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

[pemerton]

I'm not an AW expert. But my understanding of fronts/threats (my rulebook is 1st ed) is that, at their core, they are a way of establishing things you can say as the GM, while also being a way of disclaiming decision-making.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I've definitely found that the toughest part of GMing a PBTA game is just, as the GM, being aware of all the basic move triggers - it's surprisingly demanding. I've found that the framework for rolls in Forged in the Dark is more my style personally, but still like PBTA enough.

I can definitely understand that. One of the great things about Brindlewood Bay is that there are so few moves, so all you really need to know is whether someone is doing the Meddling Move (general investigation) or something to deal with a risky situation (the Day Move or Night Move, depending on whether it's day or night). When I look at some other PbtA games, especially older ones, I get a little tense. But I imagine that gets easier with experience, since that's really the only "system mastery" element to PbtA, at least for the GM.

 

[Fenris-77]

I can definitely understand that. One of the great things about Brindlewood Bay is that there are so few moves, so all you really need to know is whether someone is doing the Meddling Move (general investigation) or something to deal with a risky situation (the Day Move or Night Move, depending on whether it's day or night). When I look at some other PbtA games, especially older ones, I get a little tense. But I imagine that gets easier with experience, since that's really the only "system mastery" element to PbtA, at least for the GM.

There are a lot of middling PbtA games that, IMO, could gracefully collapse back into two or three moves without losing anything.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Lately, I mostly run West Marches-style open-world sandbox D&D 5E games but there were a few years where I mostly ran/played various PbtA games. Dungeon World, Masks, Monster of the Week, Uncharted Worlds, Spirit of 77, etc.

Most don't require the full world-building you'd expect from a purely homebrew D&D game. They are typically very player-focused in world-building. Players are regularly encouraged to add details to the world. Most PbtA games have questions in character creation either on the sheet or in the book for the referee to ask to help fill out the character and the world. The referee is also often told that when questions about the world come up to ask the player of a character who should know...and have them decide. So very much collaborative world-building by design.

For things like NPCs, factions, etc...it's about the same as most sandbox D&D games. You're supposed to, as the referee, create factions, NPCs, etc to populate the world. But that prep is supposed to be focused on the characters. You create NPCs that your PCs will bounce off of, or gravitate to, or otherwise strongly react to. In some iterations of PbtA the referee is supposed to specifically create NPCs that will come between the PCs and cause problems. But players create a lot of NPCs as well. Their backstory and character creation picks, depending on the PbtA game, can generate any number of NPCs that might or might not show up in game. Anything from a cousin who works at the local bank on up to entire aliens worlds. Same with factions, basically. For example, in Masks one of the playbooks is the Bull (strong fighter-type superhero) and they were created...think normal person kidnapped and experimented on to gain powers. The faction the did that is out there. The player can have a lot of input in creating that faction.

Hook slinging is about the same, I think. But you're generating your hooks differently. You're mostly pulling form the characters, the collaborative world-building, and the fronts you've designed. Fronts being the events you want to feature in a game. A lot of the drama from PbtA games comes from the characters themselves and their interactions with each other. I know some PbtA games have a much looser stance on PC groups, but I haven't played many of those as it's too awkward. I prefer the specifically team-focused PbtA games. So you start the game, typically, with a relationship web of sorts between the characters. Like in Masks. You have a few backstory question to answer (just about your character), then you have relationship mad-libs. You pick some of the other PCs to have a shared history with to keep things cohesive but also filled with drama. For example, again from Masks. "X is your love" and "Y is your rival." Or "You and Z pulled an illegal stunt together" or "You're trying to impress A with your antics."

Very often the advice is "poke the PCs at the start of the game and simply react as this sets off a chain reaction." And most PbtA playbooks are built to service that style. Lots of in-built drama, hooks, NPCs, etc for the referee to use against the PCs. Not to screw them over or pull the carpet out from under their feet, rather to introduce drama.

Most PbtA games are laser focused on creating drama for the PCs to wade through. So whatever prep or hooks or world-building you do as the referee should be focused on that drama. "This time it's personal"? Nope. Every time it's personal. Basically, if it doesn't poke at least one of the PCs it doesn't belong in the game. Some PbtA games are more or less laser focused on drama. But as a generalization, I've found it's true. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you think of PbtA games like soap operas you'll be most of the way to grokking them. Not bad, hammy melodrama...but if you're going to have a traitor it should be some PC's relative or best friend...if you're going to introduce resurrection (for example) the players should find out about it by having someone their PCs love or hate coming back from the dead. All that stuff most D&D players are trying to avoid by having the tragic "everyone I've ever known is dead" backstory...yeah, that's where most PbtA games live and breathe. Prep that stuff.

The MC should not be doing anything like "hooks." If anything, it's the PCs that "hook" the MC.

 

[Reynard]

The MC should not be doing anything like "hooks." If anything, it's the PCs that "hook" the MC.

You obviously have very strong feelings about the way these sorts of games should be run, but I don't think they line up with what the books say sometimes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You obviously have very strong feelings about the way these sorts of games should be run, but I don't think they line up with what the books say sometimes.

I'm 100% confident that my statement there is 100% in alignment with how AW is supposed to run. Monster of the Week, eh, it's very much a hybrid PbtA game and I'd not have much to say about that statement there.

And, of course, you can drift your game however you like. AW will cause you heartburn if you're trying to inject Trad sensibilities into play, though, because you'll be constantly hitting moments where your prep/plan/hook is getting contradicted by check outcomes -- you'll either be softballing consequences or having to Force successes to stay in the lines. And that will lead to inconsistent resolutions.

If you scroll back up to @Manbearcat's excellent reiteration of the agenda and principles, this should be clear.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You obviously have very strong feelings about the way these sorts of games should be run, but I don't think they line up with what the books say sometimes.

Sorry for the second take:

Which would you prefer in this thread -- a strong and clear presentation of how the game is intended to run so that you have that to make choices with, or only those versions that are softer and that already include personal drifts? I'm not going to show up at your table and tell you how to play, but if you're asking here, I'll totally give it to you straight so you have the best range of awareness to make your own gaming choices.

For example -- the statements about DW and balance are extremely indicative of a GM directed game where the players are trying to solve the GM's presented problems. This is where those kinds of balance issues arise. If you're running it where the players are hooking the GM, then the play is tailored to the PCs without much additional effort and that particular concept of balance just doesn't exist. So, then, tell me -- are you interested in hearing how the game plays where it completely avoids those issues, or do you just not want to hear about that at all?

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

Which would you prefer in this thread -- a strong and clear presentation of how the game is intended to run so that you have that to make choices with, or only those versions that are softer and that already include personal drifts? I

I agree! I think it also helps to establish whether we are talking about prep for Apocalypse World only or for PbtA games in general.

The kind of prep that AW demands is somewhat different from what a game like Masks demands which is different from what a game like Avatar Legends demands.

@Reynard, why don't you go ahead and ask about the specifics that seem to be bubbling under the surface of your general question?

I'm still following this thread with interest!

 

[Reynard]

I'm 100% confident that my statement there is 100% in alignment with how AW is supposed to run.

What I mean was: my copy of AW 2E says that I am supposed to think up awesome stuff and use that "prep" to inform play. Maybe you just take issue with the term "hook" which -- fair enough, words are what they are. But there is no doubt that the AW 2E books tells me to have stuff the PCs can engage with in mind. It tells me very clearly that when there is a lull in the action to use my prep to make a move. So I don't understand where you are coming from with the idea that I am not supposed to know or do anything unless the players come up with it at the table.

 

[deleuzian_kernel]

For AW2, prep is the work you've done on your threat map. That's the "stuff" players engage with.

Here's another link that might prove useful to you: 54. Rules and Your Prep