Retiring a character – to safety.
So, the way I’m reading this, the “to safety” part in the book really is about safe from the MC. But, what if the other players are looking to enact vengeance on a PC that was retired to safety?
In my game, a PC made enemies of most of the other PCs in the game. Then, took Retire to Safety (probably to get out of the fallout of making enemies) and started a new character. However, the PCs still want to get even with the retired PC.
How would you handle this?
AW 2E says this:
“To safety” means two things. First, it means the retiring character’s
safety: as MC, you promise not to kill her off just because now she’s yours and technically you could. No fair decorating your up-and-coming new warlord’s pike with her head.
Second, it means the player’s characters’ safety: as MC, you promise not to turn her into their enemy, just because now she’s yours and technically you could. No fair making her be your up-and-coming new warlord either.”
Which, to me, seems like it makes the PC off limits to the MC, but not to other PCs.
I would vote they’re off limits. Perhaps in retiring, they pack up a Winnebago and head off to the north
I’d say go with the fiction. For them to be safe from the PCs, there needs to be a reason.
To me it’s always meant that the character crystallizes and occupies a static role going forward. They continue to do their thing and remain a touchstone while becoming part of the setting.
I’d say the player who retires them designs the safety. For one charter it might might be the as a town elder, for another it might be to ride off into the sunset never to be seen again thus escaping their enemies. If such the player leaves the character acessible and others want them dead, they should still be able to try, but the MC is allowed to make huge obstacles or complications in doing so.
Marshall Miller that’s all fine and dandy but doesn’t really answer the question. Can the PCs fuck with it if it’s still part of the setting or do I need to contrive reasons why their shenanigans don’t work?
Oh, wait: There are no status quos in apocalypse world.
John Henry Right. Which is why I lean toward what you’re thinking instead of where say Aaron Griffin is leaning. But also, dude took an advanced improvement that said “retire to safety” and might feel ripped off if the PCs just go annihilate his dude – now out of his control.
The MC can’t use the character as enemy of the group, so if the group wants the character to be their enemy, who’s going to play it? If the character stays in the neighbourhood, that gets a bit complicated. I suppose the player and MC could agree to turn the character into an enemy, and if they player doesn’t want that, they could have the character just ride off into the sunset, out of the campaign. If the rest of the group wants to pursue, they also need to retire their characters, and any vengeance happens off-screen, out of the scope of the game.
Martijn Vos well, it’s not just proximity. They are attempting to use the maelstrom to find and lure him with moves like Lost and whatnot.
Don’t you have any fronts that require attention? Maybe tell them their mission of revenge is fine, but outside the scope of the campaign. Hit them with something else that requires an immediate response.
How goes the player who had the asshole feel about this?
It sounds like you may have player communication issues, rather than just character hatred.
William Nichols I think it’s mostly character hatred. But, surely, the players are probably doing it as a tool of “oh, you can’t just get away with this – our characters are pissed”.
Martijn Vos I’m doing that, for sure. It’s mostly a question of, if I can’t coerce them through other issues, how do I handle a retired character that the other PCs want to fuck up?
If a character is that hated by the pc’s then it should be addressed by the player retiring them. Remember, death is a very safe retirement thus is always an option for that player
David Rothfeder Ha! “Here, let me retire you to safety. slides knife into throat“
I think discussing this with the players is the best option. What do they think is the best way to handle this?
Let’s say you pay the Savvyhead to armour up a truck, and bolt guns on. You have a tank! Or you take the improvement, “My Other Car Is A…” and what do you happen to luck upon under a tarp pretending to be a sand dune? Cool, right? It works both ways, in fic and in rules.
Next session, you make bad choices. The tank eats a rocket or two. It goes from zero o’clock to smouldering wreck. Regrets are had. “But that was my advance!” you cry. “I paid XP for that!”
And? The fiction says you managed to nark off someone enough that they felt the expense and risk of bringing out a rocket launcher was the right move. Same as if you got messed up and took a debility, counteracting your Hard advance. Same as if you lent out your custom gun and the guy you lent it to went off a cliff.
So if you retire to safety, and we talk that out, it starts off with the default assumption that you are free and clear from retribution. That does not stop other PCs from aiming to change the situation and being capable of doing so. But yeah, get the retiree involved. They deserve a say.
Toby Sennett That’s it. That’s what I needed. Thanks!
Honestly this feels like it calls for “sometimes, disclaim decision making”.
Say you don’t know where they are, how they respond. Ask the group what they think.
Disclaim responsibility for this character. You are fairly far in if the PCs are beyond their fifth advancement. Your threats are bubbling, can the characters really afford to go off on a tangent?
Don’t shoulder this on your own, put this out for the entire group to decide over. This character is by the rules not yours to use, other than as color.
You can never trigger a move by stating so. You describe what you do, and then trigger it, if it actually triggered it.
So how I’d play it is asking the character how he his character will retire to safety, and then see with the other players if that’s a correct ending of their story.
This isn’t a question about how to handle the fiction of retiring a character. We already did the whole where is he, how are you doing that part of the move. The question is can the PCs do something to bring him back. Read upthread.
As far as I’m concerned if the players want to go after the character who was supposed to have exited then they can. I’d consider it pretty dickish though. See if you can make them feel guilty about trying to hunt down (and presumably kill) someone who just wants to be left alone. However I would also consider the gloves to be off as far as the rules about not using the retired character against the PCs. If they want to press the fight then they should face the consequences.
Note that it is an improvement which allows retiring to safety. So eliminating that safety is making that improvement moot.
I know it’s ideal that players are OK with PvP death but some are not and if they take this improvement they are possibly establishing a line. The respectful approach is to leave it to the original player to define the safety, and then to the MC to enforce it. “They are going for your old character. What’s their situation?” “They’re off limits.” “OK, so they are nowhere to be found. They got wind of your attack and hightailed it out of there. They either saw it coming or there’s a rat in your midst.” If the original player consents then run with it. Remember that if the players face a former PC then the PC has to be played by the MC and it might become a can of worms to not make them a villain.
Phillip Wessels Touche!
I think a big thing to remember is that a safe character is free of the look through the cross hairs principal. This means that the MC no longer gets to say ‘somebody shot a rocket in the character’s general direction: DEAD’. In AW, most npc’s are easy to kill but pc’s are hard. A safe npc should be similarly hard.
It seems to me severely overbalanced that a character can spend an XP and severely limit all the other players’ agency. Especially when, by the description of the situation, it keeps them from doing what their characters would logically do. I think I’d require the player in question to move the fiction to a point where the advancement made more sense.
By analogy, if the driver strolls into a bandit camp, pisses them off, and levels while fighting for his life, I wouldn’t allow her to say, “I take the tank advancement. I’ll jump in my tank and drive off.” First she deals with the situation she created, then she gets her tank.
Cranky Otter, I’m pretty sure you’re example explains where the driver got the tank very nicely. She steals it from the bandit camp as an extra f u and rides off into the sunset giving them the middle finger. I always see that moves alter the narrative, so if a pc live gets a new move, the plot opens up that opportunity for them without making them wait.
That’s actually a pretty good way to deal with it. So, not such a great analogy.