Interesting thread.
Ironically, however, Ruby completely inverts the function of moves in Apocalypse World.
Ironically, however, Ruby completely inverts the function of moves in Apocalypse World.
Her thesis is that moves exist to transition gameplay from mechanics-first declarations to fiction-first declarations.
The obvious problem is that trad RPGs have always featured fiction-first declarations.
thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3797…
The obvious problem is that trad RPGs have always featured fiction-first declarations.
thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3797…
So Ruby concludes that we've now moved "past" Apocalypse World and can now have systems where GMs and players can choose to invoke mechanics when and how they think it's appropriate.
But that's not actually moving forward: That's just going back to the default mode of play in trad RPGs sine 1974.
What Moves in Apocalypse World ACTUALLY do is set a very precise palette for what the game is going to be about. This is true for the player moves and it is even more true of the GM moves.
IF YOU USE THEM AS WRITTEN.
IF YOU USE THEM AS WRITTEN.
Which a lot of people don't, of course. I've seen a lot of Apocalypse World games where the GMs aren't respecting their moves: They're just running the game as if it were a trad RPG, with them improvising whatever their whimsy proposes.
This is perpetuated by A LOT of PbtA games, whose designers also didn't grok this. (I think Dungeon World is particularly responsible for this.) In these games, the player Moves are just generic smears that try to broadly cover everything you'd see in a traditional game...
...and the GM moves are toothless pablum, often consisting of nothing more than a vague list of best practices.
Moves in Apocalypse World, by contrast, are supposed to be binding. They are like Moves in a board game: They are the list of things you are allowed to do.
Like the book says: THE GAME'S RULES GIVE YOU THINGS TO SAY.
Like the book says: THE GAME'S RULES GIVE YOU THINGS TO SAY.
Tangentially, Ruby goes on to point out that Blades in the Dark doesn't have moves.
True.
But it actually does a lot of the same stuff AW does through slightly different structures: The Engagement Roll and Downtime Activities mechanically shape BitD play just like Moves.
True.
But it actually does a lot of the same stuff AW does through slightly different structures: The Engagement Roll and Downtime Activities mechanically shape BitD play just like Moves.
And BitD's GM Actions are just PbtA GM Moves under a different name.
The text is fairly explicit about this, even if (once again) I see lots of people just playing the game as if it were a trad RPG.
The text is fairly explicit about this, even if (once again) I see lots of people just playing the game as if it were a trad RPG.
ADDENDUM: Woke up to find that Ruby is feeling overwhelmed by response to her thread.
So want to say more explicitly: When I said "Interesting thread" I was being literal. It was thoughtful and insightful and it prompted me to be thoughtful, too.
Good stuff, @IronsparkSyris.
So want to say more explicitly: When I said "Interesting thread" I was being literal. It was thoughtful and insightful and it prompted me to be thoughtful, too.
Good stuff, @IronsparkSyris.
