Dungeon World is terrible and Sage LaTorra is charlatan

[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.

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.

Kaelik, please respond this answer the more frankly as possible:

--> If the game was supposed to be played in this nonsensical and crappy way you´re advocating... do you really think it would have make the huge sucess it has, to the point of spawning dozens of hacks to dozens different different genres, from monster hunting to dungeon cralws to cthulhu horror to world war 2 squads to Icelanders sagas ?

Do you think so ? Could you underestimate your fellow hobby colleagues so much like that ? Because, really, Ive seen a lot of valid criticism for these games, but the one you guys are advocating here dont make any sense. WHO in all his sanity would like to play a game where nonsensical things as you´re putting here could happen anytime anywhere without any logic or reason ? WHO ? Who would want to play like this ?

--> None of the Apocalypse World games Ive had with my group resemble any of the nonsensical things you´re advocating, none of the online games Ive follow resemble what you´re saying, and I bet none of Orion´s and Chamomile´s games resemble it either. And all we did was to follow the books advice and rules as written, and use our sense as we use it in any other game. So, if you´re reading of the rules is right, then NOBODY IN THE WORLD is playing the game correctly, right ? Not even its authors or hacks authors.

Dont you think this is strange ? Please, answer honestly.

[Whipstitch]

AW isn't actually all that popular and producing shovelware hacks of the system is super easy.

[virgil]

Isn't that the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy? All of your counterpoints to the flaws of AW apply equally to every other system; if the only thing that makes AW any fun is the group, why are we using AW? You have given no objective advantage to using AW over much better MTP systems like Munchhausen.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, please respond this answer the more frankly as possible:

So: 1) You won't answer my question, but you will ask one of me.

2) This Sentence Words Confusion things order matching missing.

nonsensical and crappy way you´re advocating...

Please try to understand, even though in fact you are trying as hard as possible to refuse to understand, this way I am describing is not nonsensical and crappy. It is just crappy. It is perfectly sensical, it is just also crappy.

do you really think it would have make the huge sucess it has, to the point of spawning dozens of hacks to dozens different different genres, from monster hunting to dungeon cralws to cthulhu horror to world war 2 squads to Icelanders sagas ?

1) As far as I can tell, it is about 1/30th as popular as D&D 4e, which is a pile of shit colored shit.

2) So yes, I think that even though it is shit, it would still be as popular as it is.

3) 48% of the country votes Republican, there is no fucking accounting for the tremendous breadth of stupidity that exists in this world.

a game where nonsensical things as you´re putting here could happen anytime anywhere without any logic or reason ? WHO ? Who would want to play like this ?

No you fucking idiot. Again. It makes perfect sense for the bad guy to have a secret trump card that you could never have found out about the whole time who stops you from winning and fucking kills you all. It's just a crappy game.

--> None of the Apocalypse World games Ive had with my group resemble any of the nonsensical things you´re advocating, none of the online games Ive follow resemble what you´re saying, and I bet none of Orion´s and Chamomile´s games resemble it either.

Yes they do, you are just too dumb to see it. Link me to one of these online games and I will show you several fucking instances, because to the extent that *World has a core mechanic, that mechanic is to fuck the players on a success.

[silva]

You have given no objective advantage to using AW over much better MTP systems like Munchhausen.

I see them as entirely different beasts - one is a game about story telling which rewards improvisation over everything. Other is primarily a trad rpg where you assume an alter-ego and immerse/explore/interact with an alternative reality, only with lighter and looser mechanics than what is traditionally used in the genre. I would gladly play both. As I would gladly play Soccer one day, and Basketball in the other. (both use balls, but both are distinctivelly different to me).

EDIT: forgot to adress this:

if the only thing that makes AW any fun is the group, why are we using AW?

What ? I never said that! AW system makes all the difference in the world for me. As I said before - it promotes player-driven gameplay through clear gameplay procedures (First Session brainstorm, Fronts, etc), its simple enough to allow me to create a char in 5 minutes and make rolls only when it really matters, its resolution, moves structure and fact that only players roll dice promotes a tangible focus on player choice and empowerement that few games did for me, the fact that its rolls always keep the game moving regardless or failure or success (mostly due to the "sucess at a cost" feat) . Also, the intra-party conflict promoting mechanics (Hx, Sex moves) and the color-first approach which tends to make players think and reason in fiction/color terms instead of math/number-crunching terms..

All these are great stuff for me, that make a HUGE difference in my apreciation for the game.

[Atmo]

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

Yup, this.

I wanted to talk something, but this line exposed my thoughts.

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.

DM/GM can use the rules as a guide, not a DNA strand.

And Dragon World Hack is a nice hack, but i didn't had the time/will to play it.

[Username17]

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

If I didn't play with assholes, I couldn't play Apocalypse World.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Frank, I think it was wrong of you not to include aloe.jpg with that statement.

[silva]

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

If I didn't play with assholes, I couldn't play Apocalypse World.

-Username17

Youre in the Den - Assholes are the only thing you have around you.

[Mask_De_H]

Okay, okay okay.

Silva's stuck on stupid, but the message is clear: AW provides sensical results that are completely disempowering to player agency because the output for success, failure and anything in between is up to the MC's whims. Lumpley's own examples provide negative outcomes for success (the Brainer Read a Sitch) and partial success (kill a kid or get caught in Act Under Fire). Failure is ill-defined and completely dependent on the MC's whims (make a move). The Apocalyptica system is desgned for players to fuck up and cause problems because ~storygaming~.

Some people like that. A lot of people latch on to the MTP aspects because the systems they come from have no flexibility and they need to be led to water. The system is piss-easy to hack, so hacks proliferate.

[silva]

Yeah, at this point we´re running in circles, and I think the only reasonable thing to do is for us to agree to disagree. There this group who likes the game, and this other group who dont like it. And thats it.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, at this point we´re running in circles, and I think the only reasonable thing to do is for us to agree to disagree. There this group who likes the game, and this other group who dont like it. And thats it.

The reasonable thing to do is recognize that *World is terrible game design and that people who like it are stupid fucking idiots.

I'm not going to agree to disagree with Republicans during a politics discussion, why would I agree to disagree with you about gaming design?

[silva]

The fact that you dont like the game only tells about your preferences regarding it, and nothing else.

How old are you? Twelve ?

[Username17]

The fact that you dont like the game only tells about your preferences regarding it, and nothing else.

No. We have actually stated the whys and the wherefores about why Apocalypse World is a shitty game made by a shitty person whose ideas are shit. This has been done already.

The fact that you keep being retarded and playing your 3 of clubs over and over again is fairly sad, but it doesn't mean that opinions are of equal weight. You coming up with variations of "but it's supposed to make sense!" and "but you're not supposed to be a fuck head while playing this game!" over and over again doesn't make you witty or correct. It means you have no good arguments, because those arguments are actually fallacious. The first is non-sequitor and the second is Oberoni.

-Username17

[silva]

No. We have actually stated the whys and the wherefores about why Apocalypse World is a shitty game

Whys based on misreading of the actual text.

Other than that, please be welcome to answer my challenge on last page about the Sabotage move to see if you can produce Bears out of it (which wouldnt be produceable in any other game). Im still waiting.

[Mask_De_H]

Yeah, I recognize these faults, but still really like the *World games (because I am a masochist and have played enough MTP games to slip the doublespeak MC railroad). Silva, you are actively making the game look worse by failing to address any of the points the opposition makes. Given the attitudes towards the games here, that's impressive.

It sorta works as a Fiasco-esque MC directed improv session. It does not work as a game with recognizable player agency or even consistent outputs. Hell, it doesn't even have player side MC veto power. Every fucking rules-light system has that. Fucking Munchhausen has that, and it's essentially MCless. That is a huge problem if you don't trust your MC or even want to control when you get to affect the narrative. The system gives the illusion of choice and free-form play when it's all down to the MC at the end of the day.

Again: some people are cool with that. The Den, sans Orion, silva and myself are not. If you want to convince people silva, you have to make an actual point that can't be made about basic social contracts in general.

e: Disregarding Kaelik pointing out how Sabotage can end in your death or bad stuff on a 10+ last page, "leave a trace of someone else" is not actually in your hands. You can get your MC to let you pick who takes the fall, but it's just as likely they'll see this as a golden opportunity for fuckery. They set up a ganger, trip a related front, and Smokey's at your fucking doorstep either asking for help or starting shit. Not picking "it costs you nothing" is obvious, but it could cost somebody else who doesn't like you something. If you pair it with "someone is hurt", the MC can lay harm on another player or an important NPC in the crosshairs. Startled a bear, someone in crosshairs is taken out in your stead.

I've had people argue that even on a success, the MC should make a move anyway because being fair about it took away from the MC moves' power.

[silva]

I suspect you´re getting it wrong, Mask. Its not me making points about social contracts - its Frank´s argument that is related to social contracts instead to the game system. Here, I will repeat where we stopped in the discussion:

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

See ? So, the time Frank and cia present an argument that related to the Apocalypse World system, I will adress and discuss it, because what he keeps criticizing is a trait of every other roleplaying game in existence. (and my Sabotage example in last pages just proves it - nobody managed to produce Bears out of it, no more than could be actually made in any other game).

EDIT:

saw this only now..

AW provides sensical results that are completely disempowering to player agency because the output for success, failure and anything in between is up to the MC's whims. Lumpley's own examples provide negative outcomes for success (the Brainer Read a Sitch) and partial success (kill a kid or get caught in Act Under Fire). Failure is ill-defined and completely dependent on the MC's whims (make a move)

Care to describe or point me to the page on the book where those examples are ?

[Mask_De_H]

Goddammit silva, the difference between bears in *World and bears in other systems is there is no defined "not Bears" output in *World. The system runs on bears, which is shorthand for "whatever the MC comes up with that would add danger to the proceedings." In other systems, either opposed rolls or failed checks would create this danger. In *World, it is entirely decided by the MC and the player can't call bullshit. The basic moves are intentionally vague to allow for broad strokes of fiction, because the fiction can be fucking anything!

"A bear appears. What do you do?" can be the response to anything in the game as long as it makes sense in the MC's head. There is nothing that stops that outside of not being a dick. That's what rules are for in games, to prevent this kind of thing. It is also the selling point of the system in the way you present it.


W EDIT: They were pointed out to you the last time we had this discussion you daft son of a bitch.

[silva]

Mask, when you say "Bears" you make it sound like you could add any nonsensical/incoherent/illogical element to the fiction at hand, something the book explicitly states that you cannot do. So, in this connotation, no, Bears cant appear as per written rules. Now, if by "Bears" you mean the GM can come up with any plausible/coherent/fiction-causal element from his ass, than I agree with it.

See, this is true:

The basic moves are intentionally vague to allow for broad strokes of fiction

But this is not:

..because the fiction can be fucking anything!

There is a difference between "moves intentionally vague" and "fiction can be anything!". See my first paragraph above.

[silva]

Ok, found the damn thing..

Keeler the Gunlugger taken off her shoes and shes sneaking into Dremmer camp, armed to the teeth. If they hear her, she is fucked (on a 7-9 maybe I give her an ugly choice between alerting the camp or murdering an innocent teenage sentry). She hits the roll with an 8, so the ugly choice it is.

So here he uses the Act Under Fire move:

When you do something under fire, roll+cool. On a 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.

So whats the problem with this one ? The player was attempting to enter the camp unnoticed, he rolled a "sucess at a cost" and the GM gave it to him (sucess at entering the camp at the cost of murdering a teenage sentry).

Bran doesnt like the way things are going, so he takes a quick look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so lest see: Tum Tum isnt the biggest threat, his psychically-linked cultist bodyguards are.

And here the player succeeds at a Read a Sitch move:

When you read a charged situation, roll+sharp. On a hit, you 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?

And the GM gave him info about the biggest threat, which in this case means Tum Tum cultist psychic-bodyguards (which was previously established in the first session sheet, under the Cult of Water Chip or something). Again, whats the problem here ?

[John Magnum]

So whats the problem with this one ? The player was attempting to enter the camp unnoticed, he rolled a "sucess at a cost" and the GM gave it to him (sucess at entering the camp at the cost of murdering a teenage sentry).

No, he fucking didn't, because he didn't enter the camp unnoticed. The teenage sentry notices him. "Someone noticed me, but I killed him" is not "Nobody noticed me".

[silva]

But he didnt achieved a full sucess, only one at a cost - the cost being to kill a teenager in the process. And with the boy out of the way, he actually got into the camp unnoticed (the remaining of Dremmer gang didnt know he was there). Got it ?

[Kaelik]

But he didnt achieved a full sucess, only one at a cost - the cost being to kill a teenager in the process. And with the boy out of the way, he actually got into the camp unnoticed (the remaining of Dremmer gang didnt know he was there). Got it ?

And then he saw the plans for the battle the next day that he want to find, and then they found a corpse and changed their plans and his scouting the enemy camp gave wrong information, so he failed.

[silva]

..which is a perfectly valid outcome.

[erik]

..which is a perfectly valid outcome.

Which is a completely railroaded system. Anything can be a perfectly valid outcome, which means whatever the MC chooses can be a perfectly valid outcome, which means whatever the MC chooses goes.

100% Mother May I.