Help Me Get "Apocalypse World" and PbtA games in general.

[Ovinomancer]

This example kinda confuses me though.

If the GM were to say "You reach the front door, which is locked," then sure, everything's established. But let's say the PC is trying to be stealthy, so there's no assumption that they're checking every door handle they come across. Or maybe the GM just didn't think to mention that it was locked, but in the fiction it makes sense that it would be. In that moment, how does it violate the game's principles if the player says "I open the door" and the GM says, "It's locked—what do you do?"

Nope. The GM cannot block an action with the revelation of something new to the scene. They can only put it to a test.

It violates the principle of playing to find out -- if the situation is established, but the door isn't openly established as locked but the GM has determined it is, then at least the GM is not playing to find out what happens -- they know what happens already.

The toy example is a door, and chosen so because it's low stakes. It's clear. But this extends to all facets of play, and is a core difference between how you do Story Now and how you do Trad -- the GM does not have the authority in Story Now to block action declarations, only test them. Even if the GM thinks it makes sense for the door to be locked. Or for this NPC to say no to the PC ask. This is the hard stretch -- to engage in play where the GM is as clueless as to what happens next as the players.

 

[andreszarta]

Obviously the full extent or success of the PC's action isn't set until the dice are rolled

Right, we are totally seeing eye to eye here. I'm not suggesting that players get to narrate their successes without triggering moves just by sheer force of confidence in their actions. I know that's not what you @Grendel_Khan are saying, but I just wanted to clarify for the benefit of other readers.

so how is this different from a player in a trad game just framing their actions confidently, instead of as a question?

I think it's a matter of how direct and effective is their action upon the fiction; how much of an author they get to be. When you ask for permission, you are leaving much of the authorship up to the GM. They have to interpret more of your intent and try to process your action from an imperfect point-of-view. They might even get it wrong.

Imagine that in a given game you are a badass, thug-looking character just arriving at a neighboring town's tavern wanting to establish dominance over the locale by intimidating both patrons and staff. You plan on doing that by taking what you believe its rightfully yours, no matter what.

Imagine you ask a trad GM "Ok, can I start walking up to the bar?". The GM's response could be "As you start walking up to the bar, suddenly someone intercepts you and says: 'Hey, who tf are you? What do are you doing in our town?'." Suddenly, we've arrived at a confrontation that is happening on equal footing between you and the guy who intercepted you, perhaps not leaving you where you expected. The GM has determined most of the details of how this standoff is meant to go from now on, and they did so without a perfect understanding of the entirety of your intent. You've left how it goes up to them.

Let's contrast that with a game that lends more of this narrational authority to players. You say "I walk up to the bar, sit down. Reach over the counter for a glass and a bottle of whiskey. I start pouring over the glass while keeping an eye out to whoever dares starts walking up to me." That's a very different confrontation, that puts your character in a different position and perhaps closer to the kind of struggle you wanted to setup in the first place. You are in control. The GM now plays based on what you have determined the situation is now. Who will challenge you now?

---

Trad game where player confidently expresses an action declaration? Well, they know....and its GM mandate that the following is in play as that confident action declaration is now punted to the GM and the GM can do any of the following:

• Veto
• Ratify
• Feign Ratification But Secretly Block (through a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes - story concerns, pacing concerns, "I just don't like this result cause it doesn't feel fun" concerns)

Great answer! Usually trad game designs hold you accountable to a different (non-explicit) set of agendas, that do not promote or care for equal collaboration as authors with regards to how the story goes. The GM is a primary author of the story and they have a lot of incentives not to take your declarations as binding. It's a different kind of collaboration!

 

[Manbearcat]

This example kinda confuses me though.

If the GM were to say "You reach the front door, which is locked," then sure, everything's established. But let's say the PC is trying to be stealthy, so there's no assumption that they're checking every door handle they come across. Or maybe the GM just didn't think to mention that it was locked, but in the fiction it makes sense that it would be. In that moment, how does it violate the game's principles if the player says "I open the door" and the GM says, "It's locked—what do you do?"

So we've already established that this is a charged situation. We wouldn't need to sneak about if someone or something wasn't worth uncovering. Now its just about what is the nature of play that we're zooming in on.

Doors move from neutral framing (just color that we quickly vignette past "alright you open the door...and...") to an obstacle or a threat when its decided that "what is on other side of that door is consequential" (again, see my (1) and (3) in my lead post above). Its not an arbitrary decision. Lots of things can lead to locked doors in the play space. For any given door to be locked, you're (a) following Agenda/Always Say/Principles, and either:

(b) you're making a Threat move (if its already been established/foregrounded)
(c) putting someone in a spot or offering an opportunity with or without a cost.
(d) asking questions and using the answers (ok...the blueprint says you're at Hosea's room...is Hosea the kind of guy to leave this door unlocked...if it is unlocked and slightly ajar then what the hell would your racing brain conjure up that means?)

The framing shouldn't suck. It should be more than "a locked door." You signpost what the hell is going on. The situation should be "grabby", dangerous, interesting, relevant and consequential, charged. "A locked door" isn't enough. There should be more to the GM framing or to the conversation exchange that makes this particular door (which we've established is locked) worth our collective while in spending time on (rather than brushing by until we get to a charged situation we care about).

---

I think what might be happening with you and @Reynard here is that you're imagining (i) this finite play space and/or (ii) that players actually want conflict-neutral stuff...that they don't want danger and apocalyptica...that they don't want the crosshairs on them....that they don't want to make moves and find out what happens.

If you're a player and you don't want that stuff...why are you playing Apocalypse World? Like if you want to turtle or you want conflict-neutral play that validates your preconception of your character...then why are you playing Apocalypse World?

If you're a GM and you think your players might want to turtle or might want conflict-neutral play or might want validation of preconception of character...then you need to reorient everyone at the table (including yourself).

Doors are breezed by in conversation about the imagined space unless its a conflict-charged situation where play-to-date or a participant at the table warrant planting a (Agenda/Always-Say/Principles observing) flag in this moment of play and find out what is on the other side of that door...and/or find out what this particular PC is all about (what will they risk/prioritize...will they actually go through with this).

EDIT - Just another thought to crystalize things. This isn't Map-and-Key play where we might have a locked door with nothing on the other side to entice a group of Adventurers to decide if they want to spend an Exploration Turn and a precious resource (Light Source duration or Spell duration or Spell like Knock) to resolve the obstacle (locked and possibly trapped door) to find out if there is something worthwhile on the other side.

This isn't a "logistical crawl featuring (some measure of) conflict-neutral exploratory play" and we already know there is something worthwhile on the other side because the situation framing will foreground that.

 

[Reynard]

So we've already established that this is a charged situation. We wouldn't need to sneak about if someone or something wasn't worth uncovering. Now its just about what is the nature of play that we're zooming in on.

Doors move from neutral framing (just color that we quickly vignette past "alright you open the door...and...") to an obstacle or a threat when its decided that "what is on other side of that door is consequential" (again, see my (1) and (3) in my lead post above). Its not an arbitrary decision. Lots of things can lead to locked doors in the play space. For any given door to be locked, you're (a) following Agenda/Always Say/Principles, and either:

(b) you're making a Threat move (if its already been established/foregrounded)
(c) putting someone in a spot or offering an opportunity with or without a cost.
(d) asking questions and using the answers (ok...the blueprint says you're at Hosea's room...is Hosea the kind of guy to leave this door unlocked...if it is unlocked and slightly ajar then what the hell would your racing brain conjure up that means?)

The framing shouldn't suck. It should be more than "a locked door." You signpost what the hell is going on. The situation should be "grabby", dangerous, interesting, relevant and consequential, charged. "A locked door" isn't enough. There should be more to the GM framing or to the conversation exchange that makes this particular door (which we've established is locked) worth our collective while in spending time on (rather than brushing by until we get to a charged situation we care about).

---

I think what might be happening with you and @Reynard here is that you're imagining (i) this finite play space and/or (ii) that players actually want conflict-neutral stuff...that they don't want danger and apocalyptica...that they don't want the crosshairs on them....that they don't want to make moves and find out what happens.

If you're a player and you don't want that stuff...why are you playing Apocalypse World? Like if you want to turtle or you want conflict-neutral play that validates your preconception of your character...then why are you playing Apocalypse World?

If you're a GM and you think your players might want to turtle or might want conflict-neutral play or might want validation of preconception of character...then you need to reorient everyone at the table (including yourself).

Doors are breezed by in conversation about the imagined space unless its a conflict-charged situation where play-to-date or a participant at the table warrant planting a (Agenda/Always-Say/Principles observing) flag in this moment of play and find out what is on the other side of that door...and/or find out what this particular PC is all about (what will they risk/prioritize...will they actually go through with this).

EDIT - Just another thought to crystalize things. This isn't Map-and-Key play where we might have a locked door with nothing on the other side to entice a group of Adventurers to decide if they want to spend an Exploration Turn and a precious resource (Light Source duration or Spell duration or Spell like Knock) to resolve the obstacle (locked and possibly trapped door) to find out if there is something worthwhile on the other side.

This isn't a "logistical crawl featuring (some measure of) conflict-neutral exploratory play" and we already know there is something worthwhile on the other side because the situation framing will foreground that.

One thing I tried to make clear in starting this thread is that this sort of dissertation style response is not especially helpful for me. I want to understand the pieces and how they fit together and in so doing I can gain an emergent understanding of the bigger picture.

You and @Ovinomancer seem to be contradicting one another on the locked door question. They seem to be saying that the MC can't declare any door in the game locked unless it was given a big locked sign on it the first time it was mentioned, whereas you seem to be saying that the door can be locked as a response to a player question or action so long as it makes sense in the fiction and is consequential. Which is it?

 

[Ovinomancer]

One thing I tried to make clear in starting this thread is that this sort of dissertation style response is not especially helpful for me. I want to understand the pieces and how they fit together and in so doing I can gain an emergent understanding of the bigger picture.

You and @Ovinomancer seem to be contradicting one another on the locked door question. They seem to be saying that the MC can't declare any door in the game locked unless it was given a big locked sign on it the first time it was mentioned, whereas you seem to be saying that the door can be locked as a response to a player question or action so long as it makes sense in the fiction and is consequential. Which is it?

There's no daylight between @Manbearcat and I on this.

 

[andreszarta]

This example kinda confuses me though.

If the GM were to say "You reach the front door, which is locked," then sure, everything's established. But let's say the PC is trying to be stealthy, so there's no assumption that they're checking every door handle they come across. Or maybe the GM just didn't think to mention that it was locked, but in the fiction it makes sense that it would be. In that moment, how does it violate the game's principles if the player says "I open the door" and the GM says, "It's locked—what do you do?"

I seem to have a small difference of opinion with @Ovinomancer with regards to the door example.

I could imagine a situation where the MC has not announced that any given door is locked, and yet when someone says "I open the door" they reveal it is indeed locked. I particularly find that this is supported in the text when, for instance, the place the PC is trying to get into is a Landscape (Fortress) Threat, as one of the landscape moves is "Bar the way."

Does this contradict what I said earlier about honoring the PCs contributions to the fiction? I hope it's clear than it does not. If I reveal that the door is locked, I'm still honoring the PCs intention to walk up to the door and make the act of opening it. When they said "I open the door" they probably then turned to look at me to tell them what happens. My response honors the contextual extent of their action.

There is so much that is left unsaid when a player just declares "I open the door". They didn't say "I go try the handle". They didn't say "I try to listen behind the door and if I hear no voices, I then open the door." They just said "I open the door." That's why what @Manbearcat says about establishing the conflict around the locked door makes all the difference. We need a context to interpret what's left unsaid when a player declares an action. When it isn't clear we better ask for clarification.

If we know that what's happening here is that this is a sort of infiltration; that the characters are trying to get into somewhere they are not supposed to be in, then when a player says "I open the door" we ALL know that they are also asking the GM, without stating it, "Can I?" "Is it locked?" The players know it could be locked. The players know that an acceptable response would be for the GM to say the door is locked. That doesn't mean that they didn't walk up to the door and motion to open it, that still happened in the fiction.

I regret that my side-note about authority over the fiction has brought so much confusion to this thread @Reynard. My intention was not to over particularize about which types of things are valid to say or not...but more highlight that in Apocalypse World players and MCs have equal authority when it comes to the fiction, and the MC does not need to "ratify", as @Ovinomancer has clearly highlighted, a players contribution.

 

[Manbearcat]

One thing I tried to make clear in starting this thread is that this sort of dissertation style response is not especially helpful for me. I want to understand the pieces and how they fit together and in so doing I can gain an emergent understanding of the bigger picture.

You and @Ovinomancer seem to be contradicting one another on the locked door question. They seem to be saying that the MC can't declare any door in the game locked unless it was given a big locked sign on it the first time it was mentioned, whereas you seem to be saying that the door can be locked as a response to a player question or action so long as it makes sense in the fiction and is consequential. Which is it?

I said my piece and I meant every word of it. There is an abundance of specific and layered explanation and "what this game isn't" in there.

But if that didn't help and you learn differently. Lets try another tack. Engage in the conversation a bit more so I understand where you're not getting something.

Lets try this. Give me a short list of reasons you think Apocalypse World conversation might lead to "a locked door." What is happening in the fiction. Give me the words you would be saying at the table that might lead to this locked door and then might frame this locked door. As a template, I'm going to give you an AW situation that I might frame (building off of the above):

GM: "Muck's entire hold is empty. Garages open and barren. Tanks utterly emptied. Fresh tracks like they lit out quick and within the last day (certainly after that massive dust storm last night). No sign of a fight anywhere.

Except...the long-ruined-and-rusted hydraulic doors to the basement of their main garage is barred and chained...just a mess of metal...oh and its slagged...like someone took a blowtorch to it.

There is a terrible stench coming from it. Maybe rot? Maybe decay? Like oil drums have been spilled. Like rubber has been burned. Its so hostile to your senses that its dizzying."

Player 1: "I knew we spent too much damn time before confronting Muck. We've come for Hosea...he's gotta be down there."

Player 2: "We should have just given Muck what he wanted long ago."

Player 3 <Savvyhead>: "Alright, enough talk. I move forward, put my hands on the slagged mess of metal that prevents us from getting down there and let this stuff speak to me <triggering Things Speak - a psychic maelstrom move that lets you Read a Sitch but with psychic powers of viewing/divination>."


Alright, so is Hosea down there?

* If the Threat Clock got all wedges filled, then Hosea would in fact be dead down there amongst some kind of other horrors that engage with play/playbooks to date.

* If not, then a 6- on that Things Speak move could very well trigger the Savvyhead remote viewing the past and seeing Hosea's last moments but also some sort of new terrible news with something smashing against the basement doors...with dreadful intent on getting out and laying waste to whatever's above. Or that 6- might mean that they've lit out with Hosea in their caravan (maybe strapped to the hood of the lead vehicle as an ornament) but some other terrible thing is in that basement.

* On a 7-9 or a 10+ (and no Threat Clock "Wedging Full" prior), the Saavyhead asks questions > gets true answers/visions > the situation and Hosea's life is still in the balance somewhere down in the mess below.

---

So that is what "a locked door" situation might look like in AW.

Now list me some things that you think might constitute "a locked door" in AW and we'll examine your "toy locked door" models to see if they're AW-legit. This sort of exercise might help you more than anything else.

EDIT - Maybe frame your thoughts like this:

1) "What is the point of an obstacle to a goal in a particular system and how do we determine its legitimacy" is an interesting, foundational design and implementation question.

2) Different systems have different answers to both “the point” and “legitimacy.”

3) In Apocalypse World what defines & resolves the question of "the point" and "legitimacy."

EDIT * 2 - "When do I (GM) get to kill NPC Hosea (?)" is also an important question to someone wanting to GM and play AW. I laid out the answer in the above. I hope that is clear.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I seem to have a small difference of opinion with @Ovinomancer with regards to the door example.

I could imagine a situation where the MC has not announced that any given door is locked, and yet when someone says "I open the door" they reveal it is indeed locked. I particularly find that this is supported in the text when, for instance, the place the PC is trying to get into is a Landscape (Fortress) Threat, as one of the landscape moves is "Bar the way."

Does this contradict what I said earlier about honoring the PCs contributions to the fiction? I hope it's clear than it does not. If I reveal that the door is locked, I'm still honoring the PCs intention to walk up to the door and make the act of opening it. When they said "I open the door" they probably then turned to look at me to tell them what happens. My response honors the contextual extent of their action.

There is so much that is left unsaid when a player just declares "I open the door". They didn't say "I go try the handle". They didn't say "I try to listen behind the door and if I hear no voices, I then open the door." They just said "I open the door." That's why what @Manbearcat says about establishing the conflict around the locked door makes all the difference. We need a context to interpret what's left unsaid when a player declares an action. When it isn't clear we better ask for clarification.

If we know that what's happening here is that this is a sort of infiltration; that the characters are trying to get into somewhere they are not supposed to be in, then when a player says "I open the door" we ALL know that they are also asking the GM, without stating it, "Can I?" "Is it locked?" The players know it could be locked. The players know that an acceptable response would be for the GM to say the door is locked. That doesn't mean that they didn't walk up to the door and motion to open it, that still happened in the fiction.

I regret that my side-note about authority over the fiction has brought so much confusion to this thread @Reynard. My intention was not to over particularize about which types of things are valid to say or not...but more highlight that in Apocalypse World players and MCs have equal authority when it comes to the fiction, and the MC does not need to "ratify", as @Ovinomancer has clearly highlighted, a players contribution.

Yeah, no, I full-throatedly disagree with a lot of this. This is describing how Trad play works -- where an action declaration is an ask to the GM for more detail about the fiction because it hasn't been fully developed. In PbtA play, if the player is declaring they open the door, it's either because the GM has established this as a crux point in the fiction that speaks to play directly and so it being locked or not isn't a question for the GM to announce but one that play must resolve, or it's just color that's ancillary to furthering play and the GM shouldn't be blocking it either.

At no point is an action declaration in AW going to be asking the GM what happens. What happens is what the player says, and the GM can either go with that or it triggers a move. The resolution of the move says what the GM can establish.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, no, I full-throatedly disagree with a lot of this. This is describing how Trad play works -- where an action declaration is an ask to the GM for more detail about the fiction because it hasn't been fully developed. In PbtA play, if the player is declaring they open the door, it's either because the GM has established this as a crux point in the fiction that speaks to play directly and so it being locked or not isn't a question for the GM to announce but one that play must resolve, or it's just color that's ancillary to furthering play and the GM shouldn't be blocking it either.

At no point is an action declaration in AW going to be asking the GM what happens. What happens is what the player says, and the GM can either go with that or it triggers a move. The resolution of the move says what the GM can establish.

As I have noted before, some of your interpretation of PbtA seems to contradict what is actually written in the AW2E book. And that's fine. There is obviously a lot of room within the style. If I seem impatient it is just that your way just confuses me and takes me back to previous feelings that I just don't "get" PbtA games.

But let's leave that aside for a moment since it is more about the earlier prep conversation and less about the actual subject I wanted to talk about, which is GM moves. As I said, there seem to be a lot of them and a lot of categories of them in AW2E -- more than other games also considered more "pure" PbtA games like MotW, Masks and Thirsty Sword Lesbians (as opposed to Dungeon World, which seems to be considered an offshoot a little farther away from the core concepts).

With all these moves in AW2E, should a beginning GM focus on a few of them? I get that you are supposed to follow the principals of play to decide which ones to use in response to a 6- or threat or whatever, but are their "core" moves you want to lean on while learning the game and style?

 

[andreszarta]

Yeah, no, I full-throatedly disagree with a lot of this. This is describing how Trad play works -- where an action declaration is an ask to the GM for more detail about the fiction because it hasn't been fully developed. In PbtA play, if the player is declaring they open the door, it's either because the GM has established this as a crux point in the fiction that speaks to play directly and so it being locked or not isn't a question for the GM to announce but one that play must resolve, or it's just color that's ancillary to furthering play and the GM shouldn't be blocking it either.

At no point is an action declaration in AW going to be asking the GM what happens. What happens is what the player says, and the GM can either go with that or it triggers a move. The resolution of the move says what the GM can establish.

What do you make of this then?

In AW2 page 91, we have an example for Take away their stuff:

“You’re walking out to your car, right? One of Dremmer’s guys is naughty word standing on the roof, holding an assault rifle. Hison, maybe his name is. What do you do?”

Let's pretend that your character was just having a conversation with Dremmer, in which your character could only pay half of the barter he owns to him, but promises to pay back the rest. You manipulate Dremmer by telling him that your loyalty towards his cause is worth the patience. You roll 7-9, so he asks for evidence or assurance. You try to give him some assurance but nothing you really say convinces anyone in the meeting, specially after what you did to Marie. You eventually give up with "Well, I guess you'll have to take my word" and then declare "I leave and head back to the sanctuary."

According to your line of reasoning, anything I should do in response to your expectant eyes involves granting you the full extent of your declaration and place you safely at the sanctuary.

I counter by saying that this would be a perfect opportunity for me to instead say:

“You’re walking out to your car, right? One of Dremmer’s guys is naughty word standing on the roof, holding an assault rifle. Hison, maybe his name is. What do you do?”

It seems like you are bringing notions of "Roll dice or say yes" for AW2 given it is one of DitV's most important principles. I don't think there is textual evidence that suggests we should consider this principle as applicable to AW2 as you are making it seem.

---

With all these moves in AW2E, should a beginning GM focus on a few of them? I get that you are supposed to follow the principals of play to decide which ones to use in response to a 6- or threat or whatever, but are their "core" moves you want to lean on while learning the game and style?

Apocalypse World collapses gracefully. Here's another article you might find interesting: anyway: Concentric Game Design.