Is there a better way to phrase this improvement
* You get a herd of livestock, 2 gigs and moonlighting. One gig must be “tending your herd(2 barter/they are gone) “
Or should i make this a move you can take?
Is there a better way to phrase this improvement
Is there a better way to phrase this improvement
I like it.
I think that’s fine to phrase the advancement–though I’d probably make it clearer that you are getting stuff (the livestock) and the tags for said stuff (living, valuable, etc.) as well as a gig.
ah thank you Tim Groth
Looks neat. Could also be a love letter for specific people if need be. I would SO take this advance though.
I am also looking for a special for a “Master of Hounds” kind of character
What about “when you have sex with someone, you hold 2. You can spend your hold to know exactly where they are and how they’re feeling or to already be there.”
Not great, but a possible starting point. 🙂
I was thinking about doing stuff with
“You smell like them and they smell like you…”
but no other idea where i am going with this. The pack of animals works like a rangers companion in Dungeon World (or a more limited driver car)
Perhaps the special is about being accepted into the pack? Either theirs or yours now sees the other as “one of us” and will not attack the beloved.
Ooooh your ideas are better! 🙂
Meguey Baker your idea is in
Tim Groth , I disagree with the tag livestock. This is apocalypse world, and if you want to keep a herd of dancing albino midgets that I think that would still work.
they would still be alive and valuable
Yeah, the tags are just alive and valuable, I don’t think a new tag is needed.
Yeah, I think a heard definitely needs to be alive. Valuable I think should be an option. For instance, you might have a herd of rats. The rats might be useful, but chances are nobody will want to buy or steal your herd of rats.
David Rothfeder – rats could be good eating, I think. Especially good-sized ones.
As they give you 2 barter based on moonlighting, I’d say that the advancement is intending that they are valuable.
Yes, they are valuable by definition
True, but I’m more referring to the possibility of a undesirable herd with unexpectedly beneficial uses. For instance, let’s say that your in a apocalypse where people don’t eat rats, often but you have them trainded to steal little bits that can be jingle. Or you have your own flea circus, or other such combinations.
The Playbook that they come from looks like it could handle that through the core animal pack, which is an active thing like a driver’s vehicle(s). Whereas the advancement looks to me to be about the securing and utilization of valuable, living property.
Which of course means you could theoretically use it as a base for modeling a slaver type Playbook’s stock of slaves (or just a group of slaves held by an NPC). By using the stuff definition instead of the group of people design for them, you underscore in the rules the dehumanization of the process, while also making individual members proper NPCs.