Last AW session I found the Angel’s “Healing Touch” move results to be designed strangely.

Last AW session I found the Angel’s “Healing Touch” move results to be designed strangely.

Last AW session I found the Angel’s “Healing Touch” move results to be designed strangely.

The roll results read as follows:

On a 10+, heal 1 segment. On a 7–9, heal 1 segment, but you’re also opening your brain, so roll that move next. On a miss: first, you don’t heal them. Second, you’ve opened both your brain and theirs to the world’s psychic maelstrom, without protection or preparation. For you, and for your patient if your patient’s a fellow player’s character, treat it as though you’ve made that move and missed the roll.

The usual goal for this move is healing and the different results reflect that well. The 6- result is fine too, because in addition to failing to heal, the MC can make a unpleasant move.

What I found strange is the complication on 7-9 very possibly isn’t a complication. Especially if the Angel has weird highlighted and gets a hit on the opening your brain move. Instead of just healing 1 segment the Angel gets an additional XP point (because the character actually makes the move instead of “treat it as though”, like with the 6- result) and receives “new and interesting information”.

In short: the 7-9 “Healing Touch” result is way better than the 10+ result unless the player misses the open your brain move.

That does not feel right to me. Do I miss something in the move’s design? If you agree, how do you solve this issue narratively or mechanically? I would like to reserve psi-harm for misses (would get boring in the long run anyway) and handing out wrong information doesn’t work forever too.

Any feedback is gladly appreciated!

Just got my advance copies of Legacy 2nd Edition in the mail and man is this a beautiful book.

Just got my advance copies of Legacy 2nd Edition in the mail and man is this a beautiful book.

Just got my advance copies of Legacy 2nd Edition in the mail and man is this a beautiful book. Really looking forward to seeing people’s reactions when they get their backer rewards…

Originally shared by Jay Iles

It has arrived!

Shipping should begin soon ot kickstarter backers, and it’ll be in general sale by mid-July 😀

Spam alert! I’ve had a LOT of spam hitting here lately. I’m trying to stay on top of it; just letting you know.

Spam alert! I’ve had a LOT of spam hitting here lately. I’m trying to stay on top of it; just letting you know.

Spam alert! I’ve had a LOT of spam hitting here lately. I’m trying to stay on top of it; just letting you know.

Here’s an interview with the Bakers on the origins of and the design philosophy behind Apocalypse World.

Here’s an interview with the Bakers on the origins of and the design philosophy behind Apocalypse World.

Here’s an interview with the Bakers on the origins of and the design philosophy behind Apocalypse World. The intro is in German, but the interview is in English. Please excuse our Schwarzenegger-style accents.

http://www.3w6-podcast.com/podcast/2018/5/10/406-interview-meguey-vincent-d-baker

I’ve always found the phrase “Hold 1” and “Spend your hold” a little clumsy.

I’ve always found the phrase “Hold 1” and “Spend your hold” a little clumsy.

I’ve always found the phrase “Hold 1” and “Spend your hold” a little clumsy.

Here’s two versions of the same move, a pretty basic version of Read a Person. It’s a western game, so I’m experimenting with a different form of language, but I wonder if it is still clunky:

When you size up a person during an intense interaction, roll + Savvy. On a 7-9, Hold 1. On a 10+, Hold 3. On a miss, Hold 1 anyway. You’ll need it.

During the conversation, you can spend one of your Hold to ask a question of the character’s player:

*Are you telling the truth?

*What are you really feeling?

*What do you intend to do?

*What do you wish I would do?

*How could I get you to do ____?

When you size up a person during an intense interaction, roll + Savvy. On a 7-9, collect a Chip On a 10+, collect three. On a miss, collect one anyway. You’ll need it.

During the conversation, you can cash in one of those chips to ask a question of the character’s player:…

What reads better for you?

In the second half of session 6 of our co-MCed Apocalypse World game, we focus on the Skinner turned Solace,…

In the second half of session 6 of our co-MCed Apocalypse World game, we focus on the Skinner turned Solace,…

In the second half of session 6 of our co-MCed Apocalypse World game, we focus on the Skinner turned Solace, Midnight Storm. He hunts down a lost (dead) PC, makes new friends (including a future PC), and discovers a fruit that makes those who eat it forget what they love most.

http://www.noordinaryobsession.com/space-world-6-make-friends-and-influence-people-part-ii/

I decided to start working again on a hack I lost all my files for a little while ago, Land of the God-Kings, a game…

I decided to start working again on a hack I lost all my files for a little while ago, Land of the God-Kings, a game…

I decided to start working again on a hack I lost all my files for a little while ago, Land of the God-Kings, a game about playing a powerhouses in a high-fantasy setting.

Does anyone have any tips or ideas they’d like to share concerning playbooks, moves, and what else should be in the book besides rules? Thanks!

In your experience, does the “concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence” language in the 7-9 result of Seduce…

In your experience, does the “concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence” language in the 7-9 result of Seduce…

In your experience, does the “concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence” language in the 7-9 result of Seduce or Manipulate (in Apocalypse World 2E) produce bad play outcomes? The idea that a 7-9 then becomes a failure unless something else is produced? I’ve never noticed this as a problem myself, but I have someone asserting that it’s something he’s seen a lot of.

What do you think?

When Hell Freezes Over

When Hell Freezes Over

When Hell Freezes Over

Another hack that will never exist…

Pick an historical figure and a playbook to match them, then go through these questions with the rest of the table:

– Who else knows something good about that historical figure?

– If everybody does, take Fame+2

– If some people do, take Fame+1

– If nobody does, take Fame=0

– Who else knows something bad about that historical figure?

– If everybody does, take Infamy+2

– If some people do, take Infamy+1

– If nobody does, take Infamy=0

– Your Anonymity is set so that the sum of your stat scores is +2

– If you have Fame+2 and Infamy+2, then take Anonymity-2

– If you have Fame+2 and Infamy+1 (or vice versa), then take Anonymity-1

– If you have Fame=0 and Infamy=0, than take Anonymity+2