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

[andreszarta]

Um, no. This is all kinds of turned around. I'm not at all clear how it's determined that your assurance isn't sufficient (this seems like the exact kind of blocking move by the GM I'm talking about) but you're explicitly talking about the fallout of a 7-9 move but putting in an action declaration between the resolution of that 7-9 (you failed to deal with the soft move, so a hard move should follow) and the situation.

My friend, that was meant to summarize a situation. Grant me that the assurance isn't enough. Let's see:

When you give Dremmer said assurance, you look at me, The MC, to see if you've convinced Dremmer: I get to make a move. My move is Put someone in a spot. I call you out on what you did to Marie (whatever that is) and tell you that I think loyalty means nothing to you and I still don't believe you. I'm still willing to wait for another kind of assurance, though. However you quickly give up and let it go: maybe what I said about Marie DOES in fact put you in your place and make you realize you kind of were disloyal back then, so you decide to just bail with "'Well, I guess you'll have to take my word'. I leave and head back to the sanctuary."

You are right in that your inability to deal with the 7-9 thens open me for a hard move. The conversation is messy though, it is not neatly sequenced sometimes, yet it's coherent and organized, and it's definitely not meant to go "Ok, I decide I don't want to give further assurance to Dremmer. Does he do anything to stop me before I leave?" F$%k no! I also don't say "Wait, before you leave this is what the result of your inability to provide assurance entails." Make your move, but misdirect.

You gave me "I head back to the sanctuary", I give you "In whose car?"

The door cannot be locked just because the GM has a note they haven't revealed. The door can only be locked if it's framed in as part of the situation and has stakes, or if it's part of another move that has a payoff consequence that the GM chooses to be the door being locked. Like an act under fire to scamper to safety through the door at the end of the room going to a 7-9 and the GM saying that you get to the door, but it's locked, and now you're in the open and the badguys are drawing down on you. Bad spot, hard to get out of, what do you do. There's no point in play of AW where the GM has the authority to just declare a thing blocks your action after you've declared it.

We agree that the door should never be "locked" because of the GM's secret plans. Where we disagree is that the door NEEDS to be pronounced explicitly locked for the GM to affirm it is, in fact, locked once a PC says "I open the door." Also very different from the GM saying it wasn't before but now it is (that would be really bad).

You say The door can only be locked if it's framed in as part of the situation and has stakes, and to this, I say YES, but not every element of the situation gets to be framed explicitly, that would be a waste of everyone's time. Moreover, Apocalypse World is built around a model of implicit conflict where, from the get-go, every situation is potentially filled with lots of uncertain interests and conflicts. This is why Vincent and Meguey did not go at length to define a "scene framing" protocol for his game. Scene framing happens organically through the snowballing of moves and the participation in the conversation.

What you seem to confuse above is the GM asking questions and using answers, which is a different thing from action declaration. When the GM is asking questions, it can absolutely be used to determine the lead in to a new situation, which is what the example you present is doing. The player isn't declaring an action to go to their car in the face of a threat or situation, it's a stakeless action -- we're out of the normal loop already.

I think this comes from an imperfect understanding of AW model of implicit conflict. Scenes are not start points and end points of the interesting conflict this game is about. Play doesn't stop and wait for us to reframe into a new situation where we can once again make moves. AW "normal loop" is its main situational loop: the conversation.

 

[andreszarta]

(I'm new at enworld, can you delete comments after sending? I, by mistake, sent this one and could not find a way to delete it. Thanks!)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe it'll help me if I get more specific about the door example, since this bit happened in the last session I ran of Brindlewood Bay. Again Brindlewood is much looser than AW with its moves and play loops, but it's still a PbtA game, so I think a lot of what's being discussed here applies:

-The PC has a move called Jim Rockford wherein at the beginning of any session (where it's appropriate) they get a message on their answering machine with a seemingly random mission. If they complete it, they get XP. There isn't really more guidance than that, except that the identity of the message-leaver should remain unknown, and the tasks should be weirder and creepier if the PC has marked off certain things.

-In this case I said the message involved retrieving a lens from an abandoned lighthouse. Waking just before dawn, the PC could see the lighthouse, but it was at the other end of town. So the player said he'd grab a bicycle laying on a lawn in this relatively affluent 1980's New Jersey suburb and bike over (I didn't call for a roll--seemed to fit with the fiction and, it wasn't risky).

-I described the abandoned lighthouse, with boarded windows and such—the lighthouses in the NJ town the session was set in are mostly house-like structures on the beach, with an extended bit up top for the lamp, as opposed to the more distinctive tower lighthouses.

-The player asked if the front door was locked. I said yes (!).

-He said he was picking the lock. I said this called for what Brindlewood Bay calls the Day Move, a general sort of move where the situation is risky or uncertain, and where the player says what they fear will happen on a miss (in this case that there'll be someone inside the abandoned lighthouse) and the GM either runs with that or provides something different. The roll was, in fact, a miss, and the PC was confronted by a suitably alarming, spooky, and unfriendly (but not immediately violent) occupant. He slammed the door after a brief interaction, and when she left, as is the style in Brindlewood, I narrated a moment of him watching her go from the top floor, muttering into his beard.


So that's the framing for one of these here locked-door questions. It wasn't necessarily the most charged situation, and it wasn't central to the current mystery in the game (this was all happening the morning before the campaign's next murder mystery unfolded), but my take on the game's answering-machine missions has been to present encounters that are require gumption or bravery or both, with most of the details determined by rolls. For example, the bearded lighthouse occupant didn't exist until the missed breaking-and-entering roll. But I did present the locked door as an open-ended obstacle. She could have climbed the outside of the house, or made her way through one of the boarded windows, or whatever else, all while possibly risking being spotted by early morning beachgoers. Mild stuff, maybe, but during a previous answering-machine mission in much more clearly dangerous circumstances she had been stabbed to death by a group of cultists (based also on a miss, but after clearly telegraphed danger, and misses on the Night Move in this game are always supposed to be worse) and the player had to spend metacurrency to get a different result.

All of which brings me back to that locked door. In this case the player actually asked "Is the door locked?" But if he had instead said "I open the door" and I had said "It's locked," I still don't get why that's a violation of PbtA principles. I mean I kind of do, in that the entire business of getting into the lighthouse could have been a roll, and the locked door a result of a complication, but that seems unnecessarily zoomed out and without context here.

Effectively here, you're still in framing the scene and having that conversation. This situation as a whole feels very conflict neutral to me, though, which is why the player was asking questions to find out where the conflict was, and you were answering them. Consider pushing harder on framing and making something be immediately needed to be dealt with -- so, boarded up lighthouse, and you can declare that the PC tries the door and finds it locked (assuming actions for PCs is fine so long as you're not leveling consequences, that's just part of framing -- the player can object (and you should honor that) if they find the action out of character). Right at this point, you can frame in a strong storm rolling in off the ocean, which is going to make this area very unpleasant quickly, potentially with dangerous winds. The PC can now risk that storm and look for another way in or try and pick the lock or do something else, but we have now "you're locked outside with a storm about to break, what do you do" as the conflict. Pushing framing into conflict is a key GM skill in PbtA.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My friend, that was meant to summarize a situation. Grant me that the assurance isn't enough. Let's see:

I can't, really, grant this. It's a pretty big deal, actually.

When you give Dremmer said assurance, you look at me, The MC, to see if you've convinced Dremmer: I get to make a move. My move is Put someone in a spot. I call you out on what you did to Marie (whatever that is) and tell you that I think loyalty means nothing to you and I still don't believe you. I'm still willing for another kind of assurance, though. However you quickly give up and let it go: maybe what I said about Marie DOES in fact put you in your place and realize you kind of were disloyal back then, so you decide to just bail with "'Well, I guess you'll have to take my word'. I leave and head back to the sanctuary."

You are right in that your inability to deal with the 7-9 thens open me for a hard move. The conversation is messy though, it is not neatly sequenced sometimes, yet it's coherent and organized, and it's definitely not meant to go "Ok, I decide I don't want to give further assurance to Dremmer. Does he do anything to stop me before I leave?" F$%k no! I also don't say "Wait, before you leave this is what the result of your inability to provide assurance entails." Make your move, but misdirect.

This "you" is an odd and confusing thing your doing. I'm not finding it helpful to following your point. Let's drop it in the future?

Yes, if the player just quits, then you need to pay off the soft move with as hard a move as you want. This is the golden opportunity. And it's not at all comparable to the example I presented with the door, which has no lurking hard move associated. Change the example materially, and you should expect the response to the example to also change.

We agree that the door should never be "locked" because of the GM's secret plans. Where we disagree is that the door NEEDS to be pronounced explicitly locked for the GM to affirm it is, in fact, locked once a PC says "I open the door." Also very different from the GM saying it wasn't before but now it is (that would be really bad).

Yeah, actually, you shouldn't be doing that. Either opening the door is a crux point, in which case the only way you should be changing the fiction for the worse is due to the result of consequence due to a check or ignoring a soft move -- which is exactly what you do above. The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked. That's not how AW plays. That the door shouldn't even be a point of discussion unless it's already framed in as part of a charged situation is further down the line, but no less important.

You say The door can only be locked if it's framed in as part of the situation and has stakes, and to this, I say YES, but not every element of the situation gets to be framed explicitly, that would be a waste of everyone's time. Moreover, Apocalypse World is built around a model of implicit conflict where, from the get-go, every situation is potentially filled with lots of uncertain interests and conflicts. This is why Vincent did not go at length to define a "scene framing" protocol for his game. Scene framing happens organically through the snowballing of moves and the participation in the conversation.

Unless the door being locked is a major part of the charged situation, you shouldn't be deciding its locked to block a PC action just because.

Look, the door example was to show how a thing that 100% perfectly normal and expected in Trad play doesn't work at all in Story Now play. In Trad play, play is largely about prompting the GM to reveal more information about the setting/situation by taking actions to discover these things. This is not at all how AW is supposed to run. You aren't trying to open the door with the expectation that this will prompt the GM to tell you more about the setting. IF you go to open the door and it's locked, that better be because of the result of a check or because the GM and you are still in the conversation setting up the scene to begin with. Otherwise, it's a trivial point and shouldn't be being used to block anything. If you, as the GM, need that door to be locked to do something, you should have framed it already. Otherwise, trust the system because it will still work out.

I think this comes from an imperfect understanding of AW model of implicit conflict. Scenes are not start points and end points of the interesting conflict this game is about. Play doesn't stop and wait for us to reframe into a new situation where we can once again make moves. AW "normal loop" is it's only loop: the conversation.

And if anyone thinks that they they do have an error in understanding. I don't find appeals to hypothetical people in error to be useful though.

 

[andreszarta]

I can't, really, grant this. It's a pretty big deal, actually.

This "you" is an odd and confusing thing your doing. I'm not finding it helpful to following your point. Let's drop it in the future?

Yes, if the player just quits, then you need to pay off the soft move with as hard a move as you want. This is the golden opportunity. And it's not at all comparable to the example I presented with the door, which has no lurking hard move associated. Change the example materially, and you should expect the response to the example to also change.

Yeah, actually, you shouldn't be doing that. Either opening the door is a crux point, in which case the only way you should be changing the fiction for the worse is due to the result of consequence due to a check or ignoring a soft move -- which is exactly what you do above. The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked. That's not how AW plays. That the door shouldn't even be a point of discussion unless it's already framed in as part of a charged situation is further down the line, but no less important.

Unless the door being locked is a major part of the charged situation, you shouldn't be deciding its locked to block a PC action just because.

Look, the door example was to show how a thing that 100% perfectly normal and expected in Trad play doesn't work at all in Story Now play. In Trad play, play is largely about prompting the GM to reveal more information about the setting/situation by taking actions to discover these things. This is not at all how AW is supposed to run. You aren't trying to open the door with the expectation that this will prompt the GM to tell you more about the setting. IF you go to open the door and it's locked, that better be because of the result of a check or because the GM and you are still in the conversation setting up the scene to begin with. Otherwise, it's a trivial point and shouldn't be being used to block anything. If you, as the GM, need that door to be locked to do something, you should have framed it already. Otherwise, trust the system because it will still work out.

And if anyone thinks that they they do have an error in understanding. I don't find appeals to hypothetical people in error to be useful though.

Like I said on #66, "I could imagine a situation..." The kind of situation is precisely the one you hold as a requirement: That the door being locked matters dramatically. There is NO argument there. In those situations where the door is incidental to the action...why should we waste our time with it? No! Let's get to what matters. (This however has NOTHING to do with the point I was trying to make then which had to do with player's legitimacy in declaring actions.)

However, you are limiting the situations where a locked door matters, only to those where said door was declared locked from the get-go; as part of some sort of "initial stakes". This is were I'm arguing you are not correct and I'm pointing at examples where the book suggest you might be wrong.

The locked door doesn't exist in a vacuum. The door belongs to someone. Someone in conflict with you with regards to what you want, which obviously is behind that door. Otherwise "the door" wouldn't be a conflict to you.

That "someone" can be a something in this case, a landscape threat of the fortress type, whose impulse is to deny access and it has the move Bar the way.

If play leads us to a situation where the player wants to infiltrate Dremmer's House, a fortress, and we describe them walking around it trying to find another door. When they say "Aha! There's a door. I open the door.", the MC is in full capacity to respond to the player's expectant eyes with "You go to push against the door, only to find that it's locked. What do you do?" Bar the way, misdirect, ask what they do.

The fortress raises the stakes. Are they willing to force themselves in instead?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Like I said on #66, "I could imagine a situation..." The kind of situation is precisely the one you hold as a requirement: That the door being locked matters dramatically. There is NO argument there. In those situations where the door is incidental to the action...why should we waste our time with it? No! Let's get to what matters. (This however has NOTHING to do with the point I was trying to make then which had to do with player's legitimacy in declaring actions.)

However, you are limiting the situations where a locked door matters, only to those were said door was declared locked from the get-go; as part of some sort of "initial stakes". This is were I'm arguing you are not correct and I'm pointing at examples where the book suggest you might be wrong.

The locked door doesn't exist in a vacuum. The door belongs to someone. Someone in conflict with you with regards to what you want, which obviously is behind that door. Otherwise "the door" wouldn't be a conflict to you.

That "someone" can be a something in this case, a landscape threat of the fortress type, whose impulse is to deny access and it has the move Bar the way.

If play leads us to a situation where the player wants to infiltrate Dremmer's House, a fortress, and we describe them walking around it trying to find another door. When they say "Aha! There's a door. I open the door.", the MC is in full capacity to respond to the player's expectant eyes with "You go to push against the door, only to find that it's locked. What do you do?" Bar the way, misdirect, ask what they do.

The fortress raises the stakes. Are they willing to force themselves in instead?

I have no idea why you're claiming I've made arguments I haven't. I have not said the door can only be locked as part of framing. I've explicitly, in the post you just quoted, said that you can absolutely do this as part of a soft or hard move. What I have said is that you can't just say the door is locked because you, as GM, think it should be locked, either in that moment or in prep. You have to either frame it in that way or discover it's locked at the same time as everyone else.

Please, if you wish to continue, address what I am saying and not half of it or bits you've imagined. That will greatly aid things.

 

[andreszarta]

Sure thing! You said it in #77.

The door can only be locked if it's framed in as part of the situation and has stakes, or if it's part of another move that has a payoff consequence that the GM chooses to be the door being locked.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure thing! You said it in #77.

That clearly says as part of framing OR as the result of a move. Which...yeah? Weird flex to prove me right.

 

[andreszarta]

There have been followups to that post, yeah? Ones in which we've both agreed that the second kind of response is valid as the result of a miss on basic move. That has been obvious and self-evident from the get go to both and I've gone to lengths to say I agree with you.

However, I'm still contesting your argument that the only other way is for you to "frame it". That is simply not true to the rules of Apocalypse World. The situation evolves during play, and that involves introducing new complications.

That clearly says as part of framing OR as the result of a move. Which...yeah? Weird flex to prove me right.

Don't be petty dude. I'm not trying to get you into submitting you into my argument. We're both arguing our position here, me in hopes we can find agreements. You've been the one trying to make this a contest all along.

I have no idea why you're claiming I've made arguments I haven't.

Let me push back on you, point me to where I am "claiming you've made arguments you haven't."

 

[Reynard]

That clearly says as part of framing OR as the result of a move. Which...yeah? Weird flex to prove me right.

As a novice (and the OP who wants to make sure this thread continues to be beneficial to me) can you explain "framing" here. it seems to both be doing a lot of work, and a point of contention. It seems to me (and I could be wrong, which is why I am asking for clarification) that your use of "framing" implies that it is explicit as soon as the door is in the perceptual sphere of the PCs. Or do you mean that as part of the framing the GM decides the that the door is locked because it follows the fiction? And if the latter, why is that better than it being part of the prep (assuming that prep is barfed forth apocalyptica or something about a threat)?