Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[clearstream]

They’ve cited a rule about what to do when the players look to the GM for what’s next. Does no one recognize that’s not the same thing as asking what to do when a player has their pc act in a way that doesn’t trigger a move? Maybe. I dunno. But in any event, what I specifically asked about isn’t being addressed.

I don't have the rule book at hand, but it clearly points out that if anything the players declare doesn't trigger a move, then what they declare simply happens.

This is very similar to most other RPGs. If no dice are needed... either because what's being declared is a mundane action or because the GM determines no roll is needed or because the rules say no roll is needed... then the thing just happens.

All TTRPGs I can think of have a lacuna around what happens when a player declares an action that doesn't fit a rule and breaches norms for what seems feasible within the fiction. The general principle is to refer to fictional position... but what if folk have different ideas about what that entails? It falls back on social contract and if someone is empowered to judge such cases, that person's judgement.

So that's the mechanism - someone is empowered to decide. The glitch one hits with "player decides" is conflicts of interest. The catch with "judge decides" is the possibility of unjustifiably stifling player choices. Some games encourage some form of "group decides" which ought to at least align verdict with norms, but can be time consuming and prone to both conflicts of interest and loudest-voice-rules.

Even hardcore boardgames hit this problem, if you know anything about the history of Squad Leader and COWTRA.

 

[FrogReaver]

You certainly never responded it to ask for clarification. Would you care to go back and do so?

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

All TTRPGs I can think of have a lacuna around what happens when a player declares an action that doesn't fit a rule and breaches norms for what seems feasible within the fiction. The general principle is to refer to fictional position... but what if folk have different ideas about what that entails? It falls back on social contract and if someone is empowered to judge such cases, that person's judgement.

So that's the mechanism - someone is empowered to decide. The glitch one hits with "player decides" is conflicts of interest. The catch with "judge decides" is the possibility of unjustifiably stifling player choices. Some games encourage some form of "group decides" which ought to at least align verdict with norms, but can be time consuming and prone to both conflicts of interest and loudest-voice-rules.

Even hardcore boardgames hit this problem, if you know anything about the history of Squad Leader and COWTRA.

… I’m not citing it as a problem though. Not in any sense. Which is why all the answers about, all games do it or d&d does it too are so frustrating. None of that addresses what I was actually asking.

 

[clearstream]

… I’m not citing it as a problem though. Not in any sense. Which is why all the answers about, all games do it or d&d does it too were so frustrating. None of that addresses what I was actually asking.

When I say problem I seldom mean it negatively. Problems are good things, in many ways. They inspire interesting solutions.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

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.

 

[loverdrive]

Thank you for your detailed post!

I have somewhere between one and three questions.

(1) Can the GM move in response to the cleric's attempt to kick open the door be to have it open with very little noise?
(2) If yes to 1, does the DM need to add something more than that to keep the tension high?
(3) If yes to 1, are there doors the GM could just let the fighter quietly break in the door without a roll?

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

I did. Multiple times. I’d go find one and quote it but see below.

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.

Nevermind. If you are going to start throwing out poor faith accusations then we are done.

 

[FrogReaver]

When I say problem I seldom mean it negatively. Problems are good things, in many ways. They inspire interesting solutions.

Yea. I can accept you were mostly using my post as a jumping off point, which is fine. Maybe a bit frustrating for me in this context, but certainly not wrong of you either.

 

[Faolyn]

I did. Multiple times. I’d go find one and quote it but see below.

Nevermind. If you are going to start throwing out poor faith accusations then we are done.

Because you haven't explained why it confuses you. You just demand to see actual rules, no matter what people are saying.

OK, this seems to be your first post in the thread:

I can’t really agree those are very clear instructions. There’s nothing showing what having an opportunity handed to you on a silver plater looks like. What should count as a soft move and as a hard move isn’t immediately clear. Its not clear how transitions from one area to another work under these very clear rules, etc.

I did post some examples of what I felt "having an opportunity handed to me on a silver platter looks like," and the phrase itself should be pretty obvious: the PCs do something that just begs you, as the GM, to do a particular thing in response.

I will ask your forgiveness if it turns out you had not heard that particular phrase before. But assuming I have to assume you have, since you later say this:

Ah, but What does the GM being handed an opportunity mean? Opportunity is a very broad category after all.

To me, the "Ah" prefix sounds very much like you're going for a gotcha. @AbdulAlhazred and @pemerton gave good examples but you ignored those posts and simply said "show me the rules."

So I guess the issue is that we're not sure what you mean by "the rules." Do you expect every single possible instance to be bullet-pointed? Because you say:

I’ll note that I’ve asked multiple times for those rules if they exist. As of now, not one person has provided them.

Instead I get replies like -
Those rules aren’t needed.
Have you read the rules?

But those rules--including page numbers--have been cited several times, by me and by others.

As for soft moves and hard moves, here's what Dungeon World says about it (emphasis mine):

Generally when the players are just looking at you to find out what happens you make a soft move, otherwise you make a hard move.
A soft move is one without immediate, irrevocable consequences. That usually means it’s something not all that bad, like revealing that there’s more treasure if they can just find a way past the golem (offer an opportunity with cost). It can also mean that it’s something bad, but they have time to avoid it, like having the goblin archers loose their arrows (show signs of an approaching threat) with a chance for them to dodge out of danger.
A soft move ignored becomes a golden opportunity for a hard move. If the players do nothing about the hail of arrows flying towards them it’s a golden opportunity to use the deal damage move.
Hard moves, on the other hand, have immediate consequences. Dealing damage is almost always a hard move, since it means a loss of HP that won’t be recovered without some action from the players.
When you have a chance to make a hard move you can opt for a soft one instead if it better fits the situation. Sometimes things just work out for the best.

This is your next post:

Let me ask this - What if the players do something that is not a move, that is they do not look to the GM to see what happens, but whatever they are doing doesn’t map to a move?

And it has been answered multiple times. But when I (and others) answered this, you said:

Okay. Where are the rules in AW for this?

and

it’s not so much that they are needed, but if you don’t have them and this situation is not discussed in the rules then it would be very reasonable to read the AW rules and come to the conclusion that every action is a move.

But you've had lots of people say that no, it's not particularly reasonable, just like how in D&D or other games, you wouldn't require every single thing the PCs do to be resolved by a die roll. You can let them talk or look around. You may even decide that some things that normally do require die rolls don't, because there's no chance of failure, or having anything interesting happen on a failure. The PCs search a room, but they spend an hour doing so and nothing is really hidden, so many GMs would just waive the need for a roll and tell them what they found.

So when I actually handed you a page number (page 88) and quoted a huge chunk of text, you said:

I’m explicitly talking about situations where the player isn’t looking for the GM to say something. That issue acted but not with a move. I’m not understanding how that rules text applies to such a situation?

Even though that had been addressed in the text I quoted.

The players did something. The GM can either let them continue to do something or--in an action-oriented game like Apocalypse World--interrupt with a move like Announce Future Badness so the players stop dilly-dallying and get back on task.

So please, point out exactly what about your question isn't being answered.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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