Jamie Frost – Page 6 – Powered by the Apocalypse G+ Archives

Resharing here, because naturally!

Originally shared by Jamie Frost

Taking a crack at a custom move for #MasksRPG (although this particular mission has already been accomplished; good hustle on the #halcyonjailbreak everyone!).

When you dramatically proclaim “This must be the work of _____!”, you’re right, it totally is. If you make your declaration while…

…your powers flare dramatically, roll +Freak.

…smashing your fist into a nearby inanimate object, roll +Danger.

…cradling a wounded civilian, roll +Savior.

…pointing accusingly in an appropriate direction, roll +Superior.

…displaying open signs of fear or concern, roll +Mundane.

On a hit, you are not caught off-guard when the force behind it all is inevitably brought to bear against you. On a 10+, the GM will also ask you a question about what you’ve figured out; whatever you answer, that is the truth of the matter.

Got a question!

Got a question! I’m going to be playing a Hunter in an upcoming game (first game since I’ve had the full final rules on-hand), and I was wondering what the heck the anchored tag from the Enchanted weapon feature does. Couldn’t find it in the core rules or in the Hunter playbook or anywhere else, so I asked the other players, and one of them said that it meant the weapon could be summoned and banished at will (bitchin’ feature, by the way).

I asked where he’d gotten that info, and he said that his friend had heard it from one of the authors. Dunno if that’s true or not, but anyway: my question is, can we get a definition for this tag (whether it’s the above or whatever else) added into the pdf? Having it in the hard copy would be great too if you guys are still looking for a printer and can still edit things, but I understand if it’s too far along for that. I wouldn’t care so much, only neither the tag’s name nor the name of the feature are especially self-explanatory like most of the other tags are.

Edit: Oh, okay, I see a discussion on this very thing from earlier this month, so I know Andrew’s aware of it at least. Still, the explanation given there isn’t especially satisfying; even if it’s mean to be open to interpretation, I’d still like that intention to be outlined in the rulebook, since every other tag has its intention lined out. Again, the name isn’t very illuminating.

A question about Factions

A question about Factions

So, am I just missing something, or does your faction membership not really mean much to your character?

I know there’s the fiction to consider, and that’s great and important, but I’m looking at the faction rules and seeing the way that it gives all this mechanical weight to who belongs to what faction. It’s cool and elegant, the way it reminds you that nobody is really alone, everything’s deeply political, and you only really get anywhere in the city (i.e., character advancement) by knowing the right people.

So it seems kind of odd not to have any of those cool mechanics tie back into your own faction. The faction rules don’t really care about that, they just care about how “in” you are with the four factions, which is all about rank and doesn’t touch on membership at all. You’re not defined by your faction in any mechanically meaningful way.

There are advances that let you change your faction, but all these do mechanically is to change what other people roll and mark when they interact with you–which, I dunno, seems kind of underwhelming?

So, am I missing something? If not, is this worth thinking about?

So I’m a little confused about the nature of PC to PC Bonds.

So I’m a little confused about the nature of PC to PC Bonds. For NPCs, a Bond seems designed to reflect their feelings about your character rather than the other way around, which makes sense.

But what about your team Bonds, is it the same thing or is it reversed? As it seems odd that you can exercise control over how another PC feels about you, but only they can exercise control over how you feel about them, at least from a mechanical standpoint.

Or are the Bond values always supposed to be the same on both sheets anyway and I’ve just missed something?

Would anyone be interested in a limited-run Hangouts game, say on Wednesday evenings?

Would anyone be interested in a limited-run Hangouts game, say on Wednesday evenings? Call it a familiarization game, and a chance for me to brush up on my GM’ing skills in general.

I’m thinking a single, fairly short arc, wrapping up in maybe four sessions or so (give or take character creation, if that takes a session on its own). Sessions about 3-4 hours each. More focus on action than drama.

…Okay basically, let’s shoot for a Nextwave vibe. Anyone interested?

For the “take a Move from another Archetype” advances, would you say that includes Drama Moves?

For the “take a Move from another Archetype” advances, would you say that includes Drama Moves? Not sure if that was the intent, but I think it could create some interesting characters and moments (kill an Immortal, take their Immortality for example), so I’d personally allow it.

A few visual touchstones for The Veteran. ;)

A few visual touchstones for The Veteran. 😉

A few visual touchstones for The Veteran. ;)

(Uncle Iroh would also be a good source of inspiration, come to think of it. Point being, there’s no reason you can’t play a kindly old badass instead of a crotchety old badass.)

Sell me on the Hedonism Scheme, because I really don’t see the appeal and I’m curious if I’m just missing what other…

Sell me on the Hedonism Scheme, because I really don’t see the appeal and I’m curious if I’m just missing what other people are seeing. I like the rest of the Immortal’s schemes, but this one I just don’t get, on account of:

1) I don’t know how to visualize it fictionally. How do you make a grand setup to not do stuff?

2) It’s mechanically flat. It doesn’t have any unique effects, just a limited number of guaranteed results on a universal move.

3) At the end of the day, what it allows you to do is refuse to engage with the fiction with no reprisal. This seems really against the spirit of the game, and also weirdly at odds with how much fiction you have to engage with to complete the scheme in the first place.

For the last, I can just about see an argument that you’re refusing to engage with the fiction except on your own terms, but I’m not sure I like that. And it doesn’t change the first two problems.

Thoughts, rebuttals?

(I’ll be really embarrassed if there’s a new Immortal and I just haven’t seen it yet)