Dense, so I'm going to break it up at points and discuss my thoughts
Collection of thoughts for you (or anyone) to respond to:
* No matter the situation with local or London-wide ordinances or local law enforcement douchebaggery or corruption, it would only be a thing for the Day phase of play (the Night phase is framed directly into the action of the Threat so whatever setting emerges from our Day phase wouldn't be an input into Night phase framing). Does that mitigate your concern or not-so-much?
* There are three frames of mind on the equation of "I'm imbued with a latent curse that turns me feral/savage" + "I'm trying to escape my past/fate on the other side of the ocean amidst a group of exotic monster hunters" + "I chose Fastest Gun in the West so I have persistent advantage when it goes to guns" + "I'm an American going into the precinct, wearing my low slung holstered Colt, and asking the Constable and his Deputy about the recent murders" + "violence resolution as xp trigger" + "reveal a treasured memory from the States during an intimate moment with another character xp trigger" (these latter two potentially being at tension during any given conflict):
So, that first bullet I'm having trouble with. I reread your prior, and discovered that I did indeed have a point of contention, and that feeds into this -- the statement that the Day phase will be primarily Information moves, with Day moves as mostly followups as needed. I feel this is wrong. The Day phase is, indeed, meant to be more languid than the night phase, but I think we can look to the difference between the Day move and the Night move and see that the same situation in the Day phase that would trigger a Day move would be altogether more dangerous in the Night phase triggering the Night move. In other words, the languidness is partially baked into the moves. The other part, to me, comes not from prioritizing Information moves over Day moves in the Day phase (that's getting tedious), but rather that in the Day phase it's the Hunters that are driving action while in the Night phase the GM is directly applying pressure and causing situations. To me, this is the difference. If the Hunters, during the Day phase, are doing dangerous things (and they should be), then that should be triggering Day moves.
And, I say this because you seem to already think that the difference in move space on a 6- and 7-9 seems to be similar to that of the Day move. You were thinking to target Rattlesnake's Colt on a 6- on an Information move. I'm not sure, then, if the consequence space for a Day move and an Information move are the same, what the difference prioritizing Information moves over Day moves to increase languidness is lost on me.
Okay, that was setting the stage from the last post. I do not get this. The fiction established during the Day has no bearing on the Night? That... is not what I understand. It would seem that a consequence established would then be part of the fiction. I can see all kinds of ways that would work. I mean, the Day scene seance the other character held is a directly lead in to the Night scene framing! So, no, it is not and would not have been at all obvious to me that something established in the Day scene was going to be a Day only complication. I wouldn't have guessed that from reading the game nor from your usual approach. This is, indeed, something I would not have expected! And, I'm not sure I like it, either.
One frame of mind is:
- I selected Fastest Gun in the West so when I go to guns I expect to be reliably capable of dispatching my foes.
- I selected Fastest Gun in the West because I want the temptation of escalating to violence with the related looming Sword of Damocles that goes with having a low slung Colt holstered on my hip where everyone can see it. Its symbolic for my curse. Surrendering to it is a savage, easy thing to do...but neither my enemies nor myself will escape the wrath of my succumbing to it. Can I keep it holstered? Can I escape its power over me?
- A combination of both of the above.
Knowing you, I would expect its the last answer (a combination of both where you're at severe tension of escalating to violence vs controlling that urge and resorting to intimacy and vulnerability instead).
Yes, the last.
So two questions:
1) If it is indeed the last one, wouldn't an ordinance around the gun be just the thing to test this dichotomy of succumbing to easy, savage violence vs controlling the curse of your blood and the cold steel on your hip...and adds another layer to it (an externality that attempts to wrest your decision from you...perhaps one American might deem that as a glorious boon...another American might see that as the easy way out with)?
2) As a GM, when I see a player make a move like the above (a foreigner who just waged a violent war of insurrection within the last century) to go to a law man and attempt to make friendly and squeeze some information out of the precinct's personnel...my radar is immediately ticked toward "this person wants law enforcement to be a potential Threat or a potential Side Character and we'll figure out (a) which they are and (b) , if Threat, what that looks like (with the selection of Fastest Gun in the West and the chilling, big ass Colt on their hip being a thing)?"
Then, of course, if they don't like the result, they always have the Janus Mask (a limited use resource which will end up retiring your character if you use it enough) to fall back on.
What do you think about (1) and (2) above both as (a) the player of the character and (b) the character itself.
Finally, if (2) is a correct read, is the "misread" (of the implication in the character playbook choices + action declaration) basically "I don't want gun laws to be a potential persistent input into framing or consequences during The Day Phase of play...I just want succumbing to violence vs maintaining control and intimacy motif...your consequence of a 6- move becoming a potential, persistent input into Day scene-framing makes my PC life difficult in a way that I didn't invite (eg - mean to signal)."
So, again, here is a genre logic mismatch, I think. I don't really have any complaint about your overall structure here except that introducing an ordinance that guns cannot be openly carried is a High Tier Threat, to borrow terms. That law invokes a huge piece of the setting because we are in Victorian London, so a law passed must have some serious weight behind it. At the least, every Constable already has that hurdle to overcome if Rattlesnake is armed. It doesn't appear to be navigable from the position of a Hunter, it's deal with it level. But, it would be, because I could probably make a move to just pay a fee or get an exception or whatever. That feels somewhat mismatched, though, because part of the genre is Victorian London, and while I'm not a huge history nerd, I do know that Victorian England had a strong society and functioning government. So, to me, genre logic wise, and taking that Victorian London does have that functioning government as part of that logic (hell, an entire consequence category is interference from this), this move, to outlaw carry of firearms, seems to invoke quite a massive piece of that genre logic to me. And, so, the attendant ways to deal with it feel off. Sure, I could make a move that it's just a fee to carry and pay that on a success, making this moot, but, again, invoking such a large piece of genre just to trivialize it feels off. And the reason it feels off, I think, is because of what would happen if that move failed -- it would lock in that large piece of genre logic and make sure that dealing with any law enforcement (or civilian willing to go fetch law enforcement) while armed would immediately be a problem to overcome. This just feels incredibly weighty, and the kind of thing that needs a bit of forewarning! I mean, walking into the Constables office while armed when there is a law against it seems like something someone might have mentioned to Rattlesnake, given his description, prior to being in the Constables office. It's not like he's been subtle. So, the deployment here, in that moment, invoking that large piece of genre (London society and government) in a way that would very easily have large lasting consequences to the character or be dealt with trivially seems like it's a bit strong.
The weaker version of this -- "you can't be armed in here, surrender your sidearm to the clerk or leave!" would be 100% perfectly in line with expectations and do everything you're talking about here. Like I said before (maybe not here) it's the scope, not the concept, that I'm having trouble with.
@prabe , my guess is that your of a similar mind to
@Ovinomancer on this. That my last paragraph I've written above is where you might fall if this was an output of action resolution and then a subsequent input on conflict framing? I would be curious what your better half would feel if I complicated her Day Phase life with a OMG WITCHCRAFT albatross around her neck becoming a potential persistent input into Day phase framing as the result of a 6- move (supernatural counselling or ritual or dark entity conflict - all xp triggers - + her character's Quarters, theme, and motif)?
I'm curious what others think on this. I'm particularly curious about the reality that this playbook move selected is an important part of build currency:
Is a gunslinger's weapon (selected build currency) or a Warlock's divination's (same) fair game to become potential complications during a phase of play where conflict is not inherent (but manifests as an outgrowth of action resolution or the accretion of PC moves that bring conflict/threat into the fold). Or is that generally no bueno? What if the game is agnostic about that and the premise of the game and the character isn't specifically about "how many enemies can you dispatch with your Colt and how well can you dispatch them" (or in the Warlock's case "how much good council can you receive and provide from your divinations?").
This is pretty complicated stuff and the straight-forward answer is "if the player sincerely isn't pleased by the move and doesn't feel the game is serviced by it...CONVERSATION OVER...pick a different move." But that analysis is the sort of "find the fun" analysis and I'm looking for a deeper dive.
I had another point, but I can't for the life of me recall what it was.
To your last, though, 100%. I'm curious for this discussion, and willing to walk through it, no rancor. It's already showing me a place we need to have a talk about the structure of the game, because we aren't on the same page about the difference between Day and Night -- I think you're actually soft pedaling the possibly danger level of Day and I feel there might be some future misunderstandings about what's at stake in an Information move you call for in a situation where there's Day move consequences at stake. I'd rather deal with a Day move in those situations. If you think going to the constabulary is fraught, especially since you think/thought that putting a gun ordinance in place was a good consequence and that goes straight at a character conception point, then I think you should have called for a Day move. That would signal the play is fraught, and put me on notice things are at stake and I need to overcome those things (the purpose of a Day move is to overcome an obstacle or problem so that you can do something) prior to gathering information. By calling for an Information move, that didn't indicate to me that there were consequences on the board like what was at stake, but rather testing if I could extract the information that was there. So, yeah, I think we need to have a discussion about the various moves and what they signal. I thought the worst on the table after the call for an Information move would be losing that set of constables as a source, or establishing those constables as an antagonist and source of future problems for this Threat (ie, local problem), or finding out information I didn't really want to know and that caused problems. That was the consequence space I had envisioned on the call for an Information move. I would not have expected being presented with a move that directly questions if I can deploy a playbook move in a persistent manner. That didn't seem at risk (again, genre logic was telling me open carry of firearms was fine, if uncouth).
