|
Post by Grog on Dec 24, 2013 7:14:27 GMT -8
I agree that this is probably the best poorly written rpg ever made. I was fundamentally confused until I got to the end of the book. Everything clicked in the last fifty pages. I have read of this problem. It's almost like the author wrote it and then rearranged the chapters. It's little things, he references rules and concepts, in passing, that haven't been introduced yet. Then you are flipping back, looking for that concept, only to find it 100 pages later.However, I really love the system. I can see why it has become so popular. One thing that I like is the way in which is gives the GM nearly complete freedom within certain situations and constructs. It's like being a jedi, you have access to the immense power of the force, but that comes with very clear rules about when and how to use your power. It took me a while to grok this approach and had me wondering if the rules were being super controlling or setting me free. I think the answer is both. I also like the way that PCs start with history, badassery, and heroic status. From reading the descriptions etc I really got the feeling that this would be a great system for telling relatively short (6-10 session) completely epic stories without getting bogged down in the minutiae of combats etc. I've listened to some Apocalypse world Actual plays and they remind me of listening to radio plays and scratch an itch that I'm missing now that I've finished the L5R plays. Plus, they are in the apocalypse! What's not to love about the apocalypse? Here's a question for stu Venable, has he read Apocalypse World? By the nature of "moves" etc. and the fact that a failure by definition creates epic badness, it seems to mimic his MoT desire to have the players only touch dice when their actions are going to branch the story in a pretty real way. Otherwise, they basically just do it. It seems like there are a number of people out there who have read/played Dungeon World, but not Apocalypse world, like jazzisblues and my FLGS owner. Is that a thing? Am I mistaken about that? If so, why is that? Grog
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Dec 24, 2013 21:51:49 GMT -8
I think I'm one of the few people who actually like how Apocalypse World is written. I'm not sure exactly why, but I think it was the tone. The style the book was written in is very much "you know what an RPG is and how to run/play in one, so I'm not going to go through all the usual 'what is roleplaying' bullshit". But I can see what you mean about it being jumbled, @grog. I've been trying to get the hosts to read/play an Apocalypse World-based game since either six or seven.
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 25, 2013 5:54:47 GMT -8
Oh, I love the style in which he wrote it. When was the last time am rpg author used the first person to issue profanity filled statements about his own play experiences in the game? I think the tone really fits the game. "Here, do anything, within this structure."
Its just the organization of the book itself that drives me nuts.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Dec 25, 2013 10:43:38 GMT -8
I agree that this is probably the best poorly written rpg ever made. I was fundamentally confused until I got to the end of the book. Everything clicked in the last fifty pages. I have read of this problem. It's almost like the author wrote it and then rearranged the chapters. It's little things, he references rules and concepts, in passing, that haven't been introduced yet. Then you are flipping back, looking for that concept, only to find it 100 pages later.However, I really love the system. I can see why it has become so popular. One thing that I like is the way in which is gives the GM nearly complete freedom within certain situations and constructs. It's like being a jedi, you have access to the immense power of the force, but that comes with very clear rules about when and how to use your power. It took me a while to grok this approach and had me wondering if the rules were being super controlling or setting me free. I think the answer is both. I also like the way that PCs start with history, badassery, and heroic status. From reading the descriptions etc I really got the feeling that this would be a great system for telling relatively short (6-10 session) completely epic stories without getting bogged down in the minutiae of combats etc. I've listened to some Apocalypse world Actual plays and they remind me of listening to radio plays and scratch an itch that I'm missing now that I've finished the L5R plays. Plus, they are in the apocalypse! What's not to love about the apocalypse? Here's a question for stu Venable, has he read Apocalypse World? By the nature of "moves" etc. and the fact that a failure by definition creates epic badness, it seems to mimic his MoT desire to have the players only touch dice when their actions are going to branch the story in a pretty real way. Otherwise, they basically just do it. It seems like there are a number of people out there who have read/played Dungeon World, but not Apocalypse world, like jazzisblues and my FLGS owner. Is that a thing? Am I mistaken about that? If so, why is that? Grog Actually I have (and have read) Apocalypse World. More people have probably read Dungeon World because it's better known, but it is not necessarily the best representation of the Apocalypse engine. JiB
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 25, 2013 14:25:43 GMT -8
Apologies. You know, I'm not really sure exactly what I was thinking when I wrote/assumed that. Have you run/played Apocalypse World? This may be what I was thinking, although even then I'm not sure where I would have gotten that information.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Dec 26, 2013 16:24:02 GMT -8
I have read bits of Apocalypse World and bits of Dungeon World. I've also been told a bit about it as well.
I can't say with any certainty, but the "take a failure" mechanic probably is inspired by AW, even if only subconsciously. The idea coalesced after a playtest with Stork and CADave, and on several occasions they asked everyone to make a perception roll. I felt that that was a "busy roll," as in a roll to make because you haven't rolled in a while. Don't get me wrong -- I've done the same thing.
It's a roll that really doesn't mean anything, since someone at that table of 5 or 6 players is going to make the roll, so we're all going to know what we didn't see anyway.
The "take a failure" mechanic was a way to discourage GMs from doing that.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Dec 26, 2013 16:41:56 GMT -8
Yeah, the organization of the book is a bit meh. I've read the book a bunch of times now though, so it doesn't bother me as much. I've either internalized stuff or can remember where stuff is. I do wish that the PDF had chapters you could jump to though, or a hyperlinked index. Numenera sucked ass as a game/system, but the PDF navigation was freaking great. I've said this before, but the first game of AW I ran was an unmitigated disaster. Everything felt different than other games I'd run, I wasn't sure how to make moves as the MC, and "just doing things" without a making a roll for them felt like cheating. I didn't know how to push the characters, and so they had nothing to react to, which meant I had nothing to react to. It all spiraled down into a flaming wreck. But I learned from my mistakes. Now I'm at the point where I look at other game systems and say "I could probably so that in Apocalypse World or one of its hacks." I say that so often that I'm sure people are getting sick of it.
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 27, 2013 9:40:16 GMT -8
I've said this before, but the first game of AW I ran was an unmitigated disaster. Everything felt different than other games I'd run, I wasn't sure how to make moves as the MC, and "just doing things" without a making a roll for them felt like cheating. I didn't know how to push the characters, and so they had nothing to react to, which meant I had nothing to react to. It all spiraled down into a flaming wreck. After convincing my impromptu group to play last night, I came away feeling very similarly. They seemed to enjoy the game, but I felt like I was very confused for most of the game and after the character gen and background etc, I was pretty unsure as to what I would do next. I feel like I would need to reread the MC chapter and the First Session Chapter several times. Also, I've realized that the apocalypse in apocalypse world is not the apocalypse I want to run, exactly. By default, it is more Borderlands 2 (so much so that the hardholder basically made the hardhold a borderlands 2 fort). I'm going have to tweak it to make a more Postman, Earth Abides, World Made by Hand apocalypse. Any hints or resources for such a bit of work?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Dec 27, 2013 16:16:47 GMT -8
After convincing my impromptu group to play last night, I came away feeling very similarly. They seemed to enjoy the game... Well, that's better than what I got. My game went so badly that one of my group now refuses to touch anything AW-based and I'd probably have a hard time getting the other two to try it again. I felt like I was very confused for most of the game and after the character gen and background etc, I was pretty unsure as to what I would do next. I feel like I would need to reread the MC chapter and the First Session Chapter several times. Yeah, reading the MC and First Session chapters a few times is definitely helpful. Part of the AW game is pretty much not knowing what's going on in that first session (unless you're doing a one-shot or a con game and then things are different). You, as MC, just brainstorm some cool apocalyptic images/situations/people and then spring them on the players. Not in a railroady "this will happen" kind of way, but in a "cool, here's a chance for me to drop in this element because of something the players did" way. You're going to be creating a lot of stuff on the fly. It helps to have a list of names (because the players are going to ask), but you could also make lists of apocalyptic-y stuff so that you always have something ready. It is hard to know what to do sometimes, especially in that first session. Follow the Principles here. Ask provocative questions and build on the answers, Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards, and Be a fan of the player's characters specifically. Whenever there's a lull or you're not sure what to do, make something happen that demands the characters immediate attention or involvement. Do the AW equivalent of a bunch of guys busting down the door with guns. It doesn't really matter why things happen at this point. The most important thing is to push the characters to make moves. Take lots of notes during the first session. After you're all done playing (and it can be a short session) and everyone has gone home, that's when you start figuring out why things happened and what's going on in your corner of the map. Here's where you do your lonely GM fun of figuring out who is who, who wants who's stuff and why, and what kind of messed up stuff is going on. Also, I've realized that the apocalypse in apocalypse world is not the apocalypse I want to run, exactly. By default, it is more Borderlands 2 (so much so that the hardholder basically made the hardhold a borderlands 2 fort). I'm going have to tweak it to make a more Postman, Earth Abides, World Made by Hand apocalypse. Any hints or resources for such a bit of work? While it's not specific, the game does assume a Mad Maxx-style apocalypse, rather than something like The Road (because who would want to play that depressing-ass game?). But that's not to say it can't do others. If you're going for a specific flavor of apocalypse, first I would suggest taking a look at the playbooks. Part of why I think these are so awesome is each playbook brings a bit of setting into the world when it's chosen. Are there biker gangs in your game? Maybe, maybe not. But if someone picks the Chopper? Then there definitely are. But that can be a problem if you're not doing certain types of games. Look at the playbooks and see if there are any that assume something about the setting that is not true for your style of game. See if that can be fixed with a simple language change or a reskin. For example, maybe there are no working cars in your setting. That makes the Driver either really special (they have the only working car) or totally unusable. I think the setting issue can largely be solved by simply telling the players what flavor of apocalypse this is.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Dec 27, 2013 23:37:08 GMT -8
And I would really enjoy seeing what you might do with a AW or DW CAMPAIGN ...maybe 4-6 sessions. So much of what makes those AW games shine is the building of a story out of all those various individual contributions at the table. It would be great to see that process extended out over numerous game sessions.
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 28, 2013 13:41:36 GMT -8
Who is this "you" that you speak of? I'm assuming Hyve. I have heard that numerous times that it really takes a half-dozen sessions to really get rolling in the awesomeness. My problem is that I see another shiny and then I'm off. However, I think that 6-8 sessions is a really good amount of time for a story arc and that a campaign can reasonably have 3ish of these with healthy breaks in between, although it's a largely theoretical concept at this point. Accounting for holidays and sick players, my group probably only averages about 1 game/month although we technically play fortnightly. You know, I kind of remember trying to explain my "flavor" of apocalypse. However, I think this may have been lost amidst the pre-gaming (literally) that we did at the neighborhood bar. That and the fact that one player was drinking pretty heavily to begin with. He was still super-embarrassed from the previous session when he walked in on my wife while she was in the shower...and we kept bringing it up because everybody else found it hilarious....and she had me tell him that in order to "be even" he was going to have to get naked too (like in an 80s teen romcom)....He just couldn't take the abuse, poor awkward dude.
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Dec 28, 2013 14:56:49 GMT -8
Yep, my introduction to Dungeon World and Monsterhearts came via online games with Hyve.
"Oh Gimble Gimble Gimbleson do you still think of my lilting Spanish voice in whatever void you now pluck out your pubic hairs in??" -Esteban Don Quixote Man of Maracas.
|
|
|
Post by Forresst on Dec 28, 2013 15:21:43 GMT -8
I turn into a giant spidercrab and pinch the CRAP OUT OF THAT JERK ICE QUEEN!
*i pinch!* *scuttle* *i pinch!* *scuttle*
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 30, 2013 20:38:30 GMT -8
Okay, so after reflecting some on that initial game, I have what it probably a pretty obvious question.
In Apocalypse World, where is the line between setting the stage and railroading.
In more conventional games I feel like I've pretty much found this line. However, in Apocalypse World so much of the universe is built by the players. When is it okay to just provide information instead of letting the player's make it up.
How much control should the MC try to exercise over the game in an attempt to set "tone", at what point have they violated the player's agency. This is tough for me because player agency seems to extend so much further in AW than in conventional games.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 2, 2014 4:08:06 GMT -8
In Apocalypse World, where is the line between setting the stage and railroading? I assume that you're specifically talking about times when the MC isn't making a hard move (cause then you can take sole control of the narrative and do whatever you like). Unfortunately, I don't think there's a hard & fast rule about this. It's really more of a feeling. Something that helped me with this issue when running AW-based games is to never come up with the "solution" to any situation I throw at the PCs. I've run Monsterhearts most frequently, and I am constantly surprised by how my NPCs react to player action. I name the bitchy head cheerleader, wind her up, then send her stomping over to one of the PCs in a fury. But that is simply to push the player into reacting and to cause drama. When the cheerleader confronts the PC, I ask them what she's so mad about. By doing that, I am pretty much saying "yes" to whatever the player comes up with, unless it is completely out of genre or off tone. (That's the social contract jazzisblues has mentioned a few times on the podcast. You, the player, agree to answer my questions, and I, the MC, agree to make your answers matter.) But there is a trick you can use if you don't really like the answer the player gives you. You can say something like "That's what your character thinks/believes." That doesn't completely invalidate the player's answer but also allows you to modify the answer to suit your tastes a bit more. Don't do that all the time though, as it'll just become another way to railroad the players.
|
|