Examples of good non-combat resolution mechanics?

[Chamomile]

Did you fucking ask how many trained guard bears those warlords have?

"What kind of defenses does this guy have" is a question that would probably be asked while trying to break into a dangerous location, yes. In fact it is probably the very first question you would ask. If the players ask what kind of defenses they need to worry about while sneaking into the location, the GM does not mention guard bears, and then later decides there are guard bears, he is breaking the rules of the game, because he is explicitly told to answer questions truthfully in the rules for the "figure stuff out" move. While a totally freeform game doesn't technically have any rules, it would be perfectly reasonable to call a GM in the same situation if you scope a places defenses out and then suddenly there are guard bears that somehow managed to escape detection.

[spaceLem]

"What kind of defenses does this guy have" is a question that would probably be asked while trying to break into a dangerous location, yes. In fact it is probably the very first question you would ask. If the players ask what kind of defenses they need to worry about while sneaking into the location, the GM does not mention guard bears, and then later decides there are guard bears, he is breaking the rules of the game, because he is explicitly told to answer questions truthfully in the rules for the "figure stuff out" move. While a totally freeform game doesn't technically have any rules, it would be perfectly reasonable to call a GM in the same situation if you scope a places defenses out and then suddenly there are guard bears that somehow managed to escape detection.

Eh, what? Are you asking the GM how many bears they've got, or are you asking an NPC? If the former, what the hell right do you have to be told what you're about to face? Why don't you just ask how to solve the entire plot while you're at it? Figure it out yourself! If the latter, who's to say the NPC knows about the bears, or isn't lying, or isn't going straight off to warn the house owner that they need more bears.

If you're about to infiltrate a place that is likely to be guarded, do your research, check multiple sources, bribe a guard, watch the house to see how much manure is removed, get the ranger to examine the manure. Examine the evidence, and then you can complain if you still don't know how many bears you're about to face.

[Username17]

Did you fucking ask how many trained guard bears those warlords have?

"What kind of defenses does this guy have" is a question that would probably be asked while trying to break into a dangerous location, yes. In fact it is probably the very first question you would ask.

And yet, you didn't fucking specify that when describing the scenario.

Also, there was more than one warlord in your scenario, so even if the defenses of one of the warlords had already been previously locked down via quantum observation, there could still be guard bears under the command of one of the other warlords whose defenses hadn't been observed.

Really, all you have is a petulant whine "But that's stuuupid!" Which of course, is precisely the point. You may, and evidently do think that constant threat of bear attack is retarded, but our hypothetical bear-loving MC does not think that. And that's precisely the point.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

Eh, what? Are you asking the GM how many bears they've got, or are you asking an NPC? If the former, what the hell right do you have to be told what you're about to face?

Because the actual rules of Apocalypse World are that if you succeed on a roll to examine a situation the GM is absolutely required to tell you whether or not there are any bears on the premises, along with any other significant threats.

Also, there was more than one warlord in your scenario, so even if the defenses of one of the warlords had already been previously locked down via quantum observation, there could still be guard bears under the command of one of the other warlords whose defenses hadn't been observed.

Dead wrong. When you roll to read a sitch in Apocalypse World you can ask "what should I be on the lookout for," at which point the GM is required by the rules to tell you what you should be on the lookout for. You don't have to roll twice for both warlords and whatever other threat the GM decides to pull out of his ass. You make the roll, and if you succeed, you ask a question about the situation in general which the GM is required to answer honestly. That doesn't mean the GM can't seed every adventure with bears, but he can do that in any system.

[Username17]

Dead wrong. When you roll to read a sitch in Apocalypse World you can ask "what should I be on the lookout for," at which point the GM is required by the rules to tell you what you should be on the lookout for. You don't have to roll twice for both warlords and whatever other threat the GM decides to pull out of his ass. You make the roll, and if you succeed, you ask a question about the situation in general which the GM is required to answer honestly. That doesn't mean the GM can't seed every adventure with bears, but he can do that in any system.

Chamomile, I know you think this is something special for Apocalypse World, but it's not. Quantum observation is how all games without detailed settings work. It's how they have to work.

But beyond that, you're totally and unmitigatedly full of shit here. Here's the actual and complete "What's the Sitch?" rules:

When you read a charged situation, roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:
• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• which enemy is the biggest threat?
• what should I be on the lookout for?
• what’s my enemy’s true position?
• who’s in control here?

Reading a situation can mean carefully checking things out, studying and analyzing, or it can mean a quick look over the wall and going by gut. Depends on the character.

As MC, sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you give them. The +1 is there to make it concrete.

That's it. You say "What should I be on the lookout for?" and then the MC tells you something like "The Warlords have guards and shit." And then you say you're doing something or other to get around the "guards and shit", and that gives you +1 to your roll. But if you fail anyway, the MC can spring something on you that doesn't actually contradict the "Warlords have guards and shit" revelation. Which can include fucking Guard Bears.

Look, want to see the actual shitfuck example of actually hitting that roll on a motherfucking Eleven?

Bran doesn’t like the way things are going, so he takes a quick look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so let’s see. Tum Tum isn’t his biggest threat, Tum Tum’s psychically-linked cultist bodyguards are. His enemy’s true position is closing in slowly around Tum Tum’s temple, where they’re talking. And if things go to shit? I think his best escape route would be to take one or the other of Tum Tum hostage. (Bran’s player: “Aw fuck.”)

So tell me what part of that answer would involve Tum Tum's cultists unleashing guard bears into the temple being off the fucking table?

Every failure can be bears. Every. Fucking. One.

-Username17

[spaceLem]

Because the actual rules of Apocalypse World are that if you succeed on a roll to examine a situation the GM is absolutely required to tell you whether or not there are any bears on the premises, along with any other significant threats.

Ah. Okay, yes, I don't think I care for that rule much.

[silva]

Every failure can be bears. Every. Fucking. One.

Except no, Frank. Read the part on "First session" and "Fronts".

In resume: the "First session" is when the GM makes a brainstorming with the players, following them around with their character lives, and making lots of questions and taking notes on the process. Then the GM turns the main NPCs/groups the players showed interested in "Fronts" - actual entities (be it threats or not) with profiles, agendas, and motivations. These are noted on "Front sheets" together with various traits that the GM is obligued to follow. Then, in the next sessions, there is this web of entities in place, with crisscrossing agendas and adventure hooks that the PCs will tap. (in other words, its just one method for sandbox gaming)

What this has to do with your point ?

I teel you: if a Front is the "Bob Bums Gang", and they happen to be a bunch of ragged bums from around the corner who fight for booze, the GM cant produce a "POLAR BEAR!" to guard their hideout from the players - the GM must follow the game internal logic and causality. Its right there, explicitly written, in the game´s "principles and agendas".

[Whatever]

Because it's impossible that anyone living on the street has ever worked for the circus?

[silva]

Ha! That would be cool!

Especially if the POLAR BEAR could be negotiated through a bottle of booze.

[Sigil]

Can't the GM just write Bears on all of the Fronts sheets in the first place?

[silva]

Only if its drunkard Bears.

[Chamomile]

Chamomile, I know you think this is something special for Apocalypse World, but it's not.

Actually, no, the process for determining whether you have to worry about bears is basically exactly the same in Apocalypse World as in any other RPG. That is, in fact, my entire point: the big "flaw" with Apocalypse World where you can have sometimes have unexpected complications is, in fact, possible in every other RPG ever including the one you wrote so what the Hell are you complaining about? If he really wanted to, a D&D GM could make the adversary of every adventure, sidequest, and random encounter be bears. And likewise the GM can leave so many bears lying around his Apocalypse World setting that every single failure can plausibly result in bears attacking. And if every adversary in your D&D game is bears, then at the very least the vast majority of failed die rolls will result in something terrible happening because of bears. And so what?

That's it. You say "What should I be on the lookout for?" and then the MC tells you something like "The Warlords have guards and shit."

And then you say "like what sort of guards and shit" and then since you've succeeded on your roll and have therefore put effort into scoping the place out, the MC is obligated to tell you what sort of guards and shit, and if that explanation does not include bears, you are entirely within your rights to ask why the Hell you didn't notice the bears when you were scoping the place out. The rulebook explicitly tells the MC his job is to make Apocalypse World seem real. If there are bears that beam down from the Enterprise like video game bad guys popping up in a cutscene, he's failed his job as explicitly laid out by the rules, and there is an entire move dedicated to checking for bears.

Concerning the example: Well, first off, he never asked what he should be looking out for, so the MC is under no particular obligation to tell him whether or not there are bears. Second off, Tum Tum's bodyguards are the biggest threat, so if Tum Tum has bears they would have to be less threatening than a pair of big muscular tough guys. That doesn't rule out bears completely but it does put a Hell of a lot of restraints on what exactly the bears can be.

To say nothing of the fact that there are dozens of other situations in which bears are simply not a logical consequence of what's going on. You're in the dried out salt-flat desert that used to be the Meditteranean, and there's no other life around for miles. It's established that there's no bears visible and no way for bears to hide their presence, so there cannot be bears no matter what rolls the PCs fail. Or trying to break out of a tiny prison cell in the still-functional ruins of a pre-war prison, and if you fail to escape there can't logically be any bears in the cell with you because you'd have noticed them by now, and a bear can't logically claw its way through a door described as being like that of a bank vault.

And this is limited to things where it is actually logically impossible for a bear to conceivably show up, and ignoring situations where a bear showing up would be considered subjectively not kosher by the overwhelming majority of players. There is technically nothing making it completely impossible for a bear to show up in the middle of a firefight in a pre-war factory that's been refurbished and is now churning out like terminators or something, it is theoretically possible for a GM to introduce bears into the situation despite the fact that a functioning factory must logically have some method of keeping hostile bears out as a general rule or it won't remain functioning very long, but the GM could contrive something if he really wanted to and it technically doesn't violate the rule of making Apocalypse World seem real unless the players have an excruciatingly thorough knowledge of the surrounding area and know for a fact there are no bears/no possible way for a bear to get in, and even then if the players don't think the turn of events seems real then the GM has failed anyway.

If the long and short of your complaint about Apocalypse World is that it requires your GM to not write a plot/setting that everyone else hates then I am looking forward to your similar rants on every other RPG ever made.

[Whatever]

To say nothing of the fact that there are dozens of other situations in which bears are simply not a logical consequence of what's going on. You're in the dried out salt-flat desert that used to be the Meditteranean, and there's no other life around for miles. It's established that there's no bears visible and no way for bears to hide their presence, so there cannot be bears no matter what rolls the PCs fail. Or trying to break out of a tiny prison cell in the still-functional ruins of a pre-war prison, and if you fail to escape there can't logically be any bears in the cell with you because you'd have noticed them by now, and a bear can't logically claw its way through a door described as being like that of a bank vault.

Desert: secret underground base. Full of bears.
Jail cell: your captors hear your escape attempt, and decide to give you a new cellmate. (hint: it's a bear).

[Chamomile]

Desert: secret underground base. Full of bears.
Jail cell: your captors hear your escape attempt, and decide to give you a new cellmate. (hint: it's a bear).

And neither of these absurdly genre-inappropriate possibilities could happen in D&D? Yes, Apocalypse World is an RPG and therefore the GM has basically infinite power to make bizarre things happen. What the Hell is your point?

[John Magnum]

Look, guys. MTP is "you describe what you do, and the MC describes what happens in response." Apocalypse World is highly transformative, in that it adds "subject to internal logic and causality" to the end.

[Drolyt]

Chamomile, I am really confused as to what your point is. You seem to really hate the idea that Mister Cavern could conceivably introduce a bear attack into any situation. Thing is, nobody else likes that either. It shouldn't happen, except maybe in a very silly game. But then you try to argue why Mister Cavern can't do that, appealing to how illogical bear attacks are in various situations, but the fact is that matters fuck all. If I'm running a game, whether Dungeons and Dragons or Champions or fucking Apocalypse World, I can subject the players to a bear attack whenever I damn well please. That is an excellent example of one of the problems with Magic Tea Party. Now, every rule has drawbacks, and unless you are incapable of getting an MC that isn't totally fucking incompetent taking away their ability to design encounters and handing that over to the rules is probably a bad thing. You can rely on most MCs not to bombard you with bear attacks. But in other cases (combat for example) it is usually better to have well designed rules that take agency from the MC and gives it to the players.

[ishy]

Look, guys. MTP is "you describe what you do, and the MC describes what happens in response." Apocalypse World is highly transformative, in that it adds "subject to internal logic and causality" to the end.

But those are just buzzwords with no meaning at all.

This comic has a nice example, player expects the rules to do X, MC expects the rules to do Y.

- Side note: the Polish army in WW2 actually did have an enlisted soldier who happened to be a bear.

[Whipstitch]

Cham, you dipshit, you got the burden of proof here backwards. The entire tirade we're on now started because MTP got conflated with railroading and Silva floated the notion that AW's fapping to contextual logic makes the system less susceptible to railroading than other systems. And it really doesn't, or at the very, very least, it doesn't do enough on that end to make it worth recommending over other systems on that basis alone. That's it. Nobody is claiming D&D is immune to Mister Conductor throwing a bear tantrum and inciting a player mutiny. Well, unless I missed a post and someone did make that claim. At which point I invite you to laugh at them because they are stupid.

[Username17]

And then you say "like what sort of guards and shit" and then since you've succeeded on your roll and have therefore put effort into scoping the place out, the MC is obligated to tell you what sort of guards and shit, and if that explanation does not include bears, you are entirely within your rights to ask why the Hell you didn't notice the bears when you were scoping the place out.

No. No he isn't. You make the roll, then you are allowed to ask one question or three if you pass, or pass well. If you fail, the MC makes an entire move. The examples in the actual mother fucking book are that the MC answers each question in turn with a single cryptic sentence. The fucking end.

All this horse shit about the player becoming master of reality for passing a What's the Sitch test is all in your fucking mind. The actual rules do not support that interpretation. Making a What's the Sitch test gives you a cryptic one sentence answer, and the only effect of that is that if you work that answer into your next action in some way you get a +1 bonus on that test. That is fucking it.

There is absolutely nothing in a What's The Sitch test success or failure result that would inherently rule out the possibility of bear attack from the MC's move on any future failed test.

Remember, even when you succeed on texts, you get one sentence from the MC. Then the MC spouts off whatever the fuck he feels like. The Act Under Fire gives you a one sentence declaration of what the fuck happens if you hit. All the rest of the details are left open to the MC. All your tirades of player empowerment are total horseshit, because that's not how the fucking game works. The game is a virtually nonstop MC railroad where periodically the players are allowed to roll dice to see if they can get a sentence in edgewise here or there.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

Yes, Frank, there is an example in the book where a player does not ask for clarification and thus does not receive any, because presumably the knowledge that he was surrounded by hostile cultists was enough. It's not clear to us as readers what exactly is going on or even who the Hell Tum Tum is, but the printed reaction from the player makes it extremely transparent that he knows exactly what's going on (and also that he probably should've done this before walking into the trap). There's also this example from the very similar Read A Person move:

Keeler’s sitting back watching Foster give orders and receive reports, all business. Keeler pays attention to her manner, mood, body language, and hits the roll with a 7. She asks almost idly what Foster’s really feeling. “She’s scared,” I say. “Scared? Of what?” she says. “Of Marie,” I say, as honesty demands.

Where someone asks for clarification and totally gets it, because when you read a person or a sitch it isn't just information being beamed into your brain by the plot (that's opening your mind to the psychic maelstrom), it's you investigating. And when you investigate, you learn a whole ton of details that the MC probably doesn't want to make up and you probably don't want to hear about, like the fifteen minutes of random small talk with the bouncer while you primed him for information pumping. But stuff like bears is stuff you have a right to know. If the MC tells you about "guards and shit," then "honesty demands" that he tell you what the Hell that means.

The act under fire move you're complaining about has this as its success description:

On a 10+, you do it.

Yes, that is brief. It also describes unmitigated success. It is unambiguous in brevity: Whatever the player was trying to do, they succeed, full stop.

And at the beginning of the MC chapter they have this:

There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls
for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules.

Followed one paragraph later by this:

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.

Which means if the MC is railroading then he is explicitly breaking the rules in the book even without the clear implications of the Read A Sitch move.

And that paragraph I just skipped contains this gem:

(DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I’m not fucking around)

So the rulebook says that the Master of Ceremonies section is rules and not just GM advice like in other books, and then explicitly forbids railroading. If your MC is railroading you in Apocalypse World, if you say you want to wander off and go see what Jim is up to and forget about all this nonsense with Bob's gang because you don't even care if he takes over westside, the MC is required by the rules of the game not to try and stop you. If he even has a plan to get you to try and follow, he is already breaking the rules.

And Whipstitch: Sure, Silva's huffing paint. Doesn't change the fact that Apocalypse World very thoroughly forbids any kind of MC railroading.

[silva]

YEAAHH!!!

Chamomile 1 x Frank 0 !!!

Go, Chamomile, Go!

[John Magnum]

When I write my RPG, I'm gonna include an official rule: "Don't be a bad MC." Then, after that, I will include the rule "Don't be a bad player." BAM. Best RPG ever? I think so.

[fectin]

When I write my RPG, I'm gonna include an official rule: "Don't be a bad MC." Then, after that, I will include the rule "Don't be a bad player." BAM. Best RPG ever? I think so.

Shit, that ain't nothing. My game system has rule zero: play only while eating cake and receiving head. Anyone not doing that isn't actually playing my game, and their criticisms are invalid.

[DSMatticus]

YEAAHH!!!

Chamomile 1 x Frank 0 !!!

Go, Chamomile, Go!

There is nothing more obnoxious than cheerleading on the internet. If you don't actually have anything to say but lack the self-control to stop yourself, try eating your pom-poms.

Where someone asks for clarification and totally gets it, because when you read a person or a sitch it isn't just information being beamed into your brain by the plot (that's opening your mind to the psychic maelstrom), it's you investigating. And when you investigate, you learn a whole ton of details that the MC probably doesn't want to make up and you probably don't want to hear about, like the fifteen minutes of random small talk with the bouncer while you primed him for information pumping. But stuff like bears is stuff you have a right to know. If the MC tells you about "guards and shit," then "honesty demands" that he tell you what the Hell that means.

You are not solving anything. You are declaring that details over an unspecified (and unspecifiable, really) and in fact variable threshold of importance have to be shared because reasons, and then expecting that somehow everyone's idea of what is and isn't over those unspecified, unspecifiable, and variable threshold of importance will be exactly the same (they won't). Nevermind that the exact example you gave is a situation in which the player had to press for details to get this information, which means you are in a war with the GM to exhaust details that he can think of a way to turn into bears, which is... exactly what Frank is describing.

John Magnum (and Fectin) have already pointed out why the other stupid thing you argued is stupid, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Whipstitch]

It forbids pre-planned plotlines by appealing to the honor system and then asking the MC to go ass spelunking for things that could happen on rolls anyway. Color me unimpressed.