Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8450751" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Alright, a lot to unpack and comment on here.  I'm pressed for time, so this is going to be less focused than I'd like:* On Day GMing in The Between, my read of the structure of play, GMing, principles, and the specifics of each is the Day shouldn't lead with conflict/threat.  If it turns into conflict/threat, that is fine, but, in many ways, it should be like Free Play/Info Gathering in Blades.  So if you go to see the precinct of the upper east side, the Constable doesn't automatically (a) aggressively hate yankees, (b) want to issue a citation or enforce an ordinance, (c) have some other kind of bone to pick with your character or affiliation.  It may turn into that, but the initial moves made are going to be The Information Move and not The Daytime Move.  We're looking for clues.  If we stumble into conflict/threat, that is because action resolution has precipitated it or the GM has made a soft move in framing downstream of a lot of action resolution (eg a haunting) and you jump in whole hog.So that is going to be my handling of the Day phase.  Pretty much universally you guys will make Information Moves until action resolution/scene transition triggers a soft/hard move that either outright escalates things or portends a threat.* On "taking their stuff away", I'm of varying mind on this depending on the game.  I'm going to throw a bunch of thoughts out here on this that likely won't be coherent, but it will give anyone who is interested in commenting on them a chance to digest it and do so at their discretion:- Dogs in the Vineyard has a Fallout option of removing a Belonging from your character sheet.  This might very well be your gun.  The fallout is not opt-in, but the choice to remove a Belonging (because it makes sense for what transpired in the scene where it occurred or because it is transformative growth or ablation of a character) absolutely is.  I love this.- Apocalypse World's "activate their stuff's downside" and "take away their stuff" is (obviously as its the original) the originator of the stuff-effery in this family of games. HOWEVER...VB also has this to say about "stuff":Now, The Beyond has no analogue here, but the ethos is still sound broadly.  What I will say is that when I run these games, I challenge their stuff, I put pressure on it, to see what they will do (what they will escalate for...what they will fight for...what they will back down from).  I'm not going to outright take away their stuff as well (eg a hard move where the stuff is just gone...that is terrible...its like the worst kind of spell or component filching in D&D or other blocks related to gear).  I'll put them in a spot and we'll see where it goes.  Further, it its something that is fundamental to the character (eg an American's Colt or a Fighter's Signature Weapon in DW or a Gunlugger's Guns), then its just going to be temporary.  It will be an inconvenience that they can overcome (by getting them back).  And then we'll find out how they go about overcoming that inconvenience.- When its PC build-related (eg you've dumped currency into this thing), it absolutely becomes more sensitive and that is sensitive 2 ways; to the player in question and to the game balance overall.  I'm much less apt to do this in a game with sensitive conflict balance that is predicated upon everyone having their build-widgets.  Further, if a player doesn't like the move made, that is time for a conversation to be had.  Keeping the meta-line open is extremely important.  If the move made by the GM to challenge this or that either sucks or is in violation of an earned win or a sacrifice of gain (this happened the other day in our Blades game...the Crew had several Scores in a short interval against The Ministry of Preservation...in all but 1 of them, they forfeited Rep in order to keep it a secret from TMoP that it was the Crew...I erected a Downtime Faction Move that gave them a catch 22 offer of great gain with unpleasant strings attached or a major faction consequence with tMoP....I was CORRECTLY called on this...because it was an absolute violation of (a) their forfeited Rep to prevent faction loss and (b) the wins that came with those Scores...so I retracted the move...It had slipped my brain that they forfeited Rep on those earlier Scores...easily enough fixed though).  So a move that feels controversial to a player (it could be controversial for a myriad of reasons) needs to be able to be challenged by a player.  However, there is significant daylight between putting something under pressure/in the crosshairs vs just taking it away.  Those are very different things in the actual play and the abundance of great Story Now play is about putting pressure on those things exactly (whether its your brother, your colt, your orientation toward your order, etc).  However, outright taking build-stuff away is terrible (for all of the reasons mentioned) without conflict > action > resolution > consequences dictating it.  And opt-in ameliorates things tremendously (eg you have a choice of this cost or that cost).* Finall, on ordinance/laws in Victorian Era London;  We're being inspired by the setting, not governed by it.  This is our own instantiation of the time and the place.  We will obviously have certain setting and genre constraints, but I definitely don't feel like gun laws are part and parcel to that.  Anything that has to actively be looked up is likely the litmus test for this.  I can imagination a dozen different instantiations of arms ordinance for the city at large and for individual ordinances.  And then I can imagine local constables doing whatever the eff they want because they don't like Yankees (which we would find out through play) or letting the Yankee carry their Colt openly and without a peacebond (or something) when it is forbidden by others because they just loooooooooooove the Yankees tales of the wild west and are smitten by their garb and accent.  It could go in wildly different directions based on where play actually went (framing > player move made > move resolution result).  When I was GMing that scene, the Side Character in question (The Constable) was being run off of 3 words; Veneer, Understaffed, Seducible.  The law itself didn't come into it.  I mean you walked into the precinct and walk on the street without being accosted...so maybe there is some malleable FKR-ish law that The Constable can choose to enforce or not based on who the enforcement is being enacted upon.  That seems like a good place to start for me (which is where my brain was at the time...law is very local in the wards and its easily skirted, or co-opted, arbitrarily enforced or not).  That is a conflict-rich environment and the typical cognitive workspace I assume when I run Story Now games.  Things are firm enough for framing and action declarations and malleable enough for dynamic fallout and evolution of scene/setting/character.[HR][/HR]That got away from me!  Metric eff-ton of words for anyone to respond to at their leisure.</blockquote>

Verification