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

[Manbearcat]

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.

For sure, but I’m not taking about the player side moves of Do Battle and their personal decision-points within each of those moves. I’m talking about when the GM has a decision point to Inflict Harm. The “make as hard and as direct a move as you like” as a proviso that is always on so, if you don’t feel like the Harm serves play (interesting lives and barfed apocalyptica which brings Threats to life and puts characters in crosshairs while still “following through”) best in that moment, throttle it back to an alternative.

Obviously you need to do so with care. It needs to serve apocalyptica, make things not boring, be provocative/interesting and being the situation/fiction/Threat archetype “to life.” And you need to sufficiently follow through on a move made.

But if you’re Inflicting Harm most every time a situation could conceivably be Harm…well, that is almost surely a dynamic deadening of play. The reason Vincent put that proviso in there is to ensure that play features an abundance of apocalyptica dynamism and being a fan of the characters-dom; interesting lives instead of “always worse” or “dead and quick like”(rather than a high frequency of bang bang your dead…which the game can easily degenerate into…I saw a lot of complaints about this early in release because GMs didn’t know how to best handle this issue…same thing with TB where GMs are crappily just overburdening play with Conditions upon failed Tests).

Finally…oftentimes doing stuff other than Inflict Harm actually makes life more difficult for PCs. A bullet between the eyes or through the heart is an easy and boring way out when life under the specter of debt (real or metaphorical) or increased hardship is much worse.

Knowing when making their life harder and more interesting by doing something other than Inflicting Harm (again relationships and barter and having your stuff available is a big pressure point in play) is an important GMing skill (which is embodied in that proviso cited above).

EDIT - @Reynard , if you're looking for "Harm equivalents", there are entries in there that basically give you exchange rates for all kinds of stuff like falls or environmental Harm equivalent, damage to structures and "blow through" and stuff. And then there are other varieties of Harm; psychic, stun, vehicle, building, deprivation. You're going to need to familiarize yourself with that or ask specific questions about any of those concepts/applications for specific answers.

 

[chaochou]

The principles of play. The agenda of play.

You're simply using this as a cop-out to repeat your own dogma, including inventing new dogma like 'no conflict play'. Can you point me to a reference to how much conflict one needs in a game of AW in order to pass your purity test? How much per minute? Per hour? I shouldn't ask really since this simply invites a new layer of unreferenced, unsubstantiated dogma to pile up.

You claim a 'blocking action isn't playing to find out' piling yet more of your own dogma to justify your own dogma. You double down on this saying you can't block an action unless its already established fictionally or the result of a move.

Just for illustrative purposes:

Player: I slip quietly out the back.
MC: You see Grip too late, his gun in your face before you even realise. He throws you back inside, landing awkwardly as the door slams closed again. Everyone looks round at you. What do you do?

See that? Action blocked by something which wasn't already established fictionally.

I can do this with all of your claims. I just can't be bothered. Because the onus is on you to cross reference your claims to specific agenda and specific principles, referenced to examples and actual play.

I've quoted you word for word (cut and pasted) from posts in this thread and so far you've supported none of it except by repetition or the assertion that it must be so because you don't see an alternative.

But your claims, vague as they are, aren't supported by either the rules or actual play. Mine are. @andreszarta posts are. And @pemerton posts are, even while he admits he hasn't played, he clearly references the book to support his understanding. @Manbearcat does.

So I'm not interested in any further gainsaying which doesn't come with page numbers and quotes. Again:

• Your say there there should not be "no pressure situations" in Apocalypse World. What exact and specific rules and examples support the claim that this must always be the case?
• You've said: When the players look to the MC for something to happen, this is a failure of the play state. What exact and specific rules and examples support your claim that this must always be the case?
• 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 exact and specific rules and examples support your claim that this is always the case?
• You've said: At no point is an action declaration in AW going to be asking the GM what happens. What exact and specific rules and examples support your claim that this is always the case?
• The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked. What exact and specific rules and examples support your claim that this is always the case?
• 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 exact and specific rules and examples support your claim that moves are exactly analagous with scene-framing?
• 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 exact and specific rules and examples support your claim that this is always the case?

 

[Umbran]

I'm glad we've reached this utterly banal and trivial statement.

Mod note:
You've drifted in to disrespect as a rhetorical bludgeon.

Next time you hit this point, please disengage before you become disrespectful.

 

[Reynard]

EDIT - @Reynard , if you're looking for "Harm equivalents", there are entries in there that basically give you exchange rates for all kinds of stuff like falls or environmental Harm equivalent, damage to structures and "blow through" and stuff. And then there are other varieties of Harm; psychic, stun, vehicle, building, deprivation. You're going to need to familiarize yourself with that or ask specific questions about any of those concepts/applications for specific answers.

Just for clarification, I am not. In AW2E, it says that when a character takes harm, the MC may call for a harm move in which the player rolls and adds the harm taken, and there are different effects based on the result. It also says that you don't have to do this every tiem harm is taken, but does not really go into why you might decide to do this, or not. So I was asking folks why they would or would make the harm move. This is a different issue than the question of whether to Cause Harm in the first place. @andreszarta linked a discussion with VB on why and when which was very helpful, but I was curious to get a couple different perspectives.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just for clarification, I am not. In AW2E, it says that when a character takes harm, the MC may call for a harm move in which the player rolls and adds the harm taken, and there are different effects based on the result. It also says that you don't have to do this every tiem harm is taken, but does not really go into why you might decide to do this, or not. So I was asking folks why they would or would make the harm move. This is a different issue than the question of whether to Cause Harm in the first place. @andreszarta linked a discussion with VB on why and when which was very helpful, but I was curious to get a couple different perspectives.

Its actually not a different issue/question. Its the same thing.

* If you're Inflicting Harm its because (a) someone has ignored a soft move you've made that points to Inflict Harm as a potential follow through or (b) a move outright tells you Inflict Harm or (c) someone had made a move with a result of 6- and the fiction/Threat dynamics puts Inflict Harm as one of the options on the menu for the move you have to make.

* So now your brain kicks into gear: "What is the best move here...I can Inflict harm sure...but is another move better?"

* What constitutes "better?" The convergence of (i) am I following the rules and playing to find out + (ii) is this alternative move a legit follow-through + (iii) does it barf forth apocalyptica as good or better than Inflict Harm + (iv) does it bring the Threat to life + (v) does it enable me to make the characters lives the most "not boring" + (vi) does it enable me to be a fan of the characters (bring out their interesting stuff in play and complicate their lives in compelling/provocative ways)?

 

[Manbearcat]

On "charged with conflict" in AW...here is the thing.

No, this isn't Dogs in the Vineyard where "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" and "escalate/escalate/escalate" (even then we Reflect between Towns) or Blades in the Dark (even then we End of Session and Downtime and Info Gather) with "Cut to the Action" or 4e D&D with "skip the gate guards and get to the fun..." (even then we have transition scene vignettes).

AW absolutely has moments of digression where you're meandering through the annals of your mind about scenery. You're working through framing a scene. You're asking questions about stuff and getting feedback. You're soliciting people to jump in or they're just jumping in and charging the situation themselves with a move made.

You're taking breaks and reflecting.

You're thinking about ephemera and talking about or doing it (like making maps).

You're eliding some stuff or zooming way the hell out and resolving conflict at a really abstract, low resolution ((like Working Gigs or some custom moves for Journeys and the like).

Yes, this happens in AW.

But the overwhelming bulk of play is what Vincent outlines on page 97:

"Say it with me: there are no status quos in Apocalypse World.

What it means instead: it’s your job to create a fractured, tilting landscape of inequalities, incompatible interests, PC-NPC-PC triangles, untenable arrangements. A dynamic opening situation, not a status quo you’re going to have to put your shoulder against and somehow shift, like pushing a futon up a ladder. No: an unstable mass, already charged with potential energy and ready to split and slide, not a mass at rest."

That is all about "chargedness."

If a situation isn't charged and you're not zoomed out (like Working Gigs or digressing or reflecting), you're working to get to "charged" nearly all of the time. If you've barred the way...its either already charged or its about to be right quick (by one of the participants at the table...not necessarily the MC...players should be taking the initiative to charge situations with aggression and thematic, playbook-driven boldness). Otherwise, that wall or that rebuffing NPC or that whatever is just color (like the rat furs she's pinned to her wall on p 93)...its not an actual move made. Your MC moves foreground conflict, they provoke, they portend threat/danger/loss of control/someone who wants something that you don't want to give up/something you want from someone (or thing) that they don't want to give up.

 

[andreszarta]

That is all about "chargedness."

If a situation isn't charged and you're not zoomed out (like Working Gigs or digressing or reflecting), you're working to get to "charged" nearly all of the time. If you've barred the way...its either already charged or its about to be right quick (by one of the participants at the table...not necessarily the MC...players should be taking the initiative to charge situations with aggression and thematic, playbook-driven boldness). Otherwise, that wall or that rebuffing NPC or that whatever is just color (like the rat furs she's pinned to her wall on p 93)...its not an actual move made. Your MC moves foreground conflict, they provoke, they portend threat/danger/loss of control/someone who wants something that you don't want to give up/something you want from someone (or thing) that they don't want to give up.

You've said it perfectly.

 

[Reynard]

Its actually not a different issue/question. Its the same thing.

* If you're Inflicting Harm its because (a) someone has ignored a soft move you've made that points to Inflict Harm as a potential follow through or (b) a move outright tells you Inflict Harm or (c) someone had made a move with a result of 6- and the fiction/Threat dynamics puts Inflict Harm as one of the options on the menu for the move you have to make.

* So now your brain kicks into gear: "What is the best move here...I can Inflict harm sure...but is another move better?"

* What constitutes "better?" The convergence of (i) am I following the rules and playing to find out + (ii) is this alternative move a legit follow-through + (iii) does it barf forth apocalyptica as good or better than Inflict Harm + (iv) does it bring the Threat to life + (v) does it enable me to make the characters lives the most "not boring" + (vi) does it enable me to be a fan of the characters (bring out their interesting stuff in play and complicate their lives in compelling/provocative ways)?

I will try one more time to explain myself. I am talking about "suffer harm" not the move "Inflict harm (as established)".

This is the passage I am referring to, from page 206 of AW2E under the heading "The Harm Moves":
----------
When you suffer harm, roll+harm suffered (after armor, if you’re wearing any). On a 10+, the MC can choose 1:
• You’re out of action: unconscious, trapped, incoherent or panicked.
• It’s worse than it seemed. Take an additional 1-harm.
• Choose 2 from the 7–9 list below.
On a 7–9, the MC can choose 1:
• 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.
On a miss, the MC can nevertheless choose something from the 7–9 list above. If she does, though, it’s instead of some of the harm you’re
suffering, so you take -1 harm.
The suffering harm move adds a wrinkle, a little unpredictability, to the baseline of harm above.
----------
It appears this is optional by the text, so I was asking for insight on when to use it versus not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

On "charged with conflict" in AW...here is the thing.

No, this isn't Dogs in the Vineyard where "at every moment, drive play toward conflict" and "escalate/escalate/escalate" (even then we Reflect between Towns) or Blades in the Dark (even then we End of Session and Downtime and Info Gather) with "Cut to the Action" or 4e D&D with "skip the gate guards and get to the fun..." (even then we have transition scene vignettes).

AW absolutely has moments of digression where you're meandering through the annals of your mind about scenery. You're working through framing a scene. You're asking questions about stuff and getting feedback. You're soliciting people to jump in or they're just jumping in and charging the situation themselves with a move made.

You're taking breaks and reflecting.

You're thinking about ephemera and talking about or doing it (like making maps).

You're eliding some stuff or zooming way the hell out and resolving conflict at a really abstract, low resolution ((like Working Gigs or some custom moves for Journeys and the like).

Yes, this happens in AW.

But the overwhelming bulk of play is what Vincent outlines on page 97:

"Say it with me: there are no status quos in Apocalypse World.

What it means instead: it’s your job to create a fractured, tilting landscape of inequalities, incompatible interests, PC-NPC-PC triangles, untenable arrangements. A dynamic opening situation, not a status quo you’re going to have to put your shoulder against and somehow shift, like pushing a futon up a ladder. No: an unstable mass, already charged with potential energy and ready to split and slide, not a mass at rest."

That is all about "chargedness."

If a situation isn't charged and you're not zoomed out (like Working Gigs or digressing or reflecting), you're working to get to "charged" nearly all of the time. If you've barred the way...its either already charged or its about to be right quick (by one of the participants at the table...not necessarily the MC...players should be taking the initiative to charge situations with aggression and thematic, playbook-driven boldness). Otherwise, that wall or that rebuffing NPC or that whatever is just color (like the rat furs she's pinned to her wall on p 93)...its not an actual move made. Your MC moves foreground conflict, they provoke, they portend threat/danger/loss of control/someone who wants something that you don't want to give up/something you want from someone (or thing) that they don't want to give up.

Yeah. If we're at a point that the MC is making moves against the players, then it's either to frame in new conflict because we're already in a conflict and it makes sense to do so (golden opportunities and the like). If we're doing free play, outside of pressure, and no one wants to include pressure, we're good. This is, however, outside the procedures of play given in AW. It's just something you're doing. I'd still say that blocking based on GM fiat even here is poor implementation of the agenda/principles of play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup, that is pretty much it. Here is the Core Loop for Stonetop. It’s pretty much the exact same thing as AW:

The Core Loop

1) Establish the situation

• Frame the action
• Describe the environment
• Give details & specifics
• Ask questions, ask for input
• Portray NPCs and monsters Answer questions, clarify

2) Make a soft GM move: provoke action and/or increase tension.

3) Ask, “What do you do?”

4) Resolve their actions

• If they trigger a player move, do what the move says.
• If they roll a 6-, make a hard GM move (establish badness).
• If they ignore trouble, make a hard GM move (establish badness). Otherwise, say what happens.

5) Repeat

• Is the situation clear and grabby? Can the PC(s) act? Back to step 3.
• Is the situation clear, but escalating before the PCs act? Back to step 2.
• Is the situation clear, but needs a nudge? Back to step 2.
• Is the situation unlcear? Does it need clarification, recapping, or updating? Back to step 1.
• Is the current scene or situation over? Wrap up, look for the next one. Back to step 1.

So there aren’t triggered "GM moves" but there are triggered World and Threat Moves. Again, the custom move structure of AW couldn't be more straight-forward. These moves should be in service to your Agenda/Always Say/Principles (1 of my initial post) and/or the dramatic needs/premise of the game (3 of my initial post; xp triggers and advancement). Pulling directly from AW, look at what Vincent has to say and look at one of his beautiful examples:


So that is the Custom Move structure. Its straight-forward. Don't get carried away though because custom moves are a very small part of play (focus on the core stuff for now). I'd heavily advise you to look at page 270 and onward (281 elaborates on move archetecture). It tells you what makes the move structure work and when they might be legal but might suck. Acquaint yourself well with that.

But look again at the core loop above. Overwhelmingly, GM moves are found on page 88 (general moves) and pages 108-113 for specific threat Impulses and moves). These are stuff that happens in the imagined space that provoke players to action or render consequences of player inaction or 6- move results. Look again above at The Core Loop. These are your primary responsibility to play:

• (2) - provoke the PCs after scene framing
• The 2nd and 3rd asterisks of 4; players ignore trouble (?) > move...6- (?) > move

---

Finally, its not just your responsibility to watch for Move Triggers. Everybody at the table should be locked in and being aware of Move Triggers. You've got a lot to manage, and your brain is working along multiple axes at once. AW is NOT A WRITERS'S ROOM, but every participant should be interested in the other character's scenes/moves and should be paying attention to help confirm if a move is made so we can resolve it (which typically involves going to the dice but may be a procedure sans dice).

The GM tells Marie's player where she finds Isle and her companions (ie on the roof, eating peaches). That's a move.

Presenting information is making a move. That's what the GM does.

Well.... I quoted @Manbearcat from early in the thread. It seems that there are 'non-move things' which GMs do in AW (PbtAs generally) which don't really have the theoretical status of moves... OTOH, @andreszarta fairly convincingly argues that there is no 'scene framing' as such in AW (and this may differ from other later PbtA games, which sometimes specifically use this kind of terminology and process description).

So, its a bit ambiguous. Is it a 'move' every time the GM in AW describes some new fiction? I'm not sure it is all that productive a discussion overall, and not really answerable. I think its better to consider that when Vince wrote AW (and certainly the authors of DW state this) the idea of 'GM moves' was described as "doing what GM's normally do." It isn't really correct for us to think of these things in terms of it being a move or not a move, etc. GMs do what GMs do, and PbtA can describe these things as moves, but the more important concept is that the GM is following the agenda, principles of play, and techniques and process in order to actually play (or not) the game as it was envisaged, or maybe in a different way.