Dungeon World is terrible and Sage LaTorra is charlatan

[silva]

Looking again at "The Apocalypse World Case" here in TGD, I suspect the problem a lot of folks here have with the game (and with "Magical Tea Party" in general ) is due to a strong preference around here for mechanic simulationistic games like Gurps, D&D 3.X/d20, Shadowrun, etc. That would explain the kind of repulsion shown by Frank and Whipstitch for Apocalypse World and its derivatives.

As I dont have much problem with the kind of "context-sensitive MTP" portrayed in the game, I find it an awesome game. In fact, it touches all the points Ive grown to like about rpgs - uncomplicated, player-driven gameplay which is about cool ideas and situations instead of arithmetical number-crunching.

[Username17]

No. There are many forms of pure MTP that I respect greatly. Apocalypse World is not on that list because it is an insult and a travesty. If you're going to go full or nearly full MTP, you need to spread out narrative control among the different players and what objective resolutions you use need to actually fucking resolve things.

Munchhausen is the simplest fucking game in the world, and it's great. I declare some stuff, if you don't like it you suggest an alternate narrative, if I like yours better we go from there, and if we're still at logger heads we play RPS and go with the winner's version. Done. That's a perfect MTP RPG and it cannot be improved upon.

Contrast with the horseshit bear rain that is Apocalypse World: I make a declaration, I roll some dice that determine whether I succeed or fail, but then no matter what the MC gets to railroad the fuck out of things at that point and render either success or failure meaningless at his whim. That is bullshit. It's too much power in one hand and too little in the way of solid effects from the RNG to bother having one.

We don't hate Apocalypse World because it's an MTP heavy game. We hate it because it's bullshit.

-Username17

[sabs]

Except its' not player driven. It's.. I say mother may I, and the DM says yay or nay depending on his mood, how many dorito bags I have brought to the game, and wether or not I look good in a cheerleader outfit.

[virgil]

Ugh, "mechanic simulationistic games" makes you sound like a GNS supporter.

Many of us have come out in support of rules-lite games. Munchausen, Spirit of the Century, Feng Shui, and others have been lauded as enjoyable games. SotC and Feng Shui have had flaws pointed out before on this forum, yes, but it's not like the more commonly played games (3.X, Shadowrun, etc) haven't had that happen.

[silva]

No. There are many forms of pure MTP that I respect greatly. Apocalypse World is not on that list because it is an insult and a travesty... [in] Apocalypse World: I make a declaration, I roll some dice that determine whether I succeed or fail, but then no matter what the MC gets to railroad the fuck out of things at that point and render either success or failure meaningless at his whim.

I think you´re mistaken, Frank.

1) Doesnt AW dictates that every action the GM takes must follow through from the fiction with logic and causality ?

2) Doesnt it also structures the game in a way that everything showing up is/should be related to previously created Fronts (which are created as extensions from the players characters own interests and goals in the first place ) ?

3) Most player moves are structured in a way which offer the player choices on pre-generated lists, mitigating somewhat the GM´s MTP powers, or, at least, sharing this power between both player and GM.

Eg:

Wasteland Survival: with preparation and the proper materials, you can create the neccessities for life in the wastes. Choose a neccessity: food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine, simple weapons or armor. Roll Sharp. On a 10+ pick 3. On a 7-9, pick 1:
• It can be fashioned quickly.
• It will last for a while.
• It is of good quality, capable of adding a minor effect.
• It can supply up to a small gang.

Sabotage: when you wreck a working system, roll+sharp. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2:
• you leave no trace of yourself.
• you leave trace of someone else.
• someone (or no one) is hurt/killed.
• it costs you nothing.

--> So Frank, lets assume you roll the Sabotage move above to wreck a specific machinery - How can the GM produce "Bears" as a result of this situation ? Im genuinelly curious.

[Username17]

1) Doesnt AW dictates that every action the GM takes must follow through from the fiction with logic and causality ?

You keep playing this card thinking it's an Ace. But it's a three of clubs. And always has been.

The thing about "suddenly bears", is that "bears" follows logic and causality all the time. It is by definition, an enemy that you had heretofore not noticed making themselves known. In Dungeon World it might be a dragon crashing through the ceiling (as alluded to in the first post). In Apocalypse World it might be an army of psychic minions coming over the ridgeline. It can be whatever, and since it represents an enemy moving from a place you couldn't see to a place you can see them, it is always applicable in all situations. Consider Chandler's Law of Writing:

When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

It can logically happen at any time, because the enemy came from somewhere you weren't observing. The causality is always there, because the PCs have always done something that pisses off the villains enough to send someone to go beat them up (even if that something is merely "being the chosen ones" or whatever).

The thing that makes Apocalypse World bullshit, is not that bears can happen, because that's just an essential component of good writing. The problem is that bears can happen in response to a player succeeding at a roll. That is, I make a declaration and roll my dice and get the maximum possible result, and then you get to overshadow my triumph with fucking bears! That is seriously not OK in cooperative storytelling. That's not even cooperative.

-Username17

[silva]

The thing about "suddenly bears", is that "bears" follows logic and causality all the time... it might be an army of psychic minions coming over the ridgeline. It can be whatever, and since it represents an enemy moving from a place you couldn't see to a place you can see them, it is always applicable in all situations

See, this is applicable to all rpgs - since its the GM the responsible for introducing NPCs and "framing scenes" in traditional rpgs, this means the only thing precluding him from producing bears or psychic minions on every corner is his good sense. So, are games like Gurps or Shadowrun also bullshit for you ? They also allow this behavior on the GM part.

The problem is that bears can happen in response to a player succeeding at a roll. That is, I make a declaration and roll my dice and get the maximum possible result, and then you get to overshadow my triumph with fucking bears!

Really ? So, please show me how can Bears appear, or how the GM can obfuscate my sucess, using one of the moves cited above. --> Lets say Im trying to frame another player (Bob) for the wreckage of the local gang boss vintage Harley Davidson. I roll a 10+ on the Sabotage move, and pick the 3 options in blue, below:

Sabotage: when you wreck a working system, roll+sharp. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2:
• you leave no trace of yourself.
• you leave trace of someone else (Bob).
• someone (or no one) is hurt/killed.
• it costs you nothing.


Please Frank, show me the Bears in this situation.

[John Magnum]

Well, since you didn't choose "no one is hurt or killed", someone is hurt or killed, by whatever the fuck Bear-equivalent follows logic and causality.

[silva]

Sure, I could left an unintended gas leak that caught fire and burn the gang boss´s girlfriend alive... which would make the boss even more pissed at Bob. (Oops! )

But notice how this outcome is perfectly logical and causal to the fiction - no sudden Bears or Dragons from the skies, which was the point Frank was defending.

[Kaelik]

Sure, I could left an unintended gas leak that caught fire and burn the gang boss´s girlfriend alive... which would make the boss even more pissed at Bob. (Oops! )

But notice how this outcome is perfectly logical and causal to the fiction - no sudden Bears or Dragons from the skies, which was the point Frank was defending.

You fucking idiot, read what people actually wrote. The entire point is that Bears is always perfectly logical and casual in all situations.

For example, since you didn't choose no one is hurt, I choose that you accidentally blow yourself up. Because that way you leave no trace of yourself, and also someone is hurt. So on your success, you died.

That didn't specifically involve bears, but the entire point is that you killing yourself in the explosion on your success is: 1) logical, 2) causal, 3) Explicitly endorsed by the rules, 4) Complete Horseshit that is terrible and any sane person would immediately fucking recognize as an example of bad game design.

[virgil]

How is suddenly deciding the gang boss has a girlfriend, then throwing her into a motorcycle explosion, not a Bear? We can still use Bears by having the gang kill Bob's friend (you) with the justification of "eye for an eye" and to send a message. And that's fully supported in the rules for a success.

[silva]

Nope, the "hurt/dont hurt" option in the Sabotage move is not meant to indicate the saboteur, but collateral victims. (one can argue its ambiguous, sure, but then the author made it clear over at the official Apocalypse World forums)

You fucking idiot, read what people actually wrote. The entire point is that Bears is always perfectly logical and casual in all situations.

So please, go ahead and insert a Bear in the given example. Im waiting.

[silva]

How is suddenly deciding the gang boss has a girlfriend, then throwing her into a motorcycle explosion, not a Bear? We can still use Bears by having the gang kill Bob's friend (you) with the justification of "eye for an eye" and to send a message. And that's fully supported in the rules for a success.

Yup, everythin you say is perfectly valid - but then its perfectly valid for any other rpg out there, from Gurps to D&D to Shadowrun.

[Kaelik]

Nope, the "hurt/dont hurt" option in the Sabotage move is not meant to indicate the saboteur, but collateral victims. (one can argue its ambiguous, sure, but then the author made it clear in a discussion over at the official Apocalypse World forums)

You fucking idiot, read what people actually wrote. The entire point is that Bears is always perfectly logical and casual in all situations.

So please, go ahead and insert a Bear in the given example. Im waiting.

Fine, it blows up and one of the pieces hits a Psychic's girlfriend, who shows up and tells the boss that it was you who did it using his Psychic powers, because he is mad because you killed his girlfriend.

Also, he's a Shapeshifter, and he joins the assault in the form of a Bear.

[virgil]

So your response to everyone's perfectly valid complaints about the system is "working as intended"...

[Whipstitch]

See, this is applicable to all rpgs - since its the GM the responsible for introducing NPCs and "framing scenes" in traditional rpgs, this means the only thing precluding him from producing bears or psychic minions on every corner is his good sense. So, are games like Gurps or Shadowrun also bullshit for you ? They also allow this behavior on the GM part.

Those RPGs aren't so ass-pull dependent, however. See, the dumbest part about Apocalypse World is that tells you not to bullshit your players and then has mechanics that routinely prompt you to bullshit your players. There's no movement or awareness rules worth mentioning, just vaguely delineated dice rolls for everything with an omni-present chance of failure and procedurally generated bear attacks. Oftentimes, "Following logic" or whatever the fuck you want to call it boils down to just ignoring AW dice outputs left, right and center.

[silva]

Fine, it blows up and one of the pieces hits a Psychic's girlfriend, who shows up and tells the boss that it was you who did it using his Psychic powers, because he is mad because you killed his girlfriend.

Again, could happen in any other game (Gurps, d&d, Shadowrun, whatever), as a consequence of any roll by any player.

Also, he's a Shapeshifter, and he joins the assault in the form of a Bear.

Same as above.

See, if one assumes a GM in any other game is a perfectly reasonable and sensible person, why arent you assuming a GM in Apocalypse World will be any different ?

[silva]

So your response to everyone's perfectly valid complaints about nonsensical GM behaviour in any system is "working as intended"...

Corrected for you.

Oh, only now I see that Chamo already had addressed this point in the first page:

Do you have any argument against AW that cannot be resolved by refusing to play with assholes?

Yup, this.

[Kaelik]

Fine, it blows up and one of the pieces hits a Psychic's girlfriend, who shows up and tells the boss that it was you who did it using his Psychic powers, because he is mad because you killed his girlfriend.

Again, could happen in any other game (Gurps, d&d, Shadowrun, whatever), as a consequence of any roll by any player.

Also, he's a Shapeshifter, and he joins the assault in the form of a Bear.

Same as above.

See, if one assumes a GM in any other game is a perfectly reasonable and sensible person, why arent you assuming a GM in Apocalypse World will be any different ?

No, it absolutely could not happen. Because the rolls don't tell the DM to find some random person and injure them. The rules in Shadowrun just say "you successfully sabotaged the fucking thing, and nothing bad happens."

So the DM doesn't make up a shapeshifting Psychic Bear, because the rules don't tell him to make something up.

[silva]

Yeah, they do, Kaelik - the rules in any rpg splicitly state the GM is responsible for introducing NPCs, places, scenes, etc. And nothing precludes him of introducing Bears, Dragons, Shapeshifters, etc. The question is: why would a sensible group of people accept to play with such a incoherent and nonsensical GM ? (the answer for this question should be applyable to any game ).

EDIT: Also, Apocalypse World is more player-driven because it instructs that the Fronts and Threats that the GM throws at the players be created as an extension from the player characters own´ color and interests. Compare this to the more traditional "GM pulls a story from his ass for the players to follow through" and you will understand my point.

Or, in a more concrete comparison, compare the procedure for adventure creation in Apocalypse World with the one in Shadowrun 5 and will get what I mean.

[John Magnum]

Conversely, of course, "Play with a group of awesome people and an awesome MC who always makes the right spot changes to the rules and produces interesting, narratively appropriate results" will let any system work, including the utter absence of a system and including utterly terrible systems.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, they do, Kaelik - the rules in any rpg splicitly state the GM is responsible for introducing NPCs, places, scenes, etc. And nothing precludes him of introducing Bears, Dragons, Shapeshifters, etc.

Let's see if you can spot the difference:

1) You should make up a bad guy, and then the players should use their abilities to defeat the bad guy.

2) You should make up a bad guy and then every single time the players use an ability you should fucking make them fail in at least some respect, and if you have to invent a totally new bad guy then do that.

Can you see the difference between those two?

Can you see the difference between mandating approximately 4 CR X encounters a day and explicitly recommending that Dragons break through the ceiling and fuck the party on a success?

I mean, you really want this "dick GM" thing to apply, but it fucking doesn't. Dick GMs in D&D and Shadowrun are doing something themselves that is recommended against. Dick GMs in *World are doing something that the game explicitly told them to fucking do.

[silva]

Conversely, of course, "Play with a group of awesome people and an awesome MC who always makes the right spot changes to the rules and produces interesting, narratively appropriate results" will let any system work, including the utter absence of a system and including utterly terrible systems.

Yup, which was the say of the very creator of the hobby in the first place.

[John Magnum]

But Kaelik! Logic! Causality! Fronts! Threats! Don't you understand the power of those terms?

[Whipstitch]

Christ.

Okay, try this out:

Imagine two groups are playing with MCs who lack agendas and take things about as literally as your average 1950s comic book robot. Now, imagine both groups have struck out on a whim and are investigating identical empty buildings. Robot 1's group is playing D&D and casts True Seeing and since that is not a summoning spell they move the fuck on because it turns out there is still nothing there by any interpretation of the rules.

Now, Robot 2's players are also a paranoid lot and want to Read the Sitch and roll poorly. At this point, Robo MC2's head explodes because the rules tell him not to take a steaming dump on his players but the dice outputs say that the game is boring now and he totes need to move things forward by turning the players' questions back on them and spewing forth pretentious bullshit apocalyptica.

Now, mind you, people don't play with robots, so in group 2, nobody's head actually explodes. However, it is highly likely that group 2's MC will channel his inner Mr. Conductor and take everyone to meet Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends.