16
Apocalypse World / Re: Advice to deal with some situations and moves
« on: May 20, 2016, 06:38:44 AM »
Ebok, thanks, your post is really helpful. Here's what happened. Sorry if my descriptions are not clear, as English is not my motherlanguage, don't hesitate to tell me what should be rephrased. But reading you I have the feeling you totally got it.
Yeah, that's what I did, and what Entretoise finally said!
You're right! What was puzzling me is that the NPC had actually NO questions. Entretoise proposed something he didn't care about. The NPC was like, "TumTum this guy is manipulating you". And Entretoise was like "Ask me any questions you want later". To me, (A) I was not sure how the NPC would react, (B) the NPC gives no shit about the proposition. But I felt the PC was beginning to feel tricked, he was like "I'm giving him something, why should it fail". Hesitating, I roll. Roll+hot. 7. Thus I ask a question NOW : "Are you involved in this situation ?". Entretoise IS involved, there is no ambiguity as he choosed to be involved in a list of questions in the beginning of the session. Entretoise answers is smoky bullshit to the NPC. So you're right, I should have gone HARD move.
Oh, this is really important. Actually, Tumtum said "I'm pulling the gun at his face." I said "ok, do you Go Aggro?" The PC forces his hand. But then TumTum says "I don't want to shoot him. So I pull the gun down and I'm going to bring him". That's when I asked for a seize by force. I understood go aggro as an "aggression", even a threat. But now I read the Move description and I see When you go aggro on someone, make it clear what you want them to do and what you’ll do to them. If I understand well, I should have said something like "you're pulling your gun at him and he's like 'go on, shoot me but I won't follow'; he's not gonna move if you don't give him a good reason". But what if the PC tells me "[To NPC] I'm going to shoot you now [To MC] But I won't", it's in fact leverage. And if he just say "I'm going to shoot you", I answer "ok, cool, you go aggro if you're really gonna shoot him, or leverage if you're bluffing". Do
I missed this in the flow of the game (still have trouble to manage the flow).
The difficulty is that when I'm trying to clarify things, one of my PC (Entretoise) says "You're forcing a situation for me", "you're forcing me to behave in some way I wasn't engage", generally when there's a move going on (the manipulation roll we discussed" and I'm asking for what's the clear want. We already discussed about the "to do it, you do it" rule, and pretty sure there's a little thing for me to identify that will finaly make it right.
The crisis don't come from he fact the NPC says "try it". It comes from the fact that the NPC is the embodiment of traditions, that the PC is clearly breaking it (and it's totally assumed and explicit between us), and that the situation is being public. So I think I'm ok with that. But what you say is really interesting: you seize by force when in conflict, not to force conflict. In my view, the conflict has been provoked by the "Go Aggro" move just before (even if I think it would have been a move trade-off or a leverage move.. I think the best think I could have proposed is that TumTum shoots in its legs or something like this).
Ok so what I have to improve the game after reading all theses posts:
- Make NPC behaviour simpler: if they want something, they want it now. If they do something, they do it now. If they disagree, they it now.
- ask for clear actions, reasons and motives : and hard move if it's not convincing for the NPC
This is really helping, I think it's just a matter of getting use to the game, as it is our first game and we play once a week since 1 month. I just don't want to get bad habit and discuss everything to be sure I'm getting it and play wonderful sessions. I must say it's already the case: we really have excellent time, we were beginning a game of pathfinder and we started AW as a one shot test while one of our player was absent, and everybody wanted to drop pathinder to continue the AW OS as a campaign. So. Great.
When Entretoise says he wants to seduce or manipulate Niceteeth, that's a big red FLAG. He should really know whether he wants to seduce them, or manipulate them. To manipulate you must say what you want, not to the MC, but to the NPC. I want him to come... is the second Flag. Manipulation is always done through first person conversation with the target, it cannot be settled with ambiguous convos with the MC. Resolving scene's like this is just wrong and will be fraught with problems. If it is all IC, then any ambiguity will be readily apparent, because the NPC doesn't have to try to guess what he means, he can just say shit simple like. "What the fuck you talking bout, I ain't your friend" or some other obvious signal that whatever is being said isn't clear.
Yeah, that's what I did, and what Entretoise finally said!
To explain the difference... Ex: "I (being Entre) want you to stop waving that gun in my face, if you've got problems with what I'm doing, I'll promise to give you all the answers you need, AFTER." That is a Hot manipulate roll, it has a "I want this", and a "I'll give you this". The scene only involves the roll if: the MC isn't sure if the NPC will readily accept, AND what is being offered is something the NPC actually gives a shit about. If the latter isn't true, then sometimes I have the NPC's make a counter offer (something they do care about), but otherwise there isn't any reason to roll. You only roll when you must.
That hot roll above, assuming promising answers are enough to make the NPC stand down (...doubtful...) would on a 10+ get the gun lowered, it would not make them any friendlier. On a 7-9+ he'll demand those answers Now and lower the gun if you agree, and assuming you don't say anything to get the gun redrawn... well. On a miss, fuck that noise, HARD MOVE. Maybe he just starts shooting. NPCs don't need to think things through, they need Act.
You're right! What was puzzling me is that the NPC had actually NO questions. Entretoise proposed something he didn't care about. The NPC was like, "TumTum this guy is manipulating you". And Entretoise was like "Ask me any questions you want later". To me, (A) I was not sure how the NPC would react, (B) the NPC gives no shit about the proposition. But I felt the PC was beginning to feel tricked, he was like "I'm giving him something, why should it fail". Hesitating, I roll. Roll+hot. 7. Thus I ask a question NOW : "Are you involved in this situation ?". Entretoise IS involved, there is no ambiguity as he choosed to be involved in a list of questions in the beginning of the session. Entretoise answers is smoky bullshit to the NPC. So you're right, I should have gone HARD move.
You first HOT roll example has a similar issue. The I'll only do it if you also take so-and-so, should really be very clearly stated. I want you to take so and so, if you do I'll give you the girl. But really, if threats of KILLING anyone is on the table I almost always say its a hard roll if you're serious. Go Aggro. Do this, or Else. Sometimes that OR ELSE might be delayed, but the thing is with Go Aggro, if they force your hand, then you've done it. No changing your mind, it's a takes the commitment to roll. Threats, even ones against other non involved persons are always go aggro if they're real.
Oh, this is really important. Actually, Tumtum said "I'm pulling the gun at his face." I said "ok, do you Go Aggro?" The PC forces his hand. But then TumTum says "I don't want to shoot him. So I pull the gun down and I'm going to bring him". That's when I asked for a seize by force. I understood go aggro as an "aggression", even a threat. But now I read the Move description and I see When you go aggro on someone, make it clear what you want them to do and what you’ll do to them. If I understand well, I should have said something like "you're pulling your gun at him and he's like 'go on, shoot me but I won't follow'; he's not gonna move if you don't give him a good reason". But what if the PC tells me "[To NPC] I'm going to shoot you now [To MC] But I won't", it's in fact leverage. And if he just say "I'm going to shoot you", I answer "ok, cool, you go aggro if you're really gonna shoot him, or leverage if you're bluffing". Do
I missed this in the flow of the game (still have trouble to manage the flow).
The difficulty is that when I'm trying to clarify things, one of my PC (Entretoise) says "You're forcing a situation for me", "you're forcing me to behave in some way I wasn't engage", generally when there's a move going on (the manipulation roll we discussed" and I'm asking for what's the clear want. We already discussed about the "to do it, you do it" rule, and pretty sure there's a little thing for me to identify that will finaly make it right.
If the NPC has a bunch of guys with guns around, alright. He shoots the NPC, maybe the NPC's dead, maybe not, but now he might have to Seize the whole place by Force. When this is rolled, violence has already started, people are already getting hurt, harm is already being exchanged. You don't seize by force to cause conflict, you cause conflict so you can seize something by force. In order words, just having barged in with a gun, maybe some people screamed, or some people saw it, and that action is what caused the camp riots to start up. It should not have been conditional on the NPC saying JUST TRY IT.
The crisis don't come from he fact the NPC says "try it". It comes from the fact that the NPC is the embodiment of traditions, that the PC is clearly breaking it (and it's totally assumed and explicit between us), and that the situation is being public. So I think I'm ok with that. But what you say is really interesting: you seize by force when in conflict, not to force conflict. In my view, the conflict has been provoked by the "Go Aggro" move just before (even if I think it would have been a move trade-off or a leverage move.. I think the best think I could have proposed is that TumTum shoots in its legs or something like this).
Ok so what I have to improve the game after reading all theses posts:
- Make NPC behaviour simpler: if they want something, they want it now. If they do something, they do it now. If they disagree, they it now.
- ask for clear actions, reasons and motives : and hard move if it's not convincing for the NPC
This is really helping, I think it's just a matter of getting use to the game, as it is our first game and we play once a week since 1 month. I just don't want to get bad habit and discuss everything to be sure I'm getting it and play wonderful sessions. I must say it's already the case: we really have excellent time, we were beginning a game of pathfinder and we started AW as a one shot test while one of our player was absent, and everybody wanted to drop pathinder to continue the AW OS as a campaign. So. Great.