Apocalypse World Pdf

[Lorriane Nasuti]

ApocalypseWorld is a post-apocalyptic roleplaying game by D. Vincent Baker and Meguey Baker, published in 2010 with only an implied setting that is fleshed out by the players in the course of character creation. It was the game for which the Powered by the Apocalypse engine was developed. On release, Apocalypse World won the 2010 Indie RPG Award and 2011 Golden Geek RPG of the year.[1]

A second edition was successfully Kickstarted in 2016.[2] This edition updated some of the mechanics (HX, battle-moves, threat map, etc.), playbooks (including replacing the Operator with Maestro-D and Quarantine), and brought Meguey Baker on board as co-designer,[3] but retained most of the original's design.

The game's implied post-apocalyptic setting is fleshed out during character creation.[4] Each playbook involves and provides inspiration for certain details of the setting, such as the Hardholder, who rules the local settlement and therefore has control over its size, population, and appearance. The characters' shared history is also determined in the course of character generation. Themes of the game are survival and relationships, and they come out in the "pure lethality of the game".[5] Notably, the Master of Ceremonies (MC) is not supposed to do any planning before sitting down to the first session, so that all players have an opportunity to shape the game world collectively.[6]

The system uses the Powered by the Apocalypse engine. It features dice-rolling checks for challenging situations of 2d6 plus a relevant stat. Results of 10+ are successes, while 7 to 9 are partial successes or hard choices, and results of 6 or less allow the MC to make a move. A notable feature of Apocalypse World is the inclusion of a "special move" for each class, which triggers when a character of that class meets the appropriate triggers.

Reception was positive, with Apocalypse World winning numerous awards. There was praise for the streamlined nature of the game, as well as the MC job, although the inclusion of a sex move was controversial and was explicitly called out as not for children by SFSignal.[5][8]

This will be a little contrast-and-compare exercise to look at two recent roleplaying games that have been very popular in the story game community (also known as hippie games, indie games, etc.) The games are Apocalypse World (Lumpley Games, 2010) and Fate Core System/Fate Accelerated (Evil Hat Productions, 2013). I will note the very few places where the two builds of Fate differ as far as this analysis goes.

Even physically, the books have similarities: they are both small format books of 300 pages each which present self-contained games; everything you need to play is in the books, you need not plan on buying any supplements.

Both are fractal in the mathematical sense, with complexity arising from simple, open systems with scalable rules. In practical terms, it means you can change the scale of play, of adversaries, of the world, etc. by treating them in the same manner at every level, for example, using Aspects, stress boxes, and skills or approaches in Fate, and using countdown clocks, stats, and moves in Apocalypse World. It also means the resolution mechanics for all types of challenges and conflicts, be they physical, social, mental, etc., are essentially the same.

There are other roleplaying systems that use a fractal approach; for example, one could make a case for the Mouse Guard RPG, but AW and FC are the only two I can think of right now that have intentionally built this as a universal GM tool and hackable feature.

The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it's the move and player rolls dice.

When you open your brain to the world's psychic maelstrom, roll +weird. On a hit, the MC will tell you something new and interesting about the current situation, and might ask you a question or two; answer them. On a 10+, the MC will give you good detail. On a 7-9, the MC will give you an impression. If you already know all there is to know, the MC will tell you that.

There is a serious disconnect built into the system about how and how much narrative the player is supposed to bring to the table. The GM is instructed explicitly that they should be a narrative-first, but the players are given that this short menu of options and told defectively that everything that they will do will fall into these forms of interaction with the world - and they should keep that in mind. At all times.

Yes, sometimes "I hit it with my sword," is what you've got. The task resolution loop in AW-derived games spends a lot of time accidentally (?) pushing players to engage with the narrative environment while simultaneously making doing so a less rewarding experience.

...the players are given that this short menu of options and told defectively that everything that they will do will fall into these forms of interaction with the world - and they should keep that in mind. At all times.

No, they're not told that. That's a misunderstanding of how the game works. If you do something that doesn't map to a move you still do it, it just doesn't happen to be attached to a particular snippet of mechanical procedures. (What will often happen in situations like this is that after you say you do something you'll be looking at the GM expectantly to know what the results of that action are, which is their trigger to make a move, and you've just set them up so that "Tell them the consequences and ask" will feel like a very natural move to make.)

The players should definitely have the moves in mind (at all times might be excessive). This is what grounds and orients you to the milieu of the game. The knowledge that Going Aggro or Seizing By Force are very reliable and effective ways of getting what you want are part of the way the game brings you into the mindset of the post-apocalyptic characters of Apocalypse World, for example. This doesn't mean the moves are the only things characters can do. "What do you do?" should not be read as "What move do you make?".

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're trying to map Apocalypse World into some other model of how games work rather than taking it on its own terms. AW doesn't ask you to think in terms of a "narrative", if I'm not mistaken it actively discourages it (I know Dungeon World discourages you from thinking in terms of "story").

It's easy, because 99% of the time, that's the more fun approach. You're totally right that this should not be approached dogmatically, but in my (substantial) experience, when the game is rolling that way and the non-MC players are in the moment and in the fiction, and the MC is doing most of the converting player-narrative into move-calls, it's just way more fun. That doesn't always work, because of mood, narrative, or internality of what's going on, and so there are other ways. But when it does, it's immersive.

In my mind the differences between PbtA (Powered by the Apocalypse) games and D&D are mostly a matter of degrees of gameplay modes, and there can be significant overlap between them in gameplay style. I like to imagine a game panel with sliders, like on a sound mixing board, and two of the sliders drive story structure and story mode.

With story structure you have a completely open world on one side, with most of the world undeveloped and unprepared by the GM and players. The other end of the slider is what I might call "story world", which is a pretty well developed and playable world, with numerous named NPCs, dangers, and pre-built scenes that can be dropped into the path of characters--and all of this is usually part of a larger story in terms of a GM-proposed arc or fully developed published adventure.

At the end of the day these are personal choices. I definitely love reading Powered by the Apocalypse game rules and playbooks, and a lot of it has to do with my fascination with how different game designers have adapted PbtA rules, moves, and other mechanics to student life at Hogwarts, the Star Wars universe, or the trenches of World War I. In fact, I would encourage anyone thinking about upping their D&D or any roleplaying game to go to the source and read Apocalypse World, as well as any of the amazing work derived from AW. You may already be familiar with Ironsworn or Blades in the Dark, but pick up Masks, Urban Shadows, or the many other PbtA games to gain insight or ideas that you can apply when running your own games.

The apparent truth in "constraint drives creativity" always makes me think of Dungeons & Dragons, of tweaking the magic mechanics in new ways, or re-skinning the Druid class to fit into life in modern day Southern California. Apocalypse World makes me think of the Brian Eno quote about The Velvet Underground's first album--that it only sold 10,000 copies but everyone who bought one started a band.

Can you elaborate a little on how this line relates to MC love letters, like the ones in the setup for Hatchet City? Obviously in that case the player isn't initiating the action, but they are very much about world-authorship by selection (how well Ambergrease is positioned, whether Dustwich is a threat, etcetera).

@Brendan: Yes, the love letters are a really interesting case! They break out of the normal move structure, for sure.

Consider first that the love letters themselves cross a line. They're letters from the MC (the person at the table) to the character. This is weird and fun! It's a signal that things are a bit askew, and what happens in a love letter is a bit outside of normal play.

Obviously, the character is not receiving the letter in the game world. But neither are the players (as themselves) making the choices in the letter moves. They're making the choices in-character, almost.

It's a weird middle ground that muddles up MC/player authorship and also in-game/out-of-game concerns. It works in small doses.

3a8082e126