thoughts on Apocalypse World?

[dragoner]

The moves in the playbooks can make it restrictive, everyone plays towards that; which in turn, when playing a more trad game, players are like, "what do I do?" Which is also kind of weird, so it is like "I don't know, what do you do?" Sort of that PbtA was designed to close the open loop, which is fine if one is looking for a more focused game, in years long campaigns, I don't know how it would do.

 

[Gradine]

Personally, in reading and in my (admittedly limited) play experience I've never got the least bit of OSR vibe from Dungeon World.

That might be my own biases, honestly. I tend to conflate "old-school dungeon crawling" with "OSR", but I can appreciate it if those two are not entirely synonymous.

 

[pemerton]

That might be my own biases, honestly. I tend to conflate "old-school dungeon crawling" with "OSR", but I can appreciate it if those two are not entirely synonymous.

Well another way to put it would be that I've never got an old-school dungeon crawling vibe from it. I guess there are a few moves that make some assumption of that sort, like the thief's trap-related move (can't recall the name at present and don't have my PDF handy). But I haven't had a general impression of dungeon-crawling.

 

[Numidius]

That might be my own biases, honestly. I tend to conflate "old-school dungeon crawling" with "OSR", but I can appreciate it if those two are not entirely synonymous.

At my table DW produced a very high kind of fantasy. Definitely not the game for an old school dungeon crawl. IME/O

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

To be fair, DW is also garbage

Alright, that's a little harsh. Dungeon World is an early hack of Apocalypse World. Dungeon World stands as a decent introduction to PbtA games, but the overall PbtA hack/design space has advanced since its publication. World of Dungeons is a better option for the OSR-by-way-of-PbtA gameplay, in my opinion, and you'd perhaps be better to play Apocalypse World with a D&D skin on it if you're looking for Apocalypse World-style gaming. A few playbooks and classes reflavored would like as not do the trick.

 

[chaochou]

I wanted a PbtA approach to D&D-esque fantasy; what I got was an OSR hack with awkwardly shoe-horned in PbtA mechanics.

I'm not sure about the OSR hack, but that's a secondary issue. I think there's long been an acceptance that standards of PbtA games now vary quite widely.

When Dungeon World first appeared (initially just as a short pdf of playbooks and a few basic moves) it was obvious that one needed to have played and understood Apocalypse World to make it work.

Sadly, what I think this led to was a lot of weakly written PbtA games. Games which assumed a familiarity with the original and so got away with a lack of vibrancy in the writing, less considered move construction, less courage of their conviction in their principles. Games which were solid if you already understood Apocalypse World, but which didn't do enough to really explain what was required as a standalone product.

For me, Dungeon World fell into this category - a lacklustre extension, rather than a fresh and vibrant reimagining, of the original.

There are now so many PbtA games, that I'm not sure it's much more useful as a descriptor than d20.

 

[niklinna]

I turns out there is another active thread where some of these same topics are coming up. Here is something I just posted on that thread about scene-framing, which might help.

Thanks for the reposts! It's funny to me, what you describe is just what I would call some good GMing principles, but I can see the ways that 4e (which I actually did play, lo these many years ago) supports it.

 

[Gradine]

There are now so many PbtA games, that I'm not sure it's much more useful as a descriptor than d20.

I mean, I agree with this statement, just probably not in the way you're intending, in that I find both to be incredibly useful descriptors. The PbtA family tree has grown many, many branches, but I generally know what kind of experience I'm going to be in for until we start getting into the more distant branches (such as Forged in the Dark or No Dice No Masters)

 

[niklinna]

One other curious thing, for me, about PbtA/FitD games, is that I'll happily grab a playbook and make up a character, whereas D&D classes have always irked me. Maybe it's that playbooks—which many think of as classes—are pretty minimal compared to D&D classes, which fill in a lot of stuff I would rather do, meaning I'm either shoehorning my concept or doing extra work to reflavor (which isn't even always possible).

 

[pemerton]

One other curious thing, for me, about PbtA/FitD games, is that I'll happily grab a playbook and make up a character, whereas D&D classes have always irked me. Maybe it's that playbooks—which many think of as classes—are pretty minimal compared to D&D classes, which fill in a lot of stuff I would rather do, meaning I'm either shoehorning my concept or doing extra work to reflavor (which isn't even always possible).

What I'm about to post is conjecture. Not utterly wild, random conjecture; but not grounded in systematic study of the full range of cases.

I think there is a tenable argument that the D&D class system peaked somewhere in the mid- to late 70s. At that point, and as Gygax said in his PHB, choice of class reflected a players' choice as to how they think they can best meet the challenges posed by the game. Classes were suites of abilities coupled with limitations, perhaps severe ones (if playing a cleric or MU or similar class) or else were an (unfortunately weak) utility kit for dungeon exploration (if a thief) or a degree of survivability that then made play-via-fictional-positioning possible (if a fighter).

But why can't my class be a crafter? Because making swords and/or pottery isn't a way of meeting the challenges posed by the game!

The orientation of a lot of D&D play has changed pretty dramatically since then - "story" or characterisation seem to be widely valued - but the legacy of those classes lives on. In some cases it even rebounds back to infect or shape the underlying fiction, which is just the pits!

(I think 4e is something of a successful reversion back to Gygax but without dumping the theme stuff. But that's another story.)

In the case of a PbtA playbook, on the other hand, unless it's at the weaker end of the spectrum @chaochou has described, it should plug you right into the core play of the game. If you build your PC using the playbook but still feel stranded or ill-shaped vis-a-vis the setting or starting situation, then you know you picked up one of the duds!