Thinking About Apocalypse World

So, something compelled me to pick up Apocalypse World this week. Maybe it was this review at Gnome Stew. Maybe it was Chatty DM's experience with the game. Perhaps is was Rob Donoghue's series of posts about it giving him so much food for thought. Anyway, the game really is provocative. I admit that I was already on a bit of a post-apocalyptic kick heading into it, but I literally devoured the thing as fast as I could, reading it on my commute, my lunch break, and during my son's tae kwon do class. It's the type of game that worms its way into your brain and won't let go until you've done something with it. I have no idea if I'll actually get a chance to run the game as presented (though that would be a hoot), but the approach to GMing (MCing) alone is worth the price of admission.

Rather dive into a lengthy post, I'm going to break things up by tackling little nuggets that I found interesting and that might be applicable to Risus and other games that I run.

Move Mechanic
When a player character does something that would be a skill check or combat roll in other games, it's called a move. Unless otherwise noted, all moves are resolved in the same way. The player rolls 2d6+Stat. A result of 7 or higher is a success (or "hit"). A result of 7-9 is a "weak hit", however, and will invariable carry some kind of complication that makes the character's life more interesting. A result of 6 or less is a "miss", something bad usually happens.

There's a lot to be said about moves, but the first thing that struck me about them is that there is no concept of difficulty in the standard rules. The chapter for "Advanced Fuckery" (there are many F-bombs in the text) provides an optional rule for saying something is hard or easy, but the author doesn't seem to put much stock into it.

Coming from Risus, where Target Numbers vary wildly, and Gurps, where many if not most skill rolls are modified for circumstances, I find this fascinating. Combine this with the fact that NPC opponents have no real stats to speak of and you have a game that requires a shift in perspective. But I like it. In some ways, it reminds me saving throws in older version of D&D. Your save didn't have a difficulty. You simply had to save verses spells or poison or some such*. Same for finding a secret door or (in the old days) using your thief abilities.

NPCs receive a similar lack of mechanical differentiation. Individual NPCs have three stats that matter: their weapon damage, their armor, and their harm countdown clock. I have no idea if I'd like this in practice, but its implications for aiding in improvisation during play have enormous appeal. I've seen hacks like Dungeon World where monsters and other foes can have special moves, but even there, they don't get stats like skill levels or ability scores.

The other important aspect of moves that I'll touch on for the moment is that concept of a "weak hit". This is not an unfamiliar concept from Risus, where the optional Risus Companion contains sage advice about using Target Numbered rolls to adjust the level of success, even when success is practically assured. But putting this idea front and center is what really got my notice. I love the idea that a regular success will always have complications that make a character's life more interesting and the adventure more exciting. I'm already thinking about how I might apply this philosophy to my Gurps game. I'm thinking that unless you succeed by 2 or more, there's going to be some kind of interesting complication. On balance, it has to be a net positive, but just adding a little minor blowback for a marginal success sounds appealing (especially since regular failure is becoming increasingly rare as the characters advance).

* Though it could be said that in old versions of the game, the type of saving throw represented difficulty in and off itself.