That's a fair point. I've always had success with flashback scenes, myself - I tend to frame them very conservatively, leave the timeframe somewhat unspecified, and make it clear what the purpose of the scene is. However, I've never really played with these people before, so it's entirely possible that this will be the time it "doesn't work".

I still like the idea of doing it, however. If I do it right, I'll get a lot of material for the game in short order. I want to find out:

* What the Savvyhead is working on in his workspace. (To push the game along for him - we'll say the project is nearly completed as we go "back to the present".)
* Why that project is dangerous. (For a future threat.)
* What the Angel's relationship is like with the Savvyhead.
* Who else is implicated.

That last point is where your excellent advice to get an NPC involved is going to come in handy.

Your final paragraph about using a PC-NPC-PC triangle for this purpose is along the right lines, I think, but I'm not sure exactly what you're describing. Can you explain a little more, or illustrate with an example?

I stole a few ideas and details (as well as a couple of names) from Vincent's "Hatchet City and Blind-Blue" scenario, which I find fascinating and inspiring.

So far I've played one session, with great success. A few highlights which came out of the setup:

One of the players chose to be Blind-blue, as a Hocus: our Blind-blue turned out to be grotesque and misshapen but *also* magnetic and desirable, so his player quickly explained that Blind-blue was the head of a sort of fertility cult. He believes that the maelstrom has been affecting people's ability to bear children. Since he's unspoiled by the maelstrom himself, he can transmit fertility by physical contact (probably sex, in most cases).

Blind-blue's fertility cult travels around and offers its women as "breeders", providing the desperate people of Apocalypse World with a chance to have healthy children.

Dustwich is the oldest person around, an aged crone who remembers the Golden Age, and the head of the Bargers. However, the players decided that she was also the one who was unexpectedly pregnant! Naturally, there was no question who had done this: it was Blind-blue.

I loved this development, since Dustwich's story now parallels the tale of Sarah from the Old Testament (who had a child at the age of 100 or something close to that).

A couple of problems came up, but they were easily fixed at the table:

* The player of the Angel chose to "inflitrate" someone's inner circles for the Love Letter, and decided that person would be Blind-blue - another PC.

Since we had already established that they were allies and friends, the choices on the list didn't fit well at all.

If you play this, tell the person choosing that love letter explicitly to "point" it at someone they'd like to take down.

The choice to use their Special should only be allowed with the other PC's permission, of course. That's also important to note.

* Start-of-session moves can feel a little redundant, given the strong starting situation for each character. I told them that, since the first session was short (spent most of the time going through setup and making characters), we'd roll those at the start of the second session and onwards.

A tasty tidbit:

One of the players asked, "Given how terrible people's circumstances are in the post-apocalypse, what do they do to distract themselves from their everyday circumstances, and how fucked up everything is?"

Another answered, without hesitation, that they get high on drugs derived from mudfish. Its rectal glands produce a potent toxin, you see. Remove them from the fish while it's still alive (tricky business, that) and squirt that into your eyes, and you get a crazy high.

So, that was a pretty spicy contribution! Turned the mood at the table up a notch.

Well! If Ebok's endorsing it, then I'd better take a look...

Thanks for the heads up!

It sounds like you were apprehensive about it having too much effectiveness and therefore, perhaps, taking up too much spotlight time.

What happened at the table, instead?

Yeah, 'go aggro' is an interesting move in the way it agency away from the character/player. Somewhat unlike most of the other moves, in that regard (with the possible exception of a 7-9 on an "acting under fire" roll).

Munin,

Good answer.

And I agree with your point of view: it makes sense to me. I think that "hands where you can see" clearly implies that they should NOT be able to draw a gun or pull some other "trick", but, at the same time, your interpretation of a change in the situation is also a good play tip.

I'm not sure how I'd play that, myself. The key in that situation is that the character has ceded to the show of dominance you've put on. I don't think rolling "go aggro" a second time would be completely out of the question (although I agree that generally we try to avoid that kind of thing in AW).

It's also possible that you simply shouldn't choose that option (unless you *like* the idea of leaving the choice to shoot in the player's hands) in this situation. It might be more suitable when the harm being threatened is a fist in the face or something similar, where backing off actually *does* make a difference.

For what it's worth - and it's very weird for me to be saying so when the designer of the game is potentially in disagreement with me! but I do feel strongly about it - I see the use of moves in PbtA games as being more of an art than a science. It is, arguably, the form that "system mastery" takes in a game with this structure: learning, as a group, how and when to apply moves to your play for maximum effect.

(Notably, it's less so in AW than in some of its descendants, like Monsterhearts, but I think the basic principle applies just the same.)

How do we decide when to call for a move?

(1) Part of this is a question of a player's right to create effects and push for consequences within the fiction. You know you can 'go aggro', and thereby get an NPC to do something, so it's your right to call for that, and no one should block you - if anything, we should conspire with you to make it real and to make it happen. We just need to add enough fictional detail to the action to make it interesting and compelling and plausible. You want to do move X? Ok, let's help you make it happen - that's something you should be able to do in the game. That's why they're "your moves" - they are things you are legally entitled to as options within the scope of the game.

(2) Part of this is agreeing on what kinds of fictional events or details cause us to "trigger" moves. If someone pointing a gun at someone and yelling is understood to be "going aggro" in your game, then make that clear and be consistent with it, so we can all get on the same page. Some moves' "triggers" are really clear ("at the end of the session..."), but others require more interpretation (like "seduce/manipulate"), and you'll find yourself setting those standards over time as you play.

If don't follow some standards for when to apply moves and when not to, based on what's happening in our game (or "on screen", to use a metaphor), we start getting into some really wishy-washy territory, and I think that plays against the strengths of the game, eroding our trust in the rules we're playing by.

Having said that, however:

(3) Another part of it is choosing the best tool for your dramatic goals - how does this move, and its potential outputs, work for the fiction we're creating, the choices of the characters within it, and the dramatic necessities of the current scene or situation? There are times when this becomes key and can even override the two previous approaches - times when the outcomes listed for move X just fit perfectly for what you're doing in your scene, even though normally it wouldn't be called for (such is the case with more figurative interpretations of the moves, like "seizing the moment").

In practice, all three work together, in my experience.

A good example of the last type - a move which must be used dramatically - is the "Oftener Right" move (Savvyhead). If you try to apply its use literally, to any instance where any character is asking the Savvyhead for advice on anything at all, you'll soon be overwhelmed with notes on what advice applies where and how. And how long does it "last" for? ("Hey, I think the Savvyhead said two sessions ago that it might be a good idea to bring some food on the trip. Does that mean I can get a +1 to negotiate in the market for buying food?")

However, if you apply the move through the lens of dramatic timing, then it makes sense: we call it into play when a conversation between a character and the Savvyhead is happening and we want to lend it dramatic weight.

In other words, we use the move to mark that "this is a moment where a significant piece of advice is being given, and we want it to matter going forward". If the game were a movie, you can imagine the filmmaker might have marked it with some swelling music in the background, instead: pointing out to the audience that something important was just said or just happened.

I could even imagine a group using it more creatively: a character is pursuing her goals and runs into a real tough situation. We slow down and say, "Hey, you know the Savvyhead always used to say that no one should attempt this. Let's play out a flashback where you two were talking about it, about a month ago... now, let's get back to that scene. If you want to change your mind and turn around and run, I'll give you that +1 for realizing the Savvyhead was right after all."

That might be a bit of a stretch (I can see it being legit at some tables and not others), but sometimes this kind of thing is just the right thing to do. I can imagine a more typical example where, over many sessions of play, we learn that a certain characters always arches their eyebrow before launching into wild violence. In that game, the character arching their eyebrow meaningfully at another character who knows how they operate could qualify for "going aggro", even though normally that would be a pretty sloppy (and probably inadvisable) use of the move.

I could see a group using that for Oftener Right, too; perhaps two characters know each other well enough that they can communicate non-verbally, and that creates opportunities for a move to trigger. A character is about to leave on a journey (instead of dealing with a problem back home), and they go to their usual hiding spot, where the Savvyhead normally leaves them letters. However, this time, there's no letter there.

We all look at each other, instantly understanding what it means: the Savvyhead disapproves. What doesn't need to be said is that she wants the character to stay home and deal with the problem. It's a moment of tough love.

The player points at her character sheet and says, "I'm Oftener Right." We all understand implicitly that, should the character take this as a sign and stay back, to deal with the problem at hand, the move will apply.

That's a part of what's happening in the "shotgun to the head" example. By the book, perhaps (depending on how you interpret the 2nd Ed. rules, I suppose), we should definitely by using "go aggro" here. However, dramatically and mechanically, it makes no sense to roll dice and look for an NPC reaction when we can all see that pulling the trigger is a meaningful choice in the player's hands. Suddenly throwing in some randomness here isn't appropriate. The outcomes of the move don't help us here, either. All we care about is: does she pull the trigger or not? And then we can narrate the outcome accordingly - it's already clear to everyone what's at stake.

Vincent,

Thanks!

Munin,

That's an interesting example. While I agree with the rest of your post, to me "back away slowly, hands where you can see" is clearly implying that the target is NOT drawing or aiming a weapon - I always read that as a shorthand way for Vincent to indicate that fighting back was not an immediate option for the NPC. Otherwise, why would we need to talk about their "hands" at all? The phrase "hands where you can see", in my experience, is only used to indicate that the subject is NOT reaching for a weapon or otherwise trying to arm themselves or pull some maneuver.

(Having said that, the rest of the behaviour outlined in your example is perfectly in line with the intentions of the move; it was just the but about suddenly having a gun in hand which jumped out at me as being against the spirit of that particular outcome.)

That's a good, thorough reply by Ebok.

I'll share a shorter reply:

1. Apocalypse World quite intentionally doesn't have a dedicated "I just wanna hurt someone" move. The idea is that violence generally has a purpose - something you want.

2. Very often, just shooting (or otherwise attacking) someone isn't a move at all. It's just something you do, the same way you can say, "I walk towards the stairs and pick up the shovel," and it just happens.

If we've established that Dremmer is visible to you, in range, and you have time to get your gun out and shoot him, I think that this will often be the case. You say "I shoot him," and the MC describes the results.

The MC describing the results is just her making a move. Likely it will be "inflict harm" (on Dremmer), but it could be something else (like offering you an opportunity, or stating the consequences and asking a question).

3. If that doesn't seem right - things are tense or uncertain - then we need to know more. Is someone trying to stop you? If so, how? Are there guards with guns who could shoot when they see you pull your gun up?

That's probably an "act under fire", where we roll to see if you can gun down Dremmer before they riddle you with bullets. (You're literally acting under fire, after all.)

4. If you have the drop on him, but your relationship with Dremmer is such that we can imagine you having a conversation or holding back because of how he reacts, then maybe "go aggro" is a better fit.

5. Finally, if it's definitely a battle, it may be that you're doing something like Seizing the opportunity to shoot him. If it's not clear that you can just shoot him *like that*, you might be seizing the opportunity. That sounds vague and abstract, but I actually think it could be perfect for a situation where you're facing off against a gang and trying to get at Dremmer.

(If you had the drop on the gang, or the element of surprise, you might even be "going aggro" on them!)

I would try applying these roughly in this order.

Ultimately, the basic flow of effective AW play (and PbtA in general) is one where the group negotiates the question of which more to apply together. The way you do this is by talking about the fiction and asking questions. Over time, the elements necessary for a particular move emerge from that negotiation.

For example, you might ask about the guards, and I might describe them nervously hefting their weapons and eyeing you, fingers restless on their triggers. "So, I guess if I shoot him, I'm acting under fire, aren't I?", you ask. "Yep!"

As another example, I might ask, "So, you're going to shoot him, just like that? What are you hoping he doesn't do?" And you might answer, "Oh, I really hope the bastard doesn't get away; I want to talk to the fucker."

Bam! Suddenly it's clear that this is "go aggro" - you're pulling your gun on him, and what you want is for him to submit to you. (If he wants to run away, he's taking your bullet in the back!)

It's more art than science, but delving into the details of the situation more and more makes it concrete almost every time. Always go back to this if you're floundering, until it becomes clear.

Again, if no one is getting in your way and you're not in danger, it's probably #2, from above. It's the *consequences* of the action which will be interesting, not the success of the task you're attempting.