What it means is, play to find out what the characters make of their world. Both what they choose to make of their world, and, because Apocalypse World is a game of compromises, what they're able to make of their world.
This appears, more or less explicitly, on the back cover of the game.
"Play to find out what happens" is punchier, and it's all you need to play the game, but I wish I'd included the full version somewhere in the actual text anyway.
I think it would have improved the games that followed, generally, overall.
I think it would have improved the games that followed, generally, overall.
Here's why. It's because you need the longer version in order to design a game. If I ask you, "in your game, what do you play to find out?" you should be able to tell me.
When you create a game:
What do we, its players, put in place before play begins?
What do we hold constant throughout play?
What do we change over the course of play?
What do we leave for play itself to determine?
What do we, its players, put in place before play begins?
What do we hold constant throughout play?
What do we change over the course of play?
What do we leave for play itself to determine?
Your game's systems are the tools we have at our disposal, the constraints and limitations, the responsibilities and permissions that prevail, by which we change things from their initial, starting position and state.
(This is why Apocalypse World calls them "moves," by the way, @MWStuff. You're changing your character's position, or trying to; it's actually kind of literal. So "I have a car" is a change in your character's position, and that's why AW calls it a move.)
When I say "what's the object of the game," I'm asking: from our starting position, using the tools at our disposal, what position are we trying to reach?
A lot of rpgs don't have particular positions we're trying to reach, but they do have questions we're trying to answer. Any answer, as far as the game is concerned, will do. They don't give us a goal to shoot for, they ask us questions and give us tools to answer them.
For instance, in Apocalypse World, it's not "here's what you're trying to make of the world, can you do it?" That would be a different game. Like Murderous Ghosts: you're trying to escape being murdered by ghosts. Can you? Maybe! Probably not!
A lot of rpgs don't even have endstates. There's no final answer to the questions the game poses, only current answers, ongoing anwswers. "What have these characters made of their world so far? What are they making of their world right now?"
But still, this is the game: HERE is our starting position. HERE are the questions the game poses. HERE are the tools we'll use to answer them.
So if you're sitting down to design a rpg, my suggestion is:
Figure out the game's starting position, and figure out what questions the game poses.
When you create your game's systems, you're creating tools for the players to use to answer the game's questions.
What should they be?
When you create your game's systems, you're creating tools for the players to use to answer the game's questions.
What should they be?
The end! Thanks for reading.
