Situation, setting and "status quo"

pemerton said:

Comparing to DW - which I have read, and even played a little bit of - the concept of "fronts" also seems much more at home in AW. I can see how that sort of technique relates to the idea of the non-status-quo.

I've been thinking of trying to do some DW with my group some time in the not-too-distant future, but now I'm thinking AW looks more interesting. (If also more challenging, because I think it would push me as a GM in ways that I'm not used to being pushed.)

Click to expand...

DW is, with respect, a watered down AW. It doesn't quite have the grit and verve of the Apocalypse. The character moves don't give the players the same raw potency, and the GM principles and procedures aren't as strong. I've always maintained that Dungeon World is written in a way which assumes - I might go as far to say relies upon - having played (not just read) Apocalypse World.

When it comes to a discussion on 'status quo', I think it's important to see it in context. The driving theme in AW is 'scarcity'. Everything is scarce. Water, shelter, friendship, warmth, fuel, food, ammunition, tools, knowledge, medicine, transport... everything anyone wants and needs is hard to get. And anytime someone has it, someone else wants to take it. So everything is precarious, everything is under pressure.

A character may have a nice rifle, but where do they get bullets from? And what happens if the bullet-making guy moves on? And where does that guy get his lead from, or his powder? They can dry up, right? Where do your ragtag 40 survivors get water from? Food? You got a windmill running a generator - who can fix it? Who's got wood and spare parts? Who's got the know-how? What's stopping Ol' Jake from burning it down in the night?

I get the gist of where you're going with your 'the setting is the situation' line. I think it's easier to think of it as a game where there is no 'adventure' seperate from day-to-day living.

chaochou said:

I get the gist of where you're going with your 'the setting is the situation' line. I think it's easier to think of it as a game where there is no 'adventure' seperate from day-to-day living.

Click to expand...

That second sentence also reminds me of the Edwards essay I posted a link to a little bit upothread.

And what I'm really commenting on in this thread is my own relative unfamiliarity with GMing that sort of situation/"scenario". The closest I can think of is a certain sort of "tramp trader" Traveller, and that's not very close!

chaochou said:

When it comes to a discussion on 'status quo', I think it's important to see it in context. The driving theme in AW is 'scarcity'. Everything is scarce. Water, shelter, friendship, warmth, fuel, food, ammunition, tools, knowledge, medicine, transport... everything anyone wants and needs is hard to get. And anytime someone has it, someone else wants to take it. So everything is precarious, everything is under pressure.

A character may have a nice rifle, but where do they get bullets from? And what happens if the bullet-making guy moves on? And where does that guy get his lead from, or his powder? They can dry up, right? Where do your ragtag 40 survivors get water from? Food? You got a windmill running a generator - who can fix it? Who's got wood and spare parts? Who's got the know-how? What's stopping Ol' Jake from burning it down in the night?

Click to expand...

See, this is what I look at and think would push me as a GM in ways that I'm not used to being pushed. (Whereas [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]'s comment about "a freeflowing play and Gming" doesn't cause me any anxiety - I think I'm fairly used to and comfortable with that.)

I'm not used to having to bring a setting to life in this particular fashion.

pemerton said:

That second sentence also reminds me of the Edwards essay I posted a link to a little bit upothread.

And what I'm really commenting on in this thread is my own relative unfamiliarity with GMing that sort of situation/"scenario". The closest I can think of is a certain sort of "tramp trader" Traveller, and that's not very close!

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd seen that essay before. Elements of it were familiar, but I didn't recognise it presented like that. Certainly an interesting and thoughtful read.

With regard to pushing your GM-ing in new directions... yes, maybe! But the first session section of AW has good advice on how to bring the game to life. Barf forth Apocalyptica, Ask lots of questions, Leave things to wonder about, Springboard off character creation... those are all good techniques for starting things flowing.

And the players have responsibility too... they'll starting looking at their playbooks and saying 'Holy **** I can do thaaaat?' and then they'll try to do something rad and they'll 7-9 it and you'll be running it just fine.

For AW I usually... no... I always start with some collective worldbuilding. But looking at the essay you linked, it would really go down more as 'introductory colour'. Places with evocative names hand-sketched in on a rough drawn map, each person adding two or three things. Often we don't even know what they are. It's just someplace called 'The Pipes'.

I've always found that early sketch gives everyone enough of a sense of place, and sets ideas spinning and kickstarts players to start dreaming of who they are playing and the things they want - and once they have that, your job as GM becomes a whole lot easier.

We've discussed before my fondness for leading questions, and it's a good technique for getting players out of their shell if they're being a bit coy. Like:
MC: Dusk, who'se the meanest rider in Deckers cycle gang?
Player: I dunno, maybe Midnight? That guy's always giving me evils.
MC: Right! So as you leave the cantina, why do you think you see him breaking into your lock-up?

It's another version of 'there is no status quo'. There's no safe, non-commital answer here. You don't need to know or care why (in the fiction) that just happened. Out of the fiction, it's the cataclyst to get the player to introduce relationships, feuds or friendships, revenge, ex-lovers... which is what you need them doing. The fiction will work itself out, once the players start doing their job of really playing and bringing it.

Is that helping?

The misunderstanding seems to be that "status quo" means "establishment". As is evident from this:

A dynamic opening situation, not a status quo you're going to have to put your shoulder against and somehow shift, like pushing a futon up a ladder. No: an unstable mass, already charged with potential energy and ready to split and slide, not a mass at rest.

Click to expand...

Now, while status quo may have some overtones of an established order, it actually just means "how things are/were before".
In other words, complete anarchy, with no established powers, laws, customs, pecking orders, organized enforcement etc., is the status quo, if that's how things are to start with.

The clearest example of such a situation - no establishment whatsoever for the PCs to be part of and use, or to fight against - can be found in games that re-create Farmer's Riverworld, if the campaign begins on Resurrection Day.

Michele said:

In other words, complete anarchy, with no established powers, laws, customs, pecking orders, organized enforcement etc., is the status quo, if that's how things are to start with.

Click to expand...

Yes. It has also been noted that anarchy is a viable mode of human organization... for about 20 minutes. While one can put together a situation where no standing organization exists, it isn't a plausible situation for a world that exists for any significant time before the PCs come onto the scene.

From another discussion, I realized we can name any number of "status quo" worlds in fiction. For example, Nehwon, the world of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser reside, is status quo. The characters have adventures and do things, even eliminate what are positioned as major powers in the world... but the world does not significantly change because of it. Lankhmar is still Lankhmar, no matter what.

Umbran said:

Yes. It has also been noted that anarchy is a viable mode of human organization... for about 20 minutes. While one can put together a situation where no standing organization exists, it isn't a plausible situation for a world that exists for any significant time before the PCs come onto the scene.

Click to expand...

Well, there's a reason if I quoted not simply Riverworld, but the first day there.

Note that in theory, all forms of non-anarchy make (some sort of) sense when there is some limitation on resources, or some of them at least. In theory, a situation of utopian non-scarcity might tolerate the absence of government.

Yet, Farmer apparently agrees with you, because even on Riverworld, where humans might live without the pressure of procuring the next meal, they quickly end up either creating new organizations or reproducing the government forms they had before their universal resurrection on Riverworld.