Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[FrogReaver]

Nothing stops this. Does it require rules? I mean, the GM is probably going to interject at some point. "You grow hungry" or something.

Sure, but remember, AW et al are action focused games. Pressure will eventually grow on the PCs. It's not a system designed to work as a hobby simulator. If the GM runs the game as intended then stuff WILL happen!

You’re arguing against a case based point as if it’s the main point.

Case 1. If there aren’t rules for this stuff then it’s reasonable to read AWs rules and come to the conclusion that the only way to play the game is to have all player actions be moves. One could even play the game that way after having read the rules.

Case 2. If there are rules for these things then AW explicitly says how to play the game in these situations. In which case just point out the dang rules!

No one has actually stated if there are rules or not, just that rules aren’t needed - which I presume means there aren’t rules for such things and if so then why not just say so?

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is a back-of-the-envelope breakdown of what you say as a GM in an AW (or derivative) game:

Soft Moves (60 %):

• Framing scenes generally
• Giving shape to obstacles
• Telegraphing threats/dangers
• Presenting a constellation of chartable courses
• Foregrounding consequence-suites
• Pointing at potential discoveries
• Putting someone in a spot and provoking them

Procedures and Hard Moves (20 %):

• That triggers x, roll y (and lets see what happens).
• Here are a suite of consequences/assets, so choose 1 of these 3 (and here is the fictional reasons for and implications of each of these). If you don't choose x, then it happens.
• Take x harm/HP.
• Mark y <xp, resource used, progress box, etc>.
• You have a debility/condition (whatever for the game); take -1/disadvantage.
• End of Session

Clarifying (20 %):

• What does <PC> think about <other PC or place or thing>?
• Is that intended to be an x or a y? Sounds like x? Do you have a playbook move for that <trigger> or is that just <basic move>?
• Where is <PC> at while this is going on and what are they doing/what is their disposition?
• Are you interested in <sussing out more about "the lay of the land" for all values of both lay and land>?
• What is your loadout?
• Answering player clarifying question

---

Everything above is either (a) covered in the book directly and discretely <do this> or (b) or entails an integrated reading of the text <always and ever index x and y as you read z...reading z without indexing x and y is a degenerate reading of z> or (c) is TTRPG101 (no game can ever be played without it).

 

[Lanefan]

Here is a back-of-the-envelope breakdown of what you say as a GM in an AW (or derivative) game:

I don't see "Get me a beer" anywhere on that list. Clearly, whoever designed this stuff isn't Canadian.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You’re arguing against a case based point as if it’s the main point.

Case 1. If there aren’t rules for this stuff then it’s reasonable to read AWs rules and come to the conclusion that the only way to play the game is to have all player actions be moves. One could even play the game that way after having read the rules.

Case 2. If there are rules for these things then AW explicitly says how to play the game in these situations. In which case just point out the dang rules!

No one has actually stated if there are rules or not, just that rules aren’t needed - which I presume means there aren’t rules for such things and if so then why not just say so?

Yes, there are rules that say what happens if the player declares an action and a move isn't needed.

If there's no move being triggered, then the action simply happens. Pretty much like any other RPG. The conversation just continues.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You’re arguing against a case based point as if it’s the main point.

Case 1. If there aren’t rules for this stuff then it’s reasonable to read AWs rules and come to the conclusion that the only way to play the game is to have all player actions be moves. One could even play the game that way after having read the rules.

Case 2. If there are rules for these things then AW explicitly says how to play the game in these situations. In which case just point out the dang rules!

No one has actually stated if there are rules or not, just that rules aren’t needed - which I presume means there aren’t rules for such things and if so then why not just say so?

Sorry I am not following you... It's JUST LIKE D&D. Nothing in 5e or 1e, or B/X says what to do when people just to talk except " make some play happen" right? DW literally spells this out, saying that GM moves is just basically doing what the GM does in any RPG. The players describe taking some action, it's not a move, just go on with the game, like in any RPG ever written. 99.999% of the time IME the GM will make a soft move. That may be nothing more than just casually describing the current situation or the passage of time. This is a nothingburger.

 

[Faolyn]

Ah, but What does the GM being handed an opportunity mean? Opportunity is a very broad category after all.

That's easy: it means the GM can use one of their moves. Moving away from AW to MotW, since I actually run it, here's the list of Keeper Moves:

• Separate them
• Reveal future badness
• Reveal off-screen badness
• Inflict harm, as established
• Make them investigate
• Make them acquire stuff
• Tell the possible consequences and ask if they want to go ahead
• Turn their move back on them
• Offer an opportunity, & maybe a cost
• Take away some of the hunters' stuff
• Put someone in trouble
• Make a threat move, from one of your mystery or arc threats
• After every move, ask what they do next

They're very similar to the GM moves in every other PbtA game. You'll notice that they're all things that GMs would do in any game; they've just been codified here. There's not a lot that a GM would want to do that isn't on this list, really.

Anyway, the players are hanging around talking. This is when you would reveal future badness or reveal off-screen badness by having them people talking, the sound of screams or approaching footsteps, or something else that indicates that bad stuff is going to happen real soon now and the players better stop faffing around and get ready for it.

In a session I ran a while ago, the PCs where in the basement of a hospital that was being taken over and physically altered by biomechanical horrors from the dimension behind mirrors. One group of PCs decided to go investigate something that was on the other side of the room so I took the opportunity to separate them by having part of the ceiling cave in/grow down and put a wall between the two groups of PCs.

In another session, the PCs were on the trail of a monster that was making drone-spies out of bones it stole (The Bone Collector, one of the MotW adventures that's floating around online for free). One of the PCs said something that was effectively "what's the worst that can happen?" (not actually that, but close enough in meaning) so I inflicted harm, as established and had one of the drone-spies leap out and attack the PC.

Where is the rules text for any of this?

You may want to actually read one of the books, because they're all in there.

IMO, if you are making the analogy that acting outside a move while not waiting on the GM to make a move is essentially similar to being between innings of a baseball game, then I’d suggest that’s better evidence that players don’t act in the game outside moves. That is, this analogy supports the notion that everything players do in AW must be a move. Thus, certainly the initial proposition that’s been mocked as silly is then not a silly proposition.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

See, there's a couple of types of moves. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule; it's something you pick up by reading the playbooks. Some moves give you abilities or alter the way existing moves work. For instance, the Monstrous (in MotW) has one move called Claws of the Beast that lets their natural attacks do +1 harm. They have another one called Unnatural Appeal which lets them roll +Weird instead of +Charm when they use the basic move Manipulate Someone.

Anyone can use natural attacks. The hunter can punch the monster all they want. Even another Monstrous can claw at a monster all they want. But if you took Claws of the Beast, that means they are extra good at it; you have claws that can rip through the monster. Likewise, anyone can use the Manipulate Someone move, just like in D&D how anyone can roll Persuasion or Deception or Intimidation. It's just that if you take Unnatural Appeal, it means you're not relying on your ability to lie or persuade or threaten; you're relying on your monstrous nature to aid you--you've got literal animal magnitism, or otherworldly charm, or exotic pheroemones, or hypnotic eyes.

There are other moves that are more story-based and only come into play if you do something. For instance, the Expert has a move called Often Right: When a hunter comes to you for advice about a problem, give them your honest opinion and advice. If they take your advice, they get +1 ongoing while following your advice, and you mark experience.

So how does this work? During the course of a normal conversation, another hunter asks the Expert what to do--they came to the Expert for advice; this is the trigger--and this allows the Expert to shine in this moment by giving really good advice. But anyone can give advice. It's just that unless you took this move, the people listening to it aren't going to get +1 ongoing.

 

[Faolyn]

This last clause makes me curious: why can't an in-character conversation between PCs just be a conversation, without anything else attached or having to build toward any sense of urgency? Telling war stories around the campfire. Planning tomorrow's activities. Falling in love (or hate!) with each other, or firming up friendships or rivalries. That sort of thing.

Of course it can be. My games have lots of talky moments like that and it's great. But "conversation," in this context, doesn't mean the PCs are just hanging around and shooting the breeze; it means the players are figuring out what's going on, deciding where they're going next, and making plans.

There's usually a time crunch of some sort of in games. The bad guys are planning something; they're not just sitting around in their 10x10 rooms guarding chests and waiting for the PCs to come slaughter them. The volcano is going to erupt or the planar rift is going or the evil horde is going to reach the city. The PCs need to be walking and talking at the same time; they don't have the time needed to firm up friendships or tell stories. It's why a lot of games--and not just PbtA games--use countdowns. Things are happening in the background and are going to happen whether or not the PCs are doing anything about it.

There's still plenty of time for talky moments. Say the PCs are aware that there's monsters gathering at The Lich's Tower, but the PCs are two days' ride from there. They're probably not going to be able to ride for two days straight, so they have to stop during the night to rest. They can talk about the campfire. But, it's also probably not a great idea for them to have heart-to-hearts when they're actually in The Lich's Tower and there's monsters all around them that are trying to kill them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

My experiences would suggest to me that this POV is more likely born out of seeing difficulty and assuming it’s really “just not wanting to try” because for some reason you think that having played other games means someone will easily understand and pick up a new game.

I know for a fact that the groups I know who played Thirsty Sword Lesbians weren’t confused by it because they didn’t want to give it a chance. They were excited about the game and very much wanted to understand and engage with it. It just wasn’t clear to them how they were supposed to actually present a scene with adversaries to deal with and couldn’t figure it out by just reading the book, and had to go online and sift through pages upon pages of derisive nonsense about how “obvious” the workings of these games are and how “anyone who doesn’t get it is trying to not get it” or whatever.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry I am not following you... It's JUST LIKE D&D. Nothing in 5e or 1e, or B/X says what to do when people just to talk except " make some play happen" right? DW literally spells this out, saying that GM moves is just basically doing what the GM does in any RPG. The players describe taking some action, it's not a move, just go on with the game, like in any RPG ever written. 99.999% of the time IME the GM will make a soft move. That may be nothing more than just casually describing the current situation or the passage of time. This is a nothingburger.

You are talking past me.

 

[pemerton]

I can’t really agree those are very clear instructions. There’s nothing showing what having an opportunity handed to you on a silver plater looks like. What should count as a soft move and as a hard move isn’t immediately clear. Its not clear how transitions from one area to another work under these very clear rules, etc.

Is this based on your reading of the rules?

Every one of the points you say is not clear is discussed in quite a degree of detail.