechanical suggestions, I’d be interested to hear what you think about that. Thanks for taking the time, some interesting ideas and provocative questions to say the least.
Hopefully this has still been great feedback to put in the files.
“If you do something and it doesn’t trigger a move you still affect the fiction, stuff still happens, you still do things.
– The moves are there to codify things that players will do the most often in this game, which is meant to represent a comic book. So what do things do you think Smash and Maneuver should be able to do that that they cannot, is the main question (which fits a superhero game and that is done with enough frequency such that it needs codifying to help inform the fiction when done, would be a secondary caveat too I suppose).”
Well, I think about it this way. You say moves limit play and I find that very interesting. The moves are what make the stats have meaning mechanically–they translate mechanics and fiction into the same language.
The default is “free play.” MC prods everyone into action, things happen, the players do stuff in response, the MC has the world respond to them.
The trouble with things like Smash and Maneuver is that solving those problems via declaration isn’t always very interesting. Solving a conversation or a political intrigue or an infiltration of a camp via a series of declarations, establishments, and so forth? That can be quite effective. But if I want to translate a physical challenge into the game … just looking to the character’s verbs doesn’t work. Is it high enough? They get through. That wasn’t a challenge. Is it too low? They don’t get through, they need a way around. That wasn’t a challenge.
When you don’t engage moves, complications don’t arise as easily because the MC isn’t being encouraged to move hard against the players. When you don’t engage moves, you don’t engage the mechanics. That’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with free-play. There are some people who play without rulsets entirely and have a grand time and in most systems, free-play is the default. But why would I look to the rules to solve a problem like “I find out what I can Extrapolate about my surroundings using my intellect” but not problems like “I want to see if I’m tough enough to meet this challenge?” What you say by not making moves for Smash and Maneuver is that you aren’t interested in those sorts of actions creating complications, engaging Hard Moves and generating mechanical choices and such for the players. You’re saying that Smash and Maneuver are fictionally intersting, but not mechanically interesting.
That’s fine. But if you want Smash and Maneuver to be utterly unspecial except in free-play as established … why are they Verbs? Why are they listed anywhere on the basic moves? Why don’t you just deal with that stuff as it comes up based on the fiction? Why engage, again, 2/5ths of the Verb/Stat bloc with Smash and Maneuver if those things don’t give any mechanical advantage to the players–or at least very little compared to the rest of the stat block?
Because if you really think those stats are mechanically less interesting and need fewer moves … that’s fine! Not every important part of the fiction need to be an important part of the mechanics. But in asking players to choose a value for Smash and Maneuver at the expense of Influence, Investigate and Protect … you’re asking them to choose weigh a lot of really complicated stuff about the mechanics vs. the fiction that isn’t immediately clear–and to the extent that it is clear, Smash and Maneuverer seem like a poor mechanical move.
But back to common actions. What do Smash-y heroes do that others don’t? They obliterate physical obstacles, they fly into dangerous situations and collect aggro form enemies, they impose and intimidate … and the over-stretch themselves and get caught in a trap or a fix. They hit enemies where they are strong, not where they are weak, and they enjoy it. They take down multiple opponents at once. And so forth. Some of these would make good playbook moves, some of them could be incorporated into a single basic move or what-have-you.
The key, too, is that heros that aren’t smashy? They don’t do those things. So if whether you have one, two, or no moves that represent smashy … it should belong wholly to that character space. That’s the Smashy character wheelhouse. Let them own it. Let them have it. Don’t worry if it’s harder for Doctor Strange to do some of those things. It’s supposed to be! Well, Strange is a bad example because he’s one of the more extreme heroes in the pantheon but you get the idea.
Maneuver heroes get themselves into advantageous positions and evade danger. They get out of the way rather than digging in and enduring. They get somewhere in just the nick of time. They don’t confront directly, but tired enemies out. They get to the macguffin first. They scale buildings, dodge bullets. They catch the falling civilian. That fit into tight spaces. They sneak and surprise.
Investigate heroes consider. They weigh. They assess. They strike enemies where they are weak. They ferret out weakness. They learn. They plan. They analyze clues. They solve puzzles, they hack circuits, they navigate alien worlds and devices, they predict outcomes. They do not strike enemies where they are strong. They do not stand in the line of fire.
Influence heroes posture, communicate. They distract, dissuade and confuse. They negotiate and convince. They draw people to the cause. They deceive and connive.
Protect heroes … well, we have some differences over the stat. But if it’s both literally protecting AND enduring, then we know what they do. I won’t keep listing things because I’m sure I’ve overstayed my welcome in the listing things department already.
If you don’t feel like one of these lists needs a basic move all to it’s own, even though we’ve agreed the basic moves are the basic interface of the mechanical game … I would seriously question whether that Verb should be one of the core stats.
“That’s fine. But if you want Smash and Maneuver to be utterly unspecial except in free-play as established … why are they Verbs? Why are they listed anywhere on the basic moves? Why don’t you just deal with that stuff as it comes up based on the fiction? Why engage, again, 2/5ths of the Verb/Stat bloc with Smash and Maneuver if those things don’t give any mechanical advantage to the players–or at least very little compared to the rest of the stat block?”
– Because the game is about representing and facilitating playing superheroes. There are going to be challenges presented in the form of enemies, puzzles, etc. heroes deal with these challenges differently. The verbs representing different approaches to taking down and resolving these challenges. So let’s take a look at some of the things smashy characters should be able to do:
“They obliterate physical obstacles, they fly into dangerous situations and collect aggro form enemies, they impose and intimidate … and the over-stretch themselves and get caught in a trap or a fix. They hit enemies where they are strong, not where they are weak, and they enjoy it. They take down multiple opponents at once. And so forth. Some of these would make good playbook moves, some of them could be incorporated into a single basic move or what-have-you.”
– Obliterate obstacles? Check. Not only can they just do it (because of their powers/because they are smashy) but they can also probably get way more use out of the Use Environment move. Other characters can use the move too, of course. But they need to have fictional permission to take apart and/or use and manipulate the environment.
– Collect aggro? Really just fictional positioning right? If I’m smashy and I go in to fight with an enemy, it stands to reason that if they’re engaged with me, they’re not engaged with others. Could fall into Protect or Influence sometimes too even, I mean Spider-Man isn’t very smashy but he’s pretty good at collecting aggro and pissing people off.
– Impose and intimidate? Do they though? I mean they can and it’s possible, but there’s an assumption there about their character too – Superman is pretty badass but is Lex Luther ever intimidated or scared of him? No, why? Because he knows him and that he’s all about not harming people (there are moves for intimidating, but they are matched up with Drive Book like the vigilante). In any case, that fits more into Influence for me.
– A couple things more that are more about personality than doing anything and fits fine as MC moves as a result of Take Down and going in swinging, etc.
– They can hit enemies whenever and wherever they want and still be effective (contrast with Maneuver and Influence – not going to be quite as easy and simple to Impose a Condition compared to being good at punching people, right?)
– Similarly, they’ll be good at taking down groups of enemies. (you might be forgetting that while other stats CAN be used to do somethings mechanically, there’s always going to need to be fictional positioning behind it. It’s going to be harder to justify doing things with other stats, despite the possibility being there).
“The key, too, is that heros that aren’t smashy? They don’t do those things. So if whether you have one, two, or no moves that represent smashy … it should belong wholly to that character space. That’s the Smashy character wheelhouse. Let them own it. Let them have it.”
– This is exactly what I mean – they’ve still got this wheelhouse. The mechanical advantage is not necessarily there but they can do everything they want to do and since it’s easier to justify, and therefor do, in the fiction they have the advantage of guaranteeing they CAN do these things AND succeed most likely with their +2. So Doctor Strange isn’t the best example but I know what you mean – characters that take a +2 Influence or a +2 Protect though? Going to have a REALLY hard time justifying doing things like taking out multiple enemies or even Imposing a Condition at times. Smashy character will ALWAYS have fictional positioning because what they do is easy and easily justified.
“Maneuver heroes get themselves into advantageous positions and evade danger. They get out of the way rather than digging in and enduring. They get somewhere in just the nick of time. They don’t confront directly, but tired enemies out. They get to the macguffin first. They scale buildings, dodge bullets. They catch the falling civilian. That fit into tight spaces. They sneak and surprise.”
– Can definitely do these things too. They have the fictional permission to do so and the cool part? Because they have fictional permission they can just DO a lot of these things, and the things they have to roll for set up good story regardless. The guy that has a -1 Maneuver is going to have a hard time justifying dodging bullets, catching the falling civilian, being sneaky or surprising. Remember that the MC is taking into account his players’ stats and powers too, right. The MC is going to be asking you what you do and how you do it – your permission and control over the fiction extends only so far as your powers and stats and, in fact, Smashy and Maneuvery characters can and will do what they want to do, they’ll do it naturally too because that’s the kind of character they want to play. if you still think there are some that they should be able to do that they can’t, I would definitely consider making a move (or moves of course) to make sure they could. Because I absolutely want you, as the Smashy character, or you, as the Maneuvery character, to do the things you want to do that you’ve been reading about in comics and want to emulate.
“If you don’t feel like one of these lists needs a basic move all to it’s own, even though we’ve agreed the basic moves are the basic interface of the mechanical game … I would seriously question whether that Verb should be one of the core stats.”
– I definitely feel like they should be able to do all the things you’ve listed because I thought about the same way you did. The difference in my mind is that all the moves DO cover these things and what’s important to the character. How they do it will differ, and the possibility of doing them requires more or less fictional positioning and justification depending on your powers and stats. That said, I have thought of doing moves for having caveats depending on what stat is your main one and some of the things you suggest are cool. I dig them a lot and the conversation is an interesting one as well. I hope you understand where I’m coming from my design point of view too and that I’m making sense.
You’re making sense. I’m still trying to parse out where we simply have differences in goal and where I feel that your design doesn’t live up to your design goal so that I can give more constructive feedback and more clearly delineate where I simply think it might be worth considering a different outcome and where I really think the design as-is does not accomplish it’s goal.
I’m going to take a bit more time than usual before I compose my next response.
No worries. Like I said, I’m more than willing to consider other possibilities, especially if you think WiP doesn’t give a proper framework for telling superhero stories.
—-“This is exactly what I mean – they’ve still got this wheelhouse. The mechanical advantage is not necessarily there but they can do everything they want to do and since it’s easier to justify, and therefor do, in the fiction they have the advantage of guaranteeing they CAN do these things AND succeed most likely with their +2. So Doctor Strange isn’t the best example but I know what you mean – characters that take a +2 Influence or a +2 Protect though? Going to have a REALLY hard time justifying doing things like taking out multiple enemies or even Imposing a Condition at times. Smashy character will ALWAYS have fictional positioning because what they do is easy and easily justified.”What statement is the activation of the move making? If the main action of your design is establishing fictional position and/or permission to take that position via the Verbs and Powers … what are the moves doing for you that a lighter, less codified system could not? Why do we need Extrapolate? Why do we need Serve and Protect? What are these moves doing, do you feel, that makes the move worthwhile? What is the move adding to the goal of seeing these super heroes do awesome things?
—“Can definitely do these things too. They have the fictional permission to do so and the cool part? Because they have fictional permission they can just DO a lot of these things, and the things they have to roll for set up good story regardless.”Ok. So why is it a Verb? Why do you have a number that gives you fictional position? Shouldn’t you have fiction that gives you a fictional position and numbers that give you mechanical position? If most of the fictional position you get from Maneuver doesn’t require mechanical intervention … why does Maneuver demand equal attention as Character Creation? Why is it 1/5th of my Verb block if most of the cool stuff I can do with Maneuver I can do without ever heeding the number?
—-“Remember that the MC is taking into account his players’ stats and powers too, right.”I’ll come back to this. The moves are there to say what happens in the ludic space when you do X in the fiction, and what happens in the narrative space when you do X in the game. It is the link between game and narrative–“The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice.” What you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me, exactly. You’re saying the fictional positioning for making the move depends on how good I am at making the Verb–how well I can Move depends on how well I can Move! That’s double dipping, isn’t it? Sure, moves require fictional positioning but if I have to use my ability to succeed at moves in order to justify making them in the first place … it gets weird.
—-“The MC is going to be asking you what you do and how you do it”I’ll come back to this. First I’ll be direct. Your moves have a hidden clause. They’re dishonest about their triggers.
“When you closely study a situation, or consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Investigate.” is really “If you possess sufficient intellect to closely study a situation, or consult your accumulated knowledge about something, you may roll+Investigate.” Does that make sense? That’s not necessarily a problem, but that’s what I’m hearing when you explain this to me.
“Whenever you confront an immediate threat by using physical strength or direct force,”
is really “If you possess sufficient strength or direct force to confront an immediate threat.”
Maybe you’re ok with this, but I feel it should be more explicit at the very least.
Ok. So I said I’d come back to some things. These might not be pertinent to your game, as I think these are more about my game design philosophy than about your game design’s success. The stuff I put earlier in the post, is, I think quite important and relevant.
—“Remember that the MC is taking into account his players’ stats and powers too, right.”Is the MC taking the stats into account? That’s the point of the number. The number takes itself into account so we don’t have to! This is the point of numbers in pretty much every system, surely! DnD: I can TRY to roll a DC 40 climbing challenge with my -1 strength and 0 climb. It’s not going to work, but I can try. So in Apocalypse World, just … it’s fuzzier. The MC doesn’t have to say if you can or can’t do it because of how good you are at it. The moves aren’t supposed to be there to say how difficult a task is. AW isn’t set up to handle that kind of thing the way DnD and FATE are. It doesn’t work. You need a different approach, I feel. The moves are there to say what happens in the ludic space when you do X in the fiction, and what happens in the narrative space when you do X in the game. It is the link between game and narrative.
“The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice.” Not “The Rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, but only if you’re good enough at doing it, so make with the dice.”
—“The MC is going to be asking you what you do and how you do it”I guess I always thought that, that being as it may, the MC isn’t supposed to use that power of asking to tell me what I can and can’t do. That’s what the moves and stats are for, you know? The MC tells me which move I’m doing and what the world does. I already made my case against not letting you make moves because, effectively (sure fictional positioning but let’s be real) your stat is too low, then you’re basically saying you’re not interested in people missing rolls, right? That’s saying you’re not interested in making Hard Moves isn’t it?
As an example, in Apocalypse World there isn’t a move that lets me punch that flying boulder from earlier in the discussion. The game doesn’t ask “Can you actually see anything?” before you Read a Situation. That might just change how the MC answers. What controls whether or not you can Read A situation is a) whether that situation is charged and b) how well you roll. The stat only affects the roll not whether or not you can roll. You can go aggro with a wet noodle and a Hard -2 if you catch your opponent unawares … but odds are they’re going to suck it up and take it rather than give you all of their money. Being bad at things shouldn’t “prevent you from moving” I feel. That’s not what I think the moves are for. Being bad at things should just mean making moves brings you complication and failure. How Smashy you are shouldn’t control whether you can Defy Danger with +Smash … just whether you can do it by throwing a car. You don’t have to throw a car to +Smash. You can +Smash with a wet noodle–that’s Smash. It’s just poor Smash. Unless you’re the Hulk. Someone with +3 Smash can chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a friggin’ herring. But someone with a -2 Smash can always, always, always Defy Danger with +Smash because the requirement is “When you act despite an imminent threat …. by powering through.”
Also i could play a comic book character that would have a really high Smash score BUT distribute my stats in another way because i think that better captures the core of the character. Lets say i use the thing. My fictional positioning is still “this dude is super strong and tough”. I can still engange multiple opponents at once and smash their faces in. My Smash score might be low however. So i get in trouble for doing it.
That doesn’t mean my character is bad at Smashing.
Especially if a player says “I am interested in the results of extreme violence so i will put my Smash score low. Then i will get more hard choices and tense situations that follow up. So please EiC, keep that in mind. If i fail at Smashing it should be more about the circumstance, not about my lack of smashiness”.
Tim Franzke That’s exactly where I’m at with how I think Vanilla AW is supposed to work. However, I’m trying to leave open a concept of WiC that doesn’t work like a normal Powered by Apocalypse game or even changes so much from it that you could argue it’s more inspired by Apocalypse than powered by it.
Maybe Smash is supposed to describe my amount of Smashiness and we should be ok with that. There’s nothing wrong with it. But there’s something wrong with it if we want moves to work like they do in Vanilla AW. So even if we’re ok with that, I feel the way Smash (or any of the Verbs) interface(s) with moves has to change either for clarity or more substantially as seen fit by the designer.
Sure, that’s why both powers and stats inform the fiction and the EiC of what is going on and what can happen. If you’re going to smash stuff a lot and have super strength but take a low stat in it, that’s fine. Your powers give you fictional position right? I’m going to this cement bench from the ground and hurl it at my enemy. Cool, you’re super strong don’t see how that’s a problem, that triggers Use Environment.
“You can use it but it’ll be a bit dangerous to throw because it could create a bunch of debris.”
“No worries, I hurl it at Dr. Psycho will all my might.”
“Alright, that sounds like you’re trying to Take him Down, so roll smash.”
“Alright, too bad I have a -1 in Smash, looks like I only got a 6, what’s up?”
Your powers are obviously going to determine fictional positioning. Your stats might or might not reinforce your powers and concepts. Like Tim said, if you’d like to not succeed often at doing something or enjoy the consequences or the way the story takes when you do certain things, there’s no reason you can’t take a lower stat in it. I don’t see many people doing that, but no reason why it wouldn’t work. Most players are going to show what they want to be good at doing by distributing their stats and bonuses to reflect that.
I never said you MUST take +2 in your Smash stat or you’re not strong and you can’t take those powers. I said there IS mechanical advantage in taking smash and maneuver because you can do these things with it. All these things that match up with super hero comic books.
“When you closely study a situation, or consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Investigate.” is really “If you possess sufficient intellect to closely study a situation, or consult your accumulated knowledge about something, you may roll+Investigate.” Does that make sense? That’s not necessarily a problem, but that’s what I’m hearing when you explain this to me.
“Whenever you confront an immediate threat by using physical strength or direct force,”
is really “If you possess sufficient strength or direct force to confront an immediate threat.”
– I don’t understand this logic here either I’m afraid. I’m saying to trigger a move, you have to trigger it. If you want to pick up a cement bench by ripping it out of the ground, you’re going to have to be strong to do and then trigger Use Environment. This is like every game in existence. I’m going to swing at him with my sword! But you don’t have a sword. Oh, right. Guess I won’t do that then.
– “Whenever you confront an immediate threat by using physical strength or direct force,” is NOT “If you possess sufficient strength or direct force to confront an immediate threat.” you can still roll if you’re strong but have a low stat, it just means you’re less likely to succeed if your stat is low. I realize that I was assuming that characters would take stats to back up their powers but in the case Tim is suggesting there’s nothing there that prevents that from happening. I don’t think it’s a leap in logic to think that most players will go the normal route though.
Adam Bosarge
I can’t speak for Tim but that wasn’t what I was getting at. I wouldn’t play a Hardholder without Hard. I wouldn’t play the Hulk without Smash.
But I’d sure as hell want to Smash with a low Smash. I’d still want to Seduce and Manipulate as a werido Savvyhead with low Hot. Not just for the giggles of missing rolls (though that too) but because from a basic character standpoint I want to do things even if I’m bad at them. My characters needs and wants and behaviors aren’t always defined by my character’s success at achieving goals. As such, my character might WANT to Go Aggro a lot despite a low Hard. There are reasons I as a player might see it as my best tactical way out, too depending on the scenario. Sometimes taking the chance on a bad Seize by Force is a lot better than exchanging harm as established because heck … maybe you’ll roll high, but that rocket launcher isn’t going to play nice as established. If the MC were to start saying “Wow, you want to do it, but [implication: because you have a low Hard] you get this nervous feeling in your gut and can’t bring yourself to charge the fortifications” … that would feel like an usurpation. It wouldn’t feel realistic or fun, to me. It definitely wouldn’t feel like the MC being a fan of my character.
So I don’t like the implication of moves requiring you to be good at them in order to earn the fictional positioning to trigger them. That’s non-functional, to me.
Kyle Simons “Your stats might or might not reinforce your powers and concepts.”
That doesn’t quite jive with other things you’ve said. Could you clarify?
“I said there IS mechanical advantage in taking smash and maneuver because you can do these things with it. All these things that match up with super hero comic books. “
Mechanical advantage is relative. There’s a mechanical advantage compared to not having Smash, sure. But compared to having Protect and Influence? Which character has more power to use mechanics: +2 Protect +1 Influence +1 Investigate +0 Maneuver -1 Smash? Or the same order but -1, 0, +1, +2? It’s not good enough to say “Well, the EiC can just make punching people more important relative to talking to them and protecting them, then.” Because we’re playing to find out what happens–the EiC isn’t necessarily supposed to contrive a world like that for us–sure, good faith meta-gaming means the EiC will do some of that. But surely we want to set these heroes loose in a more organic world, not have chest-high walls spring up everywhere because we have a move that lets us take cover behind low obstacles, right? Just so, it might serve play ok to tell the EiC to make punching matter as much, but let’s say there isn’t someone like you or me assessing the game to figure that out. Let’s say we put the rules down and someone plays with them. Where in the mechanics does all of that come out? How does the system deal with that fiction?
And if your answer is still that the fiction deals with it on it’s own and the system doesn’t need to do anything extra, I’m confused as to why those are Stats/Verbs to begin with.
What does having them as stats do that simply asking in Character Creation how strong and fast and so forth the character is does not? What does making it a number do for us? How is interfacing it with the moves helping us and why do the moves allow for more interfacing with the other stats? What is that telling us? What does the game have to say about it’s subject matter? It doesn’t need to be something dreary and deep about the hero we deserve or human nature. But the mechanics are imposing THEIR will (and for that matter YOUR will) on play. They’re saying “In these circumstances … forget free-play. Forget fiction as established by you and the MC. Sit down, shut up, buckle up, and roll the move. This is how Worlds in Peril deals with this kind of situation.”
So it’s fine if you think Smash and Maneuver get enough attention. Ok. I can back off about that. But you haven’t told me what the moves you DO have and the way they are written tells me about the fiction. You’ve given me some insight into what they tell me about the game–you want any kind of hero to be able to achieve some mechanical conceits. I dig it. How does that play into the fiction?
Are you familiar with Ghost/Echo? In Ghost/Echo, all of the players use the same move set. There is no real Character Creation. That doesn’t mean characters don’t do things their way and it doesn’t mean they don’t have identities. It means that the game doesn’t tell them that their identity limits them. You should check it out–it’s very tiny (two pages and a lot of that is art and formatting), and it’s a little odd but I’d be curious what you thought of it because what you seem to be thinking about reminds me of it.
What I’m confused by, and why I bring up Ghost/Echo is that some of the time you seem to be saying things that point towards that sort of model–any kind of hero can engage with any of the mechanics as long as they can back it up in the fiction. The game is more generalized and the fiction less limited by it–but also less guided by it. But then you have Origin Books and Drive Books and Playbook Moves and Stats … and then there are these great imbalances in the Stats (I had a hunch, but I was blown away by how skewed the stats were in the Playbooks when I counted all of them out) not just in the Basic Moves … and that seems to say to me that you and your game are trying to tell me something about Worlds in Peril and how it plays and what kinds of heroes can do what kinds of things.
And I’m a bit confused. Because I’m sure you have something more interesting to say about what kinds of heroes can do what kinds of things then “Some heroes win by smashing, some by maneuvering, [etc.].” Maybe it’s asking to much, but I want to see–whether it’s clear and obvious as a thesis or not–the basic moves saying something about the fiction. If I say “Gosh, Violence seems to get you your way a lot more directly than anything else does” of Apocalypse World … well, that’s part of the setting. That’s part of what it’s trying to say. It might be difficult to go in Hard and blow away powerful enemies, but it’s direct and it gets the job done–whatever that job may be. Violence is always an available tool … and it’s the best guarantor of getting your way.
But when I ask “Why are Smash and Maneuver less important?” You say that they’re just as important, they just have all the attention they need. And that’s confusing to me. Because if I made a AW Hack about being Wolverine … there would be multiple moves all dealing with different aspects of what your game calls, collectively, Take Down +Smash. Even Vanilla AW has both Go Aggro and Seize by Force–they don’t have perfect analogs in your game but you can probably see what I mean well enough by this point in any case. You are limiting the vast variety of ways heroes go in hard and heavy to a) A single Verb. b) Mostly just a single aspect of Take Down. That’s fine. That’s not a problem. But it’s a thing that should be understood for what it is–by generalizing Smash you are saying something really important about it’s place in your world. You aren’t providing for all of the ways a hero could smash. If that’s what you want to do, you can do that simply by playing a Free Form game with no rules about Smashing at all–or play Worlds in Peril with no Smash stat and leave smashing entirely up to fictional positioning as established by character descriptions and what-not without mechanical interference.
You are interfering mechanically with Smashing via Take Down. You are limiting what characters and their players can do. So what does the way you interfere tell me about Worlds in Peril and the people in it’s setting? What does your game have to say about Smash?
You can Smash with a low Smash, you just might not be as good at it as a character with high smash. Just like, a Quarantine with Hard 0 is not going to be as good at Going Agro as a Hard Holder with Hard 3. Or Seize by force. Both of those moves use Hard
no?
“Wow, you want to do it, but [implication: because you have a low Hard] you get this nervous feeling in your gut and can’t bring yourself to charge the fortifications” … that would feel like an usurpation. It wouldn’t feel realistic or fun, to me. It definitely wouldn’t feel like the MC being a fan of my character.”
-Also this would seem to fall more under Cool, not Hard.
If a player with low Smash tries to punch someone sure they can do it, Power Profile does play into this as, even with a high smash as The Punisher, I can’t pick up a car and toss it with say Use Environment.
“- I don’t understand this logic here either I’m afraid. I’m saying to trigger a move, you have to trigger it. If you want to pick up a cement bench by ripping it out of the ground, you’re going to have to be strong to do and then trigger Use Environment. This is like every game in existence. I’m going to swing at him with my sword! But you don’t have a sword. Oh, right. Guess I won’t do that then.”
Ah. Let me put it a different way, then. Whether I can use the move should depend on the fictional position, right? And whether I succeed should depend on the mechanical position, right? Ok. But here, Verbs are how good I am at doing things. My ability to trigger the fiction of the move is related to my ability to get success with the move. Am I good at Smash-type things? Let’s say not–I have a low Smash. Then I’m not good at triggering the fiction to Take Down with Smash. A player taking a low Smash for a character who is in fact good at Smash is bad-faith meta-gaming. We don’t care about them (sorry Tim)–that’s not what the Verb means and we aren’t designing our system for people who don’t want to play by the rules. Worlds in Peril just isn’t the right system for Tim (sorry Tim, you were a convenient example! <3 ). But take a player who DOES play by the rules. I take a low Smash. I can't do the types of things that trigger the fiction for Take Down +Smash. Am I strong? Ok, then I can Smash. Is my Smash low? Ok ... so how am I strong but also not Smash? Maybe I'm timid or analytical so that I just don't Smash often?
It gets a little fuzzy.
Put yet another way: moves are what you do as a player when your character does something in-fiction. If the stats are how good the characters are at doing things rather than how _ the characters are as people … why do I need the moves? Normally the moves translate between how _ your character is as a person, and how good they are at _____ing in the game world. Here, we already know how good the characters are at _____ing! So what are the moves for?
But take a player who DOES play by the rules. I take a low Smash. I can’t do the types of things that trigger the fiction for Take Down +Smash.
-Sure you could, “I am going to punch him in the face and try to knock him out!” But you are an 119 lb nerdy scientist with -1 in Smash oh noes! It still triggers Take Down. I am just not as sure about my success as say, the Hulk standing right next to me.
I suggested something along this line with a change to the gather information move. Right now you can do this with all stats. So giving different 7-9 results to all of them is a way to dinstinguish the different approaches people have.
(Example:)
So when you do that by smashing up people you come back with a condition.
When you do it by maneuvering around you find a situation of trouble you have to deal with.
When you do it with Influenceing you have to pay some price or make some deal.
With Inspection you get information that is vague or only half true.
etc.
Adam Bosarge i think a “you can’t take him out like this, he is made of liquid lava” can apply here. The same thing as Hacking&Slashing a dragon with a rusty dagger in DW.
Tim Franzke of course, but If I am a nerdy scientist who tries to punch a lava guy with my bare hands…
or maybe my guy invented a jumpsuit with INDESTRUCTIBLE GLOVES (patent pending), I could go ahead and punch that fella with no problem. (Deep Pockets: when you need an item or object that is not complex or too hi-tech (EiC’s call), roll+Investigate. It has to be something small enough to be on your person. On a 10+, you happen to have just the thing, or close enough. On a 7–9, you happen to have something pretty close but there’s a catch, the EiC will tell you what it is. On a 6-, you used to have just the thing, but it looks like an enemy stole it from you, you lost it somewhere, the EiC will tell you where you last saw it.) 😀
that would work yes.
I would also hope that the EiC mentioned the fact that the guy was made of lava BEFORE I tried to punch him. Seems like pertinent info.
“You’re making sense. I’m still trying to parse out where we simply have differences in goal and where I feel that your design doesn’t live up to your design goal so that I can give more constructive feedback and more clearly delineate where I simply think it might be worth considering a different outcome and where I really think the design as-is does not accomplish it’s goal.”
“I want to see–whether it’s clear and obvious as a thesis or not–the basic moves saying something about the fiction.”
– Comments like this makes me believe that our difference of opinion started with “This isn’t the game I would have made for superheroes, can you please explain some design decisions?” to “Justify your game to me and why it is this way.” Which is a fine line. There’s a lot of condescension creeping into comments like “And I’m a bit confused. Because I’m sure you have something more interesting to say about what kinds of heroes can do what kinds of things then “Some heroes win by smashing, some by maneuvering, [etc.].” I mean, you tell me that my design makes sense and then you go on to say that you have already made up your mind that I have failed in my design.
– Furthermore, comments like this:
“If the MC were to start saying “Wow, you want to do it, but [implication: because you have a low Hard] you get this nervous feeling in your gut and can’t bring yourself to charge the fortifications” … that would feel like an usurpation. It wouldn’t feel realistic or fun, to me. It definitely wouldn’t feel like the MC being a fan of my character.”
“Put yet another way: moves are what you do as a player when your character does something in-fiction. If the stats are how good the characters are at doing things rather than how _ the characters are as people … why do I need the moves?”
“Let’s say not–I have a low Smash. Then I’m not good at triggering the fiction to Take Down with Smash.”
– Tell me that you haven’t even read my follow ups regarding this. Like I said in my posts above. Stats don’t tell you what you can and can’t do – common sense and your powers do. If you want to back up your powers with your stats (which would be the common thing to do) you can do that. If you want to instead do as Tim suggested and take stats that don’t support your powers and what you’re good at because you enjoy conflict and failure, you can do that too. A move does not trigger based on your stat. It triggers based on what you do in the fiction. The only thing stats do is inform how good you are at doing the things you can do (which is defined by your powers, along with a bit of common sense).
– So if you’d like to continue the conversation then I’d have you do me the respect of actually reading what I have to say in response and not operating under the assumption that my game has failed in its design and that I have a responsibility to justify it to you. If you disagree with anything there, that’s fine – I look forward to seeing the game you create, I’m sure it will be different and I’m sure it’ll be great.
– So far you’ve asserted that certain stats don’t work because you can’t do everything you’d like to do with them. Which is clearly not the case and you said as much. Then, you proceeded to completely ignore that and reassert the same position. When I responded, you ignored my comments and reasserted the same position. I don’t think there’s much left to be said and it’s not exactly productive for either of us anymore, especially if you’re not going to read what I have to say regardless. If you disagree and would like to continue under the above caveats though, I’m still interested in what you have to say.
“
– So if you’d like to continue the conversation then I’d have you do me the respect of actually reading what I have to say in response and not operating under the assumption that my game has failed in its design and that I have a responsibility to justify it to you. If you disagree with anything there, that’s fine – I look forward to seeing the game you create, I’m sure it will be different and I’m sure it’ll be great.”
I’ve intended no condescension. Before accusing me of disrespect for “not reading” your post you should consider that perhaps there is mutual misunderstanding. Even one-sided misunderstanding (mine) doesn’t have to come from dis-respect.
I haven’t made up my mind that your can doesn’t work. I’m backing it. My $10 are in the hat. I wouldn’t do that if I wasn’t interested and I also wouldn’t do that if I thought I knew better and could design the game for myself. You’re doing something different from what I would do in a way that I find interesting. I respect that.
But consider that perhaps your responses make ME feel like you haven’t fully understood my posts, either. That’s a two-way thing and it’s a bit premature to assert that I’m disrespectful of you and your ideas when it’s clear that we’re both invested in design and interested in taking it places. We should seek clarity, not motive. If my motive were to discredit you or say I didn’t like your game or say I could do better? I wouldn’t waste my time and my money. That’s not the kind of thing I do.
I’m interested. I’m also highly opinionated. If you want me to stop, just tell me. It’s your space. You can do that. If you feel I’ve reasserted the same position, it is for one of two reasons: I feel you misunderstood where I was coming from initially and didn’t feel like your response (which you feel was adequate) addressed my concern in full OR I don’t feel like I’ve repeated myself at all and be it my failing or yours you are missing an important distinction between the first iteration and the second. Consider too that maybe some things you’ve said appear to be contradictory in one way or another or at lest dissonant–I’ve said as much at least once in this discussion. You feel like you’ve answered the same question the same way. I feel like you’ve answered different wordings of the same few questions that are getting at the same few things in different ways that don’t always match up or form a complete bigger picture for me. That’s something you should consider.
I love game design and I’m considering paying money for a game that isn’t fully designed yet. So of course I’m curious about it’s details. That’s where I’m at. I don’t mean disrespect, I don’t mean condescension, and I’ve read every word of your posts. If you feel I’ve misunderstood those words, there are a lot of possible solutions to that but I don’t see how accusing me of not paying attention and judging MY opinion of YOU is one of them. I will try and clear up that matter, in any case, as directly as I can: I respect you. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t care about your response, I’d have left after my first comment or after you first answered my first question.
You have no responsibility to justify anything to me. My taking that tone was not meant to be condescending. It was meant to offer clear questions instead of fuzzy feedback and they weren’t rhetorical. They were asked in good faith because their answers would change a lot about how I think about your system.
I’ll go back to something I said much earlier in response to you, earlier, saying a version of this: “So far you’ve asserted that certain stats don’t work because you can’t do everything you’d like to do with them.”
It’s not that I can’t do the things I want to do. It’s that I’m getting mixed messages about what the game has to say about me doing them in particular doing them vs. doing other things. It’s not that I can’t be Superman in this game system and blow everyone out of the water just because that’s who/what Superman is. It is that the game system doesn’t seem interested in making Superman be as mechanically interesting as Reed Richards–that’s ok, because there’s plenty fictionally interesting about leaping over buildings and being from an alien planet and so forth. But I’m trying to figure out if that’s intentional or if you disagree that it’s happening. As Superman, I can still do everything Superman can do in this system. What I don’t get is as much mechanical attention. I’m not satisfied with the answer that I CAN do everything and it’s mechanically represented. That’s still true in Ghost/Echo, but it doesn’t even have Character Creation. You don’t need mechanical support or intrigue to make everything you want to do fun and possible. If anything, as you correctly put it far earlier in the discussion, having moves LIMITS actions by saying ‘If you do this THIS way, the world has something to say about it.”
So I’ll put my most pressing question about the stats one final way and if you don’t like it or think its not worth answering or think it’s condescending that’s up to you: Why do Smash and Maneuver have so few places where the mechanics try to tell us something about their relationship with the world? What does the game/setting/world have less to say about the costs, consequences and limits of Smash and Maneuver? And why, given that answer, do Smash and Maneuver need numerical representation?
Adam Bosarge
“-Sure you could, “I am going to punch him in the face and try to knock him out!” But you are an 119 lb nerdy scientist with -1 in Smash oh noes! It still triggers Take Down. I am just not as sure about my success as say, the Hulk standing right next to me. “
That’s sounding more like a Stat and less like a Verb, now. Not that you can’t use the word “Verb” to MEAN Stat so this is a linguistically confusing point to make.
But here’s a question: If I don’t need to be good at it to do it, then why does the system want me to be able to use any of my stats to do it? De Facto, I’m going to pick my best stat I can roll to Take Down. I’ll make it work as best I can in good faith. And don’t underestimate my (or Tony Stark’s or Doctor Strange’s or Sue’s or Richard’s whoever’s) creativity on that matter! Sometimes I’ll want to punch him even with a low Smash, sure. But sometimes I don’t want to punch him, I want to Take him Down. That’s ok! My goal doesn’t need to be as short-sighted as how I deal with this one villain–it can be what outcome I want for the encounter. And in that case … if I CAN do that with Investigate or Influence or Protect … I’m going to try my best to make it happen because that’s more effective than rolling with a low stat, or making indirect moves to get into a good tactical position. It’s easier for me to move around in the fiction than in the mechanics, so that’s where I’m going to do my tactical work if I can get away with it.
I’m interested in understanding where and why the game system wants me to get away with that and where and why it wants to assert it’s will with mechanics. Here, it doesn’t tell me I can only Take Down with direct force–let’s even Maneuver AND Smash, but not the other three. If the mechanics tell me I CAN Take Down something directly by Enduring or Investigating or Influencing … I’m going to try and do that and I’m going to be frustrated when my EiC and the game disagree about whether or not I can do that and how often I can do that. It’s a basic move–if it’s weird and special why is it in on my guide sheet I use to hep me quickly understand the game?
My question is one of clarity–I don’t need the game to change. I want to understanding where the game is coming from. Right now, I don’t.
Firndeloth Dinsule (edited because I misread your previous post.)If I am playing Reed Richards I may take them down with Investigate, but If I am Tony Stark in Iron Man Armor, I may decide that the situation. calls for a good Smash and do that instead, the beauty of the move so that, even with my low Smash, I can still try to do both those things. If I am Spider Man and want to use my enhanced strength to take him down with Smash, I can, If I want to use my spidery agility I can. If I am the Punisher I may try to scare the whatsit out of him with Influence. All of those are viable options. This is why the move is the way it is, it’s a feature not a bug. It has been stated over and over. It is that way because we want characters to have multiple options to Take Down a baddie.
Also, you canceled your pledge several days ago, which is fine, you don’t have to pledge at all, or ever to discuss the game with us. Just thought I would give you a heads up.
“But here’s a question: If I don’t need to be good at it to do it, then why does the system want me to be able to use any of my stats to do it? De Facto, I’m going to pick my best stat I can roll to Take Down. I’ll make it work as best I can in good faith. And don’t underestimate my (or Tony Stark’s or Doctor Strange’s or Sue’s or Richard’s whoever’s) creativity on that matter! Sometimes I’ll want to punch him even with a low Smash, sure. But sometimes I don’t want to punch him, I want to Take him Down. That’s ok! My goal doesn’t need to be as short-sighted as how I deal with this one villain–it can be what outcome I want for the encounter. And in that case … if I CAN do that with Investigate or Influence or Protect … I’m going to try my best to make it happen because that’s more effective than rolling with a low stat, or making indirect moves to get into a good tactical position. It’s easier for me to move around in the fiction than in the mechanics, so that’s where I’m going to do my tactical work if I can get away with it.”
Yes, this is the way we want it and why we designed Take Down the way we did. You may always pick your best Verb, after all it is the most mechanically sound option, to do Take Down and that is fine. As long as you can justify it in the fiction. If you can’t do that and the only apparent option is to use another Verb, then yes you may end up having to use that -1 stat. The system is telling you that be creative as you want to be taking the Rhino out, it may not be through brute force all the time and that is ok!
Not liking it and not understanding it are two different things. If you don’t understand it , I really don’t see how you seem to be a pretty swift chap, that is fine. I would be happy to explain it again. If you don’t LIKE it then I am afraid we are at an impasse. We have reasons we designed the move the way we did, we explained said reasons, several times over in fact. Once we get through dev editing with Jonathan Walton some things about the game may change as needed,(actually with as awesome as Jonathan is a lot of things may end up being tweaked) but as it stands now you have not given me good reason to think we should change Take Down.
“So I’ll put my most pressing question about the stats one final way and if you don’t like it or think its not worth answering or think it’s condescending that’s up to you: Why do Smash and Maneuver have so few places where the mechanics try to tell us something about their relationship with the world? What does the game/setting/world have less to say about the costs, consequences and limits of Smash and Maneuver? And why, given that answer, do Smash and Maneuver need numerical representation?”
At the moment this game is in dev editing, we don’t feel that Smash and Maneuver are underrepresented. We wanted the moves in playbooks to focus on other things that enable telling a good story. (Not that Smash and Maneuver can’t do that! Though, we feel that the moves in the playbooks are representative of those playbooks and help enable the fiction and playing towards those drives and making those origins fun and interesting.) Now if the game comes back from dev editing and the feedback is holy cow there are not enough Smash and Maneuver moves, and of course we have your feedback as well. It is something we will examine, maybe even change. But as it stands now we do not feel it is the case. While, numerically there may be less moves in playbooks using those Verbs, that does not mean that the characters who choose those verbs won’t have a chance to shine.
Superman is an interesting character, we even have Origin and Drive playbooks inspired by him. We just don’t feel that the most interesting thing about Superman is that he can hit stuff really hard. We feel it is how isolated he is and how “alien” he truly is sometimes. We wanted emphasis on his relationship with humanity. Those things are what interest us about Superman, not that he is just very very strong. (Which is cool because someone with his powers profile is going to be able to do some interesting things in the fiction” You may say “well why give him a +2 smash??” Well simple as Supes using the Take Down move, you are probably going to find yourself using Smash and Maneuver more often than other Verbs.
I would ask you to understand that we are taking feedback here and via personal messages and other avenues….. So, trying to answer wall of text after walk of text from several different people can be daunting and things can get muddled???(Though. I don’t feel this is the case and I do feel your question has been answered rather unambiguously.)
It’s ok, that’s our job, we WANT constructive criticism and feedback, just don’t feel we aren’t listening if we don’t change the design of the game then and there based on said feedback.
Let’s try this another way, since you are obviously interested in game design….. What do you feel a proper Smash move for say Superman (My Alien Heritage Origin Book) would look like that is not covered by Use Environment or Take Down?(This isn’t meant to be snarky I am genuinely curious.) Keep in mind though, that not everyone who takes this origin will want to be Superman and thus a city destroying powerhouse.
Going even further what is Superman’s Drive, his goal on planet Earth? To us it is simply not just hitting things very very hard. Those games have been done. (And they are very good games!)Our approach with the playbooks is to not emulate the powers but the goals and inner turmoil of the characters with the playbooks (Which is why we have a Powers Profile to separate the powers from the playbooks.). If their desire is to fight,awesome, we have a playbook for that. Also their power profile can suitably reflect just how strong they are. I would argue that putting +2 in Protect is just as viable and ” in character” as Smash for Superman by the way. The reason his Drive playbook isn’t filled with Smash moves is because Smashing things is not the Driving force behind why Superman is a hero. I would probably take the Protect Drive book along with the (Observe humanity playbook Observe and Learn? I can’t remember the name and am on my iPad and it is very early so I don’t have the doc I front of me.)
You mentioned Reed Richards, yes one of his “powers” is that he is a genius, this is supported by his Drives “Create” and “Push the Boundaries of Science.” These coincide not because we like those characters more but because that is the driving force behind the man that is Reed Richards.
All that being said I would advise both parties taking a step back for a day. I don’t doubt you mean well Firndeloth Dinsule, but some of your comments do come off as condescending whether you intend them that way or not (could just be your writing style?), it happens so no worries. Tone is a difficult thing to judge with the anonymity of the internet and all that. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though. There is obviously some sort of disconnect or misunderstanding somewhere along the line, since Kyle thinks the questions have been asked and answered and you seem to believe otherwise.
Maybe this is a problem:
Superhero stories aren’t in the end about how hard or good you can punch things.
But punching things are an important part of superhero stories. “
Right now the game is showing that.
However,maybe there should be a chance to tell stories about how hard and good you can punch things. Because some players are interested in that.
I hope that makes sense.
Tim Franzke , Yeah it makes sense and I see your point. But the Drive books as written wouldn’t make sense with a bunch of Smashy moves in them. The ones that do like Fight (This will probably be renamed.) do have Smashy moves.
I understand and appreciate that some people really love combat. (Trust me, I am one of them.) We did not want that to be the centerpiece of this game. (Maybe we went too far the other way in that zeal? )
It is something we will continue to examine Tim. Some folks like the Battlebabe and that is cool!
Its not even the Battlebabe, it’s the Gunlugger or Faceless.
Some Drives that would maybe make sense with Smash, “See it all Burn” (Punisher?) or “Just leave me alone” (is this in the draft already? can’t check right now).
A different question, when i unload my Gattling Gun into someone, is that Take Down with Smash? Because you certainly aren’t smashing in the conventional sense. Maybe there is some “ranged combat” type moves that would work. I don’t know.
The Touchstone I believe it is called? Is also a combat monster too eh? I just mentioned Battlebabe cause I saw your post about it, and have always thought it was a cool character. I usually play a Quarantine, though he was more a a Gaius Baltar type who actually killed a man and took his identity at the last minute to steal his capsule. 😉 Then had to pose, very poorly I might add, as a military man.
Yeah Tim, those do make sense. I could see some smashy moves or even ranged combat moves in there. Do you think there should be a separate basic move for ranged attacks?
Actually not at all.
What i feel is that there could be room for a smash move that is just better at putting conditions on people or just “defeating” them somehow.
That would give you reasons to not always roll the same moves and have at least some variety while validating smash.
The same way the “read a situation” (forgot your name for the move, sorry) is often what you are doing as an inspect type character.
When you take someone down using a clever plan you are actually reading the situation, to make a plan. That is way more interesting, and providing more information to everyone at the table, then a
“Well, i make a quick plan and then execute it”
that is a type of conversation that could happen with investigate take down.
Ok, well we ran into the issue of I have this shooty move a la Punisher in the Vigilante book, but if I am a vigilante that isn’t shooty its a wasted move, and being shooty is not what that Drive is mostly about. (Though one could argue for the Punisher it is and I can see your point.) The Drive books are a balancing act, some write themselves, like the Create and Push the Boundaries of Science. Others have to be broad enough to fit any playstyle and character concept that have that Drive in mind and the moves are meant to reinforce that Drive and help tell that story not to do combat things per say. (Though again with the Punisher combat things are his story so..yeah.)
Do you see where I am coming from? Very early here and no coffee yet, and dealing with a crazy pup at the moment. So it may be all muddled…
Really late over here.
And i see the problem.
I still also have problems wrapping my mind around the concept that this is a supers game (that are in a lot of ways about the powers) without giving much mechanical weight to the powers themselves. It creates a lot of tension i think.
Have you thought about removing Smash? Monsterhearts works with 4 stats…
“Well, i make a quick plan and then execute it”
that is a type of conversation that could happen with investigate take down.”
As an EiC , no no no, this would not fly for me. They would have to be FAR more specific to do an Investigate Take Down.
“What i feel is that there could be room for a smash move that is just better at putting conditions on people or just “defeating” them somehow.
That would give you reasons to not always roll the same moves and have at least some variety while validating smash. “
I see your point, will be internalized and discussed. (That was not meant to be curt, it is just something we discussed a year ago and we made a design decision against it, but it is something I am willing to bring to the team and revisit, it just may end up we come to the same decision.)
“I still also have problems wrapping my mind around the concept that this is a supers game (that are in a lot of ways about the powers) without giving much mechanical weight to the powers themselves. It creates a lot of tension i think.”
“Have you thought about removing Smash? Monsterhearts works with 4 stats… “
Kyle or I will address this later yeah? I need to go cook breakfast for the wife before work. Thanks for the convo and feedback Tim!
When I say: “Your powers are obviously going to determine fictional positioning. Your stats might or might not reinforce your powers and concepts. Like Tim said, if you’d like to not succeed often at doing something or enjoy the consequences or the way the story takes when you do certain things, there’s no reason you can’t take a lower stat in it. I don’t see many people doing that, but no reason why it wouldn’t work. Most players are going to show what they want to be good at doing by distributing their stats and bonuses to reflect that.” and then show an example for further clarification to show that a move being triggered has no correlation with the modifier of a stat and then you immediately follow with:
“Let’s say not–I have a low Smash. Then I’m not good at triggering the fiction to Take Down with Smash.”
and: “Put yet another way: moves are what you do as a player when your character does something in-fiction. If the stats are how good the characters are at doing things rather than how _ the characters are as people … why do I need the moves?”
It tells me that there hasn’t been a miscommunication. It tells me that one person is interested in having their ideas heard while disregarding those of others. It negates the point of a dialogue. So far, what I’m hearing as your chief complaint is that you wish there were moves for Smash in playbooks. And Adam answers that above – Drive Books are based on motivation. There is exactly one hero I can think of that has a motivation of “I want to smash.” Smashing is something you can do anytime and is covered in Basic Moves (you can still accomplish your motivations via the use of Smash, it just isn’t at the heart of a motivation), what’s important and makes a compelling story is why you’re doing it.
“Superhero stories aren’t in the end about how hard or good you can punch things.
But punching things are an important part of superhero stories.”
– And there’s no reason you can’t punch stuff in WiP, I think I addressed that when I went over exactly everything you’d want to do with Smash and illustrated that there’d be no problem doing any and all those things.
“Some Drives that would maybe make sense with Smash, “See it all Burn” (Punisher?) or “Just leave me alone” (is this in the draft already? can’t check right now).”
– These are not the Drive books of a superhero. The Punisher is not the Joker. He’s not interested in seeing it all burn, he’s interested in punishing and making sure criminals pay for their crimes. Likewise, “Just Leave me Alone” is not a story that’s going to be told at the table. That said, if you guys want to make up your own Drive books that reinforce punching things as a motivation for your superhero, that’s fine but it’s not in their by default for a reason – that’s not most superhero stories.
A different question, when i unload my Gattling Gun into someone, is that Take Down with Smash? Because you certainly aren’t smashing in the conventional sense. Maybe there is some “ranged combat” type moves that would work. I don’t know.
– Smashing has to do with direct confrontation and brute force. There’s always going to be some abstraction in stats. It has nothing to do with the distance between you and your target.
“What i feel is that there could be room for a smash move that is just better at putting conditions on people or just “defeating” them somehow.
That would give you reasons to not always roll the same moves and have at least some variety while validating smash.
The same way the “read a situation” (forgot your name for the move, sorry) is often what you are doing as an inspect type character.
When you take someone down using a clever plan you are actually reading the situation, to make a plan. That is way more interesting, and providing more information to everyone at the table, then a
“Well, i make a quick plan and then execute it”
– If you have some concerns about some things you’d like to do with Smash that you feel you cannot do, those are concerns I’d love to hear about, I’ve still yet to see anything come up or have any issues with it however. And again, like Adam said, if you, as the EiC, are letting your players gloss over narrative, that’s your prerogative. I don’t think either the player OR the EiC would do that though since you’d be actively trying not to tell a good story. If you go to smash a villain you could “I hit him.” But I hope you won’t, because you won’t be telling an interesting story.
– In summary: Smash not having many moves does not mean it’s not mechanically viable, as we’ve already talked about. Putting a high stat in Smash you will do all the things that you are interested in doing (via Smash) well. Cool things will still result from you smashing things well or not, since when you roll you still trigger moves and moves result in interesting things happening. There are no Drive Books with a ton of Smash moves because it not a typical motive for a hero and the motives that do have something to do with Smash can usually be expressed via the Basic Moves. If you’d like to suggest some Drive Books that should have Smash moves, or would like to come up with your own, that’s all fine. I just don’t understand why you’re asserting that the game does not support a certain kind of play simply because there aren’t as many moves that use smash in Drives.
– I’m happy to talk about any new pertinent ideas but like Adam said, if really all this comes down to is your not liking the design or wishing the game was made as per your vision, there’s not much to be done about that. Thanks for your time guys.
“Also, you canceled your pledge several days ago, which is fine, you don’t have to pledge at all, or ever to discuss the game with us. Just thought I would give you a heads up.”
Er … not according to my Kickstarter account. I use a different e-mail here and with Kickstarter and the e-mail (not intentionally, that’s just how things worked out–my e-mail linked to Kickstarter isn’t a G-mail account so I can’t use it with Google+). That said, I did cancel … only to re-back; it had nothing to do with this discussion (happening days earlier, in fact) and was related to me waffling about my discretionary spending for the month. And frankly you bringing it up in this context seems kinda weird. I don’t need a “heads up” as to my backer activities; it’s really confusing that you would bring that up in that way. I assure you I am presently a backer and have every intention of being so.
My issue is not one of what the game does or does not support. DnD can support everything Story Games support–the mechanics are different, though, and the mechanics matter. The question is “What does the state of play look and feel like when I do this thing?” more than “Can I do this thing?” I’m very very tired today as I got absolutely slammed with stuff to do at work and I don’t think I’d be able to properly untangle the discussion and encapsulate the things I have to say that I think might be useful to you in a way that isn’t quite so antagonizing as I seem to have been so far. You also seem to be having trouble answering the questions I have about the system that are for my own understanding rather than for feedback purposes and I’m far too tired to figure out whose fault that is and frankly it’s probably that I asked them poorly. So I think I’m just going to bow out and figure it out later when I have the game proper in front of me.
I hope some of what I’ve said has been interesting and helpful. You’ve answered some of my questions, at least, and while I’m disappointed our communication seems to have gone so badly I’m still excited about your game.
Firndeloth Dinsule ,
“Er … not according to my Kickstarter account. I use a different e-mail here and with Kickstarter and the e-mail (not intentionally, that’s just how things worked out–my e-mail linked to Kickstarter isn’t a G-mail account so I can’t use it with Google+). That said, I did cancel … only to re-back; it had nothing to do with this discussion (happening days earlier, in fact) and was related to me waffling about my discretionary spending for the month. And frankly you bringing it up in this context seems kinda weird. I don’t need a “heads up” as to my backer activities; it’s really confusing that you would bring that up in that way. I assure you I am presently a backer and have every intention of being so.”
(Firndeloth DinsuleApr 22, 2014
“But I also recognize that the all-in-one move concept is a perfectly valid mechanic even if it wouldn’t work in Worlds of Peril as designed by Gwathdring–it doesn’t have to be something I could make work as a designer”)
Was not meant as a dig at you.
You had mentioned backing, as you earlier had mentioned a user name”Gwathdring” that had canceled. Said person had also expressed concerns about Protect as a stat in the comments, then promptly cancelled, which I felt bad about because I thought we had answered the questions well.
Then you popped up with similar concerns and a very similar writing style)so I was like “hmm wonder if this is the same guy?”
I was genuinely confused. So yeah I do sincerely apologize if you thought I meant anything negative by that.
“I hope some of what I’ve said has been interesting and helpful. You’ve answered some of my questions, at least, and while I’m disappointed our communication seems to have gone so badly I’m still excited about your game.”
– At the very least the conversation has been helpful for me in cementing my ideas and the design philosophy behind the game or, rather forced me to try to be more coherent about voicing it along with what things to put explanations when explaining and fleshing out the game text.
– I’m sorry you feel that I didn’t answer all of your questions. “What does the state of play look and feel like when I do this thing?” is a very broad question that you’d have to unpack for me. If you’re asking me if the game feels like a comic when you play it I’d have to say yes, despite being biased, we have been playtesting it for over a year. I think you might be best served by playing the game and actually seeing how the mechanics work together rather than trying to conceptualize it from your point of view. It may be that we see supers differently because for me being smashy isn’t a motivation – it’s a means of expressing a motivation or something you do because of a motivation. Hence very few playbooks with moves expressly about smashing stuff. Basic Moves cover the things you do while working towards and expressing motivations and drives.
– Thanks for taking the time, it’s appreciated.
“Said person had also expressed concerns about Protect as a stat in the comments, then promptly cancelled, which I felt bad about because I thought we had answered the questions well.”
“I was genuinely confused. So yeah I do sincerely apologize if that is what you thought I meant by that. (er. that I meant anything negative) “
Ah. Fair enough. 🙂 No, my cancel had nothing to do with your response to that, either. Again, it was related to my monthly spending allotment–I agree with you that you responded to that earlier question well.
Firndeloth Dinsule
“Ah. Fair enough. 🙂 No, my cancel had nothing to do with your response to that, either. Again, it was related to my monthly spending allotment–I agree with you that you responded to that earlier question well.”
Ok, no worries man. Was totally NOT trying to shame you or anything. It’s not my style. I was just generally doing a double take and very confused cause I don’t want to run people off! Take care and good luck with work, there are brighter days ahead..