In my game there is a npc “hocus” in my game that preaches peace and freedom. Of course my players are totally against being so pacifist if because its stupid in the apocalypse.
Now I want to give this guy Seahorse some mechanical teeth. What I came up with is this:
When you listen to seahorse preach the gm gets 1 hold against you. He can spend this hold to offer you XP to stop from committing an act of violence.
Maybe you also have to act under fire to use violence directly against him as long as he has hold…
What do you think?
Tim Franzke That is an awesome idea! Are we talking any act of violence like a bar fight or an extreme act of violence?
Sounds solid. Creating custom moves like these for NPC’s is one of the best things about Apocalypse World and it’s hacks. It is really fun to design and like you said, gives them some teeth.
A bar fight would count as would shooting somebody. Punching somebody in the nose probably wouldn’t (at first)
Sounds like a Solace move.
When S. intervene against an act of violence roll+cool (or +weird if you want a little supernatural kick).
10+: you got both
7-9: the MC choose one
– Act under fire to continue the violence
– Mark XP if you stop the violent act
Cool move Ezio Melega but it doesn’t really show the kind of fiction i want. Seahorse get’s hick hooks into you and changes the kind of person you are. He doesn’t really do it directly.
My only question is ‘do you want the game to be less violent.’ It’s fine if you say yes, but having a NPC with such a move makes it sound like you do. I would be careful with PC perception with such a move, especially since they will not be aware that they are receiving the XP because of that NPC. Since this NPC will not likely give reasons for the PC’s to off him, it sounds like this move isn’t going to create any tension, and will just hang around for a while. My suggestion I guess would be to design a move that sounds a bit more direct and perhaps intrusive. Ezio Melega didn’t chose a bad method here, but it might still just act as an XP mine without adding to the narrative.
The game isn’t actually very violent as the Gunlugger is not that active (i have to work on that). I don’t know how good/bad of a thing that is…
The trigger will be observable because spending the hold comes with the fiction of Seahorses word echoing in the head of the PC and he for a moment rethingking his actions.
One potential source of initial tension, which can subsequently escalate, is to have NPCs the PCs used to depend on in a fight (though not an explicit gang) turn away from violence–or even have their enemies turn away from violence.
They see the world changing, they get a chance to join that change, and they can start reacting to it.
If they embrace it, Seahorse is in the crosshairs and someone else can off him and leave the players to decide whether to meet violence with violence or to honor the memory and teachings they started to embrace.
If they reject it, all sorts of shit can happen–including they off Seahorse and his followers forgive them and hope they learn better.
The main point isn’t where to take it, so much as even with a relatively soft move for an NPC you can set up plenty of harder circumstances later on, so long as the players give a shit about what’s going on.
I would have your NPC act through the Player Characters allies, henchmen, gangs and families. I had a similar NPC in one of my first ApocWorld campaigns… an eleven year old girl who had visions of a safe and peaceful land. In a hold full of people terrified of both slavers and the player characters, it led to an enormous amount of tension. I made sure she never represented an actual threat to the PCs, but had more and more of the NPCs drawn to her message of hope. Finally, the PCs murdered her and her followers. I had to take a few months off of ApocWorld after that game. 🙂
Something about what the PCs think of him?
“When you first hear Seahorse preaching, choose one:
-he’s a fool, and his naive theories will bring nothing but trouble: next time somebody who believes him gets hurt, mark experience
-he’s brave, and his ideas might really change something: next time violence makes things worse instead of helping, mark experience”
If you want to push the characters towards change, you could switch the experience conditions around so that they mark when they’re proven wrong.
still, i really like your initial move idea (it’s better than mine, i think: mine was just to try and see the thing from other angles). obviously you would tell the players of the experience offer, though?
Also, i don’t think this would make the game “less violent”, i think it woud put violence in the game under an interesting spotlight.
I like Alberto Muti idea, especially with the reversed conditions, but I think it would be fun to have this move ride. Add a clause to both that says “After marking an experience re-examine what you think of Seahorse and chose an outlook again.” I think this will keep the question as to whether he is right or not to keep coming up…until the gunlugger shoots him in the head.
The thing is, when someone has highlited Hard he has a no choice (sometimes). Go Aggro and get XP or be peacefull and gain XP…
Tim Franzke, that’s a nice way not to have choice! also, yes, you don’t have a choice, but the fictional outcomes are very different!
Also, David Rothfeder, thanks! i think that the idea of adding the “choose an outlook again” is really neat.
Only problem i see witha move like that is: is this making Seahorse too much of a “protagonist”?
it’s also to fiddly for my taste.
True, but I think picking out moves like this means that the NPC is important to the PC’s. If he isn’t then you should just let the character be in the background and choose a move that only applies when the PC’s are interacting with Seahorse. I think Alberto’s suggestion does take care of that in the clause that his move only triggers when you witness things happening to his followers, meaning that you’re at least casually interacting with his part of the world. If he ends up becoming to important to the setting without the PC’s liking him then he is likely to be put in the crosshairs.
I don’t think the initial move was bad, just has a bit too probable for it to come up in situations that feel like they do not have Seahorse thematically involved.
I like the initial move as presented.
I’m trying to remember how it went for preachers who interfere in violent mens’ business (from Deadwood) – not so well I think.