Help Me Get "Apocalypse World" and PbtA games in general.

[pemerton]

You don't seem to have answered the question I asked.

You asked "How often should it happen that the players look to the MC to say something, with the MC making a move in response?"

I set out my thoughts as to when and why that would happen in play. I don't think there can be any doctrinaire answer as to "how often".

Look at this example from upthread:

I don't frame scenes in Apocalypse World, I make moves.

I don't know. Did I just make a move? If so, which one did I choose? What things did I consider to land on that move?

Here's one possibility:

Player: "I open the door."

MC: "It takes you a minute, as the rusty hinges won't give, but eventually you push yourself through a little crack on the door."

(Which move did I just make?: Open the way (Landscape). Why did I pick it? It supports one of my principles: Look through crosshairs. 'Dremmer sure wishes he had barred that door.')

MC: "As you walk around the complex, you arrive at this kind of T junction in a corridor. You know, like in one of those poorly designed Dungeon Modules we used to play. What do you do?"

(Which move did I just make?: Put someone in a spot. Why did I pick it? It supports one of my principles: Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards.)

Player: "Hmmm. I think I'm going to try and Read a Sitch"

MC: "Read a Sitch? Is this situation charged?"

Player: "You bet! Who knows how long I have before someone comes down here."

MC: Makes a mental note. "Yeah, that sounds pretty charged. Roll it!"

Player: "10+! I get three questions. Where’s my best way into Dremmer's chambers?"

MC: Thinks for a second... "You notice that the floor has some muddy boot prints that go to the right."

(Which move did I just make?: Offer a guide. (Landscape) Why did I pick it? It supports one of my principles: Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards.)

Player: "What should I be on the lookout for?"

MC: Remembers his mental note. "Someone left a 'walkie talkie' on a table nearby. Suddenly it goes off 'Basket, you there? Did you go out to piss AGAIN? You better get that pus-riddled bladder of yours checked.'"

(Which move did I just make?: Announce future badness. (They have walkies, they are on patrol, Basket could be near, they probably heard the door.) Why did I pick it? It supports one of my principles: Barf forth apocalyptica.

We have two examples of the GM making a move because the player looks to them - describing the door opening, and describing the T-intersection - in what looks like about 10 or 15 minutes of play.

Look at Move Snowball on pages 152-158 of the 1st ed rulebook. It happens quite a bit:

p 152 - Marie find Isle and companions eating peaches on the roof.

p 154 - After Isle sucks up the harm from the direct-brain whisper projection, the GM describes the consequences of that and asks Marie's player whether Marie sticks around, and then when Marie says that she goes home, clarifies that she's home an hour later.

p 154 - The GM describes Keeler's gang members (Plover et al) arming themselves.

And then, because Keeler's player chooses not to impose her will on her gang (ie chooses not to trigger a player-side move), on p 155 the GM describes the gang members arriving at Keeler's house, including elaborating on the description when Marie's player declares that Marie looks through the peephole.

p 156 - Marie sets off her pain-wave projector (which isn't a player-side move). The GM describes the response of the NPCs to the harm that they suffer, and then ask Marie's player what Marie does.

p 157 - The GM describes Plover carrying out Marie's in-brain puppet strings command, just before Marie picks up the chainsaw, kills Plover, and allows Whackoff to die.​

So that's six times in what seems like it would be about half-an-hour, or maybe a bit more, of play. Which is actually a similar ratio to @andreszarta's example, although I don't want to make too much out of what is probably a bit of a coincidence.

So my answer is as often as makes sense - but every ten minutes or so doesn't seem out-of-kilter with the examples I've analysed. I know @chaochou suggested less often, but I don't know if he would count all the examples that I've identified as instances of what he was counting in his answer to you. Because he seemed to be thinking of examples where there's a lull in the action and the GM offers a bit of redirection or a jump-start: whereas I'm also counting examples that occur in the midst of the action.

 

[pemerton]

I think there IS a sort of slippery slope that I've seen a LOT of Dungeon World games slide down, which is the 'setting tourism slope'. First there's some stuff that is sort of maybe potentially going to perhaps lead to some conflict, but is mostly color.

<snip>

What I have seen a lot of though is the style advocated by certain posters in past threads in which the GM describes a lot of stuff that they have made up beforehand and we're basically playing D&D with 2d6.

Sure, there are people who look at any RPG and ask How can I use this to run my setting tourism railroad.

But I think I've got the posting history to show that I'm not one of them!

 

[Ovinomancer]

You asked "How often should it happen that the players look to the MC to say something, with the MC making a move in response?"

I set out my thoughts as to when and why that would happen in play. I don't think there can be any doctrinaire answer as to "how often".

Look at this example from upthread:

We have two examples of the GM making a move because the player looks to them - describing the door opening, and describing the T-intersection - in what looks like about 10 or 15 minutes of play.

Look at Move Snowball on pages 152-158 of the 1st ed rulebook. It happens quite a bit:

p 152 - Marie find Isle and companions eating peaches on the roof.​

​

p 154 - After Isle sucks up the harm from the direct-brain whisper projection, the GM describes the consequences of that and asks Marie's player whether Marie sticks around, and then when Marie says that she goes home, clarifies that she's home an hour later.​

​

p 154 - The GM describes Keeler's gang members (Plover et al) arming themselves.​

​

And then, because Keeler's player chooses not to impose her will on her gang (ie chooses not to trigger a player-side move), on p 155 the GM describes the gang members arriving at Keeler's house, including elaborating on the description when Marie's player declares that Marie looks through the peephole.​

​

p 156 - Marie sets off her pain-wave projector (which isn't a player-side move). The GM describes the response of the NPCs to the harm that they suffer, and then ask Marie's player what Marie does.​

​

p 157 - The GM describes Plover carrying out Marie's in-brain puppet strings command, just before Marie picks up the chainsaw, kills Plover, and allows Whackoff to die.​

So that's six times in what seems like it would be about half-an-hour, or maybe a bit more, of play. Which is actually a similar ratio to @andreszarta's example, although I don't want to make too much out of what is probably a bit of a coincidence.

So my answer is as often as makes sense - but every ten minutes or so doesn't seem out-of-kilter with the examples I've analysed. I know @chaochou suggested less often, but I don't know if he would count all the examples that I've identified as instances of what he was counting in his answer to you. Because he seemed to be thinking of examples where there's a lull in the action and the GM offers a bit of redirection or a jump-start: whereas I'm also counting examples that occur in the midst of the action.

I'm rather confused, here, because I'm still not sure you're answering the question I asked. The first example, for instance, doesn't have the GM making a move -- there, the player is declaring the situation is charged. The GM here just presents information, no move made. The second is presenting consequences from a move, then when Marie bails, ignoring the fallout, the GM has a golden opportunity. This doesn't read like the player looking to the GM to me.

I could continue, but largely my read of that example of play is not picking up 6 instances of "the players looking to the GM."

Also, quoting andreszarta is of very little utility -- I can't see it, and are not really interested in interacting even with you as an intermediary. I'm not interested in a continued discussion by proxy.

 

[andreszarta]

I think it's a little unfair that I've somehow been shunned out of a conversation I thought I was contributing to in good faith.

 

[pemerton]

I'm rather confused, here, because I'm still not sure you're answering the question I asked. The first example, for instance, doesn't have the GM making a move -- there, the player is declaring the situation is charged.

The GM tells Marie's player where she finds Isle and her companions (ie on the roof, eating peaches). That's a move.

The GM here just presents information, no move made.

Presenting information is making a move. That's what the GM does.

 

[pemerton]

quoting andreszarta is of very little utility

Well it's of utility to me. Clearly @andreszarta has a lot of familiarity and experience with AW play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The GM tells Marie's player where she finds Isle and her companions (ie on the roof, eating peaches). That's a move.

Presenting information is making a move. That's what the GM does.

Okay, well, then, everything that the GM does is then a move. That doesn't seem to be useful. I'm not sure there's much more use in this discussion, if this is where we are.

Well it's of utility to me. Clearly @andreszarta has a lot of familiarity and experience with AW play.

Appeals to authority are not a way to elevate the utility.

EDIT: Let me expand this. I was having a disagreement with AZ. You entered the discussion, with a clear self identification as someone that has no experience with PbtA games, but has read them. This is fine. You then cite AZ as an authoritative source as you make arguments that are, largely, based on what AZ says. You then say that AZ had good utility to the discussion because he has much experience. We have no information about that experience, and even if so, that doesn't resolve that he's a useful source, especially when you're citing him specifically on the topic that where there was a disagreement.

Logically, this is non-useful and doesn't move any needles at all.

 

[chaochou]

Appeals to authority are not a way to elevate the utility.

Well, then - let's note this. You've made nothing but appeals to your own authority.

All of the posts of @andreszarta include direct quotes from the rules, direct quotes from the author and clear explanation of the agenda and principles and moves being used.

And none of yours do. You have made a lot of assertions about the play of Apocalypse World in this thread.

• Your latest is that 'the understanding' is there there should not be "no pressure situations" in Apocalypse World. What rules references support your claim?
• You've said: When the players look to the MC for something to happen, this is a failure of the play state. What rules references support your claim?
• You've said The GM cannot block an action with the revelation of something new to the scene. They can only put it to a test. What rules references your claim?
• You've said: At no point is an action declaration in AW going to be asking the GM what happens. What rules references support your claim?
• The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked. What rules references support your claim?
• You've talked about 'framing' and 'scenes' with little or no indication - and certainly no response - when challenged by the fact that AW doesn't use these techniques - it uses moves. What rules references support your claim?
• You said: Also, the only things you're really worried about are things that matter to the conflict. You are not framing in conflict neutral things. Here's Vincent Baker; "You look across the room and notice that all the stuff on the wall is pinned with little tacks, the head of each one a picture of an old monument like the Lincoln Memorial." Frankly, I prefer Vincent's MCing to yours. What rules references support your claim?

These are dogmatic positions, articles of faith, with no indication that any of it is experiential, based on play or the realities of the conversation which actually makes up a game, or referenced to the rules of play or its designer. And that is in stark and clear contrast to posters you appear to be trying to disagree with. The idea that these positions are required in order to 'play to find out' is just more dogma, tilting at windmills.

It certainly bears no correlation to my own play of the game, and I'd strongly advise against accepting any of these statements as having value for anyone playing the game.

 

[pemerton]

Logically, this is non-useful and doesn't move any needles at all.

I've cited the rules text pretty extensively. Including the actual play example.

everything that the GM does is then a move

Largely correct. As per my post upthread:

in a fundamental sense, all the GM/MC does in AW is to make moves, either soft ones or hard ones. Upthread I've already quoted the text from p 117 (1st ed; I don't have 2nd ed), and there's also this on p 116:

Whenever someone turns and looks to you to say something, always say what the principles demand. . . . Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [from the list of MC moves] and say it.​

I guess the exception to what I've just said is the GM/MC asking provocative questions, though often these will also be moves - particularly offering opportunities or setting up some incipient badness. Of course there's also the GM having fun and kibitzing like at any table, but that's not them acting in their "official" role.

The GM's job is to either ask questions or to say stuff. (Sometimes they do both at once, like "Why is she angry at you?") When they say stuff, they are making moves having regard to the agenda and principles.

Consider, for instance, this from p 156, when Plover and crew attack Marie at home:

"What do you do?”

“I set off my pain-wave projector.”

“Sweet,” I say. “That’s…”

“1-harm area loud ap.”

“The loud is their screaming,” I say. “They’re like—” and I hold my hands over my ears. On a whim, looking through crosshairs,
I add, “Church Head isn’t. He looks paralyzed, he’s rigid and silent, his eyes are rolling around in their sockets but otherwise he’s not moving.” Taking 1-harm is much worse for NPCs than it is for PCs; see pages 167–168. “What do you do?”​

So first, we have the GM asking "What do you do?" which is the canonical thing to say after making a move (p 117, and reiterated in the examples that follow). And second, even though Baker hasn't called it out, we see him offering an opportunity which Marie's player most definitely takes up in the play that follows. At a cost, in a sense, because Marie is taking down members of Keeler's gang.

I can't remember who I was reading online - maybe John Harper? - who addressed the fact that many action declarations in AW don't trigger a player-side move. So how are they resolved? The answer is, by way of the GM making a move - typically soft, but not always. This why it matters to say what prep and what honesty demand, and why it matters to be fans of the PCs, and why sometimes the GM disclaims decision-making. These are the principles that help ensure the GM's moves are responsive to the players and to the fiction.

And of course the players assert control every time they declare an action that triggers a player-side move - which was @chaochou's point way upthread.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think this duel is serving any purpose and would much prefer it if we could refocus.