thoughts on Apocalypse World?

[pemerton]

I think the main difference between the two approaches is that AW style Moves focus on the outcomes and consequences of a scene rather than D&D focus on players taking actions (which eventually build to an outcome).

I dunno. I think I point my gun at her and ask her if she's changed her mind about sharing her canteen (which would trigger Go Aggro) seems like a pretty concrete action. And all the examples that Vincent Baker gives in the rulebook seem pretty concrete.

the change from RPG as a series of player actions and DM reponses and RPG as agreed Narrative scenes makes for a different play style.

I don't think agreed narrative scenes are a big part of AW. The rulebook doesn't talk about them. Maybe in some other PbtA games they figure more prominently?

 

[pemerton]

Firstly, thanks for the replies, I am honestly struggling to see what significant differences AW/PbtA has to... well most rpgs. I appreciate y'all taking the time to talk it through.

So... I am uncertain as to whether AW has target numbers or not. Ya see, in @pemerton's post above (#86) he definitely mentions target numbers.

Well, I just double-checked and I don't use that phrase.

Is it that there are target numbers hard coded into the rules rather than set by the GM? If so they're still target numbers. If not, what were those numbers?

You've already had replies on this from @niklinna and @Tonguez so I don't need to repeat what they've said.

I've got more, well not specific questions, but a nebulous feeling that I have more to ask. But I have to cut it short for now.

I've got some time, so let's go back to this move:

Seduce or Manipulate
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now.​

As I said, the most striking difference from D&D is that there is not step of the sort you mentioned upthread: GM: <weighs up difficulty/assigns target number, possibly considers results of failure>

There is no GM mediation. The GM does not have anything to decide until we know the result of the player's roll+ hot (a stat that every PC has). At that point, the GM also knows what they have to decide. If the roll was 7+, the GM has to decide what the NPC asks the PC to promise. If the throw was also less than 10, the GM has to decide what sort of concrete assurance the NPC wants right now.

If the throw is 6 or less, then the GM can make as hard and direct a move, that follows from the fiction, as they like.

In 5e D&D, at least to the extent I am familiar with it, there is no process whereby a player can declare as an action that their PC asks a NPC for something by offering something in return and then make a throw and then on the basis of that throw oblige the GM to have a NPC do something in exchange for a promise.

In 5e D&D there is a process whereby the player can declare as an action that their PC asks a PC for something by offereing something in return. But at that point everything shifts to the GM, who has unfettered decision-making power as to whether and how the NPC responds. That power includes calling for a check, and deciding what if anything happens for any given result of that check.

That is a big difference between the two games. In my view it's fundamental.

 

[Numidius]

Vincent Baker on AW's structure:

Apocalypse World is designed in concentric layers, like an onion.

The innermost core is the structured conversation: you say what your characters do. The MC, following their agenda and principles, says what happens, and asks you what your characters do next. The next layer out builds on the conversation by adding core systems: stats, dice, basic moves, harm, improvement, MC moves, maybe some setting elements like the world’s psychic maelstrom. The next layer elaborates on the core systems by adding playbooks, with all their character moves, gear, and additional systems; and threats, with their types, impulses, moves, fronts, and maps. The outermost layer is even optional: it’s for your custom moves, your non-core playbooks, your MC experiments, stuff that doesn’t even appear in the book.

A crucial feature of Apocalypse World’s design is that these layers are designed to collapse gracefully inward:

Forget the peripheral harm moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but the rules for harm have got you covered. Forget the rules for harm? that’s cool. You’re missing out, but the basic moves have got you covered. Just describe the splattering blood and let the moves handle the rest. Forget the basic moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but just remember that 10+ = hooray, 7-9 = mixed, and 6- = something worse happens.Don’t even feel like rolling the dice? Fair enough. You’re missing out, but the conversational structure still works.

Or:

Don’t want to make custom moves and countdowns for your threats all the time? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but the threat types, impulses, and threat moves have got you covered. Don’t want to even write up your fronts and threats? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but your MC moves have got you covered. Forget your MC moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but as long as you remember your agenda and most of your principles and what to always say, you’ll be okay.

Powered by the Apocalypse, part 1 – lumpley games

lumpley.games

 

[Numidius]

So, the game could potentially proceed as a conversation where players declare what pcs do and gm/mc says what happens

 

[heretic888]

So, the game could potentially proceed as a conversation where players declare what pcs do and gm/mc says what happens

Provided that what the GM says is constrained by the agenda and principles. In PbtA games the agenda and principles are just as much rules as the player-facing moves are.

 

[Numidius]

Provided that what the GM says is constrained by the agenda and principles. In PbtA games the agenda and principles are just as much rules as the player-facing moves are.

Correct, as Baker explained in the part I just posted above

 

[pemerton]

So, the game could potentially proceed as a conversation where players declare what pcs do and gm/mc says what happens

Though I think this would be quite a different experience, because the players would no longer have a device - ie player-side moves - for obliging the GM to narrate certain bits of fiction.

 

[heretic888]

Correct, as Baker explained in the part I just posted above

Yup. Just wanted to clarify as a lot of posters are used to "empower the DM!" games where the only conversational constraint is Whatever The Lord God Dungeon Master Feels Like.

 

[Numidius]

Though I think this would be quite a different experience, because the players would no longer have a device - ie player-side moves - for obliging the GM to narrate certain bits of fiction.

Yeah, but assuming good faith and following agenda & principles, it should't be so dissimilar.

What I find interesting is that Baker acknowledge this possibility. Principled freeform is a term he coined, I guess

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, but assuming good faith and following agenda & principles, it should't be so dissimilar.

I'm not sure about that. I think that the use of dice adds something different from just saying what honesty demands.

What I find interesting is that Baker acknowledge this possibility. Principled freeform is a term he coined, I guess

Well, it's consistent with his own background in freeform RPGing, and his discussion of various theoretical systems (of resolution mechanics, PC sheets, etc) on his blog.