Our ongoing Cowboy World campaign last night, in which the assasin assasinated 5 npc’s by sneaking up behind them and cutting their throats, the vigilante found out the guy who killed his father was his father (“I killed your father, Wally, and I am your father”) and the gunslinger drew against his nemesis, ex confederate general William Wilds. The vigilante also found out that he has an evil identical twin brother, a fact that should cause mayhem in future sessions.
Mechanically I added a system for Fame and Infamy, which did not see much play yet, increased the Grit cost of upgrades, to make Grit points more valuable. A lot of grit points were spent to add +1s to rolls, but it seemed to be approriate because you die whenever you fail two rolls (actually 3, since there is a chance to be healed) in a row.
PvP fighting brought up an important question: In PvP moves as written now, the active player retains narrative control as long as he does not roll a fail. On 6- narrative control passes to the target player. This irritated one player, and is against the philosophy of AW that the loser gets to say what happens next, in order to escalate the conflict. As GM I actually thought it worked quite well, but I would like to hear opininions.
So the question is: in a PvP situation, who gets to say what happens next?
That PvP thing reminds me of how Wrestling works in WWWRPG.
My vote’s for keeping the spotlight moving between the characters.
Imho, conflicts are more interesting when both antagonists share the initiative, rather than one pounds away at the other until they make a mistake and then it switches the other way.
Also, while some players will be happy to lose control of their character if it results in great fiction, more seem to dislike losing narrative control of their own character. Keeping the spotlight moving between the charcters means that any loss of narrative control is limited.
Michael D Thanks. I’m seriously considering rewriting the moves.
Tim Franzke I’m buying the PDF to steal ideas!