Understanding Apocalypse World

[Kadzar]

According to my MC, apparently the playbooks for Apocalypse World (at least 1st edition) were based on the characters in Firefly for some reason.

[kyoryu]

Here's a thread where Baker (lumpley) talks about it:

http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/i...p?topic=2308.0

It doesn't seem that he's really agreeing with it, but plays around with how you'd match them up.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Perhaps they just feel more open and not clearly defined because they are not as well established and instantly recognizable as archetypes in fantasy and futuristic sci-fi.

The main classes in D&D et al exist to fill specific niches. The playbooks in PbtA are more "this is an interesting core concept that I want to explore". Some of them are tied to core world tenets (Brainer, Hardholder, Driver), but a lot of them are just broad character concepts that work within a postapocalyptic framework. Most importantly, though, playbooks seem to be less about emulating existing archetypes and more about creating something unified around a simple core.

I'd say just start with a story. Every playbook has the outline of a story about how they connect to the setting. Then think about some ways to support that story.

[kyoryu]

The main classes in D&D et al exist to fill specific niches. The playbooks in PbtA are more "this is an interesting core concept that I want to explore". Some of them are tied to core world tenets (Brainer, Hardholder, Driver), but a lot of them are just broad character concepts that work within a postapocalyptic framework. Most importantly, though, playbooks seem to be less about emulating existing archetypes and more about creating something unified around a simple core.

I'd say just start with a story. Every playbook has the outline of a story about how they connect to the setting. Then think about some ways to support that story.

I'd say this is accurate.

The classes in D&D (especially originally) were more about "here is a set of capabilities that this type of unit has". Playbooks in PbtA are more about "here's the kind of story pieces that fit into this genre."

That's why we have the Battlebabe and Gunlugger in AW, when both would be fighters in a more traditional class-based system. It's more about who you are and how you relate to the world and the story, and the capabilities bits come along for the ride.

[Psikerlord]

I'd say this is accurate.

The classes in D&D (especially originally) were more about "here is a set of capabilities that this type of unit has". Playbooks in PbtA are more about "here's the kind of story pieces that fit into this genre."

That's why we have the Battlebabe and Gunlugger in AW, when both would be fighters in a more traditional class-based system. It's more about who you are and how you relate to the world and the story, and the capabilities bits come along for the ride.

Interesting, so in AW, what mechanical differences are there between the Battlebabe and Gunlugger?

[Yora]

Most importantly, the Battlebabe has Cool+3, while the Gunlugger starts with Hard+2 and can increase it to Hard +3. On 2d6 with target numbers 7 and 10, this is huge.
However, both of them can learn an ability to use Cool for Going Aggro and Hard for Acting Under Fire, at which point that would even out. And both characters can take two abilities from the other's playbook. Mechanically they can be pretty much identical, depending on how they are advanced. But they have the players start the game differently and once your personality is set, it usually doesn't change much during the game.

[Cluedrew]

Battlebabe is power and grace. Gunlugger is power and destruction.

I mean there are lots of little differences, the Battlebabe is a slightly better generalist and the Gunlugger has better raw power, although they can make up the difference. The Battlebabe gets custom melee weapons and the Gunlugger gets some crazy ranged weapons (the guns). In the end though I think main difference is what Yora said, the personality that goes with the characters are very different (even if not formal or rule-bound) and that makes a huge difference.

[kyoryu]

The battlebabe is the sexy badass that's immediately the center of attention.

The gunlugger doesn't have the charismatic draw, but has all the dakka.

In the end though I think main difference is what Yora said, the personality that goes with the characters are very different (even if not formal or rule-bound) and that makes a huge difference.

Yes. And the moves back that up.

I believe Lumpley has said that the gunlugger has more mechanical oomph, while the battlebabe has more spotlight power. The gunlugger may be better at fighting their way out of the situation, but the story will more likely be "about" the battlebabe, more often.

AW playbooks make distinctions that D&D classes don't. And looking at playbooks through the lens of "what capabilities does this class have?" will often miss a big part of the point.

[Friv]

Yeah. Mechanically, the Gunlugger gets the Move that ilets you escape, the move that lets you do a bit of medical, the Move that lets you count as a gang, and the Move that lets you use your Hard to have battlefield instincts. You lay the hurt down when things are going well, you have ways to get out and recover when things are going badly, and you know how to tell the difference.

The Battlebabe has the move to use their Hot to freeze people in fights, the move to declare that a given NPC is just gonna die, the move to use information more powerfully and the move to act like you're wearing Armor even if you aren't. You get stuck in, mess up the battlefield, and hopefully survive, but whatever you do you're mainly a whirling dervish of death at the centre of things.

[Psikerlord]

Yeah. Mechanically, the Gunlugger gets the Move that ilets you escape, the move that lets you do a bit of medical, the Move that lets you count as a gang, and the Move that lets you use your Hard to have battlefield instincts. You lay the hurt down when things are going well, you have ways to get out and recover when things are going badly, and you know how to tell the difference.

The Battlebabe has the move to use their Hot to freeze people in fights, the move to declare that a given NPC is just gonna die, the move to use information more powerfully and the move to act like you're wearing Armor even if you aren't. You get stuck in, mess up the battlefield, and hopefully survive, but whatever you do you're mainly a whirling dervish of death at the centre of things.

Hmm... so you cant use other characters moves? The Gunlugger cannot use his hot to freeze an enemy, and the Battlebabe cannot use a move to escape?

[flond]

Hmm... so you cant use other characters moves? The Gunlugger cannot use his hot to freeze an enemy, and the Battlebabe cannot use a move to escape?

Generally, no.

With the note that.

1. The basic moves are up for grabs (meaning the Battlebabe can escape through normal fictional engagement, they just don't have a move to run away as a sort of mechanical "thing you can do whenever it makes even a little sense."

2. XP can let you take a limited number of moves from other playbooks.

[Yora]

You start with two moves from your playbook, can later gain two more from your playbook, and get two from any other playbooks. And nothing is stopping you to get those two other moves right on your first two character advancements, I think this makes it actually really quite flexible,

[Friv]

Hmm... so you cant use other characters moves? The Gunlugger cannot use his hot to freeze an enemy, and the Battlebabe cannot use a move to escape?

What Yora said. To elaborate:

Each playbook in Apocalypse World has a handful of basic abilities, and also a set of unique (or semi-unique) Moves. A few of these Moves overlap (for example, both the Gunlugger and the Battlebabe have the Move that boosts your Damage by +1). Most playbooks have six of these Moves, but a few have fewer.

At the start of the game, you pick two of the Moves from your playbook (again, some playbooks give you the option of any of your Playbook moves, and some make one or both Moves mandatory.) Over the course of the game, you will get up to two more Moves from your own playbook (once again, a few Playbooks give you something else) and can take up to two Moves from other playbooks. That is two Moves total, not two per Playbook, so it's up to you whether to take two from one playbook, or one each from two sources.

As a rough rule, you aren't supposed to take a Move that another player already has, and if you take a Move from a playbook that another player has you're supposed to check in with them about whether they're planning to take it. This is more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule, though.

[Yora]

I can agree with only one of each playbooks being used per campaign, but that seems a bit excessive to me. Most moves are pretty vague things in the fiction to begin with. I don't see much need for niche protection.

[Friv]

Yeah, we generally ditched it when we played.

I can see an argument for not wanting players to have the same singular trick. If one player is making a big deal of the fact that they're so hot that enemies freeze up rather than face them, and then another player says, "Oh, hey, that sounds neat, Imma do it too", the first player might feel like they've been encroached on, especially if they mostly took the more mechanical, less fancy moves aside from that.

[Belac93]

From the experience I have with apocalypse world (and many other powered by the apocalypse games) it's that since each playbook is made to tell a certain kind of story, the game works best and is more fun if you don't have multiples of a single playbook. It is niche protection, but the game is better off for that niche protection.

[Yora]

That is certainly true. But I think what it does is giving each player a clearer role within the fiction. It helps distinuishing them and giving them individual priorities. But what it doesn't do is ensuring that all players have abilities at which they are best and making them the default people to perform specific tasks. When someone has to sneak forward and take out a guard, there is no thief who is way better at sneaking than anyone else. A battlebabe would have the best odds because of Cool+3, but nothing about that playbook says that it is a sneaky character.
You very rarely, if ever, get the situation where a task needs to be performed and everyone is looking at the player with the matching ability. It is the fiction of the characters that determines when someone is the obvious person to do it, and restricting the playbooks to one character each helps with creating characters that are all different in the fiction.

I would say that even if you strip the playbooks of all moves, they would still lead to very different and distinguishable characters. What the moves do is not so much giving players new abilities, but they help discribing the characters' personalities. They work much more like traits than special abilities in that way.

I've now spend some time thinking about custom playbooks for the campaign I am preparing, and I still find it a somewhat daunting task. It's not just that you make up custom moves that more specifically define certain actions you would expect characters to specialize in. Adding and removing playbooks quite fundamentally changes what assumptions everyone will have going into the game. If the party is a gunlugger, a skinner, a brainer, and an angel, they could go out on adventures visiting various towns and exploring nearby ruins. D&D with a post-apocalpytic reskin. You could just use that party to play Dark Sun. But when the party includes hardholders, hocuses, and maestros, you get completely different expectations about the fiction of the campaign.

[Blymurkla]

A party in Apocalypse World!?

Man, I think we play this game in excruciatingly different way.

[kyoryu]

A party in Apocalypse World!?

Man, I think we play this game in excruciatingly different way.

Yeah. It usually ends up being "the group of characters played by the players." Not a party in any traditional sense.

The party being split is more or less the normal situation.

Think of it like a TV show with an ensemble cast.

[Yora]

Party is faster to type.

[kyoryu]

Party is faster to type.

But it's not as catchy as TGOCPBTP

[Knaight]

But it's not as catchy as TGOCPBTP

This is undeniably true, technically.

"Party" is much catchier.

[Cluedrew]

A party in Apocalypse World!?

Man, I think we play this game in excruciatingly different way.

I am now having flash-backs to the time we* had to explain that the PCs might not all be on the same side to someone who was already having trouble with Apocalypse World. They absolutely freaked out. It was a bit said, seeing how ingrained certain narrow assumptions about game methodologies are. It is also hilarious.

Anyways, I usually just refer to "the PCs" when speaking about TGOCPBTP.

* Myself and a couple of other people with Powered by the Apocalypse experience.

[Yora]

How would you go about preparing for the players to sneak into the strongholds of rival groups or recovering valuable equipment from ruined facilities? I know what I wouldn't do, and that is drawing out a dungeon floorplan.

But what about a pointcrawl, where each area of interest within the location is simply represented as a square with lines showing which other areas can be reached from the current area?

And would things like traps even work in this game?

[Friv]

Traps can absolutely work, but you have to play them a bit differently.

A trap is a hard move. You trigger it in response to:
*) The players entering a situation without anyone trying to be careful or slow.
*) Someone screws up a sneaking or mobility roll.

Probably, players who trigger a trap would have to Do Something Under Fire to avoid getting hurt.

[kyoryu]

Traps can absolutely work, but you have to play them a bit differently.

A trap is a hard move. You trigger it in response to:
*) The players entering a situation without anyone trying to be careful or slow.
*) Someone screws up a sneaking or mobility roll.

Probably, players who trigger a trap would have to Do Something Under Fire to avoid getting hurt.

A trap can also be a soft move, if the characters move somewhere where it's likely to go off. It's also great justification for all sorts of nastiness (separate them, take their stuff, etc.).

[Blymurkla]

How would you go about preparing for the players to sneak into the strongholds of rival groups or recovering valuable equipment from ruined facilities? I know what I wouldn't do, and that is drawing out a dungeon floorplan.

But what about a pointcrawl, where each area of interest within the location is simply represented as a square with lines showing which other areas can be reached from the current area?

Apocaylse World operates better with a lower trigger for activating character expertise than traditional games where dungeon floorplans is a thing.

Sure, you can occasionally zoom in on details in AW, run things blow-by-blow, but that shouldn't be your default.

In D&D, when I player say »I infiltrate the castle« you say »I haven't prepped that, so we'll take it next session« or »Okay. Do you do anything to prepare yourself? Do you leave your armour behind (or suffer the penalties)? Which entrance do you use?« and then you run things small scale, activating character expertise for a bluff check against the guard or a sneak check across the court yard.

In AW, when I player say »I infiltrate ****heads hold« you probably say »That sounds like doing something under fire, roll cool«. If the player succeed, they're in the inner sanctum (with ****head there, if they rolled 10+, and perhaps not if the got 7-9). And if they fail, you put them in some deep **** whilst infiltrating (»You've just passed a patrol when you take a wrong move as you see a child being dragged towards the dog-pit. You're about to get spotted if you don't do something«) and then you ask »What do you do?« (and if the player ignores the child and just skulks away, have them reach ****head without another roll as they hear the agonising screams).

[Yora]

Getting past guards can be a story in itself. And you could run into non-hostile NPCs who can have useful information. I wouldn't skip all of that.

Indicating traps as a soft move is a great idea. Players have to decide whether to disarm it (under fire? probably) and risk failing a roll, or look for another path and having to spend more time in the place.
Or when you chose to inflict harm as a consequence for a failed roll, that harm could come from a trap they had not seen. Though I am a bit hesitant with that, as it's a trap they could not have detected or avoided. But in the system of the game, it's a totally valid fiction to describe a mechanic. I probably will use that only with players already used to how the back and forth between players and GM plays out.

[flond]

Getting past guards can be a story in itself. And you could run into non-hostile NPCs who can have useful information. I wouldn't skip all of that.

Indicating traps as a soft move is a great idea. Players have to decide whether to disarm it (under fire? probably) and risk failing a roll, or look for another path and having to spend more time in the place.
Or when you chose to inflict harm as a consequence for a failed roll, that harm could come from a trap they had not seen. Though I am a bit hesitant with that, as it's a trap they could not have detected or avoided. But in the system of the game, it's a totally valid fiction to describe a mechanic. I probably will use that only with players already used to how the back and forth between players and GM plays out.

Yeah, in general I'd probably at worst describe things Indiana Jones style.

You might not know what's up with this flat tile with all the holes poking out...but you're pretty sure there's something bad in there.

[HidesHisEyes]

I am now having flash-backs to the time we* had to explain that the PCs might not all be on the same side to someone who was already having trouble with Apocalypse World. They absolutely freaked out. It was a bit said, seeing how ingrained certain narrow assumptions about game methodologies are. It is also hilarious.

Anyways, I usually just refer to "the PCs" when speaking about TGOCPBTP.

* Myself and a couple of other people with Powered by the Apocalypse experience.

Some people really can’t get their heads around it. I had a Dungeon World session were two of my D&D friends both, in the same session, triggered Defy Danger moves (one in combat and one social) and then got antsy when I asked them to roll, saying they were just dressing up/flavouring their actions and hadn’t been looking to roll. “Ok, but you described doing the thing so...”