anyway.

* Quoth Epidiah Ravachol, "tee hee hee."

So maybe it should just be instead that this is common in rpgs, and "most" can look out for itself!

I didn't know Red November, so here's a BGG link.

Vincent (I'm hoping these questions are useful, not annoying. Ignore the annoying as, of course, you see fit):

How vulnerable do you think AW is to that kind of play?
Is it a problem if it happens?
Why or why not?
Assuming you want to reduce the danger of that happening, what design features help prevent it and/or sustain play when it does happen?

Gordon: The opposite of a problem! Apocalypse World is designed on purpose so that the players can just do their job ("your job is to play your characters as though they were real people, in whatever circumstances they find themselves") without knowing, carrying, or worrying about the object of the game.

It's like very many rpgs in this way.

Vincent Durn, I thought that was a possibility, and then ruined the way I put my questions (especially the last) in that case. So, rephrased: "What design features (in AW specifically, or RPGs generally) are important to that kind of play (that is, play where only one player worries about the object of the game)?"

I mean, if you think there's an interesting answer. "The features that work for that game" might be all there is to say, though maybe you could still point at what in AW you see as important in this context. The GM agenda and player job statements, clearly - anything else?

An email reveals to me that there are a couple more things I definitely need to say before this goes further. Stand by!

A couple of things I'm NOT saying:

1. I'm NOT saying that Apocalypse World is designed so that the players shouldn't know the object of the game.

It's possible to design games so that the players shouldn't know the object. The (perhaps apocryphal) game where the object is for the GM to get the players through her prepared plot points, but the players are supposed to think that their decisions change the plot, for instance. Or the ever-pertinent Sunshine Boulevard, where the object is to play a cruel trick on one of the players, who shouldn't know in advance that that's what's happening.

2. I'm NOT saying that Apocalypse World is designed so that the players can have oh, just any object, it doesn't matter. No, the object of Apocalypse World is to find out what these characters will make of their world, and if a player is pursuing the object of some other game by accident, Apocalypse World WILL break down.

This means that for some players, some times, you definitely DO want to tell them the object of the game and get them on board with it.

Either way, there's no reason not to.

I think the interesting bit is that the object is "find out what these characters will make of their world" but the instruction is "play like real people."

Of course, I find all this interesting/thought-inspiring, and almost hate to say more 'cause developing the object of the game is obviously useful and I want to see where Vincent is going. 

But I can't resist - some other thoughts, partially to see if I'm actually following along. Vincent/anyone, does any of this seem off?

No matter what the text does or doesn't directly say about the object of the game, most play will have one, and the text MATTERS for that (thus, DESIGNED object, no matter if it's intentional or not).

All players don't need to have their attention on the object of the game at all times, which is pretty cool (except when it isn't). But a game design is more useful when it helps players pursue the object, and often that means one/some/all players should have the object of the game in mind. In any case, they need that and/or other game-tools to help (in the right, not-too-easy way) with pursuing the object.

The "object of play" and the "object of the game" are actually distinct things, maybe? Or at least I can see stuff about the "reason" for play creeping into the "object" of play that, even if it does fit there, should NOT creep into the object of the game.

As always, hope it's useful.

Or (correcting a parenthetical) - in a we-HOPE-all-too-easy way. I was trying to remember just what Vincent had said about tools & objects, and I found it here, and it didn't quite say what I was remembering it did.

Choose your favorite RPG. What?s the object of the game? What tools does the game give you? Do they make achieving the object of the game easy or hard, certain, unlikely, or impossible?

AW's "find out what these characters will make of their world"? Incredibly easy. Well, a bit deceptively so (I mean, Vincent's got some brilliance in making sure it's "these characters" that do the making, and that we actually see the making happen). But - no need to avoid making it TOO easy, for sure. I missed that, before.

This is a nice definition, and I think not understanding this or something like it has made life hard for many GMs; they understand that they are supposed to insure that the game is fun, but the game designers are shy about defining what the object of the game actually is.

So instead of doing what they can to insure that the game is on course, with fun being generated by every participent, they instead think that the fun comes from them, that they are meant to be an exclusive entertainer of players.

When designers are less shy about what they mean by keeping the game fun, particularly the kind of game they aim for, then this problem evaporates.

Obviously other related problems appear, like how easy it is to hold the game to that object, how much the players have to be on board, or even how much they can be on board, and how much the rules contribute to that, and how much leway there is in that object or capacity to transform it into other things. All that stuff. But understanding that you have a role to play in setting up emergent fun is a very basic GMing thing. Without it, quite honestly most of the trappings of an rpg will be a hindrence, at best a comfort blanket.

Maybe that's too strong, but it matches my local experience.

I know this is not part of the question but is it even fair to say that "find out what these characters will make of their world" is the object of the game?

What this essentially means is "explore" which clashes with Vincent's examples linked by Gordon in comment #8. Checkmate is an object/goal. So is getting to the last level. These are objectively measurable and actionable (given the tools provided).

Finding out what characters make of the world or, simply put, exploring doesn't really define the object. It could be considered a meta-object: let them explore until they find what the agreed upon goal is, and then pursue it. But it's more of a recipe than object. Unless I'm missing some subtlety here.

Dom: I think it's fair to say. Why isn't "explore" a legit object for a game?

I mean, the object of Apocalypse World is, in fact, more specific and concrete than "explore," and maybe you're missing that subtlety, sure.

But either way you could design me a game right now where the object was to explore, and why shouldn't you? Who would be able to say "that's not a legit object for a game, because it's only to explore," and be right about it? Nobody!

I've answered your question before. It's not legit because it's not measurable. What I mean by that is: play session needs a sense of direction. You can't measure or even approximate whether you've moved from the starting point unless you can measure your progress. And you mark your progress along the direction axis. Is my advantage in chess greater than 5, 10, 20 moves ago? Did I pass any level in SMB in the last 10 minutes? Did I proceed towards the goal during the last RPG session? If not, my time seems wasted.

Where the problem may be, I just realized, is that I find it hard to distinguish object of a game from the object of a character (or group of characters). These are different things, sure, but they should support each other. Giving the game object as vague as "see what you do with the world" doesn't really validate the tools you're providing with your game. The other way I would put this would be: unless the object of the game suggests possible objects for the characters, it's too vague.

AW provides great tools validating a nice range of characters' objects but I fail to see how it validates game's object (I assume you're referring to the 4th page of the cover). You've written in another thread:

"Choose your favorite RPG. What?s the object of the game? What tools does the game give you? Do they make achieving the object of the game easy or hard, certain, unlikely, or impossible?"

What I find with AW is that the tools provided make it moderately hard and definitely entertaining to make achieving of the characters' object possible. Post-apo "choose your own adventure book" would also provide tools for making something out of the world. It'd be limited by author's imagination (and page count) but so are RPG sessions.

Dom: There's something about your objection I just don't see.

In Apocalypse World, you can tell during play whether you've moving toward finding out what the characters will make of their world. Tracking your progress along the "what have these characters made of their world" is as easy as anything.

Same as "explore"! "Have the characters explored their world more than they had when we started? How much more?"

Do you know the game Eat Poop You Cat?

I know this is not part of the question but is it even fair to say that ?find out what these characters will make of their world? is the object of the game?

I would say "no". It's as vague as to say that the object of the game is to have fun. It's something missing in Vincent's goal, because having a object like that is like pushing the responsibility to make the game work into the participants' laps.

(If I may generalize: roleplaying games are really good at doing this.)

I just realized, is that I find it hard to distinguish object of a game from the object of a character (or group of characters). These are different things, sure, but they should support each other.

I don't agree, actually. I can take it two steps further. The goal of the game can be different for the creator of the game (often a vague one), the game master, the players, and their characters. They can be the same, but they don't have to be.

If Vincent's goal for AW is the one stated above, what's the game master's object? What if a player wants it's character to fail with what it strives for? When all these objects come together, things will happen.

So I don't really agree with what Vincent first stated; that the game master is holding the object of the game for the whole group.

Dom, Rickard: Do either or both of you have the same objections to "in Apocalypse World, you play to find out what these characters will make of their world"?

I think I've been wrestling with the issue(s) raised by Dom and Rickard in quite a few of these threads over the last year-ish. For me, an important realization (thanks to Vincent's many clarifications, acknowledgments of complexity, and etc.) was that while in SOME sense "object of the game" is an OVER-simplification of what's happening in an RPG, in another sense it's just exactly the right clarification of an important part (still not the whole), especially if you're looking for a way to "quality-check" aspects of your design.

The design (as communicated by the text and whoever you're looking to as an authority) gives you an object for the game. That object may be clear, vague, easily grasped by some, elusive to others, and in all ways non-monolithic across designs or within a design. It's still an object, for the game, given by the design.

Characters (more generally, "fictional stuff") in the game will have goals, and there are complex interactions with the object of the game, positive and/or negative, supporting and/or undermining, and of course a designer should pay attention to that. But in no way does that change that the object of the game is a thing, and never have I seen Vincent say object of the game is all there is to design.

Human beings have reasons for even doing this social thing at all, and those reasons also interact, with the object of the game and fictional stuff and so much more. Still not something that "invalidates" the existence of the object of the game.

To me, "find out what these characters will make of their world," is potentially just as focusing as "achieve checkmate" and only unhelpfully transfers responsibility if the rest of the design fails to back that up. I can't speak from personal experience, but evidence seems pretty strong that for many AW players, focusing happens and unhelpful transfer doesn't. Might an object like "find out" devolve to unfulfilling exploration and/or fail to be meaningfully realized? Certainly. Does it help the design to have established that object? I've come to believe that's also certain. It is in SOME ways a different kind of object than "checkmate the opponent," but that doesn't mean it's not an object at all, nor diminish the usefulness of looking there to see how things (from design elements to in-play choices) are going. And durn, I really, REALLY want to see Vincent's ideas about precisely how having that object helps! Design especially, but play too.

Erm. As always, that's my understanding, not speaking for Vincent or anything. I agree that distinguishing "object of the game" from "goal of character" isn't a natural process for many RPers, but I'm coming to believe it's also real useful.

(Oh, and Rickard, when Dom said "support", I didn't take him to mean "the same", just that the various pieces do have to work together. So maybe no disagreement there.)

Dom, Rickard: Do either or both of you have the same objections to ?in Apocalypse World, you play to find out what these characters will make of their world??

It's better but it's still vague. I've been thinking of this for some days now, and it seems like you - in this example - is more talking about the emergence expected of the game. And that's an object for the creator of the game.

(I haven't played AW myself, only read about it and watched it been played, but ...) if I was to say that the object of AW was to "fight for your survival", that would still correspond to what you wrote. Or "expanding your influence in the world". Now, to tie everything together, none of these objects has to be fulfilled for the players, but the emergence of playing should be that they will "play to find out" or "explore the world".

Vincent: No, I don't know EPYC. I'll familiarize myself with the game. As for Rickard's objections - I think we may agree. This part seems crucial to me:

find out what these characters will make of their world—roleplaying games are really good at doing this

I share this sentiment and that's why I think it is too vague. It's not that it is valid per se, it's just not very helpful.

Another angle I could take would be this: Gordon stated that goal of the game can build any type of relation with characters' goals. I disagree. It should be OK for players' goals to misalign with characters' goals, but ultimately characters are part of the game, they exist in the same space and object of the game should be a generalization of object of any and every character. In other words object of a game limits the space in which objects of characters can "move". Otherwise characters are trying to break the game (or perhaps players by using their characters are?). It would be an interesting experiment though.

Another way I think about it is that characters that have objects that are not in the same space as the object of the game is are drifting.

Dom (and maybe Rickard): I'm concerned that we're not communicating clearly here - I hope this can help. Some specifics:

I wouldn't characterize what I said as "build any type of relation." Maybe "any type of relation that works for that particular game?" but that's as far I mean to go.

Saying that "characters that have objects that are not in the same space as the object of the game is are drifting" seems to indicate an equivalence between character goal (characters that have objects) and the object of the game. I think separating the object of the game from the fiction of the game is an important step. I mean, again, many relationships between 'em are possible, but keeping them from being confused as "the same thing" seems important.

If what you're saying is "I don't think you should be separating it out that way," well, I'm thinking Vincent is doing that, and I like the idea. If you don't - why not? I'm willing to talk about that (if Vincent doesn't mind it clogging his blog), but ultimately I'm NOT interested in convincing or being convinced as to which is "right."