thoughts on Apocalypse World?

[Umbran]

It is total nonsensical garbage. Thankfully, it was written by you on the internet...

It's so far removed from reality it's hilarious.

Mod Note:
Please dial it down several notches. If your entry into the conversation is head-butting, the conversation is apt to end for you quite quickly.

And @doctorbadwolf - please avoid using the laughing reaction in ways that might be construed as mocking, especially when you say you aren't going to engage. Because the reaction emojis are engagement.

 

[niklinna]

Yes, one of the things I like about Apocalypse World/Blades in the Dark and their progeny is that when you miss a die roll, something interesting usually happens, rather then it merely being a whiff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mod Note:
Please dial it down several notches. If your entry into the conversation is head-butting, the conversation is apt to end for you quite quickly.

And @doctorbadwolf - please avoid using the laughing reaction in ways that might be construed as mocking, especially when you say you aren't going to engage. Because the reaction emojis are engagement.

Very fair. Apologies. I sometimes fail to recall the thin line between incredulity and mockery.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, one of the things I like about Apocalypse World/Blades in the Dark and their progeny is that when you miss a die roll, something interesting usually happens, rather then it merely being a whiff.

Now this is where this thread gets into interesting territory!

When is a check called for? In AW, there is no "say 'yes'" rule: if you do it, you do it. So certain sorts of choices by players - to act under pressure/duress/fire, to try and intimidate others, to try and grab things or people, etc - mandate a check, and hence create this possibility of failure which obliges the GM to make a move that follows from the fiction and is as hard as they like.

Which means that the action resolution mechanics are also the pacing mechanic and the complication mechanic.

This is a big difference from more wargaming-based and classic skill system designs (eg AD&D, 5e D&D, RQ), where action resolution may have no connection at all to pacing or complication-introduction; and also from scene-framing designs (eg HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, 4e D&D) where action resolution often feeds into complications, but there is a distinct layer of scene-framing and implicit (sometimes explicit) stakes-setting. Scene-framed play needs a "say 'yes' rule" to avoid boring scenes and cut to the action.

I think the AW approach is perhaps less different from the more classic approach than scene-framing play - because it doesn't introduce that distinct layer and doesn't need a "say 'yes'" rule - but it requires the GM to be ready to understand the established fiction as binding. I think that last thing can be a big deal for some RPGers whose mechanical framework is essentially "classic" but whose play ethos is more like late-80s/90s "storyteller" or the more recent but in some ways comparable "adventure path".

 

[niklinna]

Now this is where this thread gets into interesting territory!

When is a check called for? In AW, there is no "say 'yes'" rule: if you do it, you do it. So certain sorts of choices by players - to act under pressure/duress/fire, to try and intimidate others, to try and grab things or people, etc - mandate a check, and hence create this possibility of failure which obliges the GM to make a move that follows from the fiction and is as hard as they like.

Which means that the action resolution mechanics are also the pacing mechanic and the complication mechanic.

Yes yes, you bust out the dice not merely when success is uncertain, but when failure will also have consequences.

How much do you think consequential failure is dependent on other system elements, such as only players making rolls, and such?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Have a look at my reply to you upthread and you'll see. To borrow @Manbearcat's phrase, the AW mechanics have teeth.

Whereas in 5e D&D (for instance) there is no system (as best I know) that permits a player to oblige the GM to narrate a certain response from a NPC. Hence, among other things, the GM is never playing to find out - unless the game shifts into combat.

Your seduction example (from the post you refer to) is, numbers aside, pretty universal.

Player:
"I attempt to seduce the barman with the hot buns so he'll give me
a free drink
a place to sleep
another notch on my bedpost
a place to play a gig
the name of the person selling drugs in the back room
extra rations from the dwindling supply of soylent green."

GM: <weighs up difficulty/assigns target number, possibly considers results of failure>
"Go for it."

This looks to me like the player is offering to the table a particular scene with a particular outcome. The GM (and the rest of the table) agree to it.*

Now, as you have said, AW has specific advice on what to do for a "near miss." DnD** does not have rules for a near miss with seduction attempts. (But does for jumping attempts.) But that's not to say that a group can't have guidelines for a near miss on a seduction, possibly inspired by the jumping rules or just, wider gamer culture, or even AW.

So possibly the GM sees the near miss and decides to let the player get away with it anyway, but with a caveat of their own. Possibly the player suggests additional, erm, favours to get themself over the finish line. Another player suggests something else, something probably very disturbing. The fiction continues to play out with contributions from player(s) and GM.

The Read a Sitch example is just (again DnD** parlance) PER and Sense Motive rolls. Or maybe a <shudder> skill challenge.

So once again: AW is putting these things front and centre. By giving this sort of thing space in the rule book, giving language, mechanics, and examples of what the players can do to be more proactive, it really encourages proactive players. Yay!

But any and all of it can be found in other systems, some very old systems, or broader gamer culture.


*Or don't agree to it because everyone else hates sexytimes in RPG. Or do with caveats, such as "Hey, I saw the barman's buns first!"
**I haven't read a set of DnD rules since PF1e. I'm not actually trying to make a case for any particular system. Is just an example.

 

[Campbell]

My experience from Modiphius' 2d20 games is that success with consequences can get a little weird when NPCs act independently. It still mostly works, but a little less smoothly than in Apocalypse World or Blades.

 

[pemerton]

GM: <weighs up difficulty/assigns target number, possibly considers results of failure>
"Go for it."

I'll come back to the rest of your post later when I have a chance. But just focus on this: what you post here is part of the 5e D&D action resolution framework, but is not part of the AW resolution framework. That's probably the most important difference.

 

[pemerton]

How much do you think consequential failure is dependent on other system elements, such as only players making rolls, and such?

I don't know the 2d20 system @Campbell mentioned (except by barest of reputation).

4e skill challenges are a scene-framing approach rather than a PbtA-style approach, but do have players rolling all the dice. Which forces the GM to narrate consequences, in order for something to happen which obliges the players to declare more checks (assuming that the challenge hasn't been resolved yet).

Burning Wheel uses GM-side as well as player-side dice rolls, but generally only to set opposition for the players' checks. Likewise Prince Valiant. Both support consequential/meaningful failure, but in a scene-framing paradigm rather than the PbtA approach.

 

[niklinna]

I have a general idea what you mean by "scene-framing paradigm", but I haven't played any of the games you use as references. Although it sounds like establishing Effect & Consequences in Blades in the Dark, which can be done by negotiation, rather than the GM just saying "roll, and I'll decide what hammer drops if you don't get a clear success".