[Apocalypse World] Your tender ambiguous crotch

[lumpley]

Fortunately, in this example, your first interpretation - the polite and honest question - is the correct one.

-Vincent

[Moreno R.]

Hi Vincent!

I did want to ask you some questions about the situation I described in my reply to Ron in post #8 in this thread, the one with the player character tied up almost an entire session.

It was something that happened in the third or second session, I think, but I didn't (couldn't) write the fronts, so I had the npcs act according to my understanding of their motives and methods, without following a clock progression or specific courses of action. The first question is: do you think Apocalypse World can be played this way without losing too much of the written game, or do you see the fronts as indispensable to play "true" Apocalypse World?

The way I didn't follow all the rules makes the other questions a sort of "what if": the real session I played was marred by my lack of enthusiasm for the role of the MC (I had hoped to be a simple player without having to be the GM as always, for at least one time) and by considerable creative differences about the fictional material with at least a player (style, tone and the consequences of actions - mine was a much more dark, dangerous and cruel Apocalypse than his one), so my problems were probably amplified by this, but I ask you to imagine the same situation happening in a session played by the rules (but with the same creative differences - they are essential to the problem)

1) My understanding of the situation, everything I visualize in the setting, my "honesty" as MC, says to me that the character has made a very stupid error, and he is acting almost in a suicidal manner, insulting his capturer even when he is menaced with death if he doesn't stop. His capturers have really no reason at all to keep him alive. The reason he is still alive is my unwillingness to kill a player character after a single failure in the first roll in an ambush (to be a fan of the characters)

2) In the player's vision, he is acting like the hero of an action movie (and he is: it's simply that my apocalypse was not an action movie and I didn't want my villains to act like the bumbling buffoons that capture the hero in these movies). He has a vision of his character as a bad-ass that is not afraid of anything and anyone, that he is smarter than anybody in the room, and he is expecting another kind of response (at least, be able to roll to see if he can fool them). He wants the MC to be a fan of his characters

3) To clear the misunderstanding, I should have addressed the player, not the character. At the time I didn't think of doing this because it was against the instructions in the book, but I think I took that in too literal a manner. One of the problems I have with AW's MC playing is that in many things is very, very similar to the way I played years ago in traditional games, so much that old bad habit sometimes take over. I always addressed the character, not the players, at the time, and I would have never thought of openly explaining to the players the possible consequences of his action. So, of the MC's principles, I acted on the one that was familiar to me (address the character) and not the ones that weren't.

The way I see it, in that situation I had the MC's principles and agenda acting against each other. Even disregarding the third one and having a better communication with the player, we had anyway a situation where to be a fan of his characterization of his own character, I had to disregard honesty, and make the world "less real" or the other way around.

What I did (because, in hindsight, I simply wanted to clear my hands of the entire mess) was to leave the solution to the dice, and I did allow a lot of rolls that if I had played with honesty I should have never accepted, but a long string of failures made that session a session of "keep that player character tied up and hit him a lot of times with sticks" anyway.

What I would like to know is: what the rules says about cases like these, and what would have you done in this case? (they are different questions)

Last: in hindsight, as I said in the post where I described that situation, I thought that I could have saved me and the player a lot of frustration if I would have simply said "the chief free you. Tell me why".  Would it have been a legit action? You would have done that in this case?

P.S.: a more general question about my problems with the campaign: my understanding of the principles is that if the player characters are passive, and do nothing for a long time, I have to hit them with a lot of hard moves, right? But, maybe because I did choose bad hard moves, I don't know....  what happened was that the players played in reaction to my npc's actions, like a sort of reversal of roles (I was practically playing to see what would happen to my npcs, they were almost the real protagonists...  with no intention on my part to do anything to keep them alive...).
If you see that in practice as MC you are practically creating the story yourself (even because you know your player enough to be able to predict their reactions), what should you do?

[lumpley]

Moreno! Here's what you're asking me: "Vincent, imagine that you don't want to be the MC but your friends kind of bully you into it, and you really honestly are not fans of their stupid-ass characters, because of creative differences. Like, in your post-apocalypse, characters who do that kind of shit just get killed, they don't look good and they aren't badass, they're just stupid. And you'd rather be doing something else anyway. How would you make it work?"

If you're really not a fan of the guy's character, keeping him alive against honesty and the rules isn't going to make up for it!

I would never, ever say "they let you go. Why?" I know that some people love playing that way, but not me.

There are dozens of ways out without abandoning your job like that. Here's one you can use on a missed roll, for instance: "Yeah, they're done with you. They shoot you. Take 3-harm ap. They think they've killed you, so they carry you out and dump you in the river. What do you do?"

Also, I do want to say that killing the character should be on the table. If the player's putting social pressure on you to keep the character alive, that's part of the problem. Being a fan of a character doesn't mean keeping them alive when it's time for them to die.

But anyway there are no solutions to your problem. If you can't find a way to be a genuine and excited fan of the players' characters, you should call off the game.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Seconded, Vincent. I frequently advise being ruthless toward Sorcerer characters whose players persist in action-movie or skilled-illusionist play, up to and including having their disgruntled demons tear them limb from limb.

But ... there's only problem with this advice: it arises mainly from my experiences when I caved during play and didn't do it. The resulting shitty play is what taught me not to do it - it doesn't mean I'm reliably good at doing so, even now. So along with seconding Vincent, I'm including complete sympathy with Moreno.

Best, Ron

[Dan Maruschak]

I've never been fond of the phrasing of the "be a fan of the characters" rule because it's easy to interpret the shorthand in a way that's contrary to the actual rule (i.e. if you read "fan" in the "[object of the fandom] can do no wrong" way that you see in a stereotypical fanclub). I thinks it's also easy to miss the link that the players need to hold up their end by playing the game from the appropriate posture so that it's possible to be a fan. AW has the easily overlooked "play like a real person" rule, which I think is being broken if people play in the "I expect the world to conspire to make me successful" way. When I GMed Dungeon World during the beta my game eventually fizzled because the players kept trying to withdraw from danger to protect themselves, which sort of required me to keep tearing the world down around them, which became exhausting for me. If they weren't prepared to "push into the danger" then the game couldn't support the posture I thought I was supposed to be in as the GM.

[Moreno R.]

But anyway there are no solutions to your problem. If you can't find a way to be a genuine and excited fan of the players' characters, you should call off the game.

And at the end, it's what I did.  At least I learned do do that (at last), but I still have not be able to mute that old foolish notion that the GM's role is to keep the game going, no matter what. After all this time I still don't know how to kill that nonsense forever, it still continue to resurface in these occasion...

[lumpley]

I hear you!

Since then I've designed at least two games whose sole purpose is to teach me how to kill PCs without feeling that old social terror. They've helped me.

-Vincetn

[Callan S.]

Odd, I would have thought the answer was in Vincent's example - just politely ask the player if, when they describe returning to their house, whether making a roll for being found (or just plain found) makes sense to them and if they will accept that (I'm thinking a roll would be fun, because I'm remembering a scene from pulp fiction which is much the same...)? And being prepaired to accept it if they wont. He would have said no, or he might have said yes, or yes, but...and bargained in what he was prepared to face. If he says no, he just isn't found.

Granted, I was just thinking what Dan talked about - the player needs to atleast be partially an 'un-fan' of their character. Have the urge to kick their PC towards the blender, somewhat. Some players might want to do that more, some less. But it's basically a requirement of play that you want it a bit. And they can be an un-fan, yet not want to be found/not want to do that roll to determine if they are found.

[Ron Edwards]

We played again, our third full session, and the promise of emergent properties is becoming realized. Much of it is ordinary - three people had characters on paper, vivid enough as such, but now we all know how each person plays his character, so that the fictional characters' expectations and priorities are shaped through contact and events. To some extent this happens or could happen with any role-playing game, but Apocalypse World's mechanics - especially Hx and highlighting - are built to turn exactly that kind of understanding and familiarity into a primary driver for actions.

I have a fair amount to describe regarding the fictional events, including my boxcars Fortunes roll to start it off (buffs nails on shirt), but for now, the discussion we had prior to play matters too. Everyone at the table is following this thread and chatting up stuff like Murk and IIEE, or at least they did so after I scrawled about them on scratch paper as we talked. Sarah and I are quite interested in how solid Effect is in this game, for example, with me suggesting that it includes a variety of possibilities, but a circumscribed variety with fixed intensities. We also talking about how a situation full of rapidly-acting characters is resolved, especially with some orthogonal and some oppositional. I referenced my old thread with Levi, part two of Frostfolk discussion (Frostfolk, carrying on), suggesting that Apocalypse World is a lot like The Pool at this level, which I emulated with the updated Trollbabe (which was written about the same time as AW).

What I mean is that every resolution mechanism succeeds or fails on its own hook - it can be "opposed" by someone, but that doesn't mean a thing in terms of numbers and rolls. If you're trying to do X, then you roll, and if someone's trying to stop you, well, that's just part of the fiction of that roll this time. The best way to deal with a complex situation involving various actions which may or may not interfere with one another is simply to have everyone roll at once, then freely stretch or stuff fictional elements as needed to comply with whatever constraints the rolls now impose.

For example, Murgatroyd is shooting at Stew (going aggro), and Stew is grabbing the Cosmic Orb (acting under fire? there's a category for this, but I forget which), and Liselovely, who is holding the orb, is activating it (acting under fire). Each of these actions receives its own roll. Now we know which is successful, which is partly successful as described in each category, and which is a clear bork. The various questions and specifications are asked and answered.

Who went when and what happened? Well, that's pretty easy. You can even integrate stuff freely - for instance, if everyone failed really badly, it'd work great to have Murgatroyd's shot hit the orb - that's totally within the various confines of what that combination of failure can bring into play, as specified in the rules. Or not, because those confines often include options rather than single outcomes, in which case as long as the integrated narration stays within the confines, any options will do.

But the question now becomes, does the MC have the technique available which permits dictating whose action occurred in what order, prior to rolls? Can the MC - faced with all these announced actions - simply designate, OK, Murgatroyd's first, roll, see what happens, then say, Stew, your turn, and so on? (with the proviso here that no prior conditions would dictate or permit such ordering - it's not like Stew's struggling up through a trap door and Murgatroyd is ready and waiting for him, for instance)

My take is probably not. Vincent, what are your thoughts?

Best, ron

[lumpley]

Well, let me say about that. You aren't quite right.

First off, yes, 100%, when everyone's taking action at once, the GM should say "awesome! Nobody roll dice yet. We have to hear what everyone's doing so we all know what to roll."

From there, though, it doesn't necessarily go the way it does in Trollbabe.

I'll distinguish, casually for this conversation, between actions and moves. Your character takes an action, like crossing to a doorway, injecting a patient with a chillstab, or opening fire on an enemy. This may or may not be a move, and in fact, it may or may not be more than one move. You know how in Chess, when you move your bishop, sometimes you've both threatened my rook AND protected your own king? Same thing, one action can sometimes accomplish multiple moves.

One super clear and easy example of a multiple-move action is when two people seize something by force against each other. We both want to control the doorway, say, and we're both shooting at each other. I roll+hard to seize by force; you roll+hard to seize by force. I roll+Hx to interfere with your roll; you roll+Hx to interfere with mine. NOW we make our choices and suffer the consequences laid out in the seize by force move, and it took two rolls apiece for us to get here.

So some actions, being the kinds of moves you roll dice for, require you to roll dice. Some actions are real, binding, and legit, but don't require you to roll dice. Some actions count as two or more moves, so require you to roll dice twice or more, once for each move.

As a player, you're entitled to have your character take action, but you aren't entitled to one-and-always-one die roll. USUALLY your action will mean rolling dice once, but sometimes it won't mean rolling dice at all, and sometimes it'll mean rolling dice twice or even more. This is all fine. So, as a player, Ron, do not marry the idea that when everybody's in action, everybody picks up their own pair of dice and everybody rolls them at the same time. Often, yes, but that's not the rule and you shouldn't always expect it or insist upon it. By the rules, Sarah's the judge of this. Give your suggestions if you want, but ultimately it's her call.

Now, about timing. On the contrary, both the MC and the players DO have tools they can use to dictate whose actions occur in which order, and also, in which order you need to resolve whose actions, before the roll. Often you'll all roll at the same time, just as you describe, but often one person will hold off and roll only after other people have made their choices, or there will be two waves of rolling, or other variations. This is also fine, legit, and the MC's call.

For instance, this is a legal declaration of action: "if Dremmer makes it to the doorway, I shoot him. Otherwise I'm going to inject Annette with a chillstab." The GM's job is to take this declaration and say "okay, great! Hold off rolling until we know whether Dremmer makes it to the door."

Notice that this is NOT the GM deciding which order the actions happen, but the GM deciding which order the ROLLS happen, to serve everybody's declared actions. The players have already decided, and quite effortlessly, which order their actions happen.

Takeaway: Follow the logic of the moves as they're written, don't impose a preset structure on them. Don't expect every player to roll once every time, no matter what action they take; usually, yes, but there are many possible variations. Communicate clearly and let the MC make the organizational judgment calls that are hers to make.

(Do we still need to talk about parpuzio? I'll warn you right now, anybody who starts reading parpuzio into this had better first and clearly demonstrate to me that they can tell the difference between socially-mandated and -affirmed organizational judgment calls and socially-disruptive illegitimate assertions of outcome.)

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

I know my place. None of this discussion happens during play; we merely mix it up as a discussion topic beforehand.

I also think we disposed of the parpuzio issue without a problem - the crucial turning point in that conversation is merely to acknowledge that such a thing exists, and whether we are or are not doing it going forward. Once past that point all sorts of options happen, and if "Bob decides" is one of them, that doesn't mean we stepped in some kind of parpuzio trapdoor spider lair. It's not lurking there waiting for us - once you slay it, it's dead.

Best, Ron

[lumpley]

Groovy! My fears are assuaged.

I'm happy to talk about the fun range of possible variations, or how it works and why, or whatever, if you want, if I haven't covered it all already.

-Vincent

[scorcha]

I haven't yet encountered an issue with determining the order of play. Either the player's statement tells when it will happen or logic does (such as in Vincent's example).

I won't comment on Ron's play style.

[Ron Edwards]

Please, go ahead. Or we can talk about it beforehand, whichever.

Agreed that this has never been an issue in play, as far as I know. I bring it up because Brian was interested in the issue regarding his own game design, and because it struck me that I didn't really know the answer for Apocalypse World.