After some experience, Apocalypse World has one rule that is really
hard to follow.
After some experience, Apocalypse World has one rule that is really hard to follow. The action rule. To do it, do it. Especially being always on the lookout for move triggers.
Two main reasons: - Players. Most RPGers are unused to such rule application, many players are somehow opposed to it. - Being always on the lookout while creating-experiencing the fiction is taxing.
Broken, unclear rules are easier, because as you have to decide to ignore them from while to while, it is less a problem whenever you ignore them by accident.
It's a different mindset and all the players should help. Often in other games, the players don't need to know the rules, the GM tell them when and what to roll. With the moves and their triggers, the players know when to roll and ideally they can unload the MC of that responsibility. The problem is that if it's well known how AW is different for the MC, it's less known on the player side.
A MC said in a conversation I had yesterday: "I suppose personally I don't really worry too much about making sure people roll the /right/ move, I just want them to roll when it should be appropriate and sometimes I miss it of course. For me the rules are just there to add some randomization and tension to things and keep the narrative power moving around. The fiction is a little more important to me than the rules but I also think they can't be discarded completely."
And that is not how AW rules work. I find the game to be much more fun and surprising when everyone listens for move triggers and then follows through with that.
Je suis assez d'accord. En particulier quand il y a de l'XP à la clé (carac cochée), cela peut donner lieu à des négociations (ou des incompréhensions) sur les enjeux d'une action et/ou sur ce qui "déclenche" l'action. Certaines actions posent moins de problèmes parce qu'elle suppose une action positive assez objective ("j'ouvre mon cerveau", je deviens violent - même si après on discutera de l'action la plus adéquate). Les "cerner"/"faire le point" sont intermédiaires parce que ce sont des actions positives là encore mais qui demandent - en principe - que la situation soit tendue (et souvent, la causalité est un enjeu/difficulté de l'action : si tu cernes, ça devient tendu). Et bien évidemment, les plus délicates sont "manipuler" (la question du levier et de la résistance) et "agir face au danger (le danger subjectif, potentiel etc.) où il pourra y avoir assez facilement un décalage entre ce que souhaite le PJ (pour la fiction, pour la mécanique, XP) et ce qu'estime le MC (pour la fiction, ou pour gérer les enjeux - je pense notamment à la complication potentielle de l'échec).
Tom Z I don't remember where I heard that, but I did and it sounded good : everybody should watch for common moves (basic or not), each player for his own character specific moves.
Tim Franzke I agree that I have better games when moves are triggered when they should. Trouble is, that isn't something that everybody wants. They want to play AW, but not like that. I met some resistance from players (and MCs) who don't use moves even when they should trigger. Like my character is asking another character to do something for him and the other players or the MC doesn't want to see manipulate used. Or I am MCing and two characters discuss, but they want to see where the rp will take them (or they have a plan, one sided or shared of where they want it to take them) and refuse to roll the dice. Neither read a person nor manipulate. And sometimes I see MC who don't play a move after a miss, going "nothing happens, statu quo is preserved, carry on".
But there are two really different problems. The burden of applying the rule, and accepting the rule.
Because that's how they like their AW. Some people like their ice cream melted. Or because they want they're invested in something else than the game system, eg their friends. Or because they don't get it. Sometimes just because. Peoples.
To be clear, I am not saying that anybody is wrong here. Neither Vincent Baker in writing the rules, nor the players who want to stick to the game letter or spirit nor those who want to take some distance from it. I only noticed that this is the only rule that is really contentious. And taxing. And it probably is the central rule of the game.
A lot of times, conversation is the 16 hit point dragon in the room. Just as a mortal blade wouldn't trigger Hack and Slash against a dragon, players agree that their words are casual and indecisive, just talking.
Yeah, disagreement can be on whether the fiction triggers the move. But this is different from: while the players agree that the conversation fits the move's trigger, they disagree on whether they do use it or not.
But don't forget the advice on page 12 : "when a player has her character take action that counts as a move, but doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t intend it to be a move. [...] You don’t ask in order to give the player a chance to decline to roll, you ask in order to give the player a chance to revise her character’s action if she really didn’t mean to make the move." Sometimes what appears to be a Move is not a Move and the MC shouldn't force it down the player's throat. And always be a fan of the PCs
It's not the MC though, it's the table+the game. And yeah sure the player can do something different that is not a move. It just can't be one of the things that trigger a move. I find that quite clearly explained on page 12.
Philip Espi P1 - Gritch gently caress Abe's cheek with their infamous violation glove "you'll let her die, you know you are unable to save her". P2- Abe can't resist - or doesn't want to - Gritch's voice in his brain. His hands begin to shake, he can't stop them, the healing blade clatters on the floor. MC - If you are using In-brain puppet strings, you should roll+weird. P2 - No, it's OK, Abe's gonna obey anyway, so he'll have a reason to hate Gritch. OR P1 - No it's OK, that's what we planned during the break.
The thing is that even if P2 wants their character to do that - the fiction still calls for that move. The Brainer doesn't really know Abe wants that to happen (unless Ape was read beforehand) and apparently was in the process of going Brainer on Abe. Also they may roll a 6- - we don't know. By just aggreeing this happens we have removed all other options from the table and I personally think that isn't as much fun.
I am not. I am in perfect agreement with him as to what the rules say. I was showing to Philip what kind of behavior I was talking about.
Anyway, I finally put my finger on why this approach of the games troubles me so much. It's because it redefines the MC's roles and lessen their occasions to interact. With players like these, the MC might sometimes as well be a spectator.
I agree with Tim Franzke . From what P1 and P2 said, the move should trigger in Gherhartd Sildoenfein 's example OTOH, P1 could have said : "No, I just want to scare Abe" In that case, Gritch's brainer Move would not trigger (but Seduce or Manipulate might).
I believe everyone here agrees on that. I am just saying that many players don't accept the move rule, failing to follow it by habit or actively opposing it. If I ever write a hack, I'll put it on the players' playbooks.
That's weird. In my, albeit limited, experience as a MC (2 AW campaigns, 1 DW campaign and a dozen MH oneshots), I've never encoutered players unwilling to accept the Moves trigger rule. Sure, some of them were a bit hesitant at first, but when I explained that the Moves had to trigger because NPCs don't throw dice and the automatic trigger was a way for the MC to force the resolution of undecided outcomes, then they grokked it. Of course, the trigger rule means more than that, but I found it was a good way for the player to accept it.
sub
RépondreSupprimercan you elaborate on why it's hard to follow?
RépondreSupprimerTwo main reasons:
RépondreSupprimer- Players. Most RPGers are unused to such rule application, many players are somehow opposed to it.
- Being always on the lookout while creating-experiencing the fiction is taxing.
Broken, unclear rules are easier, because as you have to decide to ignore them from while to while, it is less a problem whenever you ignore them by accident.
It's a different mindset and all the players should help.
RépondreSupprimerOften in other games, the players don't need to know the rules, the GM tell them when and what to roll.
With the moves and their triggers, the players know when to roll and ideally they can unload the MC of that responsibility.
The problem is that if it's well known how AW is different for the MC, it's less known on the player side.
A MC said in a conversation I had yesterday:
RépondreSupprimer"I suppose personally I don't really worry too much about making sure people roll the /right/ move, I just want them to roll when it should be appropriate and sometimes I miss it of course. For me the rules are just there to add some randomization and tension to things and keep the narrative power moving around. The fiction is a little more important to me than the rules but I also think they can't be discarded completely."
And that is not how AW rules work. I find the game to be much more fun and surprising when everyone listens for move triggers and then follows through with that.
Je suis assez d'accord.
RépondreSupprimerEn particulier quand il y a de l'XP à la clé (carac cochée), cela peut donner lieu à des négociations (ou des incompréhensions) sur les enjeux d'une action et/ou sur ce qui "déclenche" l'action.
Certaines actions posent moins de problèmes parce qu'elle suppose une action positive assez objective ("j'ouvre mon cerveau", je deviens violent - même si après on discutera de l'action la plus adéquate).
Les "cerner"/"faire le point" sont intermédiaires parce que ce sont des actions positives là encore mais qui demandent - en principe - que la situation soit tendue (et souvent, la causalité est un enjeu/difficulté de l'action : si tu cernes, ça devient tendu).
Et bien évidemment, les plus délicates sont "manipuler" (la question du levier et de la résistance) et "agir face au danger (le danger subjectif, potentiel etc.) où il pourra y avoir assez facilement un décalage entre ce que souhaite le PJ (pour la fiction, pour la mécanique, XP) et ce qu'estime le MC (pour la fiction, ou pour gérer les enjeux - je pense notamment à la complication potentielle de l'échec).
Tom Z I don't remember where I heard that, but I did and it sounded good : everybody should watch for common moves (basic or not), each player for his own character specific moves.
RépondreSupprimerTim Franzke I agree that I have better games when moves are triggered when they should. Trouble is, that isn't something that everybody wants. They want to play AW, but not like that. I met some resistance from players (and MCs) who don't use moves even when they should trigger. Like my character is asking another character to do something for him and the other players or the MC doesn't want to see manipulate used. Or I am MCing and two characters discuss, but they want to see where the rp will take them (or they have a plan, one sided or shared of where they want it to take them) and refuse to roll the dice. Neither read a person nor manipulate. And sometimes I see MC who don't play a move after a miss, going "nothing happens, statu quo is preserved, carry on".
But there are two really different problems. The burden of applying the rule, and accepting the rule.
I get some of these ("let's see where the RP takes us") but the other stuff? Why? Why play Apocalypse World then?
RépondreSupprimerBecause that's how they like their AW. Some people like their ice cream melted. Or because they want they're invested in something else than the game system, eg their friends. Or because they don't get it. Sometimes just because. Peoples.
RépondreSupprimerTo be clear, I am not saying that anybody is wrong here. Neither Vincent Baker in writing the rules, nor the players who want to stick to the game letter or spirit nor those who want to take some distance from it. I only noticed that this is the only rule that is really contentious. And taxing. And it probably is the central rule of the game.
RépondreSupprimerA lot of times, conversation is the 16 hit point dragon in the room. Just as a mortal blade wouldn't trigger Hack and Slash against a dragon, players agree that their words are casual and indecisive, just talking.
RépondreSupprimerYeah, disagreement can be on whether the fiction triggers the move. But this is different from: while the players agree that the conversation fits the move's trigger, they disagree on whether they do use it or not.
RépondreSupprimerSub
RépondreSupprimerBut don't forget the advice on page 12 :
RépondreSupprimer"when a player has her character take action that counts as a move, but doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t intend it to be a move. [...]
You don’t ask in order to give the player a chance to decline to roll, you ask in order to give the player a chance to revise her character’s action if she really didn’t mean to make the move."
Sometimes what appears to be a Move is not a Move and the MC shouldn't force it down the player's throat.
And always be a fan of the PCs
It's not the MC though, it's the table+the game. And yeah sure the player can do something different that is not a move. It just can't be one of the things that trigger a move.
RépondreSupprimerI find that quite clearly explained on page 12.
Philip Espi
RépondreSupprimerP1 - Gritch gently caress Abe's cheek with their infamous violation glove "you'll let her die, you know you are unable to save her".
P2- Abe can't resist - or doesn't want to - Gritch's voice in his brain. His hands begin to shake, he can't stop them, the healing blade clatters on the floor.
MC - If you are using In-brain puppet strings, you should roll+weird.
P2 - No, it's OK, Abe's gonna obey anyway, so he'll have a reason to hate Gritch.
OR
P1 - No it's OK, that's what we planned during the break.
The thing is that even if P2 wants their character to do that - the fiction still calls for that move.
RépondreSupprimerThe Brainer doesn't really know Abe wants that to happen (unless Ape was read beforehand) and apparently was in the process of going Brainer on Abe.
Also they may roll a 6- - we don't know. By just aggreeing this happens we have removed all other options from the table and I personally think that isn't as much fun.
Different expectations, maybe on more than one level.
RépondreSupprimerNote: It is a losing proposition to put yourself against Tim Franzke when discussing pbta. That man knows what he is talking about.
RépondreSupprimerI am not. I am in perfect agreement with him as to what the rules say. I was showing to Philip what kind of behavior I was talking about.
RépondreSupprimerAnyway, I finally put my finger on why this approach of the games troubles me so much. It's because it redefines the MC's roles and lessen their occasions to interact. With players like these, the MC might sometimes as well be a spectator.
William Nichols thanks?
RépondreSupprimer(Not sure how to react here)
I agree with Tim Franzke .
RépondreSupprimerFrom what P1 and P2 said, the move should trigger in Gherhartd Sildoenfein 's example
OTOH, P1 could have said : "No, I just want to scare Abe"
In that case, Gritch's brainer Move would not trigger (but Seduce or Manipulate might).
I believe everyone here agrees on that. I am just saying that many players don't accept the move rule, failing to follow it by habit or actively opposing it. If I ever write a hack, I'll put it on the players' playbooks.
RépondreSupprimerThat's weird.
RépondreSupprimerIn my, albeit limited, experience as a MC (2 AW campaigns, 1 DW campaign and a dozen MH oneshots), I've never encoutered players unwilling to accept the Moves trigger rule.
Sure, some of them were a bit hesitant at first, but when I explained that the Moves had to trigger because NPCs don't throw dice and the automatic trigger was a way for the MC to force the resolution of undecided outcomes, then they grokked it.
Of course, the trigger rule means more than that, but I found it was a good way for the player to accept it.
It surely isn't a majority. But I met some, heard of some others.
RépondreSupprimerIn hindsight, I would also say that I do not "enforce" the trigger rule as much as recommanded int he book.
RépondreSupprimerThis may skew my experience.