,
20 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
so as I've been thinking about being Invested and being Present, and the way game design encourages play along those lines, I've been coming back to apocalypse world as the example that illustrates the difference the best for me
first off: I'm not saying this to criticize AW. it's a really, really well written and designed game. I just think it's a useful example!
the specific thing I want to talk about is the conversation structure between the MC and the non-MC players
the specific thing I want to talk about is the conversation structure between the MC and the non-MC players
in AW, the MC makes a move when there is a pause in the conversation and the other players turn to look at them as if to ask "what happens next?"
(I think this is a common misunderstanding of how MC moves work in AW - a lot of people tend to view them as only happening on a 6-)
(I think this is a common misunderstanding of how MC moves work in AW - a lot of people tend to view them as only happening on a 6-)
the MC will then make a move, and ask the other players "what do you do?" then those players answer, and the conversation continues until there is a pause and the MC must make a move again
it's a very tightly designed loop, one of my favorites
it's a very tightly designed loop, one of my favorites
but, as you examine this loop through the lens of Investment and being Present, you might notice an imbalance here
the MC is expected to be Present and Invested during their portion of the loop. the other players are only expected to be Invested
the MC is expected to be Present and Invested during their portion of the loop. the other players are only expected to be Invested
the MC has to pay attention to the other players as a group and notice when the conversation has paused and the players want to know what happens next. the MC can't do this unless they are being Present in the situation, that's perfectly natural.
the MC then makes a move, requiring them to be Invested in the established fiction. and then they ask the other players "what do you do?" and they answer
at no point in this loop are the non-MC players required to be Present for the loop to function
at no point in this loop are the non-MC players required to be Present for the loop to function
the non-MC players answer the question "what do you do?" from a place of Investment - they're answering as their characters (the game even structures the conversation so the players are always being asked as their characters too!)
AW does a lot of work to make them Invested
AW does a lot of work to make them Invested
but you might see that there isn't as much (if any) work being done to ask the non-MC players to be Present. I think this is intentional! from what I have read, this was part of the design of the game
and this is VERY common among many games - OSR games even specifically state this as a design goal (c.f. that OSR manifesto that was being passed around about the time of AW's writing). designers want non-GM players to be as heavily Invested in the fiction as possible
there is a lot of work that goes into being an MC or a GM that requires you to be Present (sharing the spotlight between players, paying attention to what your friends find enjoyable, noting when there is a pause in the conversation for you to speak, as a few examples)
very, very few games ask non-MC/GM players to do this same kind of work!
imagine, if you will, that the conversation structure of AW was flipped on its head:
imagine, if you will, that the conversation structure of AW was flipped on its head:
the MC makes a move, and then when it seems like there is a pause in their narration, the non-MC players say what they do. when the non-MC players are done, they ask the MC "so what happens next?" and then the MC makes a move
(on a 6-, moves might say "ask the MC what happens next and be prepared for the worst")
this is a different kind of construction of the conversation!!! it is putting the onus of being Present on very different shoulders. I wonder how this would change the feeling of the game
this is a different kind of construction of the conversation!!! it is putting the onus of being Present on very different shoulders. I wonder how this would change the feeling of the game
I think the way that GMs are expected to be Present is part of why there is such a common expectation that GMs are the ones who manage support in games (introduce tools, manage player emotions, intervene during conflict, etc etc)
c.f.
although it's often unnoticed, games do specific work to put the onus of being Present on different shoulders. part of the work of support tools is to share that onus with everyone at the table. games that have integrated support are building that shared onus into the game
when you design games, it can be helpful to ask yourself "who is being asked to be Present, and who is not? how are the rules of this game encouraging one mode of play, the other, or both?"
just to clarify, since this thread is in conversation with one I wrote yesterday (and it seems like it might be confusing), here's what I mean by "Present" and "Invested":
