Dungeon World is terrible and Sage LaTorra is charlatan

[ishy]

Yeah see the thing is, your die roll doesn't matter. So people who don't realise that yet, try to twist the wording into something they can somehow feel good about.
So yeah some people really believe that murdering the entire camp after being spotted is a success for sneaking in undetected.

[sabs]

Holy fuck, Silva is one of those asshat "Think of the Story man.." WoD players . It's a all about the story man.. you just don't get it cause you're a rollplayer.

I thought those guys died along with WoD when Y2k happened.

[Omegonthesane]

Yeah see the thing is, your die roll doesn't matter. So people who don't realise that yet, try to twist the wording into something they can somehow feel good about.
So yeah some people really believe that murdering the entire camp after being spotted is a success for sneaking in undetected.

One of the times this came up, I recounted the tale of a LARP where someone literally won the stealth competition by murdering all the sentries.

[Kaelik]

But wait, there's more! An example explicitly demonstrating that "you are spotted by someone who matters" is not a valid result on a 7-9 roll:

He hits the roll with a 9, so I get to offer him a worse outcome, a
hard bargain, or an ugly choice. “Yeah,” I say. “So you’re holding
still and you can’t really keep them in your sight. They, um, they
spot you, but you don’t realize it.” I think about this for a second.
It doesn’t seem quite right, and Wilson’s player is looking at me
like I might be cheating. “Actually wait wait. You hit the roll, you
didn’t miss it.” “I was gonna say,” Wilson’s player says. “So no,” I
say. “Instead, they haven’t spotted you, but they’re getting closer
and closer. They’ll be on top of you in just a minute but if you do
something right this second you’ll have the drop on them. What
do you do?”

Wow, you mean when I get a success at a cost at hiding from two specific guys who I want to hide from, the cost is failing to hide from them?

Thanks for proving the point. That is another example of the DM fucking people just to fuck people. You know why he fucked them?

Because the fucking rules of the game told him to. The success at a cost mechanic required him to come up with a cost, and while he could maybe have come up with a real cost, like "You are sitting in an ant nest and it hurts and you are going to have scars" he had to, off the top of his head in 6 seconds, come up with a cost. And he has to come up with those costs hundreds of times a night. And so sometimes, he is going to come up with costs that result in failure.

[silva]

I dont have anything to add to Chamomile and Omegon posts. But I think this question here is worth answering..

Find a quote that even hints that the bear attacks are generated at any point before the players make those rolls and we can start having a conversation again. Until then, no.

Page 133 - the First Session brainstorm diagram shows that Tum Tum is already established as a member of the "Water Cult" which is composed of drug addicted cultists that follow some Hocus leader (which - voilá! - has the power to make his followers a big psychically linked antenna). And, as the Read a Sitch example comes only in page 200, its perfectly plausible to have Tum Tum having a couple psychically-linked cultist bodyguards. In other words: the MC didnt produce anything out of thin air, he just elaborated on something already created beforehand.

--> Frank: do you admit defeat now ?

[silva]

...Because the fucking rules of the game told him to. The success at a cost mechanic required him to come up with a cost, and while he could maybe have come up with a real cost, like "You are sitting in an ant nest and it hurts and you are going to have scars" he had to, off the top of his head in 6 seconds, come up with a cost. And he has to come up with those costs hundreds of times a night. And so sometimes, he is going to come up with costs that result in failure.

Yes, THIS is a valid criticism. I agree. It may be difficult for the MC to come up with interesting and coherent outcomes/choices for all situations that show up all night. But then, it can be said of any other game where the GM is not railroading the players ass out from start to finish and must react/improvise on the spot(s).

But I agree with the overall sentiment that the system looseness requires more work from the GM in this aspect.

[Username17]

One of the times this came up, I recounted the tale of a LARP where someone literally won the stealth competition by murdering all the sentries.

That is a totally valid out-of-the-box strategy if your goal is "prevent the alarm from being raised". However, the goal in the example is "sneak in without being detected."

The character's goal was to not be detected. She rolled up "success with a cost or tough choice", and the MC decided that the cost/tough choice was... being detected. This is very clear cut and totally unacceptable bullshit. I really cannot fathom why or how there are still people defending this shit.

-Username17

[silva]

The character's goal was to not be detected. She rolled up "success with a cost or tough choice", and the MC decided that the cost/tough choice was... killing a teenager in the process

Corrected it for you.

[virgil]

The whole "has to be logically causal" counter to bears is really annoying to see. It doesn't even take a good writer to mad-lib bears into a scene. Adding a gang of cultists that surround the building is one thing for the plot, it's another when they're added because you successfully rolled Spot, the two of which are nowhere near equivalent.

[Kaelik]

Yes, THIS is a valid criticism. I agree. It may be difficult for the MC to come up with interesting and coherent outcomes/choices for all situations that show up all night. But then, it can be said of any other game where the GM is not railroading the players ass out from start to finish and must react/improvise on the spot(s).

No, that can't be said of any other game. When you are playing an actual game, and the players roll dice, those dice determine the outcome without any fucking input from the MC. When you are listening to the story of the *World MC, when you roll dice, the MC is required to come up with a way to screw you no matter what the result, so there is always the possibility they will screw you even harder than they were supposed to.

That is what separates games from a World hack. And that is why criticisms of the system of screwing players resulting in ultra screws is not a criticism that can be attributed to other games.

[name_here]

The character's goal was to not be detected. She rolled up "success with a cost or tough choice", and the MC decided that the cost/tough choice was... killing a teenager in the process

Corrected it for you.

It is the consensus of people who make video games (where these things are enforced uniformly and consistently) that being spotted by a guard and murdering them before they raise the alarm does not count as sneaking in undetected.

[John Magnum]

It's also really obviously the case just by natural language. If someone detects you, and then you murder them, the answer to "Were you undetected?" is no.

[Mask_De_H]

Okay, the kid killing example is fucking dumb because whether or not the kid is relevant is bullshit semantics.

However, Cham's most recent example proves the opposite point. Lumpley backs down from "you're caught" to "you'll be caught soon" because Wilson called him out. There are going to be situations where the MC will come up with successes that feel like failures and failures that feel like successes because the game's progression is wholly extemporaneous on the MC's side.  The rolls provide prompts to help the MC and to give the players a hand in building the shared story.

That is what the PBtA games bring to the table: a robust set of prompts for the MC to make a story with, where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative.

E: Seriously, shut the fuck up about Tactical Kidkilling Action.

[Omegonthesane]

The character's goal was to not be detected. She rolled up "success with a cost or tough choice", and the MC decided that the cost/tough choice was... killing a teenager in the process

Corrected it for you.

It is the consensus of people who make video games (where these things are enforced uniformly and consistently) that being spotted by a guard and murdering them before they raise the alarm does not count as sneaking in undetected.

The way I remember it if I'm playing Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines, and the Nazi dude shouts "HALT!", and I murder him before he shouts "ALARM! ALARM", I still count as undetected unless they find the body.

[Kaelik]

That is what the PBtA games bring to the table: a robust set of prompts for the MC to make a story with, where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative.

He changed the prompt from "You failed." to "You failed." Color me unimfuckingpressed.

[name_here]

In Deus Ex: HR, when that happens you lose the "undetected" bonus but are still in the running for "no alarms", and the other guards don't react unless they find the body.

[Mask_De_H]

That is what the PBtA games bring to the table: a robust set of prompts for the MC to make a story with, where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative.

He changed the prompt from "You failed." to "You failed." Color me unimfuckingpressed.

It's a good thing I'm not trying to impress you, cockmongler.

I'm just stating what the system does.  I hold no illusions that the deck isn't stacked against the players and the misgivings, while extreme in places, are not valid.    

[Kaelik]

That is what the PBtA games bring to the table: a robust set of prompts for the MC to make a story with, where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative.

He changed the prompt from "You failed." to "You failed." Color me unimfuckingpressed.

It's a good thing I'm not trying to impress you, cockmongler.

I'm just stating what the system does.  I hold no illusions that the deck isn't stacked against the players and the misgivings, while extreme in places, are not valid.    

Okay, since you aren't out to impress me because you are a strong independent women who doesn't need no man, I will phrase that in other terms.

The players die roll that was supposed to be a success with cost provided the prompt to the MC of "succeed at hiding but..." The MC came up with "You fail at hiding" then the player, using his input from the dice and the rules called bullshit, and the result was changed to "You succeed at hiding for 3 seconds, then you fail."

So when you say "where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative" I call bullshit. The player obviously has the same or less narrative power than listening to the MC tell a story and jumping in with suggestions.

[silva]

Adding a gang of cultists that surround the building is one thing for the plot, it's another when they're added because you successfully rolled Spot, the two of which are nowhere near equivalent.

Again, please read page 193 - the cultists were already there. The Read a Sitch check cannot produce things out of thin air, it only forces the GM to say to the player what is the most vulnerable/strongest/etc enemy present, or which escape route is the best/worst/etc. And this sums up why Frank argument is innocuous - its based on a (purposeful) misreading of the rules.

If you dont believe me, go ahead and read the other dozens examples in the book. You will see how badly intentioned Frank is being in his particular interpretation of the book.

No, that can't be said of any other game. When you are playing an actual game, and the players roll dice, those dice determine the outcome without any fucking input from the MC

Yes, sure. But in a traditional task-resolution game the dice only resolve a tiny portion of the fiction ( say, the task of picking a lock, or the task of sneaking by a guard ) while the GM has total freedom for filling up the rest ("Ok, you pick the lock, but when you open it you notice there is a Bear on the other side. What do you do ?"). While in a conflict-resolution game like Apocalypse World the dice resolve a larger portion of the fiction that comprehend not only a specific task, but a whole intention and its outcome, so the Bears are subsumed into the roll ("You rolled an 8 for the intention of entering the complex.... Ok, you can enter the complex but at the cost of finding a Bear on the way.. what do you do ?").

In other words, the "Bears" argument is a fallacy, because it can appear in both styles of games. It depends more on the people playing it, than on the game itself. The irony is that, even if AW resolution is more open to interpretation, it conditionates the GM´s freedom to insert Bears to the players rolls, so if the player rolls a clean success the GM cannot insert Bears and must concede the player his intention. While on a traditional game, the rolls are much more closed in its outcomes, thus allowing the GM to follow-up on player successes with Bears whenever he wishes.

[Username17]

Again, please read page 193 - the cultists were already there.

No they weren't. They were already somewhere. Although even then, the prospect that there might be arbitrarily large numbers of them that you couldn't possibly fight your way through seems to have been a spur of the moment ass pull. But that's just like saying that the fact that there are dragons, or for that matter bears, in the world means that it isn't totally horse shit to have them burst through the wall like the Kool Aid Man the moment someone succeeds at a test.

-Username17

[Mask_De_H]

He changed the prompt from "You failed." to "You failed." Color me unimfuckingpressed.

It's a good thing I'm not trying to impress you, cockmongler.

I'm just stating what the system does.  I hold no illusions that the deck isn't stacked against the players and the misgivings, while extreme in places, are not valid.    

Okay, since you aren't out to impress me because you are a strong independent women who doesn't need no man, I will phrase that in other terms.

The players die roll that was supposed to be a success with cost provided the prompt to the MC of "succeed at hiding but..." The MC came up with "You fail at hiding" then the player, using his input from the dice and the rules called bullshit, and the result was changed to "You succeed at hiding for 3 seconds, then you fail."

So when you say "where the dice provide a mechanical outlet for the players to add input and shape narrative" I call bullshit. The player obviously has the same or less narrative power than listening to the MC tell a story and jumping in with suggestions.

Which is what I've been saying the game is you dense motherfucker. The declare and roll system is the player jumping in with suggestions to the narrative the MC is making. The results are prompts that the MC goes off of that the system provides. It's an illusion of choice except for certain moves (the Battlebabe's stunlock comes immediately to mind).

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm saying people are fine with that system.

Pay attention.

[silva]

Again, please read page 193 - the cultists were already there.

No they weren't. They were already somewhere.

..somewhere around the Cult temple, which is the place Tum Tum also happens to be (since he is a member of the cult too) - this is explicitly stated in the book.

Dont you think its logical that:

1. The player is interested in Tum Tum.

2. Tum Tum is a member of the Water Cult.

3. The Water Cult has bunch of cultist followers.

And all of this was already established before the player made the Read a Sitch roll.

What else do you want ???

[virgil]

Again, please read page 193 - the cultists were already there.

No they weren't. They were already somewhere.

..somewhere around the Cult temple, which is the place Tum Tum also happens to be (since he is a member of the cult too) - this is explicitly stated in the book.

Dont you think its logical that:

1. The player is interested in Tum Tum.

2. Tum Tum is a member of the Water Cult.

3. The Water Cult has bunch of cultist followers.

And all of this was already established before the player made the Read a Sitch roll.

What else do you want ???

What wasn't established was how many cultists were nearby, how aware of the party they were, and where in relation they were; none of which should be decided by a skill check unless they're also Schrodinger's Cultists.

[Mask_De_H]

Shut up about logic; since logic is the only thing keeping the game working and what's logical between the MC and the players has no real shared foundation to stand on, you're going to be arguing semantic bullshit at each other until you're blue in the face. And you've already lost, silva, because narrative logic is different from actual logic and can be argued to be fucking anything. Thus the bears.

Fuck.

[schpeelah]

Again, please read page 193 - the cultists were already there.

I'm calling you on your own bullshit where you yourself admitted it:

Page 133 - the First Session brainstorm diagram shows that Tum Tum is already established as a member of the "Water Cult" which is composed of drug addicted cultists that follow some Hocus leader (which - voilá! - has the power to make his followers a big psychically linked antenna). And, as the Read a Sitch example comes only in page 200, its perfectly plausible to have Tum Tum having a couple psychically-linked cultist bodyguards. In other words: the MC didnt produce anything out of thin air, he just elaborated on something already created beforehand.

--> Frank: do you admit defeat now ?

They weren't there, they could plausibly be there. The bears can always plausibly be there, that's the whole point.

Look dipshit, the only way the foreshadowing argument could work is if it wasn't just established that the goddamn temple has guards, but if it was already established that that the guy had the psychic guards linked to him but the players fucking forgot. That is the only way you could argue that the specific guards linked to Tum-Tum and closing in on the players did in fact already exist prior to the roll.