Barf Forth Apocalyptica
the swamp provides => the preapocalypse => Topic started by: lumpley on June 28, 2010, 03:06:02 PM
-
So far, when people have asked me about Apocalypse World, my sales pitch has been to blink stupidly, scuff my feet, and perhaps mumble. Ask Nathaniel Cole, I did exactly that to him at GameStorm.
Help! I'm hopeless. What would you say?
-Vincent
-
It's Max Max, as written by Grant Morrison, and directed by Joss Whedon.
-
I tell people what it used to say in the playtest PDF under "why to play."
- It's basically Firefly.
- The characters are fucking hot.
- They're together against the world but they can't for sure trust each other and they're the only hope and what if they fuck it up?
Also:
- You don't really need to know the rules before we start playing.
- Sex moves.
-
- It's basically Firefly.
As a warning, when "Orly" opened with this in his Apocalypse World game at GPNW, it gave a few people the impression it was a scifi game for a few while until we realized the disconnect and corrected it. So you might want to append that with "Except post-apocalyptic, instead of scifi".
-
Well duh.
;-)
-
Obviously I was speaking to other, less awesomely talented individuals than as yourself, who might be reading the thread and considering applying the suggestions therein!
I'm also a big fan of using the "Intoducing the..." sections to get to the heart of Apocalypse World's setting. The Chopper one in particular's excellent in that regard, followed by the Operator and Driver in no particular order.
-
I like what Benhimself said. I'd go with something like:
"50 some-odd years ago, the world as it was ended. We're what's left. The characters are the people that can scrape something together out of the ruin of the world and try to live instead of just survive. Think Mad Max, for sure, but also [insert your favorite 2 or 3 bits of appropriate media]. The rules are quick to pick up, the characters kick ass, and everything matters. Here's a character splat. Wanna play?"
-
"... everything matters."
I love that!
-
nothing about my experience with apocalypse world has led me to believe it's much like firefly at all, except maybe that many characters have abilities and skills that other characters do not have.
i wouldn't pitch AW as much like firefly unless I had a demo that supported that to follow it up.
-
The character classes come directly from Firefly. Think about it.
The firefly reference is an interesting one. It makes sense only in terms of plot, story, and characters, which is almost everything, but it doesn't have lasers so everyone gets so hung up on "genre".
-
The character classes come directly from Firefly. Think about it.
I am, and it's interesting. I can see most of it, but not all. What's Mal? Or Book?
-
I see that there are some parallels in how the game is set up and in characterization, but in actual play, there's almost none of the "adventure" feeling of the show.
like I said, if i planned on playing it thusly, I could see it working out but out-of-the-box I wouldn't have noticed the parallels without the direct comparison.
-
I correct myself (I was paraphrasing John at the time) I said it was Vx's Firefly game. Which is kind of like saying that D&D is Gary's Lord of the Rings game. It helps if you're familiar with both Vx's work and Firefly but it's not even close to any kind of definition.
-
The consensus on this thread would appear to be that it's "Mad Max II in the style of Firefly".
(I'd have said "Mad Max in the style of Deadwood" but that's just me.)
-
The character classes come directly from Firefly. Think about it.
I am, and it's interesting. I can see most of it, but not all. What's Mal? Or Book?
Mal is EXACTLY an operator. Book is a Hocus. Obviously, things have drifted with the setting. But those character types work well together, on the archetypal level.
To me, Firefly isn't about the "adventure". The "things" occurring in that show are just a lattice to hang the character interactions on.
Deadwood is also a great example. Looking at the rules or several iterations, and maybe Vincent can speak to this, but it seems like the game began as a travelling game similar to Dogs and morphed somewhere on the way into a game centered around a singular town.
-
I'm finding myself looking all squinty-eyed at "ApW is like Firefly". I see it more as "The crew from Firefly could be totally be an Operator and his gang in ApW." Many games of ApW will be stationary, with a hardholder. Some will be moving, with a gang of some sort.
-
Firefly + Band of Brothers + The Road Warrior + Debbie Does Dallas.
-
AW brings me thoughts of:
The Road Warrior + Mad Max + The Road by Cormac McCarthy + The Blood of Heroes
However, if we accent world psychic maelstrom a little bit more (and generally supernatural phenomena), I would point also movies by John Carpenter, like "The Thing", "Prince of Darkness" or "In the Mouth of Madness". They have certainly some impact on my AW sessions.
-
Let me second replacing the Firefly reference with Deadwood. To me, it plays exactly like PA Deadwood.
-
I'm not sure the 'hollywood high concept elevator pitch' of 'it's like X with Y!' is the best way to approach this as you're selling to a prospective audience, not a prospective producer.
So that said, look at it like any other product:
1) What's the USP (Unique Selling Proposition) on AW? What makes AW different (and better!) than other RPGs, and specifically other RPGs with a post apocalyptic setting? What can you do with AW that you can't do with any other game? As a player, how's the AW experience unique and only available via AW?
2) Define the target market. In terms of their preferences, what elements does AW share with stuff they already like? This could be media (books, movies, TV shows etc..) other apocalyptic themed RPGs, an interest in indie games, or games authored by Vince Baker, whatever. Just map the connections.
Answer those two questions and you should have the elements to highlight to promote sales/interest when someone asks you about the game.
For me, I see: The game has an 'R Rating'. It's by Vince Baker, author of Kill Puppies For Satan, Dogs in the Vineyard, In A Wicked Age, and Poison'd... The playbooks definitely qualify as unique packaging, and totally remind me of the little pamphlets certain religious groups distributed at one time, specifically the Chic Tracts. Mechanically, it reminds me a bit of 'Go' - it's simple to learn how to play, but actually playing reveals a complexity and depth that keeps things interesting. ("The further you 'go', the deeper it gets.)
-
I would just say things like:
- It's about awful people in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, a makeshift family that sometimes fuck each other and sometimes fuck each other over.
- It's about people who are hot, sharp, hard, cool, and weird.
- Hey, this is hands-down one of the best games ever made. You should check it out.
- Or, for a certain crowd, this game is important. Make note of it.
-
- Hey, this is hands-down one of the best games ever made. You should check it out.
- Or, for a certain crowd, this game is important. Make note of it.
Hey Jonathan, probably do it in a different thread, but please expand!
-
Hans, it's probably too early to really talk with any authority about the significance of AW, and I don't want to just sound like I'm inflating Vx's ego, but I would point at things like:
- the explicit way that AW tells players when to engage the mechanics (the "When X happens" part of how moves are structured, which derives from the players making assessments about the shared fiction),
- the explicit way that AW tells the MC when and how to assert narrative authority, though MC moves, and also attempts to explicitly transmit attitudes and approaches through describing basic principles ("barf forth apocalyptica," etc.),
- the "object oriented" nature of how moves are designed, which makes them super robust for hacking,
- the way the basic structure of most die-rolling moves (10+, 7-9, 6 or less) builds on Otherkind Dice,
- the awesomeness of the various moves that don't require rolls, bits of structured freeform for the players (along with the MC's principles and MC moves, which are totally structured freeform; indeed, you could make a freeform version of AW pretty easily), and
- overall, the way in which the explicitness of the various components of AW (player moves, MC moves, core principles, etc.) provide a language for talking about how to play and GM games, a pretty robust language that we can share. For example, if I'm writing a AW hack and change some of the core principles, I can make it explicit how I want people to approach the game, instead of trying to imply it through paragraphs of GM advice. I still need to explain my new principles in detail, of course, but the fact that I have to boil them down to pithy phrases means I have to be very explicit about them.
If I had to boil this down to a core principle, I would say that AW really embraces transparency in game design. Which is really cool and important.
-
Forgot one more aspect of transparency:
- the way the MC is actively encouraged -- and more importantly, shown how -- to create custom moves; AW really embraces the GM's role in engaging with the mechanics as a designer as well as an interpreter.
That's pretty significant, I think.
-
Mal is EXACTLY an operator. Book is a Hocus. Obviously, things have drifted with the setting. But those character types work well together, on the archetypal level.
Inara's a Skinner, Simon's an Angel, Jayne is a Gunlugger, Zoe's a Battlebabe/Gunlugger, Wash is a Driver, Kaylee is a Savvyhead, and River's a Brainer.
Mal's almost a Hardholder, only his hardhold is the Serenity. Operator is probably a better fit, all around.
I should point out here that the first time I read the Skinner description I thought, "Oh, like Inara." :)
-
Yeah, but as Nathanial has pointed out elsewhere, the drift here is substantial. While it's clear that FF served as inspiration, it's actually hard to make certain FF characters in AW. Kaylee for instance. AW's heavy focus on psychic weirdness changes the thrust of a lot of the characters.
-
Doesn't at some point Kaylee say something about machines talking to her or something... That's weird.
Maybe I'm just remembering that wrong.
-
No, you're right. She frequently talks about Serenity as though it's a living thing that "tells her what's wrong." She's not as weird as most AW savvyheads probably are but she's definitely got the move "things speak."
-
Just as a completely random datapoint, saying "its like Firefly" as your first introduction to me would result in me smiling pleasantly and walking away.
Vincent,
Can you tell me what you love about AW? What makes you burn when you think about what its like to play the game?
Now, can you say it in under a minute? In two tweet posts?
If what makes you hot is that its like Firefly, sure, say that and fuck me for walking away. If its something else, that's what you need to say.
-
I don't get why you would reference Firefly at all when pitching this game. It's way more dark, more brutal, more apocalypsy and less sci-fi. I mean, I see what you're saying but no.
Just be like, "Its about being a biker and riding across the ash wastes with your gang or or its about being a psychic who taps into the ghost-nightmares of everyone who died during a nuclear firestorm or its about RULING BARTERTOWN."
-
So, I came up with good-enough back cover copy, I'll post it here when I'm at that computer again. I'm still not sure what I'll say in person, but it's good to know to save Firefly for later in the conversation, if it comes up.
Thanks, everybody!
-Vincent
-
Exciting!
I think Firefly has its place in the "this is what the game can be like" talk, but certainly not during the opening salvo.
I'm curious to see what you've come up with.
-
Like every other possible pitch, Firefly is a great touchstone for some and not for others. There's no magic wand.
That said, I'm glad you have a thing you like. Looking forward to seeing it.
-
Like every other possible pitch, Firefly is a great touchstone for some and not for others. There's no magic wand.
That's the danger of "It's like X but with Y" where X and Y are pop-cultural items. You alienate some while including others. They're an easy out but when they fail, boy do they fail.
-
Like every other possible pitch, Firefly is a great touchstone for some and not for others. There's no magic wand.
That said, I'm glad you have a thing you like. Looking forward to seeing it.
It's a genre problem. A friend and I were talking about this. Just like Star Wars clearly has nothing to do with science fiction, but still gets lumped in there by most people, it's generally better to go with the trappings rather than what the game is actually "about". And if you lead with the pitch of "it's a hyper violent post-apocalyptic nightmare psycho fantasy", you'd be wrong as well.
If you told someone that AW was like Firefly before they played it, they'd get the wrong impression. If you told them that after they played, then they'd get it.
Of course, my friend and I's conversation devolved to the point where we decided that there were only really two genres: "lasers" and "no lasers".
AW is "no lasers" as written.
-
Of course, my friend and I's conversation devolved to the point where we decided that there were only really two genres: "lasers" and "no lasers".
AW is "no lasers" as written.
Well, there ya go: just tell 'em it's a "no lasers" game.
-
Of course, my friend and I's conversation devolved to the point where we decided that there were only really two genres: "lasers" and "no lasers".
AW is "no lasers" as written.
Well, there ya go: just tell 'em it's a "no lasers" game.
I know a Savvyhead or two who might attempt to disagree.
That said, our games have, so far, been a lot more The Road and a lot less Fallout, so you might be right.
-
So maybe for typical fiction there are only two genres: Lasers and No Lasers, but for non-typical fiction like RPGs (in which the experiencers of the fiction also take on aspects of the creator's role) there are three: Lasers, No Lasers, and Maybe Lasers.
-
So maybe for typical fiction there are only two genres: Lasers and No Lasers, but for non-typical fiction like RPGs (in which the experiences of the fiction also take on aspects of the creator's role) there are three: Lasers, No Lasers, and Maybe Lasers.
Can we have lasers and no lasers simultaneously? Can I invent the Schrödinger Beam?
-
So maybe for typical fiction there are only two genres: Lasers and No Lasers, but for non-typical fiction like RPGs (in which the experiences of the fiction also take on aspects of the creator's role) there are three: Lasers, No Lasers, and Maybe Lasers.
Can we have lasers and no lasers simultaneously? Can I invent the Schrödinger Beam?
Maybe, but now we're dealing with experimental fiction. I say don't play with what Aristotle wrote in Poetics:
Verily, there are simply two modes of meaningful expression: that which hath lasers and that which hath not lasers.
But I'm a traditionalist.
-
See, I never much cared for Aristotle's take on it. I found the Jain savants take on it ever so much more flexible and human. It's complicated to translate from the Sanskrit, but basically it goes like this:
In some ways this game has lasers
In some ways this game has no lasers
In some ways this game has lasers and in some ways this game has no lasers
In some ways this game has lasers, but they are not describable
In some ways this game has no lasers, but they are describable
In some ways this game has lasers, in some ways it does not have lasers, and they are not describable
In some ways, the lasers in this game cannot be said to be or not to be
Personally, I believe that AW is a game that has no lasers, but they are describable. To understand how you just have to look at the Psychic Malestorm rules.
-
I'm not sure about the whole Jain thing, but my last game had helluva lot of lasers inside, including 3 m height battle mech, seizing Golden Gate-sized bridge by force, dodging nukes, and basilion of nanobots transfoming British Isles. Not to mention fighting fastfood chains, Al Donaldi and KFC Sheikh. So, being a modal realist myself, I'd say: as written, Maybe Lasers.
Anyway: some time ago, I explained AW as "postapocalyptic and way more brutal Neuromancer". Worked fine.
-
I'm not sure about the whole Jain thing, but my last game had helluva lot of lasers inside, including 3 m height battle mech, seizing Golden Gate-sized bridge by force, dodging nukes, and basilion of nanobots transfoming British Isles. Not to mention fighting fastfood chains, Al Donaldi and KFC Sheikh. So, being a modal realist myself, I'd say: as written, Maybe Lasers.
I want to be in that game!
-
I'm not sure about the whole Jain thing, but my last game had helluva lot of lasers inside, including 3 m height battle mech, seizing Golden Gate-sized bridge by force, dodging nukes, and basilion of nanobots transfoming British Isles. Not to mention fighting fastfood chains, Al Donaldi and KFC Sheikh. So, being a modal realist myself, I'd say: as written, Maybe Lasers.
I want to be in that game!
This is the opposite of every apocalypse world game I ever want to play.
Which isn't to say it's bad or uncool, but if someone said we were playing that game with AW, I would decline.
-
Simon: thanks! ;-)
skinnyghost: that's fine! ;-) I mean, I thind I'd react the same way as you when someone would say "let's play Firefly". Still, as written, AW says nothing against that kind of Quite-A-Lot-Of-Lasers things (and I think it's not just about me and my problems with seeing the sharp distinction between postapocalypse and cyberpunk ;-)). One creates Mechs for Drivers using Construction / Utility rules, takes number of stuff from 1st session, adds a little bit of Jodorowsky here and there, and then it's just about zooming and moving away in scenes. And then you have perfect "Snowcrash" or "Mona Lisa Overdrive" (not to mention another possibility, things like "Tetsuo: the Iron Man").