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

[andreszarta]

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?

Can you give me some examples of what you mean when you say “questions of clarity”?

What are some contexts you would expect to hear those types of questions?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you please provide evidence for your statement?

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

 

[chaochou]

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.

Yes, I agree. It's clear from the text, the principles of play, the examples, the GM moves. I've been running AW since its release and your examples of play on the topic look on point to me.

There isn't anything complicated about it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@andreszarta

Does my gyrocopter example make sense to you?

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

To latch onto this, because I've had another thought about this example:

1. We're in a conflict-neutral situation. This is something that the GM has allowed to happen.
2. The players, without any pressure or obvious thing to address, declare an action. Since, again, no conflict is here, odds are good this action doesn't trigger a move.
3. Since the players are taking actions that do not trigger moves, the GM can now make a move instead.
4. The GM makes the move.
4a. The move the GM makes doesn't really go to create conflict. Like the gyrocopter example, where the neutral player action is starting the gyrocopter and the GM move is "it doesn't start and breaks." This doesn't introduce conflict, so it's another GM invitation to the players to do something that will likely go back to 2.
4b. The GM actually does make a move that introduces conflict, like maybe rival gangers showing up to fight over the gyrocopter. This, to me, is correcting the error in 1. This whole chain originated with the failure to have conflict in the scene, and so we're faffing about to find a place to correct this. To me, this reads as using a poor situation -- bordering into degenerate for AW -- to justify making a GM move that, if one squints and continues the borderline degenerate play, might be argued to defend placing more conflict-neutral content in the hopes that we'll eventually get to some conflict.

This whole things, to me, is neglecting some pretty key principles of play and the agenda of play. Thoughts?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I agree. It's clear from the text, the principles of play, the examples, the GM moves. I've been running AW since its release and your examples of play on the topic look on point to me.

There isn't anything complicated about it.

I thought that as well, but here we are.

 

[Reynard]

To latch onto this, because I've had another thought about this example:

1. We're in a conflict-neutral situation. This is something that the GM has allowed to happen.
2. The players, without any pressure or obvious thing to address, declare an action. Since, again, no conflict is here, odds are good this action doesn't trigger a move.
3. Since the players are taking actions that do not trigger moves, the GM can now make a move instead.
4. The GM makes the move.
4a. The move the GM makes doesn't really go to create conflict. Like the gyrocopter example, where the neutral player action is starting the gyrocopter and the GM move is "it doesn't start and breaks." This doesn't introduce conflict, so it's another GM invitation to the players to do something that will likely go back to 2.
4b. The GM actually does make a move that introduces conflict, like maybe rival gangers showing up to fight over the gyrocopter. This, to me, is correcting the error in 1. This whole chain originated with the failure to have conflict in the scene, and so we're faffing about to find a place to correct this. To me, this reads as using a poor situation -- bordering into degenerate for AW -- to justify making a GM move that, if one squints and continues the borderline degenerate play, might be argued to defend placing more conflict-neutral content in the hopes that we'll eventually get to some conflict.

This whole things, to me, is neglecting some pretty key principles of play and the agenda of play. Thoughts?

From the outsider perspective, isn't this just the talky conversation bits that eventually lead to a move by someone?

 

[Ovinomancer]

From the outsider perspective, isn't this just the talky conversation bits that eventually lead to a move by someone?

No, because the example has the GM making moves. That's a move. The 'talky bits' (which I like, btw) are the negotiation about what's in play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@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? I think this might be a crux point in this discussion. 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.

 

[Reynard]

No, because the example has the GM making moves. That's a move. The 'talky bits' (which I like, btw) are the negotiation about what's in play.

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?

 

[Manbearcat]

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?

So here are the conditions (in AW specifically I'm talking about) where I would say bar the way with respect to "the state of the door" is a misplay by the GM:

* The established fiction, stakes, and move results of play prior has rendered bar the way already overcome. If you're in the middle or tail-end of a scene where the followed fiction has led to a way barred and then overcome/resolved...don't bar the way again.

pg 80 AGENDA - It’s not your job to put their characters in double-binds or dead ends, or to yank the rug out from under their feet.
Pg 81 ALWAYS SAY - Same with the game’s rules: play with integrity and an open hand. The players are entitled to the full benefits of their moves, their rolls, their characters’ strengths and resources. Don’t chisel them, don’t weasel, don’t play gotcha.

* pg 80 AGENDA - Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring.

This is kindred to Torchbearer's "Fun Once" proviso when it comes to Twists. Don't make players overcome the same obstacle in a conflict-charged situation. Beyond potentially violating the rug-pull/gotcha/move-result-takesy-backsey proviso above...barring the way continuously with a door or door-adjacent obstacle is just boring. Deploy different moves if the conflict is still "alive."

---

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 they go fence, you've got a bunch of Terrain moves and that mutant dog/overwatch sniper to employ. You've still got a bunch of Landscape and general moves. Follow the fiction, your prep, and use those for subsequent obstacles until the conflict-charged situation is resolved.

Maybe the players look for another way in (there are all kinds of divination/perception/contact moves available). Resolve that and keep moving.

Alternatively, they're really good soft moves for end of the situation stuff where victory is still in the balance; eg they've just gotten a 7-9 to evade some kind of threat but now they're running down a corridor and about to get out of the garage...except the steel overhead door at the far end is slowly folding down (eg Indiana Jones) w/ a goon on a catwalk leering down at them with a big dumb smile because he's just started up the diesel generator and pressed the "close the overhead door" big button. This is present a guardian (Landscape subset of announce future badness) that could turn into bar the way.