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

[Reynard]

So this is why I think, generally, ways barred are very good as conflict openers:

You need to get into the lighthouse (Landscape Threat - Fortress w/ Impulse; to deny access) but the door is surely locked...or there is a sentry...but the barbed wire, high chain link fence that surrounds the property also has a haphazardly painted sign BEWARE OF MUTANT DOG...or maybe there is no MUTANT DOG, but Read a Sitch yields that there is a belltower-sniper in an overwatch position with good vantage of the courtyard. This is a combo bar the way and provide another way move.

If I understand correctly, that is all just stuff tossing around the MC's head until the PCs make a move and the wave form collapses into a specific obstacle based on the move they tried to make (and got a 7-9), correct?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Related question 9I think): So let's say during the process I as GM "announce future badness"* and the players ignore it for whatever reason. If I am reading the examples of play and rules in the book correctly, I am supposed to bring the hammer down on them for letting the badness show up, right? As opposed to dropping it because the players don't seem interested in it, as you might in a trad sandbox game. Is that close to the mark.

*related to an established threat I assume?

Oh, yep. You pay that off. The thing, though, is the immediacy of the threat. If you're talking at the Threats level, the payoff is to advance that. If it's there's a guy with a gun covering down on you, you shoot them.

The key thing is that you, as the GM, should be making sure that your threats are aimed at the characters and are not neutral to them. bOb the cultist is coming after YOU to steal your mojo for himself, not bOb the cultist is doing some weird maelstrom thingy and maybe that's something you want to check out? Bad examples, but hopefully getting the point across. Make things personal.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I disagree with your statements about appropriate framing. A storm is something that happens, we see similar scenes in movies all the time -- having to seek shelter from the elements. It drives things in the movies, quite often, putting people into places to interact where they would not normally, or stressing a schedule, or stressing items (a number of easy to reach references to a storm damaging important equipment). This should absolutely be something you reach for in Brindlewood.

But, even better, would be to look at what the active investigations are right now, what those threats are, and then bring in thematic pressures based on those. The lighthouse is what made me think of the storm -- so many imagine of lighthouses in storms are in my databanks. Brindlewood still needs pressure on the players. That's what the difference between the Day/Night moves really is -- in the Day the pressure in capped in danger. At Night, there's no cap. But both should involve pressure and danger to move the game!

I think you're right here, in general. But I should have clarified—in the play example I gave, the situation was very much a kind of narrative aside or tangent, specifically (according to the move's guidelines) unrelated to the current mystery, which hadn't even gotten underway.

My take on these answering-machine missions has been to make them narrative minefields, basically, whose potential risk or long-term relevance to the larger conspiracy/metaplot is based on rolls, and when they're happening.

So the first of them I framed as extremely dangerous, to set up the idea of the cult's lethality if the Mavens go wandering in abandoned corners of town after dark. And that was a night situation, so the gloves were off.

The second involved a local bed and breakfast, and as it unspooled I kept it much cozier (in part based on a roll result). It introduced a seemingly friendly NPC who's now in the running for being the cult's leader.

And in this third mission, because the PC didn't press the issue (so far) after a miss produced a hostile NPC, I didn't escalate. But the player will have to circle back to the lighthouse at some point to get that precious XP. Maybe that's when the storm comes rolling in, or figures on the beach seem to be following. And it could determine whether that NPC stays hostile, or becomes an ally or informant, etc.

This isn't me looking for a pat on the back, just clarifying how I've been using these missions, which is as emergent world-building and on-the-spot NPC generation. That might seem too neutral for typical PbtA play, but the idea is that any of these side quests could turn momentous or deadly. Again, they're narrative bombs, waiting to be defused. But the damage they could do is improvised and based on rolls.

 

[Manbearcat]

If I understand correctly, that is all just stuff tossing around the MC's head until the PCs make a move and the wave form collapses into a specific obstacle based on the move they tried to make (and got a 7-9), correct?

So the way the quoted text you have above might come up in play is something like this:

* Prior sessions have yielded this lighthouse as relevant. This can happen in myriad of ways in terms of fiction (but procedurally and conversation-wise its always the same - see Core Loop in my first post) but something is there that is dangerous or important to the PCs. Now its codified as a Threat (with all the relevant Threat stuff).

* Fleshing out the nature of the Landscape threat itself at the level of zoom of the quoted text would entail action declarations by PCs (to surveil to look for blueprints to soak contacts/call in favors/make threats etc) moves made by PCs just like the Info Gathering phase of FitD (which you're familiar with at this point). So moves made and their results would have triggered the details on just how impregnable this Landscape Threat is (and the above is pretty damn impregnable...its a tough ingress so there would have had to have been a 6- result in there somewhere on perception/divination/surveilance etc move). But maybe someone opened their brain to the psychic maelstrom to find another way in and they got a 7-9; an impression. They have a remote viewing episode of an allied gang in a caravan heading to the lighthouse for a cargo drop-off. Another way in...but they're going to have to act quickly and assume the associated with this new opportunity.

---

So at this point we have:

1) A Goal
2) A Threat
3) Increased resolution as the players' lens focuses on and fills out the details of the Landscape threat
4) Multiple ways of ingress and a choice to be made
5) A choice > framed scene > snowballing play
6) A Threat resolved or a Threat complicated/escalated and/or possibly a new Threat. Regardless the gamestate and the fiction has changed pretty significantly and the characters + their relationships have changed/been revealed by the time the dust has settled on this operation.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I do not wish to continue this discussion with you.

Understood! From now on, I will not address any of my comments to you with the expectation of a direct response.

You continue to be a part of this thread though, and you are still posting imprecisions about AW, so I will continue to quote you to counter them. Not to you, but for the benefit of the discussion.

---

If there's no pressure at the moment, then we're not really in the anticipated loop for play. So the GM is having to correct for this by effectively reframing in the moment to create that loop. This is, to me, an example of GM error being corrected.

You just switched to having the PCs sweated to salvage this gyrocopter, which now implies there is some pressure, and we should have some reason that starting the gyrocopter is worthy of some kind of move?

Let's look at how we get to the door, then. What situations invoke the door? We have a scene, let's say in a building, with a door, but the door is scenery at this moment -- described because it makes sense, but not part of the immediate situation. Let's add that situation -- the PC is in a gunfight with some rival gangers. For reasons, the PC wants to escape and so the player declares that the PC is gonna burst through the door to escape to the outside! Yay! The GM cannot declare that 'nope, sorry, the door is locked.' This is improper. Instead, we have an action that clearly invokes a move (Act Under Fire at a minimum), and we have to resolve that, and only if that gives the GM the space can they now block the move. The GM doesn't have the authority to just declare the door looked.

Alternatively, if, for whatever reason, we're in a conflict neutral framing and a PC goes to open the door, we need to look at this. If we're in a situation where the door leads somewhere no one knows, then this is really just an invitation to frame a new scene. Blocking this framing with a locked door is, again, not indicated because it's not following the principles of play. If we do know were the door goes, like to the outside, we're in the same boat -- blocking this action isn't indicated by the principles of play. This is because blocking the action with a locked door is really just keeping everything in this conflict neutral framing. Not what you're supposed to be doing at all.

Other alternatively, if we go back to the first example but add that the location is the fortified bunker of the rival gangers, and the door leads further in, then we've established some fictional framing about doors here that does allow the GM to pay off a hard move if the player offers a golden opportunity -- like declaring an action that interacts with the door in a way that stands athwart the established fiction that this is a fortified bunker that would have things like heavy, locked doors. The GM can pay this off.

So, either we've already established some fiction about the door, or we're engaged in resolving a move when the game calls for it. None of these things are the GM just declaring the door locked. The GM has to have some prompt or authority in the system to do so. In AW, that authority is in setting the stage -- ie, describing the scene -- and when a move triggers that gives them the authority. The mention that the GM should be making a move when the action lulls or the players luff one up is part of this -- this is a subset of the golden opportunity on the latter, and then need to reframe because things have resolves whatever current conflict was up into a new conflict for the former.

With regards to when a GM is allowed or not to make a move: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)

Vincent says (emphasis mine):

Much of the time, play goes exactly as you describe, but that's not the rule, it's just how it often goes.

When you describe "players on the move," you include these:

• I say what the NPCs do
• I describe them the environment
• I ask them provocative questions
• I describe straightforward reactions of the NPCs

And then you say...

• Last but not least, I am also watching for any impulses or triggers for me to play my move.

In fact, all of the above are impulses or triggers for you to play your move.

When a player says "I find Mice and ask her what she knows about the water cult," you can say "she's about to answer when an enormous explosion rips through the hardhold. There's smoke, screaming, fire, blood. Everyone down by the windmill - that's where the explosion is - takes 3-harm, which means that I don't know how many NPCs are killed. 15? 30? I'll have to sort it out later. Are any of you down there right now?"

Any time it's your turn to speak, choose any move you want. The rule isn't that it should be soft, the rule is that you should choose a move with an in-fiction cause to back it up ("misdirect"), and you should look at everything you own through crosshairs. This is on pages 82-84.

You know how you always say what honesty demands, what your prep demands, and what the rules demand. The rules never force you to hold back from honesty or your prep in the name of making a "soft move." Sometimes you absolutely seize control of the game when the players don't expect it, because honesty demands it or your prep demands it.

The threat moves are even more aggressive than the basic MC moves. As soon as there's a threat in play, you should be thinking about where and how they're going to push the PCs, and you should always be willing to make hard, direct moves and interrupt the players to do it.

You don't have to wait for them to miss a roll, or for them to blatantly ignore something you're setting up. Those are examples of opportunities, but you can take any opportunity you get.

In sum: there's no down-phase in the conversation where the players are in control and you're hanging back. Sometimes it happens that the players are in control and you're hanging back, but it's not a phase they can rely on. You can always, with no warning, seize control with a hard and direct move, if honesty or your prep demands it. The rules never stop you from doing that, and you don't have to wait for them to miss a roll.

It's really hard to argue against the game's designer. @Ovinomancer's argument rests on a quite imperfect understanding of what play to find out means. I wish we could talk about it, yet we continue to go in circles in spite of textual evidence.

 

[chaochou]

@pemerton, @chaochou

Can I ask a question about "when the players look to you, make a move?" In your thinking, how often should this be occuring? To me, it should almost never be occurring. If everyone's following the principles, there shouldn't be moments where the players are looking to the GM to provide something because that means it's not already there or that the players are letting off their gas. This, to me, is a safety net to keep the game moving in the right direction when something has fallen off, and not a statement about a normal moment in play that should be occurring often. It's the "oops, something's not working right, let's take an action in game to right the ship" and not a "this is where I get to play as a GM." Because, again, if we're to the point the players are looking to the GM, I feel something isn't working already.

In my experience, it's fairly regular. Not everything for a campaign can be front-loaded, at least not how I run. Games start with provocative questions which develop a situation, but that doesn't lead irrevocably through a chain of consequential player-side moves to the conclusion of a campaign.

Players sometimes want to take stock. Sometimes they also want to disclaim decision making. Sometimes they want the anticipation of what horrors you're going to throw at them. Sometimes they invite you to do your worst because it sets up the arena for a conflict they hadn't even thought about.

I had a session where a hardholder missed a roll at the beginning of the evening, and the entire place collapsed into civil warfare and at no point did the players look to me to say something.

But I've had other sessions where it's happened three or four times and I'd say a couple of times in a 3-4 hour session isn't unusual. I usually use the opportunity to announce future badness. A large dust cloud and the sound of engines as an outrider gang rolls towards the hardhold, or the perimeter wall begins to creak and buckle and subside into some foul-smelling cavern that's yawning open in the mud. New situation, no idea what's happening.

I don't view that as 'something has gone wrong'. Drama needs ebbs and flows - some things are getting resolved so there needs to be a way to introduce new things, different things, disconnected things. It's a point where that happens.

I agree entirely that it keeps the game moving, but the cycles of situation, resolution and new content introduction are - in my experience - nothing to worry about. Often one player will be highly involved in a particular conflict but another will be having a quiet moment somewhere else and looking for something new to develop. So these cycles aren't even running the same for each player - they are out of sync most of the time in my games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In my experience, it's fairly regular. Not everything for a campaign can be front-loaded, at least not how I run. Games start with provocative questions which develop a situation, but that doesn't lead irrevocably through a chain of consequential player-side moves to the conclusion of a campaign.

Players sometimes want to take stock. Sometimes they also want to disclaim decision making. Sometimes they want the anticipation of what horrors you're going to throw at them. Sometimes they invite you to do your worst because it sets up the arena for a conflict they hadn't even thought about.

I had a session where a hardholder missed a roll at the beginning of the evening, and the entire place collapsed into civil warfare and at no point did the players look to me to say something.

But I've had other sessions where it's happened three or four times and I'd say a couple of times in a 3-4 hour session isn't unusual. I usually use the opportunity to announce future badness. A large dust cloud and the sound of engines as an outrider gang rolls towards the hardhold, or the perimeter wall begins to creak and buckle and subside into some foul-smelling cavern that's yawning open in the mud. New situation, no idea what's happening.

I don't view that as 'something has gone wrong'. Drama needs ebbs and flows - some things are getting resolved so there needs to be a way to introduce new things, different things, disconnected things. It's a point where that happens.

I agree entirely that it keeps the game moving, but the cycles of situation, resolution and new content introduction are - in my experience - nothing to worry about. Often one player will be highly involved in a particular conflict but another will be having a quiet moment somewhere else and looking for something new to develop. So these cycles aren't even running the same for each player - they are out of sync most of the time in my games.

Thanks. To follow up, how many of the moves you're using to announce future badness have already been set up, as Threats or the like?

To me, this use of making the move is what I was referring to as framing -- that process by which you go from something neutral to something charges, with a new description, clear situation, and call to action. And, to me, this largely is part of negotiation, and occurs when some current conflict is resolved and we're moving to the next conflict. And the 'when the players look to you, make a move' is just clearly telling the GM to put things into a conflict and a good way to tell you're not in one. It isn't a catch all to make GM moves legitimate at any point, nor does it legitimize GM moves like bar the way because a door is interacted with. When you integrate the game holistically, then the situation I've presented, and talked to, show up as outside of the concept of the game. You don't block actions just because you've found yourself in a conflict-neutral situation and the actions declared don't call for player side moves. That just goes in a circle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

FWIW, DW was intentionally written with the whole "balance doesn't matter" ethos of OSR and old school D&D in the background.

IME, Jeremy Strandberg's Homebrew World - a cleaned-up hack of DW mostly meant for shorter campaigns - does a better job of addressing this. There are also plenty of other DW hacks or alternative playbooks out there that try to reign in the imbalance as well.

I find it odd that people go on about this. I mean, the details of playbooks in a PbtA has only a tangential effect on things. I actually cannot even fathom which playbooks anyone would think (of the core ones that were published with Dungeon World) someone thinks are 'unbalanced'. Anyone can make any common or 'special' (in the right situation) move, plus whatever is in their playbook. The common moves cover a response to ANY sort of fiction. At most playbook-specific moves allow you to address some situations in a manner that is thematic to your assumed class. Think about it, any player can mention some action they're going to take, and in ALL CASES that action requires the same dice throw with the same outcomes! Even if a move provides some specific results, the upshot of it is for your character to move on beyond this obstacle to another scene where another obstacle will take place. The fact that, say for instance, a wizard could blast 5 orcs and a fighter could kill 1 in the same move literally doesn't matter in DW! The game consists of an unending set of GM moves that put pressure on one or another PC in some way.

While I'm not one who generally supports "balance doesn't matter" arguments, in the case of PbtAs its a bit hard to see where things can really be 'unbalanced'. I mean, if one character is absolutely brimming with solutions to EVERYTHING, that might tempt the GM into creating a spotlight problem, but remember, its the GM in PbtA who controls where that light falls, to a great extent. If one of the PCs is being shoved to the side, its not a playbook issue, its a GM failing to go to that player at the table and say "OK, what does Joey the Thief do now?"

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Related question 9I think): So let's say during the process I as GM "announce future badness"* and the players ignore it for whatever reason. If I am reading the examples of play and rules in the book correctly, I am supposed to bring the hammer down on them for letting the badness show up, right? As opposed to dropping it because the players don't seem interested in it, as you might in a trad sandbox game. Is that close to the mark.

*related to an established threat I assume?

You can, but you don't have to, it really depends.

What do the rules of the game tell us?: whenever it's your turn to speak, make a move. Your moves are based on your principles. Your principles help you pursue your Agendas. Which Agenda will you pursue when making this decision?

• Will you Make Apocalypse World seem real? Then, if what honesty demands is that the badness manifests right here, right now. Make your move and misdirect.
• Will you Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring? The principles demand that you are a fan of the players characters. They've had quite poor luck lately. Maybe this time you get to be indulgent and announce future badness again, closer, but still preventable. Make your move and misdirect.
• Will you Play to find out what happens? You have one great tool for that, and it's the principle of Sometimes, disclaim decision-making. You could make it a countdown clock, telling them exactly how its going to go and how you'll tick it. Or put it in an NPC's hand and consider (based on their impulse and their own moves) does it make sense that the badness happens now or later based on what they would do? Make your move and misdirect.

Play to find out isn't just about mechanical resolution. It isn't this thing that only happens once we've set up stakes and begun making player-facing moves. Playing to find out is a discipline from the GM to leave things for play to decide. Play includes everything: GM moves, Player Moves, Threat Moves, Provocative Questions, XP, HX, Sex Moves, players leaving the game, and new players joining. It's not just "mechanical resolution", I beg you not to fall into that trap.

 

[chaochou]

Thanks. To follow up, how many of the moves you're using to announce future badness have already been set up, as Threats or the like?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I don't pre-announce future badness prior to announcing future badness. There's just a plume of ugly black smoke on the horizon in the direction of The Pipes, where one of the PCs trades for his rifle ammo, or the waterwheel that grinds the grain creaks and groan and shudders like it's seizing up, or a swarm of vermin starts to sweep into the hardhold in search of food. Sometimes they get a countdown clock too. It might be a new front or a bit of an existing front.

I'd usually start any session with at least one new idea in case there's not much energy at the table. Depending on what PCs are in play and what the hardhold looks like, what we've established as the key points of survival in the setting, allies, enemies. I don't always use them, but there's never any harm in having apocalyptica in mind.