Author: Steve Ellis

Meeting someone for the first time in play- Faction Moves vs. Skin Moves

So playing US today with Declan Feeney  and when two PC’s met with or interacted with forces loyal to an hostile Immortal, we didnt “Put a Face to a Name” (which is about knowing something interesting or important about them. they owe you a debt or learning their reputation) but rather we went for the very similar Aware:Did Your Homework (Know a dangerous secret about them)  and the Immortal: Been Around (You previously knew them, they might owe you a debt, or something from the past you know or have is useful now). 

But the Skin moves feel a lot like the Faction move, and cover much the same ground thematically (knowing about an NPC to your advantage (or disadvantage on a miss).  So,  in terms of Advance marking, should such moves count as Faction moves? (and be included into their text). 

Or, is the way to play it when meeting a new NPC be for the player to always call for a “Put a Face to a Name” move and then follow up with the Skin Move?  I worry that it could just add extra pressure on the GM to create some cool info on the fly for the Know the Face, and then have to think up even cooler answers to a subsequent roll, moments later. 

I think if the Skin  move covers the same ground as a Factional Move then perhaps they should count as Faction moves and have that notation included in the final text of the playbooks. 

For the Immortal 2.1 skin feedback- I still think the intimacy move misses the tragedy of the Immortal- that people/lovers die around them while the immortal goes on, if not from violence, then old age. Perhaps Intimacy should trigger a flashback scene giving +1 forward to something relevant to the flashback. That keeps the Immortal centred in the past and their history?

I also wonder if Immortal healing times could be ramped up to 1 harm per hour rather than a day like the other Skins? That would fit better for Highlander types. Or make it a move they could take?

Finally the Corruption move implicitly assumes a manipulative mortal, so I’d add in that a Immortals gain corruption if some one is harmed by trouble from the a immortals past (e.g. The Kurgan kills your lover)

Declan Feeney – could we adopt any of these for your game?

Heres some feedback- I’ve run 1 game and played 2 at various cons. I did like the coverage of the various urban fantasy tropes, and loved being able to play an Highlander-esque immortal. Thats a 20 year old dream realised.

One thing I and others like Neil Gow observed is that the playbooks need some.. ooomph, or a bit more meaty provocation in the style of Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts. 

For example could the questions on each Skin be made unique instead of standard 3 that get repeated a lot?

Who are you?

 How long have been in the city?

 What do you desperately need

e.g. Wolf “How many did you kill when you first changed?”

Vampire “What do you regret you can never now do in daylight?”

Monsterhearts does some hard framing in its questions for Strings, and that is part of what is missing here- the questions are too generalised and open.  But they are also a bit dull (“How long have you been in the city” vs say “Why cant you leave the City?”) and need something to sex them up, make them a bit more challenging.

Some of the moves are a bit dull too, and again a revision to see how they can be made a bit more provocative/challenging/defining would be good, even if mechanically the same,  they need a bit of flavour (such as the roll with X instead of the normal Y in situation Z type ones)

Some feedback on the Intimacy moves (originally from Kickstarter comments page). 

I played in Chirags 2.0 playtest game and thought some of the Intimacy moves needed punching up, as a few seemed pretty dull, or dont really fit the theme. Specifically…

Hunter has an interesting sex move (honest questions) but how is it in theme to the Hunter? Wouldnt it work better for the curious Aware? Indeed you might be better swapping the Hunter and Aware sex/intimacy moves (since supernatural sex seems to be a trangression for the monster hunter, it fits better for gaining corruption). But also include an effect for intimacy with a Mortal too, since just marking corruption or no effect is fairly dull.

For the Fae, wouldnt an exchange of promises work better with intimacy (a 2 way street) rather than it being a demand? Perhaps they can refuse if the Fae doesnt give them a promise in return?

The Immortal shouldn’t be about saving lovers- their tragedy is they always outlive their mortal loves, so the Intimacy move seems out of theme. Giving up their Immortality to save their love on the other hand might be an interesting (if archetype-destroying) intimacy move. Definitely needs punching up or changing to something like the Vamps intimacy move about owing them a debt or giving them a glimpse of your past (flashback time?).

Oracle & Spectre & Veteran- reasonable, no issues.

Vamp- reasonable

Wizard- this seems to be the Harry Dresden rule. Not sure what the logic of marking Faction is with the wizard than say another character type? What are you going for there?

The Wolf- reasonable, though you might go for the Monsterhearts version instead of you have a bond until one of the 2 of you is intimate with another partner.