I love the new move to add adversity but I find it lacking in that the player that it effects, chooses the Need and…

I love the new move to add adversity but I find it lacking in that the player that it effects, chooses the Need and…

I love the new move to add adversity but I find it lacking in that the player that it effects, chooses the Need and effect leaving aside that the GM may choose a Need on a certain result.

Have you considered going with what is done in Urban Shadows in having the player with the least Treaty with that player choosing the Need? We found that it added an edge to the move whilst allowing the player to still control how the adversity is framed.

Established group looking for about 2 players for a weekly game on Tuesdays, starting about 7 or 7:30pm PDT (GMT…

Established group looking for about 2 players for a weekly game on Tuesdays, starting about 7 or 7:30pm PDT (GMT…

Established group looking for about 2 players for a weekly game on Tuesdays, starting about 7 or 7:30pm PDT (GMT -8/-7). Life has forced a couple of players to take a break, so our current campaigns are on hold, and I’m taking the opportunity to try out Legacy.

I’m not attached to any particular mode of play, but I am a fan of more gonzo settings. Please comment if you’re interested. I’d like to be able to start game generation this Tuesday, September 26.

Hi, I just got to read the new systems for companions and vehicles.

Hi, I just got to read the new systems for companions and vehicles.

Hi, I just got to read the new systems for companions and vehicles. They seem great so far. Next, I wanted to know how the Order’s Ultimate Weapon move changed to reflect the new System. Well, it still adds 2 to a nonexistent stat.

Also, vehicles no longer get weapons beyond just ramming (melee brutal). Maybe add a tag that lets you take a weapon based on your armory but bigger/heavy?

I just finished reading through the KS draft of second edition, and I love the game.

I just finished reading through the KS draft of second edition, and I love the game.

I just finished reading through the KS draft of second edition, and I love the game. I have one question, though: how are Games meant to end? Each Family moves through the ages trying to impose it’s agenda – cool. And some of those agendas permit temporary or permanent alliances – great. But there’s no advice for how to handle the loss of conflict if one family gets (some or most of) what it wants?

Let’s say the Servants of the One True Faith can count the Homeland as sufficiently adherent through persuasion or compulsion; then what? Maybe they can stay in the game and help another family for a bit, but fundamentally they’re done.

Or what about the families with no endpoint, like the Guilded Company of Merchants? There will always be an economy of some kind, so I feel like they risk an endless slog. They can always have conflict, pushing into new areas or pushing out competition, but that can also start to feel repetitive after a few ages.

I guess the question is for more experienced GMs and players – how do you know when the “new normal” has been achieved, and the Homeland has become the new world? Is it just a matter of table consensus, or are there more sure signs?

I am curious about your Lawgivers!

I am curious about your Lawgivers!

I am curious about your Lawgivers!

Here we have had two very different approaches:

1) The Black Shield always protected the Rich, and always reserved their justice to the Poor, never stealing along the way. Yeap, the remnants of a corporate law enforcement agency.

2) The Department always protected Technicians and always reserved their justice to Vandals, never Sabotaging along the way. Volunteers patrolling a derelict ship, fighting just to keep it running.

3) The Rangers always protected Americans and always reserved their justice to Foreigners, never Stealing along the way. In a post Final War Alaska, enemies were everywhere.