Very interesting. I'm extremely interested to see the details of this. Especially the Time Point -> Hx -> Time Point cycle.

"An active character ... becomes exhausted… and then asks their friends for help, bringing them into the action." sounds like something I really, really want as a GM.

I wonder about the Showdown Staredown

If I roll 10+ and you roll a miss, does that mean that I pick 3? Or that I pick 2 for myself and 1 for you?

If it is the second, I'd suggest to reformulate the first choice as:

• You delay your draw so the other go for their gun first (allowing you to claim self-defense).

Just because I find it weird that I might decide that you "force" me to go first.

... 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.

Well.. I may agree that the move packs more into itself than most. But I don't think it breaks any rules.

First, I think the word "Move" is actually used in two ways. A Move as defined in advancement, and a Move as defined in doing stuff.

During advancement, you can take a move from your playbook or another one. That may give you a "doing stuff" move, or may increase your stats, or may give you gear, or may in a few cases do other stuff.

During play, you can use your "doing stuff" moves, which all require you to do something, and often requires you to roll. But those are a different kind of move.

The advancement moves are the blocks of text next to the circle, and can theoretically do anything, as long as it is some ability, gear or something that can be acquired through advancement. The "doing stuff" moves are the rule sections, sometimes included in an advancement move, and sometimes located elsewhere (how to use a first aid kit, what happens when you go shopping).


That isn't to say that my Webbed hands, breathing neck doesn't get a bit weird. Mostly because it tries to load some of the stuff that would normally be in the playbook into the move (since this is an advancement move that can be taken by any playbook). I don't think there is any advancement moves in the base game, that doesn't belong to a playbook.

If we did have an Aquaman playbook, then the gills and webbed feet would be a feature of the playbook, and the "doing stuff" move would be an advancement move. Kinda like in the base game, where you can take the A no shit driver move, but it really doesn't do a lot unless you have a car.

Drawing on gear, though, you could still make the move "Webbed hands, breathing neck: You have webbed hands and gills." and then as peripheral moves/gear tell what webbed hands and gills does. But that is really just moving stuff around.

When I've MCed, it has depended on the context.

If the person/place/situation was entirely unknown to the characters, I simply ask them to roll the move, when they encounter it. So the first time the players ran into Blue Eyes (who they had never met or heard of before), I forward the custom move for his dominating presence, and asked them to roll weird against it.

If the person/place/situation was known, but the characters hadn't encountered it yet, I'd put forward fiction that support the move, without actually showing them the move. So when the players consider traveling through Dremmer's territory, I'll point out that it is well known that Dremmer patrols the area extensively, and there is a good chance they might run into his gang.

Finally, sometimes there are moves which the characters are assumed to know about. These fall into two categories. Either moves that are basic and assumed to be used often "When you travel outside the hold..", or stuff which are enough of a part of the character's world that they would know the specifics "When you offer tribute to the Iron God.." / "When you attempt the Trial of Fire..". In these cases I present the move upfront, since the character is assumed to know exactly what he or she is getting in to, when doing the move.

But that is just what I've ended up doing, since it seemed logical. Even when playing AW, I tend towards simulationist gaming. I haven't actually considered what kind of play I might get if I did it differently.

I haven't had a chance to really test out the Threat Map, but my initial feeling is that I liked fronts better. I don't really need the Map part of the Threat Map since I usually have an actual map of the area drawn, with at least some of the threats right there on it. The direction of the Threat Map doesn't really do much for me, while the grouping of threats in a front helped me see how they were part of a larger problem.

The Coyote's Hx says "On everyone else's turn give the number they give you + or – 1 depending on if you trust or don't trust them, your choice." When is it + and when is it -?

The Decadent's Flows Like Wine also doesn't have a stronger effect on 10+ than 7-9 in my opinion. Depending on how useful you want it to be, I'd either make it:
10+ 2 benefits, no penalties. 7-9 2 Benefits, 1 Penalty.
or
10+ 1 benefits, no penalties or 2 benefits, 1 penalty. 7-9 1 Benefits, 1 Penalty.

And I kinda miss some color for the benefits:
PC gains 1 xp the first time they help the Decadent in the scene.
PC Carries 1 forward against a target of the Decadent's choice.

Just why does that happen? I feel it needs a bit of color to help the Decadent/MC figure out just what is happening in the fiction. For Manipulation/Seduction it is easy enough, because the move speaks for itself. But what is the Decadent doing when he is using the Flowing Like Wine move?

A bunch of the penalties also seem weird, maybe because I again don't know what Flows Like Wine actually does in the fiction.
The target gains Armor +1 against any attack initiated by the move. (This only seems applicable for "PC Carries 1 forward against a target of the Decadent's choice"?)
People in the scene turn against the Decadent (Seems very harsh)
It is known the Decadent tried to alter the scene. (it isn't known if this penalty isn't applied?)
PCs cannot help the Decadent in the scene. (Define help. Are we talking the help/hinder move?)
The Decadent Carries -1 forward on the next roll of the MC's choice. (Works, but a bit boring. Also seems to pit the MC against the character, since he should probably apply that -1 forward when it hurts the most)

The language, I gave up reading it a couple of sentences in. When I'm learning new rules, I don't really want to have to decipher them.

I'm intrigued. Though the document is painful to read.