Understanding Apocalypse World

[Yora]

A week ago I got Dungeon World and I loved it. I had looked at Apocalypse World and while I got the basic mechanic of moves that book just left me completely confused. The organization of the content and the way it tries to teach the rules to completely new GM is rather unconventional, to put it diplomatically. (Is it a soap opera game about super sexy narcists exploiting each other in a wasteland?)
Dungeon World was much easier to grasp for me and now that I understand how that game work I went back to take another look at Apocalpyse World. Having a general idea of what the various elements are makes it a lot more comprehensible (and skipping the first half and starting reading at the middle also helps a lot!) and I think now I am just slowly starting to see why people make such a fuss about it. However, it's still a really perplexing book and I find myself jumping back and forth between completely different sections every two minutes trying to really figure out what is going on.

Does anyone know if there's any good introductory guides that explain how the game is meant to work in a simple and ordered manner?

[Yora]

I got a more concrete question: Am I getting combat right?

Say I am getting attacked by NPCs or I Go Agro on someone and they are not disabled and start shoting at me. Now the only move I can take to defeat them is Seize By Force.

When I chose to make a Seize by Force move, I might deal harm to my opponents if I roll a 7 or better. No harm if I roll 6 or lower.
But in either case I will now suffer harm in turn. Correct?

If I get at least a 7, I can chose to Take Little Harm and reduce the harm by 1. If I also have armor that further reduces the harm, possibly down to 0, so that I don't lose any segments on my countdown.

But regardless of whether my countdown goes down or not, I will have to roll+harm suffered. On a 6 or lower I either only get a minor complication, or the harm that I suffer is further reduced by 1. If that roll is 7 or higher, I get the full harm that remained after armor and also additional complications.

Do I have this all right?

[flond]

I got a more concrete question: Am I getting combat right?

Say I am getting attacked by NPCs or I Go Agro on someone and they are not disabled and start shoting at me. Now the only move I can take to defeat them is Seize By Force.

When I chose to make a Seize by Force move, I might deal harm to my opponents if I roll a 7 or better. No harm if I roll 6 or lower.
But in either case I will now suffer harm in turn. Correct?

If I get at least a 7, I can chose to Take Little Harm and reduce the harm by 1. If I also have armor that further reduces the harm, possibly down to 0, so that I don't lose any segments on my countdown.

But regardless of whether my countdown goes down or not, I will have to roll+harm suffered. On a 6 or lower I either only get a minor complication, or the harm that I suffer is further reduced by 1. If that roll is 7 or higher, I get the full harm that remained after armor and also additional complications.

Do I have this all right?

Well firstly. The primary move you can use to do them harm is sieze by force. (You might be using Act Under Fire to get away or Go Aggro if you've just got a sniper rifle on them or the like. But yes, it's usually gonna be seize by force.)

Secondly. You get to deal your harm no matter what you roll. No matter what happens, harm is exchanged vs harm.

Thirdly, no. You need to suffer harm (that is actually take damage) to roll the suffer harm move. (Also the MC can choose to waive that move if they well, choose to.)

The results of the rolls though, you have down.

[Yora]

So on a miss on Seize by Force, I just don't get to pick one of the four additional effects and the GM also makes an active move against me?

I guess I understand how this is meant to work, but doesn't it make confrontations rather short? Seems to me like any character can make maybe one or two attempts at a fighting move and is then spending the next week in the infirmary. Which I guess makes sense in the context of the implied setting in AW.

But can this work for more action adventure oriented campaigns, like something in the style of Indiana Jones for example? Or would that require giving the PCs a lot more additional staying power?

As a related question, how would one set up a fight against a boss enemy? Like you've been fighting fighting gangs of skeletons all the time, defeated the henchman guarding the crypt, and now face Count Dracula. How could I make the fight against Dracula feel like a much bigger deal than a fight against a lone guardsman?

[flond]

So on a miss on Seize by Force, I just don't get to pick one of the four additional effects and the GM also makes an active move against me?

I guess I understand how this is meant to work, but doesn't it make confrontations rather short? Seems to me like any character can make maybe one or two attempts at a fighting move and is then spending the next week in the infirmary. Which I guess makes sense in the context of the implied setting in AW.

But can this work for more action adventure oriented campaigns, like something in the style of Indiana Jones for example? Or would that require giving the PCs a lot more additional staying power?

As a related question, how would one set up a fight against a boss enemy? Like you've been fighting fighting gangs of skeletons all the time, defeated the henchman guarding the crypt, and now face Count Dracula. How could I make the fight against Dracula feel like a much bigger deal than a fight against a lone guardsman?

That's correct on the seize by force roll.

But...as to the rest of it, yes, this makes confrontations rather short. There's some stuff, especally in the 2e rulebook that makes fights more...fights. There's stuff like the optional battle moves that are intended to draw things out and make them a little more complex...but even then, fights are fairly short and fairly big deals.

As for boss enemies that's...difficult. Giving them a lot of armor could work. As could custom moves. (especially ones that prevent them from dying). However, generally if you want to make someone a big deal, put them in charge of a gang. Gangs are scary. They get all kinds of armor and bonus harm, on top of whatever they already have.

Putting them in a tank or something is also a really good way to make them intimidating. Having to find a way to smash their armored machine is a good fight!

However yeah...Apocalypse world is more...action-drama than action adventure. It's less about digging through an ancient ruin and more about dealing with threats within and without that put pressure on things, and then pressing them with disagreements. There's plenty of room for fights, but those fights are a big deal.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My experience of AW was "man, you should not try that thing, because it doesn't matter if you're supposed to be good at it or not, something bad is guaranteed to happen no matter what you try to do."

It... kind of poisoned me against the system.

[flond]

My experience of AW was "man, you should not try that thing, because it doesn't matter if you're supposed to be good at it or not, something bad is guaranteed to happen no matter what you try to do."

It... kind of poisoned me against the system.

While of course you are free to not like a system, and AW is supposed to snowball. (So yes, lingering consequences and bad stuff do tend to follow you), the counterbalancing factor should be raw power. Specifically, it's usually fairly easy to actually do the thing you're trying to do (barring rolling a six), just with costs. But so long as you've got a plan and succeed at it, you can deal with some threats fairly easily.

(There's also something of a power curve where at the start when you don't have many advances things hurt and snowball...but when you're on the later part (5+ advances, those +12 moves can kick in fairly often, and you're turning enemies into friends right and left (which is why it's designed to end around that point, once you've cleaned up enough loose ends.)

[Yora]

It looks to me like a system in which the GM's whim is more important than anywhere else. The GM has so much room to choose what happens, even with the moves trying to put some kind of order to things.
Things constantly getting worse even when the players succeed at their actions can be a lot of fun. Indiana Jones movies are a great example, or The Empire Strikes Back. Things are always only getting worse, but the heroes narrowly escaping again and again is what makes them awesome.

Of course, the GM can also chose to make every sucess turn into a failure, or to make any failure still turn out as a victory.
Which is why the agendas and principles are such a big deal. When you have to decide on the spot what happens next, you have to have a set of clear guidelines what things are appropriate for the style and feel of the campaign. When every course of action turns into more misery, that's because of the GM's agendas. Even if then GM has not written it down and is not conscious of it.

One of the default principles is "be a fan of the PCs". Which in my eyes is intended to mean that you should base your decisions on what happens next on what you think makes the PCs more heroic and awesome. Simply taking away all their successes doesn't do that in my opinion. Throwing always more complications at them should have the purpose of telling the players "that was awesome, now show me how you do even better".

[Actana]

This is also why on a success many moves allow the player, instead of the GM, to determine what happens due to their success. Successes give the players a lot of agenda, but failures give the GM that same agenda.

It also means that more than in many other games, having a GM who understands the agendas and principles and is of a cooperative nature is extremely important. But at the same time, the game explicitly tells you not to break the rules: if a GM does that, they're really not playing Apocalypse World as far as the rules are concerned. This is in contrast to most other games which just go with "well you can change the rules if you want, you're the GM". With greater power comes greater checks on that power.

[Cluedrew]

My experience of AW was "man, you should not try that thing, because it doesn't matter if you're supposed to be good at it or not, something bad is guaranteed to happen no matter what you try to do."Hu... I actually enjoyed the fact failure was common because it cut loose the expectation that you are supposed to try and make everything go correctly. If things are going to go wrong eventually, why not now? Of course I played only a few particular hacks which may have been tuned a bit more towards "nothing you can do will hurt as much as doing nothing". Fail fast.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hu... I actually enjoyed the fact failure was common because it cut loose the expectation that you are supposed to try and make everything go correctly. If things are going to go wrong eventually, why not now? Of course I played only a few particular hacks which may have been tuned a bit more towards "nothing you can do will hurt as much as doing nothing". Fail fast.
I get that, but I found tying "things get worse" to rolls was frustrating. It made it seem much more like we were getting screwed over by random chance, as opposed to struggling valiantly against the chaos. It's the whole single-point-of-failure thing; it's never good game/adventure design to hang significant, campaign-defining moments on a single random roll.

[Cluedrew]

To Grod_The_Giant: Hmm... might have been that we did not get the same level of random (I can think of a few that could have gone terribly wrong against all odds but didn't) or the particular hack I played alleviated some of that. Or maybe our thresholds for that sort of thing are at different levels.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To Grod_The_Giant: Hmm... might have been that we did not get the same level of random (I can think of a few that could have gone terribly wrong against all odds but didn't) or the particular hack I played alleviated some of that. Or maybe our thresholds for that sort of thing are at different levels.
Quite possible. It was a working system and a good GM, just not to my taste.

[Lord Shark]

One of the default principles is "be a fan of the PCs". Which in my eyes is intended to mean that you should base your decisions on what happens next on what you think makes the PCs more heroic and awesome. Simply taking away all their successes doesn't do that in my opinion. Throwing always more complications at them should have the purpose of telling the players "that was awesome, now show me how you do even better".

This is worth pointing out -- too many people read "be a fan of the PCs" to mean "make everything easy for the PCs." I'm a fan of Spider-Man, but that means I want him to face seemingly unbeatable threats while Peter Parker's life spins out of control, because Spidey is most fun when he's fighting as an underdog.

[Airk]

My experience of AW was "man, you should not try that thing, because it doesn't matter if you're supposed to be good at it or not, something bad is guaranteed to happen no matter what you try to do."

It... kind of poisoned me against the system.

Wasn't that the huge thread where it was eventually proved that the GM was breaking rules all over the place and that you basically hadn't been playing AW at all?

[Yora]

This is worth pointing out -- too many people read "be a fan of the PCs" to mean "make everything easy for the PCs." I'm a fan of Spider-Man, but that means I want him to face seemingly unbeatable threats while Peter Parker's life spins out of control, because Spidey is most fun when he's fighting as an underdog.

I am a fan of Indiana Jones and Han Solo. I cheer for them when they get their little successes even when everything in the world is conspiring against them.
Failure is often more exciting than success, as long as it wasn't the fault of the hero that it turned out wrong. And when they still keep on going the whole time and eventually succeed (more or less) it makes them awesome.
AW seems like a system particularly well suited for such a style.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Wasn't that the huge thread where it was eventually proved that the GM was breaking rules all over the place and that you basically hadn't been playing AW at all?
I don't think so.


I am a fan of Indiana Jones and Han Solo. I cheer for them when they get their little successes even when everything in the world is conspiring against them.
Failure is often more exciting than success, as long as it wasn't the fault of the hero that it turned out wrong. And when they still keep on going the whole time and eventually succeed (more or less) it makes them awesome.
AW seems like a system particularly well suited for such a style.
The bolded part is the bit that frequently gets forgotten, I think. One of the keys to (non-slapstick) DMing, I think, is explaining failures so that they aren't the character's fault. If a player fumbles a check, especially one that they specialized in, don't say "you lose your grip on the rope and fall flat on your face," say "unfortunately, the half-rotten rope snaps before you finish your swing, and you land heavily in the wrong place."

[Cluedrew]

I think people should be allowed to make mistakes, even an expert can make mistakes. "You feel the rope shift, instantly you realize you forgot to check the blocks you buried the piton in and remember why you usually do as the piton pulls out of the wall and you fall. You tumble to absorb some of the impact but you are still in the bottom of the pit." That might be a bit long, one reason it shouldn't be used too often, the other is that if it happens to often, they don't seem like an expert.

Larger, royal sized, mistakes also have roles in character growth arcs, but that is not part of a die role.

[Knaight]

The bolded part is the bit that frequently gets forgotten, I think. One of the keys to (non-slapstick) DMing, I think, is explaining failures so that they aren't the character's fault. If a player fumbles a check, especially one that they specialized in, don't say "you lose your grip on the rope and fall flat on your face," say "unfortunately, the half-rotten rope snaps before you finish your swing, and you land heavily in the wrong place."

It depends on the tasks. The characters not being good enough doesn't come across as slapstick when the task is legitimately hard.

[Airk]

It depends on the tasks. The characters not being good enough doesn't come across as slapstick when the task is legitimately hard.

Which is pretty much what you're supposed to roll for in AW.

Though it's also important to remember that this isn't a "skill check"; When you pick up the dice you have BY NO MEANS even ATTEMPTED to discern all the different factors that go into success. A failure in one of these games can easily be "You leap easily across the chasm, landing smoothly on the other side...right before it collapses under you, plunging you into the abyss."

[Yora]

I got an idea about boss fights:

I don't really understand the Optional Combat Moves, but the concept of incidental and concentrated fire sounds interesting. Limiting a fight to six "rounds" and then being over with an outcome based on who had the upper hand by that point doesn't sound that fun. But giving everyone three moves of opening moves to adjust the battlefield while damage is limited to 1 or even 0 seems like a way to give a fight some extra time for additional activities before players really have to worry about suffering actual damage.
Which is actually how a lot of movie fights work. You generally can tell by subtle hints at which point heroes and major villains actually start getting a shot at winning the fight.

[Friv]

So on a miss on Seize by Force, I just don't get to pick one of the four additional effects and the GM also makes an active move against me?

I guess I understand how this is meant to work, but doesn't it make confrontations rather short? Seems to me like any character can make maybe one or two attempts at a fighting move and is then spending the next week in the infirmary. Which I guess makes sense in the context of the implied setting in AW.

But can this work for more action adventure oriented campaigns, like something in the style of Indiana Jones for example? Or would that require giving the PCs a lot more additional staying power?

If you want a really easy way to give players more staying power, make the first quarter of the clock a three-segment quarter too. So it takes PCs 3 Harm to reach 3 o'clock, then one more for 6 o'clock, one more for 9 o'clock, and then the three "dying" segments. Two extra Harm that's safe makes you more willing to take risks early in a fight. Don't give more health to the bad guys. Have more bad guys instead.


As a related question, how would one set up a fight against a boss enemy? Like you've been fighting fighting gangs of skeletons all the time, defeated the henchman guarding the crypt, and now face Count Dracula. How could I make the fight against Dracula feel like a much bigger deal than a fight against a lone guardsman?

More serious penalties for rolls that go bad, and a looming danger that requires non-Seize rolls to manage. Dracula's mere presence is such that everyone needs to Keep Their Cool or else something bad happens. The 7-9 ratings on actions are closer to a wash than they are when fighting mooks. You always need to reduce Harm because Dracula recovers 1 health when he harms you. That sort of thing is within the purview of Hard Moves.

Generally, the GM has a lot of leeway to define how bad drawbacks on rolls are. Narratively, the leeway should match the danger of the situation; things that are risky, but not too bad create drawbacks that are annoying or embarrassing, whereas rolling a 7-9 when Dracula turns into a swarm of bats ends up with a dozen bats drinking your blood.

[flond]

But yeah. Just, mostly as a statement...pay attention to the PC-NPC-PC Triangles! (This is more...core advice than rules advice) Apocalypse world is at its best when violence is a thing, and some NPCs are just bad news, but most NPCs are...trouble you gotta work with. When it's focused on actively trying to solve needs (food/water/strange technological products/safety) as opposed to just adventure.

[Aran nu tasar]

I guess I understand how this is meant to work, but doesn't it make confrontations rather short? Seems to me like any character can make maybe one or two attempts at a fighting move and is then spending the next week in the infirmary. Which I guess makes sense in the context of the implied setting in AW.

But can this work for more action adventure oriented campaigns, like something in the style of Indiana Jones for example? Or would that require giving the PCs a lot more additional staying power?

You really don't need more staying power. Characters in AW that are built for combat are immensely powerful, especially if they work together. A gunlugger with NTBFW, Bloodcrazed, 2-armor, and a grenade launcher/shotgun is going to be pretty unstoppable already. Add in a Battlebabe with Merciless and a 4-harm ap shotgun, and a Chopper or Hardholder with their gang, and suddenly the PCs can stand up against basically anything.

Looking at harm in particular, 2-armor is not a particularly hard thing to get. Then assuming even a failed seize by force roll, you still get to choose one option; if you choose take little harm, that's an effective 3 armor. Now a single PC up against a small gang with 2-harm weapons will be taking 0 harm on a failed roll, and dealing harm as normal. If you've got NTBFW, you are taking 0-harm against a medium gang with 2-harm weapons. If you've got a small gang at your back along with NTBFW, you're again taking 0-harm against a large gang. If that's not staying power, I don't know what is.

Add to that the fact that NPC's go down really easily, and fights can be over in a few rolls. Violence is sudden and brutal and people die. But it is worth noting that the PCs operate with action-movie logic. NPCs go down after taking 2-harm, while PCs can eat a few bullets without a problem. Healing can be a problem if there isn't an Angel around, but if you want staying power just throw in an NPC Angel.

Now, this doesn't hold quite as true for, say, a Skinner or a Savvyhead or a Brainer. But they have their own ways of solving problems without violence. (Unless your Brainer goes the Merciless Bloodcrazed pain-wave projecter route for a 3-harm ap psychic grenade. But that's its own can of worms.)

AW isn't a game that's all about fighting, though; and in my opinion, the combat rules are probably the weakest point of the system. It's about character drama, and violence is a big part of that, but the game is less strong if the players present a united front against some external force that can be defeated with physical means. It's much stronger when you force the PCs to make hard choices about the survival of NPCs and their loyalties to each other.

[kyoryu]

This is worth pointing out -- too many people read "be a fan of the PCs" to mean "make everything easy for the PCs." I'm a fan of Spider-Man, but that means I want him to face seemingly unbeatable threats while Peter Parker's life spins out of control, because Spidey is most fun when he's fighting as an underdog.

YES! Though I usually use Harry Dresden as my example.


I think people should be allowed to make mistakes, even an expert can make mistakes. "You feel the rope shift, instantly you realize you forgot to check the blocks you buried the piton in and remember why you usually do as the piton pulls out of the wall and you fall. You tumble to absorb some of the impact but you are still in the bottom of the pit." That might be a bit long, one reason it shouldn't be used too often, the other is that if it happens to often, they don't seem like an expert.

Larger, royal sized, mistakes also have roles in character growth arcs, but that is not part of a die role.

A failure on a roll doesn't mean *you* failed. It means you weren't successful *for some reason*. That reason could be anything from incompetence to horribly unlucky coincidences.



AW isn't a game that's all about fighting, though; and in my opinion, the combat rules are probably the weakest point of the system. It's about character drama, and violence is a big part of that, but the game is less strong if the players present a united front against some external force that can be defeated with physical means. It's much stronger when you force the PCs to make hard choices about the survival of NPCs and their loyalties to each other.

Absolutely. Running it as a tactical combat simulator is not getting the best use out of the system.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Yeah, the fights are generally explosive and short, so setting up for fights is way more important than blow-by-blow tactics. You don't get a lot of windows of opportunity. I still remember the scene where my Skinner was getting mind-controlled by a mutant NPC Brainer, about to be turned against the group, and the Gunlugger kicked in the door and shotgunned the Brainer in the head. Bam. It was snappy, visceral, and felt a lot like gritty, post-apocalyptic fiction.

Also, if you haven't seen it, here's a great breakdown of an action scene by Vincent (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/786).

[Psikerlord]

I dont get why this game needs specific "moves"

Can't I just say: I shoot him with my gun, and roll the 2d6 and see what happens?

What are all the weird "move" labels for? I dont get it

[flond]

I dont get why this game needs specific "moves"

Can't I just say: I shoot him with my gun, and roll the 2d6 and see what happens?

What are all the weird "move" labels for? I dont get it

The purpose of the moves is to provide different and discrete levels of resolution, with the added bonus of the ability to (unless you flub the roll) predict your results. AW generally gives the DM a lot of leeway on results, on what's going on, on what can happen. They don't ever even need to roll! So having things to pick from a list both help get the theme the game is going for AND give the players a fair amount of control.

Likewise, the fact that they're specific helps keep them from being overused. You don't get to roll when you shoot a gun. You only get to roll (or not roll) when circumstances dictate. You don't get to sieze by force or go aggro when it doesn't apply. If you're shooting something and it's just not possible for you to do anything to them, you don't get to plink them. You just get narrative explanations. Likewise, if they can't mix up with you, that's a different move then just sieze by force. It's about having specific fictional situations that determine when the rules happen. As opposed to just a generic round by round combat system.

[Yora]

You don't really need specific moves. They are just ways to make rolls for the most common situations. For more unique situations, GMs are encouraged to make up custom moves.

[Airk]

You don't really need specific moves. They are just ways to make rolls for the most common situations. For more unique situations, GMs are encouraged to make up custom moves.

Actually, you do need moves. Moves are there to tell you what to roll for and what not to. It's entirely possible that you might want to make a game where shooting someone with a gun doesn't require a roll because it's not what the game is about. "Okay, you shoot him. Now his girlfriend is crying and screaming and the other bar patrons are calling 911, what do you?" or the like.

GMs creating custom moves exists to drift the game in directions the GM wants to take it, but fundamentally, the set of moves provided by the game and the playbooks helps you understand what the game is about.

[kyoryu]

I dont get why this game needs specific "moves"

Can't I just say: I shoot him with my gun, and roll the 2d6 and see what happens?


That's exactly what a move is.

The reason there's no "hurt people" move (I presume), is that in most cases "hurt someone" isn't the goal. It's a method. And so by basing the mechanic on the goal, we have a better chance of giving the player what they want if they're successful.

[LibraryOgre]

When people say move, think "Actions"

In D&D, if you want to hit an orc, you make an attack action, which means you roll a d20 and add some bonuses and compare it to an Armor Class.
You want to Track someone? You make a skill/proficiency check (or, in 1e, a % check), which gets modified for the situation.

In AW and other PbtA games, those are called "Moves". Some moves are universal... anyone can try to Defy Danger or Deal Damage, if those are common moves. But other moves are granted by your class or race or a combination thereof.

So, for example, let's say you're playing a ranger, and want to track people (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/classes/ranger/#Hunt_and_Track_Wis).
*In D&D, you roll your skill check against a difficulty. Roll well, and your DM might give you a bonus (Natural 20! Woo-hoo!)
*In DW, you roll 2d6+Wis. 7-9, and you can follow them until they change direction or mode of transport. Roll 10+, and you get a bonus on top of that.

Both are the same idea, just with a different nomenclature and associated mechanics.

[Psikerlord]

When people say move, think "Actions"

In D&D, if you want to hit an orc, you make an attack action, which means you roll a d20 and add some bonuses and compare it to an Armor Class.
You want to Track someone? You make a skill/proficiency check (or, in 1e, a % check), which gets modified for the situation.

In AW and other PbtA games, those are called "Moves". Some moves are universal... anyone can try to Defy Danger or Deal Damage, if those are common moves. But other moves are granted by your class or race or a combination thereof.

So, for example, let's say you're playing a ranger, and want to track people (http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/classes/ranger/#Hunt_and_Track_Wis).
*In D&D, you roll your skill check against a difficulty. Roll well, and your DM might give you a bonus (Natural 20! Woo-hoo!)
*In DW, you roll 2d6+Wis. 7-9, and you can follow them until they change direction or mode of transport. Roll 10+, and you get a bonus on top of that.

Both are the same idea, just with a different nomenclature and associated mechanics.
Yeah I like the degrees of success DW has (not unlike LFG and roll under half stat or 1.5x over). Taht is something missing from standard d&D.

Ah ok so some moves are actually abilities for certain classes (is that what the handbooks are about - the handbooks really classes?). i shall check it out further.

The change in nomenclature is pretty annoying/confusing though - at least re stuff everyone can do

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Moves exist as such because they push the game in specific directions. You could definitely have a "Barebones World" game where you rolled 2d6+stat, got what you wanted on a 10+, had to compromise on a 7-9, and something unexpected/probably bad happened on a 6-, but it'd be a very vanilla and neutral game.

Moves exist to hook the mechanics into very specific parts of the fiction. This does a few things. One, it encourages players to push actions towards specific aims--you don't invoke Read a Sitch if the situation isn't charged, and if you want to Go Aggro, you have to be really going after someone. Two, it lets the moves include more specific responses that are appropriate to the particular context of each move's trigger. Three, it makes the MC contextualize every player action within the game's framework (and, therefore, the genre--because PbtA games are all about genre).

Also, something that's often forgotten is that you don't always have to roll a move. If you shoot someone, the MC might look at the situation and decide that you just shoot them, and they deal Harm as established to the character you shot. (The game is heavily predicated on the idea that the GM is an interpreter and referee who figures out how the mechanics gel with what the players are describing in the fiction.)

[Yora]

Having read the whole rules several times now, there's still one big mystery remaining.

What is Open Your Brain To The Psychic Maelstrom?

What I get is that the psychic maelstrom is some kind of supernatural phenomenon that is left deliberately unspecified but has the trait of letting PCs and some other people mentally access information from it. It could be magic, some technological system, or even divine and the answer to that is supposed to form throughout the course of the campaign as players are interacting with it.

But what do you do with it? Players can always take the Open Your Brain move and supposedly this also has the potential to actually be helpful in most situations. But what's actually supposed to happen when you do it? What is the GM supposed to say is happening when a player announces that move?

[Blymurkla]

But what do you do with it? Players can always take the Open Your Brain move and supposedly this also has the potential to actually be helpful in most situations. But what's actually supposed to happen when you do it? What is the GM supposed to say is happening when a player announces that move? When I've played, it's been a kind of fall-back, last resort. AW can get confusing and sometimes you're stumped as to what to do. Maybe the GM looked through crosshairs and killed of the trail you where following. Maybe you succeed, so you need something new. Other times, it just feels appropriate for your character to have a breakdown. So, you open your brain.

If you fail your roll, great, the GM puts you in a difficult situation and now you've got something to deal with. If you succeed, you sort-of-sense something of importance, hopefully something that you can pursue and thus continue to drive the game forward.

Usually, when making the move, the GM (those I've played with or myself) asks »What's opening your brain to you?« and the player gives a brief description. »I lay down, empty my thoughts and let the spirits of the world in« or »Sometimes, when I howl, the malestrom howls back in a beckoning, barely understandable voice«. Building on that description and the dice, the GM explains what you experience.

[Susano-wo]

I don't think so.


The bolded part is the bit that frequently gets forgotten, I think. One of the keys to (non-slapstick) DMing, I think, is explaining failures so that they aren't the character's fault. If a player fumbles a check, especially one that they specialized in, don't say "you lose your grip on the rope and fall flat on your face," say "unfortunately, the half-rotten rope snaps before you finish your swing, and you land heavily in the wrong place."

Yeah, its so critical, and a lot of people in all sorts of games forget it. experts can make a mistake, but the whole game benefits if you enforce competence through the description. I always try to do this when I GM (which hasn't been much, mind you): IF someone is supposed to be good at something, and they fail, I try to figure out why it makes sense for them to do so in this instance.

As for the topic at hand: There is an odd bit of mechanical absence in AW that came up in the one game I've played of it. One of the PCs was a mountain woman--she was centered near the town the game was based on, and subsisted on trade and hunting and such. So she should be good at, say tracking. We were pursuing people through the forest, and we realized that there are absolutely no rules for "skills," as such. We talked about it and came to the conclusion that, sure, she can track them, but it was odd that it had to be hand waved like that. It felt unsatisfying in a game where people can do all this cool stuff that has specific actions associated that we basically had to say"well, there's no rules for this, so sure she can track them."

[1337 b4k4]

Yeah, its so critical, and a lot of people in all sorts of games forget it. experts can make a mistake, but the whole game benefits if you enforce competence through the description. I always try to do this when I GM (which hasn't been much, mind you): IF someone is supposed to be good at something, and they fail, I try to figure out why it makes sense for them to do so in this instance.

As for the topic at hand: There is an odd bit of mechanical absence in AW that came up in the one game I've played of it. One of the PCs was a mountain woman--she was centered near the town the game was based on, and subsisted on trade and hunting and such. So she should be good at, say tracking. We were pursuing people through the forest, and we realized that there are absolutely no rules for "skills," as such. We talked about it and came to the conclusion that, sure, she can track them, but it was odd that it had to be hand waved like that. It felt unsatisfying in a game where people can do all this cool stuff that has specific actions associated that we basically had to say"well, there's no rules for this, so sure she can track them."

Generally, if tracking were something you would expect to come up, or was considered a key part of the character concept, you'd probably want a custom move. I admittedly haven't played AW proper, just Dungeon World, but my rule of thumb was if a character was doing something specific more than about 3 times in as many sessions that actively required me to decide whether they succeeded or not, we looked into building a custom move around it.

[Airk]

You handled that correctly Susano-wo. When there is no move, you interrogate the fiction to see if the outcome makes sense. Apocalypse World seems to deliberately lack a "catch all" move like "Defy Danger" from Dungeon World, or "Act Under Pressure" from Monster of the Week. The AW equivalent is "act under fire" and unless you are getting pretty metaphorical with "fire" there isn't anything here for this.

You can, of course, as has been mentioned, drift the game by adding a "track foes" move or something, but you should consider whether you think this is an interesting addition to the game.

[kyoryu]

A key thing here is that not everything should be a move.

Think of Apocalypse World as a *movie*, not a simulator. The key things that happen in this "movie" are highly charged situations between well armed psychos. Tracking people isn't really the pace of this movie, and it's not the interesting thing. It's what happens when the people are tracked that's actually the interesting bit.

So unlike a lot of games, not everything should be a roll in Apocalypse World. Only the key tension points in the "movie". The other stuff we mostly just gloss over, resolve in the most straightforward way consistent with what we know, and get to the tension points and major conflicts of the game.

[daniel_ream]

But what's actually supposed to happen when you do it? What is the GM supposed to say is happening when a player announces that move?

Dirty little secret: RPGs that implement a genre straight, especially historical genres, don't sell. For some reason, if you don't throw in some kind of psionics, magic, superpowers, mutations, whatever, the market doesn't latch on to a game.

That means there's huge pressure for game designers to stick that stuff in, whether it makes sense or not. There's a reason why Flashing Blades is a "dead" game, while Seventh Sea and Regime Diabolique are the new hotness.

The maelstrom is a cipher, a blank slate for the GM to detail and decide upon. It's entirely up to you what's supposed to happen. If you don't know what to do with it, simply delete that move and the playbooks that are focused on it. It won't affect the game one bit.

[Susano-wo]

Generally, if tracking were something you would expect to come up, or was considered a key part of the character concept, you'd probably want a custom move. I admittedly haven't played AW proper, just Dungeon World, but my rule of thumb was if a character was doing something specific more than about 3 times in as many sessions that actively required me to decide whether they succeeded or not, we looked into building a custom move around it.

Yeah, it only came up once. And i get the "the interesting thing is when you find them" point, but movies (to use the analogy) also need tension, which can be simulated by the possibility of failure. Not having that can remove tension from what could be a good chase bit. But the point of a custom move is a fair one, and one we didn't think about (of course it seemed more of a background detail when we made the characters)

Kyoryu, I'm not sure that AW requires 'psychos,' though. I think that grey morality might be a genre expectation to some degree, but one can still be an idealist in the apocalypse, though its obviously hard. Of course you might just be simplifying for flavor, but I wanted to throw that out there.

[kyoryu]

Kyoryu, I'm not sure that AW requires 'psychos,' though. I think that grey morality might be a genre expectation to some degree, but one can still be an idealist in the apocalypse, though its obviously hard. Of course you might just be simplifying for flavor, but I wanted to throw that out there.

You can be an idealist, sure.

But you're not the kind of idealist that sips tea while rationally discussing ethics.

So a certain amount of simplifying for flavor, and a certain amount of not presuming that 'psycho' means 'bad guy'. Mad Max is psycho.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Yeah, it only came up once. And i get the "the interesting thing is when you find them" point, but movies (to use the analogy) also need tension, which can be simulated by the possibility of failure. Not having that can remove tension from what could be a good chase bit. But the point of a custom move is a fair one, and one we didn't think about (of course it seemed more of a background detail when we made the characters
The question of tension comes into play with the focus of a particular PbtA game, I'd say. They're designed so the core moves are the areas where you're supposed to look for tension. Custom moves should exist if you think tension should be in your session in an area that isn't covered by those moves. It's about economy of drama.

[Cluedrew]

If you want some tension in a place that doesn't have a move for it, try picking the most appropriate stat and roll for it. You just have to make up the result (miss, weak, strong) you get. That is my best solution, you don't even need a target because they are fixed, -6, 7-10, 11+.

[1337 b4k4]

Yeah, it only came up once. And i get the "the interesting thing is when you find them" point, but movies (to use the analogy) also need tension, which can be simulated by the possibility of failure. Not having that can remove tension from what could be a good chase bit. But the point of a custom move is a fair one, and one we didn't think about (of course it seemed more of a background detail when we made the characters)

I would disagree that "the interesting thing is when you find them". A key thing that AW and it's hacks tries to get at is that every possible outcome of the dice rolls should be interesting. So it's less that finding them is interesting and not finding them isn't so much as it's "Does not finding them create interesting decision trees and paths? If so, roll the dice if there's a chance of failure." But if ultimately the end result of failing (or a partial success) is just "try and try again until you succeed" that is the thing that isn't interesting.

Maybe a good way of thinking about it is that if you were playing AW in the D&D style of "I go, you go, he goes, she goes, I go again ..." if someone would be able to attempt the same roll, for the same stakes, with the same outcome turn after turn without having to go down another path of actions, rolls and setup before they can try again, it's probably not something AW wants you to roll for.

[Airk]

Yeah, it only came up once. And i get the "the interesting thing is when you find them" point, but movies (to use the analogy) also need tension, which can be simulated by the possibility of failure. Not having that can remove tension from what could be a good chase bit. But the point of a custom move is a fair one, and one we didn't think about (of course it seemed more of a background detail when we made the characters)


This is actually kindof a straw man, though you probably don't realize it. Your game already has tons of tension and plenty of possible chances for failure. You don't necessarily need possibility of failure on EVERY action. It's okay to pick the exciting ones - again, to keep it in the context of film, you don't really worry about the characters in your action film being able to find the thing that they're gonna action on. That's not where the tension is. The tension is in who is gonna survive the high stakes firefight that ensues.

This is part of what is GOOD about Apocalypse World and why you should probably -avoid- hacking it - it makes a lot of decisions about what's important and interesting so that you can get right down to the good stuff. It's like a carefully curated library. It might not have books on every topic, but you can be sure that the ones that it has are going to be first rate.

So yeah. You did it right. She's a tracker, so she can track stuff. If she weren't there, the party wouldn't be able to do it. But there's no need to roll. That's not a moment of tension that AW is interested in. So leave it that way.

[kyoryu]

This is actually kindof a straw man, though you probably don't realize it. Your game already has tons of tension and plenty of possible chances for failure. You don't necessarily need possibility of failure on EVERY action. It's okay to pick the exciting ones - again, to keep it in the context of film, you don't really worry about the characters in your action film being able to find the thing that they're gonna action on. That's not where the tension is. The tension is in who is gonna survive the high stakes firefight that ensues.

Exactly. The counter-point of the whole "failure should be interesting" thing (in most systems that espouse it) is "if it's not interesting, don't roll."


So yeah. You did it right. She's a tracker, so she can track stuff. If she weren't there, the party wouldn't be able to do it. But there's no need to roll. That's not a moment of tension that AW is interested in. So leave it that way.

Or decide that tracking things is a high tension, important part of the genre of this particular story, and make a playbook supporting it, or at least some custom moves. If it's not important, gloss over it. If it is important, spotlight it.

Not everything needs a mechanic in AW.

[Susano-wo]

with "the interesting thing is when you find them" bit, I was responding specifically to Kyoryu saying that very thing. I understand that its not always the thing that gives tension (and never said it was the only way to get tension, so I have to disagree with the straw man characterization), but it is a thing that can cause tension, so its not always the finding of them that is interesting. (in the case of tracking there can be many failures that can be interesting, depending on the scenario)

The custom move or ad hoc ability check seems to do allow for that, and I get why some of this stuff is left off in favor of the core aspects of the game dynamics that he wanted to focus on. It was just a weird thing that took us by surprise, and the way we handled it worked, but felt like it was papering over a gap, rather than the game running the way it was supposed to. If I had it to do again, maybe an ad hoc ability roll with a situational +1 to the ability would feel better.

And about not hacking it, why not? the game makes decisions about what is important. Yeah, sure, so if I want other things to be important, or some of those things to not be important, I should just hack it to make those things important. The game doesn't tell me what moments are important to me. Having that agency is part of the 'good stuff' or playing an RPG. (and again, I'm not saying that tracking is so important that its a big hole in AW that its not there. it was just a thing that happened that I found weird)

[Airk]

And about not hacking it, why not? the game makes decisions about what is important. Yeah, sure, so if I want other things to be important, or some of those things to not be important, I should just hack it to make those things important. The game doesn't tell me what moments are important to me. Having that agency is part of the 'good stuff' or playing an RPG. (and again, I'm not saying that tracking is so important that its a big hole in AW that its not there. it was just a thing that happened that I found weird)

And I'm saying that based on this discussion, a lot of people in this thread shouldn't try to hack AW because they don't seem to understand why it does what it does. Basically: If you don't understand a decision, don't change it. Figure it out first.

[solidork]

But what do you do with it? Players can always take the Open Your Brain move and supposedly this also has the potential to actually be helpful in most situations. But what's actually supposed to happen when you do it? What is the GM supposed to say is happening when a player announces that move?

In the actual plays I've listened to, it usually results in the character having some kind of hallucination that reveals the pertinent information. The MC usually let the players choose a particular theme/set of symbols that represented how their character experienced the maelstrom.

For example, I think one player decided that opening their brain would make everyone look like puppets controlled by strings that extended out of sight up into the sky. Frequently the MC would tell the player what information they got from their roll and it would be up to the player (or they'd work together) to figure out how that information presented itself.

[kyoryu]

And I'm saying that based on this discussion, a lot of people in this thread shouldn't try to hack AW because they don't seem to understand why it does what it does. Basically: If you don't understand a decision, don't change it. Figure it out first.

I find this to generally be the case. Far too many people (in many games) presume that "it doesn't work the way I expect!" means the same thing as "it's broken."

When you can make the argument *for* the mechanic being the way it is, then it's a good time to hack it.

[Yora]

Though it doesn't help that AW doesn't really explain what anything is supposed to do if used right. And more often not, asking for clarifications on these things gets you the reply that you're doing it wrong to ask for an official answer and to make up something yourself. Which is somewhat the opposite of helpful.

[Airk]

Though it doesn't help that AW doesn't really explain what anything is supposed to do if used right. And more often not, asking for clarifications on these things gets you the reply that you're doing it wrong to ask for an official answer and to make up something yourself. Which is somewhat the opposite of helpful.

This is not my experience.

Also, like I said before: Figure it out. That's different from "Ask someone to explain it to you."

[kyoryu]

Though it doesn't help that AW doesn't really explain what anything is supposed to do if used right. And more often not, asking for clarifications on these things gets you the reply that you're doing it wrong to ask for an official answer and to make up something yourself. Which is somewhat the opposite of helpful.

Well, generally, if you succeed, you get the thing you wanted. In cases where it's less binary, it's usually spelled out (inflict 1 harm, etc.).

[Cluedrew]

And more often not, asking for clarifications on these things gets you the reply that you're doing it wrong to ask for an official answer and to make up something yourself.This might seem weird at first, but Powered by the Apocalypse does tend to leave holes in the rules so you can fill them in as you feel appropriate.

[Yora]

I've read parts of the rules several times again over the last year and now got myself the 2nd edition. And I think now I understand it.

Lots of things make much more sense when you have more context by knowing the rest of the game. And I think the 2nd edition at least feels like it's more straightforward. I still think the approach of the book is ill suited for teching the rules, but when you do manage to understand what is meant, they seem to be really good rules.

One thing that actually helped me is to understand how this game is meant to be played. Once you understand what the rules are supposed to accomplish, it seems much easier to understand how they work. My impression now is that Apocalypse World is a game about interesting people trying to keep their community together in the face of great adversity. Holdings and gangs are actually a really big deal, and it feels like they are not meant to be optional additions. The NPCs that support the PCs are a big source of "adventures". Surplus and Want mean that something interesting happens that affects the PC. And the need to pay barter for lifestyle at the start of each session also gets PCs off their asses and do something. Each session, someone will have to generate some incone. And since you're not looking for a great worthy quest but just for some quick money, it can be something almost random and seemingly boring.
And once you do something - and it really can be anything - it sets off all kinds of consequences. And if the GM makes those consequences interesting and quirky, you suddenly find yourself in an adventure that nobody expected. Which I think is why the implied setting is so weird. Moves probably wouldn't snowball much if the world were mundane and the NPCs sane.

I am usually not a fan of examples of play, but in the 2nd edition book the example for combat is actually really helpful. Using just the simple combat rules from the game, with its tiny amount of hits characters can take, there's a great fight of three NPCs attacking a cornered PC by breaking her door with a chainsaw and throwing a grenade at her for 3-harm. And she still ends up disabling one attacker and leaving one dead with a stroke and the other by his own chainsaw. It's an amazing battle scene, but mechanically really simple. And when you think of great fights from fiction, many of them aren't actually that complicated either. Maybe lots of shoting and sword swinging, but in the narrative the characters are really doing somethign substential only two or three times each at the most.

One smaller thing I actually only nocticed last weekend is that Visions of Death is a really powerful ability. It basically lets a Battlebabe kill any NPC with just a single roll, as long as the character can arrange a personal confrontation. If you get that 7 or better, that NPC is dead if you really want it. In other RPGs this would be ridiculously overpowered, but here I find it intriguing. The NPC will be dead, but will that solve your problem? And I think when all you have to do is to use one of your abilities, nobody would seriously expect that it would. The GM is pretty much obliged to respond in interesting ways. But it really mixes things up. Which is perfect for the Battlebabe. Throw a wrench into the gears and reshuffle the deck. And enjoy the spectacle.

[kyoryu]

I think you've got the gist of it.

As far as the game being bad at teaching the rules, I think it and Fate fall into a lot of the same trap at being bad at explaining the rules for people coming from other games.

Which seems kind of unfair, I mean, the game isn't responsible for assumptions that people make, right? But at the same time, given that the vast majority of people coming to these systems do have a lot of the same assumptions, it's super useful for new (to these games) players to have some of this spelled out more explicitly.

[Yora]

What I accuse the rulebook of is consistently using only its own internal slang for everything without ever explaining what these terms mean. You first have to learn the language of the setting before you can learn the mechanics. Using your own made up terminology to describe a setting often works well enough and helps establishing the tone. But to teach mechanics I consider it inappropriate.
Though I think second edition does have lots of small paragraphs added that elaborate on what the ptevious gibberish means in regular terms. This should help quite a bit.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, like the game doesn't really do a good job of explaining what tags are or how they should be applied, or what the difference between hard and soft moves is, or....

Like, once you get it, it's obvious, but getting to that point is difficult.

[JBPuffin]

A PbtA game that does the explaining pretty well is Monster of the Week - basically Buff: the TRPG, although the tone can certainly be...different. My second ever game of it, I was the Keeper running a premade adventure I found with five minutes of searching when our DND game fell through, and myself and the two guys there fell so head over heels for the game, we might stop playing DND entirely while we’re all out where we are. We all find the mechanics far less involved than even 5e DND, and with the gonzo shenanigans my group is prone to, it’s for the best that the game can be set in the background while we tell the story and everything still come together cohesively. Good times, good times...

[Yora]

I believe I successfully understood the rules of the game and the style in which it is designed to run, and I am right now in the process of planning a first campaign. While I am fully on board for completely improvising on the events of the campaign, I am not a fan of starting with a blank slate for a setting and then creating the world in the heat of the moment, with all the players adding elements as they pop up in their head. I can see how there's entertainment in that, but my experience is that this really only is fun when you treat the world as somewhat ridiculous and over the top and the result inherently tends towards the stereotypical and cliched. Which I have to say is exactly what the implied setting from the rulebook comes across as to me. It's the kinky SM-outfit apocalypse desert with lots of explosions.

I am always much more drawn to settings that provide the experience of learning to understand how the world works and what it's made of alongside to the story that is taking place in it. Which is particularly compelling in RPGs because learning what is what, how it is connected, and how the people in it think and behave give the players new options to use the world to their own advantage. Finding allies who want to fight your common enemy, make use of customs to gain access to things you need, and exploit prejudices to your advantage. And to predict what NPCs are really up to based on their station and background. To keep these things consistent and to maintain a coherent tone and style, I think it's necessary to take the time to figure them out in advance instead of making them up as you go. When you have to make something up very quickly, you usually go with the first thing that comes to mind, which overwhelmingly are stereotypes and cliches.

So I want to be prepared at the start of the campaign and have a reasonable amount of material that I can pull out when the story established by the players calls for it. But what can you actually prepare for AW and what makes sense to prepare? I feel like for the start, I should at least have a general idea of what places lie to the North, South, East, and West and who is currently living there, and make up the general details of their starting location and a good bunch of NPCs with local importance.
I think that's what Threats and the Threat Map in 2nd edition are for, right?
I actually quite like the the tried and true approach of campaign design of "danger is brewing and will get bad unless the players prevent it", but of course I don't want to write up a road map of how all that will play out. That's where the countdown clocks and threat moves come in?

And I guess the final thing would be to build up a big stash to "barf forth apocalyptica". At first this seems to refer to props and stages, but I think it might also work with customs, religion, and events.

[flond]

I believe I successfully understood the rules of the game and the style in which it is designed to run, and I am right now in the process of planning a first campaign. While I am fully on board for completely improvising on the events of the campaign, I am not a fan of starting with a blank slate for a setting and then creating the world in the heat of the moment, with all the players adding elements as they pop up in their head. I can see how there's entertainment in that, but my experience is that this really only is fun when you treat the world as somewhat ridiculous and over the top and the result inherently tends towards the stereotypical and cliched. Which I have to say is exactly what the implied setting from the rulebook comes across as to me. It's the kinky SM-outfit apocalypse desert with lots of explosions.

I am always much more drawn to settings that provide the experience of learning to understand how the world works and what it's made of alongside to the story that is taking place in it. Which is particularly compelling in RPGs because learning what is what, how it is connected, and how the people in it think and behave give the players new options to use the world to their own advantage. Finding allies who want to fight your common enemy, make use of customs to gain access to things you need, and exploit prejudices to your advantage. And to predict what NPCs are really up to based on their station and background. To keep these things consistent and to maintain a coherent tone and style, I think it's necessary to take the time to figure them out in advance instead of making them up as you go. When you have to make something up very quickly, you usually go with the first thing that comes to mind, which overwhelmingly are stereotypes and cliches.

So I want to be prepared at the start of the campaign and have a reasonable amount of material that I can pull out when the story established by the players calls for it. But what can you actually prepare for AW and what makes sense to prepare? I feel like for the start, I should at least have a general idea of what places lie to the North, South, East, and West and who is currently living there, and make up the general details of their starting location and a good bunch of NPCs with local importance.
I think that's what Threats and the Threat Map in 2nd edition are for, right?
I actually quite like the the tried and true approach of campaign design of "danger is brewing and will get bad unless the players prevent it", but of course I don't want to write up a road map of how all that will play out. That's where the countdown clocks and threat moves come in?

And I guess the final thing would be to build up a big stash to "barf forth apocalyptica". At first this seems to refer to props and stages, but I think it might also work with customs, religion, and events.

I think that really, the most important thing not to prepare is the PC's baseline stuff. It's fine to have ideas for cool looming threats and the like, but it really helps to build investment if the players get to define what they do to get by, where they live, and who they usually work with. (Keeping in mind that everyone in AW is awful to some degree)

[Cluedrew]

I think you are still approaching stuff a bit like D&D. The Powered by the Apocalypse family is very improvisational, my best campaigns for it had no work done ahead of time at all. We just made stuff up as we went along.

There are a couple of reasons why it works so well. First off you don't need to stat things the player facing dice and many other design considerations mean that creating a new NPC or swarm of monsters takes a few seconds. Second there are a lot of prompts in the system to help make the ideas flow. Third everyone contributes. I mean this is true in any system, but there is kind of an inversion. Instead of the DM laying out plot hooks and the players pick one, the players lay out plot hooks and the MC picks a few. Depth comes from the unexpected interaction of these things.

Now I have seen some of your (Yora's) world building projects. I don't really think they would work here. Which is not to disparage them, I love those things, but I don't think it mixes with Powered by the Apocalypse very well. The world there exists to facilitate the story of the characters, not to provide some static challenge or to be explored.

A metaphor I have used is that D&D plays like a long running TV show, episodes roll by building up more and more detail but doing little to the status quo. Apocalypse World and its kin are more an action movie, shifting rapidly but never really going into detail. Neither is better, but if you approach one wanting the other, you will be disappointed. So I guess my advice would be to lean into the intent of the system as much as you can. If that isn't for you it is fine, but your chances are much better than if you play it like a system it is not.

Mind you I still have never played Apocalypse World (or read any Powered by the Apocalypse rule book) so I'm not the authority on that. But drawing from my other Powered by the Apocalypse experiences that is what I got.

[Yora]

Now I have seen some of your (Yora's) world building projects. I don't really think they would work here. Which is not to disparage them, I love those things, but I don't think it mixes with Powered by the Apocalypse very well. The world there exists to facilitate the story of the characters, not to provide some static challenge or to be explored.
I'm past that. The things I am looking for just don't work in an levels and stuff system with keyed dungeon maps. Which is precisely why I am giving AW a shot because it's such a different approach.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The way I think of it is this: the MC, with help of the players, takes these disparate ideas and makes them cohere. A player talks about how opening your brain feels like being immersed in a pile of snow? You have leeway to work that into the world.

It's sort of a give and take, ideally. Players give you ideas, you give them hard facts about the world while leaving spaces for things to be developed in play. Everyone comes to the table with visions of what the world is like, and you as the MC honestly have the most power there, because everyone looks to you to make it all come together.

Prep work is largely done after the first session, once there's a bunch of ideas in the stew. That first session is like a big brainstorm in play, with the objective of getting players invested. (Don't forget that if the table thinks something is too over the top, it's valid for someone to ask that it be toned down.) Come to that first session with ideas about possible apocalypses, but don't commit to anything, be ready to hear the table's ideas. Once things are solidified, that's where prep happens (Fronts, etc).

[kyoryu]

Well, it's not really in the heat of the moment. It's supposed to go more like this:

1) Do Session Zero including the "where do you live, who do you know" stuff. This is included in the first session stuff. Really, just do what it says.

2) This will generate a bunch of facts, entanglements, etc. And you know that all the stuff is something that at least one person in the group is into.

3) Take those facts and use it to generate the rest of the world, the fronts, etc. This looks a lot like typical prep at this point, except you're not going to generally plan a series of encounters (if that's your normal thing)

So it's not necessarily that different from typical prep, the only real difference is that you do a mini session (with particular constraints) before you do most of the prep, and that informs the prep and gives you a starting place.

[Friv]

I'm going to disagree a bit - as long as you're not too strict, there's nothing wrong with doing a bunch of prep and worldbuilding, and having Session 0 take place within an existing framework. I played in a Fallout Apocalypse World game, and the GM started with "here is the settlement that you guys are part of, here's a couple rumours about surrounding gangs and threats, let's hash out where you're from, how you got here, and who you are" and then he blended his existing information with what we provided.

[Yora]

I think Apocalypse World can be run without any preparation if you want to have the game set in an off-brand version of Mad Max. Weird sex stuff optional. Because in that case you already do have a pre-existing setting. Almost everyone will understand the culture, living circumstances, the environment, and the conflicts that are expected in such a world. It's really not playing in a completely blank slate setting.

If you want your world to be different from that, and the scarcity of specifics in the book clearly implies that you shouldn't tie yourself to it, you need to establish some other facts that take the place of the default archetypes. And I think this is actually the meaning of "daydream apocalyptica". You're instructed to think in advance about what outstanding things could be encountered or discovered in the game. It can be environmental details, creatures, cultural elements, religions, architecture, events, equipment, diseases, food sources, whatever.
Some wise man once said "the map is not the territory". Neither is the map the setting. Nor are characters the setting. Setting really is the circumstances in which the characters are acting and the style and atmosphere of the environment.

But I think you can also prepare some NPCs. But the neat thing with games like this is that you don't have to prepare them as allies, enemies, or with any other function. You can create them simply as people with goals and resources (and distinctive personalities) who are representative of the culture and atmosphere of the setting. When the players will encounter them and under what circumstances does not need to be planned ahead, and in a game like this really shouldn't.

Also a more mechanical question: I like to include monsters in my game. Not like hordes of strangely agressive animals that hang around everywhere, but the occasionally mighty mutated/supernatural beast. NPCs in AW only have three stats: Armor, Damage, and their countdown with only three segments. Increasing damage by a significant amount probably wouldn't be funn because there's too much risk of a PC dying too quickly, which isn't appropriately dramatic. But if you were to treat the countdown the same way as for a PC, I think that NPC/creature would immediately become much more formidable. Being up and fighting considerably longer means more moves for the players and more potential rolls to fail. Also, taking more moves to take out the enemy will make for a more memorable fight. That might even be enough for a good number of frightening monsters. (Though of course frightening mostly comes from things that happen before the exchange of harm starts.) But I feel more uncertain about giving them strong armor.
3-armor would be quite significant and the beasty would only suffer harm when the players inflict terrible harm for +1harm, and even that might not be enough for characters with smaller weapons and no advancements that increase their harm. I feel like just combining a full countdown and 3-armor would probably create some really terrifying death machines.

[Cluedrew]

Besides just making stuff up (which isn't so big in these systems, but is still there) you could treat the monster like a gang. The Gun Luger has a move to that effect. It would up their damage a bit, but also mean that you would have to rally groups to take them down.

I imagine rallying troops and resources to showering the mutated psychic monster rocket launcher shots would make a pretty epic showdown. You would need something like with 3-armour and treated as a large gang or something around there. I forget all the numbers.

[Yora]

That's also a really cool idea actually.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Something to keep in mind RE: Armor is that you want to be aware of just how much damage the players are capable of mustering up. I've messed up a couple of times in PbtA games by giving monsters so much Armor that players weren't able to deal any substantial damage to them. (Since even 1 Armor gives them an effective +1 HP per instance of damage dealt to them, the extra effective health granted by 3 Armor is incredibly high.)

In hindsight, I should've also focused on showing them opportunities to reduce that armor or even take non-damaging actions to subdue the enemy, but Armor is definitely a hard stop when it gets into the higher ranges. 1 Armor makes a difference, 2 Armor makes a big difference, and 3 Armor makes something nigh impenetrable.

[Friv]

Something else to keep in mind is that you can give strange, mutated monsters some form of Hard Moves that you can invoke when the players flub a roll badly, or give them special effects that have to be dealt with as a Move.

A few examples of the former:
1) The mutant has a roll so that if the players mess up a +Weird or +Sharp roll, it gets into their heads and makes them start fighting themselves. \
2) The mutant is covered in deadly quills. If an attacker misses on a +Hard roll against it, they end up pinned to the creature and must escape before being able to take action again.
3) The mutant drives people insane. If someone fails a Help or Interfere roll while fighting it, they attack a friend until they can be calmed with a Manipulate or Act Under Pressure roll.

A few examples of the latter:
1) The mutant has some kind of terrible fog cloud that surrounds it, so that people have to find a way to Act Under Fire just to get into a position to hurt it.
2) The mutant is invisible to physical senses. In order to track it, you must Open Your Brain to the Psychic Malestrom. Without at least an impression of where it is, you simply can't fight it directly (successfully Reading The Sitch could tell players this fact if they don't guess immediately from description.)
3) The mutant's saliva is filled with psycotropic drugs. When it deals Harm, the target must also roll either +Hard or +Cool, their choice. On a miss, they are overcome and flee. On a 7-9, they must either attack or flee; they cannot take cautious action.

[Blymurkla]

Why monsters in AW ...!?

Perhaps as a one off, I suppose. Something the Savvyhead builds in her workshop or the Hocus summons via Augury. But as a threat introduced by the GM? It feels like missing AWs strengths, the ensemble play, the interactions among the PCs, entirely. I could see the looming threat of a monster being interesting, with disparate factions and PCs trying to for once work together, or exploit each other in the chaos. But the actual fight? Nah ...

[Yora]

A monster does not have to be a giant rat in the basement. There's little point in wasting time with that in a PbtA game.

I am thinking of something like Alien or The Thing, or a werewolf or a dragon. Or pretty much anything from a Lovecraft story. (Except Deep Ones, who are just brutes.) A whole threat all in itself. Something like a grotesque that isn't even remotely human and that if faught has to be appproached like a gang of brutes instead of just a single man who relies on sneakiness to do his dark deeds.

This game has been hacked almost as much as d20. No reason to tie yourself slavishly to the SM apocalypse described in the rulebook.


Something else to keep in mind is that you can give strange, mutated monsters some form of Hard Moves that you can invoke when the players flub a roll badly, or give them special effects that have to be dealt with as a Move.

I agree. Hard threat moves are much more interesting than making it exchange harm harder. A monster should feel more dangerous to the players because "expecting the worse" means something much worse than what would likely come from a guy with a gun.

[Cluedrew]

That's also a really cool idea actually.Thank-you. Besides just being one of the parts of the system, I had some reasons for trying to get more than the PCs involved. See below.


Why monsters in AW ...!?

[...] I could see the looming threat of a monster being interesting, with disparate factions and PCs trying to for once work together, or exploit each other in the chaos. But the actual fight? Nah ...I think that is the point. Well not entirely. The fight might be interesting, but it will (or should be short) but really fighting in Powered by the Apocalypse is more about figuring about what do you stand to gain and what you might lose. Then figuring out if those odds are good enough. So the fight is interesting because it is the point a which that that bet goes sour or pays back. Not so much in the tactical sense.

With a big monster though, what it adds is it shapes the landscape. The looming threat provides a lot of opportunities for interesting situations. To throw in another idea, what if the Hardholder decides that it just isn't safe and now you have a story about refugees. And if they fight, they might loose (a sour bet) and then how do you recover?

So I think a big monster has value here, just for different reasons than in a tactical game.

[Jama7301]

I think that is the point. Well not entirely. The fight might be interesting, but it will (or should be short) but really fighting in Powered by the Apocalypse is more about figuring about what do you stand to gain and what you might lose. Then figuring out if those odds are good enough. So the fight is interesting because it is the point a which that that bet goes sour or pays back. Not so much in the tactical sense.

With a big monster though, what it adds is it shapes the landscape. The looming threat provides a lot of opportunities for interesting situations. To throw in another idea, what if the Hardholder decides that it just isn't safe and now you have a story about refugees. And if they fight, they might loose (a sour bet) and then how do you recover?

So I think a big monster has value here, just for different reasons than in a tactical game.

This is the sort of hump I'm having an issue with in Dungeon World. In D&D, I can pad out an adventure with a bunch of combat designed as a resource drain that "fit". With these PBTA system, that really feels like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. It's been interesting and frustrating to try to stretch my brain enough for this different mode of play.

The idea of monsters being these singularity type events that have a real threatening impact is an incredibly interesting concept though. Feels like a fun design space.

[Yora]

Dungeon World strikes me as a really weird and akward game. It uses a radically different to then try doing the same thing that D&D was designed for. The great thing about Apocalypse World is that it gives you a system that will almost effortlessly give you a very different experience from the level based tactical games. Why use the system if you want the experience of a level based tactical game?

[Jama7301]

Dungeon World strikes me as a really weird and akward game. It uses a radically different to then try doing the same thing that D&D was designed for. The great thing about Apocalypse World is that it gives you a system that will almost effortlessly give you a very different experience from the level based tactical games. Why use the system if you want the experience of a level based tactical game?

I'm trying to branch out to different types of games, and breaking people out of their D&D comfort zones, so Dungeon World seemed like a good start. Plus, we all like fantasy, so hey, bonus points. I'm not trying to use it like a tactical game. I'm trying to use it as designed, but I'm trying to get over my own mental hurdles of "this is how a session should go" that I got from playing/running D&D. This thread has been a help in coming up with ways to flex my mind in terms of prep, so thanks a bunch.

[Cluedrew]

Dungeon World strikes me as a really weird and akward game. [...] Why use the system if you want the experience of a level based tactical game?While Dungeon World is (loosely) level based I don't it is tactical in any sense.

I heard Dungeon World described as "the game you thought Dungeons & Dragons was before you played it". I think it tried to distill the D&D you get if you describe it to a non-gamer. Notably seems to reduce the number of beats in combat, for instance I don't think HP scales it is class-value + construction for the whole game. I haven't actually read the rule-book, just reverse engineered stuff from the playbooks. But it sort of culls a lot of the mechanical options (depth?) of the system in an attempt to arrive directly at the stories people might want to tell in D&D.

So, I think mechanically and pacing wise it is actually 100% Powered by the Apocalypse, it just borrows theming and character types from D&D fantasy standards. It is of course a matter of taste if that is good or the system pulled it off, but I think that is what they were going for.

[Yora]

I don't remember the specific rules of the game, but I remember it feeling somewhat off, even though the goal you outlined is a very commendable one in my opinion. I considered it for a time, but then decided to go with a purely cosmetic reskin of AW instead.
Though admitedly, I am not much a fan of the style and aesthetics of D&D to begin with, which might have had an impact.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This is the sort of hump I'm having an issue with in Dungeon World. In D&D, I can pad out an adventure with a bunch of combat designed as a resource drain that "fit". With these PBTA system, that really feels like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. It's been interesting and frustrating to try to stretch my brain enough for this different mode of play.

The idea of monsters being these singularity type events that have a real threatening impact is an incredibly interesting concept though. Feels like a fun design space.
If you're trying to carefully pace an adventure in Dungeon World, you'll run into problems because it's not designed as a resource expenditure game, it's designed as a snowball. Something happens, which causes something else to happen, and you keep building up momentum until you hit a high point. It always comes back to that central idea of "play to find out what happens".

[Yora]

Back to apocalyptic worlds.

My understanding of AW is that it's at its core a game about communities and individuals surviving against adversity in a hostile environment. The goal is to survive while the circumstances of the setting are working against that. This gives players two default things that they can do at any time: Take steps to remove an approaching threat, or take steps to strengthen their home against future threats.
And as GM, you can always Announce Future Badness if the players feel they have not enough to do.

First edition used to explicitly talk about scarcities as the underlying source behind fronts (that were dropped in second edition). The threat to the players' home is a scarce resource running out or someone coming to steal it. And in your default biker wasteland, water and fuel are always scarce. Ammunition and electronic devices that are no longer being manufactured are also inherently scarce if the setting is specifically post-apocalyptic.

But I've seen people proposing much more abstract scarcities, like a scarceness of trust or dryness. Do you think that could actually work? I am very much intrigued by the idea of having a scarcity of understanding. Sure, understanding of the environment in which the campaign takes place can be scarce, but how would people fight over it? It's not like you could steal it.

[Jama7301]

It feels like a scarcity of understanding could cause people to undertake risky ventures to try to gain understanding, or to raid other people's research facilities. It may even result in people getting bad information, because they're missing an important detail or connection between events.

Something like "Scarcity of understanding <phenomenon>" could mean that people are spreading rumors about how bad it is, so it's harder to get accurate information, or it may mean that communities need to have research projects to correct them, and the information could be stolen or bartered with for other resources.

That's my read on it, anyways.

[Yora]

I happened to come across this presentation about post-apocalyptic game design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrB1fZ7v17c), and most of it very much applies to RPG campaigns as well. There's even a part that goes specifically into the lack of knowledge in Metro 2033. In that game, there are the Rangers who are the most skilled soldiers in dealing with mutants and surviving on the surface, but even they don't really understand what's going on. There are no NPCs who can explain things to the players.
The story of the game is actually set up to give weight to the one NPC who appears to understand much better than anyone else (though he isn't really sharing), who tries to teach the protagonist the lesson that peace requires to "do more than act without any thought or doubt". People do very stupid thing that do harm instead of good because they think they already know all they need to.
A scarcity of understanding can also be a scarcity of questioning and reflection.

[Yora]

I am thinking about creating custom playbooks specific to the campaign I am planning. The fact that I can't really think of any character that should be in the setting but doesn't work with the default playbooks seems like a very strong indivator that I don't actually need any.
But it still got me thinking if there's a specific logic behind what deserves a playbook or doesn't. They are not classes, and they are not professions. Then what are they actually?

[kyoryu]

They are not classes, and they are not professions. Then what are they actually?

Narrative roles?

[Knaight]

They're classes. It's a bit of an unusual class structure in terms of how it operates, but at the end of the day they are still very much classes.

[Actana]

Playbooks are, in broad terms (for most games), archetypes for the kind of fiction the game emulates, drawing from both existing works and new ideas for inspiration. I'd say that fairly often a playbook takes an existing character from an inspirational work of fiction, reduces the character to its core elements, adds on abilities that emulate that character further, then creates new abilities to broaden the playbook into directions that existing character didn't have.

[Yora]

Perhaps they just feel more open and not clearly defined because they are not as well established and instantly recognizable as archetypes in fantasy and futuristic sci-fi.

[Kadzar]

According to my MC, apparently the playbooks for Apocalypse World (at least 1st edition) were based on the characters in Firefly for some reason.

[kyoryu]

Here's a thread where Baker (lumpley) talks about it:

http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2308.0

It doesn't seem that he's really agreeing with it, but plays around with how you'd match them up.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Perhaps they just feel more open and not clearly defined because they are not as well established and instantly recognizable as archetypes in fantasy and futuristic sci-fi.
The main classes in D&D et al exist to fill specific niches. The playbooks in PbtA are more "this is an interesting core concept that I want to explore". Some of them are tied to core world tenets (Brainer, Hardholder, Driver), but a lot of them are just broad character concepts that work within a postapocalyptic framework. Most importantly, though, playbooks seem to be less about emulating existing archetypes and more about creating something unified around a simple core.

I'd say just start with a story. Every playbook has the outline of a story about how they connect to the setting. Then think about some ways to support that story.

[kyoryu]

The main classes in D&D et al exist to fill specific niches. The playbooks in PbtA are more "this is an interesting core concept that I want to explore". Some of them are tied to core world tenets (Brainer, Hardholder, Driver), but a lot of them are just broad character concepts that work within a postapocalyptic framework. Most importantly, though, playbooks seem to be less about emulating existing archetypes and more about creating something unified around a simple core.

I'd say just start with a story. Every playbook has the outline of a story about how they connect to the setting. Then think about some ways to support that story.

I'd say this is accurate.

The classes in D&D (especially originally) were more about "here is a set of capabilities that this type of unit has". Playbooks in PbtA are more about "here's the kind of story pieces that fit into this genre."

That's why we have the Battlebabe and Gunlugger in AW, when both would be fighters in a more traditional class-based system. It's more about who you are and how you relate to the world and the story, and the capabilities bits come along for the ride.

[Psikerlord]

I'd say this is accurate.

The classes in D&D (especially originally) were more about "here is a set of capabilities that this type of unit has". Playbooks in PbtA are more about "here's the kind of story pieces that fit into this genre."

That's why we have the Battlebabe and Gunlugger in AW, when both would be fighters in a more traditional class-based system. It's more about who you are and how you relate to the world and the story, and the capabilities bits come along for the ride.

Interesting, so in AW, what mechanical differences are there between the Battlebabe and Gunlugger?

[Yora]

Most importantly, the Battlebabe has Cool+3, while the Gunlugger starts with Hard+2 and can increase it to Hard +3. On 2d6 with target numbers 7 and 10, this is huge.
However, both of them can learn an ability to use Cool for Going Aggro and Hard for Acting Under Fire, at which point that would even out. And both characters can take two abilities from the other's playbook. Mechanically they can be pretty much identical, depending on how they are advanced. But they have the players start the game differently and once your personality is set, it usually doesn't change much during the game.

[Cluedrew]

Battlebabe is power and grace. Gunlugger is power and destruction.

I mean there are lots of little differences, the Battlebabe is a slightly better generalist and the Gunlugger has better raw power, although they can make up the difference. The Battlebabe gets custom melee weapons and the Gunlugger gets some crazy ranged weapons (the guns). In the end though I think main difference is what Yora said, the personality that goes with the characters are very different (even if not formal or rule-bound) and that makes a huge difference.

[kyoryu]

The battlebabe is the sexy badass that's immediately the center of attention.

The gunlugger doesn't have the charismatic draw, but has all the dakka.


In the end though I think main difference is what Yora said, the personality that goes with the characters are very different (even if not formal or rule-bound) and that makes a huge difference.

Yes. And the moves back that up.

I believe Lumpley has said that the gunlugger has more mechanical oomph, while the battlebabe has more spotlight power. The gunlugger may be better at fighting their way out of the situation, but the story will more likely be "about" the battlebabe, more often.

AW playbooks make distinctions that D&D classes don't. And looking at playbooks through the lens of "what capabilities does this class have?" will often miss a big part of the point.

[Friv]

Yeah. Mechanically, the Gunlugger gets the Move that ilets you escape, the move that lets you do a bit of medical, the Move that lets you count as a gang, and the Move that lets you use your Hard to have battlefield instincts. You lay the hurt down when things are going well, you have ways to get out and recover when things are going badly, and you know how to tell the difference.

The Battlebabe has the move to use their Hot to freeze people in fights, the move to declare that a given NPC is just gonna die, the move to use information more powerfully and the move to act like you're wearing Armor even if you aren't. You get stuck in, mess up the battlefield, and hopefully survive, but whatever you do you're mainly a whirling dervish of death at the centre of things.

[Psikerlord]

Yeah. Mechanically, the Gunlugger gets the Move that ilets you escape, the move that lets you do a bit of medical, the Move that lets you count as a gang, and the Move that lets you use your Hard to have battlefield instincts. You lay the hurt down when things are going well, you have ways to get out and recover when things are going badly, and you know how to tell the difference.

The Battlebabe has the move to use their Hot to freeze people in fights, the move to declare that a given NPC is just gonna die, the move to use information more powerfully and the move to act like you're wearing Armor even if you aren't. You get stuck in, mess up the battlefield, and hopefully survive, but whatever you do you're mainly a whirling dervish of death at the centre of things.

Hmm... so you cant use other characters moves? The Gunlugger cannot use his hot to freeze an enemy, and the Battlebabe cannot use a move to escape?

[flond]

Hmm... so you cant use other characters moves? The Gunlugger cannot use his hot to freeze an enemy, and the Battlebabe cannot use a move to escape?

Generally, no.

With the note that.

1. The basic moves are up for grabs (meaning the Battlebabe can escape through normal fictional engagement, they just don't have a move to run away as a sort of mechanical "thing you can do whenever it makes even a little sense."

2. XP can let you take a limited number of moves from other playbooks.

[Yora]

You start with two moves from your playbook, can later gain two more from your playbook, and get two from any other playbooks. And nothing is stopping you to get those two other moves right on your first two character advancements, I think this makes it actually really quite flexible,

[Friv]

Hmm... so you cant use other characters moves? The Gunlugger cannot use his hot to freeze an enemy, and the Battlebabe cannot use a move to escape?

What Yora said. To elaborate:

Each playbook in Apocalypse World has a handful of basic abilities, and also a set of unique (or semi-unique) Moves. A few of these Moves overlap (for example, both the Gunlugger and the Battlebabe have the Move that boosts your Damage by +1). Most playbooks have six of these Moves, but a few have fewer.

At the start of the game, you pick two of the Moves from your playbook (again, some playbooks give you the option of any of your Playbook moves, and some make one or both Moves mandatory.) Over the course of the game, you will get up to two more Moves from your own playbook (once again, a few Playbooks give you something else) and can take up to two Moves from other playbooks. That is two Moves total, not two per Playbook, so it's up to you whether to take two from one playbook, or one each from two sources.

As a rough rule, you aren't supposed to take a Move that another player already has, and if you take a Move from a playbook that another player has you're supposed to check in with them about whether they're planning to take it. This is more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule, though.

[Yora]

I can agree with only one of each playbooks being used per campaign, but that seems a bit excessive to me. Most moves are pretty vague things in the fiction to begin with. I don't see much need for niche protection.

[Friv]

Yeah, we generally ditched it when we played.

I can see an argument for not wanting players to have the same singular trick. If one player is making a big deal of the fact that they're so hot that enemies freeze up rather than face them, and then another player says, "Oh, hey, that sounds neat, Imma do it too", the first player might feel like they've been encroached on, especially if they mostly took the more mechanical, less fancy moves aside from that.

[Belac93]

From the experience I have with apocalypse world (and many other powered by the apocalypse games) it's that since each playbook is made to tell a certain kind of story, the game works best and is more fun if you don't have multiples of a single playbook. It is niche protection, but the game is better off for that niche protection.

[Yora]

That is certainly true. But I think what it does is giving each player a clearer role within the fiction. It helps distinuishing them and giving them individual priorities. But what it doesn't do is ensuring that all players have abilities at which they are best and making them the default people to perform specific tasks. When someone has to sneak forward and take out a guard, there is no thief who is way better at sneaking than anyone else. A battlebabe would have the best odds because of Cool+3, but nothing about that playbook says that it is a sneaky character.
You very rarely, if ever, get the situation where a task needs to be performed and everyone is looking at the player with the matching ability. It is the fiction of the characters that determines when someone is the obvious person to do it, and restricting the playbooks to one character each helps with creating characters that are all different in the fiction.

I would say that even if you strip the playbooks of all moves, they would still lead to very different and distinguishable characters. What the moves do is not so much giving players new abilities, but they help discribing the characters' personalities. They work much more like traits than special abilities in that way.

I've now spend some time thinking about custom playbooks for the campaign I am preparing, and I still find it a somewhat daunting task. It's not just that you make up custom moves that more specifically define certain actions you would expect characters to specialize in. Adding and removing playbooks quite fundamentally changes what assumptions everyone will have going into the game. If the party is a gunlugger, a skinner, a brainer, and an angel, they could go out on adventures visiting various towns and exploring nearby ruins. D&D with a post-apocalpytic reskin. You could just use that party to play Dark Sun. But when the party includes hardholders, hocuses, and maestros, you get completely different expectations about the fiction of the campaign.

[Blymurkla]

A party in Apocalypse World!?

Man, I think we play this game in excruciatingly different way.

[kyoryu]

A party in Apocalypse World!?

Man, I think we play this game in excruciatingly different way.

Yeah. It usually ends up being "the group of characters played by the players." Not a party in any traditional sense.

The party being split is more or less the normal situation.

Think of it like a TV show with an ensemble cast.

[Yora]

Party is faster to type.

[kyoryu]

Party is faster to type.

But it's not as catchy as TGOCPBTP

[Knaight]

But it's not as catchy as TGOCPBTP

This is undeniably true, technically.

"Party" is much catchier.

[Cluedrew]

A party in Apocalypse World!?

Man, I think we play this game in excruciatingly different way.I am now having flash-backs to the time we* had to explain that the PCs might not all be on the same side to someone who was already having trouble with Apocalypse World. They absolutely freaked out. It was a bit said, seeing how ingrained certain narrow assumptions about game methodologies are. It is also hilarious.

Anyways, I usually just refer to "the PCs" when speaking about TGOCPBTP.

* Myself and a couple of other people with Powered by the Apocalypse experience.

[Yora]

How would you go about preparing for the players to sneak into the strongholds of rival groups or recovering valuable equipment from ruined facilities? I know what I wouldn't do, and that is drawing out a dungeon floorplan.

But what about a pointcrawl, where each area of interest within the location is simply represented as a square with lines showing which other areas can be reached from the current area?

And would things like traps even work in this game?

[Friv]

Traps can absolutely work, but you have to play them a bit differently.

A trap is a hard move. You trigger it in response to:
*) The players entering a situation without anyone trying to be careful or slow.
*) Someone screws up a sneaking or mobility roll.

Probably, players who trigger a trap would have to Do Something Under Fire to avoid getting hurt.

[kyoryu]

Traps can absolutely work, but you have to play them a bit differently.

A trap is a hard move. You trigger it in response to:
*) The players entering a situation without anyone trying to be careful or slow.
*) Someone screws up a sneaking or mobility roll.

Probably, players who trigger a trap would have to Do Something Under Fire to avoid getting hurt.

A trap can also be a soft move, if the characters move somewhere where it's likely to go off. It's also great justification for all sorts of nastiness (separate them, take their stuff, etc.).

[Blymurkla]

How would you go about preparing for the players to sneak into the strongholds of rival groups or recovering valuable equipment from ruined facilities? I know what I wouldn't do, and that is drawing out a dungeon floorplan.

But what about a pointcrawl, where each area of interest within the location is simply represented as a square with lines showing which other areas can be reached from the current area? Apocaylse World operates better with a lower trigger for activating character expertise (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4238/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings) than traditional games where dungeon floorplans is a thing.

Sure, you can occasionally zoom in on details in AW, run things blow-by-blow, but that shouldn't be your default.

In D&D, when I player say »I infiltrate the castle« you say »I haven't prepped that, so we'll take it next session« or »Okay. Do you do anything to prepare yourself? Do you leave your armour behind (or suffer the penalties)? Which entrance do you use?« and then you run things small scale, activating character expertise for a bluff check against the guard or a sneak check across the court yard.

In AW, when I player say »I infiltrate ****heads hold« you probably say »That sounds like doing something under fire, roll cool«. If the player succeed, they're in the inner sanctum (with ****head there, if they rolled 10+, and perhaps not if the got 7-9). And if they fail, you put them in some deep **** whilst infiltrating (»You've just passed a patrol when you take a wrong move as you see a child being dragged towards the dog-pit. You're about to get spotted if you don't do something«) and then you ask »What do you do?« (and if the player ignores the child and just skulks away, have them reach ****head without another roll as they hear the agonising screams).

[Yora]

Getting past guards can be a story in itself. And you could run into non-hostile NPCs who can have useful information. I wouldn't skip all of that.

Indicating traps as a soft move is a great idea. Players have to decide whether to disarm it (under fire? probably) and risk failing a roll, or look for another path and having to spend more time in the place.
Or when you chose to inflict harm as a consequence for a failed roll, that harm could come from a trap they had not seen. Though I am a bit hesitant with that, as it's a trap they could not have detected or avoided. But in the system of the game, it's a totally valid fiction to describe a mechanic. I probably will use that only with players already used to how the back and forth between players and GM plays out.

[flond]

Getting past guards can be a story in itself. And you could run into non-hostile NPCs who can have useful information. I wouldn't skip all of that.

Indicating traps as a soft move is a great idea. Players have to decide whether to disarm it (under fire? probably) and risk failing a roll, or look for another path and having to spend more time in the place.
Or when you chose to inflict harm as a consequence for a failed roll, that harm could come from a trap they had not seen. Though I am a bit hesitant with that, as it's a trap they could not have detected or avoided. But in the system of the game, it's a totally valid fiction to describe a mechanic. I probably will use that only with players already used to how the back and forth between players and GM plays out.

Yeah, in general I'd probably at worst describe things Indiana Jones style.

You might not know what's up with this flat tile with all the holes poking out...but you're pretty sure there's something bad in there.

[HidesHisEyes]

I am now having flash-backs to the time we* had to explain that the PCs might not all be on the same side to someone who was already having trouble with Apocalypse World. They absolutely freaked out. It was a bit said, seeing how ingrained certain narrow assumptions about game methodologies are. It is also hilarious.

Anyways, I usually just refer to "the PCs" when speaking about TGOCPBTP.

* Myself and a couple of other people with Powered by the Apocalypse experience.

Some people really can’t get their heads around it. I had a Dungeon World session were two of my D&D friends both, in the same session, triggered Defy Danger moves (one in combat and one social) and then got antsy when I asked them to roll, saying they were just dressing up/flavouring their actions and hadn’t been looking to roll. “Ok, but you described doing the thing so...”

[Yora]

"if you do it, you do it."
- p. 10

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think it's important to reinforce that rolls are risky and lead to consequences, but the negative consequences generally aren't horrific, and the MC isn't supposed to hit you with major gotcha moments for small rolls.

I feel like D&D players sometimes develop a risk-averse turtle method of play, which doesn't benefit AW.

[Cluedrew]

I think it is because D&D supports only (individually) meaningless failures and severe failures. Missing an attack roll doesn't mean much. Missing a stealth roll cuts of any hope of being sneaky for the rest of the section more often than not. Powered by the Apocalypse doesn't have meaningless failures, but a lot of failures aren't nearly as severe. Maybe stealth wasn't the best example, because loosing there is often pretty bad.


Some people really can’t get their heads around it. [...] “Ok, but you described doing the thing so...”The other big one I've seen is "there is no button". It has a few flavours, one is an extreme version of "I roll Diplomacy" in that people try to reference a move without explaining what they are doing. It does happen in other system (ex. D&D Diplomacy) but I've seen this come up in combat situations which are not that abstract. We got to know what you are doing during this fight. The other flavour is I have seen is someone once asked how to do something in a game, despite the fact it was something that could just happen to a character. There is a kind of reversal, Powered by the Apocalypse uses "if this happens, use these rules" opposed to "use these rule to make this happen".

[Silva]

Hi folks, first post here. I'm a big PbtA fan and love to talk about it. My fave games are Apocalypse World, Sagas of the Icelanders and Undying. With Cartel apparently shaping up to join em.

@Yora, you could take a look at Nerdwerds blog for all existing custom playbooks in the webz. They could give you some inspiration. Google for it (for some reason this board don't let me link a website until I make at least 10 posts).

[The Glyphstone]

Hi folks, first post here. I'm a big PbtA fan and love to talk about it. My fave games are Apocalypse World, Sagas of the Icelanders and Undying. With Cartel apparently shaping up to join em.

@Yora, you could take a look at Nerdwerds blog for all existing custom playbooks in the webz. They could give you some inspiration. Google for it (for some reason this board don't let me link a website until I make at least 10 posts).

It's meant as an inhibitor to spam-bots, primarily.

[Blymurkla]

I'm a big PbtA fan and love to talk about it. Okay then. Since you didn't specify what in regard to AW you want to talk about, how about this:

What should one do with The Chopper's Pack Alpha move? It's rather disappointingly badly designed, don't you think?

[Silva]

Okay then. Since you didn't specify what in regard to AW you want to talk about, how about this:

What should one do with The Chopper's Pack Alpha move? It's rather disappointingly badly designed, don't you think?
I agree it's not one of the best moves because it's kind of cryptic and is easily avoided if the Chopper know what he's doing. On the other hand, it does promote the Chopper blurb (of an unstable leadership position) in a way.

Remember you don't need to roll for it at every order you balk at the pack, just when it contradicts their instincts or goals. So,

"We're low on booze, let's hit that caravan we saw earlier to refill"
"We've been hired to kick [insert name] ass. Let's go".
"Deadeye, cover our backs. Fidel and China, come with me. Jojo, you worthless *****, you stay here."

..are probably ok and won't ask for a roll. Now,

"We must raid that depot, so I get even with a dude I owe to. Half the loot goes to him. Don't ask."
"Take your hands off from her. This one is mine".
"No looting this time. We're just sending a message".

...would probably ask for the roll. I think it works best when the MC asks for the name of a couple prominent members and make them speak for the pack, with strong necessities and personalities. This helps to create internal conflict in the pack and keep the Alpha from maneuvering for not rolling the move at all (which used to happen with our games' Chopper, that rascal haha).

[1of3]

How would you go about preparing for the players to sneak into the strongholds of rival groups or recovering valuable equipment from ruined facilities? I know what I wouldn't do, and that is drawing out a dungeon floorplan.

Places are a great fit for unique custom moves.


When you methodically move forward in the Castle of Doom, roll +Cool. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2.
- You circumvent the traps.
- You make no noises.
- You don't run into any inhabitants.
- You find a secret passage or compartment.

Or whatever. Point is, a custom move is 'Prepare for a session. Hand out to the players. Fire and Forget'. So the Cave of Many Monsters can have a totally different move from the Castle of Doom. It's a great way to make a place memorable.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It also depends on how much emphasis you want to give to the compound. Layouts are fine, but should be constructed with an eye towards locations as nexi of conflict. You want to think about the flashpoints of the infiltration, like maybe there's the gate, the armory, the confrontation in the throne room.

Custom moves are neat, but it's also important to just use the details of the location as a contrast.

[Yora]

I think in practice, most custom moves are simply preparing what a 7-9 means for things that players are likely to try. If you can expect someone to do it, it's better than having to make it up on the spot.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Yeah, and they can also be used to build up mini-economies within the game, with moves that react to one another.

Though, my favorite custom moves are the ones that aren't 10+/7-9/miss moves. There's a lot of potential with moves that just tweak the rules. When you wield the Pearl Rifle, you may Go Aggro with Hot.

[Yora]

I'm working on a Hunter class: "When you go aggro or sucker someone who is not actively watched, you don't attract any attention from people nearby".

The downside is that going aggro might not completely incapactate the NPC, and if you keep fighting it does make noise.

Also: "When you act under fire because you're threatened by a wild animal, roll +sharp instead of +cool.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Man, those are cool moves, especially the first one. That's a ton of flavor and a really useful ability.

[Cluedrew]

There's a lot of potential with moves that just tweak the rules. When you wield the Pearl Rifle, you may Go Aggro with Hot.There is a lot of potential and then of course a lot of potential to mess things up. I mean that is true of any rule but there are a particular set of pit-falls. Now most Powered by the Apocalypse systems I have seen have avoided them but I think they are there anyways, let me know if you disagree.

The simplest one is building up too many stat substitute. The basic options in Powered by the Apocalypse are good enough that consistent hits or strong hits is actually a big deal. Stat boosts are too slow, and your starting stats to low, for them to be a real issue. Using stat substitutions can shorten that process though.

The other is the force cage problem. Which comes from a long debate about whether or not force cage was a good spell. The basic idea is does it add an interesting option or does it shut down interesting situations by providing an uninteresting pre-packaged solution or with pre-packaged counters. I suppose that whether any ability does that might be subjective. The force cage debate was inconclusive.

[Yora]

Being able to roll +3 is huge. It gives you only an 8% chance to fail, and a 58% chance to get a 10+. Letting players substitute their best stat for a basic move is a very considerable game changer, not just a little neat adjustment.

[Yora]

Looking again into Dungeon World, I found that one major shortcoming that people see is the lack of conflict between characters, compared to Apocalypse World and other games.

How exactly does AW encourage conflict between players?

[Silva]

I wouldn't say it's a shortcoming, Yora, as Dungeon World operates in a more conventional "adventuring-party" mold where PvP is not really necessary. But I find it puts DW on a step below AW because of that, as the "frenemies" aspect of the PbtA engine is part of what makes it shine, in my opinion. Without this aspect, gems like Monsterhearts, Sagas of the Icelanders and Urban Shadows would've never happened, for example.


How exactly does AW encourage conflict between players?
Through a structure of play that it builds specifically for that, which have a directive part (basically textual "advice") and a procedural one (the actual rules). In short, the book instructs the GM to create an environment of scarcity and high pressure on the players, by means of the Agenda-Principles-GM moves and also techniques like PC-NPC-PC triangles, NPCs with strong basic needs pushing at the PCs (even their own "allies" like gangs, followers, etc), Fronts with countdown clocks announcing future calamities, etc. While the rules (playbooks' starting Hx assignment, Hx flow, Stats highlights, Moves like Read a Person, Seduce or Manipulate, Go Aggro, Sex moves, etc) complement that by purposefully pushing interactions into loaded territory.

So you just woke up and Bish (NPC) is here asking for that money you owe him since forever, but now he won't accept excuses, he says, and if you don't hand it over he'll talk to a friend - Cybelle, that weird chick that never shows her face (you know, the Brainer player that you assigned a bad Hx in first session?) to "incentivize" you to give the money (Cybelle player *grins*). Then you remember you're totally broken and hungry even, and would have to ask help from some of these modafack*s around. Well, there's Nero the Operator (another player, with a neutral Hx to you) but he is greedy as f*ck and will probably charge my soul as interest. Or, wait, there's my friend Lucy (the Angel player, whom actually have a positive Hx with you) That's it, she will help me! "Hey Lucy my girl! How are you? You know, I need a hand with something....." GM: Wait, are you just asking or you're trying to manipulate her? Player: "Hmmm I do have a nice Hot stat...", GM: "So you're manipulating her, the only friend you have in this crapsack place?" Player: "Sorry, I can't risk or I'll be mindraped by that freak, Cibelle. Yeah, I'm manipulating her". Lucy's player: "Oh I can't believe it!". GM: "Okay, roll the dice". And things snowball from there.

Edit: Notice though, that the kind of PvP AW proposes is not a "deathmatch free for all" like, say, Paranoia or Shinobigami, it's more like a ensemble cast TV series (Walking Dead, Firefly) where protagonists are supposed to fight between themselves now and then but ultimately join forces to defend common interests (the community, the water source, etc).

[Silva]

Oh and, I see you had a question about AW combat in first page. You probably solved it already, but I would love to let this here anyway...

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/combat-example-for-apocalypse-engine-games-monster-of-the-week-apocalypse-world.649053/page-3

It's an example of combat in AW by Lumpley (Vincent Baker, AW's author) that's pretty instructional and shows how tactical it can get. :smallwink:

[Yora]

The impression that I get is that it's not actually the mechanics that are nudging players into such directions. It's the presentation of the setting that that shows readers certain interesting situations and tells them that in an Apocalypse World game, acting in that way is entirely acceptible and totally cool.
What I see is an encouragement to go with a fresh style of play, but it doesn't seem that it's something that follows as a consequence of the rules.

[Cluedrew]

I actually think Powered by the Apocalypse is mechanically suited to PvP.* The rules seem to be built around PCs going against NPCs (ex. no opposed roles anywhere in the system) and then sort of adapted to handle PCs going against each other. Because one person roles and that sets the results of the fight. I think AW2 has made some of the direct conflicts a bit better at both players rolling and combining the results.

Of course I have never played straight AW1/2, just other Powered by the Apocalypse systems. Most of them did an all right job with it, but there are moments where the other player, usually the defender, has to go and take the results of the other player's roles without their character's abilities effecting it much. So I think it is mostly the fiction and the general attitude the game presents that make it work pretty well.

* Actually if I am going to be really pedantic and draw a line between player vs. player and player character vs. player character, which I will just in this aside, I don't think it does that so well either. The rules are loose enough if you want to really test your skills each other... there is a lot of wiggle room and things may very much be down to how the MC decides how to call and resolve moves.

[Silva]

What I see is an encouragement to go with a fresh style of play, but it doesn't seem that it's something that follows as a consequence of the rules.
Indeed. But don't you think we can say that "encouragement" are rules in AW ? Remember what it says the in the beginning of GM chapter..

"There's a million ways to GM games. Apocalypse World asks for one in specific. No matter what you do, follow this as rules.... and I'm not ****ing around here"

(It actually says that :smallbiggrin: )

See it this way: the mechanics don't necessarily nudge the players to be "frenemies", but if they do not end up as frenemies, a fair bit of those mechanics stop making sense, specially Hx, playbooks relations setup, Stats highlight, etc.

Makes sense?

[Silva]

Prepping for a 2nd edition game of AW. My group was wary of the changes until now but we decided to try it anyway. Which made me re-read this thread and stumble with this...


One smaller thing I actually only nocticed last weekend is that Visions of Death is a really powerful ability. It basically lets a Battlebabe kill any NPC with just a single roll, as long as the character can arrange a personal confrontation. If you get that 7 or better, that NPC is dead if you really want it. In other RPGs this would be ridiculously overpowered, but here I find it intriguing. The NPC will be dead, but will that solve your problem? And I think when all you have to do is to use one of your abilities, nobody would seriously expect that it would. The GM is pretty much obliged to respond in interesting ways. But it really mixes things up. Which is perfect for the Battlebabe. Throw a wrench into the gears and reshuffle the deck. And enjoy the spectacle.
I've only read it now, and what an amazing description Yora! I love the Battlebabe. It's one of the best "fiction archetypes in game form" I've seen.