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

[pemerton]

What I'm talking about is that this does not give the GM the authority to block actions. If an action is declared that interacts with an established thing in the scene, the GM is NOT free to just alter that thing to block the action UNLESS said thing was previously established OR there has been a move made whose result authorizes the GM to do so.

I'm not sure I'm following you. To the extent that I am, I keep thinking of counter-examples.

For instance: suppose that play has established that there's an old, rusty gyrocopter in the yard. A player declares that their PC goes to start it. And let's suppose there's no particular pressure at that moment of play - it's a bit like when Marie goes looking for Isle - and so there is no Acting Under Fire. Everything else being equal, I think it's fair for the GM to declare that the starter button snaps or jams (taking away some stuff); or even that a fire starts in the engine (putting the PC in a spot).

Of course there are principles that are relevant besides responding with <naughtiness>, like being a fan of the PCs - so if they've sweated to find and salvage this gyrocopter then that would change what is and isn't equal, and so might rule out the moves I've suggested, which start to look a whole lot harder.

So given the sorts of counter-examples I'm thinking of, and that a fuller analysis of them doesn't take me to ideas like "saying 'yes'" or not blocking, but rather to what moves by the GM will fit with the principles, I remain uncertain but doubtful about what you're saying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Do you mean that once the scene is frames putting in the locked door* is whatever the barrier move is called and therefore must come at point where the MC is authorized to make such a move?

*we'll leave aside for a second that a locked door isn't particularly interesting on its own.

Yup. The GM can't just insert blocks to actions without having a legit reason to do so. This is part of "playing to find out." Don't really worry, though, the game generates these reasons with wild abandon. You will not lack for them.

 

[andreszarta]

Not saying yes, or "if you do it, you do it" is a limitation on the GM to not let things slide. If the players do something that calls for a move, the GM must enforce the move. They cannot let up and just say "yes" to an action that invokes a move.

This, however, is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that this does not give the GM the authority to block actions. If an action is declared that interacts with an established thing in the scene, the GM is NOT free to just alter that thing to block the action UNLESS said thing was previously established OR there has been a move made whose result authorizes the GM to do so.

Can you please provide evidence for your statement?

 

[pemerton]

@andreszarta

Does my gyrocopter example make sense to you?

EDIT: Just saw your reaction - thank you - so I'm guessing yes.

 

[andreszarta]

Do you mean that once the scene is frames putting in the locked door* is whatever the barrier move is called and therefore must come at point where the MC is authorized to make such a move?

*we'll leave aside for a second that a locked door isn't particularly interesting on its own.

My position remains that the GM is authorized to make any move with regards to the state to the door whenever is their turn to say something. Their turn is whenever players look at them to see what happens, roll or not.

 

[Reynard]

My position remains that the GM is authorized to make any move with regards to the state to the door whenever is their turn to say something. Their turn is whenever players look at them to see what happens, roll or not.

Sure, but if I understand it correctly answering questions of clarity aren't a place to make moves, they are a place to ask "what do you do?" Is that correct?

 

[andreszarta]

@andreszarta

Does my gyrocopter example make sense to you?

EDIT: Just saw your reaction - thank you - so I'm guessing yes.

Absolutely, you and I are seeing eye-to-eye here. The conversation IS the game’s core structure. There’s nothing beyond it.

(BTW, I’m new to Enworld but a long time lurker of these discussions, and I must say I’m big fan of yours hehe. Pemertonian Scene Framing for 4E was a huge boon to me and it completely transformed my 4e sessions from just ok to absolutely kickass awesome!)

 

[pemerton]

I want to post another thought, which might relate to @Grendel_Khan's comment about needing to change habits of thought.

In AW, Acting Under Fire is a player-side move, triggered when the PC does something either literally under fire, or when subject to some other sort of pressure (pursuit, trying to sneak past watchers, etc). On a 10+, the character does it; and of course on a 6-, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like

Whereas doing something not under fire, which doesn't trigger any other player-side move, generally invites the GM to make a soft move, just like when Marie goes looking for Isle and finds her with her companions on the car shed eating peaches.

So this means that when PC's do things under pressure they are more likely to do it - but also more likely to come a total cropper - than if not, in which case they are likely to find what that what they want is accompanied by some sort of complication or implicit threat or cost (because that's the general tenor of most, though not all, GM-side moves).

This is probably hard for those who default to a rough-and-ready simuationism in how they think about RPGing action resolution. But to me fits nicely with what @chaochou said upthread about the players being encouraged to bring their action into the zone of the player-side-moves. Or in other words, the system has its own incentives to push towards conflict/high-stakes action as defined by those moves.

 

[pemerton]

I’m new to Enworld but a long time lurker of these discussions, and I must say I’m big fan of yours hehe. Pemertonian Scene Framing for 4E was a huge boon to me and it completely transformed my 4e sessions from just ok to absolutely kickass awesome!

That's amazing to hear after all these years, and also makes me a little bit embarrassed! Thanks for the generosity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure I'm following you. To the extent that I am, I keep thinking of counter-examples.

For instance: suppose that play has established that there's an old, rusty gyrocopter in the yard. A player declares that their PC goes to start it. And let's suppose there's no particular pressure at that moment of play - it's a bit like when Marie goes looking for Isle - and so there is no Acting Under Fire. Everything else being equal, I think it's fair for the GM to declare that the starter button snaps or jams (taking away some stuff; or even that a fire starts in the engine (putting the PC in a spot).

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.

Of course there are principles that are relevant besides responding with <naughtiness>, like being a fan of the PCs - so if they've sweated to find and salvage this gyrocopter then that would change what is and isn't equal, and so might rule out the moves I've suggested, which start to look a whole lot harder.

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?

So given the sorts of counter-examples I'm thinking of, and that a fuller analysis of them doesn't take me to ideas like "saying 'yes'" or not blocking, but rather to what moves by the GM will fit with the principles, I remain uncertain but doubtful about what you're saying.

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.