Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Manbearcat]

Then why are people telling me about how focused the rules of DW are on dungeon-crawling, if that's not true?

I don't know. I don't answer for them and I'm not accountable to them. I answer for me and I'm accountable to my own textual analysis (which has been provided here and elsewhere) and my own substantial amount of time GMing said game and GMing alternative games that are actually dungeon crawl games (designed for it and which its play can't help but operationalize such play; like Torchbearer or B/X). I am a coalition of one and I'm quite comfortable being so.

If you have your own textual analysis on these matters supported by substantial amount of GMing or play which are empirical confounds to all that I've written on this subject in the last decade, I'd love to hear about it.

Games that are primarily dungeon crawlers don't:

* Organize so much of their thematic and premise material around non-dungeon crawl content and/or content/tropes that are actually dungeon crawl-averse.

* Organize their incentive structures around games like Burning Wheel (xp for failure and the first EoS question or "go boldly into danger and actively generate and discover the world simultaneously"), Shadows of Yesterday (alignment or ethos), and Apocalypse World (bonds or relationships).

* Organize moves (both playbook and basic) that put players in positions of profound, in-situ content generation, particularly the kind of generation that is of a player protagonist nature (whereby players gain extreme capacity to reframe current scenes or generate framing inputs for subsequent scenes).

* While simultaneously not being possessed of the profound, dungeon-crawling structure and systemization of a game like Torchbearer.

Now none of that is to say that Dungeon World doesn't have a substantial and compelling Gamist layer when run and played both correctly, deftly, and aggressively. However, that Gamist layer is not "dungeon explorer-centered" and its 100 % not "map-and-key-dungeon-explorer-centered" (like B/X or Torchbearer).

 

[Xamnam]

However, while working through those thoughts, I realized I'm of a third mind. GMing AW and kindred is quite hard…but just in a different way than GMing a trad game; the demands of in-situ cognitive agility and of integrating multiple axes of information at all times in your framing and consequences is extreme in AW and kindred and relatively relaxed in trad GMing (because the difficulties of trad GMing lie elsewhere; in prep, in skillful exposition dumps, in deftness/finesse of telegraphing and prompting). So accepting the “training wheels refrain” surrenders clarity on the core issue at hand; difficulty of GMing.

I really appreciate this consideration, especially the bolded, because it encapsulates well the reaction I had way upthread to:

Here is a back-of-the-envelope breakdown of what you say as a GM in an AW (or derivative) game:

Soft Moves (60 %):
Procedures and Hard Moves (20 %):
Clarifying (20 %):

The idea of having no permission to speak outside of those categories as the GM gives me hives, and makes me feel like I do/will run these games incorrectly/poorly to the point that I shouldn't. Obviously, there's room to run games imperfectly, that's inherently the starting position of most people, but I don't want to do so in ways that will notably undercut the specific value of the system. Players taking actions that don't invoke moves makes obvious sense to me, but it's very hard for me to wrap the inverse around the GM role, at least to the degree it's stated by the books and advocates.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know. I don't answer for them and I'm not accountable to them. I answer for me and I'm accountable to my own textual analysis (which has been provided here and elsewhere) and my own substantial amount of time GMing said game and GMing alternative games that are actually dungeon crawl games (designed for it and which its play can't help but operationalize such play; like Torchbearer or B/X). I am a coalition of one and I'm quite comfortable being so.

If you have your own textual analysis on these matters supported by substantial amount of GMing or play which are empirical confounds to all that I've written on this subject in the last decade, I'd love to hear about it.

Games that are primarily dungeon crawlers don't:

* Organize so much of their thematic and premise material around non-dungeon crawl content and/or content/tropes that are actually dungeon crawl-averse.

* Organize their incentive structures around games like Burning Wheel (xp for failure and the first EoS question or "go boldly into danger and actively generate and discover the world simultaneously"), Shadows of Yesterday (alignment or ethos), and Apocalypse World (bonds or relationships).

* Organize moves (both playbook and basic) that put players in positions of profound, in-situ content generation, particularly the kind of generation that is of a player protagonist nature (whereby players gain extreme capacity to reframe current scenes or generate framing inputs for subsequent scenes).

* While simultaneously not being possessed of the profound, dungeon-crawling structure and systemization of a game like Torchbearer.

Now none of that is to say that Dungeon World doesn't have a substantial and compelling Gamist layer when run and played both correctly, deftly, and aggressively. However, that Gamist layer is not "dungeon explorer-centered" and its 100 % not "map-and-key-dungeon-explorer-centered" (like B/X or Torchbearer).

Well, I suppose I'll have to throw myself on the tender mercies of @AbdulAlhazred then, since they're the one who told me how focused DW's rules are. I played one session and never owned or completely read the book.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know. I don't answer for them and I'm not accountable to them. I answer for me and I'm accountable to my own textual analysis (which has been provided here and elsewhere) and my own substantial amount of time GMing said game and GMing alternative games that are actually dungeon crawl games (designed for it and which its play can't help but operationalize such play; like Torchbearer or B/X). I am a coalition of one and I'm quite comfortable being so.

That’s fine. You can interact however you want. I just want to point out that you saying one thing, someone else seemingly agreeing with most of what you say then saying something different and you 2 never discussing those differences makes for a very confusing time for the rest of us.

 

[Manbearcat]

I really appreciate this consideration, especially the bolded, because it encapsulates well the reaction I had way upthread to:

The idea of having no permission to speak outside of those categories as the GM gives me hives, and makes me feel like I do/will run these games incorrectly/poorly to the point that I shouldn't. Obviously, there's room to run games imperfectly, that's inherently the starting position of most people, but I don't want to do so in ways that will notably undercut the specific value of the system. Players taking actions that don't invoke moves makes obvious sense to me, but it's very hard for me to wrap the inverse around the GM role, at least to the degree it's stated by the books and advocates.

I appreciate the response.

Check out what I've bolded above. I think maybe (could be wrong) what is happening here is at the intersection of (a) what your sense of table time is devoted to in these games in particular + (b) how that doesn't jive with (perhaps) what your table time is devoted to in your own home games?

So for instance, in these games? Table time is devoted damn near exclusively to situation-framing, player's cognitive loop (orienting to the situation and then processing their decision tree and then landing on a chosen action), consequence-resolution and situation-reframing, follow-on conflicts, and any systemitized upkeep/downtime or management of prompts.

So the GM in these games isn't talking less on the whole than in trad games. Its just that the things they're saying exclude trad concepts that find a lot of table time like exposition dumps, breadcrumb laying, reveals, heavy on the performative theatrics, significant focus on ephemera (like maps or handouts), and conflict-neutral freeplay (although some games have a hair of this...but that freeplay is going to be right on the heels of conflict or chasing some new, follow-on conflict). So same amount of talking for GMs in these games...its just that the words/conversation doesn't entail the italicized stuff. Its all basically (a) aggressing the PCs via principled application of system and (b) managing your systemitized duties and the game engine's particulars (like structured play loops and system prompts).

 

[Campbell]

Because my claim is subjective. As I said above, I'm sure @pemerton 's games are quite plausible for them and their players. But they wouldn't be for me, because that systems' assumptions are too counter to my preference to see the fiction created as having the verisimilitude I want out of fantasy gaming. It's nothing against them or their style of play.

So, to my mind there is a phenomenal amount of difference between these things:

• The game inevitably produces incoherent fiction to a degree I could not bear. You have lower standards for coherency so it is fine for you.
• The process of the game would not allow me to interface with the fiction of the game in a way I feel personally comfortable with. Regardless of the internal consistency and coherency therein I would find it incoherent.
• I do not believe that my group would be able to produce play that produces internally consistent, coherent fiction using the processes outlined in the game.

It seems like you are saying the first bullet point. I hope you mean the second or the third (or something else entirely). It's important to distinguish between these sorts of things. One is a failing of design. The other is simply incompatibility.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We were playing Blades in the dark. One player got on a rooftop with a long range rifle and was taking shots at baddies. The player rolled a failure. But fictionally we had established no baddies near the player and mostly shorter range weapons. It was a bit hard to come up with an appropriate consequence. We ended up saying the gun misfired and fell off the roof. Possibly was some harm involved as well. It didn’t feel great, but not alot of other great options either.

This is probably the biggest adjustment from trad GMing to GMing games like Blades or versions of PbtA. It’s also the reason that Apocalypse World and most PbtA games provide a list of GM Moves.

People often see the list of GM Moves and complain that it feels restrictive. But this is the kind of situation where it comes in handy. If you’re unsure of what would be a logical and satisfactory consequence for a failed roll, you look at the list for inspiration. One or more of the options would suit.

Here's the list from Apocalypse World:
● Separate them
● Capture someone
● Put someone in a spot
● Trade harm for harm (as established)
● Announce off-screen badness
● Announce future badness
● Inflict harm (as established)
● Take away their stuff
● Make them buy
● Activate their stuff's downside
● Tell them the possible consequences and ask
● Offer an opportunity, with or without a cost
● Turn their move back on them
● Make a threat move (from one of your fronts)

The one that seems the most suitable and satisfactory to me would be to "Announce future badness" and tell the player how the character with the long rifle that he hears Bluecoat whistles near the ground floor... his shots have attracted the cops!

Messing with the rifle is a perfectly fine option... it jams, or he runs out of ammo would be the most obvious.

There are also personal angles that may or may not pertain... hard to say without having details about the character. Each PC has a rival... perhaps that person shows up to cause trouble. Doskvol is also a strange place... maybe a ghost manifests, attracted by violence.

It takes some time to get used to it, but coming up with consequences is a huge part of play. If the consequences don't pack a punch, then the game play will reflect that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I appreciate the response.

Check out what I've bolded above. I think maybe (could be wrong) what is happening here is at the intersection of (a) what your sense of table time is devoted to in these games in particular + (b) how that doesn't jive with (perhaps) what your table time is devoted to in your own home games?

So for instance, in these games? Table time is devoted damn near exclusively to situation-framing, player's cognitive loop (orienting to the situation and then processing their decision tree and then landing on a chosen action), consequence-resolution and situation-reframing, follow-on conflicts, and any systemitized upkeep/downtime or management of prompts.

So the GM in these games isn't talking less on the whole than in trad games. Its just that the things they're saying exclude trad concepts that find a lot of table time like exposition dumps, breadcrumb laying, reveals, heavy on the performative theatrics, significant focus on ephemera (like maps or handouts), and conflict-neutral freeplay (although some games have a hair of this...but that freeplay is going to be right on the heels of conflict or chasing some new, follow-on conflict). So same amount of talking for GMs in these games...its just that the words/conversation doesn't entail the italicized stuff. Its all basically (a) aggressing the PCs via principled application of system and (b) managing your systemitized duties and the game engine's particulars (like structured play loops and system prompts).

Of course, I like all those italicized things, and consider them important for my enjoyment of the RPG experience, so a game without them will have a tough road to hoe for me.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, I suppose I'll have to throw myself on the tender mercies of @AbdulAlhazred then, since they're the one who told me how focused DW's rules are. I played one session and never owned or completely read the book.

That’s fine. You can interact however you want. I just want to point out that you saying one thing, someone else seemingly agreeing with most of what you say then saying something different and you 2 never discussing those differences makes for a very confusing time for the rest of us.

Do you guys know what the easiest ways are to clear up your confusion? There are two of them:

* Read the text and perform a robust textual analysis.

* Run and play the games.

Seriously, I do not understand why you both are involved in these conversations so much if you will not do either of those things? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't have any dog in any fight in games I don't run. Like zero dog in the fight. I don't have any curiosity about some games. So you do_not_see me involve myself in those conversations a single time...let alone over_and_over_and_over_and_over_and_over.

And I definitely don't engage with participants who have run these games that I have no curiosity about (the kind of curiosity that triggers reading the texts with vigor and then running said games with effort and integrity) and tell them they give off a strong whiff of elitism for talking about how much they enjoy these games without bending the knee to the games that I like.

You want to know why I don't engage with you guys? This is it. I don't have some super secret black hat that I'm hiding. I'm not a villain who is twirling my mustachio and petting my cat in the dark. But whether you guys intend it or not, your orientation to these conversations look like you're try to find my super secret lair where I'm wearing my black hat and petting my cat and twirling my mustachio in the dark.

You are not going to find my super secret lair nor my black hat nor my cat nor my mustachio-twirling. I'm a normal dude that likes some games and likes to talk about them. And I'm not going to be compelled into telling you "but your games are great too(!)" every time I talk about these games.

And if you want to change the playing field. If you want to change how I (I'm only speaking for me) orient to the two of you guys? Read the books and stop asking me (or others) to perform the textual analysis for you. Stop with this relentless, atomized inquisition approach to these conversations when you haven't even done the bare minimum to engage on the subject. And stop calling me elitist...even if just as a dog whistle...because you feel badly that I like some games that you don't like and, for whatever weird reason, that makes you feel <whatever it is you feel that animates you to keep doing this...threatened?...I have no idea> when the games that you like are_literally_90 + % of the cultural marketplace.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, to my mind there is a phenomenal amount of difference between these things:

• The game inevitably produces incoherent fiction to a degree I could not bear. You have lower standards for coherency so it is fine for you.
• The process of the game would not allow me to interface with the fiction of the game in a way I feel personally comfortable with. Regardless of the internal consistency and coherency therein I would find it incoherent.
• I do not believe that my group would be able to produce play that produces internally consistent, coherent fiction using the processes outlined in the game.

It seems like you are saying the first bullet point. I hope you mean the second or the third (or something else entirely). It's important to distinguish between these sorts of things. One is a failing of design. The other is simply incompatibility.

I do mean the second. You can tell, perhaps, by removing the assumption of my claim of incoherence and lack of internal consistency on the part of others from your comments, perhaps replacing them with the possibility that I'm not trying to be a jerk.