Examples of good non-combat resolution mechanics?

[Mistborn]

If you pay attention, It was previously stablished - and noted by the GM - that Tum-Tum was the "Water Cult leader", and that this cult has a temple. So, the GM describing the psycho-bodyguards is a perfecly plausible/logical thing, as described for this kind of threat - Just look at the example sheet (called First Session sheet) on the GM chapter and you see the descriptions.

How about you pay attention to what people are saying for once fuckass. In AW the GM is explicitly prohibited from pre-planning, thus those bodyguards did not exist untill the player made that Read a Sitch check. Do you not understand why this is a problem?

[fectin]

Why is "cult leader has secret psychic bodyguards (you lose)" something which follows from the plot, but "love interest has secret bear boyfriend (you lose)" something which doesn't?

[silva]

Mistborn, If you read the actual book, you would see that pre-planning a plot is different from pla-planning Fronts ( npcs, threats, groups, etc).

The Water Cult that Tum-Tum and the psycho-bodyguards belong were stablished in the first session brainstorming, as per the game default rules. Then, when the player read the sitch on them, the GM just described what he has already prepped before and noted on the First Sessikn sheet.

What about you read ou loud for all us the example First Sessin sheet provided in the book ? Go ahead, read it for us ( but please, be honest and dont ommit the Water Cult Temple and TUM-Tum and his followers )

[silva]

Why is "cult leader has secret psychic bodyguards (you lose)" something which follows from the plot, but "love interest has secret bear boyfriend (you lose)" something which doesn't?

If the secret Bear boyfriend was established or suggested in thr First Session (as were the Water Culists), and was given a Front, yes, it could.

Edit:

Its important to remember that you cannot throw at the players anything that wasnt established or suggested by the group (generally n the First Session), or that flows logically from what was established.

[zugschef]

premise: the gm somehow writes down the word "anvil" on his first session sheet.
goal: you want to save the little birdy which fell out of its nest.

what actually happens: you are about to bend down and succeed on a perception check (you want to make sure that nobody murders you from behind while helping) with critical success! you become aware of an anvil dropping down on you! in the last second you save yourself and watch the chick getting smashed.

[RobbyPants]

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.

Yup, all are perfectly valid. Even the last two, if they: are somehow plausible to the situation (it would be hard to explain the babies), and if they do not prsent a combat but simply a kill (you sneak in, but the cost is killing a canibal kid would be right, I think).

Okay, now do you see the huge array of different outcomes from "success, but"? When the player chooses to sneak, they have to understand that on a success, they might have a gun mishap, take an injury, suffer some mild embarrassment, or be put in a position where they have to commit an atrocity in order to succeed on a roll that was otherwise labeled as a "success". And that's just on one of four possible outcomes from the dice. Once you factor in all rolls 2 through 12, you literally have no idea what will happen as the result of "sneak". You could end up getting caught and killed or end up killing the opposition and not getting caught. From a player's point of view, there is no meaningful distinction between choosing "sneak" or "attack" when the range of acceptable outcomes is identical!

As for #2, and I admit, I haven't done a lot of risky stuff in my life that would merit actually rolling+STAT, during my time in the military (not as glamorous as it may sound, my home country has conscription) there were a number of times during drills where I did something according to procedure and SOMETHING UNFORESEEN HAPPENED. Say, I dove into cover, into firing position, only to realize that my clip had come loose, my gun had jammed, my gun's barrel was covered with moss, etc.

So, the point is that players not being able to predict what happens on a 7-9... may be a part of the point? Because when you're under pressure and people are shooting at you, you really don't know what might go wrong. Just like in real life, you might not be able to predict that shit. The 7-9 result presents this factor of unpredictability. Obviously, it's up to the MC to decide what goes wrong this one time, and again, if they're going by their principles, they won't throw anything at the players that their characters can't handle.

This might work well for trying to simulate real life, but it doesn't work out very well for a game. The players have no idea what reasonable outcomes are for their actions. Sure, you have no idea IRL, but it's frustrating when trying to choose something. So, in your IRL example, if you roll a 7-9 on "duck for cover", maybe something happens to your gun. What if you roll an 11? Theoretically, you end up prone with cover from whatever you're avoiding; however, given the infamous bear example, you could totally succeed in diving for cover only to discover a greater threat totally obviating your success.

It's impossible to make meaningful decisions in a game like that.

[Username17]

Its important to remember that you cannot throw at the players anything that wasnt established or suggested by the group (generally n the First Session), or that flows logically from what was established.

Ugh. The point is and will remain that "bear attack" always flows logically in all situations. Bear attack is simply a stand-in for "a hitherto non-existent hostile NPC appears, causing you to fail at whatever it was you were doing". Not only does such an event flow logically in all situations, but in Apocalypse World the MC is empowered and encouraged to have this happen no matter what you choose and no matter what you roll.

Bear Attack is given as an example of something that causes the player to fail on the task they were actually trying to accomplish on both a "weak hit" and a "strong hit" by the motherfucking Apocalypse World rulebook. Not only is there no protection against Bear Attack (something games with heavy MTP elements generally need), but in Apocalypse World the MC is actively encouraged to Bear Attack in response to the player actually rolling success on the dice! That is fucked. That is more fucked than not having any rules or guidelines at all. That is actively worse than playing Cops and Robbers in the back yard.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

That is more fucked than not having any rules or guidelines at all. That is actively worse than playing Cops and Robbers in the back yard.

"BANG! I shot you! You're dead!"

"No, your gun backfired and you're dead."

[John Magnum]

AW defenders, does the fact that you're forbidden from preplanning certain things but mandated to preplan other things suggest that the "No railroading!" rule is a little less clearcut and viable than you've been asserting?

[hogarth]

This might work well for trying to simulate real life, but it doesn't work out very well for a game. The players have no idea what reasonable outcomes are for their actions.

It really depends on the game. For a game like Toon, I want to be surprised by having something crazy happen. And for a game like Call of Cthulhu, having your PC's actions be mostly meaningless fits within the genre.

[Drolyt]

It's pretty amazing how nothing turns me off on a system and convinces me that system is dumb as fuck as people making accounts to try to defend it, because they never actually do it well. It happened with Eclipse Phase, and it's happened with AW now. Cries of "You haven't played the game!" are the most useless thing ever, and now I am utterly convinced Apocalypse World is an awful game for awful people. So job well done.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Except now I feel I need to actually look into this game because I hate having unexamined beliefs.

[Omegonthesane]

In the first, Keeler rolls a 7-9 with an "act under fire" test to avoid detection. This is supposedly a "succeed, but..." style result on attempting to get into the base undetected. The "but..." in this case is Keeler getting detected and therefore failing at the intended task.

I'm going to dispute you there, and sadly, only there.

The example was not "succeed, 'but' you fucking outright fail". It was "you can succeed, but you'll have to murder an innocent kid to do it, because he saw you and if he lives to raise the alarms then you've failed". You are equating "someone found you but died before he could do anything about it" with "every hostile knows you're in the area". These are different things - conflating them is deceptive, and being deceptive gives actual ammunition to your detractors in a way that being abrasive simply doesn't.

EDIT: I'm also going to check the rulebook again, because if silva's latest goalpost shifting is based in fact, then Bear Attack isn't as supported by the rules as established, even if it is supported by the examples.

[ishy]

Uhmmm, how is getting detected by a guard not a failure when your intent is sneaking in undetected?

[Omegonthesane]

Uhmmm, how is getting detected by a kid not a failure of sneaking in undetected?

It's not a total failure of sneaking in undetected, because you can turn it back into a success by murdering the kid before he does anything about it. Getting found by the searchlights and the alarms blaring before you can do anything, that would be a total failure.

[Kaelik]

Seriously. What the fuck. When you attempt to sneak someplace undetected, being detected is a failure. There are a large number of reasons why killing someone who sees you is just not as good as sneaking undetected.

Sometimes you want to scout a place that has no knowledge you are coming. If you kill a sentry, now they don't know you specifically are coming, and they can't stop you from scouting them. But tomorrow they can be prepared for the attack. Because that is what they do when they find a corpse.

Or you could want to make something look like an accident, in which case, the lord that died of an undetectable poison that mimics heart attack looks a lot like a murder when there is a dead sentry with his throat cut.

Or you could want to steal something without anyone realizing it was taken, like say, the McGuffin Horn they keep in a chest. But when they find a dead sentry, they go look in the chest and find the fucking horn missing. Ect.

[ishy]

It's not a total failure of sneaking in undetected, because you can turn it back into a success by murdering the kid before he does anything about it. Getting found by the searchlights and the alarms blaring before you can do anything, that would be a total failure.

No. Just no.
Getting detected when you don't want to be detected is a fucking failure.

You can't just go, sure they spotted me with searchlights and then the alarms sounded blaring, but then I killed everyone, thus I was successful in sneaking in undetected.

[Omegonthesane]

Seriously. What the fuck. When you attempt to sneak someplace undetected, being detected is a failure. There are a large number of reasons why killing someone who sees you is just not as good as sneaking undetected.

I'm going to stop you there, because you're right. Getting in "undetected for now but there's a dead body in the oven" is not as good as getting in completely undetected. I only disputed the idea that it was total failure.

No. Just no.
Getting detected when you don't want to be detected is a fucking failure.

Getting detected by one little kid who you can waste is a smaller failure than getting detected by everyone. Full fucking stop.

You can't just go, sure they spotted me with searchlights and then the alarms sounded blaring, but then I killed everyone, thus I was successful in sneaking in undetected.

A LARPer friend from off-site has fondly recounted to me the story of the Black Knights at Fools & Heroes more or less doing exactly that - they were judged the winners of a stealth round, because they slaughtered all the sentries and thus no one could truthfully say they had been spotted and reported.

[silva]

Ugh. The point is and will remain that "bear attack" always flows logically in all situations. Bear attack is simply a stand-in for "a hitherto non-existent hostile NPC appears, causing you to fail at whatever it was you were doing". Not only does such an event flow logically in all situations, but in Apocalypse World the MC is empowered and encouraged to have this happen no matter what you choose and no matter what you roll.

Did you know that if you roll a 10+ you succeed at what you wanted to do, and the GM cannot add complications, right ? And you know that TUM-TUM psycho-followers described on the Read a Sitch were already established in the first session sheet, don’t you ?

I think you don’t. Otherwise you woudnt be repeating the same shit over and over again. At least do as Robby, and try to understand what youre criticizing. Repeating the same shit again and again wont make it true.

[silva]

From a player's point of view, there is no meaningful distinction between choosing "sneak" or "attack" when the range of acceptable outcomes is identical!

Actually, no. An "Attack" follows a completely different move structure called "Take it by force", which works like this..

1) Trade harm for harm (that is, take your opponent harm value, while he takes yours)
2) Roll 2d6 +hard. On 10+ pick 2, on 6-9, pick 1.
- you do aggravated damage (+1 harm)
- you avoid some damage (-1 harm)
- you do it in an impressive, dismaying or stunning fashion (pick one)
- [another option I still don’t remember]

With that out of the way, lets go back to the Act under Fire move..

Okay, now do you see the huge array of different outcomes from "success, but"? When the player chooses to sneak, they have to understand that on a success, they might have a gun mishap, take an injury, suffer some mild embarrassment, or be put in a position where they have to commit an atrocity in order to succeed on a roll that was otherwise labeled as a "success". And that's just on one of four possible outcomes from the dice. Once you factor in all rolls 2 through 12, you literally have no idea what will happen as the result of "sneak". You could end up getting caught and killed or end up killing the opposition and not getting caught.

First, if you roll a clean success (10+) you do what you wanted to do and the GM cannot add complications. So lets take that out of the way.

Now, considering only the "weak-success" (= success at a cost / ugly choice), youre perfectly right - one situation may have radically different costs, from a gun mishap, to an light injury, embarrassment, be put in a position where you must commit atrocities, etc. The GM should, always that is possible, to declare whats at stake. But the stakes can be different for the same situation, yes.

Now, considering a "Failed" roll (6 or less on the dice), youre fucked, because the GM can pick one of his own "GM moves" and do it. Eg: you can be badly hurt, hurt your teammates, get separated from the group, have devious plots in motion, adversaries getting buffed, etc.

Anyway, its important to note that, everything the GM does, no matter what the success range, must be related to the Fronts and Threats and other entities that were created as an extension of the player characters in the first session (or thorugh subsequent sessions). The "DO NOT PRE-PLAN PLOTS" means the GM cannot pre-plan plots of his own, but he CAN pre-plan NPCs, Factions, and other entities (Called Fronts) with their own Agendas, Needs, Moves, etc.

In fact, the GM should create simplistic "plots" based on Fronts Agendas and Scarcities, in the way of Countdown Clocks. Eg: Tum-Tum´s "Water Cult" could have the following countdown: At 3 o´clock they gain sympathizers in the PC´s town; at 6 o´clock they open a temple inside town; at 9 o´clock they grow aggressively converting most of the town residents (including NPCs that are important to the characters); at 12 o´clock they convince everybody to drowning themselves in the temple pool. (how the players act on it ? Do they help the cult out ? Do they hinder it ? Notice that each countdown should have its own advancement rate, and should be avoidable - or helped - by the PCs).

[ishy]

Getting detected by one little kid who you can waste is a smaller failure than getting detected by everyone. Full fucking stop.

But you do agree now, that being spotted by the guard was a failure?

[virgil]

So the fact there exist antagonists (inconceivable!), the DM can spontaneously throw down as many as he thinks is reasonable as a consequence of complication-free success? I don't think you get the irony of claiming people are repeating the same crap until it's true.

Anyway, its important to note that, everything the GM does, no matter what the success range, must be related to the Fronts and Threats and other entities that were created as an extension of the player characters in the first session (or thorugh subsequent sessions). The "DO NOT PRE-PLAN PLOTS" means the GM cannot pre-plan plots of his own, but he CAN pre-plan NPCs, Factions, and other entities (Called Fronts) with their own Agendas, Needs, Moves, etc.

So he cannot pre-plan plots, but he can plan an intricate web of agendas with a detailed schedule of events. Did you hit your head as a child?

[silva]

AW defenders, does the fact that you're forbidden from preplanning certain things but mandated to preplan other things suggest that the "No railroading!" rule is a little less clearcut and viable than you've been asserting?

Honestly ? I would say NO.

That’s because its explicitly written and emphasized throughout the book - in fact, it’s the first phrase of the GM´s chapter - that there is only one way to run Apocalypse World, and if you don’t run the game this way, youre not playing the game as intended, and the ending result may not make sense or seem contrived as a result.

Then, it goes forward to describe this way and emphasizes some mottos (Agendas and Principles) that the GM should follow strictly as much as he is capable of. And these Agendas and Principles explain exactly how the GM must run the game, in all its details. As an example, you have phrases like: "DON’T PRE PLAN PLOTS!"; "PLAY TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS, not to steer the players through a story you would like to tell!"; "Develop a discipline to SEE WHAT HAPPENS!"; "Don’t answers questions, just make them!"; "Don’t try to anticipate outcomes!"; "Look at your NPCs through cross-hairs! If its logical for a situation that they die, let them die!"

Then, it goes one to describe a very clear and concise procedure for setting up this sandbox, in the way of a First Session brainstorming where the GM must "Ask the players questions like hell!" to establish the setting as an extension of their characters. ("So, is Keeler a weapon smuggler ? ok... who is her best client ? Ok, its Nymph... and what Nymph do for a living ? I mean, isn’t it suspicious that she buys so much ammo and knives and shit ? Oh.. Nymph is the leader of a crew of assassins ? Cool!" ), etc. And then he goes on, based on the players responses, to create Fronts as formal entities in the setting, with motivations, agendas, moves, needs, plans of their own, etc. And then he throws these Fronts back at the players and "see what happens". And then the process starts again, with the GM creating new Fronts based on the players interactions with the old fronts and the outcome of these and... that’s it.

Say: do you believe that a group who actually understand the game, and chooses to run it "by the book", would have any desire to run it as railroad ? Why would a group want such a thing ? It would be a waste of time and effort, since all tools cited above (Fronts, First Session sheet, etc) would be throwed at the trash bin.

[silva]

So he cannot pre-plan plots, but he can plan an intricate web of agendas with a detailed schedule of events

If you meant these schedules of events pertain to different factions/entities, and that those were created with the help/or as an extension of/ the players characters (instead of being the GM´s little story that he wants to tell), yes, youre right.

And If you dont do that, how will do a sandbox with factions with agendas and plans in motion ? (or your conception of sandbox is one totally static, where if the players dont move, the world keeps on ice waiting for them ? )

[Omegonthesane]

Getting detected by one little kid who you can waste is a smaller failure than getting detected by everyone. Full fucking stop.

But you do agree now, that being spotted by the guard was a failure?

Insofar as it's not a 100% success - yes.

But it's not a total failure, and at that point, what's a partial failure and what's a "success at a cost" is semantics.

[ishy]

Insofar as it's not a 100% success - yes.

But it's not a total failure, and at that point, what's a partial failure and what's a "success at a cost" is semantics.

I honestly don't understand. Your goal is sneaking in undetected. The result: You got detected by an 'innocent' sentry.

In what way is that not a total failure?