Some conflict about highlighting stats.

So we're on our 5th session and everything is going pretty great except for highlighting stats. 4 of my 5 players are more of the power variety and the 1 is much more in-game oriented. The 4 want to highlight the other players best stats so they can get the most XP possible and get pretty upset if the 1 marks their -1 or -2 stat basically saying that it's a waste because they'll never use that stat anyway. I kind of feel both sides especially when you've got moves like roll+hard instead of cool when acting under fire; why would you ever roll +cool then? It's just become a real problem and I don't know how to mediate the situation as an MC, please help.

Highlighting stats is an out of character choice, player to player. I think your crew needs to sit down and talk about this amongst each other, and by talk, I mean seriously talk about why certain choices are being made. If the player is highlighting the gun-luggers cool, and he doesn't like that, instead of crying about wanting more, maybe he should ask, "hey buddy, why cool?". There is a certain level of expectation that the players actually like each other and want to tell an awesome story together. This is directly opposed to the idea that every choice will always be optimized to help them level up faster.

As for the stats themselves, you have a variety of choices. One of the simpliest that I used for about half of the games I ran, was for for my group, you got experiment based on the stat that should be rolled, rather then the one they've substituted it for. This was the favorite choice out of my group.

Others on these forums have suggested that making a HARD substitution means something different then rolling the move based of the cool stat. As in there is a distinct flavor that cool has that hard does not, and that playing it off as cool and not hard would earn the point, but bulling through with the best stat therefore wouldn't get the same treatment. I am not a fan of this personally, but it is an option.

The most straight forward is, if it is that stat then great. If they have no moves involving that stat, they might take that as an act of aggression. This is also fine. I've seen a lot of pvp in my games, and these types of confrontations have been used before to signal that someone actively doesn't want the other to have as many options available to them. Perhaps slowing them down? That is perfectly reasonable.

However OOC group cohesion is essential. You must sort this out amongst your own crew, and they must set aside bulling, threats, or hostility amongst each other in order to construct a fun game. The only real answer here is, you need to find out what the answer is by talking to them and making everyone get on the same page. As an MC I've chosen stats of players that had a -2 before. Firstly, I've told them it's so I can see if they can pull it off. It's a dare. Secondly, because if they avoid making any type of roll they aren't great in, it's not really a character weakness. Weaknesses should be celebrated within the story just as much as the strengths matter. There have been times when the stat is simply 100% ignored by the player no matter what, and that's fine too. But highlighting it isn't being mean, it's expanding the current patterns, even if that means they might not progress if they just want to kick ass all the time instead.

As for the Hard sub for act under fire, maybe it means exactly what it says it does. "I want to see you do cool things outside of the combat" That might mean sneaking into a place rather then gunning everyone down. It might mean jumping from one moving vehicle to another without threats of death. It might mean running out in front of some type of bomb to grab a kid and throw them and you into safety. Maybe it means lying to someone when getting caught in that lie might be very bad. It means, stop fucking shooting everyone.

Good luck.

Vx has said it's pretty reasonable to ask others not to mark stats that you never use because of stat substitutions. Beyond that though, tough luck. There's a reason someone else gets to pick which stats of yours are highlighted and you don't get to pick your own. You can ask the other players to highlight your good stats if you want, but they get the final say.

If they are able to roll their -2 or -1 stat, and it gets highlighted, then it's only a waste if the player chooses not to use that stat. They're the one leaving XP on the table by refusing to roll stats they aren't good at; they could choose to do the thing they're bad at a bunch, and get a bunch of XP in exchange for taking some failures. (And here's a trick: the more you fail, the more you get to roll, and the more XP you get!)

Also, as MC, I'd be pretty tempted to always pick bad stats if the players always picked good stats. Both to give a little balance to the game and to do exactly what the highlighting mechanic is supposed to do: encourage players to have their characters do things they otherwise wouldn't (i.e. things they're bad at).

Oh, and as a final thought: how much are the PCs in your game working together towards a common goal and how much do they all have their own things going on? I find AW thrives on intra-party conflict, and it also solves this problem pretty well. You're not likely to highlight the Gunlugger's Hard if you think you might find yourself in his crosshairs.

Very useful replies, thank you! I feel more confident in telling them to "suck it up" as it were instead of letting them game the system. I'm definitely going to explain things in a similar way to how you laid it out because I was missing the point when trying to justify that system to them. We're all friends, we should be there to have fun and experience cool roleplay moments, not to "win".

I have been choosing the highlighted stat based solely on the guideline 'choose one that is most interesting' and told that to my players. I present it to myself as a stakes question: "What would happen if Rache, Maestro D', a social butterfly would end up in a gunfight" and "How deep is the rabbit hole that is Nif, the Child-Thing" and that is why I highlighted Hard and Weird respectively even if Hard isn't Rache's main stat and Weird is Nif's. Now both Rache and Nif have an extra incentive to explore the sides of their characters I find fascinating.

EDIT: Also remember that a player can ask to have their highlights changed at the start of every session.

The 4 want to highlight the other players best stats so they can get the most XP possible and get pretty upset if the 1 marks their -1 or -2 stat basically saying that it's a waste because they'll never use that stat anyway.

OK, there are a couple of red flags bound up in this one sentence.

First, gaining XP is not the end goal. This isn't D&D, where "leveling up" is a motivation in and of itself because it's the ticket to bigger monsters and better treasure. All that gaining experience does in AW is push you closer to either retirement or a playbook change. If you like your character the way he or she is, at a certain point you start looking for ways to NOT get advances.

Second, the choice of which stat to use in a situation isn't always up to the player. The rule of "to do it, do it" is always in play, and if the PC is doing something that sounds like a move, the move triggers. If the Gunlugger is making a threat but lacks either the opportunity or the willingness to back it up with actual violence, then tough luck, buddy, you're rolling +Hot instead of +Hard. Yeah, I know you want to be going aggro, but this ain't it. And as the MC, you should be looking for ways to put the Gunlugger in these kinds of situations. Remember that advice of "see where they're not in control and push there?" Throwing fights at the Hard characters all the time or always putting the Skinner in social situations is boring - you know how they're going to react and you know they're likely to succeed. Instead, put the Gunlugger in a social situation and the Skinner in a fight. If the players are never using their negative stats, you need to work a little harder as the MC.

Finally, failure should always be an option. This is something that you might have to train your players to, especially if they come from a system where failure is universally bad. Half the time in AW, failure IS the story. It drives the complications that "make the characters' lives not boring." So your -2 Hot is highlighted? Take this as the perfect opportunity to make a pass at Dremmer's boy-toy when Dremmer's not looking. Go ahead. I dare you. I guarantee that whatever comes next is going to be interesting in every Chinese curse sense of the word. We don't know what's going to happen next, but I'll bet we'll have a blast playing to find out.

EDIT: Also remember that a player can ask to have their highlights changed at the start of every session.

Just to clarify: this is not optional, highlighting stats happens at the beginning of every session.

(Unless this is some 2nd edition thing, I guess?)

I had some half-finished thoughts about this that I abandoned, but Munin's post touched on some of those themes so I thought I'd try again.

Gaining XP can be an end-goal for some players. People like watching the numbers go up and getting new toys to play with, and that's fine! Part of the genius of Apocalypse World is that the most effective way to powergame the system and farm XP is also the way to get the most interesting story, since AW actually rewards cool story things. If your goal is to level up as fast as possible, then you will do things that get you to roll your highlights, even if they're your worst stats. Sometimes, roll your worst stats even if they're not highlighted, because failure will give you more chances to roll overall, and some of that will hopefully be with your highlighted stats. Basically, roll as much as possible and you will be doubly rewarded: the story will become real interesting real fast, and you'll level up a lot faster than otherwise.

Basically, WhoKnowsNotMe, your players aren't even good at being powergamers. Remind them that failure begets more rolls, and more rolls means more XP, and see if that doesn't appeal to them in a way that "well it'll be interesting if your character fails sometimes" doesn't.

Quote from: Fleuri on July 26, 2016, 01:24:29 AM

EDIT: Also remember that a player can ask to have their highlights changed at the start of every session.

Just to clarify: this is not optional, highlighting stats happens at the beginning of every session.

(Unless this is some 2nd edition thing, I guess?)

I've always played it your way, but per page 92 in the 1e rulebook (section header "Changing Highlights"):

"At the beginning of any session, or at the end if you forgot, anyone can say, 'hey, let's change highlighted stats.'"

Technically it's any session, not every.

Quote from: Fleuri on July 26, 2016, 01:24:29 AM

EDIT: Also remember that a player can ask to have their highlights changed at the start of every session.

Just to clarify: this is not optional, highlighting stats happens at the beginning of every session.

(Unless this is some 2nd edition thing, I guess?)

IIRC forcing the highlight change is a DW rule. AW rulebook states:

At the beginning of any session, or at the end if you forgot,

anyone can say, “hey, let’s change highlighted stats.” Any player,

and you can feel free to say it too as MC. When someone says it,

do it. Go around the circle again, following the same procedure

you used to highlight them in the first place: the high-Hx player

highlights one stat, and you as MC highlight another.

Quote from: Daniel Wood on July 26, 2016, 03:24:14 PM

Quote from: Fleuri on July 26, 2016, 01:24:29 AM

EDIT: Also remember that a player can ask to have their highlights changed at the start of every session.

Just to clarify: this is not optional, highlighting stats happens at the beginning of every session.

(Unless this is some 2nd edition thing, I guess?)

I've always played it your way, but per page 92 in the 1e rulebook (section header "Changing Highlights"):

"At the beginning of any session, or at the end if you forgot, anyone can say, 'hey, let's change highlighted stats.'"

Technically it's any session, not every.

Where do all these ninjas come from?

Huh, fascinating. And good to know! I wonder if it has always been that way, or if this was a change I failed to learn post-playtest.

It's a good habit to get into I find. So unless we all just forget, I always say lets roll at the start. Which then qualifies to have everyone roll right then. The only time we don't is if we left off before still in mid swing and we want the same motivations in play.