Examples of good non-combat resolution mechanics?

[ishy]

I'm getting confused by the arguments going on. I thought the main problem with AW's action resolution system is that since rolls of 11 or so are magical tea party that different GMs will have completely different results because there aren't any specific rules on how to deal with it.

As in if someone is trying to jump across a gap to help a friend in a fight with one enemy and sort of makes it, then with exactly the same result different GMs will have:

• You make it across but distract your friend, causing him to be hit in the face and be badly hurt.
• You make it across but stumble badly, breaking your ankle in the process.
• You only manage to grab onto the ledge on the other side and are now holding on with one hand, needing your friend to pull you up.
• You fail to jump all the way across and fall down, but because you almost succeeded you don't hurt yourself. You now need to climb up.
• You make it across the other side fine, but magically two more people appear. You and your friend are now outnumbered.
• You make it across the other side fine, except you now have a couple of tears in your clothing.
• You make it across the other side fine, but trip slightly, causing a stone to fly out and accidentally kill your friend.
• You make it across the other side fine, but trip slightly, causing a stone to fly out and accidentally kill the enemy.

Apocalypse World has a bullshit resolution system because you have no idea what the result of your actions could be. Each of those is a completely likely result based on silva's ramblings.

I think the real problem is that you can have any of these results on any die number you roll. The DM might just slightly change around the fluff describing the result.

[Mistborn]

Well mentlegen I think we can safely say we're reached the point where further discussion will fruitless. Let's just everyone put silva on ignore and be done with it.

Like I said four pages ago the AW system is MTP-type.

More specifically the connection between declared actions and their results is tenuous at given that what actually happens draw by the MC from where the sun don't shine. This makes AW a bad game if your plan on having concrete objectives for the PCs given that it impossible for the PCs to know in advance how or even if their actions will help them meet their goals. This is sort of the point Frank was making. Any roll you make can result in Bears exactly as easily as in the result in anything else, and that's terrible.

[silva]

I'm getting confused by the arguments going on. I thought the main problem with AW's action resolution system is that since rolls of 11 or so are magical tea party that different GMs will have completely different results because there aren't any specific rules on how to deal with it.

As in if someone is trying to jump across a gap to help a friend in a fight with one enemy and sort of makes it, then with exactly the same result different GMs will have:

• You make it across but distract your friend, causing him to be hit in the face and be badly hurt.
• You make it across but stumble badly, breaking your ankle in the process.
• You only manage to grab onto the ledge on the other side and are now holding on with one hand, needing your friend to pull you up.
• You fail to jump all the way across and fall down, but because you almost succeeded you don't hurt yourself. You now need to climb up.
• You make it across the other side fine, but magically two more people appear. You and your friend are now outnumbered.
• You make it across the other side fine, except you now have a couple of tears in your clothing.
• You make it across the other side fine, but trip slightly, causing a stone to fly out and accidentally kill your friend.
• You make it across the other side fine, but trip slightly, causing a stone to fly out and accidentally kill the enemy.

Apocalypse World has a bullshit resolution system because you have no idea what the result of your actions could be. Each of those is a completely likely result based on silva's ramblings.

I think the real problem is that you can have any of these results on any die number you roll. The DM might just slightly change around the fluff describing the result.

Nope. On a sucess, the player declared intention prevails.

And have in mind that the outcomes above only happen for the Act under Fire move. (There are more 6 basic moves, and more around 40 class-specific ones)

[Mistborn]

Nope. On a sucess, the player declared intention prevails.

Stop typing words. On a failure you get Bears, on a sucess you get Bears, every single roll is Bears. Every. Single. One. There is literally no point in rolling the dice except to provide the illusion that you are playing a game and not just listening to the MC talk.

[silva]

Nope.

Apocalypse World, pg 86:

When you do something under fire, roll +cool. On 10+ you do it. On a 7-9, you flinch, hesitate or stall: the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.

Emphasis mine.

[Mistborn]

If you succeed you just get do the thing you we're planning to do anyway which will still result in Bears.

[Whipstitch]

The specter of bad outcomes can and should affect people's decision making even if they only happen on a small portion of the RNG. You know, because of iterative probability, and in any case you don't actually need to roll two six siders all that many times before you end up with a result of 9 or lower even with bonuses. Mentioning the other moves is a false equivalency given that Act Under Fire is far more generalized than most other moves* and because the book gives several examples of asking for an AUF test in order to demonstrate having the presence of mind necessary to just go ahead and do another move at all.


*Don't even get me started on the playbook specific moves; many of them just add armor, alter what stat applies to the basic moves or provide gear. They're niche items by design since it'd be bad form if a character specific move was actually as widely applicable as basic moves given that the basic moves are essentially the primary mechanics.

[silva]

Yes, Whip, all the those things considered.

If you succeed you just get do the thing you we're planning to do anyway which will still result in Bears.

Nope. If the player was trying to jump over a hole, he will do it. If he was trying to sneak past a guard he will do it, etc. So, no Bears.

[Previn]

Yes, Whip, all the those things considered.

If you succeed you just get do the thing you we're planning to do anyway which will still result in Bears.

Nope. If the player was trying to jump over a hole, he will do it. If he was trying to sneak past a guard he will do it, etc. So, no Bears.

Wasn't it Apocalypse World that has you try and sneak into a camp, succeed with a 'yes but' and then had the but be [/i]being spotted by someone?[/i] Meaning you didn't actually succeed at sneaking? Ah, yup, pg. 192.

[silva]

Yes, Previn. Thats exacty the intended effect when Acting under Fire - on a weak-sucess, give the player a hard choice, or sucess at a cost. (on a normal sucess though, the player does what he intended to do.)

And thats the actual genius of its design I think. The weak-sucess.

[Previn]

Yes, Previn. Thats exacty the intended effect when Acting under Fire - on a weak-sucess, give the player a hard choice, or sucess at a cost. (on a normal sucess though, the player does what he intended to do.)

And thats the actual genius of its design I think. The weak-sucess.

... do you know the meaning of the word 'success?' Because I'm pretty sure being spotted while sneaking... is not a success. I'm actually pretty sure that's the opposite of successfully sneaking. In fact I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's actually a failure.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I take it that Apocalypse World collapses in a hilarious and beat-the-DM-to-a-bloody-pulp fashion if an antagonist goes all Batman or Dr. Doom or David Xanatos on someone?

[silva]

Sorry Lago, dont knoe what you mean by going Batman or Dr Doom on someone.

Yes, Previn. Thats exacty the intended effect when Acting under Fire - on a weak-sucess, give the player a hard choice, or sucess at a cost. (on a normal sucess though, the player does what he intended to do.)

And thats the actual genius of its design I think. The weak-sucess.

... do you know the meaning of the word 'success?' Because I'm pretty sure being spotted while sneaking... is not a success. I'm actually pretty sure that's the opposite of successfully sneaking. In fact I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's actually a failure.

Previn, this "weak-sucess" means a hard choice or sucess at a cost. Its intentional by design, and is a way to have "ugly choices" built-in in the mechanics. But it only happens on a 7-9 result on the roll. If you roll 10+, its a normal sucess, and the GM cant add complications.

Got it ?

[echoVanguard]

Sorry Lago, dont knoe what you mean by going Batman or Dr Doom on someone.

I believe he means something like this.

echo

[Omegonthesane]

Yes, Previn. Thats exacty the intended effect when Acting under Fire - on a weak-sucess, give the player a hard choice, or sucess at a cost. (on a normal sucess though, the player does what he intended to do.)

And thats the actual genius of its design I think. The weak-sucess.

... do you know the meaning of the word 'success?' Because I'm pretty sure being spotted while sneaking... is not a success. I'm actually pretty sure that's the opposite of successfully sneaking. In fact I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's actually a failure.

Being spotted while sneaking by someone whose throat you can cut before they sound the alarms is a failure, but not a failure on the same order of magnitude as being spotted by someone whose throat you can't cut before they sound the alarms.

After all, you have the choice of cutting their throat, or of spending the time that would take running so it's not quite worth the security actually catching you rather than just making sure you aren't on site.

[Previn]

Yes, Previn. Thats exacty the intended effect when Acting under Fire - on a weak-sucess, give the player a hard choice, or sucess at a cost. (on a normal sucess though, the player does what he intended to do.)

And thats the actual genius of its design I think. The weak-sucess.

... do you know the meaning of the word 'success?' Because I'm pretty sure being spotted while sneaking... is not a success. I'm actually pretty sure that's the opposite of successfully sneaking. In fact I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's actually a failure.

Previn, this "weak-sucess" means a hard choice or sucess at a cost. Its intentional by design, and is a way to have "ugly choices" built-in in the mechanics. But it only happens on a 7-9 result on the roll. If you roll 10+, its a normal sucess, and the GM cant add complications.

Got it ?

Again, do you know the meaning of the word 'success?' If I am spotted while trying to sneak, I have not succeed at sneaking. That isn't a 'weak' success, that is NO success.

All your dancing around the issue shows that you are either ignorant of the definition of success, or know that you're wrong and trying to argue around the fact that you're wrong. Don't both responding to me, because I won't be bothering to try and engage with you anymore.

[silva]

Sorry, I was thinking you were struggling with the concept. The word by itself is misleading, you are right.

A better label scheme could be: sucess, fail and "hard choice".

[Username17]

Imagine for the moment that you're fighting someone. If you "succeed", that can be defined down by the MC as barely escaping with your life ("succeeding at surviving the combat"). If you "fail", that can be defined up by the MC to not managing to capture or kill every single enemy before one of them gets away ("failing to prevent every last enemy from escaping"). Which since the "success" result at the combat includes losing the fucking combat, and the "failure" result at the combat includes winning the fucking combat, the die roll is essentially meaningless.

And remember: the MC makes these choices after you roll. So the MC decides arbitrarily whether you win or lose the combat in the conventional sense after you roll the die and is equally entitled to either choice no matter what you roll.

Not only are your choices meaningless, your die rolls are even more meaningless.

-Username17

[Parthenon]

Previn, this "weak-sucess" means a hard choice or sucess at a cost. Its intentional by design, and is a way to have "ugly choices" built-in in the mechanics. But it only happens on a 7-9 result on the roll. If you roll 10+, its a normal sucess, and the GM cant add complications.

Got it ?

So... you are complaining that my examples are shitty because I accidentally wrote 11 rather than 7-9? I mean, I forgot the numbers slightly but I thought the obvious intention was the weak-success.

I'll lay it out for you more carefully. You've said multiple times about a success with a cost:

Result	Success	Cost
You make it across but distract your friend, causing him to be hit in the face and be badly hurt.	Successful jump	Friend is hurt
You make it across but stumble badly, breaking your ankle in the process.	Successful jump	Long term injury
You only manage to grab onto the ledge on the other side and are now holding on with one hand, needing your friend to pull you up.	On the other side	Can't contribute to fight and need help
You fail to jump all the way across and fall down, but because you almost succeeded you don't hurt yourself. You now need to climb up.	Uninjured	Failure
You make it across the other side fine, but magically two more people appear. You and your friend are now outnumbered.	Successful jump	Greater difficulty in the fight
You make it across the other side fine, except you now have a couple of tears in your clothing.	Successful jump	Damaged Clothing
You make it across the other side fine, but trip slightly, causing a stone to fly out and accidentally kill your friend.	Successful jump	Fail at desired task
You trip on the other side and fall back in to die at the bottom, but on the bright side the trip causes a stone to fly out and accidentally kill the enemy.	You kill the enemy	You die.

This is something where success can be surviving and failure can be torn clothes. And even if you decide to bitch that it has to be a choice, the GM might decide to give you a choice between accidentally killing your friend or dying while accidentally killing your enemy. As in two bullshit choices, but its still a hard choice based on a success with costs.

EDIT: Frank's example above says it all. And before you bitch that it's not feasible, GMs will often have DMPCs or BBEGs that they want to be the ultimate badass, and so have them capable of destroying armies. If the dice say that the PCs beat their self-insert they'll take any excuse to say that it didn't happen and that success meant getting away alive.

[hogarth]

Does Apocalypse World acknowledge different degrees of difficulty? E.g., is the target number different if I try to shoot someone from 10 feet away vs. 1000 yards away?

[silva]

So... you are complaining that my examples are shitty because I accidentally wrote 11 rather than 7-9?

No, on the contrary! Your examples are spot on for the weak-success on a Act Under Fire move. That’s what I meant by "THIS" up there.

In fact, I think your last table could serve as a nice tool for helping out GMs to deal with the Act Under Fire move. I would just change some examples to imply more robust consequences (like the "torn clothes" one, for example).

Imagine for the moment that you're fighting someone. If you..

Sorry to interrupt Frank, but combat don’t operate the same way as the Acting Under Fire move.

The default move for combat is called "Take it by force" and works like this:

When you enter combat with an opponent, trade harm for harm and roll 2d6 +hard:
On 10+ choose 3; on 7-9 choose 1.
- You inflict more damage (by +1);
- You reduce the damage taken (by -1);
- You do it in a impressive, stunning or dismaying fashion (pick one);
- [another option I don’t remember now]

Notice the "trade harm for harm" above. It indicates that, if you engage in combat, its assumed that you will automatically receive your opponents damage (which is based on the harm value of the weapon he is carrying, minus the protection you are wearing), and he will receive yours. Notice also that, in the combat move, the MTP is swapped by explicit options the player must choose. And notice that, based on how successful the roll is, the player can increase its damage, reduce the oppponent´s, or gain another effect.

Hope it helps.

[Omegonthesane]

Does Apocalypse World acknowledge different degrees of difficulty? E.g., is the target number different if I try to shoot someone from 10 feet away vs. 1000 yards away?

Not directly - and it's not designed for a particular game to last so long that that would be useful.

Generally your weapon's range is one of five things that doesn't have an objective meaning and hopefully ends up consistent enough, which will naturally be portrayed in the worst possible light if you're trying to prove that the system doesn't enforce player agency.
intimate (grapple range) < hand (arm's length or closer) < close (shouting at range) < far (sniper range), with the caveat that some though not all Far-range weapons can't be used if the target gets into Close range.

EDIT: I was going to grab examples of expected player damage output and how much armour and damage output the MC could give a thing without obviously being a dick, but then decided I didn't much care.

[hogarth]

Does Apocalypse World acknowledge different degrees of difficulty? E.g., is the target number different if I try to shoot someone from 10 feet away vs. 1000 yards away?

Not directly - and it's not designed for a particular game to last so long that that would be useful.

So climbing a ladder and climbing a wall are equally likely to succeed? Or jumping over a hedge vs. jumping over a house?

[Whipstitch]

Pretty much; the only difference is that it slightly changes the fluff parameters that inform the MC's likely choice of consequences when/if you fail, and as we've already established that means picking two things out of any number of other potentially sensible outcomes. Also, AW doesn't really have mechanics for movement in general; Hell, if you fire up a PDF search for the word movement it only comes up once and in reference to reading a person's body language.

[silva]

Does Apocalypse World acknowledge different degrees of difficulty? E.g., is the target number different if I try to shoot someone from 10 feet away vs. 1000 yards away?

No, it doesnt. There are ways for you to have bonuses on rolls, but these are, generally, the outcomes of moves (like read a sitch, for eg) or other rules (like the trust pts, for eg).

I think the intended desire behind it is to make the game always move fast.