Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tatourmi

Pages: [1] 2
Then how about making native a new resource? I think I like the idea of tying native to powerful or 7/9 moves as a "side effect" that gradually makes you unable to go on. Also, what about making native a side effect of losing loyalty with your crew, and making losing loyalty to your crew a side effect of some moves? This would cement the role of native in the fiction by actually making the caracter less "civilized", I.E, less tied to a group of people they were previously accountable to/could rely on.

I think this approach might be less clumsy than having a whole different stat system. But this would, obviously, be a matter of taste.

Apocalypse World / Re: Clarification On Landscape Threat Moves
« on: August 14, 2016, 12:20:06 PM »
I see what you're saying. But I still want to make the town a threat. I suppose I could have a nearby wasteland be a landscape threat, but none of the options for that seem compelling. Perhaps it would be fairer to have the threat apply only to certain parts of the town, outside of their home turf.
Maybe I'm missing something; are landscape threats just so that players have trouble moving around or can it be extended to creating a Pathologic/Silent Hill/Dark City atmosphere?

Thanks for telling me about how Landscape moves operate. I did notice they were rather indirect and 'soft'; makes sense for what is essentially malevolent scenery, I suppose. I think chiseling out the personality of the town will do a lot of good to making this threat sing.

I wouldn't say that what you want to do is impossible but it definitely isn't a usual landscape threat, mainly because politics is very "hands on" in apocalypse world and is more something Npc's do and Pc's meddle with than a "threat". Politics in apocalypse world are not really abstract, they are the game. Now if you want to make it be this way I'd recommend making new moves for the landscape such as "Turn someone's loyalties around" or "reveal treachery". You may also go full on and build a special move triggered whenever politics are involved in the town if you desire.

I think a landscape threat is very good for a "silent hill" type affair (Where the corruption and the threat is all too real), but making it be a "political system/influence" is a bit harder. It is not impossible but it will need some custom threat moves to make it viable in my opinion.

You may also build it as a countdown clock. But I always felt weird about countdown clocks involving npc's close to the players.

brainstorming & development / Re: Apocalypse World - Waterworld
« on: August 13, 2016, 09:25:04 AM »
I do still think it breaks the rules, if only by doing things no other moves does. I don't think it is dramatic or inappropriate, far from it, it just does not work the way I think Apocalypse World views how moves should work.

I also do not entirely agree with your analysis of moves in terms of "advancement moves" vs "doing stuff moves", even though I do agree that my wording was off.

First, you are right, not all moves get triggered by fictional positioning. I did not think about advancement moves. Yet I do still think that all moves only have an effect on fictional positioning when triggered. Advancement moves are triggered as well and have a "from now on" or "right now and done" status (As seen in p281 of the first ed book). And they do not affect fictional positioning except indirectly through "right now and done" means (Get a gang, get gear, get a move that gets you gear...) and they do so by reaction.

When you use the gang you got from advancement, you do not use the move to modify your fictional positioning, you use the gang or gear it gave you to modify fictional positioning. As you said it gives you new stuff on your playbook to mess with. My argument would be that anything a player does to directly affect fictional positioning is "on the playbook" and never "on a move". Which is why I think you broke the rules slightly.

Yet, as I mentioned, I think it's interesting stuff to break the rules this way. I don't see a strong reason, apart from elegance of design, to keep these things separate when a ton of moves already modify fictional positioning in some indirect way.

Actually maybe I see one: I think moves in Apocalypse World are never something you are supposed to lose. Once you have them, they are an integral part of your character. Yet Apocalypse World is all about affecting the "fictional status quo", that is one of its most important tricks, and it may be in the basic doctrine that anything that modifies the fiction should be something you can lose. Thus no moves should exist that directly modify fictional positioning? This is the best I can come up with.

Also: Obviously, yes, the very nature of the move McArgent gets him into hacking territory :)

EDIT: I like the "moving stuff around" option though. That is: Giving gills as gear and making the move available to everyone who can justify its use. It would be like making no shit driver a special move, making cars infinitely more desirable. The reason I like this a lot is that it gives, say, a Savyhead the option to make a kick ass underwater suit that gives him access to the special move.

Dungeon World / Re: Noob GM question about too concrete player moves
« on: August 05, 2016, 08:59:01 AM »
Well, okay. From a theory perspective, players should try not to describe their characters doing things that aren't possible. If they make a mistake, the GM can point out their error and wait patiently while they correct themselves.

If the player says something that they expect to be routine, "I put the ladder against the wall," the players narration stands unless there's some reason that there action might not succeed or some information about the world that makes the narration invalid. "Well, as you go to grab the ladder, it transforms into a snake and tries to drive it's wicked fangs into your forearm. What do you do?" Or, "As you're carrying the ladder to the wall, it explodes in a cloud of smoke and debris. Through the clearing haze you see a dragon coming right for you. What do you do?" Or, "Unfortunatly, the ladder is too short to reach the rafters."

I see, so authorship on the world until perceived contradiction or move trigger by the M.c. Thanks for taking the time to respond!

Understood for the roles. I guess then that no moves are attached to them?

And I like the idea of character death for full natives, but I like the idea of them getting abandoned progressively by NPC's much more. However for that to work you'd obviously need some mechanics that make Pc's reliant on Npc's.

Dungeon World / Re: Noob GM question about too concrete player moves
« on: August 04, 2016, 05:21:24 AM »
Would that new move add to your game experience? Why?

Haha, yes, fair. It does not sound remotely like a fun move. The "bonus/malus" alone making it very antagonistic to basic PbtA doctrine (If necessary, I feel, for the move to be remotely playable).

It was only proposed for theory's sake. I don't know if the game works the way I think it does, but if it does I feel like the problem Rahor highlighted does exist, and such a move would solve the issue. Then again, I am a fairly new M.c :)

Dungeon World / Re: Noob GM question about too concrete player moves
« on: August 03, 2016, 06:30:19 AM »
It's a fair question. The move Volley triggers whenever they take aim and shoot at an enemy. In the example, it seems like the player's description of the character's behavior satisfied that requirement. Seperately, the players definitely do not have the authority to decide that the orc has died, at least without the GM doing something like asking them a question about it.

It’s a conversation between the players and the GM—the GM tells the players what they see and hear in the world around them and the players say what their characters are thinking, feeling, and doing. Sometimes those descriptions will trigger a move—something that’ll cause everyone to stop and say “time to roll the dice to see what happens (Page 13).”

How can something cause everyone to stop and say "time to roll dice" if players can just describe the orc dying?

The players have it easy—they just say what their characters say, think, and do. You [the GM] have it a bit harder. You have to say everything else (Page 158).

Thanks for the answer.

I get it for the move triggers now, I think. Moves work with intention and action, both things the player controls. So that's okay.

But I don't quite know about authority though. I mean I see it more clearly now. But I think it is still weird at a deeper level. Authority is what prevents a player from saying: "The planet cracks and swallows the orc whole". But say a player puts a ladder against a barn wall to climb it. Nothing weird is going on. Barn not on fire, bull not rushing him and so forth... This does not trigger a move, and I don't know of many Mc's which would create one just for that occasion. Yet the player directly affected the world, which is supposedly the authority of the gm.

The answer would be that the player had authority over his character's action, which allowed him to describe them moving the ladder. This is a good answer I think. Yet it then obviously leads to a game where any action of the character described by the player automatically succeeds if it does not call for a move. And then what prevents the player from adding "I do the exact movement set required to put an arrow in the orc's eye" is the fact that this, by the rules, invokes a move that will bat the resolution of the action away from player authority. "Yes, however it means you aim which triggers Volley, which may cancel out your description by changing the situation directly". This makes for a solid system.

Now what about specific actions that do not trigger a move? Or trigger a move that seems inappropriate? Say: "I put my hand together and hit at the planet's exact magico-telluric spot in order to crack it open". The player describes his actions. That is his right. He also has an intent, whose resolution is outside of his authority, but unfortunately he described in such a way that this intended result is a consequence of his action. So he should be able to add the cracking of the planet to the conversation. Obviously this should not be happening. I see two solutions:

First the M.c says "No". What this No means is that the player does not have the ability to position themselves fictionally to do this. An item may allow them to do so, but as is the character just cannot even describe this.

Second the M.c creates a move for the new situation, that enters into play right now. This is the "fun" solution but it breaks the game pace up quite a bit.

There is also another, weirder solution which is to create a move that encompasses these situations:

Getting specific: Whenever you get specific to achieve a precise outcome the M.c decides on the stat that will be called for and judges it normal, difficult, crazy difficult or impossible. Roll +stat. If it is difficult, the player takes a -1 to the roll. If it's crazy difficult, the player takes a -2 to the roll. If it's impossible, treat the result as a 6-. On a 10+ you do it, and it's every bit as awesome as you thought it'd be. On a 7-9 you do it but there's a catch, the M.c offers you a worse outcome, a hard bargain or an ugly choice.

So, basically, the Mysterious Island, in space, except not? Cool idea!

No Playbooks, just Roles
You start character creation by choosing your primary and secondary roles from a list (e.g. command, science, pilot, trader, pirate, convict). Primary roles should be unique. Secondary roles can be duplicated. Your roles dictate your starting stats, as well as any equipment you were able to salvage from the wreck, and a number of NPC's who have survived (with the ability to detail a few of those closest to you).

I have seen this done already in several different ways (Props to Uncharted Worlds) and I think it is fairly interesting that many space-themed PbtA games seem to go for that kind of solution. I am also trying my hand at a « split playbook » right now and I have some questions:

I wonder how you plan to deal with stats ? Do you split stat distribution evenly between roles ? Do you make one role distribute the stats ? Do you instead make a "free" stat distribution, decided upon by the player according to "how the stats balance"?

How many primary and secondary roles will you try to support ? A set number ? More than 5 (E.g, more than the usual "high" amount of players)? Do you want to see some roles be taken by some players every game or does it not matter ?

As an aside, I am intrigued by your decision to duplicate secondary roles. I think the « only one player for each playbook » really adds to the game. Any specific reason for that breach of protocol ?

Going Native
One of the central themes of the game, though one that can be avoided in part or in total (at least for a while) is the act of going native. As you learn to survive; you sharpen the skills that keep you alive and relegate the trappings of civilization to the past.

I also wonder about this. Do you wish for your players to be naturally inclined to go that path or do you plan to allow them to pull a "mysterious island" on the game? It is notable that in the book that, I think, inspired this trope, the characters do not ever actively adapt to their environment. Actually they do not change much at all. What they do is that they use their "civil" knowledge (Mathematics, Astronomy, Chemistry...) to transform the environment into a much more friendly one for them. Adapt, and not get adapted.

I think allowing this may create some interesting situations. You obviously want the balance between "civil" and "native" to play a large role, and as such the very possibility of an "all civil" approach may seem threatening to your design. Besides it may introduce a fair bit of "status quo mining". However I'd argue that an "all native" approach would be threatening to your design as well, and in much the same way. If the players are eventually all forced to go native, then there is not much struggle between "native" and "civil": Native is the only answer and the only question becomes "How do they get there and loose the bearings of civilization"? The new status quo players contend themselves to being "perfect adaptation".

Now say you have a limited class pool, in which less than four characters profit from being "civil" (Scientist, trader and captain, for the sake of example) and less than four characters profit from being "native" (Soldier, Pirate and Convict.). You now have a system in which, in a 4+ player game there is designed imbalance. There will always be at least one player that will try to push for the opposite of what the other players desire, which might just be the force you need to drive the game forward.

Granted, this has the obvious drawback that your game becomes designed for "4+" players, and may only have 6 playbooks total. Yet maybe this is something you can get around with your primary and secondary class system and some clever mathematicking. Ah well, just some thoughts.

At any rate the idea is very interesting and I'd be curious to hear more!

Dungeon World / Re: Noob GM question about too concrete player moves
« on: August 02, 2016, 06:49:00 PM »
The move Volley does not say "when you shoot someone in the eye." It says when you take aim and shoot at an enemy at range." The player is clearly aiming and shooting, so Volley seems appropriate, but the player does not have the authority to decide where arrows go. They can describing shooting for eyes. They even describe in great detail how they see the arrow entering the eye in their imagination, but when the move is triggered, a 10+ does not mean any arrows have entered any eyes. It means they roll their damage.

The GM is the primary narrative resolution mechanic in DW. Based on the results you may decide that they have indeed shot the Orc in the eye and killed him, but if damage isn't enough to kill the Orc, you would describe something else.

A bit of a weird question:

So, basically, the move triggers every time the players is trying to describe the arrow entering the eye, forcing a new narrative state, which prevents the player from ever including the death of the orc in the conversation? Or does the player just not have the authority to describe the orc's death?

If it is the second one, why? Is this written somewhere? Honest question about the way PbtA games work. I find it hard to grasp sometimes.

Well, it isn't the most elegant or theory driven answer, unfortunately.

I ran a playtest and a lot of people just couldn't get their concept to work. They just felt the playbooks were too rigid or focused for the character concepts they were trying to emulate. So, I ran through a few different things, then tried this out for a go.

This is actually the first draft using this so it might be a flop. We ran a playtest of it, sure, but one one-shot isn't a lot of testing and most of that playtest was spent fixing tons of exploits that somehow missed previous tests (that happens alot).

Hell, it might turn out to be a bust of an idea. It happens, ya know? One step forward, two steps back, as they say. Only testing will tell. Speaking of which, just started the first long-term playtest of the game so hopefully that will provide a lot of feedback.

Oh, also, I started work on the ninth draft. Mostly a lot of exploit fixes. About to do the first long term playtest.

Damn. Downer when things don't work out. Don't loose hope though!

I'm curious, what were the exploits? What should fellow hackers be wary of? I'd be super glad to have that feedback.

brainstorming & development / Re: Apocalypse World - Waterworld
« on: August 02, 2016, 05:48:11 PM »
I somewhat disagree. I think that this is perfectly clear, and that the onus is on the player to understand that the description and the tags are not necessarily more important than specific stats, they are specific stats.


And if they have some extra cost, or the "weirdness" is going to be activated in social situations etc., then adding a "take +1 whenever these modifications help you deal with an underwater threat". In this case, the increase in swimming speed, being able to hold breath longer, is represented by a flat +1, so long as the player can justify it.

I think these +1 are a bit overboard. They are super-powerful effects in and out of themselves in a game with 2d6 and I don't think they are required here. I mean a bad tag is not that much of a downside anyways, by the rules (Only activated by one of the G.M moves, fair chance of never being activated by that move if my experience serves me right. « birthright » might be nighmare fuel if activated in a lovecraftian game though), and if gills are supposed to come up in social situations (Which in that hypothetical lovecraftian hack they sure as hell should), then it will steer fiction this way anyways.

Just change the start to: "You are adapted to a life underwater. When underwater you can breathe through your gills and swim as easily as the underwater native you are. Also whenever you are in the water.."

It informs the reader that the move is descriptive (you have webbed hands and gills, you can use them), and provides a sweet move for the character to do extra awesome.

That is such a cool idea i'm stealing it for my hack ! And this raises an interesting point : I think you can do what you propose « by the rules » by combining a move that « gives you » gear (Like « my other car is a tank » and a move that « changes circumstances directly » in a complex move. But I do not think you can do it the way you did it. Which is weird. And it makes me feel a bit strange about apocalypse world about something I thought was strange for a while now (two WHOLE weeks !).

See, what you made is not a legal move I think. Moves in apocalypse world work by reacting to fictional positioning. « When you do x » (Fiction) « y happens » (Reaction). They also encourage the player to affect fictional positioning in certain ways (Brainer moves encourage brainers to tie people to chairs for example). Moves are reactive : It is all about setting yourself up and triggering them. They do NOT, afaik, affect fictional positioning directly.

This role is given to gear. But moves can add gear to the player though. So why even keep that distinction in place ? The way you wrote that moves breaks that wall. You have a move that reacts, encourages AND affects fictional positioning. Which is a hack in itself. This might be a cool idea or recipe for disaster but I am definitely stealing it for the way I'll be writing moves in my hack. It opens up a whole new world of possibilities I'll try to give feedback about how it went, but it might take some time.

I'm wow'd by Tatourmi's excellent response. It's one of those "if we wrote a whole book on hacking, this would be in it" posts.

Also, great post in general. It's a good checklist to work through for creating a new move/item/effect. Keep it up.

Hey, thanks !

I have to point out though : this was not meant to be a checklist for every move you can create, I just wanted to make a checklist for moves that reflect the character « being physically different » in some way. For more general pointers I think the « Advanced Fuckery » chapter in the rulebook is already pretty great. P281 (Moves architecture in the First ed) in particular is a must-read and basically IS that checklist. Just keep in mind that just making stuff gear is an option though!

Reading your posts I am not even sure that you have a set ending. Frankly it sounds to me more like you have simply already prepared a front before the first session, which is unusual, true, but not game breaking in any way I'd think.

What you truly seem to want is a game with a strong theme and a clear ending. And, as a horror fan, I think you only want a game with a strong theme, as it is part of the theme of your game, these specific types of teenage horror flicks, that there be a clear ending. Hear, hear:

Your initial buy in is strong. If your players know what they are in for, chances are they will emulate behaviors from the media that inspired you. They'll know that they have to "fight" the monster and prepare for it.

If they don't emulate those behaviors on their own you have the tools of the genre at your disposal. Why do the kids band together to fight the monster? Because they cannot escape the monster (Running away from home for good is not a thing for a 12 year old). Because they cannot fight him on their own. Because they cannot ignore the monster. All this organically leads to the confrontation.

If they choose to act against any of these tropes, well, you don't have to railroad them. That's actually kind of awesome!

Just imagine, you now have the story of a 12 year old kid who ran away from home, with the whole world trying to get him back. If he manages to go away for good, good stuff! He's out of the focus and he's now part of the story, get the player to make a new character and, maybe, drop his dead body in the sewers at some point. If he doesn't? Imagine the terror at being brought back to the "thing" you escaped by people who only mean good! This, in itself, is a staple of the horror genre!

If they ignore the monster? That's just gold! Have them play out their little lives, their drama, their friendships. Have them believe it is all just a bad dream. And then, on a random failed move, just crank up the clock of your threat by one and drop the bomb: "You've come to see Thomas? Oh, he hasn't come home yesterday. We were hoping he was at your house actually." Instant chills.

Even if it ends with just one of the kids alive, finally descending into the lair of the beast it will be a good story, really.

"How apocalypse world deals with set endings" is, I think, a good question in itself. I, however, don't truly think that it is the question you want answered here.

brainstorming & development / Re: Apocalypse World - Waterworld
« on: July 26, 2016, 07:06:24 PM »
I'd be interested in answering that question as well, as I am working on a system in which cybernetic implants would be a thing, and I wonder how to deal with them. I think both ask for systematically similar solutions. So here are my thoughts on the subject:

DISCLAIMER : Not only is this a wall of text, this is a very « didactic sounding » wall of text. I know the tone I took here may sound patronizing or cringeworthy to some. It was obviously not the point and it turned out this way because of, you know, force of habit and stuff. I also have no idea what waterworld is about so I decided to take it as though we were designing gills for lovecraftian fishmen. Just sayin'.

Two things can be linked to a character: A move or a piece of gear. Both must be named. I think "Webbed hands, breathing neck" is a cool name that fits both gear and moves, so I'll pick that for the sake of example.

Let's first try it as a move. A move can :

- Provide a flat bonus to a stat. Think : +1 Cool. Problem: I can't see any stat that this would reasonably add a flat bonus to.

- Provide a conditional bonus to a stat (Not something that really exists in apocalypse world I think). You'd have something like:

   "Webbed hands, breathing neck: Whenever you are in the water you reveal the extent of your weirdness and get +1 Cool. This bonus goes away once you get on solid ground".

Problem: Once more, can't see the stat that this would give a bonus to.

- Provide a conditional +1 forward or +1 ongoing.

  "Webbed hands, breathing neck: Whenever you are in the water you reveal the extent of your weirdness and may take +1 forward/ongoing. You loose the +1 forward once on solid ground (+1 forward text only)".

This starts looking like something that is usable. Problem: The +1 forward/ongoing applies to anything and everything, including, for example, « open your brain ». This I think is actually fairly cool in a « the water is my home » kinda way. But you may desire to avoid it. Also note that +1 Forward requires one more line of text (Stop condition) and is, as a result, slightly more awkward. However it also is considerably less « powerful » than the +1 ongoing.

- Change circumstances directly.
Think « Acting under fire ». These types of move must have fairly specific activators and outcomes, and tend to be the longest and hardest to develop in my opinion. An example of what this may look like :

   "Webbed hands, breathing neck: Whenever you are in the water and you need to reveal the extent of your weirdness roll +Cool. On a 10+, choose 2. On a, 7-9 choose 1 :
  • You get to your destination, fast.
  • You get a hold of something and bring it back to the surface, unscathed
  • You make sure something stays under the waves, for good.
  • You do not draw unwanted attention
These type of moves are the heart and souls of Apocalypse World and, besides making the players feel cool as heck (Which is a big deal), they drive the conversation forward by inviting the G.M to make new moves on a 7-9 or 6-. Problem : That's a bit specific for my liking, clearly having gills and webbed hands has tons of implications, and these type of moves are more about « What would characters with gills and webbed hands can do that is cool? » and maybe not about « That character has gills and webbed hands, what does this imply ? »

- Substitute or invoke another move. You may decide that having gills affect how some other moves behave. The most obvious culprit here is « Do something under fire ». Our move may look like this :

   "Webbed hands, breathing neck: Whenever you are in the water and you do something under fire you may reveal the extent of your weirdness and treat the result as a 10+.

Or like this :

   "Webbed hands, breathing neck: Whenever you are in the water you reveal the extent of your weirdness and you may do something under fire without triggering the move.

Problem : This move is slightly awkward (Especially the first version) and is a « stick in the cogs » for one of the most important apocalypse world mechanics.

As a final note on moves : You may make them as complex as you like by just combining some of them together. I think a good candidate for that move would be a combination of a substitution move and a circumstance move. Example :

   "Webbed hands, breathing neck: Whenever you are in the water and you do something under fire (or seize by force?) you may choose not to trigger the move and instead reveal the extent of your weirdness. Roll +Cool. On a 10+, choose 3. On a, 7-9 choose 2 :
  • You get to your destination, fast.
  • You get a hold of something and bring it back to the surface, unscathed
  • You make sure something stays under the waves, for good.
  • You do not draw unwanted attention.
  • You do not get hurt.
This move obviously needs more polish and playtest though. I am sure it doesn't properly covers what « do something under fire » covers, or that it is an interesting move to even have in the state it is in.

Another interesting option for that type of stuff is to make it gear. All gear has tags that can be activated by the G.M by one of his moves, which makes it cool game-wise. For example you can get it a « weird » tag, which would allow you to introduce interesting social situations. Gear is also mostly acquired at character creation and you may prevent later gear acquisition with tags that have more than one meaning. This kind of makes gear perfect for what you are trying to do. Example :

  • Webbed hands, breathing neck (Organ/Implant, weird, birthright)
Now what can gear do ?

- Modify or invoke moves. They can modify their activators for example. Think « violation glove ». In this way they are very much like moves themselves. Actually we can recreate some of the previous moves by making them gear, without changing much :

Examples :

  • Webbed hands, breathing neck (Organ/Implant, weird, birthright): You have+1 ongoing while underwater.
  • Webbed hands, breathing neck (Organ/Implant, weird, birthright): While underwater, you may do something under fire without triggering the move.
Problem : Same as the moves these pieces of gear « copy ».

- Affect fictional positioning. Gear in dungeon world works, in the words of the creators, not to modify moves, but to allow you to make moves. For example you may have the « stone of Alambrah » and use it to roll a « hack and slash » against a magical invincible golem. Note : You would not have been able to roll the hack and slash without the stone. In this sense they have no « direct mechanical effect » and only affect fictional positioning, which is used to make moves work in PbtA games. How is it relevant for us ? Because gills could be understood as « allowing you to make moves » where others couldn't. Consider someone seeing a small boat escape. If they didn't have gills they couldn't even try to do something under fire to catch up with it. Same thing if you wanted to escape a shark by swimming, or stay in the water for 15 minutes. These objects, to work, must have a definition that gives a fairly clear idea to the player of « what they can do » in the fiction. A such that piece of gear could look like this :

  • Webbed hands, breathing neck (Organ/Implanted, weird, birthright): You can swim faster, go deeper and hold your breath longer than others. You fucking abomination.
This solution is probably both the most elegant and the easiest to implement. Problem : It is also fairly « unclear » what it does, and this may trouble some players. A solution would be to « get specific » : You can swim at 12km/h and hold your breath for 60 minutes and... But this is not a very « apocalypse worldsy » thing to do.

There is a third solution, obviously, and that is making « the guy who has gills » a class in and out of itself. And this may be a fun exercise, but obviously requires a ton more work.

roleplaying theory, hardcore / Re: Saving throws as analogy for moves
« on: July 25, 2016, 10:25:36 PM »
I think that's my philosophy when playing AW; to just do things, to trust in the system and just do things, not constantly looking through the movelist to see what "buttons to press".

I don't think that this approach is entirely coherent with the way Apocalypse World is played, and I don't think seeing moves as saving throws is coherent either.

Why? Mainly, because Apocalypse World is not a generic system. And all PbtA games that have had success (Read: that I know of, obviously :) ) are not either. All these games play very differently. They create different conversations. Yet what differs between these games are, almost exclusively, the moves. As such the moves must have a role in shaping conversation.

Note: It could be that it is the difference setting that steers these conversations in different ways. Sure. But PbtA games usually don't have anything relating to the setting in them, and certainly not enough to justify the difference in play. Apocalypse World basically just tells you: "Scarcity and the Psychic Maelstrom". Dungeon World tells you "Fantasy" and Monster Hearts tells you "Monsters and Teens". To further support the importance of moves over setting: if one considers two different games of Apocalypse World, where the setting is the same, yet all of the playbooks are different, I think they will also observe two very different types of conversations.

So the moves have a role in steering conversation. Big deal. How do they work? Your suggestion seems, to me, to be: "Moves are triggered by the state of the conversation and modify its state when they occur". Does this model account for the behavioral differences between players? Partly. You could say that the reason the conversation is more violent when there is a Gunlugger in the group is that violence succeeds more often when it comes into play (A better "violence saving throw"), thus becoming more noticeable. Some moves (Like Battle-Hardened) also replace non-violent acts with violent ones. Further steering the conversation.

But clearly that's not all that's happening here. My Driver will gravitate towards its car before any moves happened. And, more importantly, my Brainer would never have tied a threat to a chair and started getting freaky if they did not have the moves "Deep Brain Scan" or "In-brain puppet strings". The process here is not: "Oh I see you bound Jake in a dark room, and started dancing that weird dance, did you know you could use this to your advantage?". It is "I wanted to gain advantage and as such I went to some length to get Jake bound in a dark room". This is very un-saving-throwy to me.

I think that moves create a metagame of fictional positioning. But that positioning is deeply active and the players probably are and should be looking at the buttons they want to press. I don't think Apocalypse World can be properly summed up by what it reacts to. It very much encourages behaviors too.

brainstorming & development / Re: Fuck yeah, Space Pirates!
« on: June 09, 2014, 03:27:33 PM »
Okay, so this has helped a lot. Uncharted Worlds specifically seems very, very good at making the ship a place the players can feel, and I will shamelessly steal a lot of ideas from them, including tying class moves with things your portion of the ship has. This is just the most amazing idea.

It also has helped me see, by actually making me look at dungeon world's rules in more detail, why I won't use the dungeon world health system and will maybe rework the xp system: It has been built for longer and, I can only guess, less deadly games, which doesn't vibe well with the punkish feel I am looking for.

Pages: [1] 2