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 - lumpley

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 88
Apocalypse World / Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« on: April 14, 2020, 11:05:08 AM »

Well, yes, when a player says "I drive out to Holden's-" you're allowed to say "hold on, there's something going on at your garage," if there's something going on at their garage. Just because they say that they drive out to Holden's, you're not required to go along with them. You can always tell them hold on, back up, actually...

Case 1: allowed.

Case 2: allowed.

Case 3: allowed.

The variable you're missing in case 2 and 3 is, are there honestly thugs looking for Diana at the garage? If there are, you should say so. If there aren't, you shouldn't. If there honestly might be, it's your decision to make, so decide now and stick with it.

In case 2, you say that you would never do this. That's fine! The rules are on your side. Other MCs must judge their own honesty and make their own decisions about it for themselves. If they decide that honestly, yeah, there are thugs there, looking for Diana, then the rules are on their side too.


Apocalypse World / Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« on: April 13, 2020, 08:59:59 AM »
Great! I'm glad to hear it.

You can throw a new threat into play out of the blue, yes. You're not obliged to announce it or foreshadow it, no. Usually you'll want to, but you're not obliged to.

Your obligation is on page 81: be generous with the truth, don't play gotcha, give the players the benefits of their moves and their characters' strengths and resources, play with the players, not against them.

As MC, I like to say "hey, something's about to happen. Who wants to read a situation?" They'll ask you questions that let you make the threat move without taking away their active agency. Like so:

"Who's in control here?"
"Well, you would have sworn that Barbecue was, but at that second a gigantic explosion rips through the hardhold..."

"What should I be on the lookout for?"
"You should be on the lookout for the gigantic explosion that's about to go off down at the windmill. I can't think of a reason why you'd know it's about to happen, but the thought suddenly comes to you: what if an explosion went off at the windmill? And then kaBOOM..."

But this isn't the rule, it's just a fun thing to do.


Apocalypse World / Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« on: April 12, 2020, 11:22:00 PM »
Well, I still don't get what you're disagreeing about, but I can try to answer your questions.



However, you can't proceed to make the move until the MC agrees with you that you're making it.


Sorry, nope! This idea of "players on the move" vs "Sometimes during the conversation, I'am allowed to do even more" isn't correct.

Much of the time, play goes exactly as you describe, but that's not the rule, it's just how it often goes.

When you describe "players on the move," you include these:
  • I say what the NPCs do
  • I describe them the environment
  • I ask them provocative questions
  • I describe straightforward reactions of the NPCs

And then you say...
  • Last but not least, I am also watching for any impulses or triggers for me to play my move.

In fact, all of the above are impulses or triggers for you to play your move.

When a player says "I find Mice and ask her what she knows about the water cult," you can say "she's about to answer when an enormous explosion rips through the hardhold. There's smoke, screaming, fire, blood. Everyone down by the windmill - that's where the explosion is - takes 3-harm, which means that I don't know how many NPCs are killed. 15? 30? I'll have to sort it out later. Are any of you down there right now?"

Any time it's your turn to speak, choose any move you want. The rule isn't that it should be soft, the rule is that you should choose a move with an in-fiction cause to back it up ("misdirect"), and you should look at everything you own through crosshairs. This is on pages 82-84.

You know how you always say what honesty demands, what your prep demands, and what the rules demand. The rules never force you to hold back from honesty or your prep in the name of making a "soft move." Sometimes you absolutely seize control of the game when the players don't expect it, because honesty demands it or your prep demands it.

The threat moves are even more aggressive than the basic MC moves. As soon as there's a threat in play, you should be thinking about where and how they're going to push the PCs, and you should always be willing to make hard, direct moves and interrupt the players to do it.

You don't have to wait for them to miss a roll, or for them to blatantly ignore something you're setting up. Those are examples of opportunities, but you can take any opportunity you get.

In sum: there's no down-phase in the conversation where the players are in control and you're hanging back. Sometimes it happens that the players are in control and you're hanging back, but it's not a phase they can rely on. You can always, with no warning, seize control with a hard and direct move, if honesty or your prep demands it. The rules never stop you from doing that, and you don't have to wait for them to miss a roll.

Edited to add:

Not that you're playing it wrong. Quite the contrary. As MC, you judge for yourself how to pace your moves and which moves to choose. If you want to play the way you've described, you should! It's perfectly fine, perfectly by-the-rules play.

You're judging for yourself how to pace your moves, that's all, same as every MC gets to do.


My guess is that I've given you more to disagree about, not less!


Apocalypse World / Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« on: April 11, 2020, 05:15:46 PM »

The text says, p9, "like any conversation, you take turns, but it's not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others' ideas, monopolize and hold forth. All fine."

You know how a normal conversation works, that's how Apocalypse World works too.

The only time the rules impose a structure on the conversation is when multiple players want to have their characters do things at the same time, especially when they're at odds with each other. You can read about that on p132-133.

The lists of MC moves are there to remind you to say more things, a wider variety of things, not to limit you to saying a strict set of things.


brainstorming & development / Re: Making a new game?
« on: March 31, 2020, 10:23:21 AM »
I'm here, I'm happy to talk about copyright and stuff, or publishing, or anything! What can I do for you?


Apocalypse World / Re: Is a reprint of Hardcover books planned?
« on: February 23, 2020, 05:57:58 PM »
We haven't ruled out a reprint of the hardcover, but we're not currently planning one.

Basically, when the softcovers are about to run out, then we'll decide which to reprint. Maintaining both in print is kind of a hassle.


Apocalypse World / Re: A Solitary Apocalypse World?
« on: April 19, 2018, 07:12:36 PM »


Apocalypse World / Re: A Solitary Apocalypse World?
« on: April 18, 2018, 10:26:17 AM »
The "seems cheap" solution is the right solution.

Take all of the NPC-rich playbooks off the table, limit yourselves to the playbooks that work for the game you want to play!


brainstorming & development / Re: 2G2BT
« on: March 31, 2018, 04:57:40 PM »
I'm excited to dig into this when I next have some time free!


Apocalypse World / Re: The Contaminated
« on: December 18, 2017, 12:30:28 PM »
Awesome, Ebok. Thanks!


Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 24, 2017, 10:22:29 AM »
I guess Vincent can chime in here himself if he chooses, but I think this is intentional; if 7-9 always made the other person cave (with or without complications), then everyone would be going aggro all the time because it would be the easiest way to get people to do what you want. There are a number of moves where things are really only "good" for you on a 10+, and while the partial doesn't totally suck, it's 50-50 whether you can really call it a "success."

Here are two ways, of many, that it could go. I'm the MC. You just went aggro on Squiggy and hit with a 7-9.

One Way It Could Go
I choose to have Squiggy back off calmly, hands where you can see. "Squiggy backs off, like whoa, whoa, with his hands out in front of him," I say.

I'm satisfied that I've had my say. I've told you what Squiggy does, as allowed and required by the move. I honestly don't know whether you'll be satisfied with Squiggy's halfassed submission, and I'm curious to find out.

"What do you do?" I say.

"Hell with Squiggy and his backing away calmly," you say. "I shoot his face in."

Cool. I asked what you do and you told me. But...
And again, it's important to note that this is purely a narrative choice on the part of the MC to change up the fictional position of the characters involved because "I go aggro on him again" is pretty uninteresting...
I'm with you. I wouldn't call for you to go aggro again. Now you're not going aggro, you're suckering him at point blank range. You inflict your harm and in his last instants of life Squiggy regrets that he misjudged the situation like that.

I chose to have him back away with his hands up, not knowing whether he was forcing your hand, or caving, or what. I left that to be your call.

Another Way It Could Go
I choose to have Squiggy back off calmly, hands where you can see. "Squiggy backs off, like whoa, whoa, with his hands out in front of him," I say.

You're still looking at me like I'm not done talking, or else I decide that I'm not done talking yet, either way. So I choose an MC move and make it. I choose to turn your move back on you, in an appropriately soft way, and I keep talking:

"So yeah, you can see Squiggy's hands clear as day - and the giant fucking magnum in them that you didn't know he had is now pointed straight at you. And he's sidling backwards towards the door and saying, 'OK, now let's just all be cool and go our separate ways, right?' Now what do you do?"

Which Way Is Correct?
Both, of course. Any number of other ways, too.

I don't think that everyone should always play it one way OR the other. I think that you can settle which way you personally prefer to play it, if you must, but only for yourself, not for the rest of us. Or else you can take it case by case as it comes, which I'd recommend as more fun and flexible than pre-deciding.

Or, In Other Words
Once I've told you that Squiggy backs away calmly, hands where you can see, the move is done. We've played it out by the rules, in full, the end. You have gone aggro.

What do you or I say next? Go Aggro doesn't tell us. That's not Go Aggro's concern, it's outside of the move, it's my next move or your next move, snowballing.


Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 24, 2017, 09:33:36 AM »
arak_ne: Right! If there are no other tactical considerations - no other objectives, no advantage of ground, just bloody battle Gangs of New York style - it's single combat. Keeler and Dremmer are using their gangs as weapons, no big deal.


Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 21, 2017, 04:37:16 PM »
Shows what I know!


Apocalypse World / Re: Seize by force - to kill
« on: November 21, 2017, 09:08:28 AM »

Nope. In 1st Ed, you should have rolled to go aggro even if you couldn't miss. Attacking someone and expecting the MC to inflict harm on them for you isn't in the book

"When you attack someone and you can't miss, don't roll to go aggro. Instead, the MC inflicts harm on them as established" is a custom move. It's kind of an obvious custom move, and I think that a couple of different groups invented it in parallel without realizing that they were inventing a custom move. It got promoted as the way to play, even though it wasn't, it was just a custom move that some people liked.

But since it's a perfectly legal custom move, play with it if you want to and don't even worry about it.

In 2nd Ed, it doesn't change the outcome in play, but it's technically significant that when you sucker someone, it's you, not the MC, who inflicts the harm. I consider this to be a correction of the widespread 1st Ed custom move.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 88