Using Apocalypse World to Outline and Draft Your Own RPG

Here in Part 12, I point out a detail in Apocalypse World’s playbook moves that you might have missed.

This article was made possible by the generous support of my patrons. Please consider joining them by supporting me on Patreon.

Chaotic Presence

I’ve got a series of playbook screenshots for you. Spot the difference!

What’s the difference?

The difference is, the Gearcutter and the Hocus don’t have free moves, but the Harrier does! The Harrier gets chaotic presence for free.

In Apocalypse World 3rd Ed, two of the core playbooks have free moves: the Harrier gets chaotic presence and the Lawmaker gets the law speaks to you. Let’s look at both.

Chaotic Presence

Chaotic presence: When you and your gang enter into a nonviolent situation, roll+Hard. On a 10+, choose 1 or 2. On a 7–9, the MC chooses 1 for you, and you can choose another if you like:
• Someone in your gang picks a fight with someone here. Ask the MC who and what it’s about.
• Someone here owes something to someone in your gang. Ask the MC who and how serious it is.
• Someone in your gang wants to help or save someone here. Ask the MC who and how far they’ll go.
• Someone here has a loyalty-testing connection with someone in your gang. Ask the MC who and how they act on it.
• Someone here is so afraid of someone in your gang that they abruptly leave. Ask the MC who.
• Someone here makes a huge show of welcome to someone in your gang. Ask the MC who and whether it’s sincere.
On a miss, ask the MC what [your most dumbass] does.

When do you make this move? When you and your gang enter into a nonviolent situation.

Is it your choice whether to make the move? No.

What’s at stake in this move? Whether your entrance destabilizes the nonviolent situation. (It does.)

What’s the best possible outcome? You choose how your entrance destabilizes the situation.

What’s the middle outcome? The MC chooses how your entrance destabilizes the situation.

What’s the worst possible outcome? Your most dumbass gang member destabilizes the situation.

Is this move clearly advantageous for your character? Not really, nope.

The Law Speaks to You

The Law speaks to you: When someone breaks your laws, roll+Weird. On a 10+, the Law allows you to choose:
• You let them off with a warning, reduced penalty, or reprieve.
• You make an exception for them and they have no blame.
• They must face the full penalty.
On a 7-9, the MC tells you which the Law will allow. On a miss, or if you are unable to obey the Law’s requirements, responsibility falls to you, and you must pay the penalty yourself. You may choose to pay it in full, in reduced form, or only symbolically.

When do you make this move? When someone breaks your laws.

Is it your choice whether to make the move? No.

What’s at stake in this move? The legitimacy of your laws, in the form of your enforcement of them. (Imagine someone you can’t stand giving you an excuse by breaking a minor law, vs someone you rely on breaking a major one.)

What’s the best possible outcome? You find a way to uphold your law without increasing the tensions in your holding (which may not be obvious).

What’s the middle outcome? The MC ties your hands.

What’s the worst possible outcome? You show blatant favoritism or prejudice and diminish the legitimacy of your laws in your holding.

Is this move clearly advantageous for your character? Not really, nope.

Free or Required?

There’s conventional wisdom in the PbtA world that a game’s moves should be advantageous for your character and consistent and equitable across their selection. It’s expressed in the sentiments “why would I ever choose this move?” and “why would I choose this move when I could choose that one instead?”

Apocalypse World mostly agrees, I guess, but only as a general principle. There are many possible exceptions. It’s not a rule of design.

These two moves, chaotic presence and the law speaks to you, are exceptions. They’re not clearly advantageous for your character:

When you enter into a nonviolent situation, many times — most times? — you won’t want your gang to destabilize and escalate it … but here we are.

When someone breaks your law, many times you won’t want to deal with it at all, you certainly won’t want it to challenge your consistency and integrity as its enforcer … but here we are.

…And they’re not consistent and equitable with other moves:

Compare chaotic presence to the other “presence” moves, like the Brain-Picker’s eerie presence or the Lawmaker’s forbidding presence, which give you useful information when you enter into a nonviolent situation, or the Hocus’ unsettling presence, which destabilizes the situation but puts you in a position to take advantage or gain power from it.

Compare the law speaks to you with other situational moves, like the Gearcutter’s oftener right or the Operator’s reputation, which solidify your social position instead of putting it under tension, or the Angel’s morbid curiosity or the Restless’ wanderer, which let you seize the circumstance to take action you otherwise couldn’t, instead of obliging you to take action you might not prefer.

So in Apocalypse World, the reason these moves are free is because, yknow, “why would I ever choose this move? Why would I choose this move when I could choose that one?” They aren’t free, they’re required.

“Part of the Fun”

In 2nd Ed Apocalypse World, there was an extended playbook that took this idea and ran with it, the Contaminated. The Contaminated has moves like:

Degeneration

Degeneration: at the beginning of the session, roll+hot. On a 10+, rewrite your looks slightly for the better. On a 7–9, rewrite your looks slightly for the worse. On a miss, rewrite your looks significantly for the worse. Rewrite freely, not limited to choosing new looks options from your list.

Fury

Fury: when you go aggro on someone, there’s no appeasing you. If they cave, mollify, or submit to you in any way, it provokes you; count it as forcing your hand. If they get away from you instead, you must pursue them and press the attack. Furthermore, whenever you have the opportunity to spend 1 to inflict terrible harm, you must do so.

Ravenous

Ravenous: in the presence of [circle 1: human blood, any blood, raw flesh, electricity, terror, poison, the moment of death], any action you undertake, other than to seek it directly and urgently and consume it in rapture, is under fire from the intensity of your contamination’s craving.

All of which, obviously, break the conventional wisdom about moves being advantageous, consistent, and equitable. Here’s a screenshot from the Contaminated’s character creation rules:

You choose 3 Contaminated moves (like it or not), and:

“Note that the contaminated moves aren’t good for you, but that playing to them anyway is the fun of the playbook.”

For the Harrier and the Lawmaker, even though they aren’t to your character’s advantage, even though they complicate your character’s life instead of helping keep your character on top, chaotic presence and the law speaks to you are part of the fun.

Under Hollow Hills

Try to be Useful

When you try to be useful, roll. On a 10+ hit, choose 3 of the following. On a 7–9 hit, choose 2. On a miss, choose 1. You can answer the question yourself, or else put it to the MC.
• You bump into someone. Who?
• You spill something. What?
• You undo someone’s work. Whose?
• You lose something. What?
• You hit someone with something. What?
• You break something. What?
• You set something on fire. How?
• You start singing.

Let Someone Put Their Arms Around You

When you let someone put their arms around you, and they do it, roll now, and roll again at the beginning of every session until you break off with them or they break off with you. On a 10+ hit, tell and ask them the following.
• This, between us, will one day end. For now, do you stay with me?
On a 7–9 hit, choose 1 of the following.
• I’m in grief, and you can never console me. Do you stay with me?
• I’m settling for you. Do you stay with me?
• I care for you, but I’m not your true love, and you’re not mine. Do you stay with me?
• I can look at your face and feel no happiness. Do you stay with me?
• I’m lost, and I’m not lost in you. Do you stay with me?
On a miss, you must waylay them. Choose how and make that play now. Afterward, ask them: Do you stay with me?

Under Hollow Hills’ extended playbooks are through and through with moves like these. Boneshoes’ kick someone to hell, the Dancing Bear’s demand treats from someone, the Giant’s Daughter’s fly into a rage and become overcome with fear, Half-a-Fool’s try to be useful, the Weeping Gale’s let someone put their arms around you — all compromise your character’s advantage and their control of the situation they’re in.

It shouldn’t be surprising! Under Hollow Hills loves to contradict conventional PbtA wisdom.

However, unlike chaotic presence and the law speaks to you in Apocalypse World, in Under Hollow Hills, you always choose your own moves, voluntarily, every time. There are no “fictional triggers” to hit, and no obligation to make a move when you happen to hit one. There’s no time when the MC will point to your sheet and say “you’re trying to be useful, so make with the dice.” It’s always your call.

And I think this reveals the point of moves like these. They don’t give your character an advantage, they give your character expression.

Takeaway

To sum up:

Despite conventional PbtA wisdom…

• It’s cool to make moves that aren’t consistent with other moves in your game…
• It’s cool to make moves that disadvantage your character even in the best case…
• It’s cool to make moves that express your character’s nature instead of always representing your character’s strengths…

…If that’s what your game wants and needs.

The way Apocalypse World deals with moves like this is by making them “free” (that is, required). Your game can do the same, but — like Under Hollow Hills — it may not even have to.

Thanks, everyone!

If you have any questions, I love to answer them. Hit me up, it’ll be my pleasure.

Past Installments:

• Back in Part 1, I laid out Apocalypse World’s philosophy and foundation, described the fit and purpose of its systems, and talked about which features are central to its workings and which aren’t.
• Then in Part 2, I walked through the beginnings of taking Apocalypse World’s parts and using them as the basis for a whole new game.
• In Part 3, I dived back into Apocalypse World’s basic moves. I went through them one by one to talk about how and why they work the way they do.
• In Part 4, I talked about playbooks, by request. What are they, do you want them in your game, and what are the alternatives?
• In Part 5, I took a quick aside to talk about some different ways that moves can fit into the conversation of play.
• In Part 6, I used an Ursula K. LeGuin quote — you probably already know the one! — as an outline for alternative models to Apocalypse World’s model of conflict.
• Part 7’s a good old-fashioned Q&A, in rounds: Round 1, Round 2, Round 3 (the lightning round!), & Q&A Round 4 (the Final Round!)
• In Part 8, I shared my six best, most reliable tricks for drafting interesting moves.
• In Part 9, I laid some groundwork for the idea of underlying models by pointing out a crucial feature of Apocalypse World.
• In Part 10, I developed the idea of underlying models further, with 2 solid examples and 1 tentative one.
• In Part 11, I explored a few of the dice systems we’ve used in our PbtA games.

Next Installments:

• In Part 13, upcoming, maybe I’ll take a closer look at Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands and The King Is Dead at last. I keep promising I will!

Reminder: The Goal is to Create a Playable Outline