Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[Faolyn]

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,

An red herring is being used. It's being used as a misdirect. Ditto for set dressing. It's being used to enhance flavor.

and - most importantly - no opportunity for important and-or valuable things-clues-treasure to be outright missed.

But this I disagree with, because if the players miss a valuable clue, the game grinds to a halt. They can't progress, simply because they rolled badly or didn't check that one box (edit: box as in object, not checklist). And that's not actually fun, and can lead to tremendous game slow-downs because the PCs get so paranoid they have to check every single thing just in case there's something valuable inside.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

That does, of course, differ in some games--Monster of the Week uses countdowns, which are sort of scripted content (if only "here's what will happen if the PCs don't stop things" way), and it has an entire book of scenarios.

 

[mamba]

A room is neither a situation nor a person

a room is a situation to me, and 'What here is not what it appears to be?' does fit searching for secret doors

 

[Aldarc]

That doesn't really capture what Chekov's Gun is about.

This is not saying there can't be set dressing, or ancillary details to things. There's a reason the example is a loaded gun, and not a cup of tea. A gun has intrinsically higher stakes, and the audience is going to focus on it because of that. It's also worth noting his advice says it should 'go off', instead of someone should get shot. The answer doesn't have to be obvious, it just should have some form of dramatic payoff if something that important and full of tension is present.

But also, advice for playwrights (especially versus directors) doesn't exactly map to trying to simulate dungeon crawling in an interactive medium. Conservation of detail matters a whole lot more in the context of the space, time, and audience focus constraints of a theatrical performance. It's a maxim about narrative. If you're not concerned with crafting that, it doesn't really apply.

I love the twist on Chekov's Gun in the resolution of Billy Wilder's The Apartment.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That does, of course, differ in some games--Monster of the Week uses countdowns, which are sort of scripted content (if only "here's what will happen if the PCs don't stop things" way), and it has an entire book of scenarios.

Well, DW fronts are pretty much the same thing. If the PCs don't interfere with them, then their 'dooms' come to fruition. If you don't defeat the Orc Tribe (or deal with them somehow) then they overrun the village, etc. In DW a major function of a front is to depict the world as a place with its own life. Contrary to what some posters claim, bringing the setting to life is a significant part of the overall fiction and story.

 

[innerdude]

a room is a situation to me, and 'What here is not what it appears to be?' does fit searching for secret doors

I generally agree with this, and would point to "Discern Realities" as a move to invoke in the face of an action declaration of, "I search the room for a secret door." In my mind the assumed situation is, whether declared by the player or not, "To better understand the situation of how monsters / people are tracking in and out of this space."

However --- in the context of a DW resolution, in many cases I wouldn't tie the success/failure of the roll to the discovery of the door itself.

They're in the room, there IS a secret door, they're expressly asking to find it. Unless I as GM have pre-authored that the door is not findable through any normal means (prodding, probing, tapping, listening, magic), like, simply making the action declaration means they should find the door.

The change in thought process is how, as a PLAYER, I expect to see the hard fail 6- result shown on the dice. I should NEVER assume as a player that dice roll won't have real consequences---and if it's a 6- fail, it will be hard consequences from the GM. As a player of DW, I should expect resolution of a "move" to keep any and all situations dynamic/fluid.

Contextually, in the fiction, I've basically established that my character should have every reasonable expectation to find the door, but I roll a hard fail 6- on the dice.

In D&D terms, GMs are trained to say, "Nope, there's no door there." Regardless of any downstream consequences to continuance of the party's success.

In DW, GM says, "Sure, you find a door . . . ." Now insert hard GM move to reflect the roll of the dice.

Conversely, if they roll a 10+, suddenly not only have they found the door, they've also discovered something unique, interesting, and useful to future actions. They've found an interesting set of tracks/marks indicating what's ahead, there's something clear about what the tunnel is used for in connection with their current stakes/scene frame, there's a connecting clue hidden in the space behind the door that's useful, etc. etc.

Now again, is this all possible without the specific framework of a DW "move"? Well, yeah, of course. But in a game of 5e, it's all on the GM to actively choose to do this of his/her own free will. In DW, aspects of these kinds of responses are hard coded into the resolution of the move.

Every throw of the dice in DW is a risk. You are potentially forcing the GM's hand to reveal future badness, or carry through on a threat, or any of the identified GM moves.

*Edit --- now, it is also at the GM's discretion for 6- result on "Discern Realities" to indicate full failure to find the door AND include heavy GM badness. That's available to the GM as well, depending on circumstance. I'm just saying that in a lot of cases, DW may have a different mindset entirely than a "traditional" mindset.

 

[Lanefan]

If you're looking for tension in your RPG in virtue of fictional situations of type X, and the rules of your game make situations of type X tension-free, then something has gone wrong!

Agreed.

The question is one of whether the rules should then be changed to accommodate the fiction, or the fiction change to fit in with the rules.

I say the former. I got the strong impression, however, from someone in this thread (maybe loverdrive?) that in some of the games being put forward here it's specifically intended to be the latter, which is what I was originally pushing back against.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, again, the move is not 'Search for Secret Doors' and the text of Discern Realities talks about 'When you closely study a situation or person' as the trigger. A room is neither a situation nor a person.

I would consider a room - devoid of occupants other than the PCs - to qualify as a "situation" were there any (real or perceived) mystery about it, or anything that might not be as it seems, or if it holds hidden hazards, and so forth.

A room might be completely enpty and benign and yet the players can still make a 'situation' out of it by talking themselves into thinking there's more to it than that, and acting on those (perhaps erroneous) assumptions.

Now, maybe I'm at odds with others here, but I DO NOT consider DR to be a 'Perception Check'. It is an investigative move! It isn't an attempt to find some specific thing, it's an attempt to learn all you can about a SITUATION (IE lets say "what's up with the people in this room?") or a specific person (and I would say 'In context' not patting them down or something, though that might trigger it). I see it as basically a 'Sherlock Holmes' move.

And if you're trying to use a system for investigative 'Sherlock Holmes' mystery solving (which it's easy for any campaign to drift into, even if only temporarily), then having an investigation move (or perception rule, or similar) would seem rather essential.

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't really capture what Chekov's Gun is about.

This is not saying there can't be set dressing, or ancillary details to things. There's a reason the example is a loaded gun, and not a cup of tea. A gun has intrinsically higher stakes, and the audience is going to focus on it because of that. It's also worth noting his advice says it should 'go off', instead of someone should get shot.

A premise with which I completely disagree.

That loaded gun can be there just to fuel audience tension (along with in-character tension for the actors to portray) - the question should not be when it will go off, it should be if it will go off or even be referenced at all.

Treating it as a question of 'when' rather than 'if' makes things too predictable.

But also, advice for playwrights (especially versus directors) doesn't exactly map to trying to simulate dungeon crawling in an interactive medium. Conservation of detail matters a whole lot more in the context of the space, time, and audience focus constraints of a theatrical performance. It's a maxim about narrative. If you're not concerned with crafting that, it doesn't really apply.

Again I disagree, though not as deeply. Advice to playwrights and adventure writers has this in common: both need to design the setting. And for both, the question of what is merely 'set dressing' and what is intended to be used is relevant; the playwright has much more control over this, to be sure, but I think it's an error for an adventure writer to try and exert this same control. Instead, better for the adventure writer to just put the setting elements in place without concern as to what the players/PCs will do with-to them.

(note this is talking about pre-written adventures, thus probably doesn't much apply to many of the systems otherwise being discussed here)

 

[Lanefan]

But this I disagree with, because if the players miss a valuable clue, the game grinds to a halt. They can't progress, simply because they rolled badly or didn't check that one box (edit: box as in object, not checklist).

Fine, says I. Let it. That's reality for you; and they'll either find another way, or abandon that mission and go do something else, or be stubborn and just keep bashing their heads against the wall.

Just because I write or prep an advanture doesn't give me any right to expect the players to get to it, or get to all of it. For example, I wrote a series of adventures recently the entirety of which hinges on the PCs finding a specific secret door in the first adventure, behind which hides the "clue" that leads to the rest of the series. Miss that, and the whole rest of the series goes out the window.

In that first adventure, it's set up that the layout is a bit odd; and that wise players/PCs will realize there more to the place than first sight would suggest (the premise is they're looking for people who went into the house and never came out), but the secret door that leads to where the vanished people went is not the same as the one that hides the clue, which can still be missed if they don't search the right place.

And that's not actually fun, and can lead to tremendous game slow-downs because the PCs get so paranoid they have to check every single thing just in case there's something valuable inside.

Again, if they want to be that paranoid I'm quite fine with it. I expect they're going to loot the place to the studs anyway (I don't give xp for gp but they often play as if I did); and even then it's impressive how much of the potential treasure they sometimes miss.