Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Faolyn]

I’ll note that I’ve asked multiple times for those rules if they exist. As of now, not one person has provided them.

Instead I get replies like -
Those rules aren’t needed.
Have you read the rules?
Etc.

So I’m going to ask you directly does AW provide rules or rulebook guidance for how to handle situations where the player has the PC do an action that isn’t a move?

Um, I did. You kind of ignored my post, though.

 

[CandyLaser]

They’ve cited a rule about what to do when the players look to the GM for what’s next. Does no one recognize that’s not the same thing as asking what to do when a player has their pc act in a way that doesn’t trigger a move? Maybe. I dunno. But in any event, what I specifically asked about isn’t being addressed.

They are, in fact, the same thing, at least in a PbtA context. Consider D&D. What happens when the player asks to do something not covered by the listed actions in the text? The GM comes up with a way of resolving it, which could be saying yes, saying no, having the player make a check, having an NPC make a check, and probably lots of other things. PbtA games codify it differently and give different procedures for what the GM should do, but it's the same situation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Um, I did. You kind of ignored my post, though.

No and no. I accept you think both of those things happened though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One side note - shouldn’t that rule be what everyone is citing to prove that AW allows non-move actions?

Post #105
Post #91
Post #93
Post #95
Post #100 (admittedly, responsive to a different poster, but continuing the same point)
Post #90
I'll stop there, posts before that point diverge into the cycle of questioning the catchphrase 'to do it, do it' which is arguably a different discussion, though I think it would also be fair to consider the whole thing in context, but this is enough to make my point.

Now, note, in this range of posts I've only mentioned MINE, there are dozens of others responsive to this point and IMHO providing an excellent exposition of the whole subject fit to well-equip any prospective AW/DW/PbtA GM with the mental equipment needed for their task, but I invite any and all of you to evaluate. Have we fallen short?

It becomes difficult at this point to continue to engage on the premise that there is a willingness to have a genuine discussion. I think Mr Reaver should probably just go read the rules at this point. I think that will be much more useful to him than our apparently bumbling attempts to explicate what is clearly a highly technical and difficult matter. Thank you for your unending patience and fortitude.

 

[FrogReaver]

They are, in fact, the same thing, at least in a PbtA context.

Maybe.

Consider D&D. What happens when the player asks to do something not covered by the listed actions in the text? The GM comes up with a way of resolving it, which could be saying yes, saying no, having the player make a check, having an NPC make a check, and probably lots of other things. PbtA games codify it differently and give different procedures for what the GM should do, but it's the same situation.

Not helpful. Completely misses what I was trying to get at.

 

[FrogReaver]

Post #105
Post #91
Post #93
Post #95
Post #100 (admittedly, responsive to a different poster, but continuing the same point)
Post #90
I'll stop there, posts before that point diverge into the cycle of questioning the catchphrase 'to do it, do it' which is arguably a different discussion, though I think it would also be fair to consider the whole thing in context, but this is enough to make my point.

Now, note, in this range of posts I've only mentioned MINE, there are dozens of others responsive to this point and IMHO providing an excellent exposition of the whole subject fit to well-equip any prospective AW/DW/PbtA GM with the mental equipment needed for their task, but I invite any and all of you to evaluate. Have we fallen short?

It becomes difficult at this point to continue to engage on the premise that there is a willingness to have a genuine discussion. I think Mr Reaver should probably just go read the rules at this point. I think that will be much more useful to him than our apparently bumbling attempts to explicate what is clearly a highly technical and difficult matter. Thank you for your unending patience and fortitude.

So, i just went through the first 3 quotes you referenced (...kind of seemed pointless after that) and none of those say anything remotely close to what @hawkeyefan was able to clearly say about AW rules.

I don't have the rule book at hand, but it clearly points out that if anything the players declare doesn't trigger a move, then what they declare simply happens.

 

[grankless]

Can anyone point me to the rule in DnD that says if you swallow a big rock it'll mess up your stomach? There's no explicit text saying so, so I assume I can eat a whole bunch of rocks and experience no negative effects.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can anyone point me to the rule in DnD that says if you swallow a big rock it'll mess up your stomach? There's no explicit text saying so, so I assume I can eat a whole bunch of rocks and experience no negative effects.

Yea, there's no rules saying you can't walk on air or through walls either...

Some things are setting dependent.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Can anyone point me to the rule in DnD that says if you swallow a big rock it'll mess up your stomach? There's no explicit text saying so, so I assume I can eat a whole bunch of rocks and experience no negative effects.

It's in the D&D (Death and Dismemberment) clause on your health insurance rider...

 

[pemerton]

I’ll note that I’ve asked multiple times for those rules if they exist. As of now, not one person has provided them.

Instead I get replies like -
Those rules aren’t needed.
Have you read the rules?
Etc.

So I’m going to ask you directly does AW provide rules or rulebook guidance for how to handle situations where the player has the PC do an action that isn’t a move?

I infer that the answer to my question - are you arriving at your conclusion about the lack of rules by way of reading the rulebook - is NO.

So you are just conjecturing. And in a relatively hostile fashion at that - in the sense of, rather than asking "How do the AW rules address <XYZ>", you are asserting on the basis of nothing more than conjecture that "The AW rules fail to address XYZ."

@Faolyn and I have already provided quite extensive extracts from the rulebook. The original versoi

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.

From a subsequent post that quotes from the rulebook in detail:

I'm now in a position to quote from the AW rulebook (original version). From pp 12, 109:

The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice. . . .

“Cool, you’re going aggro?” Legit: “oh! No, no, if he’s really blocking the door, whatever, I’ll go the other way.” Not legit: “well no, I’m just shoving him out of my way, I don’t want to roll for it.” The rule for moves is if you do it, you do it, so make with the dice. . . .

Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.​

Pages 110-16 then set out the Principles, and p 116 concludes this by addressing the GM, "Whenever someone turns and looks to you to say something, always say what the principles demand."

Page 116 then goes on to list "your [ie the GM's] moves", and says "Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things and say it."

And page 117 sets out "guidelines for choosing your moves", which build on what has already been said in the principles:

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.

However, when a player’s character hands you the perfect opportunity on a golden plate, make as hard and direct a move as you like. It’s not the meaner the better, although mean is often good. Best is: make it irrevocable.

When a player’s character makes a move and the player misses the roll, that’s the cleanest and clearest example there is of an opportunity on a plate. When you’ve been setting something up and it comes together without interference, that counts as an opportunity on a plate too.

But again, unless a player’s character has handed you the opportunity, limit yourself to a move that sets up future moves, your own and the players’ characters’.​

<snip>

as per pp 197-98 of the rulebook, "Asking someone straight to do something isn’t trying to seduce or manipulate them. . . . Absent leverage, they’re just talking, and you should have your NPCs agree or accede, decline or refuse, according to their own self-interests."

The post I've just quoted from also includes a lengthy illustrative example, written up by me, that includes some fairly low-stakes back-and-forth which at various points does not trigger player-side moves.

And in anticipation of you asserting that the rulebook doesn't tell anyone when to look to the GM, I reiterate this from p 109 (which is also found in the post I just quoted):

Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.​

So if I declare an action like talking to a NPC, or opening a door, or whatever else, I have to look to the GM to find out what happens because the GM's job is to say everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does, except for my character and the characters of my fellow players.

Once you've read all this, please let me know what bit that you think is unclear.