Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the dungeon exists strictly as a place, and to a degree, required to meet the game's goals. What purpose would a door 'just exist' for? Whatever it's doing, why it's described, must have some impact on play.

Well, here we come to the point of asking what the rules are for. In DW you're depicting adventures in dungeons. Outside of that and related stuff DW has nothing to say. In the dungeon there's no 'just succeeding' danger is everywhere. But if you want a door just for color, ok, then when a character opens it, it's just open! Does that seem to violate the rules? Yup! Because the rules are about dangerous dungeons, not potempkin dungeons filled with doors of no consequence.

Yeah, that narrow focus is a factor in my feelings on these sorts of games too. Trad games, even one focused on a particular kind of play, don't have this sort of mechanical gap IME.

 

[hawkeyefan]

After reading all most some of this thread, I’m convinced I won’t really grasp the system until I see it in play. The last actual-play videos I tried to watch (maybe a year ago?) bored me into a stupor.

Any recommendations of lively, engaging AW videos, preferably not three hours long?

I’d recommend the “Blinding Light” series of Stonetop. It’s run by the creator and includes annotations explaining what’s happening during play. The players are mostly good, though one fellow can be a bit longwinded at times.

But as far as instruction goes, they’re really good about explaining the mechanics in pop up texts throughout. I found them pretty helpful for Stonetop even though I was already familiar with PbtA games in general.

Stonetop- Blinding Light

Additionally, I would suggest to take anything anyone unfamiliar with these games says with a monstrous grain of salt. Most of the concerns are misplaced or overblown, and put forth by folks who continue to post in threads about these games despite not actually caring to learn about them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am a fan of this phrase and request permission to use everywhere applicable

I hereby declare it to be in the public domain

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, the dungeon exists strictly as a place, and to a degree, required to meet the game's goals. What purpose would a door 'just exist' for? Whatever it's doing, why it's described, must have some impact on play.

Well, here we come to the point of asking what the rules are for. In DW you're depicting adventures in dungeons. Outside of that and related stuff DW has nothing to say. In the dungeon there's no 'just succeeding' danger is everywhere. But if you want a door just for color, ok, then when a character opens it, it's just open! Does that seem to violate the rules? Yup! Because the rules are about dangerous dungeons, not potempkin dungeons filled with doors of no consequence.

Seems like a bizarrely restrictive way to build a game to me, at least if you insist on being strict on interpretation of the rules. (I suspect a lot of people aren't.) I get what the general idea is, that the dungeon is dangerous place and there is constant danger and pressure. But it seems weird to me to take it to the level where mere existence of mundane details such as non-challenging doors becomes a problem.

It also seems weird to me that having an access to a specific move can in certain situations make you less likely to succeed in situations related to the move, as then then you must use it, but if you don't have it, the GM can just give you an autosuccess...

Like I don't get what purpose does forcing the triggering of the move serve. Why can' the GM just grant autosuccess in situations covered by the moves if they feel the fictional positioning warrants it? I don't see how this would break the game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I infer from this that, in fact, you have not read the extract from p 109 of the rulebook that I already quoted in this thread before you started asking your questions, and that I have quoted approximately 100000000000000 times in other ENworld threads that you have participated in.

Your apparent inability to (i) read what people post or (ii) comprehend it or (iii) take it on board is a bit frustrating.

Mod Note:

If you’ve quoted a rule to someone “100000000000000 times” and they haven’t acknowledged that, and said lack drives you to posting jabs like “Your apparent inability to (i) read what people post or (ii) comprehend it or (iii) take it on board is a bit frustrating.”, maybe it’s time to disengage from that poster. Perhaps for an extended period of time…instead of posting the jabs.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

it seems weird to me to take it to the level where mere existence of mundane details such as non-challenging doors becomes a problem.

Huh, it's actually not a problem
Non-challenging doors -
the GM will literally say "You open the door and walk through to the other side, and you see X - what do you do"
OR just not have a door there in the first place
OR if it makes sense in the fiction, there will be a door, and it MAY prevent folks from seeing what's on the other side, which MAY be some sort of danger. Well in that case, it's no longer non-challenging is it?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Plausibility seems to play a distant second fiddle to narrative value in no-myth games. One reason why they've never worked for me.

DW is a game of dungeon exploration. The very concept of dungeon mazes constructed by mad wizards and filled with unnatural monsters and chests full of gold contains no element of plausibility whatsoever in my book. However, where DW intersects with reality the rules are generally silent, so I am not sure it's inherently implausible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Mod Note:

If you think your question is not getting sufficiently clear answers, and that many “non-answers” are similar, you should consider that the question you’re asking may lack clarity.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Huh, it's actually not a problem
Non-challenging doors -
the GM will literally say "You open the door and walk through to the other side, and you see X - what do you do"
OR just not have a door there in the first place
OR if it makes sense in the fiction, there will be a door, and it MAY prevent folks from seeing what's on the other side, which MAY be some sort of danger. Well in that case, it's no longer non-challenging is it?

Exactly. I mean there's no moves for mundane actions, so mundane stuff like ordinary doors, passages, stairs, etc just go by as conversation. I'd just note that basically they're color at that point. Maybe later one becomes significant? It's possible, and the rules are perfectly okay with that. Like you are escaping from orcs, you spike the otherwise uninteresting door, cool!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exactly. I mean there's no moves for mundane actions, so mundane stuff like ordinary doors, passages, stairs, etc just go by as conversation. I'd just note that basically they're color at that point. Maybe later one becomes significant? It's possible, and the rules are perfectly okay with that. Like you are escaping from orcs, you spike the otherwise uninteresting door, cool!

Ok. But how is it determined what is colour? Can we have a locked door, which the mighty warrior nevertheless easily kicks in without triggering a move, even though there is a move for physically breaking objects with your amazing strength?