*World: GM- or Player-driven ? [Frank, DSMatticus stay out]

[silva]

Note that it says that the story is driven by the player characters, not by the player's. That's really important because in AW the MC actually controls what the PCs do.

Except the book explicitely states the contrary:

The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters. Always be scrupulous, even generous, with the truth. The players depend on you to give them real information they can really use, about their characters’ surroundings, about what’s happening
when and where. Same with the game’s rules: play with integrity.

Also, read above about the power of "moves": its the players who say what the GM will do through their moves, not the contrary.

Jane: "While in my sofa I daydream of a gang-bang with animal masked strangers and, as Im about to come, I see Julius by the window staring at me. I say to him: Come and join us. Then I wake up." GM: "WTF is that ? Are you opening your mind to the psychic maestron ?" Jane: "Sure. And rolling my Lost move with it. I I succeed, Julius must come to me someway". GM: "Ok, roll... nice thats a success. "You wake up from your allucinatory daydream with the noise of the door opening. Its Julius, right in front of you. What do you do now?"

See? Its the player who prompts the GM to modify the game-state according to his (the player) intentions. The GM has leeway on how he will do it, but it must follow through logically from the situation at hand otherwise he will be breaking the contract the game stipulates in its principles, and the group has the right to call bullshit on him. I would like for you to address this specific part if possible, Orion, as its the most glaring "anti- single author" feat the game has, since all players have moves at their disposable to do this any time they wish.

he Advanced fuckery chapter introduces "setup moves" which can be used to start the first session or to handle a time skip. One of them lists some NPC sand asks Which you're enslaved, which you've killed, and which you're in love with. (Yes, it's a compulsory game of fuck, marry, kill) They can also declare facts like, "You've been eating some seriously weird-ass stuff." "You're missing time, sometimes hours a day.", (!) and "You've been totally relying on Gams for fresh veg."

Yep, and there is a reason it found on a chapter of optoinal and advanced rules: its an optional resource to facilitate play setup if the default method is not possible or desirable - in fact, the author explicitely states it was created for a pre-created scenario called "Blind Blue and Hatchet City". I imagine this would speed up the kind of tight-schedule gaming seen on cons and meetings. Dont see a problem in them no more than I would see on the group choosing a very specific premise to play in. "Hey, why dont we play in a prison and everybody are in-mates and we must plot to escape before the time runs out when everybody will be decapitated?"

(by the way, there is a Unknown Armies scenario thats exactly like that, and it makes great success at Cons)

[RelentlessImp]

"Hey, why dont we play in a prison and everybody are in-mates and we must plot to escape before the time runs out when everybody will be decapitated?"

Given what's on display here, if you ran such a game I would expect it to involve prison rape.

[silva]

Now the question is do the mechanics of the game reflect what is in your spoiler section*?

*Even though half of the is shit that can be done in pretty much any game.

Complement is a better word, I think.

I find this quote from the other forum discussoin says it better than me:

1. Apocalypse World presents a certain written "contract" in the form of its moves. When this happens in the fiction -> we roll these dice, with these numbers meaning a good outcome -> we get a reliable result (as described in the move). A lot of Illusionist behaviour (but not all) is invalidated by this structure.

(In "traditional" Illusionist games, I've often seen GMs deny each of these steps: "No, you don't get to roll here." -> "Yeah, you can roll, but the penalty is so high that you can't succeed." -> "Ok, you got a success, but it turns out it's not good enough.")

2. The whole game is set up so that the leverage available to the characters/players starts out very high and just keeps increasing, so their impact on their milieu is (almost) inevitable.

I think point 1) above explains nicely how the game principles work, by creating a sort of "contract" that both GM and players must follow. The difference from a traditional RPG is that, in the latter, the way the GM is instructed to conduct the game is entirely optional, while in AW the author makes sure to say "if you dont run this way - that is following the principles Im layin out, youre not playing AW at all". This makes a big difference from a trad game, because if your AW GM starts to railroad or single-authorship everything, the players are allowed as per the game contract to call bullshit on the GM.

And point 2) explains perfectly how the moves impact - and direct - gameplay. They are the main "authorial inputs" that happen in the game.

So yeah, I think these two "levels" end up complementing each other.

[Whipstitch]

Except the book explicitely states the contrary:

I've explained this before. Apocalypse World says not to do X but then fails to provide alternatives because it's a poorly written failure that doesn't follow through on its mission statement. There's a vast difference between merely acknowledging a problem and actually fucking solving it.

[silva]

I give you that: the examples in the book are confusing as hell, and the author has difficulty explaining things.

Ironically, if you want to learn AW, reading Dungeon World or Monster of the Week, or any other hack is more helpful.

[Leress]

Complement is a better word, I think.

Actually no it wouldn't be a better word. That would be like saying that the word game complements the phrase RPG.

I think point 1) above explains nicely how the game principles work, by creating a sort of "contract" that both GM and players must follow. The difference from a traditional RPG is that, in the latter, the way the GM is instructed to conduct the game is entirely optional, while in AW the author makes sure to say "if you dont run this way - that is following the principles Im layin out, youre not playing AW at all". This makes a big difference from a trad game, because if your AW GM starts to railroad or single-authorship everything, the players are allowed as per the game contract to call bullshit on the GM.

And point 2) explains perfectly how the moves impact - and direct - gameplay. They are the main "authorial inputs" that happen in the game.

So yeah, I think these two "levels" end up complementing each other.

Wow silva, you didn't answer my question, like at all.

I give you that: the examples in the book are confusing as hell, and the author has difficulty explaining things.

So the author can't write worth a damn...great.

[Kaelik]

Except the book explicitely states the contrary:

Here Silva, this is a game, it only has three sentences:

1) It is always Silva's turn.
2) When it is your turn you must flip a coin, and if heads you get punched in the dick by GM, and if tails, you get punched in the face by GM.
3) This game is all about how Silva has control over the story.

Do you see how you actually have no control over the story despite the sentence that says you do? That is the entire point. If Baltimore police say they aren't racist, they don't magically become not racist.

1. Apocalypse World presents a certain written "contract" in the form of its moves. When this happens in the fiction -> we roll these dice, with these numbers meaning a good outcome -> we get a reliable result (as described in the move).

Here is the thing, that is completely fucking wrong.

In D&D, if I want to build a castle, as part of the game, I can cast Wall of Stone and make a wall of stone. I can do that as many times as I can according to the contract of the game, because the game explicitly tells us how those things work.

In *World, if I want to build a castle, I declare I am performing a "move" and that move is (well nothing, there is basically no move that actually makes sense for building a castle at all, but if hypothetically there was one):

1) Roll Dice.
2) No matter what dice say, GM just gets to decide whether or not castle is built, how long, and how effective it is.

[Zaranthan]

EDIT: I'm out.

[Stubbazubba]

Yeah, silva, the point is the game can say whatever it wants, and people on forums can say that a real AW MC would run it respecting certain limitations, but the Den is all about looking past such bull and looking at how the actual rules interact with each other and with the players (including the MC). So pointing to the descriptive parts of the book that simply conclude "This game is totally player-driven!" doesn't have any impact on whether or not it actually is. Most everything you're talking about is part of an RPG's social contract as-is. And it's good that AW has good social contract advice, but asking MCs to not be dicks really, really hard doesn't make the game player-driven. It might result in more player-driven tables, but the game itself, the rules of how the game actually works, is separate from the book's advice on how to play RPGs in general.

Edit: Oh, and yes, your distinction between GM- and player-driven "games" is merely the difference between railroading and not railroading. It's about GM behavior, and has nothing to do with actual mechanics, even if the rulebook tells the GM "don't railroad." Do you see how that's not a mechanic, it's just advice? Yes, it empowers players to stand up to railroading MCs by letting them play the "you're violating the rules" card, but it's not a mechanic. You could still take the system that is AW and change/ignore the advice and it would still be the same system, the same game, and it wouldn't be any less player-driven.

[erik]

t's good that AW has good social contract advice, but asking MCs to not be dicks really, really hard doesn't make the game player-driven. It might result in more player-driven tables, but the game itself, the rules of how the game actually works, is separate from the book's advice on how to play RPGs in general.

I don't think you even need to yield hypothetical ground that *world has positive social contract advice.

The social contract advice is literally take away stuff from players if you feel like it. Compound that with the rules table example of turn their success rolls into failures if you feel like it. It seems they go hand-in-hand. MC advice tells you to take a dump on player agency, and the rules advice shows you how to do it.

The MC advice and examples share blame as well for why I won't ever play *world.

[Scrivener]

There is no such thing as completely player or GM driven gameplay. Both do not exist in tabletop RPGs.

A completely GM driven game would be a final fantasy game. I'm sure there are a load of railroading shit fests out there but the second a player says "hey, my character ask townsfolk about rumors of my long lost brother" you are )at least slightly) off the rails.

A completely PC driven game is essentially second life. Nothing happens, and what does happen would make little sense, just like second life. If the GM has any preference (like snakes are cool to fight), any aversion (snakes are scary, I don't want to talk about them), any preconceived notion (I could have a villain who throws snakes at people), the game is not soley driven by PCs.

There is no rule anyone can point to that allows GMs to be blank slates capable of spewing random ideas. The fact that humans play the game means there will always be an element of GM driven story.

This is good though. Railroads tend to be boring and mix bags of random PC thoughts are disorganized, pointless and have little pay off.

[tussock]

The GM cant circumvent this like he can in a GM-driven game.

They don't have to circumvent anything. They can always riff on the player's input and also include a bear. Replace "bear" with "random new thing to interact with that could go badly" if you like. That's the rules. Not with literal bears, but it's figuratively accurate.

How completely unexpected that this thread degenerated into a quantum bears shouting match.

Lots of games can have quantum bears by the rules. In 3e D&D your character can literally have the power of quantum bears, via summoning and transformation magic, but those actions are defined and tightly limited. The thing with *World is there are no rules for what appears, it has to be spontaneous, so everything that ever happens is unlimited quantum bears.

---

Like, Silva, your "driven" things are ultimately the same. Either playing a game where the GM, the previous night, wrote down six dangerous things and made the PCs face them one-after-one in order after whatever the players last chose. Or, you're playing a game where the GM invented six dangerous things on the spot that the PCs were already facing and just had to deal with in order after whatever they last chose.

Those things are not different. You're facing a linear series of GM inventions placed with greater or lesser finesse. When the GM invented them doesn't matter. In *World all further results are the GM's inventions, in D&D the further results are emergent from the rules. Both respond to player input, one with an extra 500 pages of "exactly how that works, and at what odds".

---

The real-player-choice thing, the anti-quantum-bear position, is that there's a map with a bear on it and you can go around it and then don't have to deal with the bear, or at least if there's a bear set to turn up at camp in response to food smells or noise that if you don't make any then there's no bear. Even if there is literally bears at random, that they're on a table of forest animals and may not ever turn up if other things are rolled for, and if you don't go in the forest then that table isn't in play.

Really important NPCs tend to be quantum bears anyway, because they take so much time to invent and work up, so GMs want to show them off. But if the PCs gank them, then they're dead and that's that. That's real player driven stories. Getting an audience with the King and stabbing him, sitting on his throne, saying "Hail to the king, baby," and stabbing everyone who disagrees, because your numbers are big enough to do that and make it stick. Coup d'état.

[silva]

They don't have to circumvent anything. They can always riff on the player's input and also include a bear. Replace "bear" with "random new thing to interact with that could go badly" if you like. That's the rules. Not with literal bears, but it's figuratively accurate.

I agree here. The author even instructs him to do so if he finds it will "make characters lives interesting/not boring".

The thing with *World is there are no rules for what appears, it has to be spontaneous, so everything that ever happens is unlimited quantum bears.

Thats not really the case. Some moves call more on the GM improv abilities than others. And even those who call on it set clear boundaries for what must happen. Besides it, the game's "principles" are also a limiting factor. See, differently from you trad RPG, if your GM is not following the principles*, the players can and should call on him to correct itself.

* "Play to find what happens (instead of guiding the party in your pre-created story)", "Be a fan of the characters", and "Be honest", being the most important ones.

Like, Silva, your "driven" things are ultimately the same. Either playing a game where the GM, the previous night, wrote down six dangerous things and made the PCs face them one-after-one in order after whatever the players last chose. Or, you're playing a game where the GM invented six dangerous things on the spot that the PCs were already facing and just had to deal with in order after whatever they last chose.

Thats not how AW works. The GM dont create things alone, he is limited by the players intentions and moves (= rules) outcomes.

In *World all further results are the GM's inventions, in D&D the further results are emergent from the rules.

Nope. its a bit more complex than that.

See, for understanding what *World does differently from your trad game like, say, Shadowrun, one must divide rules emergency in two scales: I will call them "micro" and "macro" here.

On the Micro level, that is, the level where characters interact with world entities through direct physical actions (ie: combat, bargaining, romancing, etc) both games are "player-driven", because the results are "emergent from the rules", as you put it. Ie: a rogue trying to sway a guard from its post will call for a skill test in both games, and the ending result will be a product of this interaction between rules and player-intention. The GM will just be an referee here.

On a Macro level though, that is, the level where characters interact with world and campaign entities through management/planning/agendas/extended tasks/etc. Shadowrun will be "GM-driven" while AW will be "player-driven". The reason for this is twofold:

1) in Shadowrun the GM is supposed to come up with the world, the adventure, the NPCs, sometimes even the story, pre-created, while in AW the GM is given a blank canvas (the First Session sheet) that he will fill up based on the players inputs. Further, after the first session ends (and the FS sheet is filled), the GM must give form and substance to all entities and events the players came up with during the FS. He does this by assigning agendas, goals, relationships, etc to those, by itself and with the help of the players.

2) In AW, all characters have abilities that touch the "macro" level explained above. These abilities have a big leverage on the direction the campaign goes, making it extremely difficult for the GM to pre-plan everything in advance (since at any time a player can use one of those abilities and send all those GM plans to the trash bin). In Shadowrun, as a traditional game, characters dont have these kind of abilities - their abilities are limited to the "micro" level, thus the macro level stays firmly at the GMs hands.

I hope Ive been clear here language/english-wise. Im kind of on a hurry right now.

[MGuy]

silva you have clearly never played DnD.

[silva]

Yeah, seeing again it seems I came across as diminishing D&D somehow. Not my intention. I meant traditional rpgs ina genereal sense with their basic adventuring structure of "the old man at the tavern with a job [pre-planned story] for the players, etc. Im swapping D&D by Shadowrun, as this game fits better in that stereotype. Thanks for pointing out, McGuy.

[MGuy]

It's not that you came across as diminishing. You're just straight up wrong. Like seriously. The thing you describe as player driven can be done in any RPG as has been pointed out. Seriously take some time and think about it. It's not that your language is confusing anyone. People are explaining your point to you AND telling you that it can be done in any RPG. The fact that you don't think players can have an effect on the world/plot/politics/your mom is SERIOUSLY a matter of whether the GM let's them or not. Whether or not a game, or truly any game, allows for the players to do stuff about what's going on on either scale seriously is something that can happen in any ttrpg and I'm not really sure how you can keep up faking that you don't understand people are telling you that.

[deaddmwalking]

'Riffing' off of player ideas is something that anyone can do in any system, either more or less expertly. Generating interesting content on the fly is difficult and since most people don't have unlimited stores of creativity, become predictable rather quickly.

Preparation in advance (whether using a published setting or one created by the GM) helps narrow the scope of possibilities.

A duck pushing a hot-dog cart and speaking like Andy Warhol might show up in some campaigns, but if my gut tells me that would be appropriate at the moment, I can ask myself grounding questions, such as, where do anthropomorphic ducks come from in my campaign world? Hotdogs appear anachronistic - is there support for them?

Not every event has to be fully explained to the players, but the GM should have a sense of how things are at least plausible. When generating content at the table, it is exceedingly easy to generate content that is contradictory with prior content. This can be due to a lack of proper notation, or simply forgetting to reference notes. A common example is a introduced character having a new name at the following session because nobody wrote down the name by which he was introduced.

Even content that is generated away from the table may involve the players, their motivations, and their requests in a great degree. For example, I will ask players what they intend to do in the following session based on the information they have at hand. If they expect to be visiting the Dwarven Kingdom, I'll make sure that my prep is focused on that area. If they intend to visit the Elven Kingdom, I'll focus on that, instead. There's nothing preventing them from changing their mind. The further they deviate from what I expect, the more likely we are to hit a point where content generation is required - if I've planned the Dwarven Kingdom and they visit the Elves instead, the characters they interact with and the challenges they overcome are more likely to be unfulfilling.

[Kaelik]

Also, the lack of preexisting universe is a huge cut against player agency.

If the world exists in a certain way that the players can know ahead of time, their characters can act based on that knowledge and change the world to how they want it.

If everything is made up on the spot, then you can't actually make plans at all with any idea of how successful they are.

[silva]

Riffing' off of player ideas is something that anyone can do in any system, either more or less expertly. Generating interesting content on the fly is difficult and since most people don't have unlimited stores of creativity, become predictable rather quickly.

Preparation in advance (whether using a published setting or one created by the GM) helps narrow the scope of possibilities.

A duck pushing a hot-dog cart and speaking like Andy Warhol might show up in some campaigns, but if my gut tells me that would be appropriate at the moment, I can ask myself grounding questions, such as, where do anthropomorphic ducks come from in my campaign world? Hotdogs appear anachronistic - is there support for them?

Not every event has to be fully explained to the players, but the GM should have a sense of how things are at least plausible. When generating content at the table, it is exceedingly easy to generate content that is contradictory with prior content. This can be due to a lack of proper notation, or simply forgetting to reference notes. A common example is a introduced character having a new name at the following session because nobody wrote down the name by which he was introduced.

Even content that is generated away from the table may involve the players, their motivations, and their requests in a great degree. For example, I will ask players what they intend to do in the following session based on the information they have at hand. If they expect to be visiting the Dwarven Kingdom, I'll make sure that my prep is focused on that area. If they intend to visit the Elven Kingdom, I'll focus on that, instead. There's nothing preventing them from changing their mind. The further they deviate from what I expect, the more likely we are to hit a point where content generation is required - if I've planned the Dwarven Kingdom and they visit the Elves instead, the characters they interact with and the challenges they overcome are more likely to be unfulfilling.

Totally agree with this.

Notice that AW actually makes use of the kind of prep you describe here - after the First Session sheet is created, the GM must give consistence to the elements brought up by the players through goals, agendas, personalities, relationships, etc. He must fill those according to his own judgement and reasoning. Then put it all back to the players to interact with; Then note the outcomes of the players choices and rolls and how these impact that super-strucutre again. Its a cycle really.

And also notice that this kind of thing can be done in any game, as long as the group wants to adopt this style of play and the GM has the skills to uphold it. Its just the AW is designed to produce this kind of thing out-of-box / by default - all its rules, directives and procedural (nice read btw), are made so this kind of player-driven sandbox flows naturally.

It's not that you came across as diminishing. You're just straight up wrong. Like seriously. The thing you describe as player driven can be done in any RPG as has been pointed out. Seriously take some time and think about it. It's not that your language is confusing anyone. People are explaining your point to you AND telling you that it can be done in any RPG. The fact that you don't think players can have an effect on the world/plot/politics/your mom is SERIOUSLY a matter of whether the GM let's them or not.

See my last paragraph above, if possible with the link to the small article of "directive vs procedural" rules. Its totally relevant to the discussion.

[Dean]

Why are people talking to him

[silva]

While discussing the "GM- or Player-driven" thread, I think I nailed the cause for the difficulty some people around here have in grokking *World games - they ignore Directive rules, seeing roleplaying games only as a function of the Procedural rules. I find this may be the source of the dissonance between experiences folks are having - some players here think the game is a kind of GM-driven "single-author improv play" while a considerable number of reviews and play reports in the internet find that the game produces the opposite ( = player-driven / sandboxy) experience.

This article from the "Deeper in the Game" blog (dont know who is behind it) articulate it really well:

https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/06/0 ... irectives/

Procedures vs. Directives

June 9, 2010

Thinking more about general game design and how rules are communicated. Most games use both of these to different degrees, but the question is what parts should be procedural? What parts should be directives?

Procedure Rules

Procedure rules are mechanics or rules which indicate a procedure, a process.

“Roll for initiative, then move, then pick action, then roll dice” etc. It’s a process from A to B to C, and could be represented by a flowchart. (Many people use the term “system” or “mechanics” for these types of rules exclusively).

Procedures are clear, step by step processes in play. They’re constrained, good at focusing and shaping play, and reliably producing play experiences.

Examples include:
– Most combat systems in rpgs
– Trollbabe’s Conflict system
– Universalis play overall
– Polaris’ Bargaining mechanics
– Dogs in the Vineyard Town Creation
– Boardgames. (Boardgames ONLY have procedural rules)

Directive Rules

Directive rules are broad directions that rely primarily on judgment and social contract and not step-by-step procedures.

“Describe action in cinematic terms! Offer suggestions freely! Make comments, ask questions out of character!” etc. Directive rules could be represented by broad Venn diagrams.

They very often explain what’s the point of the game, and -when- and -how- to use the procedure rules. (Many people throw around terms like “style”, “good roleplaying”, “play advice” to talk about directive rules).

Directives give direction and shape to play in a broad sense and allow the group to use the procedure rules in more flexible ways. Due to the unstructured nature of directives, they require more skillfulness to apply, and often take practice to learn.

This also makes them significantly less reliable in communicating the game and play.

The other part that makes directives tough, is that historically they’ve been used very poorly. Either contradictory to themselves, contradictory to the procedures of play, and/or assumed useless or interchageable amongst all games. That is, a lot of folks assume that reading them, much less considering and applying them is a waste of time, so they tend to be less often translated into play.

Examples include:
– Sorcerer’s use of Loresheets
– Primetime Adventures advice on addressing Issues
– My Life With Master on how to play the Master
– Apocalypse World’s Principles
– The Quick Primer for Old School Gaming
– Polaris on how to play the Moons
– The Style rules in Houses of the Blooded
– The advice in Whitewolf games

Emergent vs. Directed Play

That said, the interaction of both types of rules in a game, determines -how- the game does what it does, how it achieves it’s Creative Agenda.

Emergent play is where the Creative Agenda primarily comes from a high reliance on procedural rules- just follow the procedure and the focus naturally arises.

If you play D&D 4E and follow the procedures, you will get a tactically focused strategy game. You don’t have to think about it, or put a guiding hand on the rules- they do what they do and the resulting game naturally rises from it.

In contrast, Directed play requires the group to apply the directives, the advice, to use the procedures in an intentional way to shape play. There has to be more care and thought to how you’re playing the game to successfully produce a coherent Creative Agenda.

You also notice that games that rely on this also have the potential to drift to different Creative Agendas and it becomes harder for groups to reliably get on the same page with new groupings or players.

Sorcerer would be a prime example here. The game has a lot of instructions about what the focus of play is about – crafting situations to stress Humanity, through the use of Kickers and Bangs, and you see in games where people do this, it works, and places where people don’t, they shrug their shoulders and go, “This game doesn’t DO anything different”… when they ignored the rules that told them how to play the game.

Communicating Procedures, Communicating Directives

Procedures:
– It helps to have a list, outline or flowchart that people can reference.

– If it ties into other procedure chains, it helps to give references (“See Magical Backlash, pg. 232″)

– It helps to repeat aspects where other procedure/rules tie into the current one (“Again, you can always spend Luck to get an extra die!”)

Directives:
– Be clear that it is literally rules and not vague mumble-advice.

– Repeat, repeat, repeat. If the directive is important, repeat it throughout the book.

– Show examples of how to use the directive to shape how you interface with the procedures and the rest of play. (“Jim suggests that maybe the two characters are actually related and didn’t know it until now! The group agrees, and decides to add a Rank 2 Relationship using the Trait rules”)

– You might need to explain how other types of directives don’t work with your game (“You can’t prep a story beforehand. It won’t work with the mechanics…”)

Be careful with this, as rpg history is full of games with random rants and One-True-Wayism. Practical advice is often mistaken with crusading, and crusading is often shoveled in under sections marked, “Advice”.

[RelentlessImp]

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. What you seem to have difficulty understanding is, people don't give a flying fuck what the non-rules text or even the goddamned developers have to say about how a game works - what they give a fuck about is how the rules say the game works because that's what you're working with. Grok it, you fucking chode.

[RadiantPhoenix]

silva, please add my name to the "stay out" list. I want to feel important.

[RelentlessImp]

If he keeps adding the names of people who are willing to actually debate this shit with him to the 'stay out' list, he's gonna run out of characters in the thread topic. Soon it'll just be silva screaming into the wind.

[virgil]

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. What you seem to have difficulty understanding is, people don't give a flying fuck what the non-rules text or even the goddamned developers have to say about how a game works - what they give a fuck about is how the rules say the game works because that's what you're working with. Grok it, you fucking chode.

Important thing, there have been responses on how the developers/book say the same should work; and the consensus is that the advice and suggestions direct you toward a game that is bad. So it's not just the rules, but the mindset that's making this game bad.

It really is "that bad." The actual example in the actual book is that the player rolls a high success on a perception test, and then the MC is allowed to introduce something to the story in response to that, and the MC choose to introduce "Mission Failed." There aren't a whole lot of examples in the book, and a really shockingly high number of them are so amazingly dickish that they would make me pick up my dice and fucking leave the table.