So Kevin P. (aka Chroma from the barf forth forums) was in town a couple days ago. He mentioned that he ran a game where somebody played The Damned
, and they asked him why you can only mark NPCs as sinners, and not PCs. I forgot why I did that, so I told him I'd take a look again.
As far as I can remember, I had two concerns.
The first was that it would drive PvP play and get in the way of PCs interacting in positive ways, if that's what they wanted to do. I mean, the optimal use of The Hunger of the Damned is to mark the other PCs right away so you can passive-aggressively punish them in order to manage your hunger level. Which I thought we be rather disruptive, back when I wrote it. What do I think now? Fucking genius
. What the hell was wrong with me?
The other thing is that marking PCs turns A Friend of the Devil into a kind of mind control move. But I would push every single AW character I've ever played into a private conversation with the Damned if they had this move, on purpose. Even the "good guys" would have something to say.
So yeah. No good reason, I guess.
BUT! A Friend of the Devil is a Friend of Mine needs an additional clause, for when they've told you all their evil deeds already. I thought about different results and the one most obvious response to having this used on you makes this the best clause: If they have nothing left to tell you, they say what they think of you instead.
All in all, reading it again now, I'm actually inclined to make this playbook more
brutal. The gender line is too weak. It should read something like "He, she, it." or "Man, woman, monster." or even "The world is over, bitches. Gender ain't shit." I'd also add an extra clause to the special move: "Additionally, if you (still) love them, they take +1forward. If you don't, tell them why and set your hunger to +4." And I'd bump up the Kiss of Death damage to 3-harm.