Question's about +1 Forward and +1 Ongoing

So my question is fairly simple, is there a limit set on how many +1 forward and +1 ongoing you can get? I don't remember reading it or not but I assume if you already have a +1 Forward and a +1 Ongoing then you can not stake anymore bonuses right?

I've always played it:

Two, +1 Forwards, is +1 Forward. Perhaps, and depending on the circumstances, a subsequent +1 Forward, but often not. +1 Ongoing does not stack with +1 Forward, it hardly needs to. It'll be there time and again on whatever path that is. Two +1 Forwards/Ongoing will counter a -1 Forward, and still provide the +1 Forward imho.

Aid Another Stacks with this, but not with another instance of aid another.

I don't have a page reference for this at the moment, but my recollection is that bonuses from different sources stack, but you can only get one bonus at a time from any one source. E.g. if the Gunlugger has sex and then is Aided, he gets +2. But if he has sex twice in a row, he only gets +1. If you can find a way to make a whole bunch of +1 forwards apply, then you deserve the full bonus. (And since forwards and ongoings rarely come from the same source, they also stack with each other.)

EDIT: From what I could find on a cursory skim, the rules just say, "+1... forward just means you add 1... to your very next roll." That's it, no complicated rules about when that does or doesn't apply needed. In almost all cases, if you're getting multiple overlapping effects, then you're putting in effort to get that and probably giving up something else or putting yourself in increased danger in exchange anyway.

I don't see why they wouldn't stack, honestly. If this actually happening often enough that it feels problematic, you are probably not using the core playbooks?

I mean, most things that give you +1 forward require you to roll. This provides a fairly straightforward check on how many +1 forwards you are likely to have going at the same time. And very few circumstances give +1 ongoing, so again that seems like a pretty marginal concern. If a PC somehow had more than one +1 ongoing, I would expect them to very quickly resolve whatever the situation was that was giving them the bonus in the first place, because they're going to be kicking ass pretty hard for as long as it lasts.

Different play styles. The reason I dont have them stack in my game is that distracts a couple of my players. They are drawn into playing for the numbers rather then story, and a simple solution was just to flatten out the numbers, and let the story take charge. Everyone has a better time because of it. It's not like the people with really high rolls fail all that often at what they're good at anyway.

We collectively decided that no roll should get enough bonuses to make failure impossible.

With different people, things will work differently.


-------------------
Also it is extremely easy to get bonuses from different sources. Get the +1 ongoing by asking someone with the give me directions move, if you know they're on board anyway, no risk there. Use the battle babes +2 forward from a read a sitch, whose forwards applies to the objectives there. And get the original guy who was calling the shots to help out (or anyone else really), and you're looking at a +4 more to any roll. At +5 (so any stat at least at +1) you're immune to misses. You cannot fail.

You had to make one extra move to get it, which you will have made anyway. So you've taken no additional risks, you can do this (almost) for every single thing, and if you've got a +3 stat to begin with, you have to roll snake-eyes just to get a partial. Gamey as fuck, easy as pie.

We concluded that this was not desirable behavior.

Well alright, you can hack it however you want, but if someone asks a rules question, it's probably safe to assume they want to know the way it works in the actual rules.

Also, yeah, it's technically possible to stack bonuses really high, but that's a pretty specific scenario you've described. It requires being the Battlebabe, taking action premeditated enough that you can go to the Savvyhead for advice ahead of time, and then they have to succeed on Read a Sitch, and the MC has to give answers compatible with the Savvyhead's plan (which should almost never happen), and someone has to successfully help you. If they get all that to line up right, I'm happy to give them a roll they can't fail. Especially since they still run the risk of getting additional complications on a partial success, and then they've burned through their huge bonus and are just back to their regular stats for the followup. If that's happening often, the GM isn't pushing hard enough. 

EDIT: If we're talking hacks, wouldn't it be simpler to just say that snake-eyes is always a failure and boxcars is always a total success, regardless of modifiers? That's how I'd do it if I didn't want to ever allow a failureless roll.

It doesn't explicitly state it either way, and being a rules question, there's no harm in hearing how multiple people successfully handle it.

As for your suggestion, we considered auto-fail auto-success, but it was meh. The other way added more risk of failure more often (risk = excitement ) with less incentive to try to game the thing, which was the whole point.

Well alright, you can hack it however you want, but if someone asks a rules question, it's probably safe to assume they want to know the way it works in the actual rules.

I think that's an unhelpful way of looking at it. A game's rules are only worth following if it will lead to a better game than if you hadn't followed them, and the only way to determine that is to discuss and analyse the rules and possible alternatives. Game writers make mistakes too, though admittedly most Apocalypse World rules seem to have some pretty clever design behind them.

I have this question right in front of me right now, so, happy for the thread!

I'm a hocus, with insight in this session. My followers say, we should raid this village, but they might have guards, so we should send scouts forward to check the sitch, and poison their water before moving in to slaughter the ones not poisoned.

My read on this is that I'll have the insight bonus on typically three moves: read a sitch first, and then going aggro with poison, and then seize by force to kill and raid the village. It's not a long shot to assume I'll be in a sitch where I'll have +1 from both insight and the read move.

How do you think it should be handled, stacked or not stacked?

Personally, I'm leaning towards stacked, up to max +3 to any dice roll, because there is nothing in the game's logic that says I shouldn't get is, as far as I can see. But what do you think?

I still say stacked as high as they can go. No part of the game says they can't be, and if you put in the work and get the successes necessary, you deserve the rewards. The text of the game is clear: if you get +1 forward, you get +1 to your next roll. Also, your MC will ideally give you conflicting advice from Insight and Read A Sitch--things shouldn't be exactly as they seemed to your followers beforehand.

(Though I'm not sure I'd agree with the moves you expect to roll. Unless you're one of the scouts, I don't think you get to roll Read A Sitch through them, and I'm not sure I'd call for Go Aggro as the move when poisoning a water supply.)

I still say stacked as high as they can go. No part of the game says they can't be, and if you put in the work and get the successes necessary, you deserve the rewards. The text of the game is clear: if you get +1 forward, you get +1 to your next roll. Also, your MC will ideally give you conflicting advice from Insight and Read A Sitch--things shouldn't be exactly as they seemed to your followers beforehand.

Thanks!

(Though I'm not sure I'd agree with the moves you expect to roll. Unless you're one of the scouts, I don't think you get to roll Read A Sitch through them, and I'm not sure I'd call for Go Aggro as the move when poisoning a water supply.)

No? Cool. How would you do it? (I'm the player in this case, so it'll be my MC's call anyway, but I'm curious!)

To me it looks quite clear, and in line with sending your gang to burn down the next holding, rolling seize by force without being personally present.

My instinct is that if you're just telling your people to go do something, then they (probably) go try to do it, and succeed or fail at the MC's discretion, same as any other NPC thing. I think using your gang as a weapon for violence moves is the exception here, not the rule. (Per the 2e final preview, "When you have a gang, you can sucker someone, go aggro on them, or make a battle move, using your gang as a weapon." Nothing about any other move.) If you send some scouts, they'll come back and give you a report on what they saw (at which point you can ask your followers for updated advice), but I don't think the rules support you Reading A Sitch through them.

Go Aggro by poisoning, either directly or through a gang, feels a little off to me. I think I'd be inclined to make the part where you get to the water supply the interesting part, if you were doing it yourself, which would probably entail Doing Something Under Fire. Then once you get there, you just dump the poison in and the effects of that play out predictably and fictionally. If you're sending a gang off to do it for you, then that just happens off-screen. But I think an argument can definitely made that you'd be Suckering Someone (with a chance to miss) by doing this, so this one is more of a personal interpretation thing than a rules thing.

Hm, that's interesting. To me, a character reading a situation by having people go and check is a given, but I'll think about it some more (and happily hear more opinions on it!). Thanks!

To me, Read A Sitch would be for when you want to go check it out for yourself. Otherwise you're always acting on second-hand intel, and you have to trust that your scouts noticed all the important things, and that what they thought was important was the same stuff you'd find important, and that their report was 100% accurate. Unless there's some Weirdness that lets you literally see through their eyes or something, I'd definitely say they just go, come back (probably), and give you a report.

I'm pretty confident the rules support my interpretation, but they may also support yours--this may just be a playstyle and interpretation thing, rather than a strict rules issue.

I concur with JustusGS regarding the moves and the followers (if not the stacking).