I’m cross-posting this with the Barf Forth Apocalyptica forums, in case the g+ group gets more traffic…
Changes to XP and Helping/Interfering?
I’m hoping to MC another game of AW pretty soon, for the first time in a few years. I’m pretty excited! But I’m thinking about making changes to a couple basic rules and was hoping to get some feedback from more experienced MCs.
1) The roll-based experience gain rules. I don’t really have a problem with the stat highlighting system, but sometimes it gets a bit weird if someone takes a lot of stat substitution moves, and more to the point, I really like the idea, at least on paper, of Dungeon World’s approach of “mark experience whenever you fail a roll.” I like the idea of this because it mitigates some of the pain of failing a roll, and might encourage players to diversify their tactics. If they make moves with strong stats they have a good chance of getting what they want in the fiction, if they make moves with weak stats they have a good chance of marking xp. So I’m considering trying this in Apocalypse World. Are there any big problems with this that I’m missing? I know there’s a move the Solace has access to that wouldn’t work, or would need to be changed, but I don’t think there’s any other moves that reference stat highlights are there? Does anyone think it would have a big impact on the rate of xp gain?
2) I kind of want to change how the help and interfere move works. In the game I MC’d in the past, it almost never got used. This might be more to do with my friends, but even just thinking about the move in the theoretical way, I can see how it’s unappealing. Making any move carries a fairly significant risk as a fail likely results in the MC making a move against you, and even the 7-9 result on help/interfere is probably just as bad. Add to this the fact that the results of a hit are pretty minor, and it’s not very appealing. If the rules required players to make the help/interfere roll before the other roll, I don’t think it would ever get used… but if they can make it after they know what the other player got, well… helping only matters if they got exactly 6 or 9. It seems like most people aren’t likely to take the risk of a failed roll to bump a partial to a full hit, so that means they’re ONLY going to try to help on a 6.
Anyway, I’d like to make the help/interfere move more appealing to use, either by cutting down the risks or improving it’s effect, but I don’t want to make it over powered. Does anyone have any suggestions? Would simply increasing the effect by 1 point (i.e. +2 for helping, -3 for interfering) work without going too far, do you think? Or maybe an extra point if they get a full hit, normal effect on a partial, but no risk from a partial?
eta: I was thinking about it more and have some further ideas for tweaking help/interfere. How about this: 10+ gives +1 to help, -2 to interfere. You may choose to increase the effect by 1 point by exposing yourself to fire, danger, retribution, or cost. 7-9 you maybe give +1 to help or -2 to interfere but you expose yourself to fire, danger, retribution, or cost. Or you may chicken out and choose not to help/interfere to stay safe.
This would allow players trying to play it safe to go for it and give the normal bump if they hit a 10+ and avoid risk unless they completely miss, and players willing to take on risk to help/interfere could go for it and have a greater effect if they get a full hit.
I agree on #1.
+1 is a huge deal on help and interfere because of the statistical shift. Also what happens on a fail depends on the fictional situation. If you help somebody to open a jelly jar the consequences of a fail are different from that of helping a person escape from the grasp of a mutantninjazombievampire.
In DW found that people were falling over themselves to do things they were no good at to get the XP. This meant tons of failures because certain people would rush to take any possible action to get the xp. They would profit and everyone as a group would usually have to deal with the fall out of the failure. My least liked aspect of DW to be honest.
I agree that help and hinder are something that only gets done rarely because of the maths. There is no statistics if you roll after the event. I disagree that people won’t help on a 9 though, sometimes it is important for a certain action to get the best result possible.
You could try getting rid of the numbers and simply allowing a help or hinder to adjust the success level by one. There is a case to be made that this is too good however. Failures are rare enough in AW games in my experience so I kind of relish them when they do happen.
On the help/interfere issue, the first idea I considered was having it effect the result by a whole tier, but I decided that was probably way TOO effective. At the moment I’m leaning toward trying my second idea, which is definitely more complicated, but I think might suit my wishes well.
I don’t think I’ll have the issue you had, Eric Nolan, with the xp. Certainly my friends didn’t fall all over themselves to roll, say, Hot, if it was highlighted and their character wasn’t particularly good at it in the past.
Thoughts on the XP thing:
handing it out on failures encourages players to try and handle a variety of situations. Even if you’re the fighter and CHA is your dump, knowing that there’s a shiny XP in it for you if you fail softens the fear of the hard move. I’ve found this makes DW characters more self reliant in many ways, since everyone is more willing to field a roll.
In AW, though, I’ve seen some interesting behavior. The PCs are badasses, self-reliant by default, but because misses don’t reward them they are less likely to tread outside their comfort zones. As much as it would be nice for the Gunlugger sometimes to roll Hot and not Hard to get someone to work with them, they kind of avoid it. I’ve seen this result in games where the PCs are going to each other and relying on one another to patch the “holes” in their “build” so to speak. Which is pretty phenomenal! I mean, that’s great: “Hey skinner, would you talk to Fucktruck for me? Convince her to come raiding with me?” “Okay Gunlugger but I want XYZ from you.” Interesting behavior here.
Now, other stuff to keep in mind is what you’ll be changing by changing the XP rules: stats in DW are measurements of capability, but in AW they’re more like deeply ingrained personality markers. I mean, look at Go Aggro. You only use it if you will murder someone. Having a high Hard says something about your character that high STR really doesn’t say at all. If you empower AW characters to roll their various stats without impunity, you declaw a lot of their personality subtext.
ie, Gunkugger has high Hard and Low hot because they don’t make friends – they bully and kill. Now, Gunlugger is being encouraged to roll Hot because XP rewards, which feels like it runs counter to what he is actually being encouraged to do: play the violent hardass.
In DW, everyone is encourages to roll – I feel – because in a deadly deadly dungeon, everyone needs to pull their own weight. You’re working as a Team, and a Team needs to be able to cover each other. XP rewards keep the players rolling and keeps the characters supporting one another always.
In AW, you’re more encouraged to carefully mete out your rolls because there is nothing good about failing. It seems to encourage players to rely on each other to fulfill their built-in functions, which leads into the feeling of bartering and scarcity the game is built on.
Just my thoughts and observations on the two XP styles.
That’s good stuff, Alfred Rudzki. I’d never really processed that about AW vs DW. Neat.
Brian Peters a middle-ground that you could use: you get XP on a miss, but only once per stat per session. The first time you miss with a stat, mark XP and check the Highlighted box next to the stat (so that you don’t use it again). End of session, clear all the highlights.
I think this might get folks taking at least some risks with their stats each session, but after they get burned once (and get the XP for it) in a low stat, they’d revert to form and lean on their strengths.
Added bonus: I think this would cut down on advancement speed, which has always felt too high to me.
Regarding Help.. I feel you. I definitely let folks roll to help after seeing the initial roll. I did the maths once and found that any given +1 bonus only makes a difference 25% of the time. I.e. if the original roll is anywhere from -2 to +3, their unmodified roll is a 6 or a 9 only 1/4 rolls. So if you help before they roll, you’re incurring a risk yourself in order to have a 75% chance of making no difference. Suckage.
Unfortunately, Hx is pretty deeply baked into the system so you can’t just throw it out or replace it with something else.
I’m certainly intrigued by the idea of having a successful Help roll always bump you up one step (miss to 7-9, 7-9 to 10+). It would certainly be more appealing to me as a player.
I would just like to add, as a general comment, that missed rolls ≠ bad stuff (at least not every time). The MC moves are not there to punish the PCs – they’re there to make their lives interesting. I’ve had a number of high stakes rolls in AW where I’d have been more happy to blow the roll, than to make it. Open your Brain is often just as fun to hit as to miss, because the information volunteered is always useful – sometimes it’s just not what you asked for.
Inscentivise your players to roll by making the failures just as fun as the hits. Turn their moves back on them, be almost painfully honest and upfront, and have fun!
Just a note about stat substituion:
Even if a character has a stat substitution move you can highlight the “original” stat to push the player to use it.
Ex. The driver’s move that lets you open your mind with sharp, you can highlight weird and so it is up to the player to choose wich stat to use.
Also, stat substitution moves require the player to describe the action in a different way.
Alfred Rudzki the problem with “Hey Skinner, would you go and roll hot so that I don’t have to” is that it is Manipulating the Skinner.
Wrong! Only if you have leverage, Tim! If you have nothing they want, it’s just talking – just like Parley in DW. Then you have a variety of options to engage.
Not sure manipulate with PCs works like that.
Tim Franzke Hmm, okay, that’s fair. The word leverage isn’t specifically used, that’s true, but in my games I’ve always played it as you can’t just walk around manipulating and seducing everybody. I’ve always, always, played it as the PCs need some kind of pretense. The word “manipulate” specifically implies that to me. Me saying “give me those peaches” isn’t manipulating, really, it’s just me demanding something.
EDIT: Actually I found the relevant text in the book, page 197:
“Asking someone straight to do something isn’t trying to seduce or manipulate them. To seduce or manipulate, the character needs leverage — sex, or a threat, or a promise, something that the manipulator can really do that the victim really wants or really doesn’t want.”
I remember Vincent Baker talking about that the Carrot or Stick are the leverage you have.
Tim Franzke totally legit, and I completely buy that. Personally, when I’m running, divorcing manipulate from the fiction that hard feels wonky to me? Like, to me. So I apply the carrot and the stick on top of actual fictional leverage? Again, just me.
But, regardless, this is tangential to my points to my point: you can still hit up a PC to do something for you when you’re no good at it. You’ve got three options to fall back on, including paying or threatening them, completely besides manipulating them.