Powered By The Apocalypse veterans:
A question came up elsewhere, which reminded me of a blind spot in my own *World understanding.
There is a big narrative/mechanical difference between an *World game, and a more traditional turn-based game.
In most traditional RPGs, a roll is just what your character does for 6 seconds or so, and the GM rolls separately for what the opposition does with their 6 seconds.
In *World games, a roll in a given conflict actually encapsulates both the action and the consequence provided by the opposition.
For a one-on-one conflict, this makes sense. to me. However, it can seem unfair/unrealistic when three PCs all “Resort to Violence” (or whatever the fight move is for your particular game) in the same scene against the same opponent, who then seems to get three separate retributive attacks against them.
As a GM, I’m always uncertain how I’m supposed to handle that situation.
Well ask the players what they are doing. In some cases you might group them in a gang and make one player roll. Others it might be the players rolling to aid each other. Other times you might just use “Exchange Harm for Harm”.
I did that couple sessions ago in fact. The Gunlugger decided to shoot the big guy with a 9mm. No particular terrain difficulties or other complications. No cover. So goon takes 3-harm (ap) and the Gunlugger takes 0-harm after armor.
As I remember it, the MC can only respond with “harm as established”. It’s the as established part that’s key here. If Balls and Dancy and Squire all go nuthouse on Tequila at the same time, but T has a knife, then you might be able to justify harm to two of them, but probably he won’t cut all three before they get his blade away and beat his teeth in.
Of course. If you have three PCs working over 1 NPC, the NPC should probably die. I suppose the thing to take away is AW (like many games not derived from D&D), numbers generally win. You don’t generally have a Big Boss fight.
Adam D is correct.
Separate the logic of the fiction from the need to follow the rules as rote. The moves only kick in when their triggers are met — if the enemy can’t exchange harm (the usual requirement in all *W games), then it’s not a move and they probably just get shanked.
My first thought was “one player rolls, the others roll to aid.” But the other options are good too.
PCs are forces of nature, so if several of them are aligned in the same direction I wouldn’t expect most NPCs to stand against them for long.
In truth, the PCs aren’t a force of nature in every *World offering (tremulus, for example), but they are in most of them. These suggestions make sense. If I understand correctly, when it doesn’t make sense to base the narrative solely off of the move, the storyteller/MC/GM needs to adjust the move based on the narrative situation.
Your suggestions seem to be:
1) Make an impromptu “gang” out of the PCs, if your port of *World supports that.
2) Determine that numbers just win and assess outcome/consequences as the GM sees fit. This may mean no roll is necessary.
3) Treat the PCs a team: one PC rolls the primary move, and contributing PCs roll their equivalent of an “Aid Another” move – helpers could still get some consequences that way, but it isn’t mechanically guaranteed.
4) Chug through the harm/fight/whatever moves until the narrative situation makes the move unnecessary.
Hey Devon Apple , this example offered as a forum activity by Vincent may help somewhat. It gelled (combat in particular – where the turn about paradigm gets challenged by the narrative AW engine and succeeds admirably).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5jjd58phc3gaf2w/Apocalypse%20World%20-%20A%20Combat%20Example%20(Director's%20Cut).pdf
A failed roll doesn’t require a direct response.
Character A fails an attack.
Opponent knifes Character A.
Character B fails an attack.
Henchman arrives with Character B’s loved one held hostage.
Character C fails an attack.
Henchman kills Character B’s loved one.
There so many different ways a GM can “make a move” in response.