Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Hah! I was just stopping by to post this very thing. Only I'll include a link. :)
I need to finish MG, reread IAWA and then look at AW. But I probably won't wait and do things in the "right" order.
I haven't been following this game, and I can't find much on the site that explains what the game's about -- other than characters that look like they belong at Burning Man. What's the story?
Apoc World is the newest game from RPG designer extraordinare Vincent Baker.
Setting Assumptions: The apocalypse happened about 50 years ago. These days, there's plenty of guns, gasoline, and bullets, and not nearly enough of anything else. There's also a Psychic Maelstrom at the edge of everyone's consciousness.
It's rated R, and after reading it I can totally agree that it deserves this rating. I'm a white nerdy Midwestern; swearing violence and sex makes me adjust my collar. It's a little intimidating, the idea of such brutally charged situations. I probably would be offput (Hello, Bacchus) if it weren't for the fact that it's written by Vincent Baker, my hero! He's so dreamy!
Really, though, the game Apocalypse World has gotten a lot of attention on Storygames.com (and some on Vincent's rpg design blog, lumpley.com) regarding it's excellent design paradigm. Basically, many indie games have been accused of lacking a certain subtlety in play, resulting in an unsatisfying atmosphere of detachment from the fiction. Summary Play, where we describe things that happen but are left wondering how. It's a sliding scale of detail, to be sure, but I guess it's a problem that Vincent has seen some unsatisfying play from certain designs (some of his own, even). His design blog has made mention of this problem and talked about different design procedures to counter it (most notably to me, Rock of Tahamaat )
So Apoc World is the result of over a year's worth of design rumination on a very pertinent problem. It's made by the man who made Dogs in the Vineyard, so I automatically have the highest of hopes for it's ability to convey to the players (and GM in particular) how the hell to not only use the game, but to use it to do what it's supposed to do. I mean, I'm tempted to say "how to have fun with it," but I think it's an important point that "what it's supposed to do" isn't automatically "have fun".
It's like, I give you a hammer and try to teach you how to use it. Maybe you have a screw and not a nail, and you think my hammer sucks. I don't really care, you know? Go find a guy with a screwdriver, what I'm teaching you is how to use a hammer to pound a nail. Metaphors suck, though. So here: Apocalypse World carried the promise (and looks to have delivered, from my cursory read) of a series of strong, understandable instructions on the procedures of play. Actual responsibilities for the GM delineated in more refinement than "make a story, manipulate play to reveal that story," or "make the rolling of dice and interactions of characters fun".
This is actually one of the things that interests me most about the Burning Wheel and Mouseguard series as well, if I can just figure out how to appropriately craft the obstacles.
Ian, if you're searching around, I particularly enjoy stuff by John Harper and his crew about ApW.
I forecast there will be some Apocalypse World going down at my house, sometime later this summer. More details as a figure out what sort of social paradigm might be optimal.
Sweet!
A scruffy-looking Kevin Costner wearing some faded old uniform showed up on my doorstep today to deliver my copy of Apocalypse World. At first I was like, cool! some kind of Postman-themed promo. How post-apocalyptic! But then he was like no, he was just out of work so he took this delivery gig. We had a polite but awkward discussion about how no, I wasn't in the market for a novel petroleum cleanup technology. No, it's just a bad time right now, but you can leave some literature. Then I ducked back inside and bolted all the doors so no one could interfere with me and my Apocalypse World.
Mine has a nearly nude woman in a silk S&M gas mask on the cover. It's freaky but hot, which would match the general atmosphere of the game.
I have printed and assembled all the character books. I'd like to play this, but I'm not so sure how fast I can digest the rules. They're... different, even by indie standards. I'll see what I can do.
Mine appeared (addressed from Meg Baker Independently Fulfilling) on Saturday. But I haven't taken the time to read it yet even though I printed the pdf like four weeks ago.
Sadly, I didn't get to interact with the delivery person.
Larry! When?
You still think they're that different?
Well all right then!
We're I think planning to start our Apocalypse world with Eric as MC next Sunday after a game of IaWA.
ETA: this should not be taken to suggest that I'm not down for some more AW at Larry's house. As good as I think this is (so far), I'm good with two games of it. :)
Man, re-reading the Players section gets me excited about playing. Time to re-read the GM's section to dump all that enthusiasm back into MCing.
It's funny how when during our last meet I attempted to sell AW without explaining the MC stuff, just from a players perspective, that I realized never once in my first readthrough of the book did I look at any of it from the perspective of a player, always that of the MC.
Seriously, I think AW is the first game in thirty years of doing this, where I was excited to play every one of the character options.
Jessie Burneko once again earns my respect.
http://playpassionately.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/play-passionately-state-of-the-union/
AW has a lot of advice, rules, and structure for the MC. For the players? Players already know how to do this stuff, it's just play your damn character. I've really been thinking about this. Explaining AW's "system" without referencing the MC just doesn't work.
Burneko, however, talks quite powerfully about issues of play (in general, not AW specific) that really hit home for me. The "issues you can connect with" and "problems with play becoming cartoony and didactic" certainly gives me a lot of thought. There's also some good comments about the job of the player, and how attempting to service "The story" can distract from emotional connections with the characters. "I'd be more interesting if my char failed here" isn't something I personally do (much?), but I see it come up sometimes and I think some of the things Jessie says here really help me analyze it.
1 to 16 of 16