Hey Paul Beakley and others who have discussed revising the Man playbook – do you want to see what we did with it,…

Hey Paul Beakley and others who have discussed revising the Man playbook – do you want to see what we did with it,…

Hey Paul Beakley and others who have discussed revising the Man playbook – do you want to see what we did with it, or work on your own thing without being unduly influenced by our blabbering?

7 thoughts on “Hey Paul Beakley and others who have discussed revising the Man playbook – do you want to see what we did with it,…”

  6. So, it’s a hardholder.  Like, there’s nothing wrong with using the mechanics of the hardholder’s move, But the man isn’t about telling others what to do.  It’s about getting it done your own damned self (even if you have help). Telling people what to do and paying for stuff with silver are for women and gothar.

  7. I like this as a start, Keith. A quick note: the longhouse was not wooden–timber was in very, very short supply in Iceland. Stone and turf, and the amount of wooden paneling is a nice substitute for “how rich is this guy?” (If I ever get around to trying to make my Vinland moves work again, the forests of Canada would be the gold at the end of the rainbow for the Icelanders.)

    I both agree and disagree with Alan. I think there’s some virtue to the idea that the Man has less of a command role. OTOH, I think this version of the playbook comes a lot closer to matching characters from the Sagas like Olaf the Peacock (before he got stupid rich), Gunnar, Bolli, et. al.

    It would be interesting to keep some of the feel of the original book in that the purpose of the farm is to trade its produce for goods or obligations. (The original is a little too persnickety for my tastes, which is a bit of a problem because the role really needs to be filled in some way.)

    I’d really like to see some kind of Feast move in here, although I’ll leave the mechanics to people who are actual designers instead of poor MCs standing alone against the darkness 🙂

    Oh, and maybe one of the extensions could be “a share in a raiding venture.” (This might work in synergy with the Huscarl Viking move.) Raiding would be a gamble–lots of up front capital, but potentially high value in return, although perhaps at the cost of some honor. (I’m not sure if “a share in a trading venture” needs to be a separate move, or if Raiding is an option for the trading.)

Comments are closed.