One more thing: I don't know where to look for the special items amongst the Gear options. My player is really interested in those things, but he doesn't want me just make up stuff based on the names.

Wow, you have done a huge thing, dear sirs! Thank you very much!

Hi people!

I'm relieved to see the Artificer here. I didn't expect it to already exist. I am not much of a playbook-maker, so it's much easier for me to have your nicely crafted one, guys. Probably this will be the first big step of convincing one of my stubbornly tradgamer friend to find her interests in "simple" games. (Yeah, it's simple, but not just because of the math and the shorter list of mechanically different, specific combat options, which she are conditioned to be aware of (her favourite is D&D3.x).)
So thank you again!

Mike:

I don't think wanting to get the highest total on the roll (wanting my character to succeed to have more control (or is this really more or just an ephemeral stroke of feeling powerful?)) and acting purely on my vision of him/her and the situation produce the same thing (the same move or non-move action) every time. Is this one any clearer now?
In other words, I think, they have more to them ("real people" and AW characters) than their stats to base their decisions on.


Stefoid:

Why have a psychic maelstrom?

I think that's mainly for color reasons and whether it exists or not doesn't have a major/direct effect on resolution or the things I'm currently probing into. So I can't answer your question yet.

I think when you campaign, and this is a game supports campaigning, the general theme is one of rising stakes, rising challenge.  For balance, you want your characters to improve at the same rate the challenges do.

I don't think campaign play must groove on this thing which is a strong contender nonetheless. I may be mistaken, but I have a feeling about Improvement not being about balance, not on purpose, at least. (Though it could be as it can fill some permanent stat damage gaps.)


John:

Good one about escalating stakes, but I don't know if/how Improvement brings this to us.

Nathan:

Nice explanation, thanks! I think this is kinda cool, but I couldn't decide if this is at odds with "Play your character like they're a real person" for me. I will ponder over this post of yours for sure.

To tell you the truth, I was in a hurry when writing the OP. This is maybe the cause of the shortness and baffling, unexplained nature.


Shreyas:

Do you?
In practice, I have played that way some times and I will do so again. Probably in my case trying the basic game would be the way, but 6-7 sessions is a bit too much for me to spend with a playtesty feel.


Jonathan:

The first one: what is the goal of the PCs having different levels of the stats (so the existence of the stats, fundamentally)?

The other one: I don't know the early version of AW. How was that different? As for the new character -- improvement -> retirement cycle: this is not so important for me and probably this is the reason for I'm not being able to fully get the whole stuff behind or connected to this.

Paul:

Are these from the book? They're neat, anyway.


Michael:

Smart. I've started to think about looking up them, as I remembered they're good, too. And they're more for my personal taste as they're listed in the same format as the GM-s things.


Nathan:

Sorry, but I don't get it. Is this related to play passionately, make hard moves and take risks? Or do you think this sentence of yours encompass even more? And more of what? Advice from the book or from your preferences?


D. Anderson:

Those Principles and their explanations are just great! I'd really love to see your whole work.

By the way, I think Principles are Agenda on a lower level, so they can be confusing, yes. Perhaps Agenda is more "why to play?" and "how to play?" while Principles answer the question of "how to achieve this?". And of course Moves are even lower level/basic/fundamental tools.
In a sentence, you follow (and hopefully reach) your Agenda by making Moves guided by the Principles. I'd like to think about Principles as this kind of link.
I hope, I'm not just inventing these relations...

"(...)the tools to engage and guide the players are built into the character playbooks at a conceptual level and expressed in the details of their looks and moves.  This kind of precludes the need for an explicit agenda for players, for AW."
I know I have seen or heard something like this from Vincent himself, but I can't agree on this. How could an explicit explanation ruin the thing? I always felt people will never use the game as a language better than their mother tongue.

Hi Folks,

I think I am nearing to catch the basics of narrative GM-ing in the form of MC-ing Apocalypse World. But the non-MC player side of the gameplay still troubles me.

I've read (or heard) somewhere that Vincent thinks there is no need for these but I feel a crying need for Agenda and Principles for the non-MC players as well.

Did I miss something already in the book? Please, help me out.

All the best,
Peter