Author: Robert Bohl

Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

Sometimes, disclaim decision-making

I’m reading this text in AW 2, and the principle is written to focus on what to do about someone dying. It’s all very instantaneous and focused on something very concrete about what will happen in the fiction. What will happen to this victim’s life. E.g.,

You can (2) put it in the players’ hands. For instance, “Dou’s been shot, yeah, she’s shuddering and going into shock. What do you do?” If the character helps her, she lives; if the character doesn’t or can’t, she dies. You could even create a custom move for it, if you wanted, to serve the exact circumstances. See the moves snowball chapter, page 126, and the advanced fuckery chapter, page 270.

My prior, hazy understanding of this principle was that sometimes, as an MC, if you have to make a decision about what’s true in the world or what someone thinks or even what someone would do, you can ask the protagonist players to answer it. That is, it’s not just about concretely, “What happens now in the fiction.”

Was my prior understanding wrong? Am I reading this too closely, and my prior reading was correct? Is it something else?

Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards

Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards

Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards

I have a question about this principle. It sounds like it’s saying “Give the players what they ask for, but make sure to twist the knife in unexpected and unpleasant ways half to two thirds of the time, for successful rolls.”

Do I read that right? That even if you succeed in your roll, it has to be soured and tainted most of the time when you get it?

(For clarity’s sake, this is referring to the rules as presented in the Apocalypse World 2.0 PDF for Kickstarter backers.)

How do designers avoid the trap of “what PbtA is supposed to be?”

How do designers avoid the trap of “what PbtA is supposed to be?”

How do designers avoid the trap of “what PbtA is supposed to be?”

I’ve been listening to a lot of RPG podcasts and paying attention especially to PbtA, because I’m working on a game that is PbtA. I’ve noticed what seems to me to be a great deal of cultural conservatism about how a game in this space “should” play or what people expect from it.

This concerns me. I feel like every game needs to be evaluated on its own terms, and that you ought to try to follow rules first as written. My game may be slightly different, but those slight rules differences can make a huge play difference.

So, short of shouting every now and then “this is different, it may not be like AW, beware!” etc., which would be stupid and spoil the text, how does one tackle this?

Playbook move analysis

Playbook move analysis

Playbook move analysis

I did an analysis of the playbook moves for Apocalypse World for use in writing Demihumans. I offer it to you if you find it helpful. I found and grouped similar moves (e.g., roll x instead, which is pretty common). Anything that appeared more than once, I color coded to make it easier to see how often they were used.

When you’re creating playbooks, how do you decide what kind of stat distribution to give?

When you’re creating playbooks, how do you decide what kind of stat distribution to give?

When you’re creating playbooks, how do you decide what kind of stat distribution to give? This is the single most-difficult part of my Demihumans project, so far. The moves seem like they’re going to be creatively-exhausting to write, but at least I have some tropes to start with. This just feels like a giant math problem.

I tried to analyze the stat bonuses in AW (see attached spreadsheet) but it’s hard to draw a pattern.

What do you do?

On a miss, or if your hold is compromised or your rule contested, your hold is in want.

On a miss, or if your hold is compromised or your rule contested, your hold is in want.

On a miss, or if your hold is compromised or your rule contested, your hold is in want.

That’s from the Hardholder leadership move in AW 2E. Do we take that to mean it’s in all wants? Or that the MC can choose one? Or as many as she prefers?

I’m guessing that last is the answer, knowing Vincent and my feel for the game’s intent. What do you think?

So I sorta had an epiphany today…

So I sorta had an epiphany today…

So I sorta had an epiphany today…

Most successful authors/scriptwriters would agree that when you include a scene its usually in the service of one of two things:

Developing character or advancing plot.

This can be a hard thing to identify in a role-playing game, especially if you aren’t a competent author/actor/director. Especially if the rules fight hard against this: including scenes that are cruft as a matter of course, or because the ‘scenario’ demands it.

Vincent’s game however helps us do this. From the moment Chargen begins, scenes tend to always develop character or advance the (unknown) plot. The combination of agenda, principles and (triggered) moves snowball synergizes to allow us to tell great stories of well rounded and intriguing characters of the apocalypse; playing to see what happens.  The session structure also re-inforces the rising action, climax and denouement of any engaging narrative.

Despite having hiccups with player buy-in to the ‘system’ or genre, we have always had success at telling wonderful stories with AW. The characters and setting is rich, the plot sucking us in at every twist and turn.

Here’s a character I’ve been wanting to play for a while, so I decided to make him so I have him ready sometime.

Here’s a character I’ve been wanting to play for a while, so I decided to make him so I have him ready sometime.

Here’s a character I’ve been wanting to play for a while, so I decided to make him so I have him ready sometime. I have heard so many stand-up comics talk about how they’re fucked if there’s an apocalypse, and have heard more than one say more or less this exact phrase, “What am I gonna do? Tell jokes to save my life?” It occurred to me that Apocalypse World is a place where you can do that.

So here’s Frost. He’s a chubby little foulmouthed cretin of guy, a Skinner who’s telling jokes to save his life and get some grub.

Frost the Skinner

Look: Man, casual wear (ancient band t-shirts and jeans), strange face (bug eyes, sharp nose, compellingly ugly), mocking eyes, fat body.

Stats: Cool+1 Hard-1 Hot+2 Sharp+1 Weird=0

Moves: Artful & gracious (stand-up comedy), Hypnotic

Gear: Sleeve pistol (2-harm close reload loud), eyeglasses (worn valuable, used for +1 sharp), a pet (valuable, alive): a hairless monkey named Turd