Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9250057" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So I'm not sure the context in which you're drawing this conclusion, but here are a few core things related to (a) indie games in general and (b) Apocalypse World (and kindred) specifically:* Not all indie games are the same.&nbsp; They're not all possessed of the same game engine nor are they possessed of the exact same ethos.&nbsp; Certainly they aren't composed of the same premise and genre conceits.* Not every NPC or obstacle in Apocalypse World qualifies as a Threat.&nbsp; Sometimes things you come up against are just the equivalent of redshirts or mooks.&nbsp; They're just fodder without complex motivations.&nbsp; However, a Threat?&nbsp; A Threat is a very specific thing with motivations that animate them.&nbsp; In AW, that is called an Impulse and that Impulse will inform intentions, plans, direction, and the will to sustain action and respond coherently to others.You can't just Seduce or Manipulate (or a playbook move) with eff-all leverage.&nbsp; The leverage has to address a Threat's self-interest; their Impulse.Further, AW has an advancement for Seduce and Manipulate where on a 12+, you fundamentally change the nature of a Threat.&nbsp; Instead of being a Threat, they become an Ally with a particular subtype and a brand new Impulse related to that new Ally status and subtype.A large number of PBtA games that are basically full derivatives of AW are like this, but Impulse is called something different.You've probably heard me call 5e's Social Interaction conflict resolution AW-inspired?&nbsp; This is why.&nbsp; Its pretty nearly cribbed and reskinned for 5e.&nbsp; The meta of AW (and the like) social conflict is (a) back-and-forth with the NPC, (b) Read a Person (or a stand-in playbook move), (c) Seduce or Manipulate once you have levarage (that addresses their self-interest; their Impulse).&nbsp; Now that can be difficult.&nbsp; Maybe they want something that you don't want to give up.&nbsp; Maybe that puts you in a spot.&nbsp; Well that is the fun of it; figuring out that puzzle.&nbsp; Thinking creatively, laterally, agilely in such a way that addresses that Impulse but where you don't give up too much.But &quot;no&quot; is not on the table.&nbsp; That is correct.&nbsp; Everyone in AW (and kindred) has a price.&nbsp; But you have to &quot;pay it&quot;, &quot;play ball&quot;, or otherwise figure out a way to sate their self-interest without giving up &quot;the house.&quot;&nbsp; Otherwise, again, you're &quot;just talking.&quot;[HR][/HR]Not all indie games have this machinery and this procedure.&nbsp; Not all PBtA games either.&nbsp; And not every NPC in AW even engages with this (only the consequential ones).EDIT - Quick extra comment here.&nbsp; This is why reading, really scrutinizing, really understanding these games and then putting that understanding to work in actual play is so important.&nbsp; You can't just extend a general use-case statement to (a) all games and then (b) suspend the fundamentals that virtually every game of any kind of intricacy carves out specific exceptions to the general use-case inherent to that game (and informs you of the subtleties of how and why within the text).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9250057, member: 6696971"] So I'm not sure the context in which you're drawing this conclusion, but here are a few core things related to (a) indie games in general and (b) Apocalypse World (and kindred) specifically: * Not all indie games are the same. They're not all possessed of the same game engine nor are they possessed of the exact same ethos. Certainly they aren't composed of the same premise and genre conceits. * Not every NPC or obstacle in Apocalypse World qualifies as a Threat. Sometimes things you come up against are just the equivalent of redshirts or mooks. They're just fodder without complex motivations. However, a Threat? A Threat is a very specific thing with motivations that animate them. In AW, that is called an Impulse and that Impulse will inform intentions, plans, direction, and the will to sustain action and respond coherently to others. You can't just Seduce or Manipulate (or a playbook move) with eff-all leverage. The leverage has to address a Threat's self-interest; their Impulse. Further, AW has an advancement for Seduce and Manipulate where on a 12+, you fundamentally change the nature of a Threat. Instead of being a Threat, they become an Ally with a particular subtype and a brand new Impulse related to that new Ally status and subtype. A large number of PBtA games that are basically full derivatives of AW are like this, but Impulse is called something different. You've probably heard me call 5e's Social Interaction conflict resolution AW-inspired? This is why. Its pretty nearly cribbed and reskinned for 5e. The meta of AW (and the like) social conflict is (a) back-and-forth with the NPC, (b) Read a Person (or a stand-in playbook move), (c) Seduce or Manipulate once you have levarage (that addresses their self-interest; their Impulse). Now that can be difficult. Maybe they want something that you don't want to give up. Maybe that puts you in a spot. Well that is the fun of it; figuring out that puzzle. Thinking creatively, laterally, agilely in such a way that addresses that Impulse but where you don't give up too much. But "no" is not on the table. That is correct. Everyone in AW (and kindred) has a price. But you have to "pay it", "play ball", or otherwise figure out a way to sate their self-interest without giving up "the house." Otherwise, again, you're "just talking." [HR][/HR] Not all indie games have this machinery and this procedure. Not all PBtA games either. And not every NPC in AW even engages with this (only the consequential ones). EDIT - Quick extra comment here. This is why reading, really scrutinizing, really understanding these games and then putting that understanding to work in actual play is so important. You can't just extend a general use-case statement to (a) all games and then (b) suspend the fundamentals that virtually every game of any kind of intricacy carves out specific exceptions to the general use-case inherent to that game (and informs you of the subtleties of [I]how [/I]and [I]why [/I]within the text). [/QUOTE]

Verification