Adopting Apocalypse World resolution for other games ?

[Chamomile]

If you fail, shit happens.

You just told us that anyone anywhere in the world can pick up a gun and shoot someone in the head with zero percent chance of failure.

I have no idea how you'd reach a failure state, and what 'shit' would happen if you do.

This is extremely easy to figure out and is not one of AW's flaws, so I don't know why you're putting so much effort into this. If you try to shoot someone and you roll a 6, you don't just miss, you miss and something bad happens. The other guy is able to shoot you, or he's able to close distance so now you have to fight in melee, or if he was running away then he gets away. For real, this isn't hard.

[Voss]

His point wasn't that failure is impossible, his point was that dice are only rolled when both success and failure are significant changes to the status quo. So, rolling to attack when a "miss" means that things are left the same as they were before you attacked is out.

Which... seems pretty unlikely. You shoot at a guy, even if you miss you've attracted attention, pissed people off, alerted security and if nothing else, have one less bullet in your gun, so at no point is the game state unchanged. At the very least, the guy you shot at is going to less inclined to treat you favorably, because you just tried to kill him.

It sounds like someone was actually stupid enough to actually try out the Schrodinger's Cat bullshit with RPGs. Or at least Cowboys and Indians, because this sounds a lot like 'you shot/missed me, but it doesn't matter, because bullshit!'

This is extremely easy to figure out and is not one of AW's flaws, so I don't know why you're putting so much effort into this. If you try to shoot someone and you roll a 6, you don't just miss, you miss and something bad happens. The other guy is able to shoot you, or he's able to close distance so now you have to fight in melee, or if he was running away then he gets away. For real, this isn't hard.

I'm not putting any effort into this. You're just the first one to explain what the actual mechanic vague sort of rule thing is beyond 'shit happens'.

But if the failure state of shooting includes 'I am now shot', 'a dude is now in my face', or 'the dude ran off', then K is right and it is entirely MTP bullshit.

[Stubbazubba]

Voss, stop being obtuse, that is a totally different thing than what you were saying last page. Last page you said you couldn't fail in AW, now you're saying you're just upset because what happens when you do is MTP. Those are orders of magnitude different.

[Voss]

Voss, stop being obtuse, that is a totally different thing than what you were saying last page. Last page you said you couldn't fail in AW, now you're saying you're just upset because what happens when you do is MTP. Those are orders of magnitude different.

Yes. It is. Because no one explained it. Not sure why you're having a hard time grasping the process here: silva explain it as shit and you can't miss, and chamomile explained it as you can miss but mtp happens. With a more in depth explanation (something beyond 'shit happens'), my understanding of it changed. Surprise!

[silva]

But if the failure state of shooting includes 'I am now shot', 'a dude is now in my face', or 'the dude ran off', then K is right and it is entirely MTP bullshit.

So, if a GM in D&D states that "NPC A shot you" or "Dude B is in your face" or "Dude C ran off", is it also MTP ?

Pssst, here, lemme tell you a secret:

NPCs dont have a life on their own. Theyre all controlled by the GM. Sorry to disappoint you.

[silva]

Yes. It is. Because no one explained it. Not sure why you're having a hard time grasping the process here: silva explain it as shit and you can't miss, and chamomile explained it as you can miss but mtp happens. With a more in depth explanation (something beyond 'shit happens'), my understanding of it changed. Surprise!

Ok, sorry about that. I thoug you just wanted to crap on anything I told, and disnt really wanted to understand the game.

As someone above said, there are 3 possible results in a AW roll:

1-6: Shit happens (you miss and the GM creates a complication coherent to the situation at hand)
7-9: Hard choice - you may succeed but with complications, or you can stall, hesitate, flinch, etc. ( a good example is the thief trying to escape the castle through the wall, and noticing his backpack got stuck - does he move on without his backpack, or he backs off to hold onto to it? )
10 - 12: Success.

Its the central principle of Apocalypse World and all its hacks (Dungeon World, Tremulus, Monster of the Week, etc). Most times though, things are not so freeform like that, since there are formal "moves" with discrete options for each range.

[wotmaniac]

If you try to shoot someone and you roll a 6, you don't just miss, you miss and something bad happens. The other guy is able to shoot you, or he's able to close distance so now you have to fight in melee, or if he was running away then he gets away. For real, this isn't hard.

In practice, I fail to see how this is actually any different than any other combat system I've ever used ... other than the rules happen to explicate how (sorta) the MC is supposed to keep the action moving.

[Chamomile]

Mostly it's that the other guy doesn't make a separate roll to attack, so you never get a hurricane of misses. Every roll changes something, which does wonders for pace but also means that you are exactly as likely to hit a dragon as an orc. Which is fine if you don't actually have dragons or orcs, just different varieties of human who can be differentiated by the progressively nastier things they do to you if you miss. But it doesn't work so well if you have the ridiculous gap between early and lategame characters that D&D has.

[K]

Play to find out: there’s a certain discipline you need in order
to MC Apocalypse World. You have to commit yourself to the
game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the
players’ characters. You have to open yourself to caring what
happens, but when it comes time to say what happens, you have
to set what you hope for aside.

See ?

That being said, Apocalypse World is a terrible system because the MTP in almost every mechanic renders most of the rules into pointless dice-rolling exercises. Rules-heavy games like DnD or Shadowrun have a lot less MTP, so rolling dice means something.

Its the opposite, actually. Games like D&D/SHadowrun have a signficant amount of rolls where "nothing happens" / you "swing and miss", while in AW every time the dice hit the table, its a decisive moment. No "You miss. Nothing happens" in AW.

Having the DM MTP results for every possible die roll doesn't make actions meaningful. In fact, it makes actions less meaningful because not making the roll is always going to be the best way of preventing the DM from taking control of the narrative and have his action decide the narrative.

Meaningful actions for the PC come from using his abilities in ways where they can predict the possible outcomes and the act of using his ability is also the act of choosing those possible outcomes to be incorporated into the narrative.

In AW, the PCs can't choose outcomes in the MTP sections. For example, if you are doing a murder mystery and you open your mind, you might get the name of the killer and his address, the name of the killer in nickname form, some clue about the killer, a not-killer name that turns out to be vital, the name of a NPC who will attack the PCs but reveal an important clue, or literally any other one of thousands of possible results even vaguely related to the action and story. This renders the use of the ability meaningless because the PC is not choosing any the possible outcomes. At best, they are choosing for a favorable or unfavorable random thing to happen.

MTP is deeply disempowering on many levels, and this is just one.

[Username17]

MTP is deeply disempowering on many levels, and this is just one.

I think that goes a bit far. MTP can be empowering, but only for the people making MTP declarations. Munchhausen is not a disempowering game.

That being said, having the MC go off on a paradigm shifting rant of MTP every time you roll dice is massively disempowering. You can't plan from one action to the next and your actions have no identifiable connections to the results. You might as well be playing Deal or No Deal.

-Username17

[silva]

Mostly it's that the other guy doesn't make a separate roll to attack, so you never get a hurricane of misses. Every roll changes something, which does wonders for pace but also means that you are exactly as likely to hit a dragon as an orc

This.

Having the DM MTP results for every possible die roll doesn't make actions meaningful

But the DM do not "MTP" results for every die roll, its just partially true. for some moves there are formal options that the player must pick.

Eg:
Break & Enter
When you try to enter some place you should not supposed to be, roll +cool. On a 10+ pick 3, on 7-9 pick 2:
- you get where you wanted to be
- you remain undetected while getting there
- you leave no trace of having ever being there
- you stumble across something useful or important along the way

if you are doing a murder mystery and you open your mind, you might get the name of the killer and his address, the name of the killer in nickname form, some clue about the killer, a not-killer name that turns out to be vital, the name of a NPC who will attack the PCs but reveal an important clue, or literally any other one of thousands of possible results even vaguely related to the action and story. This renders the use of the ability meaningless because the PC is not choosing any the possible outcomes. At best, they are choosing for a favorable or unfavorable random thing to happen.

...and thats exactly the case with investigation in any other game, really - PCs make perception/detection rolls, and GM "MTP"s clues for them (be it on an improv base, or through notes he did before-hand, or some mash-up of the two).

Where is "player empowerment" in this case?

If anything, its actually the contrary: in games like D&D/Shadowrun, the GM is running the show practically alone, he is the ultimate arbiter and author. while in AW the moves sctructure empower the players to actually change the course/status quo of situations in unforeseeable ways that the DM must accept and flow from there.

In other words: each move in AW is not a mere pass/fail cycle like in most games, but a potential fiction changer where the player takes the driver seat and dictate the course of whole situations. And the most important - all this is done through a formal choice & consequences mechanic, not some hipster/narrativism/improv-theater bullshit on the player part.

[ishy]

Does that mean I can't stumble along something useful or important if I don't pick that option?
Because the metagamer in me tells me that the DM is going to give me important clues anyway.

[silva]

If you did not pick that option, the chance of you stumbling on something important will depend on the GMs plans or the in-world logic. But if you do pick that option, you force it upon the situation. the GM will have to cope with it, tell you what you find, and follow through from there.

[OgreBattle]

I figure in the case of AW, the dice rolling is an immersion aid, in that the physical act of rolling dice makes you feel that the DM's following words are a direct result of your action. For many folks that makes them pay more attention to the game unfolding.


K, so what makes AW the sex foreplay game is that there's a "what happens after sex" roll, or results to pick from? So you could just play and sex never comes up, or is there like a 'libido meter' or 'stress points' that mean you must go sex something.


*Hmmm, even if D&D was sex focused, it seems like Fighter gets the short end of the stick compared to Charm/Sleep/Enlarge wizards. The Rogue though is always handy to contribute a flank attack.

[Previn]

But the DM do not "MTP" results for every die roll, its just partially true. for some moves there are formal options that the player must pick.

Yes, the DM does MTP everything. First let's grab an actual example from the rules:

Things speak: whenever you handle or examine something interesting, roll+weird. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:
• who handled this last before me?
• who made this?
• what strong emotions have been most recently nearby this?
• what words have been said most recently nearby this?
• what has been done most recently with this, or to this?
• what’s wrong with this, and how might I fix it?
Treat a miss as though you’ve opened your brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom and missed the roll.

Now, ignoring that such listed abilities are in the MINORITY, you've gotten 1 hit, and choose to ask a question. You're at a fresh crime scene and you want to find the murderer, so you pick to know "Who last handled this knife before me." Now I, as a DM get to screw with you. I can tell you John Smith. However it turns out John Smith is actually just a random homeless man who passed by and touched the knife and has nothing to do with the murder and can't help you.

- what has been done most recently with this, or to this?
"It has been examined by you"
- what words have been said most recently nearby this?
I get to repeat whatever the party has said in the last couple minutes. Maybe I get to have random hobos talking.
- what’s wrong with this, and how might I fix it?
"It's broken, you can fix it by taking it to a qualified repairman."

That's why MTP is bad.

But if you do pick that option, you force it upon the situation. the GM will have to cope with it, tell you what you find, and follow through from there.

[ishy]

If you did not pick that option, the chance of you stumbling on something important will depend on the GMs plans or the in-world logic. But if you do pick that option, you force it upon the situation. the GM will have to cope with it, tell you what you find, and follow through from there.

Not really. In real life, I might hit a dead end, but in a game the DM wants you to experience the story. Thus even if you happen to pass by all the planned clues etc. the DM will just place more. Because it is a game to have fun.

But options like that make me debate myself, either I feel like I got fucked and picked the bad option to gain a clue (which I probably would have gotten if I had not picked that option) or I feel like a dirty metagamer for knowing I get both the 'undetected' (or whatever bonus) + the clue if I pick undetected.
I understand that my pov in this is most likely different than yours, but that is why I don't like playing games like this. I feel bad no matter what I actually do.

[K]

There really is no point where DW is not "hipster/narrativism/improv-theater bullshit" pretending to be a game.

Even the "player choices" are just MTP choices. The breaking and entering example is actually a perfect demonstration about how the DM is deciding the results of your actions even when you ask them to give you something useful or important because they decide what to give you.

The final verdict is in: DW is not a system, but a style of MTP improv.

[Voss]

But if the failure state of shooting includes 'I am now shot', 'a dude is now in my face', or 'the dude ran off', then K is right and it is entirely MTP bullshit.

So, if a GM in D&D states that "NPC A shot you" or "Dude B is in your face" or "Dude C ran off", is it also MTP ?

Pssst, here, lemme tell you a secret:

NPCs dont have a life on their own. Theyre all controlled by the GM. Sorry to disappoint you.

No, see, the NPCs have rules and actions. That is the difference. At no point does a D&D NPC get to do things for free because a player missed a shot (unless the npc in question has rules for that effect). On the NPCs turn, it can move X distance, make whatever attacks it can make, or yes, choose a variety of actions.

But at no point does the player missing a shot materialize a new reality state that is completely tangental to the action. In the split second that it takes to pull a trigger, a guy not suddenly going to be in your face for no reason. Or...not if you did hit them.

[silva]

But at no point does the player missing a shot materialize a new reality state that is completely tangental to the action. In the split second that it takes to pull a trigger, a guy not suddenly going to be in your face for no reason.

Nor it happens in AW. Read the quoted part up there that says the GM must respect in-world logic and causality.


I was thinking here..

Maybe the most practical way of inserting AW resolution in RQ would be making each skill a separate "move", but without any formalized options list, just going with the basic premise of "yes and, yes but, no and" (the "MTP" thing).

The only problem I see, is that wouldnt be any differentiation between a normal failure and a critical failure. Except if we state that members lossing only occurs in crit falures.

[Username17]

Maybe the most practical way of inserting AW resolution in RQ

I'm going to stop you right there. Because that doesn't make any fucking sense. AW "resolution" is that the MC rants at you and periodically you roll dice to determine whether the MC is now going to rant at you about how some "good", "bad", or "intermediate" happened. RQ is a chart-heavy game that makes you roll multiple dice to determine whether you are right handed, left handed, or ambidextrous. There is no, and can be no way of forcing those games together to make babies. It fails at the conceptual level.

The only things those games have in common is that they are lousy and pretentious at the same time. But the ways in which they are lousy and pretentious are wholly incompatible. AW is pretentious about the fact that it doesn't have or need rules or a method to track time. RuneQuest is pretentious about RAELIZARM and the exhaustive way it can model which second an armor strap breaks in or whether an injury is going to cripple a limb or not.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

K, so what makes AW the sex foreplay game is that there's a "what happens after sex" roll, or results to pick from? So you could just play and sex never comes up, or is there like a 'libido meter' or 'stress points' that mean you must go sex something.

It's literally one of the major ways to "level-up". No sex = crippled character advancement. Who the fuck is going to do that?

[fectin]

There is no, and can be no way of forcing those games together to make babies. It fails at the conceptual level.

Oh ye of little faith.

ApocalypseQuest has Traveller style chargen. Let's watch!
Start when you are six, select a path from thieving, rambunctious, loser, or girl. We'll take thieving as a representative example: roll to pickpocket two different times. Each time causes the storydeacon to tell a vignette at you. The storydeacon will assign you bonuses and penalties based on your vignette. Now roll on table 752, Unlikely Injuries from Mundane Tasks for each year you advance. The next decision point is age 11, so roll five times. If the dice say you injure yourself, don't worry! You get an immediate recovery roll! So in this example, you roll 67, "Chip tooth while eating porridge." you then make an immediate recovery role and get a semi-qualified success. The storydeacon Tells you a vignette about how you chipped your tooth eating porridge, but got better. He doesn't feel it's realistic for you to regrow your tooth though, so he decides that "recovery" means it was ripped out by a burly blacksmith (-2% to chewing) and cauterized. Unfortunately, there was a complication, so the storydeacon says that your nerves were damaged by the cauterization, paralyzing part of your face, and assigns you +9% drooling.

...I can't go on.

[Soda]

OP, don't let the den's hate-on for rules-light systems discourage you. It sounds like a fine mechanic (I prefer FURPG).

My taste in fantasy heartbreakers has gotten progressively more rules-light. I realize now, the whole point of the game is roleplaying the cool characters/story/setting, and lengthy rules get in the way of that.

You're on the right track.

[Parthenon]

All AW moves´ consequences must be coherent/plausible to the situation/context at hand. The GM cannot produce shit from his ass. (exactly the same way a GM cant produce shit from his ass in any other rpg really). This is explicit written in the book:

Play to find out: there’s a certain discipline you need in order
to MC Apocalypse World. You have to commit yourself to the
game’s fiction’s own internal logic and causality, driven by the
players’ characters. You have to open yourself to caring what
happens, but when it comes time to say what happens, you have
to set what you hope for aside.

That's a really nice passage, but effectively useless, and doesn't stop it being MTP.

Here's the thing- we think in different ways, we understand things in different ways, and we'll respond to things in different ways.

So, the DM might understand the internal logic and causality in a completely different way to the players. Two DMs will resolve the exact same situation in completely different ways.

That right there is MTP- there are no set predefined rules for what happens but it is decided upon by the DM deciding on it happening. Now there may be guides as to what sort of things should be happening, but the actual mechanics are guided MTP.

As I said, that isn't always a bad thing, but you have to be aware that it is happening and how to deal with it, even if the dealing with it is to find a different DM who thinks in a way you understand.

[Whipstitch]

Ironically, I've never found rules light to be all that approachable. I sometimes come down with a mild case of option paralysis since it's often stupid hard to infer what the expected outcome of an action may be, which makes it hard for me to tell if my actions will be considered stupid and borderline disruptive or not. It's easy to shrug off though, since in my admittedly limited experience nobody seems to run rules light games as anything but the Giant Frog Variety Hour anyway.