Tag: Robert Bohl

Assuming a system roughly equal to Apocalypse World, what does a piece of gear that gives 3-armor do to the game? Does it utterly break it?

Originally shared by Robert Bohl

I just came back from Alita and quite liked it. It’s very much an Apocalypse World story about a battlebabe, a savvyhead, and a chopper.

Battle/subterfuge moves’ utility

Hey folks, I’m wondering whether anyone has experience with the subterfuge moves in the Battle Moves chapter. They seem extremely specific and not necessarily integral to many experiences of AW. Does anyone know why they were put in? Do they see frequent use? What do you think the downside would be of not incorporating these into play? Have you used them effectively?

Also, if it’s two PCs and one wants to turn the tables on the other, who gets to roll? The first person to suggest it?

An important resource has found a new home. Jason D’Angelo’s Daily Apocalypse is amazing and a great resource to understanding Apocalypse World even better.

Originally shared by Jason D’Angelo

Hey Y’all!

I have finally organized myself for the inevitable and quick demise of G+ by setting up a website for my reviews/analyses/criticisms/random thoughts.

You can check it out at www.daily-apocalypse.com and click on the RPG tab in the upper right.

I’ve moved the bulk of my G+ RPG posts over there (sans comments, sadly).

I’ll be double-posting there and here until G+ officially dies.

Barter and PCs

Hey folks, I have a question about the first barter move:

When you give 1-barter to someone, but with strings attached, it counts as manipulating them and hitting the roll with a 10+, no leverage or roll required.

Does “someone” include PCs as well as NPCs? The language would seem to suggest it, but I’d expect players to push back against having their characters forced to do what someone says or lose a stat highlight just for 1-barter.

Have I misinterpreted this? Or is it a non-issue in practice?

PS: Are there any plans for an official forum after G+ dies out? I’d presume not, since I believe the Bakers needed to shut down the forums they used to have.

Does anyone know why the Apocalypse World playbooks have two separate name lists? Is it just that two lists, merged, would be too long?

Fiction’s requirements as a constraint in Apocalypse World

[W]hen you write a question as a stake, you’re committing to not answering it yourself. You’re committing to letting the game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the players’ characters, answer it.

— AW 2E, p. 116

It feels like this is meant to be a moderating influence against MC self-dealing on behalf of beloved NPCs, or preferences for story direction. I can see it serving a small effect towards that end. Asking someone to be conscious and attempt mental discipline has to be helpful in getting them to do it.

However, when you evaluate the story’s internal logic and causality, isn’t it your brain doing it? It seems like it’s not really going to keep you honest, like it’s meant to. As MC, I’m a flawed, limited person. I’m not certain of what the story’s logic requires all the time.

You see similar things around “disclaiming decision making to the fiction” and language like that in other parts of the text. The game tells you to commit to things psychologically that are meant to keep you from being self-interested or railroady. It doesn’t seem to me that this can have a very strong effect, though. Am I off-base?

“Play to see what happens” seems akin to this, but that doesn’t give me pause. It makes sense as a straightforward rule that would be really easy to follow and effect monumental change on the game if obeyed. So why is this “disclaim decision making to the fiction” stuff not working for me?

This is one of the parts of AW that I logically struggle with the most.

The Cloak & Dagger show has lots of great examples of opening-your-brain-to-the-psychic-maelstrom-type symbolism and imagery. The characters are able to see people’s fears and hopes (respectively, as depicted below). These are always presented as hallucinations with metaphorical-but-clear impressions.

I personally find it difficult to come up with that kind of imagery on the fly when running a game, but the scenes here are so well done that I think it’s teaching me.

So, presented as an MC’s tool: Cloak & Dagger on Freeform (and Hulu).

In the Threats section of AW 2, the threat moves for each type start with “push X move.” Does that mean when you make an MC move, it can be to push players toward invoking the stated move? Or is it a call to make them immediately make the move, rather than encourage them?

In Apocalypse World 2, in the “First Session” chapter, in the “After the 1st session” section, it says (apparently of the depicted threat map), “See the list of resources?”

But I don’t. Am I missing something? Is it an edition edit issue?