Talking About An Apocalypse: Looking At Apocalypse World 2E

Apocalypse World is the first game to use what we now call the Apocalypse World Engine, published in 2010. It's an innovative system that builds the world as part of character creation, and where the GM (here called the MC) has essentially the same rules as every other player. The second edition of the game was Kickstarted in 2016, and brought the game a bit more in line with the dozens of games that came after.

View attachment 97489​

Apocalypse World takes place in, well, a world of apocalypse, the exact nature of which is not given. The world is built largely by the players, with their specific knowledge provided by their playbooks (think classes). A lot of the appeal of Apocalypse World is this lightened burden on the GM or MC. Due to the collaborative nature of setting up the world and the relationships of the players, there's very little prep work that needs to be done to run a game, which could be a pleasant change for the perpetual GM.

One of the best things I think this game introduced, and that I think nearly every RPG could borrow from, is the MC section detailing the agenda, the principles, and what you should "always say". It's nothing more than a couple paragraphs of bullet-pointed text, but it provides a very reliable fallback for when you get into a tight corner, unsure of what to do next. To the best of my knowledge, each "Powered by the Apocalypse" game includes a one-to-two page section with this, and giving some pointers on how the first session should go. It's an easy-in for the new or inexperienced gamemaster.

This part may or may not be bad, depending on your players, but it's a warning nonetheless. Apocalypse World itself is edgier than a lot of the games that followed it, with playbooks like the Battlebabe and the Gunlugger and moves like "f*ck this sh*t" and "f*cking wacknut". Each character's stats are Cool (calmness), Hard (intimidation), Hot (attractiveness), Sharp (violence), and Weird (psychic). So, word for the wise, this game is not G-rated, for all that many of the successors are.

The Apocalypse World Engine is a significant adjustment to players and GMs who are used to a more "traditional" game like D&D, or a more typical GM-player relationship. This system places a much larger share of the creative burden on the players, shared much more equally with the GM. I can see where some GMs or some players wouldn't enjoy that split of responsibilities. If you're looking to run Apocalypse World for a group you know, it would be best to get a good gauge of your players' comfort level with taking on more of the worldbuilding.

One of the things that really caught my attention in this edition is the Harm countdown clock on each playbook. It's a simplified clock, with segments from 12-3, 3-6, 6-9, 9-10, 10-11, 11-12. As you take more damage, those segments get slimmer and slimmer, increasing the drama of the fight. When the Harm countdown is maxed, "life becomes untenable", and that player can choose to come back minus a limb, plus some Weird (psychic), as another playbook completely, or to just die. This is such a unique way of tracking damage, like a literal countdown on your life, and I think it's extraordinarily well-suited to that gritty tone of Apocalypse World specifically. Given the sheer number of imitators, it's hard to say that much of Apocalypse World is still truly unique, but it would be impossible to say that it wasn't and hasn't been groundbreaking.

contributed by Jennifer Adcock

 

[Doug McCrae]

So in at least two respects the GM's power is more limited than it is in traditional games? World creation, and PCs don't die unless the player consents.

How does this compare to other PbtA games?

 

[JenKatWrites]

How does this compare to other PbtA games?

Well, we have a whole series of articles planned reviewing different PbtA games and seeing how they compare!

For specifically the aspect regarding GM control over the world, I’m finding that quite similar across the board. Death and damage are handled very differently across different iterations of the game, and that’s something I’ll be looking at in future articles.

 

[TwoSix]

Excellent read. I'm more familiar with Dungeon World and Monsterhearts, but excited to see more of these articles come out.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, I've played Apocalypse World and a few other spinoffs (Dungeon World, Monsterheats and Monster of the Week). While they were neat games, and perfectly enjoyably for what they were, I cannot see how they are any different, really, to so called 'Traditional games'.

Gamers have been collaborating on game world creation and scenario development for as long as there has been roleplaying games. I guess some people just need a game to tell them what they have always had the opportunity to do before. It was no 'significant adjustment' for me and my group. I find the distinction to be a bit pretentious.

 

[aramis erak]

So in at least two respects the GM's power is more limited than it is in traditional games? World creation, and PCs don't die unless the player consents.

Well more than that - the GM's only there to

1) cue players that they've made a move when they didn't realize it

2) get players to describe the move they want to make in narrative terms.

3) provide opponents when the players don't

4) run those opponents

5) kick things off if the players don't.

The MC and Players jointly define the world...

 

[TerraDave]

Well, I've played Apocalypse World and a few other spinoffs (Dungeon World, Mosterheats and Monster of the Week). While they were neat games, and perfectly enjoyably for what they were, I cannot see how they are any different, really, to so called 'Traditional games'.

Gamers have been collaborating on game world creation and scenario development for as long as there has been roleplaying games. I guess some people just need a game to tell them what they have always had the opportunity to do before. It was no 'significant adjustment' for me and my group. I find the distinction to be a bit pretentious.

Hmm, yes, pretentious.

 

[TerraDave]

Well more than that - the GM's only there to

1) cue players that they've made a move when they didn't realize it

2) get players to describe the move they want to make in narrative terms.

3) provide opponents when the players don't

4) run those opponents

5) kick things off if the players don't.

The MC and Players jointly define the world...

I was wondering, and that helps.

Still "world" means a lot of things. Drama (and hence story and rpgs) also depend on the protagonists expectations being occasionally exploded. I guess the GM still has scope to surprise?

 

[aramis erak]

I was wondering, and that helps.

Still "world" means a lot of things. Drama (and hence story and rpgs) also depend on the protagonists expectations being occasionally exploded. I guess the GM still has scope to surprise?

Per the RAW, only when the players stall things or it's time for the NPC's to act.

That's still a large opening.

 

[Fuseboy]

PbtA games are so broad, mechanically, that it barely makes sense to call it an engine. Vincent Baker calls it a design style, for instance. (Having said that, 2d6+stat, 6-, 7-9, 10+ is obviously common for many of the game-specific mechanics. But some don't have this.)

In terms of the GM's limited authority, I just don't see it. The GM moves are a list of sensible things for GMs to be doing, but together they're so broad that they basically don't exclude anything. It's more like GMing advice structured like rules.

For instance, these GM moves, together, let the GM do pretty much whatever: announce future badness, put someone in a spot, take away their stuff, inflict harm as established, make a custom move.

Some PbtA games have explicitly player-authored stuff in them (e.g. the Veteran's Old Friends, Old Faces move in Urban Shadows is hilarious that way), but for some PbtA games (e.g. The Regiment) there's no more than you'd expect from 'What's your backstory?'.