There is something about Powered by the Apocalypse that is really really appealing to people.
But there is also something about it that makes so many people get it wrong. I still wonder that that is.
There is something about Powered by the Apocalypse that is really really appealing to people.
There is something about Powered by the Apocalypse that is really really appealing to people.
I often think the getting it “wrong” part results from a false projection of its functionality as a system.
Maybe an assumption that it’s a universal system to be reskinned.
Is this a reference to the go aggro argument?
What Marshall Miller said. The core mechanic is universal (2d6+x, 10+/7-9/6-), but the implementation of the basic moves (plus the playbooks, of course) needs to be designed towards a specific thematic goal. It’s not a system that you just hang a setting on and call it a day.
also I wrote it as wrong and not wrong because claiming someone is “doing it wrong” is just so harsh and also debatable. I believe that such a thing exists but people can be sensitive there.
In the end it is the strength of the Concentric Game Design
(http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/594) that a lot of stuff still works. I aim to play “correctly” (/cringe) at the 4th layer and hit all of these points as Vincent said you should but clearly that is not needed.
The question therefore is at what layer do you start this discussion? Part of this for me clearly is the Burning Wheel influence that requires certain things to be done as written or they will break (and break other stuff in the process). Apocalypse World doesn’t break like that.
Because that is the case it is difficult to tell someone that the text speaks differently about a topic when it creates no problem (that they can see?) at the table.
So maybe there is a lot of drift (HA! That is the word I should have used) because the breaking point is so far away.
And also “people” “usually” only get “one or two things” “wrong” like using the violence moves in a different way or making the GM by arbiter about every move or the GM not creating fronts in a way that help with their agenda. It’s not like they play Polaris with a GM and initative and hitpoints against monsters.
Its just small things that don’t amount to much really.
Or what Vincent Baker says: “The whole game is built so that if you mess up a rule in play, you mostly just naturally fall back on the level below it, and you’re missing out a little but it works fine.”
I need to remember that it works out fine way more often…
Cool. Less vague, and I totally agree! Drift is correct. There are a lot of hacks that drift off from AW but don’t quite have the same punch. I think that perhaps people should spend less time trying to build a hack from AW’s skeleton and focus on what they want their game to be about and see if something unique springs out of that instead.
I am not even talking about hacking at the moment. That is a different discussion I think. Right now I am only talking about playing/running the game.
By “the game” do you mean Apocalypse World?
Or do you mean any game Powered by the Apocalypse?
I think I was talking about most games because I see it happen across the board but in my further comments I was thinking about Apocalypse World as that was what Vincent’s blog post was about.
I’m trying to come up with PbtA style agenda/principles/moves for the Australian* con style games I love writing and playing. As a way to explain them to other people and, thereby, hopefully be able to understand them better ourselves.
* Vital Note: a tiny subset of what’s played at a tiny subset of Australian cons. I just don’t have a better name yet.
Edit: relevance for this thread. I think people see that concentric Agenda/Principles/Moves design and assume it will play like Apocalypse World. But actually you could use that layout for any kind of game. (even, say, baseball).
Vincent Baker said he wanted about 1/3 of people reading the rules to not understand it, because it generated online discussion. Maybe that’s why?
Tim Franzke I’m sure that you’ve seen the anyway post that immediately follows that one, but let me draw attention to it anyway:
http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/595
For me, the idea that a game’s rules are just one elaboration of its core tension resolves the entire question of playing right and playing wrong.
Scroll down to my examples, starting with comment #8.
This is really helpful and thought provoking. Thank you.