Thinking about Apocalypse World, five years in I still discover¹ things in the game design. This time it’s this. While players are on it’s themes, it moves the traditional GM / playing group assessment of “is this character able to succeed?” to the question “did they try?”. This changes so many things…
--
¹ see for the first time, see in an other light, find new words to talk / think about, make new connections, gain a new understanding of, …
.
RépondreSupprimerThat's really interesting. Are you referring to how there's almost always a roll, and trying means a certain chance of success?
RépondreSupprimerIndeed. How the rules don't let any players dictate if someone should roll the dice once their character could try. I knew this, but did not measure the importance of the difference it makes in game. Tied of course with the action rule, with the no-modifiers tack, and most importantly to the move snowball and how AW drives the story/game and probably many things I forget right now.
RépondreSupprimerI am pretty sure I understand you. I also think we have different regional english from each other, and am going to attempt to speak with minimal local slang.
RépondreSupprimerI think you are point to: To do it, do it. And if you do it, do it.
I agree, this is really great. And when moving back to traditional games, one of the harder pieces to drop.
Except, for me, for what pbta does to the GM. In AW and its children, the GM is a player with moves and turn taking of her own. That is a glorious change!
The fact that I am not a native speaker and that the only place I can express myself in the language is here doesn't help. I have difficulties explaining what went "click" in my brain this morning and the more I try, the more I feel that understanding slipping away... But I'll try again. This shift is a great way to manage player times and effort as it has profound effects on the flow of the conversation. Also, it allows resistance to the players to build in different places, in different ways. It is part of the specificities of the MC role.
RépondreSupprimerThe MC rules are usually more noticed, given as a selling (or deal breaking) point. But maybe that's because they are close to how I GMed bAW (before AW ;) ) so I notice them less.
It is sad that you have to talk about things that matter to you in a language not your own.
RépondreSupprimerI think I understand! In other game systems, the players might say "I want to threaten with violence to get this person to do what I want. GM, am i able to do so?", and the impetus in on whether it is possible.
But, in AW, it would be "I threaten him with violence. Do what I want, or I shoot you! GM, does he cave?", and the GM would (probably) call for a Go Aggro roll. Or something similar.
Do I have it now?
Not sad, it's a choice :)
RépondreSupprimerYeah, I think you have it. After the character says "Do what I want, or I shoot you!", the players have to determine which move it is (Going Aggro / Manipulate, depending on the character's willingness to pull the trigger) and then the dice must hit the table.
Now what I am thinking about isn't only this rule/practice in itself, but also it's place in the game design, what prerequisite it has and consequences it creates. (For example the fact that, combined with the action rule, the player-facing mechanics and the quasi-absence of modifiers, this prevents the MC from controlling the players through the resolution mechanics like some traditional rpg wisdom advise the GM to do.)