1
Apocalypse World / A Solitary Apocalypse World?
« on: April 18, 2018, 09:08:21 AM »
My friend and I were brainstorming a post-apocalyptic role-play. Something like Threads, Fallout Dust or Frost, or The Road: something that explored the solitude of the post-apocalypse.
The way we imagined it would be is that everyone apart from the other players would be either hostile or (rarely) indifferent to the players. Due to the trauma of the apocalypse, such a gap has developed between you and other people that it simply can't be bridged.
I said, hey, I think Apocalypse World would be perfect for that! All you have to do is exaggerate the threats, ask the right provocative questions, and barf forth the correct form of apocalyptica.
He said, no, Apocalypse World wouldn't really suit.
The problem is that AW, at its heart, is social. A lot of it is establishing how you exist in a post-apocalyptic. More directly, several playbooks (Chopper, Hardholder, Hocus, Maestro’d) specifically don't work in a solitary world.
I said, what if your subordinates were just as distant and strange? Then you have an army you can't quite trust.
He said, it's still your army. He used my Chopper Trouble in a Halfpint as an example: my gang are literally the worst people around, but they're still Trouble’s gang and they follow her.
Thinking on it, you could have your subordinates be also normal. After all, isn't it meant to be special you have this many people in such a lonely world?
But as my friend said, it screws the power dynamic and it's different feeling being along with 13 people than it is being along with 3 people.
Then again, you could just ban Hardholder et all from the game, but that seems cheap.
Is there a solution or am I barking up the wrong gaming system?
The way we imagined it would be is that everyone apart from the other players would be either hostile or (rarely) indifferent to the players. Due to the trauma of the apocalypse, such a gap has developed between you and other people that it simply can't be bridged.
I said, hey, I think Apocalypse World would be perfect for that! All you have to do is exaggerate the threats, ask the right provocative questions, and barf forth the correct form of apocalyptica.
He said, no, Apocalypse World wouldn't really suit.
The problem is that AW, at its heart, is social. A lot of it is establishing how you exist in a post-apocalyptic. More directly, several playbooks (Chopper, Hardholder, Hocus, Maestro’d) specifically don't work in a solitary world.
I said, what if your subordinates were just as distant and strange? Then you have an army you can't quite trust.
He said, it's still your army. He used my Chopper Trouble in a Halfpint as an example: my gang are literally the worst people around, but they're still Trouble’s gang and they follow her.
Thinking on it, you could have your subordinates be also normal. After all, isn't it meant to be special you have this many people in such a lonely world?
But as my friend said, it screws the power dynamic and it's different feeling being along with 13 people than it is being along with 3 people.
Then again, you could just ban Hardholder et all from the game, but that seems cheap.
Is there a solution or am I barking up the wrong gaming system?