An Simple Observation

An Simple Observation

An Simple Observation

In Apocalypse World, a move’s trigger (the when you do x…) is character facing and the effect (…then y) is player facing. For the most part (i.e. most moves), the move is then over. THEN we reincorporate the choice or result into the fiction, using GM Agenda and Principles.

This is the fiction/real world/fiction dip-and-surface that makes the PbtA language so speedy and elegant at the table. It also forces a bit of “immersion” (not in a Forge way, I can’t do that today) in that it forces a correlation of “you”s.

EXAMPLE: When you (Grekkor the Gunlugger) read a charged situation, then you (Chris the Player) roll + sharp. On a hit, you (Chris the Player) can ask the MC questions. Then the MC reincorporates the move into the fiction like a puzzle piece.

COROLLARY: You could also write moves as player facing (When you, the player, chooses x….), then character facing (….then you, the character, does y), without breaking the PtbA language as such. This is a more traditional way of resolving task and conflict.

EXAMPLE: When you (Chris the Player) want to reduce the hitpoints of the MCs monster, then roll a d20. On a hit, then you may describe how you (Grekkor the Gunlugger) attack the monster. Then the MC reincorporates the fiction into the monsters mechanical stats by removing the hitpoints.

DISCLAIMER: My observations are not smart. They’re just a way for me to organize my thoughts about a specific problem I’m having at the table or in one of the mini-hacks I do. The public nature is simply a pressure to force me to not go entirely off the rails of reason.

SECONDARY DISCLAIMER: Chris the Player is what they called me when I slept with your dad. What’s up? High five? No? Okay.

7 thoughts on “An Simple Observation”

  2. Isn’t the corollary approach actually what traditional gaming uses?

    When you (Chris) succeed on a roll to hit, you (Tragnor the Traginator) do damage to the creature based on the weapon you are using.

  3. This is why I enjoy PbtA games. Traditional gaming always encouraged describing your actions, but it wasn’t necessarily required to move the game forward, so gaming groups, even mine, would get lazy (for time, effort, etc) in describing how they cleaved three goblins, they just shout “cleave” and roll the dice again. Guilty.

    In PbtA, the narrative drives the moves, and the moves then drive the narrative, so you’re ushered to describe what happens otherwise you omit your agency and efficacy from the game. And no munchkin I play with willingly dismisses efficacy!

  4. The key difference is this:  The apocalypse World move has you make concrete choices that effect the specifics of the outcome.  Do you take definite hold of something?  Do you deal severe harm?  Rolling a d20 and describing what your damage looks like doesn’t have any meaningful consequences attached to the description.  That’s why players get lazy:  the direction of the fiction is determined by the roll of the damage die, not the description of how that damage was dealt.  They’re putting in effort for no result, so they eventually stop.

  5. Taking a page from AW & DW here: each take time to break down the elements of a move so we know that the first part is fictional trigger, and the rest of it is game mechanics (which inform the fiction)

    Are you suggesting moves which are: game trigger, and then mechanics (which inform the fiction)?

    EDIT: not sure if that is truly the right question. it seems like you want the player desire to be thing that is done to move the game forward

  6. give you a /][\ @ ^5

    I’ll take the riff, the raff, the whole box of skittles, and share… like you do with your mom!

    I reinterpret what you present as;

    character action-player choice-character resolve

    vs.

    player choice-character action-player resolve

    presuming MC is also a player participating with a particular role in the game framework, and choice is representing a decision has been presented in some mechanical abstract… action is a thing that happens in the fiction, and resolve is a response in the fiction to either a choice or action… and flow-charting all that, makes nice loops, depicting the flow of interactions, through the various compartments, or thresholds, of the gamespace, or magic circle.

    and now, we can both be perplexed — each by the other’s — semantic divergences. :p

Comments are closed.