Thomas Shey
Legend
Sometimes you get a certain "vigor of the converted" vibe when a system/style bursts on the scene and expands rapidly, but that drops back to the normal ambient after that.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Sometimes you get a certain "vigor of the converted" vibe when a system/style bursts on the scene and expands rapidly, but that drops back to the normal ambient after that.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
You know what? Nobody can refute you, but I've run PbtA games for a LOT of people, and ALMOST all of them have played D&D and other trad games, often 1000's of hours of such games. The couple of people who seemed to not be getting it, didn't WANT TO. EVEN THOSE people clearly understood what was in play. I warrant that 95% of this is simple unwillingness to try. People who are so stubborn that they're simply not going to make a go of anything that doesn't meet their preconceived ideas. They CAN play, but they won't. That's fine, but lets stop calling it 'difficulty' and call it what it is, a preference pure and simple.
I mean, these are all just slogans, right. "Say 'yes' or roll the dice" won't get you to BW or DitV resolution without a bit of further context (especially: when should the GM say "yes", and when should they call for a roll of the dice?).
I'm now in a position to quote from the AW rulebook (original version). From pp 12, 109:
The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice. . . .
“Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice. . . .
Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.
“Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice. . . .
Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.
Pages 110-16 then set out the Principles, and p 116 concludes this by addressing the GM, "Whenever someone turns and looks to you to say something, always say what the principles demand."
Page 116 then goes on to list "your [ie the GM's] moves", and says "Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things and say it."
And page 117 sets out "guidelines for choosing your moves", which build on what has already been said in the principles:
Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.
Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.
However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.
But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.
Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.
However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.
But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.
The most important consequence of this is an emergent one, that I mentioned upthread, and that is not spelled out by Vincent Baker: any action declaration by a player for their PC that doesn't trigger a player-side move will simply trigger a GM move in response; and the nature of GM moves, deployed in accordance with the principles and guidelines, is to escalate the pressure and the stakes until either a player provides a golden opportunity and/or a player-side move is triggered.
So consider the following sequence of play (which I am making up for illustrative purposes):
*Everyone looks to the GM to say something, and so the GM tells Domino's player "Birdie [a NPC] comes by, looking to see what you might have to offer him." This is the GM move of "providing an opportunity". If Birdie is known to be trouble, it might also be "announcing future badness".
*Domino's player says "Birdie, I've got nothing for you but good wishes. Do you want to come with me to check out what Dremmer's up to on the salt flats?"
*This is not a player-side move - it's a simple request, and as per pp 197-98 of the rulebook, "Asking someone straight to do something isn’t trying to seduce or manipulate them. . . . Absent leverage, they’re just talking, and you should have your NPCs agree or accede, decline or refuse, according to their own self-interests." So the GM has Birdie decline the invitation, and start berating Domino, "You've never got anything good for me!" (This is the GM move of "putting someone - Domino - in a spot".)
*Domino's player doesn't threaten Birdie with violence, nor try to apply any leverage, and thereby hands the GM an opportunity on a platter - the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like that follows from the fiction. The GM says to Domino's player "Birdie's pretty pissed off - are you just going to let him leave?" - this is the GM move of "telling them the possible consequences and asking"; and Domino's player nods and so the GM describes Birdie walking off, still muttering to himself and looking to tell anyone who asks what an ****hole Domino is. This is the GM move of "separating them" (in this case, Domino and Birdie), and also "announcing future badness" (Birdie's badmouthing of Domino).
*Domino's player says "Great, that went well. I get on my bike and ride out towards the salt flats, but not all the way yet. I want to get a view from the Harvest Ridge." And then Domino's player looks at the GM.
*That action declaration doesn't trigger any player-side move, and so the GM makes a move, but a soft one - "You head up towards the ridge. But you hear a funny noise from the engine - something's not working right, and it's pretty loud too. What do you do?" This is the GM "activating their stuff’s downside."
*The player says "Fine, I turn back. I don't want any of Dremmer's scouts to catch me". Now the player is making a move (as per p 190) - "When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll+cool. . . . You can read 'under fire' to mean any kind of serious pressure at all." The pressure here is that Domino is out half-way to the Salt Flats, with a dodgy engine.
*Suppose the player rolls 2d6, adds their cool, and gets an 8: "you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice." Page 191 offers the following elaboration: "It should be easy to find something; if there weren’t things to go wrong, nobody’d be rolling dice. It can include suffering harm or making another move. However, remember that a 7–9 is a hit, not a miss; whatever you offer should be fundamentally a success, not fundamentally a failure." The GM says, "You get back, but the engine's shot to <bleep>. It's not going to start again without repairs". This "worse outcome" is also the GM move of "Taking away their stuff". Of course, when Domino starts asking around to see who can do the repairs, the GM is ready for Birdie's bad-mouthing to come home to roost.
*Suppose the player, rather than having Domino turn back, says "Of course, I bet that ____er Birdie put sand in the tank or something. I keep going to the top of the ridge - I can fix it when I get back." That's acting under fire too, and so the roll is made. Suppose this time, instead of getting an 8, the player gets a 5: the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. "You're near the top of the ridge, when silhouettes come into view against the sun behind: a group of Dremmer's scouts, and their bikes aren't half-broken down. They've in front of you, and you look around and one's behind. You're pinned against the canyon that runs below the ridge. What do you do?" The GM has put Domino in a spot.
*The player responds, "I ride towards them, then turn around, gun what's left of the engine, and jump the canyon!" That's acting under fire for sure. If the player gets a 10+, then they do it - they're on the other side of the canyon from Dremmer's goons. If they roll a 6- down it sounds pretty ugly: the GM's within their rights to say "You don't make it - you fall one way, your bike another. Take 3 harm, armour piercing" - this is the GM move "inflict harm", and p 162 provides, as an example of something that will cause 3 harm, "a 2-story fall onto jagged ground (ap)".
*Suppose the roll to jump the canyon is a 7 to 9. Maybe the GM offers an ugly choice: "You gun the engine, and the take off is great. But not the landing: you come down hard, and you can either roll away from the bike, as it tumbles over the edge, or take 2 harm (ap) as you keep a grip in it but it lands hard on top of you." Page 162 provides as an example of something that will cause 2 harm, "a 1-story fall onto your back (ap)".
*Or maybe the GM just gives a worse outcome: "You clear the canyon, but one of the scouts figures that if you can do it, well they can do. From their clean take-off and landing you can tell they've done this before. They're about 100 metres from you, and you can see they're carrying a rifle. What do you do?" The GM has put Domino into another spot. . . .
*Now, suppose that after the fight with Birdie, instead of having Domino head out to the ridge, Domino's player says "I need to get Birdie out of my head. You know that canyon just below Harvest Ridge - I'm going to ride up there, and jump it!" This doesn't trigger a player-side move - there's no pressure - and so the GM has to make a move; and no opportunity has been provided on a plate - so the GM will make a soft move.
*Maybe the mood at the table is that jumping the canyon is no big deal, and the GM wants to drive home that Domino is having a hard time of things, and so announces future badness by activating their stuff's downside: "You make it across the canyon, but when you land your bike makes a noise that it's not supposed to. You're not sure what you've done to it, but it might need a good servicing at least! What do you do now?" And now, via a different pathway, Domino is away from home with a dodgy bike.
*Or maybe the mood at the table is that jumping the canyon is pretty cool, and the GM wants to go along with that: "You jump across the canyon, with a clean take-off and a smooth landing. As you pull up on the other side, and the dust settles, you see a lone biker on the ridge watching you. It looks like one of Dremmer's scouts, but she's not shooting at you, or riding off to report on you - she's clapping, and as she takes her helmet off you can see that she's smiling. What do you do?" The GM has decided, as their move, to "offer Domino an opportunity, with a cost". Here, the cost looks like it might be making connections with an enemy, and all the risks that entails . . .
*Domino's player says "Birdie, I've got nothing for you but good wishes. Do you want to come with me to check out what Dremmer's up to on the salt flats?"
*This is not a player-side move - it's a simple request, and as per pp 197-98 of the rulebook, "Asking someone straight to do something isn’t trying to seduce or manipulate them. . . . Absent leverage, they’re just talking, and you should have your NPCs agree or accede, decline or refuse, according to their own self-interests." So the GM has Birdie decline the invitation, and start berating Domino, "You've never got anything good for me!" (This is the GM move of "putting someone - Domino - in a spot".)
*Domino's player doesn't threaten Birdie with violence, nor try to apply any leverage, and thereby hands the GM an opportunity on a platter - the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like that follows from the fiction. The GM says to Domino's player "Birdie's pretty pissed off - are you just going to let him leave?" - this is the GM move of "telling them the possible consequences and asking"; and Domino's player nods and so the GM describes Birdie walking off, still muttering to himself and looking to tell anyone who asks what an ****hole Domino is. This is the GM move of "separating them" (in this case, Domino and Birdie), and also "announcing future badness" (Birdie's badmouthing of Domino).
*Domino's player says "Great, that went well. I get on my bike and ride out towards the salt flats, but not all the way yet. I want to get a view from the Harvest Ridge." And then Domino's player looks at the GM.
*That action declaration doesn't trigger any player-side move, and so the GM makes a move, but a soft one - "You head up towards the ridge. But you hear a funny noise from the engine - something's not working right, and it's pretty loud too. What do you do?" This is the GM "activating their stuff’s downside."
*The player says "Fine, I turn back. I don't want any of Dremmer's scouts to catch me". Now the player is making a move (as per p 190) - "When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll+cool. . . . You can read 'under fire' to mean any kind of serious pressure at all." The pressure here is that Domino is out half-way to the Salt Flats, with a dodgy engine.
*Suppose the player rolls 2d6, adds their cool, and gets an 8: "you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice." Page 191 offers the following elaboration: "It should be easy to find something; if there weren’t things to go wrong, nobody’d be rolling dice. It can include suffering harm or making another move. However, remember that a 7–9 is a hit, not a miss; whatever you offer should be fundamentally a success, not fundamentally a failure." The GM says, "You get back, but the engine's shot to <bleep>. It's not going to start again without repairs". This "worse outcome" is also the GM move of "Taking away their stuff". Of course, when Domino starts asking around to see who can do the repairs, the GM is ready for Birdie's bad-mouthing to come home to roost.
*Suppose the player, rather than having Domino turn back, says "Of course, I bet that ____er Birdie put sand in the tank or something. I keep going to the top of the ridge - I can fix it when I get back." That's acting under fire too, and so the roll is made. Suppose this time, instead of getting an 8, the player gets a 5: the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. "You're near the top of the ridge, when silhouettes come into view against the sun behind: a group of Dremmer's scouts, and their bikes aren't half-broken down. They've in front of you, and you look around and one's behind. You're pinned against the canyon that runs below the ridge. What do you do?" The GM has put Domino in a spot.
*The player responds, "I ride towards them, then turn around, gun what's left of the engine, and jump the canyon!" That's acting under fire for sure. If the player gets a 10+, then they do it - they're on the other side of the canyon from Dremmer's goons. If they roll a 6- down it sounds pretty ugly: the GM's within their rights to say "You don't make it - you fall one way, your bike another. Take 3 harm, armour piercing" - this is the GM move "inflict harm", and p 162 provides, as an example of something that will cause 3 harm, "a 2-story fall onto jagged ground (ap)".
*Suppose the roll to jump the canyon is a 7 to 9. Maybe the GM offers an ugly choice: "You gun the engine, and the take off is great. But not the landing: you come down hard, and you can either roll away from the bike, as it tumbles over the edge, or take 2 harm (ap) as you keep a grip in it but it lands hard on top of you." Page 162 provides as an example of something that will cause 2 harm, "a 1-story fall onto your back (ap)".
*Or maybe the GM just gives a worse outcome: "You clear the canyon, but one of the scouts figures that if you can do it, well they can do. From their clean take-off and landing you can tell they've done this before. They're about 100 metres from you, and you can see they're carrying a rifle. What do you do?" The GM has put Domino into another spot. . . .
*Now, suppose that after the fight with Birdie, instead of having Domino head out to the ridge, Domino's player says "I need to get Birdie out of my head. You know that canyon just below Harvest Ridge - I'm going to ride up there, and jump it!" This doesn't trigger a player-side move - there's no pressure - and so the GM has to make a move; and no opportunity has been provided on a plate - so the GM will make a soft move.
*Maybe the mood at the table is that jumping the canyon is no big deal, and the GM wants to drive home that Domino is having a hard time of things, and so announces future badness by activating their stuff's downside: "You make it across the canyon, but when you land your bike makes a noise that it's not supposed to. You're not sure what you've done to it, but it might need a good servicing at least! What do you do now?" And now, via a different pathway, Domino is away from home with a dodgy bike.
*Or maybe the mood at the table is that jumping the canyon is pretty cool, and the GM wants to go along with that: "You jump across the canyon, with a clean take-off and a smooth landing. As you pull up on the other side, and the dust settles, you see a lone biker on the ridge watching you. It looks like one of Dremmer's scouts, but she's not shooting at you, or riding off to report on you - she's clapping, and as she takes her helmet off you can see that she's smiling. What do you do?" The GM has decided, as their move, to "offer Domino an opportunity, with a cost". Here, the cost looks like it might be making connections with an enemy, and all the risks that entails . . .
These examples demonstrate how the player can declare whatever actions make sense for their PC in the fiction. "If you do it, you do it" - the rule for triggering player-side moves - in combination with the principles and guidelines that tell the GM what sorts of things to say when its their turn in the conversation, don't leave any "gaps". And the examples are also deliberately intended to show how, even for stuff where the player is deliberately not escalating (in the argument with Birdie, or on the drive to the ridge, or in heading out to jump the canyon just to let off steam and clear Domino's head), the system will work. And will (gradually, or otherwise) push things towards some sort of interpersonal confrontation (whether violent or not), which is the core concern of AW as a system.
(EDITed just to clean up some formatting issues.)
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry about the bad-mouthing of DW that is fairly common. I've played a little bit of it, and it worked fine. @AbdulAlhazred, @Manbearcat and @darkbard on these boards have heaps of experience both individually and moreso between them, and are probably willing to share thoughts/advice if you like.
You 100% get a like, but not a love!
I didn't come to AW wanting to know how it might differ from D&D 3E, or D&D 5e, or Rolemaster. My context was HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, and 4e D&D - all of which rely on scene-framing, and "say 'yes' - if nothing is at stake - or otherwise roll the dice" as the core principle for when the action resolution mechanics are invoked.
For me, "if you do it, you do it" was pretty clear straight away - it signalled that this is not a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game, but actually more like Classic Traveller where a certain, system-defined sub-set of action declarations require the dice to be rolled and an associated sub-system to be deployed to work out what follows from the roll. (And @Campbell, over a series of posts and threads, really helped drive home how different this makes the game from a scene-framed one.)
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it's incumbent on the rulebook to treat D&D as the initial context for any system explanation. I don't think you think that either, but I do think that the catchphrase is not terrible when the initial context is closer to the one I was starting from.
niklinna
satisfied?
Yes, that's basically what I said, except for the snotty part. I forgot about that!
John Lloyd1
Explorer
Thanks for the examples. I really need to see a complete text to get my head around how all the pieces fit together. I'm interested to see how the system pushes forward the story like you mentioned.
Manbearcat
Legend
Hey John Lloyd1. The ones I've run are Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Stonetop, Masks, Monsterhearts, Thousand Arrows, and Lazers & Feelings. The only two on that list that don't have a form of Fronts is Thousand Arrows and Lazers & Feelings. L&F because its basically a megalite one-shot version of PBtA which is Star Trek in theme. Thousand Arrows, I don't have an answer for. Its Sengoku Era/Warring States Japan. Its bloody awesome, but it doesn't use a form of Fronts...which is rather inexplicable to me because the game is basically built for it. However, it does have an Alliance system (which does some of the key work that Fronts would do) + a Faction subsystem + enough of a Strategic layer + the game's core loop which, with a GM that already knows AW well, can basically resolve play as if Fronts were present.
Blades in the Dark also has its own version of Fronts except its instantiated for the particulars of that game.
The snowballing action resolution and the core structure of moves + the bright, bold lines of PC thematic material + the individual game's beefy premise + the structure and ethos of GMing which "follows player breadcrumbs" (along witht he core premise of the game + the individual game's advancement/reward cycles which incentivize player's pushing hard toward their thematic goals and poking at the game's premise.
Once you read a text, feel free to ask specific questions.
In DW, the emphasis will be less on interpersonal conflict - that's an AW thing - and more on how the GM moves - creating opportunities, announcing risks of badness, etc - put pressure on the PCs' alignments and bonds.
But the overarching structure will be the same - the GM, by making moves in accordance with the principles and guidelines, naturally/inevitably pushes things towards some sort of "crunch point" that will provoke the player to declare an action that triggers a player-side move ("if you do it, you do it") - and this then allows for finality rather than more rising action.
One way to think of how those GM moves naturally/inevitably pus in the way I'm describing is that they require the GM to announce badness, put someone in a spot, provide an opportunity, etc . . . and what counts as badness, a "spot", an opportunity, etc depends on the particular orientation/aspiration of the PC as played by their player. (These are the "player breadcrumbs" that @Manbearcat refers to just upthread.)
So the GM, by doing their job, will move towards provocation of the players.
Last edited:
Aldarc
Legend
I just finished watching Shogun with my partner this weekend, and you have the audacity to tell me that this game exists?!
Similar Threads
