Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not disagreeing, just want to point out that this is a problem with all RPGs, players wanting to push the button on their character sheet and get confused when there isn't a button. Happens when they don't see the exact skill they want to use or such.

And with PbtA games, having such clearly defined moves can obfuscate this fact. Personally, it's why I often find playbooks feel a little too prescriptive or constraining, it's why I don't always click with these systems.

I think you are right that a move on a sheet may focus a player on a certain kind of solution "Oh, I need to say something which will trigger X" instead of doing something generic or a non-move which might be equally or more appropriate, but I don't think its a huge problem. Honestly, most playbooks have moves (or generic moves) that cover all the really obvious options in standard situations anyway. I mean, if you are going to fight, then H&S, Volley, or Defend, that's going to cover like 99.9% of all cases, right? If you have something specific, its probably your shtick, you chose the playbook/move SO YOU COULD pick it!

 

[Tonguez]

And with PbtA games, having such clearly defined moves can obfuscate this fact. Personally, it's why I often find playbooks feel a little too prescriptive or constraining, it's why I don't always click with these systems.

Yeah this, coming from Fate with its four actions my initial reaction to PbtA was that the playbooks and defined moves were prescriptive. But I eventually got my head around that (in particular City of Mist with its aspect like tags helped me reconcile things)

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not disagreeing, just want to point out that this is a problem with all RPGs, players wanting to push the button on their character sheet and get confused when there isn't a button. Happens when they don't see the exact skill they want to use or such.

And with PbtA games, having such clearly defined moves can obfuscate this fact. Personally, it's why I often find playbooks feel a little too prescriptive or constraining, it's why I don't always click with these systems.

With PbtA games, I often tell new players to ignore the Moves sheet and just tell me what their characters do. I will tell them what Moves are triggered. It's also a great way to gradually introduce them to the Moves.

As we play, I may familiarize them with their playbooks: "Hey. Right now you have triggered the Parley Move. But I'm gonna say that as a Fighter, if you do so with threat or violence, you get to roll 3d6 and take the two highest rolls. So how is your character trying to get this NPC to do what they want?" (Homebrew World)

Then later I may tell my players that if they want to "push the button" is (1) understand what triggers the Move in the game, and then (2) do it. Throw your characters into the fray. Do stuff. Make declarations for your characters that put them in the sort of tense situations that Moves generally care about.

Yeah this, coming from Fate with its four actions my initial reaction to PbtA was that the playbooks and defined moves were prescriptive. But I eventually got my head around that (in particular City of Mist with its aspect like tags helped me reconcile things)

Yeah, Fate and PbtA are both fiction-first games, but Fate's Four Actions are different than Moves.

Edit: Thanks to all this talk about Moves, I now have the below song stuck in my head. Don't worry. It's the radio edit.

Spoiler

 

[Micah Sweet]

How much 'experience' do the players need? ALL they need to do is act in character, that's it! "I rush the goblin with my spear!" OK! The GM says "that's Hack & Slash since your spear can clearly engage the goblin before he can bring his little dagger to bear on you." What skill does that require? I mean, sure it helps of the player thinks "Gosh, I'm a dwarf fighter with a spear, I'm pretty tough, it's a good idea for me to fight!" but that doesn't even require system knowledge, just basic application of the logic of fictional position (which the GM is bound to honor). It's certainly no more demanding than any version of D&D where you would need to have a similar level of understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of your character (IE the same logic would suffice for 5e, right).

I've never understood the notion that there's something difficult about playing a PbtA. It is one of the least demanding and most obvious sorts of game for a player to grasp and requires ZERO system knowledge to play at a basic level of competence (It certainly doesn't hurt to have a good grasp of the rules, for instance the dwarf in the example above could Discern Realities instead, gaining a potential advantage and probably still engage with the spear, though it might depend on more details as to whether it poses any risk). Still, it's an exceedingly simple game, with far less intricate rules than 5e D&D.

But a completely different rules philosophy, which can very often make it difficult to understand if you have any experience with traditional RPGs, and it gets worse the more of that experience you have. Since many folks have difficulty articulating why they don't like something, you tend to see a lot of comments that are taken by storygame fans as insulting or even offensive. And the battle rages on...

 

[Arilyn]

But a completely different rules philosophy, which can very often make it difficult to understand if you have any experience with traditional RPGs, and it gets worse the more of that experience you have. Since many folks have difficulty articulating why they don't like something, you tend to see a lot of comments that are taken by storygame fans as insulting or even offensive. And the battle rages on...

Yes, sadly. Not just geeks arguing over Star Wars or D&D vs. PbtA either. There's nastiness over dog training, knitting vs crochet, Ford vs Chevrolet, growing roses, and on and on!

 

[Haiku Elvis]

I assume that this is mainly coming from people used to the trad game paradigm of (relatively) complete rules that cover all possible actions. OSR games sometimes face the same problem on initial contact.

I do feel that if 90s trad gaming is the centre then the OSR veered off one way and fiction first games the other and while I don't think they came round quite full circle and met each other, as they clearly aren't the same thing.
They definitely ended up close enough to see each other in the distance.

 

[pemerton]

My other head scratcher is calling it GMing with training wheels.

OK, that's weird.

And silly!

 

[pemerton]

I'm not disagreeing, just want to point out that this is a problem with all RPGs, players wanting to push the button on their character sheet and get confused when there isn't a button. Happens when they don't see the exact skill they want to use or such.

And with PbtA games, having such clearly defined moves can obfuscate this fact.

Well, I can't speak to any particular person's confusion. But the rulebook for Apocalypse World is very clear: the game is a conversation; the players say what their PCs do; if everyone looks to the GM to see what happens next the GM makes a soft move, or as hard and direct a move as they like if an opportunity is handed on a platter; but if you do it, you do it and the normal conversation is "interrupted" by a roll of the dice to resolve the move that has been triggered.

If, as a player, you want to push things to finality in resolution then you have to make a move. That's the point of the player-side move architecture: to establish the domains of activity in which the game allows for finality. In AW (at least as far as basic moves are concerned), that's threatening violence, using violence, or seducing or manipulating. From the point of view of the game, that's a feature, not a bug; conversely, if you don't like the idea of a game in which finality in resolution is achieved those ways, then you're going to have to look elsewhere.

 

[schneeland]

My other head scratcher is calling it GMing with training wheels.

I tend to say that's people not being comfortable with their "GM power" being restricted through dedicated rules and written principles, but also being bad at expressing/admitting this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tend to say that's people not being comfortable with their "GM power" being restricted through dedicated rules and written principles, but also being bad at expressing/admitting this.

Yeah, basically. These kinds of games intentionally limit GM authority, and rather drastically at that. Given the prevelance of traditional gaming styles, a lot of folks are not going to be comfortable with this, and those who are would IMO be better served accepting that their enjoyment of these games is not shared by a lot of the folks in this community and people who don't like storygames often have a hard time expressing that in a way that doesn't come off badly.

And of course, that's just one aspect of these sorts of games with which a traditional gamer might have a problem.