aramis erak
Legend
THey are player written GM-approved elements on the character sheet which have multiple mechanical uses... metacurrency.... and story direction request. And occasionally, straightjacket.
How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
- Status
This is a rule in AD&D. I'm pretty sure it is not a rule in earlier versions of the game. Nor is it a rule in B/X.
Is it?
In Gygaxian D&D, the purpose of prep includes - establishing statistics for monsters and traps, in anticipation of the need for action resolution mechanics to be applied; making decisions about what sorts of action declarations can succeed or fail (eg by deciding that a door is locked, or one way - so that the declaration "We open the door" will fail); making decisions about what actions must be declared in order to encounter certain content (eg the only way into this part of the dungeon is via this secret door).
A lot of this (perhaps not all of it) would be summed up by saying that the purpose of preparation, in that form of D&D, is to establish a location for the PCs (and, thereby, their players) to explore: this is the whole "hidden board" aspect of classic D&D play.
So no, I don't think the purpose of prep in AW is the same as what it is in any system.
So here's some examples of a threat in AW (from p 139):
A front is a collection of threats: a given front may include different threats (eg a place, some people, etc) and need not include any particular sort of threat (eg a given front may not include a location as a threat at all). What unites the threats in a front (other than the home front) is that they are all part of the same overall "dark future" that threatens the PCs' position (the rulebook describes this as a "fundamental scarcity" that underlies every front: p 137). Part of the point of the 1st session is to form a picture of the PCs' position, and to start to discover what threatens it, so that then the GM is in a position to create a front.
The following is from pp 146-7:
Suppose, during the first session, it is established that the Hardholder has a rival who was banished years ago; who also happens to be the Chopper's brother. We could imagine the GM building this into a front which has, as its underlying fundamental scarcity, ambition (I take this from the list on p 137). The Agenda/Dark Future for this front is an overwhelming assault on the hardhold, razing it to the ground.
The GM prepares threats - the rival is a Warlord (Dictator - impulse: to control - see p 138). There is a location threat, namely, the warlord's base established in what was once a bunker carved into a mountain-side (Fortress - impulse: to deny access). Perhaps the warlord's gang is a Brute (Mob - impulse: to riot, burn, kill scapegoats - see p 141). Part of the countdown for the front might be the warlord rival taking control of the mob, forging them into a powerful, coordinated fighting force. Maybe (and thinking of Dune, especially the 80s film) this idea even suggests another threat a Grotesque (Mindf***** - impulse: craves mastery - see p 139), who the rival is relying on to train and transform the mob.
We can see the lists of Threats, and threat types (like Dictator as a type of Warlord, Mob as a type of Brute, etc), as analogous to the list of scenario types in ch 8 of Moldvay Basic: they categorise the sorts of antagonists one would expect to meet in Apocalypse World, and attach to them handy impulses and lists of moves, to make the GM's job easy when it is time for them to say something. As per what I quoted upthread, they also pre-commit the GM: for instance, at the start of session 2 the rival does not have an organised force, but rather has a mob who need to be trained. And the rival does have a fortress, so it's not like the PCs can just walk up to and confront the rival.
Suppose the PCs try to enter the fortress. Its impulse is to deny access, so it seems natural enough that the GM might bar the way - "You approach up the road, and can see the concrete entrance ahead of you. Then there is the sound of gunfire, and bullets hit the dirt and rocks around you - the entrance is guarded!" Maybe one of the players says "To hell with that - I charge!" That's acting under fire (literally), and so the move is rolled. Perhaps the result is that the GM offers an ugly choice by providing another way - "You're half way there, and the fire's intense - but you can see something above and to the right of the entrance, maybe like an old vent? Do you fall back, or will you go for the vent even if it means taking a bullet?" The player opts for the latter, the GM inflicts the requisite harm, and then play continues - maybe the GM offers a guide (inside the vent is a useful diagram) or maybe the GM decides to rearrange things - the floor inside the vent collapses, depositing the PC immediately behind the shooters at the entrance.
One thing to note, relevant to the thread topic, is that there is nothing here, about the process of play or the basis for GM decision-making, that is not visible to the players.
*Landscapes
A landscape threat can be natural or constructed, and whatever size you need. The burn flats, the ruins of Las Uncles, a poison’d canal, the holding’s bustling marketplace, the warrens of a grotesque’s den in its depths. Choose which kind of landscape:
MC Moves for landscapes:
A landscape threat can be natural or constructed, and whatever size you need. The burn flats, the ruins of Las Uncles, a poison’d canal, the holding’s bustling marketplace, the warrens of a grotesque’s den in its depths. Choose which kind of landscape:
• Prison (impulse: to contain, to deny egress)
• Breeding pit (impulse: to generate badness)
• Furnace (impulse: to consume things)
• Mirage (impulse: to entice and betray people)
• Maze (impulse: to trap, to frustrate passage)
• Fortress (impulse: to deny access)
• Breeding pit (impulse: to generate badness)
• Furnace (impulse: to consume things)
• Mirage (impulse: to entice and betray people)
• Maze (impulse: to trap, to frustrate passage)
• Fortress (impulse: to deny access)
MC Moves for landscapes:
• Reveal something to someone.
• Display something for all to see.
• Hide something.
• Bar the way.
• Open the way.
• Provide another way.
• Shift, move, rearrange.
• Offer a guide.
• Present a guardian.
• Disgorge something.
• Take something away: lost, used up, destroyed.
• Display something for all to see.
• Hide something.
• Bar the way.
• Open the way.
• Provide another way.
• Shift, move, rearrange.
• Offer a guide.
• Present a guardian.
• Disgorge something.
• Take something away: lost, used up, destroyed.
A front is a collection of threats: a given front may include different threats (eg a place, some people, etc) and need not include any particular sort of threat (eg a given front may not include a location as a threat at all). What unites the threats in a front (other than the home front) is that they are all part of the same overall "dark future" that threatens the PCs' position (the rulebook describes this as a "fundamental scarcity" that underlies every front: p 137). Part of the point of the 1st session is to form a picture of the PCs' position, and to start to discover what threatens it, so that then the GM is in a position to create a front.
The following is from pp 146-7:
New Fronts & The Home Front
As you play, you’ll leap forward with all kinds of named NPCs, right? Many of them won’t amount to anything, they’ll be just names, quick characterizations, simple motivations. That’s fine.
Whenever an NPC develops agency, though, list her as a threat. There are 3 possibilities.
Possibility 1: She represents an entire new fundamental scarcity-expressing threatening situation, and implies other individual threats. In this case, create a new front, listing this particular NPC as one of its threats.
Possibility 2: She fits perfectly well into a front that you’ve already created. In this case, list her as a new threat in that front.
Possibility 3: She doesn’t do either. In this case, list her as a threat on the home front - the home front is a place for otherwise homeless threats.
The home front is just a front with:
As you play, you’ll leap forward with all kinds of named NPCs, right? Many of them won’t amount to anything, they’ll be just names, quick characterizations, simple motivations. That’s fine.
Whenever an NPC develops agency, though, list her as a threat. There are 3 possibilities.
Possibility 1: She represents an entire new fundamental scarcity-expressing threatening situation, and implies other individual threats. In this case, create a new front, listing this particular NPC as one of its threats.
Possibility 2: She fits perfectly well into a front that you’ve already created. In this case, list her as a new threat in that front.
Possibility 3: She doesn’t do either. In this case, list her as a threat on the home front - the home front is a place for otherwise homeless threats.
The home front is just a front with:
• No fundamental scarcity.
• No agenda / dark future.
• No overall countdowns.
• Otherwise front-less NPCs listed as threats.
• Stakes questions as you need them.
• Custom moves that aren’t attached to any particular threat.
• No agenda / dark future.
• No overall countdowns.
• Otherwise front-less NPCs listed as threats.
• Stakes questions as you need them.
• Custom moves that aren’t attached to any particular threat.
Suppose, during the first session, it is established that the Hardholder has a rival who was banished years ago; who also happens to be the Chopper's brother. We could imagine the GM building this into a front which has, as its underlying fundamental scarcity, ambition (I take this from the list on p 137). The Agenda/Dark Future for this front is an overwhelming assault on the hardhold, razing it to the ground.
The GM prepares threats - the rival is a Warlord (Dictator - impulse: to control - see p 138). There is a location threat, namely, the warlord's base established in what was once a bunker carved into a mountain-side (Fortress - impulse: to deny access). Perhaps the warlord's gang is a Brute (Mob - impulse: to riot, burn, kill scapegoats - see p 141). Part of the countdown for the front might be the warlord rival taking control of the mob, forging them into a powerful, coordinated fighting force. Maybe (and thinking of Dune, especially the 80s film) this idea even suggests another threat a Grotesque (Mindf***** - impulse: craves mastery - see p 139), who the rival is relying on to train and transform the mob.
We can see the lists of Threats, and threat types (like Dictator as a type of Warlord, Mob as a type of Brute, etc), as analogous to the list of scenario types in ch 8 of Moldvay Basic: they categorise the sorts of antagonists one would expect to meet in Apocalypse World, and attach to them handy impulses and lists of moves, to make the GM's job easy when it is time for them to say something. As per what I quoted upthread, they also pre-commit the GM: for instance, at the start of session 2 the rival does not have an organised force, but rather has a mob who need to be trained. And the rival does have a fortress, so it's not like the PCs can just walk up to and confront the rival.
Suppose the PCs try to enter the fortress. Its impulse is to deny access, so it seems natural enough that the GM might bar the way - "You approach up the road, and can see the concrete entrance ahead of you. Then there is the sound of gunfire, and bullets hit the dirt and rocks around you - the entrance is guarded!" Maybe one of the players says "To hell with that - I charge!" That's acting under fire (literally), and so the move is rolled. Perhaps the result is that the GM offers an ugly choice by providing another way - "You're half way there, and the fire's intense - but you can see something above and to the right of the entrance, maybe like an old vent? Do you fall back, or will you go for the vent even if it means taking a bullet?" The player opts for the latter, the GM inflicts the requisite harm, and then play continues - maybe the GM offers a guide (inside the vent is a useful diagram) or maybe the GM decides to rearrange things - the floor inside the vent collapses, depositing the PC immediately behind the shooters at the entrance.
One thing to note, relevant to the thread topic, is that there is nothing here, about the process of play or the basis for GM decision-making, that is not visible to the players.
Corinnguard
Hero
I am not sure what they would do. But I think I would find the most appealing looking one, and eat it.
aramis erak
Legend
Yeah, prep varies a lot across the spectrum.
Burning Empires, unlike its parent BWR, the GM's prep basically is limited to "what actions are my Figure of Note characters going to take in the meta-conflict, and what scenes can I use to advance those." With scenes being VERY limited. And structured. Player: 1 color, 1 interstitial, and choice of 1 conflict or 1 building scene per "maneuver" (logical session); the GM budget is based upon figures of note (FoN) in his stable — and that caps at 3 — 1 conflict or 1 building scene, FoN -1 additional building scenes, and FoN scenes which may be color or interstitial. In a building scene, you get to make up to three rolls. In an interstitial, you may make a circles roll if needed to get an NPC present; GM FoNs and Player FoNs can be invited. In that context, it's hard to prep.
And in an even more extreme case, John Wick's other samurai game, Blood and Honor, GM prep basically amounts to writing up NPCs... because of the way the game plays, anything more can be short circuited by player actions. Also, it's a no hidden information game. So, if you put it on the sheet, when you introduce the character or creature, everyone knows it. (There's an expectation of acting only upon character knowledge. But you can leverage to bring to character knowledge what is on the sheets.) And anything you don't put on the sheet is subject to being overwritten before you can put it there as a surprise...
Part of that is that anyone with a stake in a given "Risk" (action needing resolution) can participate - that includes anyone with a character in scene, anyone who is targeted by the risk, or in direct fealty to the target or actor. So, often, pretty much everyone at the table.
Then, add that the only unilateral authorities the GM has are to introduce a character, and to award honor points (metacurrency). Rules issues? Table vote can override GM call. Deducting honor points? Subject to veto by the table.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I am just super sceptical that this happens non-stop in actual play. I don't see it in by BitD play, I don't see it in @hawkeyefan's actual play example of superficially connecting basic ruin exploration to character motivations, I don't even see it consistently in your play examples. Like sure, there are moments of truly challenging character's beliefs and such, but that just won't happen non-stop in every scene except in superficial way like with Mialee and gnolls or whatever it was.
And of course there would be more to the sister and the cult than just saving here like some McGuffin. For example as an obvious complication she has joined the cult and tries now to convince the character that the despite how it may seem, the cult is actually good. Now there is an obvious conflict between defeating the cult and rescuing the sister.
And this is exactly the superficial connection where the motivation is only ties to the end goal you just criticised in the previous post. And sure, by that logic you can do TNG, as every character has motivations of "boldly go" and "solve problems" and you can claim every episode relates to those somehow. But that is superficial and you could probably claim that almost all D&D play is motivated by the characters at that level too, be it via their alignment, greed or lust for adventure.
Last edited:
Thomas Shey
Legend
I essentially made this argument a few pages back.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This is a big part of why I don't care for those systems personally. They seem to me to downplay or worse cut out the main thing I enjoy about GMing: creating a world and fun stuff for the PCs to do in it. I'm fine with PCs coming up with some stuff on their own, but I don't see my job as GM being primarily a facilitator of the player's gaming needs.
Obviously a lot of folks here either do enjoy that style of GMing, or I don't understand that kind of game.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I'd be happy to change to open exploration.I've never personally been a fan of the "sandbox" term, but reluctantly use it anyway so people understand what I'm on about. "Open-ended" or "open exploration" would for me be better terms, but I don't fancy my chances of getting the whole community to switch to them - and so I don't bother trying.
Who's with me?
- Status
