Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me ask this - What if the players do something that is not a move, that is they do not look to the GM to see what happens, but whatever they are doing doesn’t map to a move?

We move down the corridor to the left. The GM makes a soft move, describing the environment and upping the ante slightly. There's a list of GM moves they can make, but it's pretty loose, generally you do the obvious thing. There could also be dungeon moves and dangers which have been established in GM prep. One move is to reveal some of that. Given a soft move is appropriate here the GM is very likely to telegraph such a danger. If the PCs now ignore the clue your golden platter has arrived!

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure there is, in context it's quite clear! Honestly, just from the discussion here it's clear this relates to the GM being handed an opportunity. What would that look like in the context of an adventure game? Wouldn't you imagine a situation where a PC (it has to be a PC logically, right?) leaves themselves wide open, like ignoring some obvious immediate source of danger? If so, you got it! I can't think of anything else it could mean, can you?

Ah, but What does the GM being handed an opportunity mean? Opportunity is a very broad category after all.

If the player is not looking to the GM to say something and isn't having their characters make a move, then it's just a conversation. But it should be moving towards one of those things with some urgency.

Where is the rules text for any of this?

Absent concrete examples of what you're imagining is happening during these moments of play, I'm kind of at a loss. It's like we're talking about baseball, but only the stuff happening between innings. Like, I'm having a hard time not reading your question as, "yes, but what happens between innings?"

IMO, if you are making the analogy that acting outside a move while not waiting on the GM to make a move is essentially similar to being between innings of a baseball game, then I’d suggest that’s better evidence that players don’t act in the game outside moves. That is, this analogy supports the notion that everything players do in AW must be a move. Thus, certainly the initial proposition that’s been mocked as silly is then not a silly proposition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay. Where are the rules in AW for this?

Lets back up... If the players say "we go to X location" then there's an inherent point where the GM is expected to narrate, correct? It's a conversation and it is the GM's time to speak, since they're in charge of setting the scene. In effect the players ARE looking to the GM. What else can they do? Without fiction, a scene to act within they're done. It's the GM's turn now and when it is your turn, as GM, you make a move! That move will include setting the scene. The GM could also ask questions, possibly delegating some of the scene setting to the players. The GM can literally say "what do you think you will find here?"

 

[andreszarta]

Ah, but What does the GM being handed an opportunity mean? Opportunity is a very broad category after all.

I believe AW's subsystem for triggering a move is very much based on Vincent's own conception of principled freeform.

You do not need procedural mechanics to create gameable objects. An opportunity need to be understood by the MC as an opportunity. The principles of the game are suggestive of what these might be, and that's all an MC needs to treat them as such.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah, but What does the GM being handed an opportunity mean? Opportunity is a very broad category after all.

It's very literal. Lets say a player is told they hear a click as their character walks down the hall, if the players simply continue down the passageway then the trap hits them full force! Go straight to harm. If they take some appropriate action then instead they can Defy Danger, calling for DD is a soft move as it is not actual harm, not irrevocable.

 

[Faolyn]

I’m explicitly talking about situations where the player isn’t looking for the GM to say something. That issue acted but not with a move. I’m not understanding how that rules text applies to such a situation?

If they're not looking for the GM, that means they're playing amongst themselves and you don't need to do anything.

You know. Like in probably every RPG in existence.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm subscribing to this topic so I can post it as a response when people say they don't want explanations or support in D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

If the player is not looking to the GM to say something and isn't having their characters make a move, then it's just a conversation. But it should be moving towards one of those things with some urgency.

This last clause makes me curious: why can't an in-character conversation between PCs just be a conversation, without anything else attached or having to build toward any sense of urgency? Telling war stories around the campfire. Planning tomorrow's activities. Falling in love (or hate!) with each other, or firming up friendships or rivalries. That sort of thing.

Ditto for some conversations between PCs and NPCs, for all that.

Absent concrete examples of what you're imagining is happening during these moments of play, I'm kind of at a loss. It's like we're talking about baseball, but only the stuff happening between innings. Like, I'm having a hard time not reading your question as, "yes, but what happens between innings?"

I don't think this analogy works, in that even when the PCs aren't engaged in anything other than conversation between themselves, character development is still happening. Put another way, there is no "between-innings" phase because in this case, unlike baseball, what goes on on the field isn't the whole of the game.

 

[niklinna]

This last clause makes me curious: why can't an in-character conversation between PCs just be a conversation, without anything else attached or having to build toward any sense of urgency? Telling war stories around the campfire. Planning tomorrow's activities. Falling in love (or hate!) with each other, or firming up friendships or rivalries. That sort of thing.

Ditto for some conversations between PCs and NPCs, for all that.

Because it's Apocalypse World, basically, and that goes against the expectations of that particular game. But there are PbtA games that make room for more leisurely, less urgent activity.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This last clause makes me curious: why can't an in-character conversation between PCs just be a conversation, without anything else attached or having to build toward any sense of urgency? Telling war stories around the campfire. Planning tomorrow's activities. Falling in love (or hate!) with each other, or firming up friendships or rivalries. That sort of thing.

Nothing stops this. Does it require rules? I mean, the GM is probably going to interject at some point. "You grow hungry" or something.

Ditto for some conversations between PCs and NPCs, for all that.

I don't think this analogy works, in that even when the PCs aren't engaged in anything other than conversation between themselves, character development is still happening. Put another way, there is no "between-innings" phase because in this case, unlike baseball, what goes on on the field isn't the whole of the game.

Sure, but remember, AW et al are action focused games. Pressure will eventually grow on the PCs. It's not a system designed to work as a hobby simulator. If the GM runs the game as intended then stuff WILL happen!