Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)

Hey!

So. I came here with hopes to sort out kind of a stalemate debate in our RPG community regarding how AW was meant and supposed to be played.

The argument boils down to the question, whether MC moves are prescriptive or descriptive. What is meant by that:

PRESCRIPTIVE: MC moves are deliberately extensive and closed list. Anytime MC is about to decide/describe/do anything, MC is "forced" by rules to make one of the MC moves (or their combination), but nothing else - meaning doing anything else than what is already listed, using what is listed in different way than it is described etc. would be "against" the rules as they are meant (no matter if it works for the group or not). Also MC is about to act only and strictly only, when "rules explicitly tell her/him to".

Moreover, the game is meant to work within a strict formal structure in which the spotlight (and authority) goes back and forth between MC and players (now is MC time to play MC moves / now is players time to do their moves / MC takes the initiative back / gives it back to players / takes it back...) This is not mere formal description of a dialogue, but prescribed structure players and MC should strive to create and execute and keep clearly distinguished all (or most of) the time, so every move was followed by another move and so on, the whole game existing as unbroken chain of move follow-ups (with a little, but not too much exaggeration.)


DESCRIPTIVE: MC moves are "categorization" of the most common useful things MC can decide/describe/do when the initiative in the "conversation" starts to "gravitate" from players to MC. They are meant to be "at hand", but MC is not, by rules, limited to these alone - if MC does/describes/decides something outside of MC moves, but in accordance with the style of the game (agenda&principles, genre, but also player's individual aesthetics, specific and/or momentary interest in the game and/or mood around the table etc.), it's all ok and as it was meant to be.

The game is meant to be informal, not too much different from others (like Fate or Blades or may be even DnD - provided these are played in similar "let's play to find out" style) - players and MC are playing the game through "unstructured" conversation without the need to formally establish "whose move it is now" all (or even most of) the time. The rules (including MC moves) are meant to be used to moderate this as and when needed and if even several scenes pass without the need to use them, then as long as players are ok with the result, all is fine.


I'm not sure how clear my question is (we've spent a lot of time arguing it already, so my perception of clarity is distorted), I'll be happy to clarify anything if needed.


Thanks in advance for the answer, it will help to stop the oncoming horrible community bloodshed which seems to be upon us! (Without ridiculous drama, the world would be a boring place to live in.)

Descriptive.

The text says, p9, "like any conversation, you take turns, but it's not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others' ideas, monopolize and hold forth. All fine."

You know how a normal conversation works, that's how Apocalypse World works too.

The only time the rules impose a structure on the conversation is when multiple players want to have their characters do things at the same time, especially when they're at odds with each other. You can read about that on p132-133.

The lists of MC moves are there to remind you to say more things, a wider variety of things, not to limit you to saying a strict set of things.

-Vincent

Thanks a lot mate!

Ok, a little follow-up question. (Naturally there is a follow-up question, right? :D )

Let's take a situation where choice of player's move is ambivalent. Typically something like "X is standing in the door with a weapon, Battlebabe wants to go through, context is not strong enough to give one clear type of interaction - go aggro or seize by force?" (or any other situation where fiction allows for different moves to be applied).

Who (how) is to decide which move is about to be triggered?

- (a) player
- (b) MC
- (c) player+MC through dialogue about character's (fictional) or player's (dramatic) intention
- (d) player+MC through dialogue about dramatic intention and story continuation
- (e) all or any of the above according to how the specific group prefers
- (f) none of the above, which move to chose is strongly hard-wired in the system itself and once the interaction is described, players / MC have no authority of their own over it.

I hope I'm not bothering you with this too much, thanks a lot again :)

Hi Vincent,

thank you for your quick replay to Sirien.
Unfortunately, I am afraid, that his question didn't move us any closer to resolve our debate because it is not targeting the differences in our understanding the game. So, I would like to ask a slightly different way to clear this up.

I'll try to explain the way how I play AW as MC. I am sorry, that my post is a bit longer, but I'd like to understand the game as close as your intentions were, when you wrote it. Would you be so kind and correct me if I do something wrong or if I understand something wrong (or apply some rule to strict, etc...)


As I understand the game rules, there are different levels of how MCs autority over the game is limited.



Without the interference of the rules the game is a normal conversation like in any other RPG game. The players say what their characters do, I say what the NPCs do. I describe them the environment, they ask me follow up questions, I ask them provocative questions. We roleplay some conversation with NPCs or I describe straightforward reactions of the NPCs.

I call this "players are on the move", even though it isn't described like that in the book because its mainly about players and their actions. My tasks, as MC, are limited. I do provide players with support, information, maybe moderate their spotlight, etc.  I also watch for any events, that might trigger a player move. I Help them to choose right move for their situation in game fiction or to chose the right description for the move they want to play. If some player move come into play, we resolve it with dice and if it's a hit, we make choices, answer the questions or describe the outcomes and the conversation continues.

Last but not least, I am also watching for any impulses or triggers for me to play my move.

During this conversation I shouldn't force my player to do any moves, unless they come out of their own actions in the game world and I should refrain from taking over the control over the game. I play like my authority over the game is limited to NPC actions and description of the environment.



Very often during the conversation, the players ask me for something, maybe a reaction of some NPCs or the game world itself, maybe they just look and wait what I do next or what the NPCs does next. This is a trigger for me to play my move - "MC makes a soft move". Now it is my task to direct the game somewhere: to setup some situation for players to deal with, to show opportunities or to present a danger. I can also softly push some player moves. But there are still some limits, I shouldn't cross - I should refrain from doing definite, irrevocable actions. "Soft moves" are just setups and I should immediately offer my players an opportunity to react or act accordingly: "What do you do?" so our conversation continues with "players on the move".



Sometimes during the conversation, I'am allowed to do even more than that. The player rolls 6- and there is "Prepares for the worst" written in the move. Or there was some "soft move" setup, but the players decided to ignore incoming threat and they let it happen. Or the players willingly hand the opportunity to me. This is the time for "hard move" - some definitive, irrevocable action from me, where I can do (almost) anything I want, as long it goes with principals and makes sense in the game fiction. But again, immediately after my move, there comes: "What do you do?" and our conversation continues with "players on the move".



Of course, this process is not "taking turns" like in the boardgame. There are some distinguishable moments (like 6- on the dice, or "What do you do?" question or PvP, where MC moderates the order), but apart from that, it is all happening during a normal conversation. From one player to another, from player to MC to another player, everyone does his actions in some natural order, only sometimes we throw dice or I look into my papers with threads and moves for answers.

That's why I'd like to call this structure semi-formal. It is very subtle and a player unaware of this structure might not see any difference from conversation in any other RPGs. But once I am playing as an MC, I follow this structure as a strict rule. Not a formal one - I am not telling players "It's my turn" or "It's yours", but as my internal MC rule, that I always follow, as AW agenda wants me to do. And if I know this structure as a player, I can use it in my advantage a bit (like not asking MC the question for which I don't want to hear their answers).



So, my question is:
* Do I understand correctly that MC should use these rules regulary?
* Or am I too strict, MC can do whatever he wants and these are mere guidelines he can use, if he doesn't know what to do himself?

Thank you very much for your clarification.

Well, I still don't get what you're disagreeing about, but I can try to answer your questions.

Sirien:

A.

However, you can't proceed to make the move until the MC agrees with you that you're making it.

MarkyParky:

Sorry, nope! This idea of "players on the move" vs "Sometimes during the conversation, I'am allowed to do even more" isn't correct.

Much of the time, play goes exactly as you describe, but that's not the rule, it's just how it often goes.

When you describe "players on the move," you include these:

• I say what the NPCs do
• I describe them the environment
• I ask them provocative questions
• I describe straightforward reactions of the NPCs

And then you say...

• Last but not least, I am also watching for any impulses or triggers for me to play my move.

In fact, all of the above are impulses or triggers for you to play your move.

When a player says "I find Mice and ask her what she knows about the water cult," you can say "she's about to answer when an enormous explosion rips through the hardhold. There's smoke, screaming, fire, blood. Everyone down by the windmill - that's where the explosion is - takes 3-harm, which means that I don't know how many NPCs are killed. 15? 30? I'll have to sort it out later. Are any of you down there right now?"

Any time it's your turn to speak, choose any move you want. The rule isn't that it should be soft, the rule is that you should choose a move with an in-fiction cause to back it up ("misdirect"), and you should look at everything you own through crosshairs. This is on pages 82-84.

You know how you always say what honesty demands, what your prep demands, and what the rules demand. The rules never force you to hold back from honesty or your prep in the name of making a "soft move." Sometimes you absolutely seize control of the game when the players don't expect it, because honesty demands it or your prep demands it.

The threat moves are even more aggressive than the basic MC moves. As soon as there's a threat in play, you should be thinking about where and how they're going to push the PCs, and you should always be willing to make hard, direct moves and interrupt the players to do it.

You don't have to wait for them to miss a roll, or for them to blatantly ignore something you're setting up. Those are examples of opportunities, but you can take any opportunity you get.

In sum: there's no down-phase in the conversation where the players are in control and you're hanging back. Sometimes it happens that the players are in control and you're hanging back, but it's not a phase they can rely on. You can always, with no warning, seize control with a hard and direct move, if honesty or your prep demands it. The rules never stop you from doing that, and you don't have to wait for them to miss a roll.

Edited to add:

Not that you're playing it wrong. Quite the contrary. As MC, you judge for yourself how to pace your moves and which moves to choose. If you want to play the way you've described, you should! It's perfectly fine, perfectly by-the-rules play.

You're judging for yourself how to pace your moves, that's all, same as every MC gets to do.

Both:

My guess is that I've given you more to disagree about, not less!

-Vincent

Vincent: oh, quite contrary for me, I'm more than happy with every sentence of all of your posts :D But you've been around, so you know how it goes. I believe once the dust settle, we'll be all fine again :D

Anyway, it seems you've actually managed to answer all the other questions some people were throwing at us for you and which we didn't even passed - but one, so if I could ask for just one more quick clarification (for myself, at least):

You write that MC is free to make hard moves at every opportunity etc., especially "as soon as threats are in play". Since this is quite important for some and it might have an impact to many actual game moments, to avoid any misunderstanding - is there some structure to how and when are threats supposed to come intoplay? Sorry. Specific question: Can MC just throw a new threat into the play out of blue (improvised on spot or prepared but yet unannounced) OR is MC obliged, or at least supposed to, make some kind of warning or at least forshadowing of a new threat to the players (characters) before s/he strikes them hard with the threat move?


Thanks a lot for your answers, it is really helpful to us.

Great! I'm glad to hear it.

You can throw a new threat into play out of the blue, yes. You're not obliged to announce it or foreshadow it, no. Usually you'll want to, but you're not obliged to.

Your obligation is on page 81: be generous with the truth, don't play gotcha, give the players the benefits of their moves and their characters' strengths and resources, play with the players, not against them.

As MC, I like to say "hey, something's about to happen. Who wants to read a situation?" They'll ask you questions that let you make the threat move without taking away their active agency. Like so:

"Who's in control here?"
"Well, you would have sworn that Barbecue was, but at that second a gigantic explosion rips through the hardhold..."

"What should I be on the lookout for?"
"You should be on the lookout for the gigantic explosion that's about to go off down at the windmill. I can't think of a reason why you'd know it's about to happen, but the thought suddenly comes to you: what if an explosion went off at the windmill? And then kaBOOM..."

But this isn't the rule, it's just a fun thing to do.

-Vincent

Great, thanks, clarity of your answers is amazing, you've been extremely helpful.

So, I'm gonna go to spread some Apocalypse around :)

Cheers!

Vincent:
Thank you for explanation.

I am sorry to dig deeper into this, but as much as your answer did clarify me one think, it did confuse me on another. Brace yourself, another long post is coming :).


I understand now that the rules should not hold me back when deciding, what move to make or how hard it should be. That's perfectly clear - page 89 is a guideline, but I can make a move harder or softer if I need it.


But I am a bit confused now about the actual trigger when MC should play the move. Page 88+89 says, that I shall make MC move when:

* There's a pause in the conversation and players are looking at me to say something or players directly ask me about what's going to happen next,
* the rules says so (6- and "Prepare for the worst" or a player move saying "ask the MC", etc...) or
* here is a clear opportunity (like a danger that players didn't respond to, NPC that could have something in meanwhile, etc..)

Until today, I though it is pretty clear. Even with all the examples and explanations you gave me, it fitted. But it is your last sentence, that got me confused.

You can always, with no warning, seize control with a hard and direct move, if honesty or your prep demands it. The rules never stop you from doing that, and you don't have to wait for them to miss a roll.

* Does it mean that I can do a MC move anytime I want, as long as it is okay with "Always say"? Are the rules above there just to make sure I do it when it's needed?
* Or must there still be one of those impulses or triggeres for MC to say something first, but immediately when there is one, the move can be as hard, as I want?



Example:

Let's say I ask Fred, the driver, what does he do in the afternoon.

If the player answers: "I go to my garage," and nothing more, it pretty clear, that this is a pause in the conversation. So I make my move: "As you've been approaching the garage, you found bunch of jerks that are searching for  something and when they see you, they start yelling at you: 'Where are you hiding Diana? Tell us, or we?ll kill you!'"

I can clearly play this move even if there was nothing mentioned before about Diana or these guys - this is a setup for future moves and events.



But what if the players says: "I go to my garage and take my car for ride. I'm driving to Holden's place."
Is it OK to interrupt him, take it as an opportinity to make your move and say: "As you've been approaching the garage, you found bunch of jerks that....."


Can you please go with me with following examples to clarify this?
I wrote three of them - first two should be clear and I wrote them just to be sure, third is the one, that I am confused about.

Case #1.: There was an unresolved setup from before. Frend spend an evening with Diana, he got drunk and he promissed her take her to paradise. The player just forgot about it. I am thinking offscreen: Maybe she took it seriously and disapeared in the night. Maybe someone overheard the conversation and maybe someone hire theese guys to bring her back. This is clearly an oportunity and I can make my move. I would interupt him.

Case #2.: There was nothing about Diana or the guys in a game so far - I'am just thinking about some cool event - but the player didn't know it at all and skipped the opportunity in the conversation. In this situation I would never interupthim to make a move. I would feel like manipulating the player into what I want to play, instead of playing to find out. There is neither pause in conversation nor my prep would justify such interuption.

Case #3.: Let's say, that we have a Diana NPC in the game and her impulse is "To escape". Let's say, that these thugs are also known as a NPC gang operating in the area and guarding noone escapes. But there was no previous setup of this situation, they are just there. On one hand, there is some prep that I can use to justify the move, on other hand, it is not a very strong demand.

Can I interrupt the player in such a situation? Should I?  Or am I completly wrong on all this?


Thank you again for your patience

MarkyParky:

Well, yes, when a player says "I drive out to Holden's-" you're allowed to say "hold on, there's something going on at your garage," if there's something going on at their garage. Just because they say that they drive out to Holden's, you're not required to go along with them. You can always tell them hold on, back up, actually...

Case 1: allowed.

Case 2: allowed.

Case 3: allowed.

The variable you're missing in case 2 and 3 is, are there honestly thugs looking for Diana at the garage? If there are, you should say so. If there aren't, you shouldn't. If there honestly might be, it's your decision to make, so decide now and stick with it.

In case 2, you say that you would never do this. That's fine! The rules are on your side. Other MCs must judge their own honesty and make their own decisions about it for themselves. If they decide that honestly, yeah, there are thugs there, looking for Diana, then the rules are on their side too.

-Vincent

Just as an aside, #2 is a great way to give players some input into the setting. As in:

"Hold up. When you get to your garage, there's a bunch of jerks there rummaging through your stuff. When they see you, one of them says, 'Where are you hiding Diana? Tells us now, or we kill you dead.' So, who - or what - is Diana, and why do these dudes think you'll know where to find her/it?"

And if the Driver's players thinks for a hot minute and says, "Oooh! Oooh! I know: 'Diana' is the name Dremmer gave to his motorbike, which I stole. But these assholes will never find it here because Bish is hiding it for me," then so much the better. Now you have more information about the Driver, Dremmer, and Bish. You are explicitly letting the player tell you something the character knows and taking it on face value as truth. That can be a ton of fun for everyone involved (including the MC, who is also playing to find out).

FWIW, doing this puts a lot of faith in and pressure on your players, so only do it if you know they can handle it and enjoy being put on the spot to come up with cool new details for their character or the world in general.

@sirien: in regards to your question about who decides which move is triggered, as Vincent says the player has ultimate control over saying what they do (or try to do), but it's incumbent upon the MC to decide if that action is sufficient to trigger a move. So for instance if you say, "I go aggro on the guy," it's perfectly reasonable for the MC to ask for clarification, like, "OK, but hold up - what is it you're actually doing to threaten this guy with imminent violence?" Remember: to do it, do it.

It's fine for the MC to offer suggestions as to what fictional actions might trigger a particular move (e.g. "If you want to use Diana as leverage over Dremmer to get him to do what you want, then yeah, that's totally manipulating him. How do you want to do that?") but the final decision of whether the PC takes the fictional action that triggers the roll is up to the player.

Vincent:
Everything is pretty clear now, thank you for your time and effort.


Last small personal question:

In your first reply, you wrote:
The lists of MC moves are there to remind you to say more things, a wider variety of things, not to limit you to saying a strict set of things.


On the other hand if I look at your examples how you play both in the book or here in the forum, you use them like hell.  And of course you twist them and combine them and use them with different targets and content, but generally you always mark them bold to be visible in your examples.


So I assume this is more like your favorite/recommended style of play? How often do you - in your games - do you ad-hoc play a move that is not from lists or derivation of something from the lists?

Sure thing!

I tried to list everything I do, basically. I have a hard time thinking of a move I might make that doesn't appear on the lists. Do you have an example in mind?

-Vincent

No, I don't. That's the reason I ask.


I always see you using them, so it gave me impression that to use them is at least a strongly recommended "good practice" if not a requirement.
And my experience with using them as an constraint is generally positive. It forces me to be creative and limits me from repeating myself or making too straightforward or even blunt moves. It's both fun and useful to use them this way.



That is why I was surprised when you said they are there just to remind.