Examples of good non-combat resolution mechanics?

[Parthenon]

No, on the contrary! Your examples are spot on for the weak-success on a Act Under Fire move.

Wait, wait, wait. silva, are you really saying that my examples are a sign of how good the Apocalypse World resolution system is?

As in if you are trying to jump a gap and roll a 9 sometimes you die, sometimes you fall down the gap, sometimes you accidentally kill your friend, sometimes more enemies appear and sometimes you tear your clothes, all based on how much you're sucking off the GM. And this is a good thing?

The lack of real guidelines, complete MTP and contradictory results is a good thing?

Look- you are trying to make the fight easier for your friend. If you accidentally kill your friend you have failed. If you make it harder for your friend by making them save you then you have failed. If more enemies appear then the fight is now harder and you have failed.

There are several complete failures that you have said are exactly correct for a weak-success result. If this is possible then the whole action resolution is fucking retarded.

[Omegonthesane]

No, on the contrary! Your examples are spot on for the weak-success on a Act Under Fire move.

Wait, wait, wait. silva, are you really saying that my examples are a sign of how good the Apocalypse World resolution system is?

As in if you are trying to jump a gap and roll a 9 sometimes you die, sometimes you fall down the gap, sometimes you accidentally kill your friend, sometimes more enemies appear and sometimes you tear your clothes, all based on how much you're sucking off the GM. And this is a good thing?

The lack of real guidelines, complete MTP and contradictory results is a good thing?

Look- you are trying to make the fight easier for your friend. If you accidentally kill your friend you have failed. If you make it harder for your friend by making them save you then you have failed. If more enemies appear then the fight is now harder and you have failed.

There are several complete failures that you have said are exactly correct for a weak-success result. If this is possible then the whole action resolution is fucking retarded.

Besides which, if you're killing people with a roll that isn't Trade Harm For Harm, the MC is probably in violation of the rules.

I have difficulty reconciling silva's stance with the idea that he actually read the table, honestly, but two out of three of your standout examples need a little addressing.

If you have given your friend the option of pulling you up, wasting an action and taking a risk in return for making the fight easier when you're up, you haven't outright indisputably failed - the difficulty either doesn't change because you're left hanging until it's over, or spikes for a turn before dropping because there are now two people aiding.. If by jumping across you have made more enemies appear, then the fight is harder than it would have been without those enemies, but you've only outright failed if the fight is now as hard or harder than if you hadn't jumped at all.

Anything involving "you or your friend magically dies", though, is indeed a stupid example and a bullshit choice.

[Parthenon]

I have difficulty reconciling silva's stance with the idea that he actually read the table, honestly,

Yeah, it seems more like he glanced at it without reading it at all, but the point is that if the weak-success has a success and cost but no guidelines as to what those costs can be then the actual effect can range from a success to a failure to death based on the GM.

If he did read it and agree that it is spot on though, then AW really is fucktarded.

If by jumping across you have made more enemies appear, then the fight is harder than it would have been without those enemies, but you've only outright failed if the fight is now as hard or harder than if you hadn't jumped at all.

Please reread this sentence. You are saying:
[*]A = B.
[*]If A = B then A = C.
[*]We don't know if A = C.

Maybe I should have worded it better, but the intention of that result was that you trying to help made the task a lot harder because you got a weak-success. That the weak-success was specifically a failure.

[silva]

Sorry Parthenon, Ive just read half your table examples. Omegon is right - you cant kill the PC or other NPC instantaneously like that. Also, the cost (as in "sucess at a cost") must be something more important to the PC instead of thorned clothes ( supplies or gear are a good option):

"OK, you manage to jump over the big wall but your backpack is stuck up there. If you press on, you will lose it. What do you do ?"

"Ok, you sneak past the guards and enter the base, but you took so long that the sun is rising now. Its almost day. What do you do?"

"Ok, you go for the cover and reach it, but hey whats this in your leg? Its blood dude, you got shot in the way".

See, the cost or hard choice you offer the player must be more relevant (while keeping logical with the situation, so no Bears). Anyway I keep thinking your table would be very useful for helping GMs, if some examples were adjusted.

if the weak-success has a success and cost but no guidelines as to what those costs can be

But there are guidelines. The book is full of it. In fact, it stress so much the importance of these guidelines that he calls them rules instead of just advice.

[Username17]

Besides which, if you're killing people with a roll that isn't Trade Harm For Harm, the MC is probably in violation of the rules.

Killing someone with a middling result on an act under fire test better not be against the rules, because that's literally the primary example in the fucking rules. You sneak, you get a middling result, you kill a kid.

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.)

Now leaving aside the fact that the "ugly choice" presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

This is my big problem, not with Apocalypse World, but with people who are defending Apocalypse World: they can't get their fucking stories straight. Apocalypse World is a piece of horse shit where the players get told a story by the MC and sometimes they are allowed to talk or roll dice to feel like they are contributing. That's all it fucking is. It's not a game. It's an MC power trip on steroids. And that's actually fine if what you want is a night of marginally interactive storytelling. But the defenders of Apocalypse World can't get it through their fucking heads that that is what they have to be defending. And so they end up contradicting themselves left right and center trying to claim that Apocalypse World is something that it is not.

As a player, you make your choice and it doesn't fucking matter because the result is going to be the first thing that pops out of the MC's ass no matter what. Then you roll some dice and it also doesn't fucking matter because you only get three options: Miss, Weak Hit, and Strong Hit, and all three of them can be read as conventional success or failure at the actual fucking task at hand and it is up to the MC to asspull that distinction after the dice are rolled. And that's it. All the "game mechanics" are a sham. The game elements are all shams. It's not a fucking game.

-Username17

[silva]

Apocalypse World is a piece of horse shit where the players get told a story by the MC

This alone proves you didnt read the actual thing, since one of the very first rules state that the GM cant tell a story, but instead see what happens.

And if you cant understand a so basic premise, there is no point in going forward - its like reading a rpg book and wanting to play a reign like it was a Civilization game, and then arguing the game is crap because it just provides rules for interactions on a character level.

[Omegonthesane]

If by jumping across you have made more enemies appear, then the fight is harder than it would have been without those enemies, but you've only outright failed if the fight is now as hard or harder than if you hadn't jumped at all.

Please reread this sentence. You are saying:
[*]A = B.
[*]If A = B then A = C.
[*]We don't know if A = C.

Maybe I should have worded it better, but the intention of that result was that you trying to help made the task a lot harder because you got a weak-success. That the weak-success was specifically a failure.

You probably should have worded it better. As should I - what I was trying to say was:
[*]A + B > A (difficulty of challenge with or without magically appearing mooks)
[*]C + D > C (capability of you + friend vs. capability of friend alone)
[*]If (A+B) - (C+D) > A - C (-> B > D) then you have unambiguously failed, if not, then not
[*]We don't have enough information to deduce B > D

Besides which, if you're killing people with a roll that isn't Trade Harm For Harm, the MC is probably in violation of the rules.

Killing someone with a middling result on an act under fire test better not be against the rules, because that's literally the primary example in the fucking rules. You sneak, you get a middling result, you kill a kid.

...On this count, I stand corrected. I must have only been counting statted entities as people.

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.)

Now leaving aside the fact that the "ugly choice" presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

Justify this please. "Total fucking failure" would be "fuck you, the alarms sound and everyone in the base knows where you are and you have to get out under those circumstances" - as I said before, clearly if you have time to murder a sentry and thus prevent the alarms from sounding, you haven't failed as hard as if you don't have that time.

As a player, you make your choice and it doesn't fucking matter because the result is going to be the first thing that pops out of the MC's ass no matter what. Then you roll some dice and it also doesn't fucking matter because you only get three options: Miss, Weak Hit, and Strong Hit, and all three of them can be read as conventional success or failure at the actual fucking task at hand and it is up to the MC to asspull that distinction after the dice are rolled. And that's it. All the "game mechanics" are a sham. The game elements are all shams. It's not a fucking game.

-Username17

It's only trying to be marginally better than MTP, I'll give you that, but I am reminded of something that was said about the CR system - about how it in no way prevented MC dickery, but at least allowed you to be able to tell the difference between MC dickery and sheer bad luck. If you get a consistent pattern of "success" being interpreted as "catastrophic failure" or vice versa, the problem exists between table and chair, not in the text, even if the text fails to address the problem.

I'm kind of done defending it though - the only experience I've had was Monster of the Week, and in retrospect it could have been a fuckton more of a railroad if the GM had had a coherent plan and wasn't quite eager to implement player suggestions.

[RobbyPants]

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.)

Now leaving aside the fact that the "ugly choice" presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

Justify this please. "Total fucking failure" would be "fuck you, the alarms sound and everyone in the base knows where you are and you have to get out under those circumstances" - as I said before, clearly if you have time to murder a sentry and thus prevent the alarms from sounding, you haven't failed as hard as if you don't have that time.

The intended action was "sneak in undetected". She rolled a 7-9, which is "success, but at a cost". The MC offers her an "ugly choice", which is summed up as:

1) You succeed at your intended action, but have to kill a kid, or

2) You fail at your intended action, but don't have to kill the kid.

Notice how one of the choices results in a failure, despite having nominally rolled a success, but at a cost? Is the cost failure?

Also, notice how, under that 7-9 heading, the MC could have used any of the following:

• You sneak in undetected but you drop your favorite gun in the mud, and it can't be fired until it's cleaned.
• You sneak in undetected but drop your favorite gun into a latrine, and you'll have to deviate to try and retrieve it.
• You sneak in undetected but realize it's more heavily guarded than you thought.
• You sneak in undetected but twist your ankle, slowing your movement.
• You sneak in undetected but shit your pants because you gambled on a fart.
• You sneak in almost undetected but a kid sees you, and you have to decide whether or not to kill him or be caught.
• You sneak in almost undetected but an entire room full of babies sees you, and you have to decide whether or not to kill them or be caught.

The problem is two-fold:
1) The player has no idea what to expect when they declare an action of "sneaking". It could result it lost or damage equipment, personal injury, soiled clothes, or potential murder of innocents on an otherwise nominal success.
2) The MC can pick whatever of these he wants, and chose to put the "hard choice" in there, and one of the choices results in failure on a roll that is otherwise a success.


That system is fucked and players cannot make meaningful decisions or even expect reasonable outcomes.

[hogarth]

Now leaving aside the fact that the ugly choice presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

I wonder if you can go through the whole game like Br'er Rabbit:

"Gee, I sure hope I don't find a smokin'-hot babe with a sack full of cash while I'm walking around; that would be awful!"

(Yeah, obviously that would be defeating the purpose of the game, but it still sounds fun.)

[RobbyPants]

Now leaving aside the fact that the ugly choice presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

I wonder if you can go through the whole game like Br'er Rabbit:

"Gee, I sure hope I don't find a smokin'-hot babe with a sack full of cash while I'm walking around; that would be awful!"

(Yeah, obviously that would be defeating the purpose of the game, but it still sounds fun.)

No, then the MC would just dick with you if you rolled a 7+ instead of a 6-.

"Success! You didn't find those things! You found bears!"

[violence in the media]

...On this count, I stand corrected. I must have only been counting statted entities as people.

There's something darkly humorous about this statement.

[Omegonthesane]

Now leaving aside the fact that the "ugly choice" presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

Justify this please. "Total fucking failure" would be "fuck you, the alarms sound and everyone in the base knows where you are and you have to get out under those circumstances" - as I said before, clearly if you have time to murder a sentry and thus prevent the alarms from sounding, you haven't failed as hard as if you don't have that time.

The intended action was "sneak in undetected". She rolled a 7-9, which is "success, but at a cost". The MC offers her an "ugly choice", which is summed up as:

1) You succeed at your intended action, but have to kill a kid, or

2) You fail at your intended action, but don't have to kill the kid.

Notice how one of the choices results in a failure, despite having nominally rolled a success, but at a cost? Is the cost failure?

I think the idea is that you decide you'd rather not pay what success will cost you, and thus fail rather than paying the cost of success. So long as no one's actually confusing that with "you roll a success, fuck you, you fail anyway".

[RobbyPants]

I think the idea is that you decide you'd rather not pay what success will cost you, and thus fail rather than paying the cost of success. So long as no one's actually confusing that with "you roll a success, fuck you, you fail anyway".

I agree that you're offered a choice of success at a cost, but there's still the issue of the bulleted list I provided, of which that was one choice.

The MC can choose whether or not you suffer a penalty or if you have to make a binary choice for full success or failure. The MC can choose how bad of a penalty you suffer. It seems impossible to make meaningful decisions when the input is "sneak" and "die roll" and the outputs can be anywhere from death or dismemberment on your side or their's.

You could replace "sneak" with pretty much any other action, and the range of results could still plausibly run "death or dismemberment on your side or their's".

[silva]

Frank,

What you are struggling to see is that, differently from most other rpgs where the GM is free to use a railroady or sandboxy style (or something in between), in Apocalypse World the GM is obliguated to use a sandboxy style (and very peculiar one, at that).

The author goes a long way in explaining that the game was conceived/designed with only that style in mind, and no other - If you play its game, you should follow it, otherwise the rules will seem contrived, and the game boring. (its his own words!)

So, if you don’t play the game as intended by the author, youre not playing Apocalypse World. And everything youre defending here up until now (Bears and shit) are not the intended mode of gaming by the author, so its has nothing to do with Apocalypse World. (whats amusing is that everything I just write stated everywhere in the book. In fact, it even opens the very GM chapter).

Now, do the rules allow the GM to engage in a railroad style if he so wishes? Sure! - AS ANY OTHER RPG RULES ALSO ALLOW, from D&D to Shadowrun to every game in between. Does this mean an Apocalypse World GM is allowed to engage in such a mode of play ? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, AND THE AUTHOR IS EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT IN ITS BOOK. If you play the game in a railroady style, youre not playing the game as intended.

Got it now?

[Whipstitch]

The game doesn't want you to railroad but then it absolutely fails to give you any tools to avoid doing so. It's like saying you want a democracy without voting rights. You should feel pants-on-head retarded just for saying it.

[talozin]

Now leaving aside the fact that the ugly choice presented is in fact total fucking failure, the results do in fact involve a dude getting killed.

I wonder if you can go through the whole game like Br'er Rabbit:

"Gee, I sure hope I don't find a smokin'-hot babe with a sack full of cash while I'm walking around; that would be awful!"

(Yeah, obviously that would be defeating the purpose of the game, but it still sounds fun.)

This reminds me of the conceit behind the Priamid family in nWoD Mage. They're descendents of Cassandra, see, and they originally had her curse -- that people would actively disbelieve their prophetic advice. So they turned this into an advantage by giving people good advice that they knew would be disbelieved, at which point the curse changed into something else so it was still actually a curse and not a way to get your enemies to commit suicide.

[silva]

the game doesn't want you to railroad but then it absolutely fails to give you any tools to avoid doing so. It's like saying you want a democracy without voting rights. You should feel pants-on-head retarded just for saying it.

WHAT ?

The very structure of play is organized into a radical sandbox - the "First Session" brainstorming, the establishing of the setting as a extension of the player characters, the Fronts with its Threats, Agendas, Countdown Clocks, Needs and Surpluses, etc. the "Do NOT pre-plan plots" and "PLAY TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS!" principles of play, the way only the characters play the dice and the outcomes are supposed to be consequences of its own choices, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry. If that’s not a clear method for sandbox gaming, I don’t know what is. In fact, I would argue that doesn’t exist a better explicitly laid out method/procedure for running a sandbox formally written in a rulebook in all rpg industry.

[RobbyPants]

What you are struggling to see is that, differently from most other rpgs where the GM is free to use a railroady or sandboxy style (or something in between), in Apocalypse World the GM is obliguated to use a sandboxy style (and very peculiar one, at that).

You are missing a very key difference: there is a difference between being railroady and explicitly dictating the result after the action is declared and the die is rolled. I know for a fact that you have been told this at least twice before in this thread. They are not the same things.

[Kaelik]

The game doesn't want you to railroad but then it absolutely fails to give you any tools to avoid doing so. It's like saying you want a democracy without voting rights. You should feel pants-on-head retarded just for saying it.

This times one thousand.

If your rules only work under a specific playstyle. But the rules do not actually encourage or enforce that playstyle, then you have a bad mechanic.

In this case, the system is so bad that it makes DM railroading even fucking easier than MTP, so it is an objectively bad system in every way.

[silva]

you are missing a very key difference: there is a difference between being railroady and explicitly dictating the result after the action is declared and the die is rolled.

Sorry, not sure know is your point here. (honestly)

In Apocalypse World, the GM is expected to run on a sandbox mode. For such, he is expected to develop a self-discipline to "see what happens" and "Do not pre-plan plots", reacting to players actions by producing outcomes that are plausible, related to each situation, and respect that situation internal logic and causality. (this is explicitly written in the rules, more or less with these same words).

So, if a GM "dictating the result after the action is declared and die is rolled" follows the above parameters - not introducing Polar Bears or other unrelated outcomes, nor trying to steer the adventure to pre-conceived plots in his head - he will be playing the game right, by the rules.

(if my answer didn’t address your point, I apologize. My poor English is showing)

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, see, there's that part where you sound like you're wearing pants on your head again. Apocalypse World is basically asking you to hide Easter Eggs from yourself.

[Username17]

I think the idea is that you decide you'd rather not pay what success will cost you, and thus fail rather than paying the cost of success. So long as no one's actually confusing that with "you roll a success, fuck you, you fail anyway".

But in the "Read a Sitch" example on page 200, Bran rolls a success and gets a "fuck you, you fail" result. Not even a weak hit or a hard choice or something, he rolls a god damn 11, thereby being treated to the new information that there is a bear attack that is about to happen that he cannot possibly win against and he has to play out a hostage situation the MC just pulled out of his ass to escape with his life.

The actual examples in the actual rules keep refuting things you're saying about the game. The actual examples include being shunted to automatic success on a miss and being shunted to automatic failure on a strong hit. And of course, being presented by both success and failure by the MC on a weak hit.

That isn't hyperbole on the part of the people making fun of this game - those are the actual examples in the actual book under "basic moves".

We haven't gotten to the part where the character advancement rules are a war crime, because it doesn't matter. The basic rules are by themselves enough to disqualify Apocalypse World as even counting as a game at all.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

you are missing a very key difference: there is a difference between being railroady and explicitly dictating the result after the action is declared and the die is rolled.

Sorry, not sure know is your point here. (honestly)

In Apocalypse World, the GM is expected to run on a sandbox mode. For such, he is expected to develop a self-discipline to "see what happens" and "Do not pre-plan plots", reacting to players actions by producing outcomes that are plausible, related to each situation, and respect that situation internal logic and causality. (this is explicitly written in the rules, more or less with these same words).

So, if a GM "dictating the result after the action is declared and die is rolled" follows the above parameters - not introducing Polar Bears or other unrelated outcomes, nor trying to steer the adventure to pre-conceived plots in his head - he will be playing the game right, by the rules.

(if my answer didn’t address your point, I apologize. My poor English is showing)

Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'll quote myself from earlier in the thread.

So, given this situation in the rules:

Keeler the gunlugger’s taken off her shoes and she’s sneaking into Dremmer’s camp, armed as they say to the upper teeth. If they hear her, she’s fucked. (On a 7–9, maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp and murdering an innocent teenage sentry.)

Would you agree that all of the following points (with the possible exception of the last point) are legitimate outcomes on a 7 to 9?

Also, notice how, under that 7-9 heading, the MC could have used any of the following:

• You sneak in undetected but you drop your favorite gun in the mud, and it can't be fired until it's cleaned.
• You sneak in undetected but drop your favorite gun into a latrine, and you'll have to deviate to try and retrieve it.
• You sneak in undetected but realize it's more heavily guarded than you thought.
• You sneak in undetected but twist your ankle, slowing your movement.
• You sneak in undetected but shit your pants because you gambled on a fart.
• You sneak in almost undetected but a kid sees you, and you have to decide whether or not to kill him or be caught.
• You sneak in almost undetected but an entire room full of babies sees you, and you have to decide whether or not to kill them or be caught.

[Foxwarrior]

It sounds to me like if you could cut the rules down to a memorizable level (say, five sentences) and replace the dice rolling, Apocalypse World would make a pretty good game to play on long car trips or hikes.

[John Magnum]

Yeah, here you go:

Apocalypse World Minus has N>=1 players and 1 MC.
Action resolution: A player declares an action and plays a round of rock/paper/scissors with the MC. On a player win, the player's action succeeds; on an MC win, the player's action fails; on a draw the player experiences mixed (success-but, failure-and, hard choice, etc.)
Rules and Principles: Don't be a dick as a player. Don't be a dick as MC.