I’m having my hunters join a secret organization, but I want them to have to go through initiation, which partially…

I’m having my hunters join a secret organization, but I want them to have to go through initiation, which partially…

I’m having my hunters join a secret organization, but I want them to have to go through initiation, which partially involves collecting ingredients for the initation, but I’m stumped thinking of ingredients. The campaign takes place in Michigan. Thoughts?

Hey there.

Hey there.

Hey there. We just played MotW on saturday and I liked it. I’d been reading it so that I could help the Keeper if needed (it was her first time).

I’ve been meaning to GM some pbta urban fantasy for quite some time and was planning to run Urban Shadows, because I thought it was the only candidate (even though the high emphasis on inter-faction political shenanigans is really not my cup of tea). But I’m starting to think MotW could work, even outside the strict framework of a self-contained episode.

One thing I did like in Urban Shadows was the possibility of playing different types of monsters as a regular character option, not limited to the Monstrous playbook. It really helped with the “commonplace supernatural” aspect that I want to install.

So, I’ve been thinking on allowing players to make supernatural characters even if the playbook has a regular human in mind. Like, a demon being The Crooked. I’m using demon in the buffyverse sense, where some of them are just regular people with green skin, little red horns and some basic supernatural power.

What it would look like would be a player taking the “human” playbook they want (The Expert, the Initiate…for example) instead of just The Monstrous.

Then, if their “breed” of monster really HAS to have a power that’s not just narrative polish, and has to have mechanical effects, I would simply have them tick “Take a move from another playbook” and get the corresponding Monstrous move, effectively starting the game with an advancement already, which I don’t think really unbalances the game. I probably wouldn’t ask a demon to take a monstrous Curse, but I may ask so from a vampire (or offer to the player the possibility that their character has overcome their thirst somehow) .

In that perspective, playing the Monstrous would be playing Angel from Buffy: a tormented character with a Curse, who wants to atone/ hates their monstrous nature. it would be a character whose main narrative attribute is that their are a Monster ; as opposed to a character whose narrative axis isn’t that their are a demon, but a private eye. Does that make sense?

So, yeah, what do you guys think of using MotW as a urban fantasy game that would be less centered on a “one game = one mystery” structure, but not “everything is politics, all the time” either?

With 6 hunters, I’m going to encourage them to look for opportunities to work in pairs to maximize spotlight time.

With 6 hunters, I’m going to encourage them to look for opportunities to work in pairs to maximize spotlight time.

With 6 hunters, I’m going to encourage them to look for opportunities to work in pairs to maximize spotlight time. Is the history thing going to be a little much to do between each and every hunter? Is it OK to establish history with only 3 or 4 others? And/or is it OK to use the same history for multiple colleagues if it works narratively (e.g., the crooked’s “know about your criminal past”)?

First time running (haven’t played either) a PbtA game, after much study (reading several games, listening to tons…

First time running (haven’t played either) a PbtA game, after much study (reading several games, listening to tons…

First time running (haven’t played either) a PbtA game, after much study (reading several games, listening to tons of podcasts, etc). Been playing trad RPGs on and off since the 70s. I think I get it, want to try.

So just starting a one-on-one play by post game (slack) to get the hang of the system, and the player is taking the Crooked (Burglar) playbook and asking about The Crew move and whether that would help him as a solo player. My first thought is that he won’t need it, but of course could help. We still have a DnD type mindset mostly, so I am sure he is thinking that more people on his side means better ability to survive combat – I get that it doesn’t have to work like that. On the other hand, dramatically that can work too.

But the question is – how to handle allies/teams/crew in the game? I understand the narrative effect that it has – he can have one of his crew distract the guard while he sneaks in, have someone else cut the power at the right time, etc. But what mechanical effect does it have? If he has a crew member distract the guard so he can sneak in, he is still likely going to trigger a move, and then it wouldn’t matter if he had crew help or not. Or maybe, because the crew member helped, he doesn’t trigger a move trying to sneak in and just does it. I realize I may even be asking the wrong question about mechanics, and the answer is that the mechanics just enforce the fiction or something, but I am stuck on it.

Let me give you an example – Crooked has a Crew of “bodyguards.” (say the crooked is a 90lb weakling type and the Crew are his muscle). Crooked runs into a few of the BBG’s human minions and a fight breaks out. If Crew shoot at minions, as they likely would, do I just make the move “inflict harm as established?” I could hand wave the whole thing, one of the reasons trying something besides a trad game is because I don’t want to keep track of hit points for a bunch of bad guys, but I want to make sure the Crew is useful to the Crooked at the same time not too useful, if you know what I mean (maybe it is ok to be too useful, since I am a fan of the Crooked, but don’t want to blow the whole scene is his bodyguards just gunning down the minions. Or maybe I do.). I guess mechanically I just use the keeper moves, but hard to figure out how that will look with a group of evil minions, the Crooked and the Crew.

I know you guys will have some great thoughts on this. Thanks!

I encountered MotW through “The Adventure Zone” podcast and loved the focus on collaborative storytelling and simple…

I encountered MotW through “The Adventure Zone” podcast and loved the focus on collaborative storytelling and simple…

I encountered MotW through “The Adventure Zone” podcast and loved the focus on collaborative storytelling and simple mechanics. So I did an open call among my work colleagues and got 6 people interested in playing. I thought I’d be lucky to find 4!

My understanding is that 5 hunters is really the ideal maximum. I don’t want to discourage anyone from playing, so if indeed all 6 commit, any tips on managing a large group? This will be the first time I run a game. I hope to run my mystery write-up by you guys before we play, if you’re willing to have a look 🙂 Thanks!

More More Weirdness hype!

More More Weirdness hype!

More More Weirdness hype! Just ran a quick playtest with a Gumshoe and a secret new hunter type, using one of the collection mysteries… “Everybody get psycho”

Great fun with the mystery, and both hunter types worked well. They even managed to minimise killings, although a shoe (but not the leg wearing it) got dragged into some kind of hell dimension.

Attn Mark Tygart Bryanna Hitchcock

Just ran my first game of MotW game Friday and it was a blast.

Just ran my first game of MotW game Friday and it was a blast.

Just ran my first game of MotW game Friday and it was a blast. Had 10 hunters facing off against a goatman that can impersonate people. However, I had one concern about the ruled that actually came up in play. That is, every hunter even the Mundane can use magic. In my case, the Crooked with a -1 weird tried to use magic to heal a unstable Monstrous. He failed his roll, but me and some other players were pretty confused that he could even try to. Is every hunter supposed to familiar enough with the underworld that they have can perform basic magic? Is this something you allow in your games? Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

More Weirdness excitement!

More Weirdness excitement!

More Weirdness excitement!

Down to final revisions on three pieces, and not quite final revisions on five more… not much longer now.

My teaser for today is that Daniel Steadman’s piece on running a mystery with no preparation at all is filled with fantastic ideas which I am sure you will love.

(I will also use a lot of them myself.)