(whatever)-World: Finally read it, here's my veredict

[Sakuya Izayoi]

I could say a lot of mean things about /tg/, but I cannot say that they don't play RPGs, just like I can't say theRPGsite, RPG.net, or Something Awful don't. Which is the crux of citing a post from any of those places.

[Ice9]

Re: 4chan. It's not that it's from there, it's that it's one single person, playing one particular way. I mean, if I find someone saying this:

When I run D&D, the town guards are always 20th level Paladins. Those shifty PCs better not try anything funny!

That's not evidence that most people do that, or especially that doing that is inherent to the game.

Anyone get can a gang.

So Leadership in D&D is not really a feat? Because anyone could get people to follow them around?

So, we've got GM fiat there in if you actually have the item or not, and what you get for being close enough on a success. If I ask for a gun I could end up with a pocket knife or a hand grenade. The hard choice... looks just like success with the exception of 'no hi-tech' and the miss is actually just a miss, which is a rarity.

Not all moves have the same range of results. Some moves have "7+ is totally fine, 10+ is just better" and others have "7-9 is pretty sucky, although better than a failure". That's something I'm fine with, actually; it's how things work in most rules-heavier games.

Also, yeah - that move is exactly what I'm talking about. It has arbitration involved in it, but it's not the same as total fiat. You get something on a success, something specifically close enough for your purpose, you don't on a failure. If you think that's the same as a complete ass-pull, I don't think we're even using the same definitions.

[Atmo]

What happens when you try to sneak into an area where there are no enemies? Do you still make a roll?

It depends. What has the GM prepped for the area ? Do enemies live in there ? What are the players intention for sneaking into it ? Just pass through? Search for something ? Sabotaging ? Before asking for the roll, these points should be elucidated.

And then... quantum bears!

[Cyberzombie]

It depends. What has the GM prepped for the area ? Do enemies live in there ? What are the players intention for sneaking into it ? Just pass through? Search for something ? Sabotaging ? Before asking for the roll, these points should be elucidated.

Okay, lets say the PCs are visiting a contact that is in fact friendly to them, though he's a double agent in the employ of an enemy faction. The PCs aren't quite sure where his loyalty lies (though the DM knows he's a friend to the PCs), so the PCs want to sneak in, just in case, so if there was a potential ambush they'll get the drop on him instead of the other way around. Of course, there is no ambush, because he's friendly and there isn't really anything to find.

[Ice9]

Since AW doesn't use any "roll currency" like Fate/Action Points, there's nothing wrong with rolling and just having the result be insignificant - "Ok, you snuck up on him ... he's just sitting there drinking a beer." / "You try to sneak up, but he hears you and you're caught off guard as he ... waves to you; he's not even armed."

Alternately, where the roll would just be a waste of time, you could just say that. "Don't even roll - when you bust in the door to storm the building, you realize the bandits are already long gone." In the case above, I'd say a roll is better to keep the suspense.

The key rule (I think it's even listed somewhere) is - don't have a consequence for failure unless you have a (positive) consequence for success.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Re: 4chan. It's not that it's from there, it's that it's one single person, playing one particular way. I mean, if I find someone saying this:

When I run D&D, the town guards are always 20th level Paladins. Those shifty PCs better not try anything funny!

That's not evidence that most people do that, or especially that doing that is inherent to the game.

Where are the goalposts, though?

When the quantum bear argument was trotted out, the opposition said, "no Scotsman would ever run the game like that."

So examples were found. Now, "no TRUE Scotsman would run the game like that."

[Ice9]

What the fuck is "the opposition"? I'm not part of some monolithic block of everyone you disagree with, and I never said "nobody ever runs AW in an asshole way", because that would be dumb.

My stance on that is pretty simple:
* The potential for quantum bears might exist, but you don't have to use it.
* Not using it is actually damn easy.
* The resulting game without quantum bears was pretty fun.

Now you can disagree with point #3, but instead people prefer to shout "Quantum bears! Anus world!" which is a pretty bullshit critique.

[Dogbert]

While not everyone who plays storygames is a viking hat, a system that grants complete, unilateral power to the GM is more likely to attract viking hats than a system that doesn't. It's more likely to find asshats at the helm of a Numenera or *World game than at tables of say, FATE Core.

[fectin]

Also, not every MC who might wear a viking hat necessarily will. Playing games which fail to actively encourage Scandinavian haberdashery actually reduces the overall proportion of viking hats.

[Cyberzombie]

The key rule (I think it's even listed somewhere) is - don't have a consequence for failure unless you have a (positive) consequence for success.

If AW allows insignificant rolls that don't have consequences, then I don't see where the quantum bears crap comes from then. I could see if every roll you made forced the GM to come up with some complication, but if that's not the case, then I don't see how its all that different from any other rules-lite game.

While not everyone who plays storygames is a viking hat, a system that grants complete, unilateral power to the GM is more likely to attract viking hats than a system that doesn't. It's more likely to find asshats at the helm of a Numenera or *World game than at tables of say, FATE Core.

I can't speak for FATE compared to Numenera, but I would tend to think that AW doesn't have as many tyrannical DMs as something more popular like Pathfinder/D&D. The thing is that getting people to try those weird indie systems is difficult business. Most of the time when you suggest that, you're going to get most of the group that just wants to play a system they know instead.

The only time you're likely to get people to try some weird indie system like AW is if the group itself already trusts you as a GM. Bad DMs almost always seem to gravitate towards the most popular systems, specifically because they have a difficult time finding players. I mean if the dude just ran a shitty game of Pathfinder for you, are you very likely to want to learn a new system so you can play AW with him?

Even good DMs have a tough time convincing people to learn new systems.

[silva]

Okay, lets say the PCs are visiting a contact that is in fact friendly to them, though he's a double agent in the employ of an enemy faction. The PCs aren't quite sure where his loyalty lies (though the DM knows he's a friend to the PCs), so the PCs want to sneak in, just in case, so if there was a potential ambush they'll get the drop on him instead of the other way around. Of course, there is no ambush, because he's friendly and there isn't really anything to find.

Nah, I wouldnt waste time with rolls if there are no actual stakes involved. Just move the game forward until some proper stakes appear.

Edit: ninja'd by Ice9.

[Ice9]

While not everyone who plays storygames is a viking hat, a system that grants complete, unilateral power to the GM is more likely to attract viking hats than a system that doesn't. It's more likely to find asshats at the helm of a Numenera or *World game than at tables of say, FATE Core.

I absolutely agree that more free-form games with more GM arbitration are more susceptible to asshole GMs - I regard that as an acceptable trade-off for some of their benefits, but there are in fact certain GMs I would never play AW with.

But, that is a really weird example to pick, because FATE is pretty far on the freeform axis itself, about equally so as AW in ability of the GM to screw with you. Yes, you can spend a Fate point to reject a compel. But is there any limit to how many such compels can be made, or how bad a compel can be? There is not. A GM who wants to be an asshole can easily throw compels at you that will burn through your FP if you resist, and result in total screwage if you accept. And then they throw one more, and you're fucked, no save.

In fact, FATE is arguable a little bit more screw-capable, in that compels can force actions, if you have no FP to reject them. I don't think there's a GM-side move in AW that can do that - at most, a hard move can be "do X or you get killed", but you can still choose to get killed.

[GâtFromKI]

I'm also curious what you think that *world games put forth as unique ideas?

Huh. I didn't write "unique ideas" but "ideas I never saw elsewhere". I don't know the game Münchhausen Frank is talking about is: maybe all good thing in AW are better in Münchhausen.

Anyway, it's hard to explain in English for me, but let's try.

Firstly, the fact that the game isn't round based and operate at a more abstract level, and the fact that an example even say "if you want to infiltrate an enemy base, just say you infiltrate the bas". OK, then the example is a piece of shit since it transform success into failure; still, before that it describe a better mechanic than "I want to infiltrate the base - OK, roll 355 Stealth checks". I know it has some issues, especially the fact the MC decides what a single roll can do (sometime you will infiltrate the whole base, sometime you will only go to some checkpoint - like the stairs for the next level), but it's still better than rolling XXX stealth roll not to be detected. I also think the system would need an other mechanic for such long tasks (something like 5-10: a complication appears! if you solve it you can try again with a cumulative +1 bonus. 11-12: you finally success), but the simple fact the game propose to infiltrate a base

I also like the fact the game world seems to resume around the PC. As far as I understand what Silva try to explain, the BBEG can't surprise-teleport next to the PC and kill them, just because he can do that: the MC has to give some clues that it will happens. Yes, I know that you and Frank are saying that it's not the rules and Silva didn't understand the rules.

Except... I play Pathfinder. There are many rules in pathfinder that are so badly explained that two persons can literally understand the opposite and both are right because the rule litteraly say nothing. So I think both you and Silva are right about what the rules say: it can be understand at the same time as "the MC can alway bullshit the PCs with a hard move" and "the MC has to give some clues about any hard move that will happens". In actual play, I know some MC that are not asshole and will use silva's interpretation (and will give clear enough clues), and it can be a cool game; and I know also asshole MC, but once I know that I don't play with them. So in the end: the rules are a pile of nothingness that can be interpreted in an interesting way. That's not a great accomplishment, but that's an accomplishment.


As a conclusion:

Which is to say it has nothing to do with the game and it's rules so much as the group of people you're playing with.

That's entirely true.

In the other hand, I have no idea how to make an enjoyable game using Unknown Army - I don't even know if a PC without the "lie badly" skill can try to lie. I can see how a game using AW can be enjoyable. It makes it far less shitty than Unknown Army. Again, that's not a great accomplishment, but that's an accomplishment.

[silva]

Firstly, the fact that the game isn't round based and operate at a more abstract level, and the fact that an example even say "if you want to infiltrate an enemy base, just say you infiltrate the bas". OK, then the example is a piece of shit since it transform success into failure; still, before that it describe a better mechanic than "I want to infiltrate the base - OK, roll 355 Stealth checks". I know it has some issues, especially the fact the MC decides what a single roll can do (sometime you will infiltrate the whole base, sometime you will only go to some checkpoint - like the stairs for the next level), but it's still better than rolling XXX stealth roll not to be detected.

Gat, I totally get what youre saying. This is what makes AW run so fast and one of its best selling points for me. This happens because its more grounded on conflict-resolution than your traditional task-resolution method. The difference between them ţis one of scope: task-res focus on simulating "what" you do, step-by-step, while conflict-res focus on the "whys" of you doing it (and the stakes involved), and compressing a bunch of that in the same roll (thus compressing game-time and making that hour-long 100-rolls combat into a ten minutes long couple rolls one).

TASK-res:
PC: I attack him.
GM: Ok, roll.
PC: *succeeds*
GM: calculate damage. What now ?
PC: I attack again.
GM: Ok, roll again.
PC: *miss*.
GM: ok, now he attacks you. *succeeds*.
GM: He hits you in the arm. Take damage. What now ?
PC: I.. try to flank him.
GM: ok, roll.
.
.
etc

CONFLICT-res:
PC: I attack him
GM: why ? [here is the GM asking for intentions!]
PC: hmm.. cause I want to get away and he is blocking the passage.
GM: So your intention is running away safely and hurting him as a plus? If you miss, it can happen the other way around, right ? [here is the GM establishing clear stakes!]
PC: yes.
GM: ok, roll.
PC: succeeds.
GM: ok, you hit him in the leg and escape through the door. This will slow him down. What do you do ?
.
etc.

The possible downside to this resolution is having things passing too fast sometimes, making it too abstract like in a boardgame or too frantic like in that Adrenaline movie. It happened to my group a couple times, then we discussed and decided to slow down a bit. Communication is key, as always.

[Previn]

Re: 4chan. It's not that it's from there, it's that it's one single person, playing one particular way. I mean, if I find someone saying this:

When I run D&D, the town guards are always 20th level Paladins. Those shifty PCs better not try anything funny!

That's not evidence that most people do that, or especially that doing that is inherent to the game.

Except that, well that's just one example of many examples, that is reinforced by the game, had support voiced for it in that thread by several posters, and was supposed to never happen. I just happened to grab that one because it was a *world game thread on /tg/ that was going on at the same time.

You can whine and moan all you want, but quantum bears is a thing in *world games.

Anyone get can a gang.

So Leadership in D&D is not really a feat? Because anyone could get people to follow them around?

Leadership isn't a mechanic that defines D&D. The game can play exactly the same without it. If I asked you for mechanics of D&D and you started listed individual feats, I'd have made the same comment.

Also, yeah - that move is exactly what I'm talking about. It has arbitration involved in it, but it's not the same as total fiat. You get something on a success, something specifically close enough for your purpose, you don't on a failure. If you think that's the same as a complete ass-pull, I don't think we're even using the same definitions.

Uh... yes it is. You get something 'close enough' to what you asked for, not that fits the same purpose. Ask for a gun, get a slingshot is a correct response to a success for that ability. So is a rock, a vial of sarin, a blowgun or a gun you have no ammo for.

Fail and you get nothing. Succeed and the GM will tell you what you get, which may be effectively nothing {edit: or may be totally awesome too.}

* The potential for quantum bears might exist, but you don't have to use it.

Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards. As in “fuck around with,” not “fuck over.” ....

Marie makes it super clear to Roark that she doesn’t care who he kills, but he’s to bring Joe’s Girl (an NPC) back to her alive. For “questioning” or “examination” or something — Marie wants access to Joe’s Girl’s living brain. So Roark goes out, murders a batch of people, and comes back with Joe’s Girl alive. Here’s where I fuck around, though: he’s beaten the SHIT out of her. Marie has access to her brain (because always give the characters what they work for) but she’s in a coma, her back is broken, her face is smashed in. Joe’s Girl is alive for now, but ruined for good. I gave Marie what she worked for, but not really what she hoped for. See it? Throw curves. Put your bloody fingerprints all over everything you touch.

I'm starting to wonder if everyone who champions *world games has ever actually read the rules for the game.

[Schleiermacher]

That's an actual quote from the GM advice?
What the hell. I always thought *World, like FATE, was a perfectly serviceable game if you like that kind of thing, just very far from my cup of tea, but that's sick. The chucklefuck who wrote that has issues, and they go far beyond being a bad GM or designer.

[OgreBattle]

I think I get it now. ___ World is a game where you make wishes, and the DM is a malicious genie 'granting' them.

[Ice9]

Well, I guess I basically don't give a shit about following the GM advise, and neither do the people whose games I've played in. I mean, there's stuff there that I would use, but not, for example, that part.

But then, I don't really consider advise part of the official rules. I mean, if you followed WotC's advise, you would pick blasting spells for your Wizard and fight non-wildshaped with a scimitar as a 17th level Druid. It's something worth looking at, but if you look at it and say "fuck that shit", then there you go, bin it.

Hell, some of the most rage inducing advise I've seen was about HERO system, of all things - the part in Play Dirty where John Wick talks about how awesome being an evil GM is, and how you should do things like make Immunity to Disease into a liability. And HERO is definitely not a system that encourages asshole GMing.

[Previn]

Well, I guess I basically don't give a shit about following the GM advise, and neither do the people whose games I've played in. I mean, there's stuff there that I would use, but not, for example, that part.

There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this.

Ice9, stop participating. You just committed so many fallacies in a single post I can't even being to go into it, so I'm just going to leave it at that and no longer respond to you in this thread.

[Ice9]

I don't know why you called it "advise" then. Anyway, in that case it would be the part of the rules I'm ignoring. Which I've mentioned before.

I guess technically, by ignoring part of the rules, I'm not playing Apocalypse World, I'm playing [Unnamed Game #517] which just happens to resemble Apocalypse World. IMO, this is not particularly useful pedantry, but whatever floats your boat.

I care about results. And the result of trying (modified) AW was a better game experience of that type than other games have provided. And making the modifications to AW was significantly easier than building a game from scratch to get the same result. Therefore, AW is useful.

[Username17]

I don't know why you called it "advise" then. Anyway, in that case it would be the part of the rules I'm ignoring. Which I've mentioned before.

I guess technically, by ignoring part of the rules, I'm not playing Apocalypse World, I'm playing [Unnamed Game #517] which just happens to resemble Apocalypse World. IMO, this is not particularly useful pedantry, but whatever floats your boat.

The point is that the game you are describing does not resemble Apocalypse World very much. Frankly, I'm not sure how it resembles it at all. You've said that you've binned the quantum bears, which is the core resolution mechanic of the whole game. And you've said that you've binned the creepy sexual predation moves, which is a rather large chunk of everyone's character sheet. And you've said that you've said that you've binned the concept of the MC-as-abuser, which is not only most of the text of the book but the explicit purpose of the entire game.

So... having ditched the core resolution mechanic of the game and the game's structure of cooperative storytelling and a literal majority of rules, moves, and effects, and essentially all of the examples of play... what exactly is left? The thing you're describing is something I can't even begin to reconcile as being similar to the Apocalypse World that is actually in written form. You haven't mentioned a single axis in which you are cleaving to any part of the rules, goals, customs, or forms of Apocalypse World and every single time we bring up anything the book actually says about fucking anything you recuse yourself on the grounds that that part of the book is part of the book that you're ignoring.

Well seriously man, fuck you. Put up or shut up. What part of the rules are you not ignoring?

-Username17

[Ice9]

You've said that you've binned the quantum bears, which is the core resolution mechanic of the whole game.

See, this is where we have a difference in fundamental definitions. I'm saying that if we take a mechanic like the Chopper one mentioned above, and interpret it such that "close enough" means actually close enough for the player's purposes and not some kind of evil-genie deal, and that "someone stole it" does not mean arbitrary amounts of screwage like "and all your other stuff", then:
1) It remains a mechanic.
2) Despite the presence of GM arbitration, it isn't 'quantum bears'.

I guess to you, that still counts as quantum bears, and that's inextractable from the basic structure of the moves. So therefore I've ditched the entire structure of the game.

So I disagree with your base premise. Ditching quantum bears does not mean ditching every element that has quantum bear potential. It just means not actually going quantum bears with those elements.

And you've said that you've binned the creepy sexual predation moves, which is a rather large chunk of everyone's character sheet.

What are you talking about? The sex moves? Those are like, 2-3 sentences on an entire page, and how are they even problematic? They're mostly on the order of "buff spell by having sex", which is unusual, but not that out there.

MC-as-abuser, which is not only most of the text of the book but the explicit purpose of the entire game.

I guess the book has more pages than it needs then. And the supposed purpose of WoD is personal horror, but that hasn't really stopped anyone from going very different directions with it.

[Atmo]

I feel that this debate was, once more, derailed and destroyed by silva and his minions.

[MGuy]

I wouldn't call Ice a minion. His version of crazy argument is: I just won't use any of the elements from the book and then it can be fun! While I'm pretty sure silva's whole thing is that the game is good and people are just misunderstanding it.

[Atmo]

I wouldn't call Ice a minion. His version of crazy argument is: I just won't use any of the elements from the book and then it can be fun! While I'm pretty sure silva's whole thing is that the game is good and people are just misunderstanding it.

That's only a feel, not an accusation or anything so hard. But i doubt silva is "advertising" aw with a good heart; their claims that he does this literal spam is true and can be backtracked with ease.