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

[John Magnum]

Yup, a cult was already established in the previous session, as per the example cited (notice though, it wasnt specified exactly how large the cult was, nor exactly how well equipped were they - these were voids filled by the GM)

You're almost to the point of realizing what everyone has been saying the entire time. You keep repeating "Threats and Fronts! Threats and Fronts!" but of course the actual strength of a Threat or a Front is wildly indeterminate. As the example shows, an arbitrarily strong force can be conjured out of nowhere and cause the PCs to instantly fail their mission as long as it's connected to a Threat, and you don't have to specify how large, or powerful, or aware, or whatever a Threat is in advance.

The requirement that whatever new enemy you throw at the players be connected to a Threat or a Front is extremely minimal, because there's no in-advance ceiling on the power at a Threat's command! Just knowing "If a bunch of new enemies show up, they will be somehow related to the Water Cultists we're fighting" is not really that significant.

[Mistborn]

Best that you not remember his name. He is as easily summoned to any board, no matter how backwater, as Z@k $.

Well last time Sage LaTorra got namedropped here he didn't show. Honestly I'd prefer that Sage LaTorra come here and attempt to defended his shitty game if the alternative is another silva thread. It's not like Sage LaTorra is even capable of making this thread worse.

[silva]

You're almost to the point of realizing what everyone has been saying the entire time. You keep repeating "Threats and Fronts! Threats and Fronts!" but of course the actual strength of a Threat or a Front is wildly indeterminate. As the example shows, an arbitrarily strong force can be conjured out of nowhere and cause the PCs to instantly fail their mission as long as it's connected to a Threat, and you don't have to specify how large, or powerful, or aware, or whatever a Threat is in advance.

1) how is this different from any other game ? Say, when you enter your dungeon of the week, what prohibits the GM from throwing one hundred black beholders at the group in the first room and make it so the entrance is locked so the group cant run away ?

2) the actual strength of a threat will be dependent on what the group establishes in the first session. So a more throurough defining by the group in the first session would alleviate this. Besides that, the group can force the GM to define it more through recon or Read a Sitch moves, like in the book example. And even then, part of the threat will be open to the GM improv/creation. Its like that in any game (see point above).

3) and most important point, I think: why would the GM throw unbeatable opposition at the group ? THe motto of the game is "play to see what happens", that means you want to see the players in interesting situations and how they get out of them. If you just want to throw unbeatable opposition in the group to see them all die, honestly, I dont see the point in playing this game - or any other game - in the first place.

[PoliteNewb]

1) how is this different from any other game ? Say, when you enter your dungeon of the week, what prohibits the GM from throwing one hundred black beholders at the group in the first room and make it so the entrance is locked so the group cant run away ?

As others have pointed out in myriad other threads on this subject...maybe the fact that the D&D encounter design rules tell you NOT to do this, whereas the example in the *World book explicitly outlines doing this?

When one game has a bunch of math that leads you to the conclusion "putting in overwhelming opposition is a bad idea" and the other game has an example demonstrating the GM putting in overwhelming opposition...how can you possibly conclude there is no difference between the games?

[fectin]

On top of that, in DnD, If you are going to bild a crazy encounter like that, you build it ahead of time.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Nothing stopping you from just killing the party outright with falling rocks or disintegration doorways, either. You just don't do it because that isn't a real game (unless you're Gygax).

EDIT: This was meant to illustrate a violation of the guidelines within one of the better flavors of DMG, not be a point in favor of AW

[silva]

As others have pointed out in myriad other threads on this subject...maybe the fact that the D&D encounter design rules tell you NOT to do this, whereas the example in the *World book explicitly outlines doing this?

When one game has a bunch of math that leads you to the conclusion "putting in overwhelming opposition is a bad idea" and the other game has an example demonstrating the GM putting in overwhelming opposition...how can you possibly conclude there is no difference between the games?

No example in AW book has the players in overwhelming/impossible situations. The two examples cited in this forum deal with 1) the player having to kll a kid so he can keep his cover, and 2) the player noticing the stronger enemies in a cult are a couple psychic cultists.

How are those situations overwhelming/impossible ?

Nothing stopping you from just killing the party outright with falling rocks or disintegration doorways, either.

This. If all your GM want is to kill the PCs, just do it. You can do that in any game, regardless of rules. The question is: Why would the GM do that ? Is that your goal when you sit together with your friends to have fun together, to get everybody dead in the first encounter ??

Assuming your response is "No", then why do you assume Apocalypse World players would want any of that ?

[rampaging-poet]

One of the examples quoted from the book in a previous thread involved the pyschic cultists showing up and the player being told he would die if he tried fighting. If that isn't overwhelming opposition, I don't know what is. The mission was to kill the leader of the cultists, so conjuring overwhelming opposition caused the character to fail their mission (for now) with a successful roll. Sure, the guards existed somewhere in the temple, but they weren't physically in the room until the player made a successful check!

[silva]

One of the examples quoted from the book in a previous thread involved the pyschic cultists showing up and the player being told he would die if he tried fighting. If that isn't overwhelming opposition, I don't know what is. The mission was to kill the leader of the cultists, so conjuring overwhelming opposition caused the character to fail their mission (for now) with a successful roll. Sure, the guards existed somewhere in the temple, but they weren't physically in the room until the player made a successful check!

The example from the book is this:

Bran doesn’t like the way things are going, so he takes a quick
look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so let’s see. Tum Tum
isn’t his biggest threat, Tum Tum’s psychically-linked cultistbodyguards
are. His enemy’s true position is closing in slowly
around Tum Tum’s temple, where they’re talking. And if things
go to shit? I think his best escape route would be to take one or
the other of Tum Tum hostage. (Bran’s player: “Aw fuck.”)

Notice 2 things:

1) its not clear if the psychic bodyguards were established or not before this scene.

2) the situation is unfavorable, but not impossible, since the GM gives a tip for a solution (taking a hostage and running away), which the player follows if he want (or not).

3) and most important, again: Assuming the opposition presented (the 2 bodyguards) is indeed very difficul or impossible to take on: didnt you never encountered heavy opposition, the likes which is almost impossible to take heads on, in other games ? Things like "There is a Black Dragon over there, if you go in you die. What do you do?"

So, I still dont see any reason for panic. The player can simply get out of there (and taking a hostage with him, by the away). So, where is the overwhelming, ALL PLAYERS WILL DIE NOW! situation ?

[momothefiddler]

Besides that, the group can force the GM to define it more through recon or Read a Sitch moves, like in the book example. And even then, part of the threat will be open to the GM improv/creation. Its like that in any game (see point above).

Now, I've not read the rulebook, but when you say this as a defense of the unbeatable opposition spawning, it leads me to believe that it's possible to just repeat the perception check until the opposition-wavefunction collapses into a beatable opponent instead. Is that actually possible? Because it could arguably solve the stated problem but would... leave me very confused about the nature of the game.

[silva]

Nope, thats not possible Momo.

And its important to remember that the "unbeatable opposition spawning" must be plausible and logical within the fiction. So the players should question any introduced element that they see as nonsensical or unplausible for that situation. (as with any game, really )

[momothefiddler]

If it's not possible to decrease the threat level of enemies with perception checks, then, given such opposition, how is it useful to "force the GM to define it more through recon or Read a Sitch moves"? It seems like at that point you'd just be asking for the enemies to have more reinforcements.

In fact, it seems like you'd end up with a CoC-style situation where knowing or finding out anything is bad and the players are better off never looking at anything or reading any books etc.

[MGuy]

Nothing stopping you from just killing the party outright with falling rocks or disintegration doorways, either. You just don't do it because that isn't a real game (unless you're Gygax).

EDIT: This was meant to illustrate a violation of the guidelines within one of the better flavors of DMG, not be a point in favor of AW

There are rules for finding and avoiding traps. Not to mention a myriad of ways to straight up avoid them. Those are things that stop you from outright killing the party.

[silva]

If it's not possible to decrease the threat level of enemies with perception checks, then, given such opposition, how is it useful to "force the GM to define it more through recon or Read a Sitch moves"? It seems like at that point you'd just be asking for the enemies to have more reinforcements.

Just a correction: the "Read a Sitch" move in AW is not really a perception check in the traditional rpg sense, because it implies a charged situation, or a situation thats about to blow up. So, it can mean a perception check in the trad sense, but only if the sitch is charged. In that sense, I would say it works more like a kind of tactical awereness than a proper perception check.

This difference may look small, but its relevant, because when youre just analyzing a situation - in a calm, cold manner - the GM is advised to just give everything away: "Ok, there are six guards there"; "and its weird... they are alert as if they were waiting for something to happen... perhaps you cover blew and they know you guys are going to ambush them ?"; "hmmm... yes, they definitely know an ambush will occur.."; "But who could have leaked that info ? Tum Tum ? Moses ? Perhaps you, Jill ?"

So, getting back to your question, the best option for assessing the opposition is just asking away! The GM wont ask for any "perception tests", nor will hold any secrets at all, so just ask. NOW, on the other hand if the sitch is charged, then the GM may ask for the roll. And if you blow it, that means shit happens (... according to the situation internal logic and causality, of course - no Power Armored Bears parachuting above you, nor Wedgie Ninja appearing from nowhere and giving wedgies in the players ).

[momothefiddler]

How does any of that mitigate overwhelming opposition? And if it doesn't, why did you bring it up as an example of something mitigating overwhelming opposition?

[ACOS]

It's all some kind of irrational circular reasoning that is meant to come back and "prove" that AW doesn't suck.
Except, it really does suck.

[Kaelik]

NOW, on the other hand if the sitch is charged, then the GM may ask for the roll. And if you blow it, that means shit happens (... according to the situation internal logic and causality, of course - no Power Armored Bears parachuting above you, nor Wedgie Ninja appearing from nowhere and giving wedgies in the players ).

The bolded part is incorrect of course. If you succeed on the check then an invincible army of magic ninjas appear out of nowhere. If you fail, god knows what happens.

But it is totally okay, because the Author is required to ask you before forcing to to make a move, so if you ask a question, and the Author calls for a roll for read a stich, then you just say no, because on a success a magical super army appears that you can't possibly beat, and on a failure the magical super army rapes your mother, and on no check at all, you just get to punch the king in the face until he is dead.

So just never every try to figure out what is happening, and then the Author can't introduce super armies.

Well he can, and he will, because he is Authoring an xWorld campaign, which is something you only do if you want to shit on your Readers, but he will have to use one of his infinite moves to do so, so at the very least, the invincible army will appear because the Author says it does, not because you succeeded on a check.

[silva]

How does any of that mitigate overwhelming opposition? And if it doesn't, why did you bring it up as an example of something mitigating overwhelming opposition?

Perhaps I didnt express myself correctly. I didnt mean to mitigate overwhelming opposition in the sense of eliminating or reducing it, but to mitigate "having overwhelming opposition appearing from nowhere". In other words: not getting surprised if the GM pulls 2 psychic cultists from his ass. The more you ask him - specially from a non charged standpoint, the more he will be forced to answer:

Player: "Ok, how many guards?"
GM: "6"
Player: "How they are equipped?"
GM: "Standard, well conserved firearms.. except for the two near the center - those are unarmed, but their heads are bald and full of tatoos"
Player: "Hmmm.. thats weird, I take a better look at them, what do I see?"
Gm: "They seem to be meditating or something... oh man, those are Brainers, for sure".
Player: "Shit".

So, by asking questions away, you avoid getting surprised. At least surprised by new elements appearing from "nowhere". You could still be surprised by actions or events already established (like failing a Read a Sitch roll and having one of the Brainers detecting you!).

[Sakuya Izayoi]

It might help make the rules less vague if Vincent didn't use words like "sitch" and "charged" as if they were Clockwork Orange lingo, while discussing game mechanics and not fluff.

[silva]

The bolded part is incorrect of course. If you succeed on the check then an invincible army of magic ninjas appear out of nowhere

Nope. If you succeed you must ask the GM questions, and he must answer them as best as he can.

See below an example from the book. Notice how the player uses two moves (text bolded) and how the Read a Situation roll didnt introduced any new entities, instead just adding details to the ones already present, according to previous info available to the GM or simply (plausible) improvisation on his part:

Marie the brainer goes looking for Isle, to visit grief upon her,
and finds her eating canned peaches on the roof of the car shed
with her brother Mill and her lover Plover (all NPCs).
“I read the situation,” her player says.
“You do? It’s charged?” I say.
“It is now.”
“Ahh,” I say. I understand perfectly: the three NPCs don’t realize
it, but Marie’s arrival charges the situation. If it were a movie,
the sound track would be picking up, getting sinister.

She rolls+sharp and hits with a 7–9, so she gets to ask me one
question from that move’s list. “Which of my enemies is the
biggest threat?” she says.
“Plover,” I say. “No doubt. He’s out of his armor, but he has a
little gun in his boot and he’s a hard fucker. Mill’s just 12 and
he’s not a violent kid. Isle’s tougher, but not like Plover.”

“Hm, now I want an escape route. Can I read the situation
again?”
“Of course not.” Once is what you get, unless the situation
substantially changes.
“Okay. I do direct-brain whisper projection on Isle.”
“Cool, what do you do?”
“Uh — we don’t have to interact, so I’m walking past under their
feet where she can see me, and I whisper into her brain without
looking up.” She rolls+weird and hits a 10+.
“What’s your whisper?”
“Follow me,” she says.

Got it ?

[Kaelik]

The bolded part is incorrect of course. If you succeed on the check then an invincible army of magic ninjas appear out of nowhere

Nope. If you succeed you must ask the GM questions, and he must answer them as best as he can.

And if any conceivable answer to your question is "A giant fucking invincible army appears" then he can, and likely will, do that. As evidence by the successful question which created a giant army of psychic cultists who were not there before the question, and if you don't ask the question, then the Author can't insert them without using one of his infinite moves, although, as stated before, he definitely will, because he is Authoring an xWorld campaign, so he is going to shit on the Readers.

So for example, instead of Plover, the DM could have just answered, "An invincible army of psychic cultists that, hey, now that you asked that question, are hiding just behind the nearest building." And the Author should do that on a success, because that is the actual example of a successful Read the Stitch in the goddam book.

[silva]

And if any conceivable answer to your question is "A giant fucking invincible army appears" then he can, and likely will, do that. As evidence by the successful question which created a giant army of psychic cultists who were not there before the question

Nope. The successful question in the example cited do not produce the 2 psychic bodyguards, it just evidenciates theyre the bigger threats. The cultists were introduced before, as evidenced in the First Session sheet.

[John Magnum]

Stop equating "the Water Cultists" with "the two specific bodyguards that are, according to the GM, so tough that you can only hope to escape with your lives". The former had been introduced previously, but as you yourself have admitted, not the latter.

[silva]

Its not clear if the two psychic bodyguards were introduced earlier, neither. I understand, by the move description, that they were. But any interpretation is valid, since its open. We never had that happen in our table, at least.

[Cyberzombie]

The big question for me is if perception checks (or whatever you want to call them) can actively add things to the scene that the DM hadn't planned on before. If the DM's scenario involved having some room filled with uber adversaries, I don't really have a problem with it. It's fine to occasionally throw out NPCs that can't be easily defeated through combat.

But if perception checks actively create major details in the setting that weren't there originally, that sounds terrible. If there are unbeatable opponents present they definitely should have been something the GM planned as opposed to something he just pulled out of his ass in response to a roll.