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

[AbdulAlhazred]

With regard to framing: 63. look for where they're not in control

In the article, Jason D'Angelo is a bit confused about the lack for scene framing procedures:



He then proceeds to provide us with Vincent Baker's own response to this:



The play in AW doesn't care for borders like scenes, so how they "start" and where they "end" aren't important--hence, no need to bother with separate rules for them.

...as far as mechanics and procedures go, its scene setting system is: when the players turn to look at you, their little faces ashine with expectation, choose a move and make it.

Right, but with regards specifically to the 'locked door example' there's no move that this represents... How does it fit into the conversation? There's no established pressure, and no established obstacle to overcome, so what did the GM do when they said "you see a door"? I think that's the nut of it is that the whole example wasn't good from the start! Either the players already had an established goal of getting in and the GM says "OK, you are able to slip inside via a side door, somewhere up ahead in the darkness you hear the low growl of a dog..." or "There's a side door, you aren't sure if you can get through, but you hear bikes coming up the access road." Now, in the later case, the PCs can attempt to get through the door, maybe they will, maybe they won't... Either way, something is at stake. A PC standing in front of a door, in and of itself, doesn't seem like the legitimate outcome of whatever the GM was supposed to do after what came before, IMHO.

And frankly I think this is the problem with a lot of PbtA play when you have participants coming from trad games like D&D. D&D fundamentally exposes the world in terms of a kind of 'stream of consciousness' process where the GM is describing the environment they have constructed. This NEVER HAPPENS in PbtA! (at least not AW or DW). There is no fixed environment in such a Story Now game! There are simply obstacles and conflicts to be resolved which the obstacles block you from successfully resolving. You play to find out what the resolution is. 'Describe Scenery' is not a move, LOL! The GM is not obligated to drag the players along and describe every possible decision point where they might go left or right etc. All that needs to be described are obstacles. So, for instance in Dungeon World you would never just have a 'T intersection', you would have a junction where each option appears to be fraught, and something is chasing you so you better choose one NOW! (or some other clock is ticking, etc. though DW doesn't actually say anything much about clocks like AW2E or FitD based games do).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes. I posted something related to this upthread: the basic moves tell us what actions are high-stakes in the system. So if the moves don't actually fit with the genre/themes, the game won't work as it should.

Even more centrally, the available player moves define where they have control. Take the example of the PC deciding to pull a shotgun on Dremmer and demand fuel. There is no corresponding "ask for something" move. So, as a player, I have a choice, cede the initiative to the GM by stating that I ask for something, which is not a move, OR 'Go Aggro' (there may be other options). This defines the milieu! Its a violent and chaotic world where people seize what they want or need, they don't ask.

 

[andreszarta]

Right, but with regards specifically to the 'locked door example' there's no move that this represents... How does it fit into the conversation? There's no established pressure, and no established obstacle to overcome, so what did the GM do when they said "you see a door"?

Apocalypse World poses a situation where there is pressure from the get-go. Your playbook is filled with pressures of different kinds. Character creation puts us at the door of impending action. Your environment is also filled with pressures of different kinds. They might or might not be explicit immediately, but they are there. We play to find out which ones become real.

I do not agree that it is necessary for anyone at the table to establish any type of goal, any sort of framing, or stakes to establish a door within the fiction for play to begin. The door itself can be the starting point to interesting fiction.

For instance:

We've just finished Character Creation and are about to start our first session of Apocalypse World.

The following are the first few words coming out of the MC's mouth in fiction:

"Rubik's, when play begins you are standing in front of this MASSIVE huge metal door leading to some sort of warehouse facility in the middle of the desert. Rusty metal hinges provide the only color to an otherwise grey structure. You can see black scratch marks all over the door, as if people over the years had tried to cut it open somehow. What do you do?"
Put someone in a spot > Barf forth apocalyptica. > Play to find out what happens.

I would totally do this if I had the certainty that my player can immediately pick up whereI left him and take me up on my generous offer of authorship. They might say:

Rubik's: "Sh!t, how tf did I get here? I don't remember walking here at all. Something really weird has just happened. I'd like to open my brain to see what I can find in the maelstrom."

They could also say:

Rubik's: "Knock, knock. Toyota! It's me, Rubik's, open the goddamn door before I blow it to pieces. I have my explosives with me, yeah? "

MC: *Smiling. Certainly.

They've framed the door's significance for me.

Let's try again:

The following are the first few words coming out of the MC's mouth in fiction:

"Rubik's, when play begins you wake up standing in front of this MASSIVE huge metal door leading to some sort of warehouse facility in the middle of the desert. Rusty metal hinges provide the only color to an otherwise grey structure. You can see black scratch marks all over the door, as if people over the years had tried to cut it open somehow. Does this situation seem charged to you? It kinda does to me. Wanna read it?"

Nudge the players to have their characters make moves. > Barf forth apocalyptica. > Make the characters lives not boring.

A bit less generous, a bit more forceful, a bit more directive.

Rubik's: "Sure!" Rolls. "It's an 8. I get one question, yes? Who’s in control here?"

MC: "Hannah, your girlfriend, definitely. (From Character Creation) She's the voice in your head telling you to do everything you can to force yourself in. You can easily break her whisper and regain control, though, you just need to take 1-harm."

Make them buy > Think offscreen too. > Play to find out

Rubik's: "Nah! I want to see what's behind this door that's so important to her. I can't believe she would use me like this for nothing. Do I at least have my explosives?"

Let's try again:

The following are the first few words coming out of the MC's mouth in fiction:

"Rubik's, when play begins you are standing in front of this MASSIVE huge metal door leading to some sort of warehouse facility in the middle of the desert. Rusty metal hinges provide the only color to an otherwise grey structure. You can see black scratch marks all over the door as if people over the years had tried to cut it open somehow. Why are you here, what's behind this door that's so important that people would try to cut it open? Also, do you happen to have the keys?"

Put someone in a spot > Barf forth apocalyptica & Ask provocative questions and build on the answers. > Play to find out what happens.

Somewhat generous, very directive.

Etc...

There is no moment in the game where we switch off "establishing situation" and we turn on "resolving situation". We establish and resolve constantly according to the rules of the conversation.

 

[andreszarta]

Ah! One more, for a more traditional way of GMing the first session:
We've just finished Character Creation and are about to start our first session of Apocalypse World.

The following are the first few words coming out of the MC's mouth in fiction:

"Rubik's, tell me, on a work day like this, what would we see your character doing in the middle of the day? What types of jobs would he be performing in the community to survive? "

Put someone in a spot > Ask provocative questions and build on the answers > Make Apocalypse World real.

Rubik's: "Well, I would normally be fixing someone's car, or loading up the generators with gas. Today's different though. I think you find me standing in front of this MASSIVE huge metal door leading to some sort of warehouse facility in the middle of the desert. Rusty metal hinges provide the only color to an otherwise grey structure. I think you can see black scratch marks all over the door, as if people over the years had tried to cut it open somehow."

MC: "You don't say. What are you doing here? What's behind the door?"

More questions > Play to find out

Rubik's: "Hmmm... Let me think...I had only thought of the imagery... You know what, I think it's a lot of war supplies from years before. This is an abandoned outpost."

MC: "You know...that sounds really cool. I'll come back to you while I quickly prepare it as a fortress."
....
MC: "Rubik's let's come back to you."

Rubik's: "I would assume the door is somehow locked? "

MC: "You bet! No one is getting here without some good firepower."

Bar the Way, Make them buy > Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards. > Make Apocalypse World real.

OR

MC: "The door at this moment opens from the inside. A dark empty blackness conceals its interiors. What do you do?"

Open the way, Offer an opportunity, with or without a cost. > Look through crosshairs. > Make the characters lives not boring.

 

[andreszarta]

Once again, I am definitely NOT, saying this is true of ALL PbtA games, some do ask you to set up stakes, some do ask you to think of goals. I wouldn't dare try some of these in, say, Avatar Legends.

When it comes to Apocalypse World, though, its underlying model of implicit conflict allows you 100% to do these kinds of things because playing to find out ALSO means discovering together which conflicts of interest do come to fruition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To latch onto this, because I've had another thought about this example:

1. We're in a conflict-neutral situation. This is something that the GM has allowed to happen.
2. The players, without any pressure or obvious thing to address, declare an action. Since, again, no conflict is here, odds are good this action doesn't trigger a move.
3. Since the players are taking actions that do not trigger moves, the GM can now make a move instead.
4. The GM makes the move.
4a. The move the GM makes doesn't really go to create conflict. Like the gyrocopter example, where the neutral player action is starting the gyrocopter and the GM move is "it doesn't start and breaks." This doesn't introduce conflict, so it's another GM invitation to the players to do something that will likely go back to 2.
4b. The GM actually does make a move that introduces conflict, like maybe rival gangers showing up to fight over the gyrocopter. This, to me, is correcting the error in 1. This whole chain originated with the failure to have conflict in the scene, and so we're faffing about to find a place to correct this. To me, this reads as using a poor situation -- bordering into degenerate for AW -- to justify making a GM move that, if one squints and continues the borderline degenerate play, might be argued to defend placing more conflict-neutral content in the hopes that we'll eventually get to some conflict.

This whole things, to me, is neglecting some pretty key principles of play and the agenda of play. Thoughts?

Agreed, and @pemerton, I thought when I read it that this was a flaw in your example. Its the same flaw that the 'is it a locked door' example has. PbtA games are designed to move from one charged situation to another, there's no such thing as being a 'tourist', you don't wander around 'looking at stuff' or 'just doing something because'. Those sorts of things may be informally handled if needed, but are most frequently covered by 'logistical moves'. Like in DW you have Carouse, and Supply. If you aren't partying or restocking, or one of the other similar moves, then whatever is going on should either be elided or simply handled as free RP, since it has no real story significance.

It is tempting for participants in these types of games to fall into this 'tourist trap' where the GM goes on and on with descriptions of town gates and guards and casual conversations, and blah blah blah. Its OK to quickly describe what the PCs have seen, etc. (often the best thing here is to just ask questions). So, for instance in the case of a PC wants to go check out some ruins and find some salvage, just ask "what did you find?" "Oh, a rusty gyrocopter!" "Hmmmm, OK. If you want to bring it back you're going to have to start it and fly it!" (now that last is a GM move, and we've leveraged the PC's vague agenda of making a few 'bucks' and turned it into a little 'man vs nature' kind of thing). So, it isn't necessarily bad to do some of this 'connecting' kind of stuff, but it should NOT turn into an exercise in GM world building, or endless tourism with a few disconnected little bits where the player got bored and did something hazardous that now has to be 'diced for'.

 

[Reynard]

So it sounds like one tool in my pocket for trying to do this with trad players is when they ask "Where are we?" Or "What does the guard look like?" is to turn those questions back around and then respond to that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So it sounds like one tool in my pocket for trying to do this with trad players is when they ask "Where are we?" Or "What does the guard look like?" is to turn those questions back around and then respond to that.

Definitely. Dungeon World at least explicitly mentions this as a technique for asking the players questions. If a player asks "what do I see over the hill?" almost the classic GM answer (assuming prep doesn't supply an immediate answer) is "I don't know, what do you think you see?"

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton, @chaochou

Can I ask a question about "when the players look to you, make a move?" In your thinking, how often should this be occuring? I think this might be a crux point in this discussion. To me, it should almost never be occurring. If everyone's following the principles, there shouldn't be moments where the players are looking to the GM to provide something because that means it's not already there or that the players are letting off their gas. This, to me, is a safety net to keep the game moving in the right direction when something has fallen off, and not a statement about a normal moment in play that should be occurring often. It's the "oops, something's not working right, let's take an action in game to right the ship" and not a "this is where I get to play as a GM." Because, again, if we're to the point the players are looking to the GM, I feel something isn't working already.

As I've already mentioned, my view is not based on experience like @chaochou's. It's based on reading the text, thinking hard about it, and putting some of the ideas to work in Classic Traveller play.

As I already posted, it happens at the start of Baker's own example of play, when Marie goes looking for Isle. And because players in AW don't have the authority to directly frame or push towards particular scenes as they do in some other systems (you won't be surprised that I'm thinking Wises and Circles in Burning Wheel as key examples), I can imagine it happening a reasonable amount: I go looking for Isle, I jump in my car and drive out onto the burnflats, looking for anyone from Dremmer's gang to shoot, I've promised so-and-so the Savvyhead I'll bring them a trinket; what new stuff has turned up in the market?, etc. The example that gets discussed on the forum that @andreszarta linked to is "I go to my garage, get in my car, and drive out to Holden's place".

I don't think it's a coincidence that that example, the Isle example, and the examples I've come up with, involve going places (or trying to go places, as with starting the gyrocopter) and looking for people - because there is no basic move that has when you go somewhere or when you look for someone as its trigger. It seems to me like deliberate design to have left these things open, as opportunities for the GM to do there bit in the conversation by making Apocalypse World seem real and barfing forth apocalyptica and responding with trouble and rewards and offering opportunities.

Another way to offer an opportunity is via the play of NPCs, and Baker gives this as another example of non-player-side-move-triggering action (pp 187-8 of 1st ed):

Asking someone straight to do something isn’t trying to seduce or manipulate them. To seduce or manipulate, the character needs leverage —-sex, or a threat, or a promise, something that the manipulator can really do that the victim really wants or really doesn’t want.

Absent leverage, they’re just talking, and you should have your NPCs agree or accede, decline or refuse, according to their own self-interests.​

So this will require saying what prep and honesty demand, probably responding with trouble or rewards, perhaps announcing future badness or offering an opportunity or even - building on @chaochou's example upthread where the PC asks Dremmer for diesel - the infliction of harm as Dremmer shoots them in the leg and tells them to "F*** off!" (And we already had a prior GM soft move in that example, where the GM has announced that "Dremmer is standing in front of the cabin used as the diesel store, looking mean with one hand on the little snub-nose .38 everyone knows he used to kill Mouse.")

For the reasons that @chaochou set out upthread, these features of the system mean that players have an incentive to make threats or offers (ie to go aggro, or to seduce/manipulate) in order to have the chance to assert control over the fiction. But they don't have to, and it doesn't seem to me to be a failure state that a player decides to have their PC just interact with a NPC. After all, the players too know that the GM has to say what honesty and prep demand, and maybe not every NPC is going to be like Dremmer!

 

[pemerton]

To latch onto this, because I've had another thought about this example:

1. We're in a conflict-neutral situation. This is something that the GM has allowed to happen.
2. The players, without any pressure or obvious thing to address, declare an action. Since, again, no conflict is here, odds are good this action doesn't trigger a move.
3. Since the players are taking actions that do not trigger moves, the GM can now make a move instead.
4. The GM makes the move.
4a. The move the GM makes doesn't really go to create conflict. Like the gyrocopter example, where the neutral player action is starting the gyrocopter and the GM move is "it doesn't start and breaks." This doesn't introduce conflict, so it's another GM invitation to the players to do something that will likely go back to 2.

Why is finding the gyrocopter conflict-neutral? What if one or more PCs have been hunting for the rumoured gyrocopter so that they use it to launch an aerial assault on Dremmer's fortress? Depending on the nature of the rumours, the GM describing the discovery of the gyrocopter could be offering an opportunity, or announcing future badness!

And what is objectionable about a PC deciding to start the gyrocopter? Playbooks in AW include Choppers, Drivers and Savvyheads. Vehicles and tinkering with stuff are part of the game. Maybe the Savvyhead should be the one to examine the gyrocopter, triggering things speak, but it doesn't always work out like that.

Is trying to start the gyrocopter handing an opportunity on a plate? That might depend a bit on what's come before in the fiction, on more details of how the GM has described the situation ("barfing forth apocalyptica"), and on the mood and feel at the table. You press the starter button, and it blows up! Everyone takes 4 harm seems a bit brutal stated here in the abstract, but I can imagine a situation where that's the move that follows.

I also don't see why the gyrocopter not starting, or even blowing up, is a move that doesn't create conflict. Suppose that there are two PCs in the scene - the Driver, who was hoping to find out that a gyrocopter counts as a car!, but is now disappointed that it won't start, and the Savvyhead. The Savvyhead has already done something Weird and has a bad feeling about this - but the Driver still really wants a flying car. And so the Driver tries to manipulate the Savvyhead into fixing the gyrocopter - but first they'll have to somehow haul it back to the workspace (or maybe bring the workspace here in the Driver's truck?).

To me, this all seems to be within the scope of play that AW contemplates.