Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[clearstream]

I don't know anything about Avatar.

Here is the relevant example from AW (p 200):

He stops at a safe spot and reads the way forward, and hits with a 10. “Cool. What should I be on the lookout for?” “Dremmer sends patrols through here, of course,” I say. “You should be on the lookout for a patrol.” “Makes sense. How far will I have to go exposed?” “A few hundred yards, it looks like,” I say. “Okay,” he says. “Question 3—” “Oh no, no,” I say. “That didn’t use up any of your hold, I was just telling you what you see.” “Oh! Great. How often do the patrols come through?” I shake my head. “You don’t know. Could be whenever.” “But can’t I make that my question, so you have to answer it?” “Nope!” I say. “You can spend your hold to make me answer questions from the list. Other questions don’t use up your hold, but I get to answer them or not, depending on whatever.” “Okay, I get it,” he says. “So I’m on question 2 still? What’s my enemy’s true position?”​

In answering the question, or not, depending on whatever, the GM is following the principles and making moves - eg reiterating announced future badness (be on the lookout for Dremmer's patrols, which could come through whenever).

Yes, I agree that's the right implication to draw from "depending on whatever". In play it can feel a bit arbitrary (why these questions and not those). But no text can cover everything, and the designer will have purposefully curated the list.

I've noticed new MCs not really grasping their MC-moves, but they sit right where GM-judges does in other games.

 

[FrogReaver]

That explains some things.

For me, the rules of an RPG are there merely to a) reflect the fiction and maybe give a bit of playable structure to it and b) abstract those parts of the fiction that can't be done at the table.

But the fiction comes first; and if a rule says something works in manner X but common sense says no, this time it works in manner Y, then it's the rules that give way; either by being ignored for that one instance or - if it's an ongoing issue - being changed by houserule to allow the fiction to make sense.

Falling damage in D&D (all editions) is one such instance: the rules make a rude gesture at common sense once characters reach even low-moderate level. Some tables don't care; many others have houseruled falling damage somehow to bring it more in line with reality.

The bolded is IMO always the most important question: given the conceits of the setting, the fiction, and the situation, does this make sense? It is even the least bit plausible?

Whether it's interesting, or whether the PCs can fail or not, or whether there's relevant consequences on either success or failure, is in my view irrelevant if it doesn't first make any sense.

Which is fine until and unless the GM simply can't make it make sense to either her own satisfaction or that of the players; and then what?

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yet you decline to actually consider any accounts of play that might confirm or disconfirm your suggestion.

In most fields of criticism, this would tend to undermine the credibility of the suggestion.

I propose this is because the moment we get past the facts of play accounts, that we all have different perspectives of how those facts relate to rpg design theory and ultimately what they prove or disprove.

 

[Autumnal]

Sure, but in every RPG ever they 'exist' to serve the game's purposes. I mean, I'll yield on The Bat Cave, it had some sort of pre-existing fictional existence that needs to be respected if you are doing that sort of thing. However, it still came into play for a reason that is intrinsic to the play of THIS GAME.

I blame some of the weirdness many people show about this on the old common language about “in RPGs you can do anything!” But I don’t want to do anything. I want to do cool stuff in a style that fits the characters, setting, and the kind of adventure we’ve agreed to pursue. And I’m not interested in encountering anything the GM or others can invent without regard for any of that stuff. There more a game focuses on tools that work together to do the kind of things the game promises to offer us, the better. That is what is wanted, here in my mighty brain, and it makes me happy the more people talk directly about what they want and how to make them happen, rather than whiffing arodund it with fake objectivity, indirection, and alleged universality.

Make mine relevant!

 

[Aldarc]

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?

This is another good point, and I would amend my earlier point somewhat.

Sometimes the GM may have intended for the door to be ordinary. No roll would be required to open the door. They were ready to declare that the PCs just open the door.

However, maybe the PCs then decide to put their ear up against the door and listen. Maybe in the process they trigger a Move. Maybe not. Whatever the case, the PCs' actions surrounding the door may have handed the GM a golden opportunity for a Move.

So who decides? In some cases, the PCs may be indirectly deciding that this door is more than color, in the same way that a NPC may become more than color through the interactions of the PCs, who take a particular dramatic interest in them.

IME, these games often require thinking "cinematically." Like if the characters spend prolonged time or interest in person or thing, then it becomes dramatically pertinent for the scene.

That explains some things.

For me, the rules of an RPG are there merely to a) reflect the fiction and maybe give a bit of playable structure to it and b) abstract those parts of the fiction that can't be done at the table.

But the fiction comes first; and if a rule says something works in manner X but common sense says no, this time it works in manner Y, then it's the rules that give way; either by being ignored for that one instance or - if it's an ongoing issue - being changed by houserule to allow the fiction to make sense.

Falling damage in D&D (all editions) is one such instance: the rules make a rude gesture at common sense once characters reach even low-moderate level. Some tables don't care; many others have houseruled falling damage somehow to bring it more in line with reality.

The bolded is IMO always the most important question: given the conceits of the setting, the fiction, and the situation, does this make sense? It is even the least bit plausible?

Whether it's interesting, or whether the PCs can fail or not, or whether there's relevant consequences on either success or failure, is in my view irrelevant if it doesn't first make any sense.

Which is fine until and unless the GM simply can't make it make sense to either her own satisfaction or that of the players; and then what?

I'll be honest, I don't agree with @loverdrive characterization of PbtA games in their post, and I think that they tend to talk about these games a little too dogmatically. I very much think that these are fiction first or fiction forward games. It's just that the rules in PbtA games tell you what must first happen in the fiction for them to be invoked or triggered, with the respective Moves facilitating those particular instances. I still don't think that these games will be to your tastes, but I don't want the post in question should be the reason why.

 

[clearstream]

That explains some things.

For me, the rules of an RPG are there merely to a) reflect the fiction and maybe give a bit of playable structure to it and b) abstract those parts of the fiction that can't be done at the table.

But the fiction comes first; and if a rule says something works in manner X but common sense says no, this time it works in manner Y, then it's the rules that give way; either by being ignored for that one instance or - if it's an ongoing issue - being changed by houserule to allow the fiction to make sense.

I believe this is covered by considering the intended chain of justification. It's supposed to be

Fiction justifies action justifies rule invocation justifies further fiction​

Presupposing the rule comes into play when it hasn't been justified by the fiction leads to this

Fiction justifies action justifies rule invocation justifies further fiction​

Why did we invoke the rule, when that wasn't justified by our fiction? The answer connects with my observation that there are in practice three specificities of resolution

It exactly fits a rule​

​

It fits within the scope of a rule​

​

It doesn't fit a rule​

​

Our games have means for handling each specificity. If it fits the rule, do what the rule says. If it fits within the scope of a rule, do something like what that rule says. If it doesn't fit a rule, turn to your means of judging. AW refined this to

It fits a narrow rule (playbooks, typically)​

​

It fits within the scope of a broader rule (basic moves)​

​

It fits neither of the above, so invokes a super-rule (MC-moves)​

​

There's some sophisticated design going on, that works the border between rules and principles. (Hence Harper's observation cited by @Campbell.) Anyway, so long as the chain of justification is sustained, the conversation can't breach observed norms ("common sense".)

@loverdrive observes that

In Apocalypse World, you just roll the damn dice as the damn rules tell you to and then it's GM's job to make it make sense. To make it interesting. When you kick down a door, you don't know what lies on the other side. When you go aggro on a bound hostage you don't know if the bastard didn't sneakily got out of the ropes and isn't now biding his sweet time to escape. GM doesn't either.

To my reading, GM's job lies more in how justified fiction twists and turns, rather than the immaculate conception of new fiction. @loverdrive's example speaks to that - it implies we already knew the bastard was tied up, so it's justified to say he sneakily got out of his ropes. I don't take @loverdrive to be inviting breaches of the chain of justification. The differences in approach are subtle. I've edited this post to reflect that I'm still thinking them through.

Postscript: You can sustain the chain of justification in "GM-curated" games like Pathfinder. If a rule doesn't fit, don't invoke that rule. Is it right to say you observe that sometimes a rule gets invoked, and then you notice that it doesn't fit your fiction? It seems the question falls on - why was it invoked, if it didn't fit? That sounds like a break in the chain of justification.

 

[Maggan]

I readily confess that I find PBtA games difficult to play. I'm so much rooted in the traditional BRP-paradigm that I sort of collide with the PBtA philosophy.

So if I wanted to try a game powered by this engine, what is recommended? Monster of the Week? Blades in the Dark? Kult?

Preferably something that can be a mini-campaign of six to eight sessions.

 

[clearstream]

I readily confess that I find PBtA games difficult to play. I'm so much rooted in the traditional BRP-paradigm that I sort of collide with the PBtA philosophy.

So if I wanted to try a game powered by this engine, what is recommended? Monster of the Week? Blades in the Dark? Kult?

Preferably something that can be a mini-campaign of six to eight sessions.

MotW (PbtA) is very different from BitD (FitD). I found Starhold (PbtA) great for a short campaign.

 

[Manbearcat]

That is not the kind of play I'm talking about. I don't want character-focused play with minimal world-building. Sounds awful actually. I'm talking about dungeon-focused play vs. not dungeon-focused play (for example). Dungeon World is designed explicitly for danger-filled, dungeon-focused play. Even its proponents tell me it's not designed for anything else. Any version of D&D can be dungeon-focused play, and also other things.

I agree that Dungeon World is danger-filled, action-adventure play by design and execution in the play (it can't help but be). I don't agree that it is dungeon-focused play (either thematically or procedurally) at all. It might include a dungeon here and there, but it falls well short of the mark of "dungeon-focused."

The thematic and design touchstones for Dungeon World are Burning Wheel (xp, the first End of Session question, and some themes and mythology sprinkled about in playbooks), Shadows of Yesterday (alignment), AW/Freemarket (bonds), and Basic + AD&D (playbooks, EoS questions sans the aforementioned ones, Hirelings, Encumbrance/Coin, Monsters and general mythology). Such a mix generates a dynamic where "play goes where the playbooks, the bonds, the alignment, and the players' protagonism via their PCs goes" and that such tends to skew heavily away from dungeon crawling on the balance.

For instance, the last DW game I GMed (Druid and Fighter playbooks) saw 1 dungeon in their 1-10 game. This ancient ruin was an emergent feature of them trying to escape <the equivalent of> supernatural, spiritual pyroclasm and getting trapped in a cave-in. The 1-10 game I GMed before that (Wizard and Paladin) saw 1 duneon in its span. This ancient ruin was goal-directed by the players and generated via a Spout Lore move.

I would say that spread mentioned above (the % of dungeon content and the nature of the dungeon content generated) is about right in all the DW games I've run (which is a ridiculous amount of hours and levels in the last 10 years...and I'm just talking DW...not Stonetop).

 

[Aldarc]

I readily confess that I find PBtA games difficult to play. I'm so much rooted in the traditional BRP-paradigm that I sort of collide with the PBtA philosophy.

So if I wanted to try a game powered by this engine, what is recommended? Monster of the Week? Blades in the Dark? Kult?

Preferably something that can be a mini-campaign of six to eight sessions.

I tend to think that Magpie Games and Evil Hat Productions tend to write the best PbtA games that teach the game.

I agree that Dungeon World is danger-filled, action-adventure play by design and execution in the play (it can't help but be). I don't agree that it is dungeon-focused play (either thematically or procedurally) at all. It might include a dungeon here and there, but it falls well short of the mark of "dungeon-focused."

The thematic and design touchstones for Dungeon World are Burning Wheel (xp, the first End of Session question, and some themes and mythology sprinkled about in playbooks), Shadows of Yesterday (alignment), AW/Freemarket (bonds), and Basic + AD&D (playbooks, EoS questions sans the aforementioned ones, Hirelings, Encumbrance/Coin, Monsters and general mythology). Such a mix generates a dynamic where "play goes where the playbooks, the bonds, the alignment, and the players' protagonism via their PCs goes" and that such tends to skew heavily away from dungeon crawling on the balance.

For instance, the last DW game I GMed (Druid and Fighter playbooks) saw 1 dungeon in their 1-10 game. This ancient ruin was an emergent feature of them trying to escape <the equivalent of> supernatural, spiritual pyroclasm and getting trapped in a cave-in. The 1-10 game I GMed before that (Wizard and Paladin) saw 1 duneon in its span. This ancient ruin was goal-directed by the players and generated via a Spout Lore move.

I would say that spread mentioned above (the % of dungeon content and the nature of the dungeon content generated) is about right in all the DW games I've run (which is a ridiculous amount of hours and levels in the last 10 years...and I'm just talking DW...not Stonetop).

Even then, Perilous Wilds exists as a supplement, and it has additional/alternative rules for travel and journeys, hirelings, weather, and creating world and region maps. If Dungeon World is only about dungeons, then the people who actually play and design for the game clearly didn't get that particular memo.