GM fiat - an illustration

[AbdulAlhazred]

Two good examples, first what AW2e tells the MC(GM) to do for session 1:

• MC the game. Bring it.
• Describe. Barf forth apocalyptica.
• Springboard off character creation.
• Ask every question you think of.
• Leave yourself things to wonder about.
• Look for where they’re not in control.
• Push there.
• Nudge the players to have their characters make moves.
• Give every character good screen time
with other characters.
• Leap forward with named, human NPCs.
• Hell, have a fight.
• Start creating your threat map.


And 2e’s list of GM moves:

• Separate them.
• Capture someone.
• Put someone in a spot.
• Trade harm for harm (as established).
• Announce off-screen badness.
• Announce future badness.
• Iflict harm (as established).
• Take away their stuff.
• Make them buy.
• Activate their stuff’s downside.
• Tell them the possible consequences and ask.
• Offer an opportunity, with or without a cost.
• Turn their move back on them.
• Make a threat move (from one of your threats).
• After every move: “what do you do?”

Thanks!
So, looking at the session 1 thing, note how there's nothing about any prep, none exists at this point. Note how AW is completely different from Gamma World. GW 1e (the original and only one I've played or read) starts off with an elaborate (rather cool) description of the Apocalypse. The game is ABOUT The Apocalypse, everything builds on that. In AW there is no apocalypse! The game is about the PCs, exclusively. Sure, the world 'ended' notionally and that's how we got from our world to Apocalypse World, but the AW apocalypse is more a mind set, a device at best. You may, or may not, ever learn anything about it, it really isn't important. What is important are the PCs, you ask questions about them, give them screen time, make them interact, push them, get stuff going, BRING IT!

And look at that list of moves. Is there A SINGLE THING that the MC can do which is not about the PCs? NO! The most disconnected things from the PCs that the MC does is put things on the threat map, which is just future badness, and create custom moves, which are for the players to trigger. And then we should look at the other parts, why to play:

Because the characters are hot. Then it talks about them as Lovers, rivals, friends, enemies, etc. "that's the good naughty word." It goes on to say, what is going to happen? This is the question, are the PCs going to hack it? Can they survive in this brutal world? Will they trust the wrong person? Betray each other? What is going to happen to them? And finally, what really did happen to the world? Is this The End? It is a game about exploring people and situations, and maybe (fifth on the list) the world.

And the MC has an agenda to go with this:

• Make Apocalypse World seem real.
• Make the players’ characters’ lives not boring.
• Play to find out what happens.

Again, this is all ENTIRELY focused on the PCs. Maybe making AW seem real, for you, involves some kind of sim stuff? I guess... but I will point out, the Agenda section then says
"Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no
other. It’s not, for instance, your agenda to make the players lose, or to
deny them what they want, or to punish them, or to control them, or to get
them through your pre-planned storyline (DO NOT pre-plan a storyline,
and I’m not naughty word around). It’s not your job to put their characters in
double-binds or dead ends, or to yank the rug out from under their feet.
Go chasing after any of those, you’ll wind up with a boring game that
makes Apocalypse World seem contrived, and you’ll be pre-deciding what
happens by yourself, not playing to find out."

Anyway, I think, from the standpoint of the focus of the game, we've got it. There's quite a lot of technique stuff that follows. This is important but the beating Narrativist heart of the game we have touched. It is nothing like traditional RPG play, because traditional RPG play rests on a divide between some sort of fiction that has a life of its own, at least notionally; and a set of PCs that experience that fiction, and the second-order fiction that might arise out of what they do.

This all ties right back to the OP! An Alarm spell ala 5e (or 1e) doesn't have a place in AW. Yes, time and space are useful things to describe, and if a player RPs reasoning about them, by all means establish the logic of the situation, as part of "what follows." AW is REAL to the PCs, it is to be described as real, and brought to life, so when they look at the chasm and its 29' across, they know it cannot be jumped by a human. That's fine, but something like the TB2e version of Alarm is probably a better fit for this kind of game in general. We want to know what happens, we don't need a model, we need a narrative! And, hey, if the MC told the players they were dealing with a rifleman who's an expert shot, and they expect their 'alarm spell' (gadget, whatever it is) to protect them, well, they gave you a Golden Opportunity, that's a hard move, take it. Do not be fooled into thinking people always get to roll some dice or skate out of trouble just because the game resolves goals and not tasks.

But again, let me reiterate, the game is about, always about, the PCs. To the extent that the world is experienced by them, it helps if it 'lives', but if that means some boring thing or other, nah! Bring it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think we use the text very differently. The way I MC, you can absolutely end up with a big happy family.

Most of the threats aren't 'necessarily' threats to you although you do start off with all the NPC's not being loyal to you. In the sense that there isn't an authentic human connection but connections of mutual benefit. The only way to get actual human connection is through free roleplay or spending a point if you're the battle-babe (although the advanced moves allow it, the advanced moves are terrible imo)

Whether any given thing an NPC does, bears down on a character concern, is totally up in the air. As MC I don't know until it happens.

Anyway I'm probably repeating myself because I've explained my approach to most games earlier, I just play AW in much the same way. Well not exactly the same because especially in session one/two I'll be building out the situation in a full on no-myth way. I'll just stop as early as I can.

Yeah, obviously you can do what you want. The text itself though is DRIPPING with 'Bring it on!' Consider the Principles:
* Look through crosshairs - "
Whenever your attention lands on someone
or something that you own—an NPC or a feature of the landscape,
material or social—consider first killing it, overthrowing it, burning it
down, blowing it up, or burying it in the poisoned ground. An individual
NPC, a faction of NPCs, some arrangement between NPCs, even an
entire rival holding and its NPC warlord: crosshairs. It’s one of the game’s
slogans: “there are no status quos in Apocalypse World.” You can let the
players think that some arrangement or institution is reliable, if they’re
that foolish, but for you yourself: everything you own is, first, always and
overwhelmingly, a target."
* Ask provocative questions and build on the answers - this means PROVOKING.

And then we have a CHAPTER called "Moves Snowball". Sure, things can resolve, but then we have that principle about intermittent rewards, fuckery, etc. There's no conception of stability, order, peace, etc. in AW's world. So, obviously you can play in a kinder, gentler Apocalypse, but the one that Vincent Baker conceived of is not that one!

 

[Bedrockgames]

So here's an example.

Consider the computer RPG Oblivion.

I can describe what the player does in a few different but all technically accurate ways. (non-exhaustive).
1. The player is clicking his mouse and mashing his keyboard keys while staring at a screen and sitting in his desk chair.
2. The player is exploring the world of Oblivion.

Both are true. If you want to be dismissive of video games in general you may go solely with the first description, it makes the activity sound boring, pointless, etc. If you want to explain what the player is doing when he's clicking, mashing keys and staring at the screen then you might say exploring the world of Oblivion. In other words, the players goal isn't to click the mouse, mash keyboard buttons, or stare at the screen, that's just the means by which he achieves his goal of exploring the world of Oblivion.

This

 

[zakael19]

I think we use the text very differently. The way I MC, you can absolutely end up with a big happy family.

Most of the threats aren't 'necessarily' threats to you although you do start off with all the NPC's not being loyal to you. In the sense that there isn't an authentic human connection but connections of mutual benefit. The only way to get actual human connection is through free roleplay or spending a point if you're the battle-babe (although the advanced moves allow it, the advanced moves are terrible imo)

Whether any given thing an NPC does, bears down on a character concern, is totally up in the air. As MC I don't know until it happens.

Anyway I'm probably repeating myself because I've explained my approach to most games earlier, I just play AW in much the same way. Well not exactly the same because especially in session one/two I'll be building out the situation in a full on no-myth way. I'll just stop as early as I can.

AW2e does tell the players their characters should start off as allies. They may not stay that way, and they don’t have to be friends.

Yeah, obviously you can do what you want. The text itself though is DRIPPING with 'Bring it on!' Consider the Principles:
* Look through crosshairs - "
Whenever your attention lands on someone
or something that you own—an NPC or a feature of the landscape,
material or social—consider first killing it, overthrowing it, burning it
down, blowing it up, or burying it in the poisoned ground. An individual
NPC, a faction of NPCs, some arrangement between NPCs, even an
entire rival holding and its NPC warlord: crosshairs. It’s one of the game’s
slogans: “there are no status quos in Apocalypse World.” You can let the
players think that some arrangement or institution is reliable, if they’re
that foolish, but for you yourself: everything you own is, first, always and
overwhelmingly, a target."
* Ask provocative questions and build on the answers - this means PROVOKING.

And then we have a CHAPTER called "Moves Snowball". Sure, things can resolve, but then we have that principle about intermittent rewards, fuckery, etc. There's no conception of stability, order, peace, etc. in AW's world. So, obviously you can play in a kinder, gentler Apocalypse, but the one that Vincent Baker conceived of is not that one!

A question asked of the characters (and made much more explicit in AW:BO) is what will you make of this broken world. Along with the Ungiven Future possibilities, it has the door open for your struggles meaning something. But ya gonna struggle a lot to get anywhere, with the world and each other.

I think kind of like how Baker was a bit surprised that most games of DITV ended with the Dogs blowing holes in each other over doctrine, there's not a core expectation that the game will end with the characters inherently at odds. But the scarcity and competing interests leave that an open question (and honestly, the player moves are always asking that question of each other: "is this a charged situation? does anybody involved see it as such? who will raise or fold when you Go Aggro? Are you acting under fire here?").

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This seems to have been prompted by @AbdulAlhazred's posts, not far upthread, about 1000 Arrows.

I don't know that system, and so I don't know how it handles honour, shame, commitment, etc. There are multiple possible models I can think. One is Emotional Attributes in Burning Wheel (these don't generally constrain action declarations, but they advance based on things the PC does and experiences, and as they advance that can have consequences for the PC, including having to leave the game). Another is Resistance to temptation in The Dying Earth (Robin Laws's version) - which is also found in one Burning Wheel Emotional Attribute, namely, Dwarven Greed - which cause the player to lose (full) control of their PC in certain circumstances where a check is failed.

Prince Valiant also permits this sort of thing, and I believe I posted an example upthread:
A Presence check to resist fear, or goading, is how Prince Valiant incorporates "knightly" responses to social situations, a variant on Pendragon's well known Traits and Passions.

Apocalypse World doesn't have any mechanic that removes player control of their PC- in fact, avoiding that sort of thing is a deliberate design feature that is discussed in the "Advanced ____ery" chapter. But it does have mechanics that allow a player's choice one way rather than another to incur a penalty to a roll: in other words it uses carrots and sticks, rather than outright command.

Marvel Heroic RPG combines both sorts of approach I've discussed above: complications and stress can penalise certain actions (the stick), and if they grow too large than the PC is out of action altogether, and (if the complication is of the right sort) the GM gets to take control of the character (eg a character who has been fully dominated by a telepath).

As for internal conflicts - there are a lot of ways to drive these that don't require mechanics. For instance, it can be done via the way the GM frames a scene and sets the stakes. Or the way the GM narrates consequences. Here are some examples from my own Burning Wheel play:

There is some resemblance between the sort of approach I'm describing in these posts, and what @thefutilist has posted upthread about sincere/artistic play of the character. Aedhros has to make choices about how to respond to Alicia's suffering - some driven by purely internal concerns (his contempt towards her) and some by external factors as well (his shame in front of Thurandril). And then he finds himself with no choice but to go with Thoth, and work for him, even though he hates him.

What distinguishes this approach to RPGing from (say) typical D&D, is the absence of adventure as a component of play, and the resolute focus, at every moment of play, on putting these characters under pressure that speaks to their particular concerns.

Yeah, 1000 Arrows IS a bit different from other PbtAs that I've played in that it has a sort of compulsion. So, take your character's Drive, this has a value from 0 to 3. The higher the value, the more you would add to an Indulge/Resist Your Attachment (RoIYA) move. Lets say your drive is Loyalty (in my character's case, to Iga). The higher my loyalty value goes, the more powerful my loyalty is, and if I invoke it, via an RoIYA, then I add that value. However, you can only invoke an attachment with respect to the object of the attachment, and only as an 'aid or assist'. In other words, my loyalty to Iga can only be used to aid or assist Iga or some representation/aspect/interest of Iga. RP-wise, the higher the Drive value, the more 'driven' my character becomes. Whenever I Indulge my Drive, I go with it and use it, by being loyal. I then roll, on a 6- I do whatever I set out to do. On a 7+ my loyalty drives me to do what I am either afraid I might do, or what I want to do in the case of Resisting. On a 7-9 my attachment (drive in this example) increases by one. On a 10+ it doesn't. Either way I'm compelled to act. That is, if I was attempting to be loyal to Iga, I fail, perhaps betraying Iga for some sort of gain. If I'm trying to be disloyal, resisting my Drive, then I act in a loyal fashion and take the consequences, storywise.

If an attachment reaches +3 and then increases AGAIN, my character enters 'obsession'. In the case of Drive there's a defined behavior for each of the drives. For Loyalty this is 'Loyalty Obsession: Resentment' I become resentful of my object of loyalty. Once this obsession causes some sort of disaster for me, getting fired, a price put on my head, I betray my liege to someone worse, etc. then I exit obsession and go back to +0. I guess I might also rewrite my Drive, maybe switching loyalties or something. In any case I'm obliged to RP obsession, so the mechanics do put a constraint on how the character is supposed to act, at least in a general way.

Self and Bond attachments work similarly. Self Obsession can lead to physical collapse, overindulgence, fleeing in fear, etc. Bond Obsession simply makes the character fixated with the object of the bond, or to say or do something excessive with respect to that person. In any case these also will revert to 0 once they play out.

It is a system designed to escalate and provoke the conflicts which 1KA is about. Characters are under terrible pressure. War is consuming the nation around them. They are struggling to survive, come out on top, whatever (depends on your playbook). Each PC is a substantive player in things, though not usually a top dog. Most characters have a military force attached to them (Hino has 12 Rangers, basically almost like ninja, and now also 50 soldiers). So, basically you do a lot of crazy stuff, and once in a while the crazy does some stuff with you! It is very Kurusawa.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you, I appreciate that




I do think one trait you do need as a GM in this style is an ability to get clear ideas of characters in your head fast. I don't necessarily need everything on a page for me, I just need pointers that will help me clarify in my head. But getting a very crystal clear image of a character is pretty important. I think trying to understand them like they are real people is helpful. I am not talking about fully characterized NPCs who come out of a literary fiction novel or something. I mean stark, clear.

There is a bigger break down of how things would play out in terms of tools and techniques for handling things like what happens if the players talk the Count into mustering for the Battle of Haud Ladd. But that will vary by GM and system. I can get into that but I think it would be a detour. I do get a bit into some of it in my wuxia sandbox posts I think

Right, I just found the whole thing intractible (and this was the '90s, I had PCs and software, but not like today). It just didn't seem like the juice was worth the squeeze. Things are still basically "I decided something, I could have decided 12 other ways" and it was a crapton of work. Just putting the lens on the PCs and not on anything else was just vastly easier, and I was still just making stuff up either way, it wasn't 'less real'. I mean, it was nice in a sense that I had a lot of setting, that was kind of useful, but a lot of it just gathered dust anyway in the end. After that I didn't really do any D&D GMing during 3e at all, so when I got to 4e at first I just went to the same material. That was OK, but it was even MUCH easier to do the whole Narrativist thing. Then @pemerton posted his whole pesky Scene Framing post that he linked here someplace, and I was introduced to the formalized 'Forgist' techniques, which made things even way easier to figure out.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not familiar enough with the clock mechanism in PbtA games but from the little I've read on these forums it's reminds me of the Living World concept of some Trad games.

As I understand it the difference being that clocks are a technique/procedure (i.e. structured) and may relate to 1-2 items progressing whereas the Living World is governed via DM fiat and it incorporates 1000's of imaginary clocks so the mechanic cannot be player-facing.

From those who know/understand both the technique and the concept, is that a fair assessment?

 

[pemerton]

I feel like there’s a missing step here or maybe a few. You tell me about GM moves. Cool. You then Assert that these moves involve presenting situations that speak to the fundamentals of character and provide the justification that they are all value/goal/hope-relative.

I’m not clear to me why that matters, at least without more detail.

@zakael19 answered this upthread. Opportunities, threats/badness, what counts as a "spot" - these are all relative to a character's values, goals, hopes, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Thought experiment:

Lets say the situation in the game is this. The PCs have infiltrated into a heavily guarded mansion/dungeon/castle/facility/etc. Their goal is to steal gold/money/etc. They have managed to find a safe/treasure chest/etc. There are still active guards/monsters/etc in the building. The the players do not know whether the safe/chest is trapped, but suspect that it is possible that it might.

A) In typical traddish simmish D&D 5e,
1) how you as GM would determine what happens if the PCs try to search for a trap or open it?
2) How you as player would proceed in this situation and what factors would affect your decision?

B) Then same with Blades in the Dark.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not familiar enough with the clock mechanism in PbtA games but from the little I've read on these forums it's reminds me of the Living World concept of some Trad games.

As I understand it the difference being that clocks are a technique (i.e. structured) and may relate to 1-2 items progressing whereas the Living World is governed via DM fiat and it incorporates 1000's of imaginary clocks so the mechanic cannot be player-facing.

From those who know/understand both the technique and the concept, is that a fair assessment?

Yes, they're quite similar. I think the clocks is a method of gamifying it and making it more concrete, though in the process some of the nuance might be lost. And of course in most games that use clocks, it is still GM who decides whether something ticks a clock or whether something else bad happens. Also, in living world stuff happening is often player facing in a sense that it is events that the players will be aware of. ("You hear rumours about the Dark Lord amassing an army of orcs in his Black Keep of Badness" etc.)