Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Lanefan]

Are you saying that Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is not a paradigm of realism?

Hang on . . . are you saying that Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is essentially arbitrary, within the parameters of "will this make for a good dungeon crawl for experienced players of mid-to-high level D&D characters"?

Sometimes, gonzo's just gotta gonzo; and that's fine too.

That said, I'd listen to and probably support an argument suggesting Lost Caverns is more plausible than White Plume Mtn.

 

[Faolyn]

Sounds like you would be breaking the rules, but I won't report you.

Not really. There's no move for it, so the PCs can do what they want, and I can use this opportunity to use one of my moves. They find the secret door, but by doing so, they reveal an unwelcome truth and there's evidence inside that shows the Big Bad is far more powerful than they had previously thought. Or as they open the door and I give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities by having the door be trapped or super-heavy or magical in nature.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, so here is Discern Realities:

When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis. ✴On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below. ✴On a 7–9, ask 1.​

Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers.​

​

• What happened here recently?​

• What is about to happen?​

• What should I be on the lookout for?​

• What here is useful or valuable to me?​

• Who’s really in control here?​

• What here is not what it appears to be?​

Now you asked
As @AbdulAlhazred posted, there is no When you search for secret doors move.

Suppose the player has their PC closely study a situation, and the dice are rolled for Discern Realities. And it is as hit rather than a miss. The player gets to ask a question - maybe they ask "What here is useful or valuable to me?"

And maybe the GM responds by asking them, "Well, what would you find useful?" and they reply "A secret door!" And so the GM says, "As you study the wall closely, you notice hairline cracks, and a small bump that you're sure is the "latch" for this secret door."

But there are a millions and one other ways that this might go: the player asks a different question; the GM doesn't ask the player a question, or asks a different question; the GM responds with something different that might be valuable or useful.

So the answer to the question if a character searches for a secret door and the roll succeeds, there then is one is either No, or else The question doesn't quite make sense, because there is no "search for secret doors"move.

So if the player's action declaration is "I search for secret doors in [area to be searched]", that invokes Discern Realities. Got it so far.

The player rolls a success, and gets to ask a question. So far so good....maybe; given the focus of the action declaration, it seems to follow that the question asked should be rules-forced to directly relate to secret doors. The only one of those six questions that directly relates to secret doors is the last one; to which I gather the GM is not allowed to answer "nothing" indicating that the character has determined with high confidence that there is no secret door here.

Where this loses me is that depending on the question asked, the resolution might very easily have nothing to do with the stated action of searching for a secret door. Put another way, how (without massive contrivance) can searching for a secret door tell me who's really in control here?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I’m not as certain on this. Depending on the exact structure of the player moves the GM might could make extensive use of prep. Maybe that’s against principles or what not but it seems technically achievable. It’s just prep that may conflict with moves needs to be avoided, but certainly not all prep does this!

Not all prep, certainly. GMs make up steadings (towns, villages, etc.) and they certainly prepare fronts and dangers. They can also invent dungeon moves, creature moves, etc. This is all prep, and can include maps (with holes in them, so loose maps). However, what the GM DOES NOT DO is construct stories, scripted content of any sort, for the PCs to navigate. You don't start out "well, I'm going to send them to the pirate island where they'll battle the Slave Lords." It never happens like that. I mean, go to town, but if you play in that way, you might as well just play D&D, you're not really playing Dungeon World anymore.

 

[Lanefan]

After all, if I put something in the dungeon, then it's there so the PCs can use it or be affected by it, and it's boring for it to be left unfound just because of a bad roll.

Sorry, but this is a design philosophy I just can't get behind. It's the same as that (IMO awful) theatre maxim that says that any prop on stage has to be used at some point during the performance.

This philosophy (and maxim) leaves no room for red herrings, no room for pure set-dressing, and - most importantly - no opportunity for important and-or valuable things-clues-treasure to be outright missed.

Now if you changed it slightly such that it read.....

After all, if I put something in the dungeon, then it's there so the PCs might or might not use it or be affected by it,

.....my objections would vanish into thin air.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, if asked if a D&D GM is required to cut the deck before they deal, that wouldn't really make sense, right? The question makes more sense for a game of bridge or poker.

I have several Decks of Many Things here that would like a word, sir.

 

[Golden Bee]

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?

This is me running PbTA. If you have Q's I can answer. There are also mini clips.

 

[pemerton]

I see. I wasn’t sure looking for secret doors by tapping on the walls or whatever would count as closely studying the situation. Especially since the discern realities questions don’t really seem all that applicable to that activity.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last question: if you closely study a situation, then you acquire information. At the table this is handled by having the player ask the GM questions, which the GM must answer truthfully (as in - this is now true in the fiction):

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?​

These are things one might learn by closely studying a situation or person.

 

[niklinna]

This is me running PbTA. If you have Q's I can answer. There are also mini clips.

Spirit of 77 is such a blast! I love how you combine 2 different playbooks (12 of each) to get 144 possible character archetypes, and nearly every combination actually has some media counterpart from the time to boot. This isn't even including your Thangs.

 

[pemerton]

This might be the wrong thread for it but I see story now and no myth as pretty much directly opposed. Now I hate no myth personally but if that’s what people enjoy then that’s fine by me. As a lover of Narrativism though it does kind of pain me to see them conflated, especially given that the style of Narrativism I enjoy (bang driven in Ron Edwards terms, situational play in mine) is basically at deaths door because of the influx of no-myth enjoyers.

If you weren’t conflating them then I misunderstood you and you can ignore my post.

I was talking about what is involved in GMing a no myth, story now game.

I didn't assert or imply that all story now is no myth. But some is, as Edwards discusses here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html