Stat Substitution Glitch

Disclaimer: Orion and I know each other in real life, and he's going to be playing in my upcoming AW game.

Just popping in to point out that "add a new move when the fiction demands it" is already in the rules.

Page 177: "when the character’s fictional circumstances or capabilities change naturally, within the character’s fictional world, the player can and should change her character sheet to match."

That's different from "when it's dramatically appropriate", of course, but that's because AW is concerned with the fiction, not the story arc.

Just saying: the rules as written work very well. I encourage you to give them a shot before you start fixing them.

Peter: I think the whole concept of mechanical advancement actually pushes a game away from a fiction-based (as you use the word, or perhaps simulation-based is acceptable) space toward a trope-based or arc-based space.  Here's why: (warning, LONG)

Let's start by talking about what supernatural or paranormal elements do to a game setting.  Obviously the moment you introduce them, "realism" as it's most strictly defined goes out the window. But there's such a thing as "verisimilitude" and "coherence."  You can make a world that *feels* real--you can combine suspension of disbelief with abstract reasoning to imagine what would happen in a world that wasn't like ours: you have to even without supernatural elements in *any* sci-fi setting.  You have to be able to "simulate" the effects of economies and technologies that never were to run AW at all.  That's verisimilitude.  And you can make sure the world works "The same way every time"--that's coherence.  And those standard's don't go out the window because you introduce a psychic.  You can and should strive for a coherent world even with magic and monsters in it. 

I'd argue, however, that something slippery happens when you apply the concept of coherence to magic: a change in what it means to work "the same way ever time."  See, with a futuristic motorbike, you can straight-up DEFINE it's gas mileage, it's acceleration, the weight it can pull, if you really want to.  And indeed once an MC has told you it takes 8 hours to drive from A to B, it had damn well better take 8 hours the next time unless you're redlining it or the weather is bad. 

When it comes to something like "open your brain" though, there aren't any real-world benchmarks to compare it to.  You can't write out the mass and power of the Maelstrom, you can't say it's like a cross between a Honda and a Mazda, and you don't expect the results one character got from opening his brain to be reliable or replicable.  So how do you prove to your players that you're "playing fair?"  First, you give your world's Maelstrom a consistent theme, like ghosts or emotions or secrets or mental disorders.  Your players will describe their game's Maelstrom to their friends by analogy, not to real objects, but to other fictional texts.  They'll say, "our MC plays the Maelstrom like the underworld from Earthsea" or "like the Force" or "like the First Evil on Buffy" or whatever.  Second, you make sure that even though what happens to Marie when she opens her brain may never have happened before or again, it feels appropriate--that after the fact it seems like it should have been predictable. 

But that sense of propriety is, I would argue, an arc-based sensibility.  We come up with "reasonable" supernatural scenes by modeling them on our favorite trances and haunting from movies, which used them to advance themes or resolve character arcs. 

So what does this have to do with the advancement rules?  Well, here on Earth I'm pretty comfortable saying that people essentially never suddenly gain a level in badass.  Someone does not, from one day to the next, acquire Ice Cold or Good in the Clinch or even a +1 to hot.  One especially does not, bleeding and forsaken by all allies in the wasteland when the raiders are coming, set his jaw, acquire NTBFW and murder the lot.  (Notice I invoked a trope there).  Sudden, dramatic change in capabilities are a fictional trope used to move the spotlight around an ensemble cast or resolve a previously irresolvable plotline. 

The playbooks themselves are drama-based objects, created to bestow players with the powers of fictional protagonists for no in-universe reason.  A Battlebabe's abilities, or a Driver's, are every bit as supernatural as a Brainer's.  And the advancement rule is also tailored for the sake of drama: by giving when dice are rolled (and dice are only rolled when the shit hits the fan), the advancement rules actually assure that PCs usually *will* pick up new moves while they're broken, bleeding, or abandoned.  For that reason, I think "when dramatically appropriate" would be a pretty good approximation of advancement as it stands. 

Oh man, double-post time.  I'm certainly vomiting forth SOMETHING all right. This one is for Vincent: I'm rather disappointed by the attitude you take. 

Look, I've read the rules and hypothesized that a subset of the possible characters have a bug.  It's a large-enough subset to be of some concern, but it's far from the majority.  Around here, we tend to play with groups of 3-4 players, so it's entirely possible that I won't even see one of the character's I'm worried about played.  What would that prove, then?  It wouldn't prove that there is no bug, just that I didn't run into it.  But it's actually worse than that, because my belief that there is a problem means I *won't* be playing an Ice Cold, Easy to Trust character.  And if my views spread to others in my group, they won't either.  That means that no amount of playing will be able to prove there is no bug, but that the playspace for my group will be curtailed. 

Your advice only makes sense if I amend it to, "play the character you think is a problem" before house ruling it, which, frankly, I don't consider to be especially good advice.  I don't get a lot of opportunities to play RPGs, so I'm likely to play a full game of AW only once or twice in the foreseeable future.  I should deliberately try to destabilize one of those games to prove my point? 



     

Go for it. You won't destabilize anything.

@Orion- sorry man, I just don´t follow, what´s bugging you, really?

I get that you think something bad will happen with some combination of advancements but I don´t know what. Somehow I have a feeling that this is about How you relate to the game, or something.

So what if the game ends because of an advancement, what´s the problem? The MC can´t and shouldn´t foresee the game, so it doesn´t ruin anything.

And I don´t think the threats stops hungering because a character gets better at doing his shit- it´s not like the character won´t ever miss a roll- and even if they don´t- we get to see them doing pretty cool things in fiction, right?

A lot of the moves really introduces new badness- getting a hold or a crew for instances, even if they make old badness be less bad, they introduce new badness, and the story goes somewhere else.

With that said- maybe I missunderstood your concern...

EDIT: It seems to me that what I ought to do is make a thread on Blood & Guts about the purpose of Advancement in AW. 


Bret, if I were going to be convinced by bald assertion, I wouldn't *need* to playtest it.  I'd accept there's no problem if

1: I saw such a character in play (for 5 or more session) and it wasn't a problem
2: I saw a convincing intellectual argument that there is no problem, or
3: I heard stories about groups who had those characters, and no problems, if those groups' playstyles sounded similar to mine.  

Now, my MC isn't adopting this house rule, so it's totally possible that a friend will play this character, nothing bad will come of it, and you'll all be vindicated.  But as long as *I* believe that the rule is problematic, it would in fact be *unethical* for me to play that character, and I won't do it.  That means that if you happened to care what I thought, your best bet would be to convince me intellectually that the rule is okay.  So far I've heard three arguments

1: It's okay because it's not a problem
2: It's okay because the MC needn't care how fast advancement happens
3: It's okay because it just is

I've made my counter-argument to option #2, and that's where we stand.  

Now, I can't say that either you or Vincent *owes* me an explanation of anything--your time is your own.  I do know that, personally, as designer, some of my priorities were

1: test destructively, to find breakpoints that casual play may not reveal
2: remove bugs that cause unintended results, even if they occur rarely, and
3: clarify design intent and the workings of mechanic whenever possible.  

So if someone came to me with a concern about Bad Juju or Identity Crisis, in an ideal world I'd like to think I would

1: have already tested it, be willing to do so, or have my playtesters do so rather than asking the public to do the testing
2: explain what the rule was supposed to achieve--in this case, rouhgly how fast advancement is "supposed" to happen, what role advancement plays in the game, etc.
and
3: show mathematically when appropriate, or by example otherwise, how the rule does in fact produce the intended result.  

Now I'm sure Vincent is a busy guy, and I realize the above is a heavy demand.  I won't take it personally if he doesn't have time to explain it all to the little guy, but I don't like being told not to worry my pretty little head about it.  

NilsH-- I have several thoughts on your post, but to begin with, I flat-out disagree with the notion that the MC shouldn't try to foresee anything. 

I go to a college where each academic session is 11 weeks long.  Assume that one can't organize anything for the very first weekend, and that people want the weekends of reading period and finals free for studies.  Assume further that I got away for the weekend once per term.  That means that there are 8 weekends available for gaming.  Finally, assume that I play RPGs mostly for the character development that happens one your basic situation is set up. 

What happens if the game comes to end with the 6th session?  We make new characters?  We'd only get to play them twice; that's hardly satisfying or a good use of my time.  I think in this situation I have a compelling interest to make sure my game runs for exactly 8 sessions.   

If the game ends after six sessions- then go do something else, with all respect- different games work differently- in AW the MC shoulnd´t foresee what will happen. If you do that, you arn´t playing AW.

And still with all respect, I play rpgs to have fun, to have a good time at the game table. I don´t think you can mathematically reach Fun land. There is no three advancments per session is fun, four is not fun.

I think you sort of already got the answer to your question.

Like this: In mys last session nobody made a sex move- so that rule didn´t "exist" in that session, it didn´t contribut to our shared fun. The operaters Crew really was the attention for a lot of the action- so that move/ rule/ piece of fiction really was a highway to fun.

In some session some of the things will make your fun. For some characters, after a while- highlightning won´t be what´s making it fun- something else hopefully is.

Highlightning isn´t the only way to influence someones behavior.

I also think it would be really cool if you would turn the question around. Vincent hasn´t written this game on the backside of a napkin. Of course he has tested it. Of course he thinks it works. So your question should really be- how can this still be fun- this part here seems unfun, please tell me.... not prove me this and that...

It´s not a court...

That´s my opinion anyway

NilsH,

You and Chris have both emphasized the importance of the MC not predicting anything.  Could you explain why you feel that way, and why its importance outweighs real-life scheduling concerns?

Also--It's possible and even likely that the rule has been tested and found good, but if that's the case, it shouldn't be difficult to show me the money.  As a reminder, my assertion is that:

1: A character with multiple stat-substitution moves will earn improvements dramatically faster than other characters, and

2: That this will lead to an undesirable result

All Vincent, or anyone knowledgeable, needs to do is disprove one of those statements.  Either tell me that those characters have been played and did not earn improvements especially fast (preferably accompanied by an approximate breakdown of where Xp was coming from) or by saying they've played successful games with rapidly advancing characters and explaining how it went. 

Your problem is with 2 - that advancing quickly is necessarily undesirable or is a problem. I think you have to prove to us that it is. So far you've said this:

The bottom line is, the faster advancement happens, the harder it is to predict the outcome of events, the faster existing threats will get churned through, the more of the MC's prep time will be wasted, and the more work will be required to keep up with the advancing story.  Keeping the reigns on that is absolutely the MC's perogative

This is incorrect. The MC does not need to, and actually absolutely should not, predict the outcome of events. That is not his/her job as is explained in the rules. The reason for this is, I imagine, to emphasize PC protagonization, and to create an organic world for the PCs rather than trying to fit them into a 'story.'

The MCs prep time will not be wasted. The amount of time it takes to prep is not long. I can make four fronts in maybe an hour, and and I've had one front last four sessions. Character advancement is not so significant as to allow them to get through four fronts in a single session, and unless your pacing is absolutely frenetic I can't imagine them making it through two in a single session. Your mileage may vary, but since you have no mileage we're going to trust mine for now.

And finally, you don't need to worry about the story advancing. As the MC, that is not your job and if you are trying to do that you are incorrectly playing Apocalypse World. Your job is to play the world as though it were real and make the character's lives interesting. The 'story' then emerges from how your making a real, interesting world, and the players playing real, interesting characters intersect. Pacing is not required. (Edit: In this I mean pacing the advancement of the story in the way that you are describing.)

If you're worried about fitting a game into X amount of sessions, we could give you advice on that, but it is not related to advancement. If anything, it's related to Fronts.

Hi Orion!

I think the MC shouldn´t predict the game because predicting the game makes the MC not curious to what will happen. It makes him not reacting with the gut of his characters. It makes him not building on the players input.

If the MC follows the instructions for when to announce badness and stuff it will be really hard to have a pre-prepared story. I know maybe this doesn´t answer the question like you want to- but I think the important part of AW isn´t the "hard" rules like how to punch someone- but the "soft" rules- how to act in the conversation when you create the shared imagination. Those rule are deeply linked to the setting of AW. In this world people die suddenly- for no reason. That´s part of the theme. To not looking through crosshairs, because that character is importent for the plot or the plan makes a different theme- a different world, a different game.

And I don´t really think the game could or should take responsibility for your personal life. It´s like saying- "The bottle is empty, but I´m still thirsty, how did you plan THAT Coca-Cola company!!??"

This

2: That this will lead to an undesirable result

is really the big question, isn´t it?

Do I understand you correctly if I say that your hypothesis is that some advancements will make the game come to an end more quikly- and that is a bad thing- or did I miss something?

Oh, sorry, you also said some advancements will make some threats less threatening and less fun, right.

I´m just taking it one step at a time trying to figure out what´s bothering you, to see if I can help you with your concern from my really short experience with the game.. :)

Are we such slaves to the "play to find out what happens" rule that we can't take action to prolong the life of a game we enjoy?   

Nope. But I think artificially extending it is silly and detrimental to game play. That's just me. Saying "Hey, guys, I really like this current thing we have going, so NO ONE DO ANYTHING" seems odd.

Now, I can't say that either you or Vincent *owes* me an explanation of anything--your time is your own.

Good. Personally, I think the onus is on you to prove that there IS a problem. I don't think you've done that. You've sort of jumped from a concern about stat substitutions to a concern about pacing.

What happens if the game comes to end with the 6th session?  We make new characters?  We'd only get to play them twice; that's hardly satisfying or a good use of my time.  I think in this situation I have a compelling interest to make sure my game runs for exactly 8 sessions.    

Sounds to me like you have a highly specific problem. While it'd be great if we could jump onto Vincent's forums and tell him his game is broken because it doesn't match up with our class schedule, it's just not a practical concern, man. If you NEED a game to end prematurely or extend longer than is "natural", then by all means, go for it. But you can't complain about the results if you're not following the proscribed rules.

You and Chris have both emphasized the importance of the MC not predicting anything.  Could you explain why you feel that way, and why its importance outweighs real-life scheduling concerns?

Also--It's possible and even likely that the rule has been tested and found good, but if that's the case, it shouldn't be difficult to show me the money.  As a reminder, my assertion is that:

1: A character with multiple stat-substitution moves will earn improvements dramatically faster than other characters, and

2: That this will lead to an undesirable result

All Vincent, or anyone knowledgeable, needs to do is disprove one of those statements.  Either tell me that those characters have been played and did not earn improvements especially fast (preferably accompanied by an approximate breakdown of where Xp was coming from) or by saying they've played successful games with rapidly advancing characters and explaining how it went.  

Sure. The game has a certain pace to it. There's flow to the game and it doesn't involve the MC laying things out. As you've said, if the MC DOES lay things out, it won't work anyway. I think the problem, if I understand you, is that the pace does not conform to your class schedule.

1) Yep

2) Nope. I think you mean that you'll find the result undesirable. Sure. But again, the game wasn't tailored for specific play schedules. It was designed to play out somewhat organically, within the parameters of the Fronts and the MC's principals. For me, the result is perfectly acceptable.

Again, that's pretty much it.

couple of thoughts:

Your concerns about quick advancement.  What I am understand to be your point is that if people advance too quickly, then it destabilizes the setting.  Threats that were threats no longer count, interdependent relationships change as some people become more bad-ass (mechanically at least) than others, people might choose to take moves that change the overall dynamic of the story.

To counter this argument, I would look to pages 111-112 where the book talks about looking at things through crosshairs.  Specifically, the text says: <quote>It’s one of the game’s slogans:“there are no status quos in Apocalypse World.”</quote>  I see this as being true as much about players choices as it is about what the MC can or cannot target.  It was a traveling setting, now it's about staying in one place?  The guys on the run from terrible enemies who decide that here, now, is a place to take a stand is a great idea.  Relationships changing due to imbalance?  Just because Kodak's son Gris-Gris can now beat the shit out of him doesn't make it any less important or interesting that he is his SON.  Threats are no longer really threatening? That gang of bikers that used to terrify the holding are now kind of a bunch of wimps.  They might have just been a bunch of bullies, but the tyrant that they report to has something to say about you doing what you do.  Change leads to... well, change.  And change is interesting.

You have also mentioned being concerned that the story should take 8 sessions, and that's it.  My gaming group has been playing short-arc independent RPG's for a few months now, so that we can sample a bunch of games.  Keeping a schedule in mind helps make for satisfying story arc while still doing so in a limited time frame, but that's not the concern of the MC: he doesn't have to work to wrap anything up, or to make sure everything get's dealt with.  For the MC, he just does what he does: keeps life interesting, thinks about what's happening off-stage, and advances story whenever he feels like/it feels right.  It's between all of us to say "hey, we want to wrap up in the next two sessions, so let's start dealing with the meat of the story."  So far, we haven't had real burps with people not getting enough story in any one single game.  It doesn't need managing, just keeping it in mind is enough.  If you do end up a session or two short, well, play something short in the interim:  I really recommend Fiasco.

Yeah, if you're really that worried about players advancing at different paces, just stop the game, quiet everyone down, and take the player who's lagging behind and look him deep, deep in the eyes while softly gripping his shoulder.

And then you tell him: "Dude.................stop sucking at Apocalypse World"

Problem solved.