Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[soviet]

'D&D saving throws rob the game of all jeapordy because players can just go back to the last save point and try again, like a video game. At least, I assume that's what it means, no please don't show me the actual text'

 

[niklinna]

'D&D saving throws rob the game of all jeapordy because players can just go back to the last save point and try again, like a video game. At least, I assume that's what it means, no please don't show me the actual text'

Having just started the game Black Geyser, I find this quite a timely joke!

 

[Aldarc]

It's like saying that you're not allowed to use a sword to attack an NPC in D&D without making an attack roll. It's perfectly fine for the player to say, "Wait, I decided I don't actually want to attack them" but they can't say "I don't want to roll the d20; I just want to roll the damage die."

But they can say, "Can't we just play Mausritter, Cairn, or Into the Odd?"

I don't know, I usually agree with a lot of your posts, even if you play games I don't like to play, but really I thought Lanefan's posts were a good example of how unclear 'if you do it, you do it' is without context, and too often it seems the phrase is given without context.
So it warranted correction, but not necessarily such a pushback / reaction - I would like to think that if in another thread someone came up with those questions, someone would just politely correct them on their misunderstanding, stating what the rules are. Yes the rules may have already been stated, but not everyone reads every post in a thread, especially the long ones, so better to give people the benefit of the doubt than assume motive.

I definitely aagree that a lot of the sayings and phrases that have formed within the PbtA family of games is not always clear. Things like "to do it, do it," are pretty meaningless without context, especially to people unfamiliar with these games. But once you understand the vocabulary, it becomes a lot more clear when you encounter it in other games. It's a lot like learning languages.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know, I usually agree with a lot of your posts, even if you play games I don't like to play, but really I thought Lanefan's posts were a good example of how unclear 'if you do it, you do it' is without context, and too often it seems the phrase is given without context.
So it warranted correction, but not necessarily such a pushback / reaction - I would like to think that if in another thread someone came up with those questions, someone would just politely correct them on their misunderstanding, stating what the rules are. Yes the rules may have already been stated, but not everyone reads every post in a thread, especially the long ones, so better to give people the benefit of the doubt than assume motive.

Well... I think we all can agree that, shorn of ALL context, 'to do it, do it' isn't very informative. OTOH I think it has been pretty well contextualized at this point. Anyway, the OP was not ABOUT that phrase, it simply came up in discussion, as it is likely to do since it appears in the AW rules relating to moves, the topic of the thread. It seems like people weigh in on these threads, and often for years, and not absorbed anything. That's OK, not everyone is interested in this sort of game, but then I feel like the same points get relitigated and nobody has apparently gained any understanding. Again, not necessary, but its weird that people post again and again but never absorb the information the questions elicit.

Like, I don't even open threads about various 5e stuff, or threads about 'sandbox this or that' because I'm just largely not interested and so maybe I wouldn't absorb whatever information is there, but I NEVER POST, even if I have some opinions about that sort of play, why would I? Sorry, its late, I'm just feeling extra puzzled by the world right this minute, lol.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Well... I think we all can agree that, shorn of ALL context, 'to do it, do it' isn't very informative. OTOH I think it has been pretty well contextualized at this point. Anyway, the OP was not ABOUT that phrase, it simply came up in discussion, as it is likely to do since it appears in the AW rules relating to moves, the topic of the thread. It seems like people weigh in on these threads, and often for years, and not absorbed anything. That's OK, not everyone is interested in this sort of game, but then I feel like the same points get relitigated and nobody has apparently gained any understanding. Again, not necessary, but its weird that people post again and again but never absorb the information the questions elicit.

Like, I don't even open threads about various 5e stuff, or threads about 'sandbox this or that' because I'm just largely not interested and so maybe I wouldn't absorb whatever information is there, but I NEVER POST, even if I have some opinions about that sort of play, why would I? Sorry, its late, I'm just feeling extra puzzled by the world right this minute, lol.

There are a lot of topics on DnD on these forums that are rehashed again and again and again. I think that it is the nature of general forums.

On the positive side, people are interested even if they engage for a short time and then walk away forgetting the details. Maybe they will play one day. I, for example, have no idea when I would be able to play it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

If we can clarify definitions & positions- or ask for such- without resorting to name calling, that’d be great. Even cutesy-jokesy attempts can be misconstrued.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I can't speak to any particular person's confusion. But the rulebook for Apocalypse World is very clear: the game is a conversation; the players say what their PCs do; if everyone looks to the GM to see what happens next the GM makes a soft move, or as hard and direct a move as they like if an opportunity is handed on a platter; but if you do it, you do it and the normal conversation is "interrupted" by a roll of the dice to resolve the move that has been triggered.

If, as a player, you want to push things to finality in resolution then you have to make a move. That's the point of the player-side move architecture: to establish the domains of activity in which the game allows for finality. In AW (at least as far as basic moves are concerned), that's threatening violence, using violence, or seducing or manipulating. From the point of view of the game, that's a feature, not a bug; conversely, if you don't like the idea of a game in which finality in resolution is achieved those ways, then you're going to have to look elsewhere.

I can’t really agree those are very clear instructions. There’s nothing showing what having an opportunity handed to you on a silver plater looks like. What should count as a soft move and as a hard move isn’t immediately clear. Its not clear how transitions from one area to another work under these very clear rules, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

A recurring thing I see said is that, in Apocalypse World, players can't declare actions that are not covered by a move.

This is just silly.

The rules are clear: if a player's declared action for their PC is a move, then the rules of the move are invoked ("If you do it, you do it"). Otherwise, if everyone looks to the GM to see what happens, the GM makes a move. This will be a soft move unless the player's declared action hands the GM an opportunity on a platter, in which case the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like.

It puzzles me that this seems so hard for some RPGers to understand.

Let me ask this - What if the players do something that is not a move, that is they do not look to the GM to see what happens, but whatever they are doing doesn’t map to a move?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not disagreeing, just want to point out that this is a problem with all RPGs, players wanting to push the button on their character sheet and get confused when there isn't a button. Happens when they don't see the exact skill they want to use or such.

And with PbtA games, having such clearly defined moves can obfuscate this fact. Personally, it's why I often find playbooks feel a little too prescriptive or constraining, it's why I don't always click with these systems.

Yeah I’ve had a lot of fun taking the moves out of playbooks and replacing them with just when you undertake XYZ type of action you can do this extra type of thing, or use cool instead of sharp, or whatever, just define the whole thing much more loosely and just really leaning on the resolution mechanic, stat, etc.

It does make the game more conversational, which some folks dislike and play pbta games to get away from, but it works well for us when we have done it.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Let me ask this - What if the players do something that is not a move, that is they do not look to the GM to see what happens, but whatever they are doing doesn’t map to a move?

This is based on reading the games rather than actual play, so folks with more direct experience should correct me, but from that it strikes me that, if this happened, then the conversation would continue until a player made a move or the players looked to the GM to see what happens. But I also think that this would be play that would indicate poor play by the GM in terms of scene framing.