Show Posts
1
Apocalypse World / Trying to understand the nature of moves
« on: June 15, 2017, 02:50:10 PM »
I am exploring that nature of moves in AW and whether they are an aid to playing or whether the moves are more than that and create a deeper dynamic within the game.
In most RPGs, if not all of them, if a character wants to do something then the GM/Players will work out what skills and/or attributes apply to it and then the player rolls whatever is appropriate to determine the outcome of the action, whether that is success or failure, or partial success etc etc. Moves in AW work the same, in that the player says what they are doing or how they react and then the move that is relevant to that course of action is consulted, which determines what stat modifies the 2d6 roll and the different types of outcomes that can result. So, in this regard, I don’t really see a difference between moves and other RPG systems that don’t have such a rigid move system.
Then you get to the written options under moves. I am unsure how strictly these need to be adhered to. If a player wants to ask a slightly different question to the ones mentioned in a move, or the GM/player has an idea of a consequence/complication that is not listed under that move, are they bound by what the move says or can they add new things, take it in a slightly different direction? My presumption is that you can go off piste and roll with whatever has been come up with, rather than having to stick strictly to what is written in the move itself i.e. moves are helpful guidelines rather than the Ten Commandments written in stone. However, I want to check that I am correct in this.
Looking at moves themselves, they seem very similar to stunts in Fate e.g. they allow you to substitute one stat for another in a roll, or allow you to do something outside the rules covered in the basic moves i.e. they give the character with that move a way of creating outcomes that are unique.
Moves in AW are all written down and finite i.e. there are only so many moves in the game, and each of them is carefully defined. So, when acting, a player can only choose one of the exisiting moves available (or rather the description of what they are trying to do has to be attributed to one of the moves). So it seems that if something is going to be done then it needs to be accomplished through an existing move – moves are not generated on the fly. However, I presume that all actions a player might want to make are covered by an existing move, in one form or another, so while the list of moves may be finite they cover anything that a player may want his character to do i.e. the aim of moves is not to limit possible actions, but rather to distil all possible actions down into general categories.
So, I suppose what I am really trying to figure out is whether moves in AW are just helpful guidelines for players and GMs/MCs, or whether they play a deeper role, and if they do play a deeper role, what is that role?
I hope I have explained that well enough. Take a move like Read a Sitch. It has a number of possible questions that can be asked, 3 for a 10+, 1 for a 7-9, and 1 for a 6-, but be prepared for the worse:
• Where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• Which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• Which enemy is the biggest threat?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What’s my enemy’s true position?
• Who’s in control here?
Is the list of questions a hard list i.e. questions have to limited to the list, or is it just a list of potential questions, a useful guide to the kind of questions that could be asked, but players could ask different ones if they wished to or the MC allowed? If it is a hard list, then what is the design basis behind having a defined list ? Why does the list need to be limited in this way?
I am just trying to get my head around how strict as a GM/MC needs to be when running the game and overseeing moves and their effects.
In most RPGs, if not all of them, if a character wants to do something then the GM/Players will work out what skills and/or attributes apply to it and then the player rolls whatever is appropriate to determine the outcome of the action, whether that is success or failure, or partial success etc etc. Moves in AW work the same, in that the player says what they are doing or how they react and then the move that is relevant to that course of action is consulted, which determines what stat modifies the 2d6 roll and the different types of outcomes that can result. So, in this regard, I don’t really see a difference between moves and other RPG systems that don’t have such a rigid move system.
Then you get to the written options under moves. I am unsure how strictly these need to be adhered to. If a player wants to ask a slightly different question to the ones mentioned in a move, or the GM/player has an idea of a consequence/complication that is not listed under that move, are they bound by what the move says or can they add new things, take it in a slightly different direction? My presumption is that you can go off piste and roll with whatever has been come up with, rather than having to stick strictly to what is written in the move itself i.e. moves are helpful guidelines rather than the Ten Commandments written in stone. However, I want to check that I am correct in this.
Looking at moves themselves, they seem very similar to stunts in Fate e.g. they allow you to substitute one stat for another in a roll, or allow you to do something outside the rules covered in the basic moves i.e. they give the character with that move a way of creating outcomes that are unique.
Moves in AW are all written down and finite i.e. there are only so many moves in the game, and each of them is carefully defined. So, when acting, a player can only choose one of the exisiting moves available (or rather the description of what they are trying to do has to be attributed to one of the moves). So it seems that if something is going to be done then it needs to be accomplished through an existing move – moves are not generated on the fly. However, I presume that all actions a player might want to make are covered by an existing move, in one form or another, so while the list of moves may be finite they cover anything that a player may want his character to do i.e. the aim of moves is not to limit possible actions, but rather to distil all possible actions down into general categories.
So, I suppose what I am really trying to figure out is whether moves in AW are just helpful guidelines for players and GMs/MCs, or whether they play a deeper role, and if they do play a deeper role, what is that role?
I hope I have explained that well enough. Take a move like Read a Sitch. It has a number of possible questions that can be asked, 3 for a 10+, 1 for a 7-9, and 1 for a 6-, but be prepared for the worse:
• Where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• Which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• Which enemy is the biggest threat?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What’s my enemy’s true position?
• Who’s in control here?
Is the list of questions a hard list i.e. questions have to limited to the list, or is it just a list of potential questions, a useful guide to the kind of questions that could be asked, but players could ask different ones if they wished to or the MC allowed? If it is a hard list, then what is the design basis behind having a defined list ? Why does the list need to be limited in this way?
I am just trying to get my head around how strict as a GM/MC needs to be when running the game and overseeing moves and their effects.