thoughts on Apocalypse World?

[pemerton]

For social encounters In PbtA, 1) the level of stakes must rise to being worthy of a check even being made at all

I just wanted to chime in on this point: obviously I don't know the full gamut of PbtA games. In fact I know only a tiny slice of that gamut. But in AW it's not the case that the stakes must have risen to a certain level in order to make a check. The rule for player-side moves is if you do it, you do it. So if I threaten someone with a gun, I'm going aggro whether what I'm after is the key to the vault, or a bite from their sandwich.

This is why - at least it seems to me - the design of move triggers is so important. Because those move triggers are the things that will lead to rolls that in turn destabilise the "default" conversation of the game, and the distribution of authority that is part of that default conversation.

It contrasts with a scene-framed, "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game. In BW or Prince Valiant (at least most of the time - some subsystems create exceptions); or 4e D&D (at least outside of combat) we don't need the concept of a fictional trigger for (say) a Persuasion check or a Riding check. The players just say what their PCs are doing, and then when the stakes get to a point where the GM doesn't just say 'yes' we work out what the intent is, and what the task is, and we frame the check in light of that.

In this sense, at least, AW is more of a "fiction first" game than those scene-framing systems, because the move from fiction to resolution is not mediated by a notion of "stakes" or "intent".

Realising this was, for me, a breakthrough in working out how I could come back to Classic Traveller after 20-odd years of nostalgic pining and actually make it work!

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Here is the order of operations/cognitive workspace for GMing a Job/Score situation after the initial Engagement Roll obstacle:

Well look at this list. Extremely useful stuff here!! One question, though about the bit below (I think):

* What is the present gamestate (Position prior to this and how that interacts with the immediately prior Action Roll outcome...any Clocks out there and where are they at relative to going off?)?

So let's say there's a situation where multiple characters would be acting at once, presumably each making a different action roll, like in a combat situation. Would you typically have everyone declare, or at least float, their actions before resolving each one, therefore having various actions impact the position and effect of others? Or would you discuss and resolve each action one by one, with subsequent actions impacted by ones that came directly before?

Seems like the obvious choice would be the latter, in part because otherwise it'd be awfully chaotic. But just wondering if that's the case.

To be more specific, let's say a detection clock fills up, and the group is discovered by security droids. One player might want to open fire while another dives for cover, and a third tries to splice the security system to temporarily call off or power down the droids.

Would it make sense in that case to consider all of those actions, and then, for example, say that the character shooting at the droids is doing a desperate action, because he's a clear hostile and drawing their fire, which in turn means the position for the ones diving for cover and splicing a panel are lower than they might otherwise be, given the droids' attention on the shooter? Or is it more sensible for the system to resolve the shooter's action first, and then the others.

* 2 lesser Consequences are almost always better than 1 single big Consequence (change the situation more dynamically and give them more inputs to the changing situation, Resistance Roll considerations, and subsequent Action Rolls to resolve the new situation). HOWEVER, sometimes Harm 3 or 3 Ticks on the Clock in Desperate is just plainly the right move. If its the right move...just make it. You'll know it when it is.

This point about two lesser consequences being preferable to a single big one is really really interesting. Makes total sense, and coming up with lots of consequences is the biggest challenge for me as a new FitD GM (particularly for all those 4-5 rolls), so this is a good reminder that I need to focus on building that muscle.

 

[Campbell]

@Grendel_Khan

I would almost always address a single player generally by their character's name. Shining that narrative spotlight and letting that individual player feel the tension of the moment is generally more important than simulating the flow of the scene. Think in terms of how we would experience this as an audience if it were a TV show or movie.

 

[Blue]

I was thinking about the investigation example. I don't know how many people are familiar with an older TV show called The West Wing. Generally, it's about a bunch of staffers at the White House and the President they serve, shown 1999-2006. If you're not familiar with the show, just skip this.

Now, you can make a RPG that deals with politics of running a nation. Diplomancy, sanctions, defense, infighting, you have it. It could be a lot of fun for the right audience. I'd have a blast playing it.

It wouldn't produce an episode of The West Wing.

A PbtA RPG of the same thing would focus on what the relations between the staffers, the various factions of power, the personal connections and the strengths and weaknesses and connections and abilities of the individual characters (moves from their playbooks) for overcoming (or not) the various craziness that comes up. The characters wouldn't alway be aligned, wouldn't always win, and wouldn't rest before the denouement because they are propelled from one charged action to the next, flowing organically out of what they attempt to do.

That could easily be an episode of The West Wing. And I'd have a blast playing that as well.

And for the two, I'd given my druthers I'd probably collect different RPG friends who are looking for those experiences to form the group. Some overlap, but each group gung-ho for the type of game they are playing.

This is like the difference between a investigative procedural murder investigation, perhaps done in D&D 5e or maybe something like Gumshoe, and a PbtA murder scene.

 

[Blue]

Thinking in AW rather than FitD terms, it seems that the high-pitched keening was an announcement of future badness. Which the player ignored - which sounds like a perfect opportunity on a golden plate - so then rather than calling for the Attune action (because if they didn't do it, then they didn't do it!) it seems like making a hard move was in order - eg A powerful blast rips the back off your vessel. Looking up into the sky you can see the A-Wing that's been following you and has chosen this moment to attack. What's left of your boat is crashing down to the ground. What do you do? The hard move could even have included killing the offsider NPC.

(Is the "boat" a flying vessel as I've assumed? If not, and it's a waterborne vessel, then imagine my suggestion has been appropriately adapated.)

Building on @chaochou's reply, I think the real risk in what I've suggested - and I get the feeling from your post that you were aware of this risk in the moment of play - is that the player will think you're being unfair. Where's the saving throw? Or roll to hit, or whatever? Where's their Passive Perception? I've got nothing very useful to say about how to overcome that feeling. It was an issue for me when I started GMing Burning Wheel, and to be honest I think as a GM I sometimes held back too much, afraid of being seen to be unfair. My friend who GMs me is better than me at being as brutal as the rules require!

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that "saving throw" was the soft move you made first. It was announcing future badness, and at that point the characters could have "saved" by reacting and doing something about it. That you then followed up with a hard move with real consequences or complications is the natural progression, no more or less offsetting than a failed save vs. web will entangle a character.

 

[Manbearcat]

So let's say there's a situation where multiple characters would be acting at once, presumably each making a different action roll, like in a combat situation. Would you typically have everyone declare, or at least float, their actions before resolving each one, therefore having various actions impact the position and effect of others? Or would you discuss and resolve each action one by one, with subsequent actions impacted by ones that came directly before?

Seems like the obvious choice would be the latter, in part because otherwise it'd be awfully chaotic. But just wondering if that's the case.

To be more specific, let's say a detection clock fills up, and the group is discovered by security droids. One player might want to open fire while another dives for cover, and a third tries to splice the security system to temporarily call off or power down the droids.

Would it make sense in that case to consider all of those actions, and then, for example, say that the character shooting at the droids is doing a desperate action, because he's a clear hostile and drawing their fire, which in turn means the position for the ones diving for cover and splicing a panel are lower than they might otherwise be, given the droids' attention on the shooter? Or is it more sensible for the system to resolve the shooter's action first, and then the others.

I'm going to address your situation in the last two paragraphs and write out a blurb of what this handling might look like:

GM: Jess, you're right out there in the open when the blast doors lift. You're about to get a face full of blasters. These 3 are dangerous (S&V NPC Threat Levels page 204). They aren't just mooks. They take the initiative and fire the moment the have a shot. What are you doing? Jack, I know you've got your blaster out, but you've got a little distance and some obstacles between you and the 3 dangerous droids. You see this whole thing go down when Burgley's Hack failed (this triggered this deal...Burgley failed a Desperate/Great Hack and this is the Consequence). Instead of the door opening to the bay where your ship is, this damn door with the welcoming committee opened!

Jess: Well, hell...I'm hauling out of there to cover. This room is a Hold so its pretty big. I'm far from Jack and Burgley but can I dive behind the cargo that isn't too far away?

Jack: Yeah, I'll help her with some covering fire!

GM: Jack, is this an attempt to actually do damage to the droids? Its going to be Controlled Position but Limited Effect due to all of the obstructing stuff. If you're going to actually fire at the Droids, you aren't going to do much. But you can trade Position for Effect if you want to step out in the open and get a clear shot. But if this is just a Setup move for covering fire, then Limited is good enough. Which is it?

Jess, you're Desperate/Standard. There is some cargo nearby to get cover behind, but you're going to need Great Effect to get all the way over to Jack and Burgley. Its just too far.

Jack: Just a Setup move for covering fire. I'm going to buy her time and give her increased Effect so she can get all the way to us so she doesn't have to Scramble with worse Effect again to GTFO when Burgley gets the stupid ship bay doors open. I got a 5 on my Scrap. <GM tells Jack the Controlled Complication...Jack elects to Resist it because he has a lot of Stress left to risk and doesn't love the complication>.

Jess: Awesome. So Desperate/Great with Jack's covering fire. I'm hunkering down (that is what people reflexively do in this situation right?) and just hold onto my helmet as I hustle over to Jack and Burgley! Alright...Never Tell Me the Odds produces a Gambit on a Desperate Roll so here is a Gambit for you Burgley! Daredevil also gives me +1d for Desperate Action Rolls and I'm going to spend 2 Stress to push for another +1d. Got a 6 with on my Scramble! I'm with my mates! Get us the hell out of here Burgley!

GM: Alright Burgley, you're 2/4 in your effort in your Override the Security System Clock so you can open the bay door. Its been an effort to hack this system and the high Tier base (+1 above Crew) has pulled out some of its countermeasures. You've got Standard Effect because of your Fine Hacking Rig + your Crew upgrade for these kinds of implements. 2 Ticks will finish off the Clock and get the door open.

Burgley: Wait a minute boss. My Analyst Special Ability gave me the info on the owner of this system in my last Hack attempt (like a 6 was rolled in Gather Info). Doesn't that give me some protection here against its countermeasures? Better Position; Risky/Standard?

GM: My bad. That's right. You know all about the recent software bugs of this system. You can have Position or Effect so if you want Position, then take it.

Burgley: Awesome. Alright, I'm spending the Gambit that Jess just earned us. I don't have the Stress to Push. How about a Devil's Bargain <GM gives Burgley a DB with something about Burgley's rival; a 2/6 Tick Clock starts that will have to be addressed during downtime or something computer-ey will happen>. Alright, I've got 5d6; a Crit!

GM: With blaster fire bearing down on you guys, bouncing off walls leaving melted steel behind...the security system gives way with triuphant doot-dee-doot noises and the bay door whooshes up! Do you guys all exalt or is it all business?

Burgley, you want to clear a Stress or a boon <the boon is the egress to the ship has increased Position because Burgley's hack effed with the pursuing droids as well>?

---

That is a hypothetical of how it would go down in a S&V game I'm GMing. Hopefully that is all clear. If you have any questions, fire away.

 

[Blue]

And I have no idea why you would say this. If there's a roll, there's always a chance for a failure. You're trying to give a speech to rouse the morale of the troops. Make a Persuasion or Performance roll or whatever. The troops do well at war or anything, your renown might very well go up because it was your speech that urged them to fight harder.

I think this is a vocabulary issue. The two of you are using different meaning of "failure".

Say you can attempt to pick a lock, and if you do not succeed nothing happens. It's a null, no change in state. You can try again. This I believe is how Faolyn means failure, but not how Ovinomancer was using failure.

Say you can attempt to pick a lock, but if you fail a poison gas will fill the room. There is no null state. If you roll 6-, poison gas. If you roll 10+, the lock opens and you can grab what's in the chest. 7-9, maybe both - gas is filling th eroom, do you wnat to blindly grab what's in the chest or get out? That's failure in PbtA terms. Not a simple lack of success, but a consequence.

 

[pemerton]

I'm no expert, but my understanding is that "saving throw" was the soft move you made first. It was announcing future badness, and at that point the characters could have "saved" by reacting and doing something about it. That you then followed up with a hard move with real consequences or complications is the natural progression, no more or less offsetting than a failed save vs. web will entangle a character.

Fully agreed. But for players used to structures with mechanical buffers like saving throws or passive perception, having the buffer be fictional rather than mechanical can generate the sense of unfairness. I'm not interested in asking whether it's really unfair - to me that seems a dead-end inquiry. I'm thinking more about the practical issue of how to get someone whose main play experience is with recent versions of D&D (or similar RPGs) into the required "headspace" for the sort of game @Grendel_Khan wants to run.

 

[Aldarc]

I assume you're talking about me. I guess that me playing and GMing Fate, Cypher, GURPS, TOON, oWoD, CoC, d6 system games, homebrew games, and probably dozens of other systems over the course of 30+ years count as "not planning on playing RPGs outside of D&D"?

I asked Ovinomancer questions because I wanted to understand how to play this game. For whatever reason, they refused to answer me, refused to say what about my assumptions were wrong (just that they were), or to show me what the correct methods are. I must have asked how do I do this? half a dozen times. They didn't even bother to link me to a site that explains it!

What, is the AW rulebook holy writ that must never be questioned? Is this a cult? Are you told to shun those who don't immediately see the light? What's going on here?

Ovinomancer is not the only person here you can engage on this matter. You don't have to turn your thread engagements into walls of quote arguments. Others are more than capable of answering your queries about PbtA, and they have tried to do so. You do have the option to engage others about this. I'm not entirely sure why I and others have mostly been ignored when it came to understanding the game. But should you be interested in continuing the discussion with me or others, then I am okay with that too. If not, then this thread will still exist and you can read at your leisure through our replies explaining things.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

That is a hypothetical of how it would go down in a S&V game I'm GMing. Hopefully that is all clear. If you have any questions, fire away.

Holy crap. That is a master class right there. Incredible rundown of all the possible angles and rules interactions, especially passing Gambits along and doing Setup actions, and how those are incorporated into the sequence of actions

My only question, because it's still my biggest source of anxiety, is what you might pick in the moment for the complication you mention here:

"Jack: Just a Setup move for covering fire. I'm going to buy her time and give her increased Effect so she can get all the way to us so she doesn't have to Scramble with worse Effect again to GTFO when Burgley gets the stupid ship bay doors open. I got a 5 on my Scrap. <GM tells Jack the Controlled Complication...Jack elects to Resist it because he has a lot of Stress left to risk and doesn't love the complication>."

I'm guessing you wouldn't do reduced effect, since that would kill the success entirely. There are obviously lots of possibilities, but I'm still wrapping my head around appropriate combat-related consequences that aren't in the standard critical failure mode (which doesn't seem appropriate here).