Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[pemerton]

When GM makes a move, she just opens her mouth and says what will happen next. Like in any other RPG, but with an important caveat: something must happen next.

Right. Nothing happens isn't a GM move in AW!

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Ditto for some conversations between PCs and NPCs, for all that.

I don't think this analogy works, in that even when the PCs aren't engaged in anything other than conversation between themselves, character development is still happening. Put another way, there is no "between-innings" phase because in this case, unlike baseball, what goes on on the field isn't the whole of the game.

Because it's Apocalypse World, basically, and that goes against the expectations of that particular game. But there are PbtA games that make room for more leisurely, less urgent activity.

FWIW @Lanefan, Stonetop is one of these games. There are slower phases and down time phases. Maybe the players are sitting and talking around the campfire. Maybe they are back in the village talking to their fellows or in a larger town catching up on news. There are a fair number of moves that have no dice rolls attached, including Keep Company:

KEEP COMPANY
When you spend a stretch of time together, ask the others if they want to Keep Company. If they do, take turns asking a PC or NPC one of the following.

• What do you do that's annoying/endearing?
• What do I do that you find annoying/endearing?
• Who or what seems to be on your mind?
• What do we find ourselves talking about?
• How do you/we pass the time?
• What new thing do you reveal about yourself?

This move is just about getting to know each other. Although the game is a Dungeon World adjacent game that centers around fantasy adventure with personal stakes (e.g., village, kin, backstory, etc.), it also takes time to breathe because the game wants players to explore the things that you talk about. Time advances. There is time between seasons. Life goes on. Stonetop describes itself as "hearth fantasy" for a reason.

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

 

[Cadence]

Explicitly, like, "here's what to do when the action isn't covered by a player move"? It doesn't.

Doesn't need to either.

There is a general rule: when the player looks at GM* to see what happens next, GM makes a GM move. Player moves are exceptions to this general rule, when the action PC takes is covered by a player move available to them, GM doesn't just make their move, instead both GM and player work through the wording of the move and do what it says.

*If the GM can't physically know whether player is looking at them or not, say, because it's online play or GM or player is blind, just use your brain. Treat it as "there is a questioning pause" or whatever. If player doesn't make a pause and doesn't care what results their action will have, then, who cares?

In Dungeon World, Fighter has a move "Bend bars, lift gates". It says:

So when Fighter tries to break down a door with a kick, this move is triggered. They roll +Str, get, let's say, 9 and choose, let's say, "Nothing of value is damaged" and "It doesn't take a very long time". GM then narrates what results this will have, knowing that her narration can't involve something of value being damaged or the process taking long time, but can involve, say, goblins in the dungeon hearing the ruckus.

When Cleric who doesn't have access to this move tries to break down a door with a kick, nothing of this happens. GM just makes a move. Any move she likes. Including, say, "This is of no use. The door doesn't budge, and you hear goblins running in through another passage. What ya gonna do?"

For the record: I'm using Dungeon World because it's the only game where I can think of a mundane action being covered by a move for one playbook and not for another, and, for the record, I don't think it's a particularly good design.

Thank you for your detailed post!

I have somewhere between one and three questions.

(1) Can the GM move in response to the cleric's attempt to kick open the door be to have it open with very little noise?
(2) If yes to 1, does the DM need to add something more than that to keep the tension high?
(3) If yes to 1, are there doors the GM could just let the fighter quietly break in the door without a roll?

 

[Manbearcat]

Thank you for your detailed post!

I have somewhere between one and three questions.

(1) Can the GM move in response to the cleric's attempt to kick open the door be to have it open with very little noise?
(2) If yes to 1, does the DM need to add something more than that to keep the tension high?
(3) If yes to 1, are there doors the GM could just let the fighter quietly break in the door without a roll?

I'm going to engage with this, if you don't mind. I think you might be looking at how these games work through the wrong lens. There isn't something like an inventory of doors to choose from (your (3) question). Landscape threats/obstacles such as doors serve a specific purpose; to bar the way. So whatever attached fiction is necessary to bar the way, that is your door (or whatever).

Here is a collection of thoughts on the subject:

1) The Bend Bars/Lift Gates (which is Hulk Smash themed and about dealing with inanimate objects as situation-framed obstacles or complications from resolution) move of Fighters is both much more potent and thematically capable than Defy Danger-Str (acting despite imminent threat by powering through). That is by design.

2) Since this is an AW thread, if this was AW, the inanimate object or door would be a Landscape Threat where the impulse is either "to bar access" or "to bar egress" (depending how the situation is oriented) and the move the GM is making is bar the way. This is no different in DW.

3) Inanimate-objects-as-obstacles (doors, etc) don’t exist in “Cleric-ey” games as they might in “Fighter-ey” games. In the former, they probably don’t exist as an obstacle at all (maybe as consequence of resolution that follows the fiction but rarely, if ever, as an obstacle to frame a situation around) and in the latter, they exist as a lever to pull to do your specific job as a GM; Fill the characters lives with adventure and danger, be a fan of the characters (which means the game follows their thematically-embedded breadcrumbs), give an opportunity that fits the class' abilities and that lets you possibly show a downside of their class/abilities and turn their move back on them.

4) In the off chance an inanimate-object-as-obstacle like a door (a Landscape Threat that bars the way) is chosen by a GM in a Cleric-featured game, one of the following is going to happen downrange of that:

* The GM has a custom move for this particular, framed obstacle. When do x, roll y, and stuff happens. Stuff follows several schemes in Dungeon World. Could be a pick 1 or 2 (and if you don't pick 1 it happens). Could be a pick 1 and if you don't get a 10 + then this complication happens. Could be other forms.

* The player describes the trigger to Cast a Spell and we consult the move and then the spells text. An easy one for this is the Cleric Rote Guidance where the player is looking for counsel from their deity. So if they get a 7-9, the counsel happens with a complication chosen by the player from the Cast a Spell menu. If the player chooses danger/unwanted attention, then the GM makes a fitting move. What the player is signaling in this situation is one of two things; (1) introduce another obstacle archetype to me GM...not of the landscape variety...my deity gives me the deets so frame that thing up and lets have at it or (2) I want my deity to say something interesting to me about this situation (as if I made the Spout Lore move and rolled a 7-9) so I can load out my potential lines of play with that info so get to it.

* Alternatively, same as above but perhaps there are corpses around and the Cleric uses Cast a Spell to animate a corpse to break the door down. The Cleric chooses to give the undead +2 in Strength for Defy Danger - Strength (and such moves). So instead of rolling their own crappy +0 (or maybe even -1) Strength to DD and potentially facing the fallout/consequences of the door being smashed, now (a) they increase their prospects immensely and (b) use their undead ally to suffer in their stead should a consequence be-a-comin'.

* The Cleric risks it for the biscuit by powering through; they shoulder the door (triggering DD - Str...which they likely aren't good at) and things are apt to go awry (but perhaps not).

* The Cleric uses Adventuring Gear to lever it with a crowbar (allowing access to DD-Int, which they very likely have a +1 in, with take +1). Then we resolve DD-Int, same as ever.

 

[Cadence]

I'm going to engage with this, if you don't mind. I think you might be looking at how these games work through the wrong lens. There isn't something like an inventory of doors to choose from (your (3) question). Landscape threats/obstacles such as doors serve a specific purpose; to bar the way. So whatever attached fiction is necessary to bar the way, that is your door (or whatever).

Here is a collection of thoughts on the subject:

1) The Bend Bars/Lift Gates (which is Hulk Smash themed and about dealing with inanimate objects as situation-framed obstacles or complications from resolution) move of Fighters is both much more potent and thematically capable than Defy Danger-Str (acting despite imminent threat by powering through). That is by design.

2) Since this is an AW thread, if this was AW, the inanimate object or door would be a Landscape Threat where the impulse is either "to bar access" or "to bar egress" (depending how the situation is oriented) and the move the GM is making is bar the way. This is no different in DW.

3) Inanimate-objects-as-obstacles (doors, etc) don’t exist in “Cleric-ey” games as they might in “Fighter-ey” games. In the former, they probably don’t exist as an obstacle at all (maybe as consequence of resolution that follows the fiction but rarely, if ever, as an obstacle to frame a situation around) and in the latter, they exist as a lever to pull to do your specific job as a GM; Fill the characters lives with adventure and danger, be a fan of the characters (which means the game follows their thematically-embedded breadcrumbs), give an opportunity that fits the class' abilities and that lets you possibly show a downside of their class/abilities and turn their move back on them.

4) In the off chance an inanimate-object-as-obstacle like a door (a Landscape Threat that bars the way) is chosen by a GM in a Cleric-featured game, one of the following is going to happen downrange of that:

* The GM has a custom move for this particular, framed obstacle. When do x, roll y, and stuff happens. Stuff follows several schemes in Dungeon World. Could be a pick 1 or 2 (and if you don't pick 1 it happens). Could be a pick 1 and if you don't get a 10 + then this complication happens. Could be other forms.

* The player describes the trigger to Cast a Spell and we consult the move and then the spells text. An easy one for this is the Cleric Rote Guidance where the player is looking for counsel from their deity. So if they get a 7-9, the counsel happens with a complication chosen by the player from the Cast a Spell menu. If the player chooses danger/unwanted attention, then the GM makes a fitting move. What the player is signaling in this situation is one of two things; (1) introduce another obstacle archetype to me GM...not of the landscape variety...my deity gives me the deets so frame that thing up and lets have at it or (2) I want my deity to say something interesting to me about this situation (as if I made the Spout Lore move and rolled a 7-9) so I can load out my potential lines of play with that info so get to it.

* Alternatively, same as above but perhaps there are corpses around and the Cleric uses Cast a Spell to animate a corpse to break the door down. The Cleric chooses to give the undead +2 in Strength for Defy Danger - Strength (and such moves). So instead of rolling their own crappy +0 (or maybe even -1) Strength to DD and potentially facing the fallout/consequences of the door being smashed, now (a) they increase their prospects immensely and (b) use their undead ally to suffer in their stead should a consequence be-a-comin'.

* The Cleric risks it for the biscuit by powering through; they shoulder the door (triggering DD - Str...which they likely aren't good at) and things are apt to go awry (but perhaps not).

* The Cleric uses Adventuring Gear to lever it with a crowbar (allowing access to DD-Int, which they very likely have a +1 in, with take +1). Then we resolve DD-Int, same as ever.

Thank you!!!

Are there games that have both the Clerics and Fighters?

In any case, I'm guessing this is my mostly D&D background is really constraining me here. So in some flavors of D&D there is a pre-designed module with a door that the party with a cleric and fighter might come too... that is much more difficult if the hulky fighter is incapacitated or dead when they get to it. Is just about none of that kind of set up a thing in AW?

 

[Manbearcat]

Thank you!!!

Are there games that have both the Clerics and Fighters?

In any case, I'm guessing this is my mostly D&D background is really constraining me here. So in some flavors of D&D there is a pre-designed module with a door that the party with a cleric and fighter might come too... that is much more difficult if the hulky fighter is incapacitated or dead when they get to it. Is just about none of that kind of set up a thing in AW?

You're quite welcome!

1) Yessir, there are games with both Clerics and Fighters (though only one of each as each playbook is a unique character). I've run a few of them. You're going to see Landscape Threats there (probably a portcullis or door, etc!) for sure. Depending upon the group, they might tackle it in a number of ways (some mentioned above), but they'll likely have the Fighter because its thematically appropriate, they'll have at least a +2 to the move, and the BBLG 7-9 result is focused and relatively mitigated in terms of consequences/fallout.

2) You're correct, that kind of (module-driven) setup isn't a thing in AW (or DW). No such thing as modules/APs in Apocalypse World or Dungeon World. Each game features a very small amount of setup + thematically loaded playbooks + xp/advancement structure that makes very clear player best practices + tight instructions on principled situation-framing > following the exception-based rules > following the fiction > letting play snowball and following that momentum where it leads. This momentum/play record will generate a very small amount of codified, obvious prep that gives you a constellation of things to say and adversaries/threats/antagonism-to-PC-protagonism to deploy in the course of play.

 

[clearstream]

A recurring thing I see said is that, in Apocalypse World, players can't declare actions that are not covered by a move.

This is just silly.

The rules are clear: if a player's declared action for their PC is a move, then the rules of the move are invoked ("If you do it, you do it"). Otherwise, if everyone looks to the GM to see what happens, the GM makes a move. This will be a soft move unless the player's declared action hands the GM an opportunity on a platter, in which case the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like.

It puzzles me that this seems so hard for some RPGers to understand.

What I've seen in a few groups is puzzlement when moves nearly but not quite cover the action. From Avatar

When you assess a situation, roll with Creativity.

On a 7–9, ask one question.​

On a 10+, ask two.

• What here can I use to __________?​

• Who or what is the biggest threat?​

• What should I be on the lookout for?​

• What’s my best way out/in/through?​

• Who or what is in the greatest danger​

Take +1 ongoing when acting on the answers.​

That's a bit like Read a Sitch. In Avatar it applies when you - "gather specific or useful information during a tense moment". Avatar has this general rule - "If something isn’t a move, you don’t roll—either it happens or the GM makes their own move." And this one - "sometimes it’s your turn to speak without any player-facing move to guide you. Then, you need to say something to carry the story forward. When you do this, you are making a GM move...."

Sometimes it feels to the group like they are gathering specific/useful info in a tense moment, with meaningful stakes on the answer, but their questions aren't addressed by those listed for Assess. The way I see it most often played is that even though it doesn't fit the move, it doesn't trigger a GM move either: there's a bit of puzzlement and then folk shrug and add the question they do need to the player move.

In a way this pattern of

specific (playbooks) < general (basic moves) < turn to GM (GM moves)​

Is not so different from

specific (explicitly covered by a mechanic like a feature or ability use) < general (within the scope of an ability) < turn to GM​

seen in say PF, but without GM-moves to compel/constrain GM. It's often a bit uneven whether consequences are mandated in the text, too. From a design perspective, they're solving a problem that came into focus over time. You need a way to deal with

M fits a mechanic that does a thing > M fits a scope that encompasses this sort of thing > M has to be judged​

​

Before anyone gets too excited, there are other differences that I'm overlooking to sketch the general structure. An underlying job done is fitting acts to norms. The general solution has three layers - it's this, it's in this scope, it's judged.

Anyway, I appreciate what you're saying and agree with your point. Drawing attention to the glitch I most often see, which is "this seems like it should but doesn't quite fit the move". And observing a commonality in the underlying job done.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I had actually quoted the relevant rule back upthread, well before @hawkeyefan posted and you started asking these questions: I have reposted it, just upthread, twice to try and make it clear. It is found on p 109, and is the bit where the rules say that "The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively". So if a player says what their PC does, than that happens. If it also triggers a player-side move, then the dice are rolled, and the resulting outcome will tell some or other participant (often but not always the GM) that it is their job to say something.

If it doesn't trigger a player side move, then the conversation continues as per p 109. If it is the GM's turn to speak, whether because a move said so or because the conversation turns to them (given what it is their job to say), they make a move from the list of GM moves.

While I didn't cite P 109 (or in my case it would be the 2e equivalent) I gave this exact answer as the first direct response in the thread to @frog Reaver's question, IIRC at #90, although the sense of it had already been touched on in earlier posts by various people.

 

[Faolyn]

No and no. I accept you think both of those things happened though.

You certainly never responded it to ask for clarification. Would you care to go back and do so?

 

[Faolyn]

Can anyone point me to the rule in DnD that says if you swallow a big rock it'll mess up your stomach? There's no explicit text saying so, so I assume I can eat a whole bunch of rocks and experience no negative effects.