Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Micah Sweet]

There's a difference between worldbuilding and using worldbuilding to determine the success--although I'd have to see that particular post (I must have missed it) to see what they meant.

My understanding of it is: if my prep says that something in the world is a certain way, and it has not yet been established in play, I cannot use my prep to determine the success or failure of a PC action. To pull a random example out of nowhere, If I determined that a particular NPC was not susceptible to bribery, but the party had not yet determined this through play, a PC attempt to bribe said NPC cannot be thwarted by the GM using their prep. Cannot be; they get to try, and the GM to abide by the results.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

that is all fine, and I understand it. My reply was to


So the premise is wrong, there is no 'search secret door' move, and if they just 'search for things of interest' then I can either point out a secret door or something else.

At that point I believe the conclusion is also wrong, I can then very well decide that there is no secret door in the room, based on my prep. When the characters search for things of interest, I then simply never refer to one. So how can my prep then not be used to decide such things?

You can't 'decide there is no secret door in the room, based on my prep.' Not if you are playing Dungeon World according to the rules, which tell you not to decide the story ahead of time. You're allowed to have 'prep', but I put it in quotes because it is a very different beast from Gygaxian prep. It is a storehouse of potential lore that you can draw from in play. This is not meant to define what is possible, just to be resources to use. If, for whatever reason, the principles, practices, and agenda says "there really aught to be a secret door here" then it would be a misplay to not depict it.

Honestly, I've never seen a situation where an element as specific as an individual secret door was really mandated. You will always have choices. So it becomes a bit of a spherical cow at this point. But the general idea holds, prep isn't a set of constraints on what fiction can be presented, or how the story will go. Its more like a restaurant menu that you can pick from, which is a lot more convenient than just being prepared to cook any possible thing.

Ideally the GM's prep is also helpful in terms of allowing the GM to be a bit more pro-active and, for example, be pretty sure that some orcs are going to show up later. Maybe we don't know exactly when or where, and what will happen, but they're in your prep, so you probably WILL use them. Now you can leave some hints, or maybe you picked prepping orcs because Graaaaaahhhhh! Foecrusher expressed a hatred for orcs and it will be fun to see that in action.

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, if I were running Dungeon World (or any other PbtA game that doesn't have a specific "search for hidden/secret things" move), I'd ask the players how or what they were searching, maybe let each player pick one option rather than let them search again and again and again. If they specifically say something that, to me, sounded like a plausible way to find a secret door (rap on the walls, pull books from the shelves, move the rug or tapestry aside), I'd just let them find it, no roll needed. If the secret door is trapped or lock, well, the rogue playbook has moves to deal with traps and locks.

After all, if I put something in the dungeon, then it's there so the PCs can use it or be affected by it, and it's boring for it to be left unfound just because of a bad roll.

Sounds like you would be breaking the rules, but I won't report you.

 

[pemerton]

the fiction produced by D&D tends to be very shallow compared to that produced by games like Blades in the Dark and Stonetop. D&D play lacks the breadth of experience and outcomes that these games allow.

One way to think about this in design terms, or by reference to procedures of play, is by reference to this principle from Apocalypse World (p 113): Put your bloody fingerprints all over everything you touch.

The game not only expects that, but is insistent that, the GM do this, in real time in the course of play. The GM is not neutrally presenting the material they have mapped and keyed in advance, and then resolving action declarations by thinking "What is the likely immediate causal consequence of the PC doing such-and-such a thing?" They are deliberately, and creatively, intervening to "put their bloody fingerprints" on things: to create that breadth of experience and outcome that you refer to.

Whereas I think that D&D GMing is more likely to default to relatively neutral presentation of material mapped and keyed in advance, often with key details withheld so that the players can "explore" and discover those by declaring actions which are resolved precisely by thinking "What is the likely immediate causal consequence of the PC doing such-and-such a thing?" The GM going further, and putting their bloody fingerprints on everything, would be contrary to default expectations, I think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can't 'decide there is no secret door in the room, based on my prep.' Not if you are playing Dungeon World according to the rules, which tell you not to decide the story ahead of time. You're allowed to have 'prep', but I put it in quotes because it is a very different beast from Gygaxian prep. It is a storehouse of potential lore that you can draw from in play. This is not meant to define what is possible, just to be resources to use. If, for whatever reason, the principles, practices, and agenda says "there really aught to be a secret door here" then it would be a misplay to not depict it.

Honestly, I've never seen a situation where an element as specific as an individual secret door was really mandated. You will always have choices. So it becomes a bit of a spherical cow at this point. But the general idea holds, prep isn't a set of constraints on what fiction can be presented, or how the story will go. Its more like a restaurant menu that you can pick from, which is a lot more convenient than just being prepared to cook any possible thing.

Ideally the GM's prep is also helpful in terms of allowing the GM to be a bit more pro-active and, for example, be pretty sure that some orcs are going to show up later. Maybe we don't know exactly when or where, and what will happen, but they're in your prep, so you probably WILL use them. Now you can leave some hints, or maybe you picked prepping orcs because Graaaaaahhhhh! Foecrusher expressed a hatred for orcs and it will be fun to see that in action.

I see what you mean, and having such a resource would be very useful in running such a game, but I also agree with you that I wouldn't consider that "prep" in the sense I would want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Seeing as Stonetop hasn't been published yet and is available in draft form only to Backers (and their groups), Dungeon World is the place to turn. It's also a more generalized game, whereas Stonetop has much more baked-in premise and setting.

Apparently a lot of folks here were backers, because it gets talked about surprisingly often.

 

[mamba]

Seeing as Stonetop hasn't been published yet and is available in draft form only to Backers (and their groups)

you can buy it at any time and get the current version, which is close to complete and certainly playable from my understanding, so I consider it available and would not use this as a reason to go with DW over ST

Dungeon World is the place to turn. It's also a more generalized game, whereas Stonetop has much more baked-in premise and setting.

the more generalized might make a difference

 

[pemerton]

if they just 'search for things of interest' then I can either point out a secret door or something else.

There is no "search for things of interest" move either.

Suppose that a player, speaking for their PC, asks "Is there anything of interest here?" the GM can respond "Dunno, are you studying it closely?" (This is a soft move - offer an opportunity - giving effect to a principle - ask provocative questions and build on the answers.) And if the player responds "yes", then this triggers Discern Realities.

Or if the player says "no", then the GM might respond "OK, so what do you do?"

Or let's go back to the player asking, "Is there anything of interest here?" The GM might just respond, "At first you don't see anything, but then a secret door in the opposite wall swings open, and a pair of Hobgoblins steps through! They don't look happy to see you. What do you do?" (This is a different soft move - the GM has put the PC in a spot. It gives effect to principles like making the PCs' lives not boring.)

A more general response: you are framing your questions in a way that doesn't really make sense for the AW procedures of play.

At that point I believe the conclusion is also wrong, I can then very well decide that there is no secret door in the room, based on my prep. When the characters search for things of interest, I then simply never refer to one. So how can my prep then not be used to decide such things?

I don't know what you mean here by "prep".

I mean, if asked if a D&D GM is required to cut the deck before they deal, that wouldn't really make sense, right? The question makes more sense for a game of bridge or poker.

What sort of prep are you thinking of? And what are you trying to do with it, that is consonant with the AW/DW procedures of play?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's not about whether I follow the rules or not, it is about whether I can use my prep to decide such things, contrary to what you wrote.

The only time this would be about rules is if there were a rule that specifically states that prep cannot be used for this, but I am not expecting that

Dungeon World P159 "The GM"

The GM’s agenda, principles, and moves are rules just like damage
or stats or HP. You should take the same care in altering them or
ignoring them that you would with any other rule.

Now, again, I don't think that anyone can say that anything as specific as "don't put a secret door someplace" can be said to either uphold nor break the Dungeon World rules without a LOT more context. Even if a secret door would be really cromulent, there is almost certainly some other option that would be hard to argue isn't good also. However, to say "I am not going to put a secret door here because I have predetermined that no such door can possibly exist" is with absolute certainty not in keeping with the rules of Dungeon World. So, the only sense in which your statements above can be true is if you are not intending to follow the rules of Dungeon World. That's fine, you and the people you play with can do anything you want. You can change the rules, and play Prep World, but then you cannot come back and attribute the characteristics of Prep World to another game, Dungeon World! I mean, I get it, people hack RPGs all the time and etc. But as a rhetorical point, it just doesn't stand! If you want to analyze the rules of Dungeon World, then you have to stick within its actual rules, or else you are talking about Prep World instead.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On a completely unrelated note, if I wanted to take a closer look at PbtA and not stray too far from D&D themes, is Dungeon World or Stonetop the better choice?

They're both decent games. I think Dungeon World is a more mature system. OTOH Stonetop is fun, though it is not fully finished yet, the game is out there in pre-publication form for testing, and it is certainly playable, however some bits are not really written up in final form, and I feel like the playbooks and such still have some rough bits. However, if you want to run a Hearth Fantasy type of game, Stonetop is definitely made for that. DW is a bit closer to classic D&D tropes, Stonetop doesn't have things like demi-human races and wizards, though the Seeker is kind of a wizardish figure, and the Lightbearer is kind of like a cleric, etc. I mean, they hit the same basic archetypes, but the DW playbooks are intended to give you pretty close to verbatim D&D class versions of those archetypes.