The game tells you what to do as the MC (from “Moves and Dice” on p. 12 of AW 1e and p. 9 of AW 2e):Move design from my perspective contradicts that, however. And I could wrong but I can't help but think Baker at some point stated that you could just call out Moves; I've seen enough random quotes pulled out of the aether from him (I read lots of PBTA debates, and people always have quotes of his they can pull from the most obscure places) that I can't help but think that was one of them.
First is when a player says only that her character makes a move, without having her character actually take any such action. For instance: “I go aggro on him.” Your answer then should be “cool, what do you do?” “I seize the radio by force.” “Cool, what do you do?” “I try to fast talk him.” “Cool, what do you do?”
Unlike games that use what you’ve called the apprenticeship model, Apocalypse World provides explicit social interaction mechanics (as in “The Basics” starting on p. 11 in AW 1e and p. 9 in AW 2e). Those are quite different from improvisational theater, so I would not refer to what AW is doing as “improv”. (As noted in post #32 of one of the other threads, I dislike the appropriation of “improv” in RPG discourse. That’s especially true of games like AW where their social interaction mechanics are provided in their texts. Feel free to take this as a mild rant.)But even if he hasnt, Go Aggro, and other Moves, in assuming certain Triggers can absolutely be used in a way that equates to the player making the Triggers happen. Rather than focus on trying to improv your way into the trigger, just cede the lead up and focus on the outcome you wanted. Go Aggro has specific possible outcomes, and say you want one of them. Go Aggro, roll for it, and move on.
I don’t accept that a “meta discussion” is happening. What I see is an MC trying to clarify intent to avoid an unwanted outcome. It’s fine not to like conflict resolution, but I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate the approach a game uses free of its own context. Within the context of AW, the process seems pretty standard as far as GMing practices go. There are differences for sure, but I would not include asking for clarification as one of them.Simple and easy, and no need to get wrapped up in a meta discussion. It still, as said, runs into issues integrating with the improv game. Because the triggers could happen in other contexts, Moves could be triggered unintentionally, and because the Outcomes are assumed, not all Moves are going to track with every desired outcome.
A way to look at it is moves take the action declarations from other games and turn them into reactions.Which, of course, is intentional as far as the outcomes go. They're supposed to ensure that certain narrative beats happen, as thats what makes the overall game evocative of whatever Genre its emulating.
I know you aren't sold on the idea of this being genre emulation, and Id say to that concern that it kind of is an implicit thing, as the emulation is rooted in the Outcomes and not just the theme of the Move, which I'd argue is due to a desire to make the game appear closer to what RPG fans were used to. Go Aggro for example feels and is themed closer to a task, but its outcomes are narrative beats.
I don’t agree that the Go Aggro on Someone move is specific to post-apocalyptic media. For example, we could be playing in a pre-apocalyptic fantasy setting (like the Realms). The party has taken a bandit prisoner and wants to find out more about the location of their camp (because the bandits are threatening a village we are charged with protecting). The prisoner isn’t cooperating, and I’m tired of this crap, so I kick him to the ground, put my boot on his neck, and draw my weapon with intent to kill. That’s totally going aggro.Thats why it prescribes how the character(s) act in response to the roll, and not the specific effects of whatever the actual task is. Ie, Go Aggro doesn't resolve if you could fire a gun into someones temple accurately, or if your fists were doing enough damage, or what have you, it resolves a given scene and how the characters respond to it, in correlation to how similar scenes in the Genre are typically resolved.
Every outcome of Go Aggro has examples found in every piece of post-apocalyptic media ever made, and by design it doesn't allow you to generate a new outcome. You either follow the prescribed narrative beats or you use something else. (Or violate the rules)
Edit: To put it another way, the moves are obviously given thematic names and flavor in AW. That seems like an aesthetic concern rather than a mechanical one. The mechanics of the moves themselves, especially most of the basic ones, aren’t particularly tied to the post-apocalyptic milieu used by Apocalypse World. I do think you can design ones that are (e.g., Monsterhearts, arguably), but I don’t think that’s an intrinsic property of moves.
Last edited: