128. Help or Interfere, Part II: Changes

On a 10+, they take +2 (help) or -2 (interfere) to their roll. On a 7 – 9, they take +1 (help) or -1 (interfere) to their roll. On a miss, be prepared for the worst.

The help or interfere move underwent some serious revision from the first edition to the second. Here’s what the move used to say:

On a hit, they take +1 (help) or -2 (interfere) now. On a 7 – 9, you also expose yourself to fire, danger, retribution or cost.

When I first became aware of Apocalypse World, people regularly referred to the help or interfere move as an indicator of how hostile the Apocalypse World of the game was. It was much more rewarding to hinder someone else than it was to help them. Moreover, to help someone was to stick your neck out and risk sharing in the pain, even if you got a (weak) hit. It was a compelling argument and a good bit of insight. But apparently it was not all that important to Vincent and Meguey since the second edition does away with both of those details.

The simplest reading of this change is that the Bakers were originally concerned about the math, that if a character could have a +3 from a stat, the +2 from help would mean that the player would have a guaranteed hit. A maximum +1 meant that even with help and everything else going a character’s way, snake eyes would still result in a miss. And once you limit a strong hit to +1, then you can’t go any weaker than that on a weak hit and still consider it a hit, so you need to make the weakness of the hit related to something other than the bonus, which in this case was exposing yourself to danger.

Obviously something about the move was not working the way they wanted it to. I don’t know if the low payoff of +1 meant that players were less inclined to help each other, or if players were scared away by the possibility of exposing themselves to danger, or if the dramatic ramifications of a weak hit were interfering with the play they wanted. Maybe it was something else entirely. So far as I know, the Bakers haven’t stated in any interviews, tweets, or blogposts why they made these changes. The move is certainly simpler and more inviting in its current form, even if it initially seems a little less sexy.

Losing the 7 – 9 element of “expos[ing] yourself to fire, danger, retribution or cost” is I think no big deal because that fiction will take care of itself. Why is your character only able to be of +1 assistance instead of +2? Work that answer into the fiction. And if you are working into the fiction that your character is there helping, then the MC is going to naturally work that fact into the cause-and-effect chain that follows that moment. I’ll look more fully at this in the next post when we look at the examples.

The changes to the move itself are not the only changes in this section. Behold:

2e: If a player doesn’t say how her character’s helping or interfering, always ask. To do it, the character’s got to do it. “I’m helping,” is fine to say, but just like for “I’m going aggro,” you answer it with “cool, what do you do?”

1e: Always ask how! To do it, you’ve got to do it. “I’m helping” is the same kind of unacceptably vague as “I’m going aggro” – you answer them both with “cool, what do you do?”

2e: Both of the players – the acting one, the helping or interfering one – can roll at the same time, but it’s not important.

1e: It’s best if both the players – the acting one, the helping or interfering one – roll at the same time, but don’t be a nit about it.”

You can see that these changes are not to the substance of the passages but to their tone. The second edition doesn’t make many tonal changes (or at least not that 6I’ve noticed), so it’s interesting that in rewriting this, the Bakers felt the need/desire to dial this back. I suspect that calling your reader a “nit” and suggesting that the players are acting “unacceptably vague” just came off as unnecessarily harsh. While the book employs rough language and salty tones, it doesn’t tend to attack its audience directly like this.

Those are at least my best bets. What are yours?