thoughts on Apocalypse World?

[Helpful NPC Thom]

@Faolyn:

Betwixt you and @Ovinomancer, there is a fundamental miscommunication about the terminology. Prime example is the disconnect between your conception of GM authority and his conception. Even in your examples where the players are "leading the story" and you're improvising, you, as GM, maintain all narrative authority. In Apocalypse World, the GM's authority is constrained, and the players share authorship over the story. When a character goes aggro (intimdate) in Apocalypse World, the NPC must react in a way prescribed by the mechanics. The player can say, "I'm going to shoot this fella if he doesn't give me all his gold," and if he rolls a 10+, the NPC must either give the PC the gold or let the PC do what he's threatened, which might include shooting him and doing damage without involving the fight mechanics. The GM can't say, "No, you can't shoot him, he ducks out of the way" if the PC rolls a 10+. It's off the table. By using the go aggro mechanic, the player is taking partial ownership over the narrative and saying, "This scene is going to play out this way."

If you're really interested in knowing more about Apocalypse World, shoot me questions and I'll answer them. But I'll give you the long and short of Apocalypse World play:

1. The GM has a list of threats and moves at his disposal.
2. The players roleplay as you would in a typical RPG, though there may be more narrative distance between what "I" would do as my character and what my character would do in a story.
3. In response to those actions, the GM uses his threats and moves to escalate tension. It is job to "push" the players into acting by bringing danger to their doorstep.
4. The players respond to escalating tension through conversation (roleplay) until the climax of a scene is reached.
5. Moves are utilized.
6. Conflict is resolved. Tension falls back to baseline.

Repeat. It's basic story structure but mechanized.

In the Apocalypse World lexicon, soft moves are distinguished from hard moves. Soft moves are things the players can react to, whereas hard moves are things that the GM does and can't be negated. Typically, hard moves are in response to a bad roll (rolling a 6 or less) whereas soft moves are used to escalate a scene. Example using D&D tropes:

• GM: The orc charges at you, swinging his mighty orc axe. What do you do? (Soft move.)
• Player: I duck under the attack to get in close and gut him with my sword. (Player acts.)
• GM: Opts to invoke mechanics, at his option there may not be a roll involved. Dice come out. Player rolls and scores a 6-.
• GM: The axe thunks into your shield, splintering it and knocking you to the ground. (Hard move.)

Couple of notes: A hard move doesn't mean do damage, and Apocalypse World typically resolves a scene in one or two rolls, and there are special mechanics for getting hurt, so everything spirals differently than in D&D. Getting into a fight in Apocalypse World is very different than in D&D because (a) even taking a tiny bit of damage has the potential to take you out of a scene entirely, and (b) allow a threat to advance. In response to a failed roll, the orc gang might slaughter the town's garrison, kill or endanger a loved one, etc.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fully agreed. But for players used to structures with mechanical buffers like saving throws or passive perception, having the buffer be fictional rather than mechanical can generate the sense of unfairness. I'm not interested in asking whether it's really unfair - to me that seems a dead-end inquiry. I'm thinking more about the practical issue of how to get someone whose main play experience is with recent versions of D&D (or similar RPGs) into the required "headspace" for the sort of game @Grendel_Khan wants to run.

One of the interesting things about how Blades in the Dark functions is that you can inflict consequences on the PC much as you would with a hard move in AW, but in Blades the player will have the option to resist the consequence after it’s been described.

It may cost some stress to do so, and it may only reduce the consequence rather than eliminate it, but that element of the game really gives the player a lot of say about what happens to their PC.

And it kind of absolves the GM from having to feel guilty about hitting them with a harsh consequence (something I know you’ve struggles with at times @pemerton ).

All of this to say that @Grendel_Khan (or anyone else new to running Blades or S&V) shouldn’t shy away from inflicting consequences. Let those chips fall where they may and put it on the player to decide if they’ll resist or not.

 

[Fenris-77]

To tack a notion on to @hawkeyefan 's great post above, the willingness to hit players hard with consequences in FitD is also a key element in getting the stress and gambit play loops really humming along like they should.

 

[Manbearcat]

Holy crap. That is a master class right there. Incredible rundown of all the possible angles and rules interactions, especially passing Gambits along and doing Setup actions, and how those are incorporated into the sequence of actions

My only question, because it's still my biggest source of anxiety, is what you might pick in the moment for the complication you mention here:

"Jack: Just a Setup move for covering fire. I'm going to buy her time and give her increased Effect so she can get all the way to us so she doesn't have to Scramble with worse Effect again to GTFO when Burgley gets the stupid ship bay doors open. I got a 5 on my Scrap. <GM tells Jack the Controlled Complication...Jack elects to Resist it because he has a lot of Stress left to risk and doesn't love the complication>."

I'm guessing you wouldn't do reduced effect, since that would kill the success entirely. There are obviously lots of possibilities, but I'm still wrapping my head around appropriate combat-related consequences that aren't in the standard critical failure mode (which doesn't seem appropriate here).

Controlled Consequence for a Muscle in that situation might be:

* Oh no your pouch for your Mystic Ammo box got clipped when you swung your blaster around to fire. Its spilled and the Ammo is all over the floor around you. You're going to have to make a move to recover it or spend a DTA to get more.

* +1 Heat; the restaurant upstairs in the spaceport can absolutely hear the blaster fire bounding off the metallic ceiling/walls.

* 1 Harm (burned hand - affecting future moves with this hand); blaster quirk caused it to overheat from the effort.

* Krieger blaster goes from Fine to Normal until it gets fixed by a DTA (something went wrong mechanically or it got hit by fire or shrapnel in the exchange).

* +1 to a Faction Clock; you get a closer look at the droids and they bear the logo of x (a clear sign that they're nearly ascending...lets say this Faction is an enemy of yours and they're nearly going to Tier up with this Faction Clock).

* You get a crackling call on your com from the pilot droid in your ship to hurry the hell up. They've just gotten a signature that the spaceport is initiating the protocols to start the Tractor Beam system (1/4 Clock "Tractor Beam").

 

[chaochou]

To continue the discussion of 'mystery' and 'investigation' in Apocalypse World and whether it 'does them', here are some more ideas.

Let's say Dust, our Hocus, says while being asked what's up with her followers that a couple of them have been killed recently. Let's say it's Zeal and Crater that got aced somehow. Great - we have something of a mystery. How did they get themselves killed? Is it coincidence, plain bad luck, a vendetta?

So we can ask Dust some provocative questions about the circumstances? Were they both killed in the junkyard? Were they lovers? Had they made you angry recently? Were they close? What was the last thing Zeal said to you?

We immediately let the player establish all kinds of additional elements about this mystery before we do anything. We establish the player's fears and suspicions, their connection, their attachment.

This is the foundation of mystery in Apocalypse World. You care enough about the player characters to ask them what matters to them and what the boundaries of their knowledge are.

Okay, we've asked our MC questions and maybe Dust is now intrigued enough just by what came out of that to get proactive to sort this situation out. They go and see Francois, the Maestro D and offer fancy candles for their place if Francois will bring in the killer. And Francois agrees, as long as there's a case of whiskey in it too, and now Dust owes Francois a set of fancy candles and a case of whiskey and Francois has Fingers in every Pie and hits the roll and two days later the head of the killer arrives in a box.

And maybe now we're done with that.

Or maybe someone hands me the MC a golden opportunity, like upon seeing the head Dust says 'Anyone know this guy?'

And so maybe I make a soft move like 'This old timer everyone calls Bleach hobbles over and says 'Sure. He runs with that badass assassin crew out of the old clocktower.' Like, I'm announcing future badness and we have a new mystery as to why this crew are killing off Dust's followers.

Or maybe Francois misses the Fingers in Every Pie roll and now it just got real for Dust and Francois.

Or maybe instead of all of that, Dust just goes to Crater's place and opens their brain to the maelstrom and sees their death happen.

Or maybe in their answers to my provocative questions they said someone brought them a bullet, or axe, or lawnmower blade which killed Zeal and they take that to Leone the Savvyhead and he can make stuff speak to him and he learns stuff that way, maybe clear stuff or cryptic stuff, and we get our mystery expand and deepen that way.

Or maybe none of the above happens, and instead the player does nothing. But when they miss their next Frenzy roll we know why their followers turn on them - cos Dust didn't protect Zeal and Crater and now they're afraid and angry, and Dust better make amends right now...

So I hope it's clear that mystery and the unknown can easily form a really central element of Apocalypse World play (and hopefully its also clear they usually do in my games).

And I hope it's equally clear that what we're not doing is railroad investigation into stuff the MC has written for the players to 'find out'. Pre-scripted, pre-determined, zero-agency 'learn what's in my notes' play. Jumping through hoops finding scripted 'clues'. There are plenty of games to do that with if you enjoy it - and Apocalypse World isn't one of them.

 

[Manbearcat]

To continue the discussion of 'mystery' and 'investigation' in Apocalypse World and whether it 'does them', here are some more ideas.

Let's say Dust, our Hocus, says while being asked what's up with her followers that a couple of them have been killed recently. Let's say it's Zeal and Crater that got aced somehow. Great - we have something of a mystery. How did they get themselves killed? Is it coincidence, plain bad luck, a vendetta?

So we can ask Dust some provocative questions about the circumstances? Were they both killed in the junkyard? Were they lovers? Had they made you angry recently? Were they close? What was the last thing Zeal said to you?

We immediately let the player establish all kinds of additional elements about this mystery before we do anything. We establish the player's fears and suspicions, their connection, their attachment.

This is the foundation of mystery in Apocalypse World. You care enough about the player characters to ask them what matters to them and what the boundaries of their knowledge are.

Okay, we've asked our MC questions and maybe Dust is now intridued enough just by what came out of that to get proactive to sort this situation out. They go and see Francois, the Maestro D and offer fancy candles for their place if Francois will bring in the killer. And Francois agrees, as long as there's a case of whiskey in it too, and now Dust owes Francois a set of fancy candles and a case of whiskey and Francois has Fingers in every Pie and hits the roll and two days later the head of the killer arrives in a box.

And maybe now we're done with that.

Or maybe someone hands me the MC a golden opportunity, like seeing the head Dust says 'anyone know this guy'.

And so maybe I make a soft move like 'This old timer everyone calls Bleach hobbles over and says 'Sure. He runs with that badass assassin crew out of the old clocktower.' Like, I'm announcing future badness and we have a new mystery as to why this crew are killing off Dust's followers.

Or maybe Francois misses the Fingers in Every Pie roll and now it just got real for Dust and Francois.

Or maybe instead of all of that, Dust just goes to Crater's place and opens their brain to the maelstrom and sees their death happen.

Or maybe in their answers to my provocative questions they said someone brought them a bullet, or axe, or lawnmower blade which killed Zeal and they take that to Leone the Savvyhead and he can make stuff speak to him and he learns stuff that way, maybe clear stuff or cryptic stuff, and we get our mystery expand and deepen that way.

Or maybe none of the above happens, and instead the player does nothing. But when they miss their next Frenzy roll we know why their followers turn on them - cos Dust didn't protect Zeal and Crater and now their afraid and angry, and Dust better make amends right now...

Not railroady enough in my opinion.

How do we get the bad guy to do the thing in the place with the people in your fangled scenario, HUH?! Didn’t think a that did ya?!

Too table facing.

How am I going to get in-character when I don’t have to ask the GM “do I know x, y, and z?” How do you expect me to not focus on the rules to the detriment of the fiction and optimize the game into oblivion when I know the rules and can interact with them? Didn’t think of that did ya?!

Where the hell is the strudel-baking, the drunken singing at the tavern, the existential musing and brooding for 45 minutes over campfire?

Terrible.

YOU LOSE

GOOD DAY SIR

 

[Fenris-77]

To be fair, AW's version of 'investigate a mystery' is pretty, um, IDK, maybe aggressive is the right word, because the game indexes that kind of play. What AW doesn't do is more contemplative investigation (a phrase that's at least close to what I mean). Perhaps that second case might also be indexed as 'clue focused' (setting aside the scriptedness of those clues). However, the fact that AW doesn't do the second should surprise no one since that kind, or style, or manner of play wasn't the goal of AW's design.

The post above (@chaochou ) illustrates nicely, IMO, that mystery can indeed work just fine within AW's design, and also should serve as an excellent index to how well the PbtA design philosophy could accommodate that same style of play when the design choices are made more specifically to support it.

The take home here is that PbtA design in many cases is as much about types of conflict as it is anything else. There's nothing one way or another in that which obviates the idea of a mystery, with one exception. As mentioned above, if you want a scripted mystery, one where the clues and solution are all prepped and set by the GM prior to play, then you will inevitably be disappointed. That said, I think it's important not to conflate that one kind of investigative play with investigative play more generally, or, worse, talk on as if that kind of play is somehow the pure goods while everything else is a muddled reflection. What we're really talking about with, just to pick an example, CoC investigative play is that the mystery is entirely within the agency of the GM. In even a straight PbtA adaptation of CoC (see Mythos World) that agency gets shifted. Not everyone is happy to let go of being in charge of all the fiddly bits.

 

[Fenris-77]

A small addendum to my post above. We often talk about investigation or mystery in terms of TV, movies and books. In all three of those cases there is a script in play - one that dictates the outcome of the mystery in advance. However, I think it's worth at least considering whether or not that notion actually means anything in terms of whether the show/movie/book was any good or not. What do we want out of those media? We want an exciting or interesting story (read series of imagined events if 'story' rubs your rhubarb wrong) and a satisfying conclusion. Neither of those things, in RPG terms, bears any particular connection to the scriptedness of the set pieces involved. I only mention this because in a couple of places above the idea of pre-scripted set pieces has been set as equivalent to the presence of 'mystery', an idea that doesn't really hold up under examination.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I could be off-target here, but my overly brief sense of the main difference between investigation in many (most) trad games and investigation in something like PbtA or FitD is that the latter are not interested in dead ends. They either skip right past them or mechanically turn what might be a dead-end scene in another game into a surprise plot twist or revelation.

Does that sound right? In a sense, it seems like that's a main, overarching feature of Story Now games--get to the conflict already.

 

[Fenris-77]

I could be off-target here, but my overly brief sense of the main difference between investigation in many (most) trad games and investigation in something like PbtA or FitD is that the latter are not interested in dead ends. They either skip right past them or mechanically turn what might be a dead-end scene in another game into a surprise plot twist or revelation.

Does that sound right? In a sense, it seems like that's a main, overarching feature of Story Now games--get to the conflict already.

Well, sort of? PbtA and FitD don't script set dressing. There's no "the duke's diary is in the third drawer of his wardrobe" sort of clue salting. The framing of clues is a direct consequence of the players' actions and the fictional positioning. So if the players actually search the Duke's bedroom successfully, you can then feel free to have a diary with some useful content appear because it makes sense that it could be so. Less true if they search a random apple cart in the market. This does indeed obviate the dead end issues experienced in some games, but only as a by product of being interested in other things (like the conflict you mention)

Edit: to clarify, and now I'm talking about my own personal running of PbtA games, if the Duke is a key figure in a threat, I might have noted down that correspondence of his misdeeds exists, but I likely wouldn't have been any more specific than that. Mostly a reminder to myself that incriminating documents could be a thing at some point.