Mechanics are more than just functions

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

RobbyPants wrote:It's supposed to, but there are two contentious examples in the rules of the game showing them working different than that. One example is the result of a success roll where the party discovers an unwinnable fight. The other is the result of a success, but roll, where the person explicitly fails at their task (they are sneaking, but they are discovered and offered a choice to kill the kid who finds them. Note that being detected is a nominal failure when attempting to not be detected).

Ergo, you can get a soft or hard success, and (by the examples in the book) have the GM flat-out make you fail.
It's not just those two examples, though those are the most explicit. As name_here mentioned, there are a bunch of rolls where getting a middling good roll or a very good roll just allows you to make a couple of declarations off a list about what the results are. However, more than one of the declarations on the list are some variant on "there is a way in which you don't fail" or even "there's a way in which your circumstances didn't get objectively worse" with the strong implication therefore that not choosing those options implies that the MC makes you fail in those ways and/or makes your situation objectively worse in some way. And no implication at all that the MC doesn't make you fail and/or make your situation worse in some other way than the ones listed.

And it's not like this is just bad example or two in the original apocalypse World book. All the *World books are like that. In Dungeon World, for example, the equivalent of a gather information check is called Carousing. And if you make a supposedly unmitigated success on that roll, you get to make three declarations off the list about what happens. And one of those declarations is "You don't end up cursed or enslaved." Seriously. What the fuck? Every time you go bar hopping, you have to waste one of your "success" points on not waking up on a slow ship to Maztica, but even if you do that there's nothing at all to stop the MC from introducing any other kind of bullshit that is just as bad. And that's success.

But of course, even failing utterly on the roll doesn't carry any specific edicts for the MC. If you don't get enough success points to demand that you don't get enslaved before the end of your night out, the MC is under no obligation to make that happen. He can of course, but if he wants to hand out important information and not have you Shanghaied, he can just do that.

So even on the passages where there aren't explicit examples of rolling success and ending up with total failure or vice versa, it's basically how everything in the whole game works all the time. Which is why I say that it is not a game.

-Username17
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5202
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

So, basically, it's a three step process where the player declares an action, rolls some dice, and the GM does pretty much whatever he wants. The only difference between good and bad rolls is how hard the GM has to flavor his result and whether or not he has to put on a trollface mask before fucking them all over.

"Oh, you rolled a failure? This will be easy then." *puts trollface mask back under the table.*
User avatar
wotmaniac
Knight-Baron
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:40 am
Location: my house

Post by wotmaniac »

I could have sworn that I got set straight on this earlier this year.
And yes, silva did post in that one. Hmmm.

Just sayin'.
Last edited by wotmaniac on Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban

"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"

TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.

Public Service Announcement
Cyberzombie
Knight-Baron
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:12 am

Post by Cyberzombie »

FrankTrollman wrote: And it's not like this is just bad example or two in the original apocalypse World book. All the *World books are like that. In Dungeon World, for example, the equivalent of a gather information check is called Carousing. And if you make a supposedly unmitigated success on that roll, you get to make three declarations off the list about what happens. And one of those declarations is "You don't end up cursed or enslaved." Seriously. What the fuck? Every time you go bar hopping, you have to waste one of your "success" points on not waking up on a slow ship to Maztica, but even if you do that there's nothing at all to stop the MC from introducing any other kind of bullshit that is just as bad. And that's success.
Okay, consider me sold. That is terrible.

The idea of partial success with complications I'm okay with, but getting fucked even on a total success is bullshit. And getting enslaved from a failed gather information check is ridiculous on anything short of a critical failure.
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

Ok, we got it. You dont like Apocalypse World. Dont need to remind it in every thread.

Move on.
Last edited by silva on Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 15054
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

silva wrote:Ok, we got it. You dont like Apocalypse World. Dont need to remind it in every thread.

Move on.
Ok, we get it. You fellate Apocalypse World> Don't need to make another goddam thread to do it in.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

Yup, I got it. You have a need to talk out of your ass always thats possible.

Move on.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 15054
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

silva wrote:Yup, I got it. You have a need to talk out of your ass always thats possible.

Move on.
I'm pretty sure Google Translate would have done a better job not screwing up that attempted insult than you did.
Unrestricted Diplomat 5314 wrote:Accept this truth, as the wisdom of the Crafted: when the oppressors and abusers have won, when the boot of the callous has already trampled you flat, you should always, always take your swing."
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

Why dont you google-translate this ?

Vai se foder, seu pedaco de merda. :razz:
Last edited by silva on Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

silva wrote:Ok, we got it. You dont like Apocalypse World. Dont need to remind it in every thread.

Move on.
If you'll stop telling him (and others) how much you like Apocalypse World, he (and others) will stop telling you why they think it sucks. As long as you keep repeating your opinion, they are perfectly within their rights to repeat theirs.

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

Then please cite where in this thread I told about my like (or dislike) for Apocalypse World.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

silva wrote:Then please cite where in this thread I told about my like (or dislike) for Apocalypse World.
What will that prove?

When did I say it happened in this thread?

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

If Im (supposedly) talking about it in some other thread instead of this one, then its only reasonable that they answer to me in the appropriate thread, dont you think ?

But whats really funny is how a person particular taste about something can be so offensively butthurting for someone else.

Go figure.
Last edited by silva on Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by fbmf »

silva wrote:Why dont you google-translate this ?

Vai se foder, seu pedaco de merda. :razz:
You mean this kind of butthurt?

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
silva
Duke
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:11 am

Post by silva »

No, I meant the ones which sparked the fire - the one you quoted was just a reaction.
Last edited by silva on Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Re: Mechanics are more than just functions

Post by OgreBattle »

silva wrote: Thoughts ?
When 4e came out, the way that spells that were once "target makes a save" was now resolved as "attack vs defense" contributed to the feeling of samey-ness across classes. You also had tons of complaints about why dailies for a 'mundane' guy was 'unrealistic', because there was a correlation between mechanics and thematics from years of D&D always doing things a certain way that 4e discarded.

But it's also important that your thematic mechanics are still functional mechanics, that shouldn't be forgotten.

Many moons ago I wrote about how 4e could change up its mechanical presentation of using powers for stronger themes:
Fighter- first roll to attack, then when you hit choose what power to use. This keeps the 'simple fighter' mentality of "I hit it with my sword", with the powers only coming into play if you actually land a blow.

Wizard- Choose your power, then roll to attack. Because the fighter chooses AFTER his attack roll, wizards are attacking in a different method where they have to choose what to use before firing.

Barbarian- Enter a rage 'stance', your attack power is based on your rage stance. Because your attacks derive from your rage it has that feeling of "I'm going berserk and cannot do anything but kill stuff"

Rogue- Move action powers that modify your attack action, thematically its the rogue sneaking about and moving into position that makes him special.

Monk- Choose your power, then roll to attack. Thematically more like a Wizard, which fits the theme of mysticism

Sorcerer- roll to attack, then when you hit choose what power to use. Feels more spontaneous compared to the wizard.

Druid- Enter a 'stance', powers based on stance. Shapeshifting is a stance, attuning yourself with the spirits of earth to make walls of earth is a stance. This gives the feeling that nature has an 'order' to it that the druid follows. He can't shape it as freely as a wizard.
There's also mechanics like the assassin spending X turns to look at a guy before he super stabs him, and so on. This kind of variety in a game is good. But it also has to be mechanically sound.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
wotmaniac
Knight-Baron
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:40 am
Location: my house

Post by wotmaniac »

silva wrote:Then please cite where in this thread I told about my like (or dislike) for Apocalypse World.
It's all part of a common theme. You keep trying to force this Forge b.s. on us; but we've (mostly) all already figured out that we don't like that shit .... that's why nobody here shed one goddamned tear when the Forge shut down.
Different sites have different "things" .... and Forge-type shit isn't a "thing" here.

And just to refine the point a step further: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-zWDaoCtI
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban

"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"

TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.

Public Service Announcement
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Same as what everyone's saying. Rolling a save vs <condition> feels different to when the attacker rolls to give you <condition>. Rolling different dice for things does make them feel even more different. Flavour text also matters. But the odds need to work no matter how the rest of it is structured, because they are still functions with desired outcome sets.

And some dice systems, no matter how good they might feel to roll, are absolutely terrible at producing usefully variable odds. Still others are just plain bad in all ways, like 4e skill challenges.

So yes, make sure your dice work to connect you to your character's actions, rather than driving in a wedge of dissociation, but only so far as they're still highly functional.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
...You Lost Me
Duke
Posts: 1854
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am

Post by ...You Lost Me »

silva, you started a post on something very obvious and not interesting, so we started talking about different things that were interesting and one of those things is why *World is bad.

It also doesn't help that this very empty topic is following on the tail-end of two separate discussions where you attempted to justify *World so it's all fresh in people's minds.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
User avatar
Plague of Hats
NPC
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:50 am

Post by Plague of Hats »

Cyberzombie wrote:Okay, consider me sold. That is terrible.

The idea of partial success with complications I'm okay with, but getting fucked even on a total success is bullshit. And getting enslaved from a failed gather information check is ridiculous on anything short of a critical failure.
Well, here's the Carouse move:
When you return triumphant and throw a big party, spend 100 coins and roll +1 for every extra 100 coins spent. &#10036;On a 10+, choose 3. &#10036;On a 7–9, choose 1. &#10036;On a miss, you still choose one, but things get really out of hand (the GM will say how).
• You befriend a useful NPC.
• You hear rumors of an opportunity.
• You gain useful information.
• You are not entangled, ensorcelled, or tricked.
You can only carouse when you return triumphant. That’s what draws the crowd of revelers to surround adventurers as they celebrate their latest haul. If you don’t proclaim your success or your failure, then who would want to party with you anyway?
It's a special move that affords the player some control over the setup for the next adventure. It doesn't fulfill the role of your typical Gather Information check.
what I am interested in is far more complex and nuanced than something you can define in so few words.

&#3232;__&#3232;
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by PhoneLobster »

...You Lost Me wrote:It also doesn't help that this very empty topic is following on the tail-end of two separate discussions where you attempted to justify *World so it's all fresh in people's minds.
It's worse than that. In those separate discussions his whole damn thing was to repeatedly try on the head underpants of "Sure my fetish game is broken, but everything is and people like it so it's good or even better AM I RITE?".

He started THIS thread with "hypothetically things are broken, but people like things, so... something... might be good or even better AM I RITE?"

It's him rehashing his same damn argument and trying to file the serial numbers off it.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
User avatar
hogarth
Prince
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
Location: Toronto

Post by hogarth »

silva wrote:Ok, we got it. You dont like Apocalypse World. Dont need to remind it in every thread.

Move on.
I have to admit I'm disappointed that we're not actually talking about the premise in the original post, which I thought was a semi-interesting point.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5202
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

...You Lost Me wrote:silva, you started a post on something very obvious and not interesting, so we started talking about different things that were interesting and one of those things is why *World is bad.

It also doesn't help that this very empty topic is following on the tail-end of two separate discussions where you attempted to justify *World so it's all fresh in people's minds.
Yes, basically this.

Every time I see a new Silva thread, as I'm reading the title, I'm automatically thinking "how does this tie into rule-lite/*-world games being better than other games"? It seems each one of these threads is just a different attempt to try to break through the defenses and win the original lost argument from several months ago.
Mask_De_H
Duke
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

Post by Mask_De_H »

Plague of Hats wrote: Well, here's the Carouse move:

It's a special move that affords the player some control over the setup for the next adventure. It doesn't fulfill the role of your typical Gather Information check.
It seems like one and it reads like one. I personally know you're supposed to Discern for the classic Gather check now, but that is not obvious within the rules.

And the point stands that gettng ensorceled on a success instead of as a result of things getting crazy is deeply uncomfortable.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

So, You fail on anything except a 10+
Because, on a 7-9 your options are choose 1.

So I either choose to not be ensorcelled, charmed, etc, OR I choose to get useful information, in which case I am ensorcelled somehow. Which means that the useful information I got might be bogus, or that I'm now Dracula's Renfield. WTF.
Post Reply