What limits are there, if any, on world element / fact creation are there in PbtA games? Is this something that can be toggled, or is it just a crazy free-for-all? Or is that just a fundamental part of the game and if you take it out it’s broken.
For example, in Fate, you can play it without that much player world / fact declaration (the players are limited by having to spend Fate Points to declare stuff, which the table and ultimately the GM can veto).
PbtA games differ, but many of them are extremely traditional: Players portray their characters and say what they think and do. The GM runs the world, portraying the world and NPCs.
GMs are empowered, by their principles and moves, to tap the players’ characters for insight into the game world.
Isn’t the answer to this just whatever that particular game says? If the game says there’s room for world/fact creation then there is, if it says there isn’t, there isn’t, and if it doesn’t address the issue, it’s up to the table to decide.
(‘Cause PbtA isn’t a system.)
I can’t speak across PbtA games, they vary.
In Apocalypse World proper, there are no points you can spend to declare stuff. The GM always decides what’s true. It’s up to the GM to solicit contributions, in the form of questions like “hey, where DO you get your ammo?” Then, the GM is free to affirm, rework, or reject your answers to suit the world as they envision it.
While many games that use Apocalypse World as their inspiration have elements of shared world building, a lot of that is guided, as well.
For example, different games will prompt the GM to ask players about the world, their characters, or their affiliations and accept that answer as true, so long as it makes sense for the broad principles of the game. Many of these prompts come at the beginning of the campaign, during character creation, or as the result of some moves.
So while there can be some very wide open world building questions being asked and answered, its usually guided and contextual.
Sweet. Thanks!
There was a reddit question where a Dungeon World GM was complaining about how difficult to run and how incoherent his game was with everyone making stuff up 24×7.
“Ask questions and work off the answers” has been written somewhere. I like to ask open questions and closed questions to narrow this concept down in the games that I run. “How bad has the plague gotten in this area?” (assumes a plague that’s here and is at least somewhat bad) or “You find something that you recognize, but the others don’t. What is it?” (just assumes something interesting has been found and offers that player a lot of leeway).
Gary Furash Ask that Dungeon World GM why he is letting his players do that. Also, do you have a link to the thread?
I’m running a PbtA game (Masks) for the first time right now for a group that has mostly played more trad games. During session zero I pitched the collaborative world-building element of the game very heavily, to get them in the habit on not treating me as if I had all the answers, and feeling empowered to contribute. They were very creative and a few times I felt conflicted about reigning in some of the more gonzo ideas that were being thrown out, because if that’s their conception of the world we’re playing in, who am I to say, “that’s not the tone I’m going for”? I feel there’s a delicate balance that I need to find between encouraging them to throw out ideas and rejecting ones that really don’t fit.
In AW, the key is to ask the players for info you want and are open to hearing. So it’s “where DO you get your ammo for that grenade launcher? You need aerodynamic metal things about the size of a fist – what are they?” instead of “I dunno, what kind of weapons do you have?”
I’ve seen GMs and players get really tangled up by having the GM back too far off from holding the big picture and answering everything the players ask with “well you tell me!” You gotta remember that you are the GM and it’s your job to be ready when it’s your turn to say “oh, yeah, the ammo you’ve got is old hard drives from dead CPUs mined from the technodump. They fly for shit, and you can pack C4 or whatever counts for C4 around them to round them out a bit, but it’s still wicked dangerous and unpredictable and it’s a damn good thing you’re the Gunlugger, or you’d be missing a hand.”
It’s the old thing of giving folks options where you actually are ok with which option they choose, but if you leave it wide open without any direction or constraints, you’re gonna get gonzo and/or surreal, which has its place but isn’t fun 24/7.
sweet advice
Good advice Meguey Baker. I’ve been finding this out the hard way after running my first AW campaign because I was determined to run the game as it is written. At first I was very open to player input and this has created an interesting world with some great threats which I am playing off, but I have slowly begun to reassert a more traditional GM stance.
A balance of the two works well. I keep reminding myself that I am a player too and can contribute and shape the story as much as anyone else, but I also like having the PCs expand on what their world is like. I think it deepens their experience of the game which I am also loving too.
The OP is about PBtA, which I hope Gary Furash has some solid answers on now, basically that each game is different and sets that dial where the game designer wants it.
For AW, the place to land is page 98: “MC the game. Bring it.”
Of course you’ve read The Master of Ceremonies chapter starting on page 80. Of course you have. But if you are not MCing the game and bringing it on, you are probably gonna flounder and wonder why it’s not hitting on all cylinders for you. There are no backseat driver MCs in the Apocalypse. You gotta drive that thing. Or ride it, if that’s how you roll. Both are good options. Grab the wheel and go.
In the last Monster of the Week game I played, I was one of the Wronged, a hunter who turned to the life after the death of his wife. He sought out the Initiate (Buffy with magic) for training and acted as his bodyguard and companion.
In the middle of a game when someone stole the van, I narrated a flashback scene where I lost my temper during magic training with that Initiate. I wasn’t a magic character but ] used that impromptu flashback as justification for him suddenly having magic that comes out when he’s angry and is mostly out of his control.
A 10+ on my magic roll then had me jumping out of the penthouse suite and running down the van at superhuman speeds, barely managing to get inside as the effects wore off.
No one touches my van.
I’d say player authorship is an essential part of the system because of the die mechanic. Roll 2d6+trait. If it’s 10+, you get what you want. If it’s 7-, I do whatever I want (and you won’t like it), on a 7-10, we compromise.
Sometimes you are performing actions with better defined results, but sometimes it’s as open-ended as this.
Also, since there’s no initiative or turn order, players have to get used to asking questions and jumping in with their input.
thank’s Anthony Juarez. That’s what I thought. However, isn’t that just kind of like Burning Wheel’s Intent and Task, where before the role we’re clear on what you’re getting. Or is it more like “on a 10+, player has absolute narrative authority.”?
Gary Furash I’d say it’s usually more the former than the latter, but that could be a stylistic choice.
If you’re comfortable with Intent and Task from Burning Wheel, I think you’ll be fine as a PbtA player.
I think it might be useful to remember that AW (and most other PbtA games I know of) only ever tell the players to create facts about the world in very carefully-prescribed and carefully-circumscribed contexts.
For instance, AW doesn’t direct the players to “make things up about the world and insist on them if challenged”, nor does it give players the power to “declare facts.” Instead, it tells the MC to “ask questions.”
It also immediately follows this advice with another instruction that cautions against allowing players to define everything through their answers to questions, and instead encourages you to come up with your own answers sometimes, and navigate the space between what your player thinks the answer is and what you think the answer is in play: check out the description of “Leave yourself things to wonder about” on p.99 of AW2E. Specifically, the bit about fish. I don’t wanna quote it here, but it’s really interesting.
I’ll get 2e and read that.
Sorry, I assumed you were using 2E already! It’s p.127 in 1E. Same example, makes the same point.