Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Micah Sweet]

Even so, "if you do it, you do it" is a good foundational principle for almost any RPG to use, including typical D&D: declaring an action commits you to (at least attempting) that action in the fiction. No take-backs, no "well, actually I would have...", or any of that nonsense.

The "how" piece is system-based. The underlying principle is almost system-agnostic.

Of course, they were using it to describe the system, so confusion is still understandable.

 

[Faolyn]

Even so, "if you do it, you do it" is a good foundational principle for almost any RPG to use, including typical D&D: declaring an action commits you to (at least attempting) that action in the fiction. No take-backs, no "well, actually I would have...", or any of that nonsense.

The "how" piece is system-based. The underlying principle is almost system-agnostic.

That's not what that means. In fact, it basically means the exact opposite, because the text says to give the player a chance to change their mind. However, if they want to perform an action that's covered by a move, they have to actually use the move--they can't get the results of the move without using it. The example they give is an NPC is blocking the door. The PC wants to get past them. The GM says "oh, you're going aggro?", where going aggro is a move--if you're doing something that's hostile to another character that you're not actively fighting. The PC is perfectly allowed to say "Oh, no, I want to go find another way through" but can't say "I want to shove past him but I don't want to go aggro and roll the dice. The system has take-backs built in.

It's like saying that you're not allowed to use a sword to attack an NPC in D&D without making an attack roll. It's perfectly fine for the player to say, "Wait, I decided I don't actually want to attack them" but they can't say "I don't want to roll the d20; I just want to roll the damage die."

 

[Lanefan]

They are both addressed to all participants. And they can't be in place at the same time because they are contradictory.

"If you do it, you do it" means that any action declaration that meets the fictional conditions for triggering the mechanical resolution subsystem, activates that subsystem.

"Say 'yes' or roll the dice" means that any action declaration activate the action resolution mechanics only if something salient is at stake. Otherwise, the action simply succeeds.

Fine. My point, however, is and remains that whether the resolution mechanics are activated or bypassed* has no bearing on the player/PC's commitment to following through on the declared action. "If you do it, you do it" would IMO apply to any action, even one as simple as walking across a known-to-be-safe space that's not going to trigger resolution mechanics in any system beyond the GM simply saying something like "OK, now you're over there. What next?".

* - that the mechanics aren't invoked doesn't mean they're not there; as the exact same result can be achieved by having the player roll knowing that roll will succeed no matter what shows on the die. All you're doing by just saying 'yes' is skipping a needless step.

To give a concrete example: any time, in AW, that a PC threatens another character with violence, to try and get them to do something, the Go Aggro move must be rolled and resolved; whereas, in Burning Wheel, if a PC threatens a NPC with violence to try and get them to do something, and the NPC has no salience (eg is not a relationship, is not implicated by a Belief, etc) and the thing the PC wants done is just a means to some end that matters, then the GM just says "yes" and the threatened NPC relents.

Does any of this change the level of commitment the player has to make to following through on the declared action? In either case, the declared action is something like "I threaten [the NPC] with violence in order to try to make them do [whatever]"; and once spoken the player has committed the character to that course of action (if you do it, you do it) regardless of how that action gets resolved.

 

[Lanefan]

That's not what that means. In fact, it basically means the exact opposite, because the text says to give the player a chance to change their mind. However, if they want to perform an action that's covered by a move, they have to actually use the move--they can't get the results of the move without using it. The example they give is an NPC is blocking the door. The PC wants to get past them. The GM says "oh, you're going aggro?", where going aggro is a move--if you're doing something that's hostile to another character that you're not actively fighting. The PC is perfectly allowed to say "Oh, no, I want to go find another way through" but can't say "I want to shove past him but I don't want to go aggro and roll the dice. The system has take-backs built in.

It's like saying that you're not allowed to use a sword to attack an NPC in D&D without making an attack roll. It's perfectly fine for the player to say, "Wait, I decided I don't actually want to attack them" but they can't say "I don't want to roll the d20; I just want to roll the damage die."

Ah.

To me, "if you do it, you do it" means once you declare the action you can't change your mind - you're committed. Once you've declared the attack you don't get to say "Wait, I decided I don't actually want to attack" because by then it's too late.

If it somehow means the opposite, that seems highly counterintuitive.

 

[pemerton]

"If you do it, you do it" would IMO apply to any action

To me, "if you do it, you do it" means once you declare the action you can't change your mind - you're committed.

Thanks Humpty-Dumpty!

In this thread, I'm posting about the phrase as actually used, and explained, in the published rules of a RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah.

To me, "if you do it, you do it" means once you declare the action you can't change your mind - you're committed. Once you've declared the attack you don't get to say "Wait, I decided I don't actually want to attack" because by then it's too late.

If it somehow means the opposite, that seems highly counterintuitive.

That's what it sounds like to me too, but it's not what they mean. Pithy catchphrase though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thanks Humpty-Dumpty!

In this thread, I'm posting about the phrase as actually used, and explained, in the published rules of a RPG.

What do you mean by the name-calling? It seemed a reasonable conclusion from the phrase taken by itself.

 

[pemerton]

What do you mean by the name-calling? It seemed a reasonable conclusion from the phrase taken by itself.

There are multiple posts, in this thread, saying what is meant by "if you do it, you do it" and "say 'yes' or roll the dice". And pointing out how they state different, and incompatible, action resolution processes.

A post that says "to me, this rulebook slogan means . . ." or "IMO, this rulebook slogan means . . ." isn't adding anything; unless it's supposed to be humorous, in which case I responded in the same vein.

Like, if I went into a D&D thread talking about character building and how that feeds into combat stats, and said in all seriousness that, to me, the phrase character class means the social rank of the character, or that, to me, the phrase hit points means the places where someone is liable to be hit, or that, to me, the phrase armour class means how classy the wearer's armour is, would you expect the thread to take me seriously?

 

[gban007]

There are multiple posts, in this thread, saying what is meant by "if you do it, you do it" and "say 'yes' or roll the dice". And pointing out how they state different, and incompatible, action resolution processes.

A post that says "to me, this rulebook slogan means . . ." or "IMO, this rulebook slogan means . . ." isn't adding anything; unless it's supposed to be humorous, in which case I responded in the same vein.

Like, if I went into a D&D thread talking about character building and how that feeds into combat stats, and said in all seriousness that, to me, the phrase character class means the social rank of the character, or that, to me, the phrase hit points means the places where someone is liable to be hit, or that, to me, the phrase armour class means how classy the wearer's armour is, would you expect the thread to take me seriously?

I don't know, I usually agree with a lot of your posts, even if you play games I don't like to play, but really I thought Lanefan's posts were a good example of how unclear 'if you do it, you do it' is without context, and too often it seems the phrase is given without context.
So it warranted correction, but not necessarily such a pushback / reaction - I would like to think that if in another thread someone came up with those questions, someone would just politely correct them on their misunderstanding, stating what the rules are. Yes the rules may have already been stated, but not everyone reads every post in a thread, especially the long ones, so better to give people the benefit of the doubt than assume motive.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know, I usually agree with a lot of your posts, even if you play games I don't like to play, but really I thought Lanefan's posts were a good example of how unclear 'if you do it, you do it' is without context, and too often it seems the phrase is given without context.
So it warranted correction, but not necessarily such a pushback / reaction - I would like to think that if in another thread someone came up with those questions, someone would just politely correct them on their misunderstanding, stating what the rules are. Yes the rules may have already been stated, but not everyone reads every post in a thread, especially the long ones, so better to give people the benefit of the doubt than assume motive.

Of the two posts that I quoted, one was a reply to me explaining what the phrase means, telling me what "IMO" it means; and the other was a reply to @Faolyn explaining what the phase means, telling her what it means "to me" [ie the poster].

These do not come across as curious expressions of uncertainty; nor as statements about what the phrase might be taken to mean if used by a different game designer in a different context. They are posts that ignore the explanations and polite corrections, and plough on using the poster's own idiosyncratic meanings.

Hence my response.