Apocalpyse World is my jam. 

There are a lot of reasons why that's the case and it certainly is tailored for a certain kind of GM. Ahem... MC.  It either works for you or it doesn't.  If you're the kind of GM who creates beautiful story arcs and creates story points for your characters to go between then this is PROBABLY not your game. I have a lot of friends who GM like this and they are FANTASTIC GMs. They don't get PbtA games. If you're the kind of GM that wants to shoot from the hip and find out with the players what's going on with the world.  If you want to be surprised at where the story is going as much as the players and you are COMMITTED to that, then that's the sign that you should REALLY try to figure out how this game REALLY works.

I troll forums and listen to people who are clearly trying to shoehorn their standard campaigns they've been running into Apocalypse World or it's hacks... even it's bad ones.  Those GM's are using the moves to highlight what they've already written and not taking the game for what it really is, and here's the secret about Apocalypse World... this is a game for the GM.  These rules aren't for the players. They're for me. When a player reads the sitch and asks, "What is the most dangerous thing here?"  You can be a good GM or a shitty GM.  A shitty GM looks at the biker gang they're facing and adds up some stats and looks at the weapons they're armed with and points to one and says, "That one."  For that GM.  If he likes AW... great.  If he doesn't... I'm not going to bother him.  This just might not be his jam. The good GM looks at this "sitch" and uses the move as a cue.  What would make this more interesting GM?  Sure.. bikers... in an AW setting... you're not really working at this hard enough... how can this be COOLER!?  The good GM looks at this and is pushed to make a better story.  RIGHT THERE. ON THE SPOT.  BARF IT FORTH. NOW!

"The three bikers waiting on their hogs belching forth smoke and fire are all pretty hard.  But pretty hard isn't good enough out here.  They're shit.  You could take 'em.  But... you notice that off to the side of what was once a glorious stretch of paved blacktop there are 3 prisoners in a cage.  The cage has wheels and is meant to be towed .  There is room for all of you in there if they push.  Inside that cage there are three prisoners.  Two men and a woman.  The men are as good as dead and one of them might be already.  But the woman. She's standing calmly in the middle of the cage.  Her mouth is gagged and her eyes are made of the maelstrom.  She... is the most dangerous thing here."

Now tell me that's not a better story...

I didn't know that was going to be the case when I put three bikers on that road.  I don't know what she's capable of.  I don't know where she's going or what will happen.  But I feel down in my soul that shit just got REAL!

That's why apocalypse world is great. It's there for ME.  It's there to PUSH me as a GM.  It's there to make me make this better for YOU.

That's the real reason that this game is my jam.

The bear thing is lazy GMing.  The game asked you to make the story better and you made them fall on a bear!?  How is that more interesting?  PbtA games are there to push the GM to be better. If he doesn't answer the call this isn't your game.  NO ONE should run out there and decide to PLAY in an AW game.  You should go out there and RUN one.  If you're just looking to play AW you might get lucky with the GM you have or you might not.  I can't vouch for every GM out there.  This is a game for GM's.  Run it. Make it great.  When a player says he LOVES apocalypse world.  Vincent gets some credit.  But really... it's a love letter to me.

Bout the Shield wall thing, I do a fair amount of recreation fighting and it's really easy to join a shield wall. Give a guy who's been fighting for two days a shield, tell him to take a basic guard, stand there and push the other guys when contact happens. Yes a highly trained unit will make a much more effective shield wall, but that's covered already in the harm considerations. Basically as long as the people have similar style shields and have been shown the basic way to stand so their guards over lap, it's pretty easy.


This comes from SCA so it's not real combat but probably as close as you're gonna get nowadays

While this may be true, there is something to be said for troops trained in combat versus a dude who just got handed a shield.  Discipline and training count for a lot.  If it's just something anyone with a shield can do that's fine, but the special moves are not clear as to what requirements they may have to use. 

The only thing that makes it unclear is that the people have, "They are known for their archery."  There is a similar statement for cavalry.  You cant just give a peasant a horse and expect him to all of a sudden BE cavalry.  If it's going to give you a special move option it's got to be more than just, "Give a dude a horse/shield."

If it's not, that's cool too. Just looking for clarification.

Yes, characters without a right have no right to x. The presence of a right implies a lack of that right to everyone else.

I'm not so sure.  I see it a bit softer than that.  In my game the Keep Liege has foreign allies on her Household & Belongings sheet.  She did not however take the, "you have the right to write your distant allies for aid."  She did so.  I can't say that because she doesn't have the right that they automatically say no.  I'm going to have the allies (now that they are here) be a little more demanding in recompense for her aid since she didn't have the right. 

I see rights as:

You can do this thing.  Other people can do this thing too but they can be stopped or told not to.  Woe be to the soul that dares defy you your right for they are yours and can not be taken from you!

So the battle is over and we've counted our fallen.  Here's how it went.  (Skip to the end if you just want issues and questions.)

Initially the Sardian and the Keep Leige took their forces and prepared for the attack. The army marching from Emory approached the stronghold and the Keep Leige took this opportunity to Harrass the enemy.  The archers who (as previously established by the stronghold) took position in their archer overlook.  The battle had begun! So we rolled leap into action + war and succeeded (7).  The Keep Leige chose startle and scatter the enemy and inflict harm. The Emory army took 1 harm and was scattered.  In play we didn't know what to do so I ruled that they had to spend the next action regrouping.  So... they harrassed again. They had a +2 on their war so failure is fairly rare.  With the ruling I made about scatter it was simply an unbeatable strategy to just shoot them again and again and again.  To make things more interesting while the enemy was regrouping there was a charge while they were scattered and both sides bloodied each other pretty good.  During the battle players rolled to see what they did as they fought in the company.  The Keep leige chose to strike at an individual trying to kill the King of Emory.  During defense I chose to keep him safe.  After this exchange I called for them to count their fallen... not sure I did this right... or enough.

Both sides retreated to lick their wounds and a siege begun.  After the battle one of the Sardian warriors reported to the Sardian Troll-killer that he was attacked by friendly fire maliciously during the battle.  The Keep liege had chosen Foreign Allies in her belongings and household side of her sheet so she had sent letters requesting aid and a new people were created for these foreign allies. I hinted that the players could call for a season change and one was called after a small amount of role play and secret message passing. 

The Roiden Dragon Herald had ridden to join his father but because he rolled a 7 on his muster roll was late joining the battle.  The player joined the Emory army and waited in siege.

The season passed and players made moves to prepare for whats coming or ask for the blessings of their people.  Some abysmal failures and fun questions later the season passed.

At the beginning of the next season reinforcements arrived for both sides and the Sardians had made their escape from the castle no longer wanting to fight for those that would gladly kill them during battle.

The Sardian Troll-killer went to the Sardians fighting on the other side and met clandestinely with them.  He won them over by telling them the story of what had happened to his people in the Rosewood stronghold.  He then mustered them as soldiers of his own.  The Sardian only made up a small portion of the fighting force of the Emory.  The new combined Sardian force (45 strong now) watied on the beach and sent letters to both armies with assurances that the sardian force (which would certainly tip the scales in favor of one or the other) would fight for the Army which would guarantee them lands of their own with their own governance.  The Rosewood stronghold offered them lands in the event of a victory and the Sardian agreed.  (I wasn't there for this... the reason they agreed to fight was that they would be meeting the Rosewood Allies coming from the east by sea and to fight with them in a flank thus not exposing them to fighting with the Rosewood whom the Sardian would not trust.

At this time the Dragon-Herald tried to Speak Truth to the crowd and almost succeeded in Turning the Roiden forces from fighting with the Emory kingdom.  The failure resulted in his father challenging him to single combat for the right to lead the Roiden people.  The single combat was brutal but satisfying and a relatively unscathed Dragon-herald took the life of his father.     The Roiden people split, half to take their previous leader to be buried in the lands of his forebears and the other half followed the Dragon-Herald. As this happened the attack upon the besieging army begun. The now greatly diminished army of Emory was pretty soundly smashed by the Rosewood attack.  The Keep Liege of Rosewood went to fight the King of Emory in single Combat.  This combat was interesting in that the King of Emory won position but took so much harm that he would only seek to live through this.  He ran from the battlefield but was chased down by the Sardian Troll-killer.

Epilogue:  Everyone got their own kingdoms and the next season passed with many players forming their own strongholds with their own people.

Most of our players now have either SOME stronghold or lead a large group of people.  Next session is going to see how multiple kingdom/lands interact with this system.  I plan on using multiple MC's and allowing players not playing to run threats for each other.  We'll see how THAT works.


Ok.... fluff aside here are the issues we had for this Battle and play in general.

1. The startle/scatter option for an army just needs to be defined.  I didn't want to make that a worthless option (because it sounds like a cool thing to do) but I think I overdid it making them have to regroup after.  What I probably should have done was say they were then out of range and couldn't be shot again.  Damn... that would have been better.  Other ideas are welcome as well.

2. Players got excited about outfitting their war parties.  I suppose this is what the armory is for, but some troops should bring their own equipment shouldn't they?  I kinda gave them what made sense, but I feel like a little rules guidance would have been appropriate.  I ruled that when you muster warriors they come with their appropriate gear for what they are known for.  We didn't do anything with the armory.  Players agreed to wait for rules on what we can do to outfit say... a less warrior-esque fighting force.

3. The special options for war companies.  We found where archers come from (They are known for their archery) and where cavalry comes from (They are known for their cavarly.)  At least that's where we gave that bonus from.  If the people had it then their armies could use it.  If this was supposed to come from armory we didn't use that.  We thought if they were known for their archery they would have bows and if they were known for their cavalry they would have horses.  Shield Wall on the other hand did not have any source.  I didn't let anyone take it because surely just HAVING a shield does not train one to be part of a shield wall. 

4.  Players wanted more agency during the battle if just to be able to add flavor.  Right now the fighting in company has little effect and players were disappointed in their agency in the battle if they weren't the commander.  I promised myself I wouldn't do this but we would like to see something like this.

When you fight in company, roll Strong. On a hit choose one:

*You may create a notable with the GM.  You engage them in single combat.
*You successfully defended the ____ from the attacking force.
*You fought long and hard and many fell before your blade.

On a 7-9 Choose 1:

*You are at your war-leader’s side. (Otherwise, you are cut off, alone.)
*You are unhurt. (Otherwise, you suffer the same harm as the company.)


Something like this.  Players wanted more to be able to say happened in the battle on success and single combats are awesome.

5. We do need one balance issue addressed. Our Dragon-Herald can't roll anything above a 5.  Please fix.

6. We tried to incorporate things that came off the Household and belongings sheet.  The Keep Leige chose foreign allies for the household but this is not the same as a RIGHT to call for them.  I like rights because denying them allows for a lot of fun Shakespearean dialogue but I didn't know how to address this.  I ended up having them come because that was more interesting than not.  (And unbeknownst to her she's gonna pay for it later.)  On the whole we agreed that a lot of the things on the H&B sheet was inappropriate for many of the playbooks.  The peasant beauty taking the foreign allies or an armory for example.  We wanted individualized H&B sheets for each book.  More work for you I know... but... we WANT them...

7.  Just a note.  We used ALL basic moves many times except Undertake Great Labor.  It always seems like leap into action was more appropriate.

There you go!  It was a blast and we're gonna stress test multiple GM's next week.

I'll have to go check my players sheets to see what my group did however... I run a lot of con games and one shots.  This might be something I'm interested in doing.  I wonder if the players desire for power or at least cool game mechanics will prevent them from choosing the rights that would otherwise make and drive new story.  I also wonder how many players will choose game mechanic moves with advances Vs. rights without game mechanic. 

I have my players trained pretty well, but when you're running a con game with people who are new to indie games I think you'll be hard pressed to find players that are willing to sacrifice story for mechanic.

I feel like there is nothing to stop people from just picking the mechanic moves because they're more fun and not experiencing a GREAT part of this game.  I'm a fan of forcing people to have fun (it's a flaw... I know) and I don't have a problem forcing people to take SOME amount of narrative rights or even giving them an extra point so they don't have to feel like they are sacrificing mechanic for something a little bit different than their normal RPG experience.

Just throwin' this out there.

Quote

Say you are the wizard and you have that right and travel to another land where they tell you that they forbid the worship of gods other than their own.  You can now make the move.  You can curse them for not allowing you to speak to the only TRUE gods!  You can tell them that you will see their gods scattered in the wind like the piles of twigs they are!  You can shout at the mountain tops that your gods shall be displeased and will rain down fire among their false idols! 

I bet you more than anything your war on their gods will be interesting.  I'd be a fan of that character!

OK. I get your POV is that the intention is to act as a right to consult gods that are possibly strange and foreign to the locals. If that's the case, the move will probably be rewritten to read something like:

"You have the right to call upon your gods or the gods of your people, though you are far from them," removing the mechanical statement "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world, but roll Bold instead of Weird." Vincent has said that the Bold instead of Weird thing is an error, but just leaving "When you do, treat it as consulting with the other world" doesn't really add anything. 

I'll be interested to see, though, if Vincent plans to add some additional function to that move.

I don't think there needs to be a rewrite.  There are many rights that have no game mechanic.  You have the right to consult the gods is like... a (no pun intended) A GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

My example about the locals is something the GM can do to challenge that right to make story.  You can consult the gods wherever you damn please and to whichever god you damn please.  That's your right. If someone challenges that right it lets you draw motivation out of that engagement to make story.  I think that's the crux of what rights are for. (Please note I'm talking about non-game mechanic rights.) 

What would you see the difference being between this move as written (minus the bold thing) and:

You have the right to slay whom you must for the protection of all.

They seem to add similar flavor to what your character has the right to do.  I see no problem here...

This thread was started about rights for enchantments which is a game effect according to your own definition, but which is also a supernatural power.

I think I read the OP different than you. 

Also, what's the intention of the Call Upon Your Gods right? I get that Bold instead of Weird is an error (saw it in a previous thread) but doesn't it still just give a right that everyone has anyway? Consult With the Other World?

I thought the question was more oriented toward giving a right for a move everyone has access to.

That's what I am answering mostly.

But.
All of the rights are game effects.
When a wicker-wise has "the right to be overcome by an oracular vision" that is a game effect in the exact same way that a Keep-Liege has "the right to impose law on the villages under the stronghold’s protection." One could be viewed as completely narrative, but there is a game effect in exercising either right just as their is a game effect for being denied that right. If a Dragon-Herald tries to be overcome by an oracular vision, nothing will happen. If a Dragon-Herald tried to impose law on the village under the stronghold's protection, nothing will happen (or maybe the player will trigger a basic move while role-playing the attempt).

I don't think this is true at all.  I think if the Dragon Herald tries to impose law on the village under the strongholds protection then as MC I will make the NPC's behave accordingly.  They will laugh at him and not do so.  If he brings soldiers then it's a different matter. He may get away with it.  If there is a Keep Leige in play he might have something to say about it.  There is nothing preventing the player from ATTEMPTING that which he has no right.  It just might not work out and in fact drive story because now the Keep Leige has been denied her right to impose law. Now we get conflict.  Now the story heats up. 

I agree with you there are a lot of moves that are mechanics based and characters that have not selected those rights can't do those things.  But those are fairly obvious and no one is asking questions about them.  There are MANY rights in the game that do not have mechanics with them and THOSE are not strictly permissive. They are there to be used only when you are DENIED those rights.

I may slay a man in the defense of all.  But if I do not have the right to do that, I can expect that someone will PROBABLY lay the smack down on me for it and there isn't shit I can do about it.

If I HAVE the right to slay a man in the defense of all and someone tries to punish me for it after the fact.  I can declare that I have that right and the gods are displeased!  I can declare that I will wage war on those who would seek to belittle my right. I can drive story to see that my rights are not impugned again! 

In this instance the right to slay a man in the defense of all isn't a game effect.  It doesn't prevent people who don't have that right from trying to do so.  It's just not going to be a major driving motivation when that right isn't upheld for those who don't have it.   

Every player can do ANY of the things that every playbook gives rights to do. 

I can bemoan that I'm not the king of Denmark... but it lacks the gravitas to do that when I have no RIGHT to be the king of Denmark.

Hamlet has the right to be king of Denmark and so he gets to make Monologues about it and we LISTEN to him.   He gets to drive STORY with his right to be king of Denmark.  I do not.

Calling upon the gods is something anyone CAN do.  It's different than what you have the RIGHT to do. 

Rights are there for building motivation and story, not for giving you supernatural powers.