Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9146114" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sure.But at least on these boards, most of those whom I see criticising Apocalypse World also assert that their games are not railroads!Prompted by this and some of the replies, I thought I'd just mention a few things, and leave it at that:From p 288 of the AW rulebook: The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards. From the essay <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">"Narrativism: Story Now"</a>: Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. . . . There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). . . . It all comes down to this: a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character. . . . in playing in (say) a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a crucial message from one NPC to another), the less they provide theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. . . . In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest . . . full-disclosure . . . and abandoning the metaplot "revelation" approach immediately. So Apocalypse World is intended to produce RPGing in which the players, in the play of their PCs, are obliged to make thematically-laden choices. Although there's a lot of subtlety in its design (see eg Baker's discussion of the structure of the Seduce/Manipulate player-side move on p 284 of the rulebook), the core of the system is straightforward:*The GM makes a soft move. These all take their orientation from what the players want for their PCs, because they are about badness, opportunities, being put in a spot, etc; *The players respond by declaring actions for their PCs - if no player-side move is triggered, the GM continues with another move; *Eventually, a player-side move will be triggered, and either (i) the player will get what they want for their PC (success on Seize By Force or Seduce/Manipulate; success plus the appropriate GM decision on Go Aggro), or (ii) the GM makes another soft move, or (iii) the GM makes a move that is as hard and direct as they like, such that the player irrevocably loses something they wanted for their PC.So the system pushes the players towards either violence or seduction/manipulation to get what they want for their PCs, at which point either the action continues to rise, or some sort of crisis or resolution occurs. By choosing when, against whom, and for what they force the issue, the players express their thematic choices. The game doesn't ask or require the GM to judge those choices; it just requires the GM to follow through with a move that makes sense, and to withhold irrevocability unless entitled to make as hard and direct a move as they like.No storytelling is required: the players play their PCs, the GM plays "the world". But a story that has something to say about the brutality of the post-apocalyptic world will result. ([USER=87792]@Neonchameleon[/USER] gave some nice examples upthread.)</blockquote>

Verification