thoughts on Apocalypse World?

[Fenris-77]

If you add a bespoke myatery mechanic it does just fine. The Between is an excellent example.

 

[niklinna]

Let's take a specific example -- I am investigating a room where a crime has taken place and the criminal has fled. My goal is to find information that will help me follow the criminal. Looking at AW, it looks like READ A SITCH is the best option: [...]

So I guess I ask one question like "what’s my enemy’s true position?" or "where’s my best escape way past" -- already I'm in meta-mode, trying to match the answer I want to the menu of suggestions. And if I do really well ... I don't care -- I just want the answer to one question, not three.

Once again, unless there can be negative consequences to some activity, in PbtA, you generally don't bother rolling—you just narrate the outcome (or sumarize or even skip it!). So in this case, you don't use READ A SITCH (which is a formal move involving a dice roll). If your search for clues could result in an accident, being noticed snooping around, or being confronted by someone/something dangerous, then you use the READ A SITCH move and roll the dice. Just because a move's description involves particular activities, doesn't mean you have to use the move for those particular activities. It's the activity in a context of risk that calls for a move.

You could argue that not finding anything is a negative consequence, but really it's just a null—a dead end, at worst leaving you stuck, at best a minor waste of time. A mystery writer probably wouldn't spend pages on such a thing, and, I think, neither should a role-playing game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's no limitation on selecting the same playbook in BitD. There is in DW, but that's a feature of that ruleset -- it's a bit of intentional design. In Blades, the entire crew can be cutters, frex, but there's still so much most to choose that they can all feel very different, and grow very differently. Playbooks are just the initial ability and action distribution in Blades.

I would say that, given the way veteran advances work, it's even more about the XP trigger than anything else. That main XP trigger is the defining feature of a Blades playbook.

 

[chaochou]

Let's take a specific example -- I am investigating a room where a crime has taken place and the criminal has fled. My goal is to find information that will help me follow the criminal. Looking at AW, it looks like READ A SITCH is the best option:

Have you missed the point, or just conveniently ignored it?

Who authored the need to catch the criminal? Who authored the crime? What's your character's stake in any of this?

The fact that you're badly misusing 'read a sitch' simply tells me that you've not bothered to read and understand either my post or Apocalypse World.

 

[Campbell]

In Apocalypse World whenever the players look to the MC to find out what happens the MC makes a move. That's true regardless of if a basic move is triggered.

You can totally do things not covered by the basic moves. It happens all the time when I run Apocalypse World. In those cases the system does not have anything to say so the MC just says what happens based on the fiction and their principles. Not everything requires rolling dice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Those are great examples. However, I should have clarified: What I'm confused about is how to apply a success with consequence in a situation that's more passive, like when you're analyzing clues, or really anything where there are no obvious hostile NPCs or environmental perils around. Pemerton's example of a failure leading to some unseen scoundrel knocking you out as you nose around is a really interesting one for a failed investigative roll. Moves the fiction in exciting ways, and is a million times better than "Welp, you don't see anything!" But navigating those successes-with-consequences in non-adversarial situations is what's giving me cold feet as a new PbtA/FitD GM.

There's a category error here -- there are not checks in "more passive" contexts. A check is going to occur because this moment is dramatically important -- not passive. The very nature of the game pushes everything to dramatic moments. A search for clues, say, just doesn't happen -- you might look for clues here, but the nature of that looking will be under some dramatic question or tension and that's what drives the consequence space.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would say that, given the way veteran advances work, it's even more about the XP trigger than anything else. That main XP trigger is the defining feature of a Blades playbook.

Yup, this. As a slide, my XP trigger is dealing with a situation with deception or influence. A cutter's is dealing with a situation with violence. This is really the biggest differentiator between playbooks, because it will have the largest impact on play.

 

[Faolyn]

Have you missed the point, or just conveniently ignored it?

Who authored the need to catch the criminal? Who authored the crime? What's your character's stake in any of this?

The fact that you're badly misusing 'read a sitch' simply tells me that you've not bothered to read and understand either my post or Apocalypse World.

OK, let's say that the PCs decided they were going investigate a crime scene. What would you do?

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK, let's say that the PCs decided they were going investigate a crime scene. What would you do?

Why are they investigating a crime scene? What's the tension here, what do they hope to get form this, why is it important to them?

ETA: These aren't empty questions, they're required ones for this approach to play. You're asking how these systems adjudicate situations that are part and parcel of an entirely different approach to play and have no place in the one under discussion.

 

[niklinna]

OK, let's say that the PCs decided they were going investigate a crime scene. What would you do?

You literally just took @chaochou's post and ignored its central point to toss out the same anemic question about PCs contextlessly doing some contextless thing of no particular consequence. Apocalypse World is ALL ABOUT CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION IN A CONCRETE CONTEXT. How many times, and in how many ways, do we have to repeat this?