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

[Manbearcat]

I want to redirect back to harm. My first question was: do you always roll a harm move, and if not, when do you roll a harm move? Does the MC decide? The players? Either? The book says you don't have to, but doesn't give much guidance as to when or why you should or shouldn't, so I am not asking from a rules perspective but from a play experience perspective.

With regard to the harm move: 134. Suffer Harm Move

Vincent says in the comments:


I want the decision whether to use it to rest on the MC's unconscious processes, not for it to require conscious deliberation every time.

On Harm in AW, for a long time (perhaps ever), I’ve taken to subbing Harm 1 for 1 to do one of the following:

1) Break the thing 1 for 1; Take away their stuff. Most things are 1 barter. SMGs are 2. If it makes sense or is an interesting complication to break the thing they have, I do that.

2) Using a combo of complications from the 7-9 Harm & Healing menu; Turn their move back on them:

• You lose your footing.
• You lose your grip on whatever you’re holding.
• You lose track of someone or something you’re attending to.
• You miss noticing something important

3) Make a soft move from the impact of 1-3 Harm to a structure (Cosmetic damage. Bullet holes, broken glass, scorch marks, chipped surfaces). I might knock stuff over and pin them or threaten to toppple something huge on the lot of them or spill a fuel drum and soak the area in ignition-sensitive stuff with precarious ways to ignite it about. Typically, this will result in complicating the situation such that a player will be faced with a decision to make a move (like Act Under Fire) to resolve it; Put someone in a spot.

---

Effectively, make a move as hard as you like but follow through.

Take away their stuff is a hard move. The others are less so, but might be better for the Agenda/Principles of play ina given situation.

 

[Reynard]

On Harm in AW, for a long time (perhaps ever), I’ve taken to subbing Harm 1 for 1 to do one of the following:

1) Break the thing 1 for 1; Take away their stuff. Most things are 1 barter. SMGs are 2. If it makes sense or is an interesting complication to break the thing they have, I do that.

2) Using a combo of complications from the 7-9 Harm & Healing menu; Turn their move back on them:

• You lose your footing.
• You lose your grip on whatever you’re holding.
• You lose track of someone or something you’re attending to.
• You miss noticing something important

3) Make a soft move from the impact of 1-3 Harm to a structure (Cosmetic damage. Bullet holes, broken glass, scorch marks, chipped surfaces). I might knock stuff over and pin them or threaten to toppple something huge on the lot of them or spill a fuel drum and soak the area in ignition-sensitive stuff with precarious ways to ignite it about. Typically, this will result in complicating the situation such that a player will be faced with a decision to make a move (like Act Under Fire) to resolve it; Put someone in a spot.

---

Effectively, make a move as hard as you like but follow through.

Take away their stuff is a hard move. The others are less so, but might be better for the Agenda/Principles of play ina given situation.

I am not really looking to start subbing in house rules yet. I was more asking how OFTEN people used a harm move in addition to doing the points of harm, since the rule book is pretty vague about it.

 

[andreszarta]

I’m ready to move on too!

I do have one request to make of you @Reynard, given that you are the agenda setter of the conversation and the one leading us through the different topics you want to explore to “get” Apocalypse World and PbtA.

As we move forward, please recognize that there are seemingly two branches of theory that we’ve posited about how the conversation is meant to go, whether or not scene framing is a different procedure from the resolution of the situation, the absence of need for inherent pressure in a scene, and the way moves get to be pronounced and when, and that these two branches hold evidently incompatible views with one another.

I believe I’ve made persuasive arguments backed by evidence to support that my position is more in tune with how AW was meant to be run by its designers, and so have others, and I attest to this from my own positive experience with the game as well (I’ve been playing a lot lately, in fact). But feel free to continue entertaining both in your mind if you’d like!

Like I’ve said before, I think @Ovidomancer’s opinions on framing are useful for other PbtA games that diverge from AW model of implicit conflict. Maybe we can talk about that at some point.

What I would hope though, and the real reason behind my plea, is that if we get into a new disagreement about a new topic you bring up, be alert that the root of such disagreement still might come as a continuation of the unreconciled views from before.

I’ve linked you to this before, but here’s a more illustrative diagram:

Our disagreement goes to the core of the game’s system, the conversation, so it touches everything else. If we are all comfortable with continuing to hold it in suspension, then let’s not be surprised when advice about the outer layers of the game seems to go in two different directions.

I'm very excited to continue to be a part of this conversation!

 

[Manbearcat]

I am not really looking to start subbing in house rules yet. I was more asking how OFTEN people used a harm move in addition to doing the points of harm, since the rule book is pretty vague about it.

I think you mentioned upthread that there are a lot of subtle particulars that govern Apocalypse World courtesy of V.B. You're interacting with some of that subtlety now regarding "the hardness of GM moves."

Those aren't house rules. That is employing the GM’s purview to “make a move as hard and direct as you like.”

Page 86:
“Make as hard and direct a move as you like” means just that. As hard and direct as you like. It doesn’t mean “make the worst move you can think of.” Apocalypse World is already out to get the players’ characters. So are the game’s rules. If you, the MC, are out to get them too, they’re plain effed.

On the "hierarchy of hardness" (lets call it), Inflict Harm is the big dog, the hardest and most direct of the hard & direct (outside of straight up killing/exploderating a vehicle or hold). On almost every occasion (but not all of them surely), Take Away Their Stuff looks down at every other move in terms of hard & direct. Then you basically go down from there with most every other move in terms of hard & direct.

TLDR - Downthrottling from Inflict Harm to a less hard & direct complications is essential to deft, conscientious, Agenda/Principle-observing AW GMing. Developing your cognitive space/plan on that subject is very important.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, then - let's note this. You've made nothing but appeals to your own authority.

Not a bit. I've put forth my arguments, I haven't relied upon statements that I have experience, so trust me.

All of the posts of @andreszarta include direct quotes from the rules, direct quotes from the author and clear explanation of the agenda and principles and moves being used.

And they haven't managed to argue against the points I've made, but rather made other points against things I didn't argue. And then you agreed with those other points (I do as welll) and @pemerton did. You're all agreeing with the things I'm not arguing, and then assuming that you've all addressed the thing I'm arguing.

And none of yours do. You have made a lot of assertions about the play of Apocalypse World in this thread.

• Your latest is that 'the understanding' is there there should not be "no pressure situations" in Apocalypse World. What rules references support your claim?

The principles of play. The agenda of play. That AW is not intended to be engaged in no-conflict play. We see this clearly by the fact that all the moves are conflict resolution moves, not task resolution, that the GM's moves are all clearly intended to crank up pressure, not reduce or maintain, and that the examples are all about pressure situations. The very argument about "if the players look to you, make a move" is about correcting a moment where the players aren't sure about the pressure, so add one.

• You've said: When the players look to the MC for something to happen, this is a failure of the play state. What rules references support your claim?

The principles of play. If the players don't have something to work against, and are uncertain, then the GM needs to correct this and give them some conflict to focus on or pay off the one they're ignoring. That this rule, with the list of GM moves and the principles of play, ALWAYS moves the game into more pressure. If the game were running as intended when the players are looking to the GM, why would we have this rule that explicitly tells the GM 'hey, add pressure!' It would seem we'd have other things to do to keep the game in the no pressure situation, but we do not. There's nothing for the game to do in no pressures situations. We HAVE to move the game to pressure.

• You've said The GM cannot block an action with the revelation of something new to the scene. They can only put it to a test. What rules references your claim?

No, I've said that the GM cannot block an action unless it's already established fictionally or if it's the result of a move. This includes the 7-9 results (as appropriate), the 6- (as appropriate), and any GM moves from a golden opportunity. So far, I haven't seen an argument that establishes that the GM CAN block actions based only on the GM's prep or thinking that haven't been fictionally established or the result of a move. @pemerton's gyrocopter example is rooted in no conflict, no pressure play. When we add pressure, we also add the elements necessary to support my argument -- that moves should be called for or golden opportunities served.

• You've said: At no point is an action declaration in AW going to be asking the GM what happens. What rules references support your claim?

Do you have a cite for this? Doesn't sound like what I'd say, so it seems like there's some missing context. I can see saying that you aren't declaring actions to prompt the GM to tell you more about the setting.

• The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked. What rules references support your claim?

This is after the situation is described, and in the context of declaring it so to block a declared action. Do you have support that the GM should be fiat blocking actions in AW? I mean, I can just point to "play to find out" here. Fiat blocking actions is not playing to find out.

• You've talked about 'framing' and 'scenes' with little or no indication - and certainly no response - when challenged by the fact that AW doesn't use these techniques - it uses moves. What rules references support your claim?

The techniques of describing the scene, describing the action, and describing the threat? It doesn't do this, at all, ever? So, then how do just moves work without setting the fiction up, and having that discussion, and then presenting the problem? Framing isn't a hard and fast one way only. It can be informal or formal. AW doesn't use a formal scene framing, this is true, but there's lots of informal framing, with the same elements, going on. This is a vocabulary argument, and I don't find it terribly useful but rather just a point to try an use a dictionary to win a different argument.

• You said: Also, the only things you're really worried about are things that matter to the conflict. You are not framing in conflict neutral things. Here's Vincent Baker; "You look across the room and notice that all the stuff on the wall is pinned with little tacks, the head of each one a picture of an old monument like the Lincoln Memorial." Frankly, I prefer Vincent's MCing to yours. What rules references support your claim?

Sigh. This seems a willful misinterpretation trying to find a nitpick. But it's wrong. Because the term you just complained about, framing? Yeah, that include the scenery but then also the problem. My argument isn't that you don't describe anything that isn't a problem (because that would lead to a completely nonsense result) but that you don't ONLY say conflict-neutral things. That there has to be a conflict.

These are dogmatic positions, articles of faith, with no indication that any of it is experiential, based on play or the realities of the conversation which actually makes up a game, or referenced to the rules of play or its designer. And that is in stark and clear contrast to posters you appear to be trying to disagree with. The idea that these positions are required in order to 'play to find out' is just more dogma, tilting at windmills.

Nope, and you calling them this doesn't actually make them so. Building a strawman just to knock it down and crow about it also doesn't mean I'm actually the strawman.

It certainly bears no correlation to my own play of the game, and I'd strongly advise against accepting any of these statements as having value for anyone playing the game.

Lol. I also advice that no one take some of the statements you've attributed to me above as advice. They're terrible strawmen, and not very useful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've cited the rules text pretty extensively. Including the actual play example.

Goal post move. I was never talking to your citing of game rules, but to your citing of andreszarta as authoritative.

Dude, if we're going to have something resembling a discussion here, can you keep on target?

Largely correct. As per my post upthread:

Okay, so then, when we say "when the player looks to you, make a move" all that's being said is "when the player look to you, you should say something."

This is foundational advice! I'm glad we've reached this utterly banal and trivial statement. We can now discard it as probative to any discussion because it's a complete nothing-burger.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you mentioned upthread that there are a lot of subtle particulars that govern Apocalypse World courtesy of V.B. You're interacting with some of that subtlety now regarding "the hardness of GM moves."

Those aren't house rules. That is employing the GM’s purview to “make a move as hard and direct as you like.”



On the "hierarchy of hardness" (lets call it), Inflict Harm is the big dog, the hardest and most direct of the hard & direct (outside of straight up killing/exploderating a vehicle or hold). On almost every occasion (but not all of them surely), Take Away Their Stuff looks down at every other move in terms of hard & direct. Then you basically go down from there with most every other move in terms of hard & direct.

TLDR - Downthrottling from Inflict Harm to a less hard & direct complications is essential to deft, conscientious, Agenda/Principle-observing AW GMing. Developing your cognitive space/plan on that subject is very important.

To be fair, the battle rules in AW2e often have as baseline an exchange of harm. I get what you're saying here, but from a "what it tells you to do" perspective, it's baked into the battle moves and not offered as an option to the GM. I think this is where Reynard is coming from.

@Reynard, @Manbearcat has a point outside of the battle rules, in that harm is a consequence you can apply to other moves when you're making as hard a move as you like. There, it might often be a better idea to go with something else rather than just harm. But absolutely use harm if it's the thing that makes sense.

 

[Reynard]

stupid phone

 

[Reynard]

Edit

 

[Reynard]

To be fair, the battle rules in AW2e often have as baseline an exchange of harm. I get what you're saying here, but from a "what it tells you to do" perspective, it's baked into the battle moves and not offered as an option to the GM. I think this is where Reynard is coming from.

@Reynard, @Manbearcat has a point outside of the battle rules, in that harm is a consequence you can apply to other moves when you're making as hard a move as you like. There, it might often be a better idea to go with something else rather than just harm. But absolutely use harm if it's the thing that makes sense.

Okay, that's better.
Anyway, what I was trying to say is that I am trying to do this one piece at a time so I can understand the bits. In the case of characters taking harm potentially resulting in a harm move (not Cause Harm) I wanted to know why and when to apply that harm move, since the book just sort of shrugs. I get what @Manbearcat is saying about there being potentially better things to do than Cause Harm, but that is a different discussion.