Short version, as I understand it: The hardhholder intentionally doesn't have the tools necessary to deal with problems outside of violence and hierarchy. By adding moves and other abilities, Josh changes that.
My primary complaint with the Hardholder/Waterbearer in the new one is that the implied moral question has already been answered: if you're a hardholder, you're using the WRONG METHODS; if you're a waterbearer, you're ONE OF THE GOOD ONES. Actual play may go contrary to that, but that's how it felt on reading.
I'm far, far more interested in playing a character that can screw things up, or do things right, or some combination in between.
Oh my god you guys the waterbearer is a worse trap than the hardholder. It comes on all hippie earth love but its only easy recourse is to horrifying authoritarian violence.
Vincent Baker I'm playing one now. The trap has not yet sprung, but I can see it in how I wrote the laws -- if someone breaks the laws, I built in this crazy escalation that ends up with some 2 men enter 1 man leaves stuff.
Of course, if everyone just obeys my laws, ... yeah, I can see using violence to make sure people obey the laws in the first place, sidestepping the enforcement move by making an example.
Meanwhile my Hocus' drug addled cult just killed and ate one of their own out of a combination of withdrawal and retribution. So, that's not a trap at all.
The famous hardholder trap is that for an authoritarian player the hardholder is the most appealing playbook, but it'll systematically deny them the fulfillment of their authoritarian vision.
For non-authoritarian players, the hardholder isn't especially a trap, any more than all the playbooks are.
Without having tried it, my bet is that Josh Roby's revised hardholder here will prove less of a trap for an authoritarian player, not because it'll let them fulfill their authoritarian vision, but because its moves telegraph that it won't.
(It also gives the hardholder some explicit tools that the original doesn't, of course, which may indeed make it more fun to play.)
Um… somewhere…
ReplyDeletehttp://joshroby.com/downloads/hardholder-unackbarred.pdf
ReplyDeleteUnackbared?
ReplyDeleteRegular version is a twap!
ReplyDeleteLooks cool but I don't have the Apocalypse lore to tell what's changed - what was the trap that's been removed?
ReplyDeleteShort version, as I understand it: The hardhholder intentionally doesn't have the tools necessary to deal with problems outside of violence and hierarchy. By adding moves and other abilities, Josh changes that.
ReplyDeleteVanilla hardholder also just… doesn't have moves.
ReplyDeleteI feel a little like the waterbearer takes the place this does in Aw2e, since that's a more legitimate and less gun-driven power.
ReplyDeleteMy primary complaint with the Hardholder/Waterbearer in the new one is that the implied moral question has already been answered: if you're a hardholder, you're using the WRONG METHODS; if you're a waterbearer, you're ONE OF THE GOOD ONES. Actual play may go contrary to that, but that's how it felt on reading.
ReplyDeleteI'm far, far more interested in playing a character that can screw things up, or do things right, or some combination in between.
Think our friends the Bakers are moralizing?
ReplyDeleteI think they've taken a clear and perfectly valid aesthetic stance in their work, and won't ever begrudge them that.
ReplyDeleteI like those new Hardholder moves a lot.
ReplyDeleteOh my god you guys the waterbearer is a worse trap than the hardholder. It comes on all hippie earth love but its only easy recourse is to horrifying authoritarian violence.
ReplyDeleteVincent Baker I'm playing one now. The trap has not yet sprung, but I can see it in how I wrote the laws -- if someone breaks the laws, I built in this crazy escalation that ends up with some 2 men enter 1 man leaves stuff.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if everyone just obeys my laws, ... yeah, I can see using violence to make sure people obey the laws in the first place, sidestepping the enforcement move by making an example.
Meanwhile my Hocus' drug addled cult just killed and ate one of their own out of a combination of withdrawal and retribution. So, that's not a trap at all.
ReplyDeleteYeah! All the playbooks are traps in that sense.
ReplyDeleteThe famous hardholder trap is that for an authoritarian player the hardholder is the most appealing playbook, but it'll systematically deny them the fulfillment of their authoritarian vision.
For non-authoritarian players, the hardholder isn't especially a trap, any more than all the playbooks are.
Without having tried it, my bet is that Josh Roby's revised hardholder here will prove less of a trap for an authoritarian player, not because it'll let them fulfill their authoritarian vision, but because its moves telegraph that it won't.
(It also gives the hardholder some explicit tools that the original doesn't, of course, which may indeed make it more fun to play.)