What is it with "Apocalypse World"?
The game Apocalypse World has been an indie darling for a while now...months, years...I don't know. The one thing I do know is that every time I look at it I just think to myself, "Yeah, it's got a couple of interesting ideas, but is it really deserving of all the attention it's taking away from other game concepts in the indie sphere?"
Here's what I'm seeing.
Basic Mechanism.
A player rolls 2d6 for their character (they modify this by an attribute relevant to the task). On a 10+, a full success is earned (the character gets what they are after and they don't have to give anything up in the process). On a 7-9, a partial success is earned (the character gets some of what they are after, but they probably have to make some kind of sacrifice to achieve this). On a 6 or less, the action fails (and something bad probably happens).
Complications
Everyone gets a range of "Basic Moves"; these are things that everyone in the setting can do. Each move specifies a specific attribute to be added to a roll, as well as the results achieved through the various rolls. Characters are made up of their attributes and a range of bonus moves available only to their character type (you start with a few of these moves and experience allows you to either increase your attributes or buy extra moves that improve your versatility).
My Thoughts
I've looked through the various characters types in Apocalypse World and read through their moves. I bought a copy of Monsterhearts when it was recently released. And I keep thinking that there's something I just don't get about it.
It seems that no matter who you deal with, the social challenges against an backward yokel are just as likely to succeed as those against a seasoned dilettante, the combat challenges against a wheelchair bound invalid are just as likely to succeed as those against a trained martial artist. There is no modifier for action difficulty, it's all just hand-waved as "This is a story game, it's not meant to be realistic".
On top of this, the game system seems to be a gestalt of various subsystems. Every move follows a certain template, but every move is different in its effects and potential outcomes. In this it seems to echo the earliest RPGs, where there was one system (or move) for combat, a different system (or move) for physical actions, another one for social interactions, another for magic. You need to learn a dozen subsystems to play the game.
Sure, in this case the subsystems are fairly simple; they can be reduced to cards (as an example, check the Monsterhearts cards here). But it has taken other people to develop these play aids. The original game "Apocalypse World" and the lovechild "Monsterhearts" obviously left something out if other people need to fill in the gaps...I think that the thing they left out was the instant playability.
There are plenty of other deserving systems out there, but few seem to be getting the hype that this one does. The games I've run so far using Monsterhearts have been reasonable...nothing revolutionary, nothing to get fervently fanatical about, but not bad either. I don't see why it's getting such a cult following, or why it's ancestor "Apocalypse World" is considered such a darling of the indie game community (beyond the cult of personality surrounding it's author). I'm not one to completely judge a system without playing it in a variety of situations, so I'll be running Monsterhearts at a convention in just over a month. I'll be interested to see how it responds to a variety of player types.
Here's what I'm seeing.
Basic Mechanism.
A player rolls 2d6 for their character (they modify this by an attribute relevant to the task). On a 10+, a full success is earned (the character gets what they are after and they don't have to give anything up in the process). On a 7-9, a partial success is earned (the character gets some of what they are after, but they probably have to make some kind of sacrifice to achieve this). On a 6 or less, the action fails (and something bad probably happens).
Complications
Everyone gets a range of "Basic Moves"; these are things that everyone in the setting can do. Each move specifies a specific attribute to be added to a roll, as well as the results achieved through the various rolls. Characters are made up of their attributes and a range of bonus moves available only to their character type (you start with a few of these moves and experience allows you to either increase your attributes or buy extra moves that improve your versatility).
My Thoughts
I've looked through the various characters types in Apocalypse World and read through their moves. I bought a copy of Monsterhearts when it was recently released. And I keep thinking that there's something I just don't get about it.
It seems that no matter who you deal with, the social challenges against an backward yokel are just as likely to succeed as those against a seasoned dilettante, the combat challenges against a wheelchair bound invalid are just as likely to succeed as those against a trained martial artist. There is no modifier for action difficulty, it's all just hand-waved as "This is a story game, it's not meant to be realistic".
On top of this, the game system seems to be a gestalt of various subsystems. Every move follows a certain template, but every move is different in its effects and potential outcomes. In this it seems to echo the earliest RPGs, where there was one system (or move) for combat, a different system (or move) for physical actions, another one for social interactions, another for magic. You need to learn a dozen subsystems to play the game.
Sure, in this case the subsystems are fairly simple; they can be reduced to cards (as an example, check the Monsterhearts cards here). But it has taken other people to develop these play aids. The original game "Apocalypse World" and the lovechild "Monsterhearts" obviously left something out if other people need to fill in the gaps...I think that the thing they left out was the instant playability.
There are plenty of other deserving systems out there, but few seem to be getting the hype that this one does. The games I've run so far using Monsterhearts have been reasonable...nothing revolutionary, nothing to get fervently fanatical about, but not bad either. I don't see why it's getting such a cult following, or why it's ancestor "Apocalypse World" is considered such a darling of the indie game community (beyond the cult of personality surrounding it's author). I'm not one to completely judge a system without playing it in a variety of situations, so I'll be running Monsterhearts at a convention in just over a month. I'll be interested to see how it responds to a variety of player types.
.png)
Comments
Here we could have both parties roll, and the party which rolls more successes, or even those that meet a specific number of Successes /and/ beat the opposition are the winners of an action.
AW Hack-
:: On 1d6 ::
Full: 6
Partial: 3-5
Failure: 2-
Stats and or Skills could either/or add/subtract mods to the dice or provide additional dice.
You need to absorb the GM instructions. Not in a "I've Fled for years, I'll just skim them" way but in a "what does the game tell me about how to run this game and how does that resolve all the comments I made in this post."
AW is hardly a style over substance game. It just puts the substance in the part you're not looking at.
But you could also model some of this by having the better individuals have their own moves. Maybe social moves against that seasoned dilettante take a -1. You could do something similar for the martial artist or just give him slightly better armor and damage to reflect his training.
Also pay attention to the need for situational and setting detail. That's where you'll find situational modifiers. Not in the form of dice bonuses but in the form of what assertions about character actions are even allowed.
The GM mnemonics are crucial. Its easy to dismiss them as cute catch phrases but they are the real rules of the game. "Look at everything through crosshairs" means that if the players drive the fiction such that they wind up with a drop on someone...they can just kill him...no roll needed, it flows automatically from the fiction, and the GM following the rules. The key question of play then is not "can you kill that guy" but what are the ramifications if you do. Who is upset, who wants revenge, who thinks you're a hero and expects more from you.
Similarly, the rules for making a Hard Move are this way. If the players bumble through with total disregard...you can simply drop the hammer on them, no roll needed.
In many ways its a VERY old school game where the vast bulk of play is creative player assertions and careful GM adjudications. The key difference is that where rules in old D&D about torch durations and mapping speeds and monster reactions were focused on the activities of a dungeon crawl, in AW the moves are focused on the activities of a post apocalyptic social networking.
Where OSR style games leave the "how to adjudicate" GM instructions very vague or as suggestions, in AW they're codified and elevated to the status of rules. But rules flexible enough to handle just about anything.
Its not perfect by any means, some of the moves could be organized more clearly, which is one of the areas the various hacks have sought to improve on.
"Realistic" it's not a good word. Has different meaning to different people. And remember: the MC's Agenda is to make AW seam real.
Regarding the martial artist... Nothing that you can't do with a pair of good Custom Moves. He are some of mine, but don't take it too seriously:
"When Jackie Chan is in the scene, and you are going aggro or seizing by force on him, roll-2 instead of +Hard. In a 10+, you win, but he somehow manages to still looking awesome anyway. In a 7-9, you almost win, but he does some fight trick with his clothes and finally manages to escape from you. In a miss, man, you are so fucked."
"If the martial artis is not called Jackie Chan, he does not have access to the benefit of this bonus. But if somehow he is called Jet Li, roll-1 instead of -2. On a hit you win, then change to Brendan Fraser playbook at the end of the session. Jet Li is dead now, but will be able to come back two thousand years later as a mummy."
"If he is called Steven Seagal, roll+0. In a miss you lose your arm."
"If he is called Chuck Norris, don't roll. Nobody rolls against Chuck Norris."