I'm kind of serious about it, but I want to offer it for what it's worth, not to convince you, just for your consideration. Maybe you'll find it useful or interesting too.
It's about #PbtA, but PbtA games don't have any kind of lock or monopoly on it, at all. Take this idea and use it in every way that serves your own games, PbtA, non-PbtA, or anti-PbtA!
Here goes.
A normal roleplaying game models objects and entities in the game world. Sometimes in significant detail.
For example: Here's my dude, he's x-much strong, he's x-much skilled, he's got x-many hit points. He owns a sword that's x-much sharp and armor that's x-much hard.
Most of the actions that a normal rpg models are comparisons between these objects and entities, along the requisite axes. They use some combination of number crunching and odds playing to determine whether, this time, x-much is effectively more or less than y-much.
For example: Here's my dude, he's x-much strong. Here's a cliff, it's y-much steep. COMPARE! Result: the cliff is too steep for my dude to climb. This gives us the old binary succeed/fail.
For outcomes beyond succeed/fail, normal rpgs mostly handle it by simply improving or degrading the objects and entities they model, along those same axes.
For example: Here's my dude, he's x-much skilled, with his x-sharp sword. Here's a biting lizard, it's y-much dangerous, with its y-many teeth and claws. COMPARE! Result: the biting lizard degrades my dude to the tune of 3 HP.
In sum: a normal rpg describes objects and entities in some detail. It works by comparing their qualities, relatively statically. It accumulates outcomes to their detriment and benefit, along the axes of comparison.
Apocalypse World made its bid for an alternative model.
It describes actions in more detail than items and entities. It still models items and entities, but relatively simply, mainly as the subjects and objects of action.
Here's my driver. She can make all the basic moves, and she has a suite of moves that she can make more or less uniquely. She owns a car, which lets her make these additional moves, and a crowbar, with which she can do violence in these ways.
Apocalypse World only rarely compares characters, and mostly indirectly: we both do seize by force. We don't compare our characters; instead, what are the combined effects of our actions?
Apocalypse World still tracks some outcomes to the detriment and benefit of the items and entities, but it also asserts outcomes more directly into the action of the game.
For instance, Apocalypse World says that dismaying your enemy, or seizing definite hold of something, is as valuable and as real an outcome as degrading your enemy's hit points. The game's action, it says, must continue from this new, changed situation.
Now, this is all fine: two models, somewhat overlapping, somewhat different, in ways interchangeable or translatable into each other, each offering its own angle on the problems of rpg design. So what?
So what, is: if you're playing a game for the fiction it creates - a big if! - but if you are, these two models also represent two different approaches to analyzing and synthesizing fiction.
A normal rpg conceives fiction it terms of characters with qualities you can compare, to their advantage and disadvantage.
Like whacking two action figures together until one breaks.
Apocalypse World conceives fiction in terms of characters who do things.
Like this:
That's what I've got! This is why, I think, Apocalypse World inspired so many new games, with such an amazing diversity of subjects, with such amazing emotionality.
It's also why PbtA is so completely unsuited to so many other games' needs.
Thanks for reading!
I cheerfully admit all quibbles and disagreements. Like I say, I'm not here to convince you of this, just to offer it as an idea to consider. I hope you find it useful, or failing that, interesting, or failing that, not too annoying.
I'm also always happy to answer questions, so if you have any, please feel free!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@TaylorKLuther We played co-GMed Ars Magica for a bunch of years!
I think several things aligned to make it happen. We learned some techniques as we went on, but they weren't the starting point, they didn't make it happen in the first place.
Here's what I'd say:
@TaylorKLuther - We all wanted to do it. Nobody was reluctant or even skeptical.
- We all held independent authority over the setting, and we all respected each other's authority.
- We were all actively curious about the setting, and eager to find out the other players' answers.
@TaylorKLuther And I mean the setting overall, "Mythic Europe" and the Order of Hermes and stuff, and also the immediate setting we chose, Hungary & Romania at the turn of the 13th Century, and also our little mountainside and the nearby Duchy...
One way to think about roleplaying is, roleplaying is the umbrella act. Each rpg offers its own take on this larger, transcendent act, the act of roleplaying. Some rpgs' rules get you (you in particular) into the act of roleplaying more quickly, more reliably, more soundly...
...And so it makes sense that you'd shop around, look for the rpg that gives you the roleplaying experience you prefer, try different approaches, seek your ideal, and (for some of us) create the game that gets you roleplaying just right.
Another way to think about roleplaying is, roleplaying is the small, technical act, just the act of roleplaying. Each rpg includes this act for its own technical reasons, in pursuit of its own specific goals...
Many of Apocalypse World's rules refer explicitly to the interactions you have when you play.
Implicit: On a 10+, your character hits theirs. They choose where.
Explicit: On a 10+, tell them that your character hits theirs. Ask them where.
A lot of the time, it doesn't matter. The examples above are basically interchangeable.
But compare these:
Implicit: On a 10+, your character guesses what they should be on the lookout for.
Explicit: On a 10+, ask the GM: "What should my character be on the lookout for?"
These aren't interchangeable in the same way. In the implicit version, you have to kind of guess or interpret what interaction you should have with the GM, to get the result the rule describes. The explicit version describes the interaction directly instead.
Apocalypse World says "play to find out what happens."
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.
So you have a whole bunch of stuff in a game's design. Characters, fictional setting, dice, rules, abilities on character sheets, player roles like "player" and "GM"...
...And you have the moment of play, four friends talking together, live, right now.
It's tempting to say that the design-stuff "constrains" the moment of play, that the moment of play "enacts" the design-stuff. But I think that's backwards.
In the moment of play, you reach into the design-stuff and choose what of it you'll bring to bear. Better to say that the moment of play draws on the design-stuff, that the design-stuff is there as a resource for the playgroup to use.