31
Apocalypse World / PC-NPC-PC triangles.
« on: July 05, 2010, 04:57:37 AM »
I couldn't quite imagine how this worked in play until John did it right in front of me and I thought to myself 'Well, no shit. That's easy and awesome.' So I've been doing that in my new AW game (session two was this evening) with every NPC.
What Vx doesn't tell you is that this quickly becomes NPC-PC-NPC-NPC-PC-PC-NPC... networks. Which is to say, relationship webs and maps. Maps that are easy to manage, organic, compelling and self-propelling. I've draw relationship maps as prep for play but this PC-NPC-PC triangle stuff generates them organically and intuitively during play. The PC engage with them on their own terms and for their own reasons without having to carrot or stick them.
Moreover, it generates the best kind of conflict, once shunned by RPGs in general, inter-player dramatic conflict. Because the PCs are always split by NPCs they can engage with the other players as equal participants rather than a kind of hive mind versus the GM.
It's late and my having trouble articulating just what I mean but it seems that the other PCs are the real threats in AW. A PC, mechanically speaking, can take pretty much any NPC with relative ease. When the PCs are unified against an NPC, it's never an issue. If there isn't a coherent front against the MC and the NPCs (which is to say that the PCs are against each other) compelling drama and role-playing happens. This seems to be because the players have to confront each other, as players and characters, like two actors on a stage. The MC merely directs, writes and sees to the technical matters. The real challenge and fire is in the acting (not to dismiss stagecraft). That's what see go there to see.
Looking back at when I ran AW at GPNW, this vital component was missing, as it has been in most of my GMing / MCing career. I walked away from that slot feeling like I had failed at running it. I would say that three of the four players had a great time and were hooked on AW but I felt like it was a weak session. It's because I didn't have any PC-NPC-PC triangles.
I mean, it's right there in the book: Separate them.
What Vx doesn't tell you is that this quickly becomes NPC-PC-NPC-NPC-PC-PC-NPC... networks. Which is to say, relationship webs and maps. Maps that are easy to manage, organic, compelling and self-propelling. I've draw relationship maps as prep for play but this PC-NPC-PC triangle stuff generates them organically and intuitively during play. The PC engage with them on their own terms and for their own reasons without having to carrot or stick them.
Moreover, it generates the best kind of conflict, once shunned by RPGs in general, inter-player dramatic conflict. Because the PCs are always split by NPCs they can engage with the other players as equal participants rather than a kind of hive mind versus the GM.
It's late and my having trouble articulating just what I mean but it seems that the other PCs are the real threats in AW. A PC, mechanically speaking, can take pretty much any NPC with relative ease. When the PCs are unified against an NPC, it's never an issue. If there isn't a coherent front against the MC and the NPCs (which is to say that the PCs are against each other) compelling drama and role-playing happens. This seems to be because the players have to confront each other, as players and characters, like two actors on a stage. The MC merely directs, writes and sees to the technical matters. The real challenge and fire is in the acting (not to dismiss stagecraft). That's what see go there to see.
Looking back at when I ran AW at GPNW, this vital component was missing, as it has been in most of my GMing / MCing career. I walked away from that slot feeling like I had failed at running it. I would say that three of the four players had a great time and were hooked on AW but I felt like it was a weak session. It's because I didn't have any PC-NPC-PC triangles.
I mean, it's right there in the book: Separate them.