PbtA plus Agency?

[00dani]

So I've read most of the Bearworld threads on here and agree that as written, Apocalypse World is an MC powertrip with zero player agency. Since I thrive on solving pointless challenges, I'm wondering how the ruleset could minimally be changed to introduce a decent amount of agency and make the game into, y'know, a game.

One simple way to start, I think, is by changing the results rules for Act Under Fire. Rather than having the MC decide unilaterally what happens on a success, success-at-a-cost, or failure, the player making the roll should get to dictate what a success and a failure mean, as well as choosing an appropriate cost. The possible results would ideally be stated before rolling, but it's less important here than in the original rules since the player would already be able to make an informed decision beforehand.

With that change made, perhaps along with similar changes to the game's other player moves, would the game actually have "enough" player agency? Or is there more that needs fixing?

[Username17]

If the player determined the costs and goals of their rolls, even if they did so subject to the MC's approval, that would make the rolls meaningful. It would no longer be possible for the results of "success" on a Read The Sitch check to be "You succeed... at realizing that you have now failed the mission and have to try to escape with your lives!" It would no longer be possible for the "cost" of "success at a cost" for "sneaking in without being seen" to be "you were seen." And while I agree that those examples sound like comedic parodies of the failure states of "roll the dice and ask Mr. Cavern what happens" games, they are also actual examples of success and success at a cost from the actual Apocalypse World book, so fucking whatever.

The second issue is the Bears themselves. The idea that the MC doesn't plan anything and just throws in whatever is on the top of his head means that choices don't matter even if you change the structure and the examples such that your die rolls do. If the thing on the top of the MC's head is a Bear, you will encounter a Bear if you take the left fork and you'll encounter a Bear if you take the right fork. And you'll encounter a bear if you go back or if you leave the path entirely. Because you're opening the same black box (the top of the MC's head) no matter where you go or what you do, your choices do not and cannot mean anything.

And that's much more difficult to get around. The inherent futility of player choice is kind of the entire thing of Apocalypse World. Removing it would require you to dump the entire everything about the game from the MC into the garbage can and write something else in its place.

-Username17

[Dogbert]

You could turn the whole system on its head and declare that a 1 is a flat failure, 2-3 is quantum bears, and 4-6 is success but, why would you?

Bear World's mission and vision is misery tourism emulation. Attempts to "give it agency" just defeat the purpose. You're not just asking to fit a round peg in a square hole, you're actually asking which of the four types of powertool saws is better to turn the square hole into a circle.

I believe in using the right tool for the right job, and Bear World is perfect for noir, horror, and otherwise any disempowering genres and premises... actually, I'd say it's the best for that job, it's Gygaxian Fuckery codified and distilled to its minimum expression. No need to mess with perfection.

[Guts]

00dani, there are PbtA games that already do what you want (skip to last pages for basic moves):

Undying: https://enigmamachinations.files.wordpr ... 020416.pdf

Sagas of the Icelanders: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bu0rZi ... p=drivesdk

Undying is a diceless Vampire emulator and works as you say: each move (Hunt, Feed, Fight, etc) have lists of pre-defined outcomes. Sagas of the Icelanders dismiss the "GM introduces complications" part of PbtA for a bonds system that gives bonus or penalties to rolls. I'm sure there are more games that do something like this. If I find more of those Ill put them here.


Edit:

Rather than having the MC decide unilaterally what happens on a success, success-at-a-cost, or failure,

Actually, the MC only decides unilaterally on a failture (6-). On a success (10+) the player succeeds on what he attempted to do, and on a partial or weak success (7-9) the player also succeeds but the MC inserts a cost or complication. Think about it like this: on a success the player dictates what happens, on a failture the MC does, and on a partial success both work together on the outcome.

[Omegonthesane]

If the player determined the costs and goals of their rolls, even if they did so subject to the MC's approval, that would make the rolls meaningful. It would no longer be possible for the results of "success" on a Read The Sitch check to be "You succeed... at realizing that you have now failed the mission and have to try to escape with your lives!" It would no longer be possible for the "cost" of "success at a cost" for "sneaking in without being seen" to be "you were seen." And while I agree that those examples sound like comedic parodies of the failure states of "roll the dice and ask Mr. Cavern what happens" games, they are also actual examples of success and success at a cost from the actual Apocalypse World book, so fucking whatever.

I was going to push back yet again that being spotted by someone who you can then instakill before they raised the alarm isn't really the result you'd expect from outright failing the stealth challenge.

But then I thought that actually hashing out what could possibly count as a partial success on a stealth check would be more interesting, since in earlier threads people also rejected every variation on "you have advance warning that you will soon be detected, but get to fucking do something about it" - and then I thought that failing the whole stealth mission due to one roll would be unfair anyway so it'd be entirely fine for having to dispatch someone to just be the result of total failure at stealth.

The second issue is the Bears themselves. The idea that the MC doesn't plan anything and just throws in whatever is on the top of his head... And that's much more difficult to get around. The inherent futility of player choice is kind of the entire thing of Apocalypse World. Removing it would require you to dump the entire everything about the game from the MC into the garbage can and write something else in its place.

I wouldn't go that far - nothing about the core engine demands you follow the terrible writer's terrible exhortations.

Dungeon World had an example both good and bad for this, in which the "go to the pub" action allowed you to pick 3 things on a 10+ and 1 thing on a 7-9, and on the list was something to the effect of "you aren't shanghai'd into some other shit while drunk". So that sort of model would be fine but the implementation had an irredeemable failure point.

[Guts]

Some examples in the AW book are on the wonky side indeed (the author seems more intent on impressing the reader than explaining the game). But if you ignore them and just go with the rules as written, the games run just fine. God knows our Shadowrun sessions had a qualitative jump since we ported it over to The Sprawl - combats that took hours to resolve now are done in minutes allowing us to have 2 or 3 runs per session, something unthinkable in the official SR ruleset.

[00dani]

The second issue is the Bears themselves. The idea that the MC doesn't plan anything and just throws in whatever is on the top of his head means that choices don't matter even if you change the structure and the examples such that your die rolls do. If the thing on the top of the MC's head is a Bear, you will encounter a Bear if you take the left fork and you'll encounter a Bear if you take the right fork. And you'll encounter a bear if you go back or if you leave the path entirely. Because you're opening the same black box (the top of the MC's head) no matter where you go or what you do, your choices do not and cannot mean anything.

Hmm. This is certainly true of *World as it stands and is indeed intentional, since preparation is explicitly banned. Which is ridiculous. However, if players actually get to define what happens as the results of their moves, they'd have the opportunity to overwrite whatever bear the MC has in mind with an idea of their own, assuming a move took place. Everything else in the game is still out of their hands, certainly, but players can make a move pretty much whenever they like under *World's rules.

In other words, with this change made, wouldn't the move structure become a somewhat practical shared-authorship mechanic? In essence you'd end up with something closer to Munchausen's veto, where a player can interrupt whatever's going on, make an appropriate move, and on a success take control of the narrative for themselves.

Granted, at that point you pretty much are playing Munchausen, which is a fantastic game already and doesn't particularly benefit from adding a die roll and a bunch of random moves with horribly "edgy" names. The fact that Munchausen already exists and you can just play it instead for free is what makes this challenge so pointless. :3

[Grek]

Broken Worlds is a good example of a less-shitty version of PbtA. It accomplishes this by assigning actual pre-defined outcomes to your moves. Take the basic combat move, Reach Heaven Through Violence:

10+: your target takes damage equal to your weapon's damage AND you get to do your weapon's flourish.
7-9: you and your target take damage equal to each other's weapon's damages.
miss: you take damage equal to your target's weapon's damage.

Flourishes are stuff like "Reeling - target can't do damage next turn." and "Forceful - target sent flying and is removed from scene." or "Armour Piercing - target can't spend armour to negate damage."

It's not perfect, but it's a fuck tonne better than regular PbtA and most of the imperfections are PbtAisms that have not been excised.

[OgreBattle]

If you rotate being game master then everyone's in the bear seat

[Guts]

Broken Worlds is a good example of a less-shitty version of PbtA. It accomplishes this by assigning actual pre-defined outcomes to your moves. Take the basic combat move, Reach Heaven Through Violence:

10+: your target takes damage equal to your weapon's damage AND you get to do your weapon's flourish.
7-9: you and your target take damage equal to each other's weapon's damages.
miss: you take damage equal to your target's weapon's damage.

Flourishes are stuff like "Reeling - target can't do damage next turn." and "Forceful - target sent flying and is removed from scene." or "Armour Piercing - target can't spend armour to negate damage."

It's not perfect, but it's a fuck tonne better than regular PbtA and most of the imperfections are PbtAisms that have not been excised.

Combat moves are usually like that by default, though. How is the Act under Pressure of Broken Worlds ?

Also, see the games in my previous post. They do what you say.

[00dani]

It accomplishes this by assigning actual pre-defined outcomes to your moves. Take the basic combat move, Reach Heaven Through Violence:

Combat moves are usually like that by default, though. How is the Act under Pressure of Broken Worlds ?

I hate to agree with someone who is obviously silva, but this is unfortunately a good point. It's easy enough to predefine a set of possible outcomes for your basic attack move, but it's much harder to predefine the outcomes for a more generic move like Act Under Fire in a consistent way.

Assuming your game has to have catch-all moves like AUF, you pretty much need to define the meaning of success/failure/successatcost on a per-use basis, since they're catch-all moves and they'll be used in a wide range of situations.

Part of the problem with basic AW is of course that Act Under Fire is used both for "you're doing a somewhat tricky thing" and "the building you're in just exploded, here is a saving throw", and so the "cost" of success is rarely reasonable. Perhaps splitting the move into two, one to meet each of those distinct functions, would help?

[Grek]

The catch-all move for Broken Worlds is "Overcome" which comes up whenever you do something you know is dangerous and isn't covered by any other move. The player decides what dangerous thing they're doing (and gets a chance to back out if they didn't think it was going to need a roll) and either avoids the danger on a 10+ or gets hit with it on a miss. On a 7-9, something different happens that is still bad - one of those 'unfortunate PbtAisms that hasn't been excised' which I was talking about. But, given that the non-bullshit moves include rules for using the environment to your advantage, acrobatics, swimming, escaping combat, healing/rallying allies, aid another/protect another actions, grappling, knowledge rolls, interrogation rolls, diplomacy, item crafting, buying shit and finding stuff in a town... you can mostly avoid the one bullshit move that still invites the DM to fuck with you.

[Blade]

In my home system for Shadowrun when players can't get an automatic success (even by spending points), they get to choose between:
- Taking a risk of failing badly (1/2 chance of sucess, 1/2 chance of critical failure)
- Botching the job: basically success at cost except that the player chooses the cost
- Get stress points (more or less like wounds)

But that's just the action resolution mechanism, the rest of the game is still geared towards "the GM sets up the world then event unfold" not "events unfold and generate the world".

The more I think about *World games, the more I think they'd be better off without a GM. You could use tables for most common situations, and use stuff like word tables or cards with generic drawings (a bit like Dixit cards) and player consensus for cases that aren't covered by the tables.

[Guts]

The catch-all move for Broken Worlds is "Overcome" which comes up whenever you do something you know is dangerous and isn't covered by any other move. The player decides what dangerous thing they're doing (and gets a chance to back out if they didn't think it was going to need a roll) and either avoids the danger on a 10+ or gets hit with it on a miss. On a 7-9, something different happens that is still bad - one of those 'unfortunate PbtAisms that hasn't been excised' which I was talking about. But, given that the non-bullshit moves include rules for using the environment to your advantage, acrobatics, swimming, escaping combat, healing/rallying allies, aid another/protect another actions, grappling, knowledge rolls, interrogation rolls, diplomacy, item crafting, buying shit and finding stuff in a town... you can mostly avoid the one bullshit move that still invites the DM to fuck with you.

That is how default PbtA operates, Grek - a bunch of well defined moves for things the author finds thematic appropriate, and a general one for when things don't fit. The problem 00dani points is the general move ("Act under Fire" / "Overcome" ). So the solution is dismissing the move altogether (like Undying does), or keeping it but purging Bears from the possible outcomes, like Sagas does:

When you Tempt Fate, roll +wyrd. On a 10+ you pull it off.
On 7-9 you pull it off but the Norns gain a bond with you.

*Edit: Monsterhearts general move also looks good for minimizing Bears:

When you Hold Steady, in a scary or tense situation, roll with Cold.
• On a 10 up, you keep your cool, and choose one: ask the MC a question about the situation; remove a Condition; carry 1 forward during this scene.
• On a 7-9, choose: you keep your cool; pick an option from the 10 up list but also gain the Condition terrified.

I still think Undying has the best solution, though. As players are vampires in the game, any obstacle the MC introduces is simply dealt with by paying Blood and moving on. "There's an anvil falling in your head right now!" "I pay 1 Blood to use my supernatural vampire speed and get out of the way". What's more, there is no prompt for the MC to insert Bears at all. All moves are focused on scheming, backstabbing, manipulating or helping out other vampires. It's Game of Thrones by Night.

[shinimasu]

That is how default PbtA operates, Grek - a bunch of well defined moves for things the author finds thematic appropriate, and a general one for when things don't fit. The problem 00dani points is the general move ("Act under Fire" / "Overcome" ). So the solution is dismissing the move altogether (like Undying does), or keeping it but purging Bears from the possible outcomes, like Sagas does:

When you Tempt Fate, roll +wyrd. On a 10+ you pull it off.
On 7-9 you pull it off but the Norns gain a bond with you.

*Edit: Monsterhearts general move also looks good for minimizing Bears:

I agree with the sentiment but I also want to point out that Broken Worlds (and a few others, I think the Sprawl and Monster Hearts might do this too but it's been a while since I read the GM sections for either of those) does at least codify the specific types of bears to use.

They're divided into Hard and Soft moves and they're refreshingly gamey. Soft moves happen on a 7-9 and are things like "PC makes a broken roll with X attribute for remainder of scene" or "Enemy advances their agenda off screen" while Hard moves are things like losing a weapon, getting hit by a critical attack, or introducing a bigger tougher guy/obstacle.

Just like the player you're picking off a list. While there's the usual "make something up if none of these fit" caveat I don't find that meaningfully different from the usual "My player is being weird, what do" permissions to wing it found in most other games. The provided moves are exhaustive enough to cover most scenarios.

It's like the ttrpg equivalent of super hot, the enemies only move when your players do.

[deaddmwalking]

As players are vampires in the game, any obstacle the MC introduces is simply dealt with by paying Blood and moving on. "There's an anvil falling in your head right now!" "I pay 1 Blood to use my supernatural vampire speed and get out of the way". What's more, there is no prompt for the MC to insert Bears at all.

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't that anvil be a bear?

[Guts]

Deaddmwalking, the example was just to illustrate how players deal with obstacles in Undying (by spending blood instead of rolling). Such a thing (an anvil falling from the sky) would not actually happen because there isn't a prompt for such in the game / there's isn't a "MC inserts a complication" move.

[Guts]

I agree with the sentiment but I also want to point out that Broken Worlds (and a few others, I think the Sprawl and Monster Hearts might do this too but it's been a while since I read the GM sections for either of those) does at least codify the specific types of bears to use.

They're divided into Hard and Soft moves and they're refreshingly gamey. Soft moves happen on a 7-9 and are things like "PC makes a broken roll with X attribute for remainder of scene" or "Enemy advances their agenda off screen" while Hard moves are things like losing a weapon, getting hit by a critical attack, or introducing a bigger tougher guy/obstacle.

Just like the player you're picking off a list. While there's the usual "make something up if none of these fit" caveat I don't find that meaningfully different from the usual "My player is being weird, what do" permissions to wing it found in most other games. The provided moves are exhaustive enough to cover most scenarios.

It's like the ttrpg equivalent of super hot, the enemies only move when your players do.

I think the idea of soft and hard MC moves is already present in Apocalypse World only named as "regular" MC moves and "hard" MC moves. But I like that some games made that distinction clearer by coming up with the "Soft" label (I think it was Dungeon World which did it first? ).

Though for the effects of 00dani complaints, I don't think it changes things much except by differentiating docile Bears (soft) from more dangerous Bears (hard).

[Guts]

Part of the problem with basic AW is of course that Act Under Fire is used both for "you're doing a somewhat tricky thing" and "the building you're in just exploded, here is a saving throw", and so the "cost" of success is rarely reasonable. Perhaps splitting the move into two, one to meet each of those distinct functions, would help?

You'd risk creating one such move for each and every situation, thus losing the engine's appeal of frontloaded simplicity.

[Archmage]

Can someone explain roughly how the whole concept of "moves" in PbtA games actually works? Are you literally taking turns like you would in a combat situation where you're in "initiative time" in other games ("player one, it's your move," player chooses a move, rolls dice if necessary, results get narrated by GM, then "okay now it's your move, player two," repeat ad nauseum)? Is the GM likewise supposed to move "on their turn"?

Are players intended to say things like "okay, I'm going to Act Under Fire," or are they just supposed to describe their actions and then they/the GM fit the player's intent to the most appropriate move? Does the GM have to announce something to make it clear that they are "taking their move"?

[shinimasu]

Gm declares when a move happens, and only when they're sure there will be consequences for attempting something.

So the MC has just laid out a scenario. They ask the players what they're going to do.

Player 1 wants to ask their NPC contact Daniel McNobody to babysit their kid sister while they're out on a mission. Since Daniel Mcnobody is already friendly with the PC and the request is low stakes, no move is required. He agrees to babysit without much trouble.

Player 2 wants to ask Daniel McNobody to get them a rocket launcher. This request is higher stakes, but since Daniel McNobody is a nobody he does not have the means to acquire a rocket launcher. He says sorry but he's not the right guy to talk to about that. No move is triggered.

Player 2 Decides he wants to find someone who can sell him the rocket launcher. Since people who sell rocket launchers are dangerous, and finding them can be a fraught process, the MC requires the player to roll whatever Info Gathering or Contact Generating move the game has. In Urban Shadows you have Hit the Streets for example.

Player 2 rolls a 7 on their attempts to acquire a rocket launcher. They consult their Info Gathering move and decide on what the rocket launcher is going to cost them. They could owe their supplier a favor, acquire a monetary debt to be repayed in installments, or gain an enemy by just yoinking the thing.

If player 2 rolls a 6, and the move does not provide a list of options to choose from on a complete failure, then the MC consults the table of MC moves. Since a 6 is a complete failure they consult the list of Hard Moves and pick the one most appropriate to the scenario.

Since the MC never rolls any dice, they can only make a move when the player has met the conditions. Usually this is failing or getting a partial success, but some games have MC moves that are triggered by specific PC milestones. For example if the game has a "Time Passes" mechanic the MC might be called to make a move during that period.

[Guts]

Can someone explain roughly how the whole concept of "moves" in PbtA games actually works? Are you literally taking turns like you would in a combat situation where you're in "initiative time" in other games ("player one, it's your move," player chooses a move, rolls dice if necessary, results get narrated by GM, then "okay now it's your move, player two," repeat ad nauseum)? Is the GM likewise supposed to move "on their turn"?

It's just the way the author found to parse the interaction at the table. In practice though, it's identical to any other RPG session.

Are players intended to say things like "okay, I'm going to Act Under Fire," or are they just supposed to describe their actions and then they/the GM fit the player's intent to the most appropriate move? Does the GM have to announce something to make it clear that they are "taking their move"?

Players describe their actions, and if it triggers the condition for a move (at the MC discretion) then it activates. Moves are basically rules pellets that cover situations, and they usually have a trigger. Ie:

Dangerous & sexy:
When you enter into a charged situation, roll+Hot. On a 10+, hold 2. On a 7–9, hold 1.
Spend your hold 1 for 1 to make eye contact with an NPC present, who freezes or flinches and can’t take action until you break it off.

MC: "So say, your battlebabe wakes up and see her boyfriend rounded by the Dremmer gang. They're having this hot debate about a debt or something. What do you do?"

Player: "Huh.. does this mean the situation is charged?

MC: "Oh totally".

Player: "So I force myself into the circle with machete in hand. May I use Dangerous & Sexy?"

MC: "Sure. Go ahead and roll.."

Player: "It's a 9, so I get 1 hold. Okay, I use it to make eye contact with Dremmer and say: GTFO or I'll stick this up your asses".

MC: "They do as you say. But as they go away you see Dremmer looking at your face as if taking note to remember it".

...

There's one important rule though: "To do it, do it". In other words, it's not enough to say "I'm using Dangerous & sexy" there. The player must describe HOW her character is using the move. The reason for that is the MC is obligued by the rules to follow logically from your description. If you don't provide a description, the MC can't do that.

EDIT: Oops, ninja'd by Shinimasu.

[00dani]

Since the MC never rolls any dice, they can only make a move when the player has met the conditions.

If this were strictly true, that'd probably help improve player agency by forcing the MC to be purely reactive.

Unfortunately, in AW it's not. The rules are as follows:

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. …
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.

The rules do instruct you to make a hard move when a player fails a roll, as an example of a situation where you've been handed a "perfect opportunity". But the other example situation is "when the players don't mess up whatever you're doing", and it's clear that any "opportunity on a plate" counts - which essentially means you can make a hard move whenever you feel like it.

So, would changing this so that only failed rolls constitute permission to make a hard move help? Would agency be improved? Maybe?

[Guts]

... which essentially means you can make a hard move whenever you feel like it.

Actually, no. A hard move must have some setup first, which in PbtA parley is called a "soft" or "regular" MC move (I.e: "announce future badness").

Here, John Harper has a nice little article explaining it: http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2011/05/ ... moves.html

When you make a regular MC move, all three:
1. It follows logically from the fiction.
2. It gives the player an opportunity to react.
3. It sets you up for a future harder move.

This means, say what happens but stop before the effect, then ask "What do you do?"

- He swings the chainsaw right at your head. What do you do?
- You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?
- She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do?

When you make a hard MC move, both:
1. It follows logically from the fiction.
2. It's irrevocable.

This means, say what happens, including the effect, then ask "What do you do?"

- The chainsaw bites into your face, spraying chunks of bloody flesh all over the room. 3-harm and make the harm move!
- Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!
- 'Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home.

See how that works? The regular move sets up the hard move. The hard move follows through on the threat established by the regular move.

...
It's not about being mean, or punishing a missed roll, or inventing new trouble. It's about giving the fiction its full expression. Setup, follow-through. Action, consequences.

[Mask_De_H]

Since the MC never rolls any dice, they can only make a move when the player has met the conditions.

If this were strictly true, that'd probably help improve player agency by forcing the MC to be purely reactive.

Unfortunately, in AW it's not. The rules are as follows:

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. …
When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.

The rules do instruct you to make a hard move when a player fails a roll, as an example of a situation where you've been handed a "perfect opportunity". But the other example situation is "when the players don't mess up whatever you're doing", and it's clear that any "opportunity on a plate" counts - which essentially means you can make a hard move whenever you feel like it.

So, would changing this so that only failed rolls constitute permission to make a hard move help? Would agency be improved? Maybe?

It would probably help to consistently codify what happens on a miss with each specific move and remove the "hard move on a golden opportunity." The generic "Act Under Fire" move would work a lot better if it were Hit: You do the thing. Partial: You do the thing, but the MC can make a relevant soft move. Miss: You don't do the thing, or you do the thing, but the MC gets to make a relevant hard move against you. The relevant hard and soft moves would be put in the move itself.

You could also have something like Marvel Heroic's Doom Pool, where bad failures bank hold for the MC which they can spend, 1 for 1, to make a hard move when given a golden opportunity. So you modulate the violent bears, but also create a bit of tension for when the bears will come to fuck your shit.