Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs

[Crimson Longinus]

I’m trying to follow this reasoning, but I’m having trouble. If a particular action declaration is unclear or incomplete, are you arguing for not asking clarifying questions because that would result in a “meta discussion”?

It’s fine if that’s your preference, but I don’t read this example as “writer’s room”. It looks very similar to when a player declares they want to make a Perception check without any more detail than that, and the DM has to ask them what or how they’re searching to adjudicate the action declaration.

Such discussions are of course sometimes necessary. The rules however should endeavour for clarity, so that it is minimised. For example I find the intentionally muddy skill in Blades rather annoying as they invite constant pondering on which to use.

In any case, this specific situation goes further than that. It is not just clarifying what the character does now, it is clarifying what they will do in the future, even though the character might not have actually made that decision yet. So it is more "writer's room" in a sense that we are deciding story beats rather than just clarifying facts.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Or the threatened character doesn't do what you want - they stand there, waiting to see if you are going to follow through. When and how does this get resolved?

That is the correct moment to decide to either pull the trigger or back down.

 

[Emberashh]

I’m trying to follow this reasoning, but I’m having trouble. If a particular action declaration is unclear or incomplete, are you arguing for not asking clarifying questions because that would result in a “meta discussion”?

It’s fine if that’s your preference, but I don’t read this example as “writer’s room”. It looks very similar to when a player declares they want to make a Perception check without any more detail than that, and the DM has to ask them what or how they’re searching to adjudicate the action declaration.

The difference lies in the fact that Go Aggro is assuming the intent (and outcome) of what would be the equivalent of several actions in other games.

The meta discussion results from having to decide if whatever happened prior to the Move being considered falls within whats assumed by the Move, which gets exacerbated by the outcome of the move also being assumed.

In the Perception example, the player simply hasn't established anything about their action other than evoking the skill, which doesn't really count.

In a way, I can actually see a reason why Moves got designed the way they are; they let people just call them out.

In a playstyle where thats the case, where Im just calling out Moves most of the time and not trying to establish its triggers, specifically the parts it assumes prior to the outcome, that makes a lot more sense to me. I don't see it as particularly well integrated with the Improv game its supposed to be hybridized with (see the meta discussion issue), but I wouldn't have an issue with the Move as designed in that context.

 

[pemerton]

That is the correct moment to decide to either pull the trigger or back down.

And what does it add to play, to have this extra bit of faffing around between the action declaration and the resolution? How does that help build the sense of tension and threatened violence? To me it seems like it would flatten play out and encourage the player to fish for cues from the GM as to what is the "right" thing to do.

(And how do we even know we're at that moment? I mean, the controller of the threatened character says "I wait." Now the player has to decide. Or wait some more. Again, it's not remotely clear to me how this dragging things out improves play.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Such discussions are of course sometimes necessary. The rules however should endeavour for clarity, so that it is minimised. For example I find the intentionally muddy skill in Blades rather annoying as they invite constant pondering on which to use.

In any case, this specific situation goes further than that. It is not just clarifying what the character does now, it is clarifying what they will do in the future, even though the character might not have actually made that decision yet. So it is more "writer's room" in a sense that we are deciding story beats rather than just clarifying facts.

It seems to me we could have a process that went something like this -
1. In terms of threat you may not follow through with - do that as a seduce or manipulate
2. If that move fails to have the desired effects, then depending on situation follow up with your next move as either an attack someone or do battle if you decide to make good on the threat.

Of course this 2 step process to handle the threat and subsequent attack costs 2 moves, which is a significant upgrade in cost. Then there's the part where the GM may elide fiction beyond where you may have decided attacking is appropriate, even though that moment may very well have occurred during his narrations - so additional risk as well. Ultimately the move structure fights against me if I try to accomplish my desired effect this way.

 

[kenada]

In any case, this specific situation goes further than that. It is not just clarifying what the character does now, it is clarifying what they will do in the future, even though the character might not have actually made that decision yet. So it is more "writer's room" in a sense that we are deciding story beats rather than just clarifying facts.

The issue here seems to be the nature of the uncertainty Apocalypse World is resolving. Apocalypse World isn’t having the player roll to determine whether or not they performed some task (such as pushing another character). They’re rolling to see if they get what they want. In the case of Go Aggro, whether the player wants violence is pretty important to determining if that’s the right move to trigger.

I think it would be a mistake for the MC to assume that’s what the player wants from just declaring they “Go Aggro”, have them roll, and narrate some incorrect result. Maybe it’s just the player speaking informally. That’s why the MC (and DM in D&D or GM in other games) should ask clarifying questions when the situation is not clear.

It’s fine not to like the way AW uses moves (I don’t) or that it’s rolling for outcomes not tasks (though I do prefer the former to the latter), but I don’t agree that it leads to “writer’s room” situations. This resolution example is pretty similar to the resolution process used by other games (except for the stakes of the roll, of course).

I had “writer’s room” happen a few sessions ago, and this just isn’t it. Players were actively talking among themselves out of character and even when their characters weren’t together in the scene to determine the “best” response the player in the situation should make. This example just isn’t that. It’s more like an example of what a good GM should be doing to avoid unexpected results from action declarations.

 

[kenada]

The difference lies in the fact that Go Aggro is assuming the intent (and outcome) of what would be the equivalent of several actions in other games.

The meta discussion results from having to decide if whatever happened prior to the Move being considered falls within whats assumed by the Move, which gets exacerbated by the outcome of the move also being assumed.

I touch on this in my reply in post #156, which you obviously couldn’t have seen since I posted it after this reply, but I agree. The difference is the nature of the stakes in Apocalypse World. You’re not rolling to see if the PC completed some task but if they get what they want.

In that context, of course you need to establish an intent to escalate to violence to determine whether the move for resolving escalations to violence is the one being triggered. The rest of the process is basically the same as a task resolution process: player makes a declaration, clarify as needed, roll the dice, then the GM describes the result.

In the Perception example, the player simply hasn't established anything about their action other than evoking the skill, which doesn't really count.

The example starts with some set up and then the player’s declaring, “ I’m going aggro on him.” That’s the extent of the context. It’s reasonable in that case for the MC to ask clarifying questions to make sure the player wasn’t speaking casually and intended the outcome that would result from a successful test. As a rule of thumb, it’s usually not good when a test results in an unintended outcome (especially on a success). This just looks like an example of good GMing practice integrated into AW’s conflict resolution process.

In a way, I can actually see a reason why Moves got designed the way they are; they let people just call them out.

In a playstyle where thats the case, where Im just calling out Moves most of the time and not trying to establish its triggers, specifically the parts it assumes prior to the outcome, that makes a lot more sense to me. I don't see it as particularly well integrated with the Improv game its supposed to be hybridized with (see the meta discussion issue), but I wouldn't have an issue with the Move as designed in that context.

Apocalypse World requires you to do the thing that triggers the move. To do it, you have to do it. This is explained in “Moves and Actions”, which I quoted in full in post #120. If the player just calls out the move, you have to stop and establish what and how they’re doing it. That’s nothing special about AW. I’d expect the same in other games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And what does it add to play, to have this extra bit of faffing around between the action declaration and the resolution? How does that help build the sense of tension and threatened violence? To me it seems like it would flatten play out and encourage the player to fish for cues from the GM as to what is the "right" thing to do.

(And how do we even know we're at that moment? I mean, the controller of the threatened character says "I wait." Now the player has to decide. Or wait some more. Again, it's not remotely clear to me how this dragging things out improves play.)

I don't think there is much point in continuing. If you don't see why in a roleplaying game it is important to make decisions from character's perspective and actually react organically to what characters and NPCs are saying and doing, then we are not in this to do the same thing to begin with.

 

[Emberashh]

Apocalypse World requires you to do the thing that triggers the move. To do it, you have to do it. This is explained in “Moves and Actions”, which I quoted in full in post #120. If the player just calls out the move, you have to stop and establish what and how they’re doing it. That’s nothing special about AW. I’d expect the same in other games.

Move design from my perspective contradicts that, however. And I could wrong but I can't help but think Baker at some point stated that you could just call out Moves; I've seen enough random quotes pulled out of the aether from him (I read lots of PBTA debates, and people always have quotes of his they can pull from the most obscure places) that I can't help but think that was one of them.

But even if he hasnt, Go Aggro, and other Moves, in assuming certain Triggers can absolutely be used in a way that equates to the player making the Triggers happen. Rather than focus on trying to improv your way into the trigger, just cede the lead up and focus on the outcome you wanted. Go Aggro has specific possible outcomes, and say you want one of them. Go Aggro, roll for it, and move on.

Simple and easy, and no need to get wrapped up in a meta discussion. It still, as said, runs into issues integrating with the improv game. Because the triggers could happen in other contexts, Moves could be triggered unintentionally, and because the Outcomes are assumed, not all Moves are going to track with every desired outcome.

Which, of course, is intentional as far as the outcomes go. They're supposed to ensure that certain narrative beats happen, as thats what makes the overall game evocative of whatever Genre its emulating.

I know you aren't sold on the idea of this being genre emulation, and Id say to that concern that it kind of is an implicit thing, as the emulation is rooted in the Outcomes and not just the theme of the Move, which I'd argue is due to a desire to make the game appear closer to what RPG fans were used to. Go Aggro for example feels and is themed closer to a task, but its outcomes are narrative beats.

Thats why it prescribes how the character(s) act in response to the roll, and not the specific effects of whatever the actual task is. Ie, Go Aggro doesn't resolve if you could fire a gun into someones temple accurately, or if your fists were doing enough damage, or what have you, it resolves a given scene and how the characters respond to it, in correlation to how similar scenes in the Genre are typically resolved.

Every outcome of Go Aggro has examples found in every piece of post-apocalyptic media ever made, and by design it doesn't allow you to generate a new outcome. You either follow the prescribed narrative beats or you use something else. (Or violate the rules)

 

[Emberashh]

How does that help build the sense of tension and threatened violence?

Generally speaking if you're in a scene you should already be feeling this just because of what the scene is. You don't need a dice mechanic to make a gun to the temple threatening, nor for that matter for the person being threatened to then respond accordingly respective to their own motivations and fears.

If other participants, or even a distinct audience, are watching and have maintained investment in the scene, then the tension will carry through to them as well.

This incidentally tends to all be why theres a consistent group of people in the hobby that don't see any point in social interaction mechanics (aside from whats needed to gate certain game relevant things), and Go Aggro is inherently a social interaction mechanic.

This actually pretty core to why I think its necessary to be explicit about there being an improv game at play here. We've obviously spent a long time debating dice rolls in regards to this desire to maintain tension.

But if we look at this as an improv problem, the solution becomes a bit easier, as the loss of tension we want to avoid is rooted in one of the same common pitfall of improv: a failure to listen, which in turn results in a failure to react realistically.

Resolving that has a few methods, the easiest of which is to just listen and be present, which in effect means taking the scene seriously and participating accordingly.

One method for thinking through how to do that in the moment is CROW: Character, Relationship, Objectives, Whereabouts. You wouldn't use it as a checklist per say (as having all 4 elements doesn't mean its a good scene), but it is good to identify what may be missing if something is going wrong, as all 4 elements should already be established prior to the scene, and should still be relevant as the scene progresses.

So if one is missing, thats probably where the issue is.

So when we come back to hybridizing with a dice game, we have to consider if the dice Action(s) we've implemented are necessarily removing, suppressing, or even violating one of these elements. From that perspective, its intuitive to see why too many dice rolls can do it, as eventually you're going to stop holding onto the scene.

But it should also be intuitive that why the dice are being rolled and what they introduce to the scene can also cause issues, as the prescribed actions that make up a move have to match up with what was already introduced and the outcomes have to be in-synch with the Player's Objectives.

Hence why the Moves just clicked with me when I saw them as things to call upon to meet a certain objective, that then takes the scene out of my hands while the roll is resolved, and why I still take issue as that still raises concerns of triggering Moves inadvertently when so many actions are assumed as part of the overall trigger.