Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Aldarc]

Maybe try explaining why the responses don't answer your question...

But you seem to be demanding concrete rules for things that are generally considered to be givens in any RPG, so it does seem like you're arguing in poor faith.

When someone seems to gravitate to these threads with the same demands, misunderstandings, and questions over the span of 7+ years of participation in these sort of threads, often naysaying those trying to teach tell them about the game, then I can't help but wonder if their heart is geuinely disposed towards learning about the game and how it works or if there is some other ulterior motive. At what point does the sea-lioning become trolling?

Instead of trying to figure out a game by reading words, considering learning the game by playing it?? Startplaying.games has many PbtA games you can join and play in today!

Find Online D&D and TTRPG Games and Groups | StartPlaying

Search 1000s of upcoming online tabletop roleplaying games. Search by game system, virtual tabletop, date, and Game Master. Find a new D&D campaign or sign up for a one-shot with your favorite TTRPG.

startplaying.games

Yeah, but repeatedly threadcrapping discussions about these games is much easier.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just maybe I saw it as ground already tread that didn’t actually answer my question. Most of the people right now are acting like they did answer me but gave the same or similar non-answer. Now maybe there’s additional context that makes that part of a real answer but it doesn’t stand alone.

I think I do get some say in whether some response answered my question after all.

It's not a non-answer, the GM supplies the fiction, this is clearly spelled out and I even quoted part of that, as did other people. A player declares an action, no move is triggered, so we need to know what the new game situation is, and that's what the GM proceeds to do. Whatever is revealed by that action is described, by the GM as always.

This is the core RPG loop, player states some action, GM describes new state. DW locates the general version of this around p15.

 

[Cadence]

1) Yes, any move GM likes, but a move must be made. "OK, door is now open, nothing else of note happens" isn't on the table
2) Yes, any move GM likes
3) No, if a move is triggered, it's rules take effect (that's what "if you do it, you do it" means)

This is one of the reasons I dislike Dungeon World specifically: moves in that game are just poorly thought out which leads to weird situations like above. If it was like "When you use your extraordinaire strength to destroy an inanimate obstacle" it probably would be better, so, like, it can't be triggered by normal things anyway, and only a Fighter can display strength superhuman enough to, idk, break through a massive door secured by a huge bar.

3) in particular, that damn "if you do it, you do it" is a great strength of PbtA, but also a common failure point for some hacks, including Dungeon World.

What I was stuck on when I posted, is that in D&D it would feel bad to have the cleric be able to open the door if the DM wanted them to be able to, but that the DM was required to have the fighter make a roll. I think I'm getting my head to grok that the play in this style game is just different and that this is just not an issue. (And I'm good with that).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just to be clear, I think the "when the players look to the GM" wording is not exclusive, whatever the GM is supposed to do in that case, this is simply an additional clarification. ANY TIME FICTION IS NEEDED it's the GMs job to supply it! This is utterly clear by any possible reading of the rules!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What I was stuck on when I posted, is that in D&D it would feel bad to have the cleric be able to open the door if the DM wanted them to be able to, but that the DM was required to have the fighter make a roll. I think I'm getting my head to grok that the play in this style game is just different and that this is just not an issue. (And I'm good with that).

I think it's just more likely that the GM will present it as a situation where the fighter's unique ability is spotlighted. Maybe the cleric handles it anyway, nothing wrong with that. I'd note that, in a gamist sense, triggering less moves is better, and often the more specialized ones are more optimal.

 

[CandyLaser]

What I was stuck on when I posted, is that in D&D it would feel bad to have the cleric be able to open the door if the DM wanted them to be able to, but that the DM was required to have the fighter make a roll. I think I'm getting my head to grok that the play in this style game is just different and that this is just not an issue. (And I'm good with that).

One thing I'd add to follow up on @loverdrive 's initial post is that the Bend Bars, Lift Gates move in Dungeon World has this trigger: "When you use pure strength to destroy an inanimate obstacle, roll+Str." (Emphasis in original). So if the fighter wants to open the door quietly, or try to pick the lock, or do anything other than bash down the door with brute strength, then they can try and then the GM would make an appropriate move just as they would for a cleric. And if the door isn't actually an obstacle but is just set dressing, as it were, then they can probably just smash it.

 

[Faolyn]

What I was stuck on when I posted, is that in D&D it would feel bad to have the cleric be able to open the door if the DM wanted them to be able to, but that the DM was required to have the fighter make a roll. I think I'm getting my head to grok that the play in this style game is just different and that this is just not an issue. (And I'm good with that).

PbtA games, including DW, usually give playbooks the options to take moves from other playbooks, so if your cleric really wanted to be able to smash things with brute force, they'd just have to take it via the Multiclass Master move.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Think of "moves" like you would think of "spells" in D&D. As extra rules based capabilities you can use when it would be the right tool for a situation or when you don't want to/can't benefit from free form role-playing.

 

[Lanefan]

1) Yes, any move GM likes, but a move must be made. "OK, door is now open, nothing else of note happens" isn't on the table

Even if that's what would make the most sense in the fiction; which is another reason this just wouldn't work for me as a system.

In the fiction the door might be an isolated obstacle - if you get through it, fine, you've an easier path (but might not yet realize it); if you don't get through it you have to find another (probably riskier but you might not realize that yet either) way around; but otherwise there's no consequence to either opening it or not.

Or if viewed from another angle, "Ok, door is now open, nothing else of note happens" is missing an unspoken word at the end: "now". Downstream and-or unforeseen consequences can be a thing too. Did opening the door trigger an alarm elsewhere? Do you now have a safer path to move forward? Did you just break a previously-unknown seal on something's prison?

 

[Lanefan]

What I was stuck on when I posted, is that in D&D it would feel bad to have the cleric be able to open the door if the DM wanted them to be able to, but that the DM was required to have the fighter make a roll.

Yeah, that'd be a real sticking point for me too: the way I see it, in the fiction the door is what it is regardless of who or what is trying to get through it at the time; even if that makes it a trivial challenge for one character but a real problem for another.