Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Campbell]

On GM Moves one common meme that I think leads people astray is that they are what a GM normally does. This comes from John Harper's response to the MC Playbook / GM section of Apocalypse World being just how you GM. That is mostly true from someone with Harper's background (deeply embedded in Story Now games and their proto forms). It's the farthest thing from the truth for most trad GMs.

Learning to run Apocalypse World when embedded in either sandbox play norms, OSR norms or GM as Storyteller norms is like learning to play an area control boardgame when you have only ever played worker placement games or learning Brazilian jiujitsu as a wrestler. You have to start from square one, unlearn several things and completely change your mindset and set of techniques. There will be commonalities that make some things easier, but you really need to embrace the learning process if you want to be effective.

That being said the fundamentals are really easy to grasp for the most part and I rewarding if it's like your thing.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Generally, when game A is capable of providing experience X but not Y and Game B is capable of providing experience Y but not X we do not call either narrower than the other. We simply accept they both have something of value that might appeal to different parties or the same parties at different times.

In other words, we accept that there is room for diversity in the hobby and do not decry the existence of things not to our tastes.

I wish to invoke a move based off of being a game bigot to counter this post. Which move is appropriate??

 

[Gradine]

I wish to invoke a move based off of being a game bigot to counter this post. Which move is appropriate??

That's not how moves work. Simply be a game bigot and start countering the post, and we'll let you know when it's an appropriate time to trigger a move.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, that narrow focus is a factor in my feelings on these sorts of games too. Trad games, even one focused on a particular kind of play, don't have this sort of mechanical gap IME.

There's no mechanical gap here whatsoever. No mechanics are required where nothing is at stake. FIFTH EDITION D&D's DMG SAYS THE SAME THING. So, where is this difference, this gap? I defy you to find it, because it DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[Faolyn]

Huh, it's actually not a problem
Non-challenging doors -
the GM will literally say "You open the door and walk through to the other side, and you see X - what do you do"
OR just not have a door there in the first place
OR if it makes sense in the fiction, there will be a door, and it MAY prevent folks from seeing what's on the other side, which MAY be some sort of danger. Well in that case, it's no longer non-challenging is it?

Or even, "the door takes a hard shove for it open properly."

Seems like a bizarrely restrictive way to build a game to me, at least if you insist on being strict on interpretation of the rules. (I suspect a lot of people aren't.) I get what the general idea is, that the dungeon is dangerous place and there is constant danger and pressure. But it seems weird to me to take it to the level where mere existence of mundane details such as non-challenging doors becomes a problem.

Well, how often do D&D adventures go into detail about doors that aren't locked or trapped or whatever?

 

[Micah Sweet]

DW is a game of dungeon exploration. The very concept of dungeon mazes constructed by mad wizards and filled with unnatural monsters and chests full of gold contains no element of plausibility whatsoever in my book. However, where DW intersects with reality the rules are generally silent, so I am not sure it's inherently implausible.

Plausibility in context with the setting. You know, that v-word you don't like to see from me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I think that is how you can handle it, the game just doesn't contemplate such stuff really. I think you can describe it as a 'flimsy door' and just assume it doesn't require a move to open, but this means the GM is eschewing any sort consequences here. Or at least they are not immediate ones. I would avoid doing a lot of this, lest one begin to miss the point of the game.

I mean, back in the day when I wrote classic dungeons I rarely, like never, had much that was just empty waste space like that.

If everything the PCs interact with has to align with the game's purpose and goal of play, the setting, to me, feels less solid and more, "blurry" I suppose. I'm sure that's just me though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If everything the PCs interact with has to align with the game's purpose and goal of play, the setting, to me, feels less solid and more, "blurry" I suppose. I'm sure that's just me though.

Think about it this way, you're a mad wizard. You pay by the cubic foot for dungeon excavation. You going to go for a lot of wasted volume? I doubt it! I mean, I'm not going to dig back in my stuff and find those Judge's Guild construction cost guides, but I got 'em. lol.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Over many threads I have linked you to actual play reports of several low-myth or no-myth games. Here are just a few:

Torchbearer 2e: https://www.enworld.org/threads/tor...ay-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-9138753​

​

Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic: https://www.enworld.org/threads/middle-earth-lotr-rpging-using-cortex-heroic.670013/post-7947768 (LotR/MERP) https://www.enworld.org/threads/into-the-north-cortex-plus-heroic-fantasy-actual-play.530990/ (Vikings)​

​

Burning Wheel: https://www.enworld.org/threads/keep-on-the-borderlands-shenanigans.473620/​

​

Prince Valiant: https://www.enworld.org/threads/prince-valiant-rpging.690321/​

​

Cthulhu Dark: https://www.enworld.org/threads/cthulhu-dark-another-session.658931/​

​

Classic Traveller (but changing the method of starmap generation from that in Book 3, to no myth): https://www.enworld.org/threads/cla...t-with-reflections-on-the-system-long.586642/​

​

4e D&D: https://www.enworld.org/threads/session-report-the-mausoleum-of-the-raven-queen.484945/​

Where is the lack of plausibility?

Or to put it another way: perhaps you and the people you play with struggle to create plausible fiction. I don't know - I'm not there. But it seems rude to project that onto others!

See now that's just insulting. You could just say that you disagree, instead of throwing walls of data at your rhetorical opponents. Its all preferences anyway. You know i don't care for your preferred style, so I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, how often do D&D adventures go into detail about doors that aren't locked or trapped or whatever?

Nowhere near often enough, if you ask me.

Rare indeed is the D&D adventure that bothers to show and-or tell you which way the doors open - relevant info, as it makes a big difference when you're trying to kick in a door whether that door wants to open away from you or toward you. It's one of my pet peeves with module design in general.