Category: Powered by the Apocalypse: Discussion

Here’s an interview with the Bakers on the origins of and the design philosophy behind Apocalypse World.

Here’s an interview with the Bakers on the origins of and the design philosophy behind Apocalypse World.

Here’s an interview with the Bakers on the origins of and the design philosophy behind Apocalypse World. The intro is in German, but the interview is in English. Please excuse our Schwarzenegger-style accents.

http://www.3w6-podcast.com/podcast/2018/5/10/406-interview-meguey-vincent-d-baker

I’ve always found the phrase “Hold 1” and “Spend your hold” a little clumsy.

I’ve always found the phrase “Hold 1” and “Spend your hold” a little clumsy.

I’ve always found the phrase “Hold 1” and “Spend your hold” a little clumsy.

Here’s two versions of the same move, a pretty basic version of Read a Person. It’s a western game, so I’m experimenting with a different form of language, but I wonder if it is still clunky:

When you size up a person during an intense interaction, roll + Savvy. On a 7-9, Hold 1. On a 10+, Hold 3. On a miss, Hold 1 anyway. You’ll need it.

During the conversation, you can spend one of your Hold to ask a question of the character’s player:

*Are you telling the truth?

*What are you really feeling?

*What do you intend to do?

*What do you wish I would do?

*How could I get you to do ____?

When you size up a person during an intense interaction, roll + Savvy. On a 7-9, collect a Chip On a 10+, collect three. On a miss, collect one anyway. You’ll need it.

During the conversation, you can cash in one of those chips to ask a question of the character’s player:…

What reads better for you?

In your experience, does the “concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence” language in the 7-9 result of Seduce…

In your experience, does the “concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence” language in the 7-9 result of Seduce…

In your experience, does the “concrete assurance, corroboration, or evidence” language in the 7-9 result of Seduce or Manipulate (in Apocalypse World 2E) produce bad play outcomes? The idea that a 7-9 then becomes a failure unless something else is produced? I’ve never noticed this as a problem myself, but I have someone asserting that it’s something he’s seen a lot of.

What do you think?

I played my first PbtA game last night, Monsterhearts 2. It was a lot of fun, but I had a few questions.

I played my first PbtA game last night, Monsterhearts 2. It was a lot of fun, but I had a few questions.

I played my first PbtA game last night, Monsterhearts 2. It was a lot of fun, but I had a few questions.

1. How do I determine the outcome of a contest between a PC and a NPC?

2. Can NPC strings on PCs be used to make rolls harder for the PCs?

3. Can NPCs use the PC’s conditions against them? How does that work?

Thanks!

Hello!

Hello!

Originally shared by Colin Matter

Hello! Please join the Wednesday Night Crew for the last part of the final session of our Apocalypse World series!  Alex, Kaetlyn, Kolton, and Matt joined me as usual for this, final, installment in our volcanic apocalypse, in which they complete their…

http://wednesdaynightgame.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/apocalypse-world-session-10-side-c/

A more-active version of the Oftener Right move

A more-active version of the Oftener Right move

A more-active version of the Oftener Right move

So the oftener right move reads:

Oftener right: when a character comes to you for advice, tell them what you honestly think the best course is. If they do it, they take +1 to any rolls they make in the doing, and you mark an experience circle.

The downside to this is you have to passively wait for people to come to you for advice. I’d love it if it were possible to make this more active. Simply saying “when you offer advice” wouldn’t work, because it could easily become an annoying XP exploit that could break the game.

What do you think? Has anyone achieved this?

Hi all, what do you think of this move?

Hi all, what do you think of this move?

Hi all, what do you think of this move? It actually uses a “dice pool” depending on the number of PCs that take part in the hunt. Is it too weird?

Originally shared by Mike Espinoza (Azlath)

#NahualRPG #3amDesign

So I came up with this move for the hunting activity of the angeleros. (Yes, I totally stole that engage in a hunt from John Harper’s Blades in the Dark’s engagement roll) What do you all think? The idea is to let players decide if they want to play a whole hunt or just roll the dice and move on, depending on each table and situation.

Do you “win” on a 10+ for go aggro?

Do you “win” on a 10+ for go aggro?

Do you “win” on a 10+ for go aggro?

The go aggro move says if you get a 10+, they have to choose to either give you what you want, or force you to hurt them.

I’m writing a similar rule, and one of my readers said, “Isn’t this a failure?”

My take is that this move is meant to indicate that trying to force someone through violence is never a reliable method to get what you want.

What do you think?