(whatever)-World: Finally read it, here's my veredict

[MGuy]

I have, in fact, heard of the Oberoni fallacy. But that would be if I was implying the rules were flawless. Which I haven't, because it would be stupid.

I think the "sandwich" analogy is actually a pretty good one, although with a different conclusion. If there are no other recipes for a ham and cheese sandwich, and you really want a ham and cheese sandwich (and since we're in an analogy, you do need a recipe), then your options are:
A) Use the recipe, but omit the feces.
B) Eat some other kind of sandwich you don't enjoy as much.

And in terms of option A, for AW in particular, I have to say that "crossing out the feces" is pretty damn easy. It's a fuck of a lot easier than making my own system from scratch or trying to hack a different system into doing the same thing.

Incidentally, I already have a lot of practice removing feces from recipes, because I also play Pathfinder.

Saying that it is easier to follow those rules than make up your own would only matter if there weren't many many many other systems that either are just as bad (but not written by some creepy dude) or that are better (and also not written by some creepy dude). What you're basically saying is it doesn't matter if you just ignore the rules because ignoring the rules is easy. Yes, that's true, but at that point there's no reason for you to be defending the rules and if you're just not going to defend the rules then you really don't have anything insightful to add to the discussion. That's why the first time you said something I told you how terribly bland your observations were. All the things you 'liked' about *World could've been applied equally to just about any system I've ever played including D+D without barely changing a word of it. I think what you're not getting (which is really odd because this is a thing that's been covered before) is that we all know that we can ignore the rules but that that idea is not new nor does it keep the system from being bad.

[silva]

And in terms of option A, for AW in particular, I have to say that "crossing out the feces" is pretty damn easy. It's a fuck of a lot easier than making my own system from scratch or trying to hack a different system into doing the same thing.

Incidentally, I already have a lot of practice removing feces from recipes, because I also play Pathfinder.

Ice9, what are those feces in AW case, for you ? Just curious. Is it the PvP too ?

Other than that, interesting theory. All games have feces. I think what separate a good from a bad one is how less damaging those feces are to your experience. (and sometimes, even games full of feces can be fun.. see Shadowrun )

[Ice9]

Hypothetical Feces:
* Quantum Bears
* Advise for the DM to screw the players in arbitrary/unavoidable ways.
I haven't actually run into this during a game, but apparently it's in there.

Issues I've actually run into:
* I don't like rolling certain stats as the main advancement mechanism. It ends up pushing you to do certain things whether they make sense or not, and means that sometimes someone has a bad day and barely gets XP, just due to how things shook out.
* Related - I don't really like the thing where a different player decides which stat to circle. Either you collaborate, which makes it feel pointless, or you don't and they might accidentally screw you.
* PvP undefined; I'm currently thinking that applying one persons stat as a modifier to the other's roll could work.

Hx - it's a little clunky when you add more players to an existing game. But on the other hand, that's been the case with every game I've seen that tried to introduce connections from the start (SotC is much worse in this regard), and the alternative seems to be "Hey random guy we just met! Join our group, you seem dependable in a life or death situation!" So ... shrug, I can't think of a better way to do it.

[Ice9]

Saying that it is easier to follow those rules than make up your own would only matter if there weren't many many many other systems that either are just as bad (but not written by some creepy dude) or that are better (and also not written by some creepy dude). What you're basically saying is it doesn't matter if you just ignore the rules because ignoring the rules is easy.

These systems that do everything AW does but better - do they actually exist? I have seen no evidence that they do. It's a bunch of people saying "Well of course there are better systems, this one is so crap how could there not be?!" and no actual candidates.

And by "everything it does but better", I mean just that. When you subtract out the advise that's objectionable, there's actually still a lot of game left, and that game has certain features. Unless you know of games that have all those features - and implement them as well as AW - then no, there are not "many other systems".

Also - you are a dipshit if you think that "ignoring the rules" is a binary situation. Look - I've run 3.5E. That means that every time I did not have Solar Cascades or Infinite Wishes, I was ignoring some of the rules (actively changing them, in fact). If you're only ignoring a small fraction of the rules, then saying "well you're not using the system then, might as well MTP" is asinine.

[Username17]

Ice9, the core resolution mechanic is "quantum bears." That's the core resolution mechanic. When you dump the quantum bears, you are dumping the core resolution mechanic of the game. There is honestly very little left of butt world once you have done that.

So what... exactly is left that is any good, or for that matter even worth mentioning once you've binned the idea that you roll two dice and then it doesn't fucking matter what you rolled because the MC is just freestyle storytelling anyway and nothing on his side of the screen has any numbers and he can do whatever the fuck he wants? That's the core resolution mechanic of the game. It's just a freeform storytelling game, but like all freeform storytelling games it has a certain distribution of power between the different people at the table. In Apocalypse World, the default distribution of power is such that the MC has so ludicrously much power that neither the choices nor the die rolls of anyone else at the table matter for shit. Remove that, and there's nothing left in Apocalypse World that's even worth talking about.

-Username17

[silva]

Hypothetical Feces:
* Quantum Bears
* Advise for the DM to screw the players in arbitrary/unavoidable ways.
I haven't actually run into this during a game, but apparently it's in there.

I recommend reading page 152. Its 3 or 4 pages of extende play, where the author describe a situation and explains bit by bit what you should do. By the way, none of the things pointed appear in there - the GM always sets up his hard moves before actually executing them, as described in this guide. (nice read, by the way, recommend it too).

Issues I've actually run into:
* I don't like rolling certain stats as the main advancement mechanism. It ends up pushing you to do certain things whether they make sense or not, and means that sometimes someone has a bad day and barely gets XP, just due to how things shook out.
* Related - I don't really like the thing where a different player decides which stat to circle. Either you collaborate, which makes it feel pointless, or you don't and they might accidentally screw you.

Yeah, I still dont grok this part entirely, and didnt manage to find a clear explanation by the author anywhere. I suspect its part of the intra-party conflict agenda, so I assume players purposefully screwing who they dont like, and helping who they like is the default behaviour that ends up consolidating (while the GM balances things out - helping out who he feels prejudicated, or prejudicating who he feels favoured). Anyway, if you have any ideas, lemme know. Specially ones that fit the genre (like say, swapping this whole rule by making characters gain XP each time they endure some misery or hard struggle or something - perhaps gaining XP each time the GM makes a Hard move ? dont know )

* PvP undefined; I'm currently thinking that applying one persons stat as a modifier to the other's roll could work.

If you do this, I think high Cool characters will end up even more favored then they already are ( since Acting under Fire is the most used move, and they will be taking advantage of it passively too ). Again, lemme know how it goes for you.

[Saxony]

Phonelobster, I have got to thank you for some entertainment gold. The dramatic flair was a nice touch.

Silva's public inept attempts to recover from being "outed" were the frosting on the cake. I guess you got under his skin.

Bravo, encore, et cetera.

[mlangsdorf]

I agree with you on all accounts, Langsdorf. The moves structure are too one-sided so they feel completely inapropriated on PvP situations.

What the fuckity-fucking fuck? I posted a rant about your supposedly favorite game, which included these observations:
* there's no generic mechanical way for 3 PCs to have a foot race, a cooking competition, or to cock block each other while trying to seduce the hardholder's daughter
* Even two player competitions are fucked
* the rolls for Act Under Fire or Read the Sitch are completely independent of the opposition
* It's a bullshit design and it's a puzzling bullshit design
* Because if you didn't playtest by having an Arena Night at some point, I don't believe you playtested at all.

And you agree with me on all accounts? You agree that AW is a bullshit design that has never been playtested and lacks mechanical support for PC vs PC contests and that has fundamental mechanics that are completely independent of the opposition? Really?

'Cause if you do agree with me about all that, then the idea you think AW is some kind of pinnacle of game design is simply insane. You're a liar or a troll.

Your points are concerning to PvP, which I already agreed is problematic. I dont agree the game being bad as a whole just because of that. But apples and oranges, right ?

Actually, my complaint is that there is no mechanic to take in account the difficulty of the opposition. Reading a Sitch to discover that quantum ninjas are about to jump you is just as difficult or just as easy as Reading the Sitch to avoid being mugged by a fat, clumsy man wearing bells. Similarly, it's just as easy to get a Act Under Stress to pass yourself as Watson when you're talking to Sherlock Holmes as it is to convince a bored college professor that you were in his 300 person lecture yesterday.

PvP best illustrates that fundamental flaw, since players can check each other's character sheets and know how good the opposition is, but it's a fundamental complaint about the game.

Games that have not been playtested to the point of discovering fundamental flaws are not pinnacles of game design. Stop pretending that this pile of shit is good.

[silva]

Actually, my complaint is that there is no mechanic to take in account the difficulty of the opposition. Reading a Sitch to discover that quantum ninjas are about to jump you is just as difficult or just as easy as Reading the Sitch to avoid being mugged by a fat, clumsy man wearing bells.

As said earlier, there is: Gear, survivability and, most importantly, "custom moves". Every threat designated on a Front should contain at least one. Here is an example for your Ninjas threat:

"Everytime Ranzo the ninja is sent to ambush a player, the player must roll +Sharp. On 10+, he detects the ambush and avoid it for the day. on 7-9 he spots the ambush too late and must face it. On a miss, the target is ambushed, taking 3-harm (AP) from Ranzo poisoned blades now, and more 3-harm (AP) later. If player is still alive, face Ranzo in combat immediately."

or

"When you try to Go Aggro or Seize by Force on Ranzo the ninja, you got -2 for the roll. His skills make him slippery in combat."

Combining one (or both) of these moves with good gear and survivability, you have a mean opposition for your players. Contrast this to your unarmed fat clumsy wearing bells and youll see the difference.


*EDIT*: this gave me a cool idea by the way - you could have a whole Front based on a ninja clan, and list 3 or 4 threats as clan members! So you could have Ranzo above (the slippery one) joined by Hattori the poisoner (makes ongoing harm if player is hit), Mika the grappler (makes stun-harm if the player is hit) and Oni the sniper (forcing Acting under Fires on players to hit them with darts). How awesome is that ?

[schpeelah]

Here is an example for your Ninjas threat:

"Everytime Ranzo the ninja is sent to ambush a player, the player must roll +Sharp. On 10+, he detects the ambush and avoid it for the day. on 7-9 he spots the ambush too late and must face it. On a miss, the target is ambushed, taking 3-harm (AP) from Ranzo poisoned blades now, and more 3-harm (AP) later. If player is still alive, face Ranzo in combat immediately."

or

"When you try to Go Aggro or Seize by Force on Ranzo the ninja, you got -2 for the roll. His skills make him slippery in combat."

Combining one (or both) of these moves with good gear and survivability, you have a mean opposition for your players. Contrast this to your unarmed fat clumsy wearing bells and youll see the difference.


*EDIT*: this gave me a cool idea by the way - you could have a whole Front based on a ninja clan, and list 3 or 4 threats as clan members! So you could have Ranzo above (the slippery one) joined by Hattori the poisoner (makes ongoing harm if player is hit), Mika the grappler (makes stun-harm if the player is hit) and Oni the sniper (forcing Acting under Fires on players to hit them with darts). How awesome is that ?

There you have it, folks. Should anyone anywhere think it's worth discussing games with silva, you can point them to this post to show them just how easily impressed he is.

[Atmo]

Actually, my complaint is that there is no mechanic to take in account the difficulty of the opposition. Reading a Sitch to discover that quantum ninjas are about to jump you is just as difficult or just as easy as Reading the Sitch to avoid being mugged by a fat, clumsy man wearing bells.

As said earlier, there is: Gear, survivability and, most importantly, "custom moves". Every threat designated on a Front should contain at least one. Here is an example for your Ninjas threat:

"Everytime Ranzo the ninja is sent to ambush a player, the player must roll +Sharp. On 10+, he detects the ambush and avoid it for the day. on 7-9 he spots the ambush too late and must face it. On a miss, the target is ambushed, taking 3-harm (AP) from Ranzo poisoned blades now, and more 3-harm (AP) later. If player is still alive, face Ranzo in combat immediately."

or

"When you try to Go Aggro or Seize by Force on Ranzo the ninja, you got -2 for the roll. His skills make him slippery in combat."

Combining one (or both) of these moves with good gear and survivability, you have a mean opposition for your players. Contrast this to your unarmed fat clumsy wearing bells and youll see the difference.


*EDIT*: this gave me a cool idea by the way - you could have a whole Front based on a ninja clan, and list 3 or 4 threats as clan members! So you could have Ranzo above (the slippery one) joined by Hattori the poisoner (makes ongoing harm if player is hit), Mika the grappler (makes stun-harm if the player is hit) and Oni the sniper (forcing Acting under Fires on players to hit them with darts). How awesome is that ?

Last edited by silva on Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:01 pm; edited 10 times in total

Risus is still better, and there is no need to refute it.

[Cyberzombie]

I just don't like the custom moves system. It seems like it's going through a hell of a lot of trouble to cover a simple concept like an NPC being a skilled combatant. I don't really think you should need custom rules for something that commonplace. It just feels like a bandaid fix for the fact that the basic resolution mechanic has no difficulty slider.

[silva]

I just don't like the custom moves system. It seems like it's going through a hell of a lot of trouble to cover a simple concept like an NPC being a skilled combatant. I don't really think you should need custom rules for something that commonplace. It just feels like a bandaid fix for the fact that the basic resolution mechanic has no difficulty slider.

Actually, the basic resolution mechanic can have a dificulty slider. Its on page 267 as optional:

Whenever a players’ character makes a move, the MC judges it normal, difficult, or crazy difficult. If it’s
difficult, the player takes -1 to the roll. If it’s crazy difficult, the
player takes -2 to the roll.

Voi-lá. You have your default, commonplace difficulty slider. Oh, and there is this other optional move here, also on pg 267:

Whenever a player’s character makes a move against an NPC where the NPC is strong, the NPC can interfere. The player takes -2 to the roll.

The fact is, it just goes back to the commonplace bean counting/math-intensive game style that the game is trying hard to avoid in first place. The author says its there as a valid option if the players want it, but that it goes agains the spirit of the game he was trying to achieve.

[silva]

Risus is still better, and there is no need to refute it.

Risus is awesome.

[NineInchNall]

Actually, my complaint is that there is no mechanic to take in account the difficulty of the opposition. Reading a Sitch to discover that quantum ninjas are about to jump you is just as difficult or just as easy as Reading the Sitch to avoid being mugged by a fat, clumsy man wearing bells.

As said earlier, there is: Gear, survivability and, most importantly, "custom moves". Every threat designated on a Front should contain at least one. Here is an example for your Ninjas threat:

[snip]

That fundamentally fails to address mlangsdorf's critique. The criticism is that there is no mechanism inherent to *world that handles qualitative difference in opposition. You respond that you can make up moves that represent particular opposition's relative skill.

The creation of a custom move is an addition to the system, and thus implicitly accepts as true the critique. Ignoring that, your example custom moves don't solve the more general problem. Even if your custom move set managed to perfectly encapsulate the capacities of the opposition in question, those moves would not useable by or appropriate for every NPC whose capacities differ from some norm.

You have failed in every way.

[silva]

The creation of a custom move is an addition to the system, and thus implicitly accepts as true the critique

Nope, the creation of custom moves are the default method for differentiating threats. By the default rules, the GM must assign at least 1 custom move for each threat.

But the optional moves cited - the ones that differentiate task difficulties and NPCs strenghts - are, indeed, an addiction to the system. And you have a point. The game wasnt designed, by default, to cover these aspects. Nobody is saying the game is perfect, but there are tools in place to implement those functions, if you want, the same way there are tons of optional rules in lots of games out there, from Gurps to Shadowrun ro D&D.

[MGuy]

Saying that it is easier to follow those rules than make up your own would only matter if there weren't many many many other systems that either are just as bad (but not written by some creepy dude) or that are better (and also not written by some creepy dude). What you're basically saying is it doesn't matter if you just ignore the rules because ignoring the rules is easy.

These systems that do everything AW does but better - do they actually exist? I have seen no evidence that they do. It's a bunch of people saying "Well of course there are better systems, this one is so crap how could there not be?!" and no actual candidates.

As far as doing something better than AW I'd say having playable rules puts about every system I've had any experience with over it. Save for World of Darkness 3rd which was about the same nightmare. Shadowrun, FATE, D+D are all games that were playable for me without ignoring one of the biggest conceits of its action resolution system. All you've ever said was that you had fun playing the game but never said anything concrete about how it was playable without the conceit that the GM can just 'decide' to do whatever they want no matter your roll and, as the rule seems to read, in direct response to what you do.

And by "everything it does but better", I mean just that. When you subtract out the advise that's objectionable, there's actually still a lot of game left, and that game has certain features. Unless you know of games that have all those features - and implement them as well as AW - then no, there are not "many other systems".

If I subtract the rule that suggests you do 'whatever' whenever a player rolls something what exactly is left that is unique? You claim there is something but in all these fucking -World threads I've not seen anything mentioned that was interesting or unique (while being functional) in anyway. If you're going to claim it is so then 'name something'.

Also - you are a dipshit if you think that "ignoring the rules" is a binary situation. Look - I've run 3.5E. That means that every time I did not have Solar Cascades or Infinite Wishes, I was ignoring some of the rules (actively changing them, in fact). If you're only ignoring a small fraction of the rules, then saying "well you're not using the system then, might as well MTP" is asinine.

Ignoring the rules or not is a pretty binary function. You either are ignoring the rules or you aren't. I never said you 'had' to either ignore 'all the rules' or ignore none at all. That is an idea you're pretty much implying and that is a strawman. I'm saying you defending a major conceit of the resolution system by ignoring its existence is not a defense of the system. I've never had any infinite wish games, not because I 'ignored' the possibility, but because I've ever gamed with has 'tried' to make them happen. Does that absolve the the sin of its existence? No. It doesn't at all, and whenever someone points it out that "Infinite Wishes" thing is bad and shouldn't be in the game I'm liable to agree. There are plenty of issues I have with some of the functions in D+D and my ability to ignore swathes of the rules does not mean that everything is 'just fine'.

[Ice9]

Ice9, the core resolution mechanic is "quantum bears." That's the core resolution mechanic. When you dump the quantum bears, you are dumping the core resolution mechanic of the game. There is honestly very little left of butt world once you have done that.

I don't know what to tell you. Most of the moves have specific results depending on what you roll. Those results may be vaguely specified (especially Act Under Fire, the rest are tighter than that one), and it's possible there's a rule that the DM is allowed to ignore them, but when I've played it, we've gone by those results and it was pretty clear what would happen.

Which brings us to ...

Shadowrun, FATE, D+D are all games that were playable for me without ignoring one of the biggest conceits of its action resolution system.

Hey look, actual examples! And it only took 13 pages! Ok, let's run this down real quick:
* Shadowrun - Combat resolution system is slow as fuck. So are several of the others.
* FATE - Maybe they fixed this, but in SotC the combat was padded sumo. Also - IMO, at least - it has more overhead than AW without actually adding any more concrete detail; everything you do gets resolved the same way and means the same thing in the end.
* D&D - Doesn't really handle "human level characters who don't scale much" very well, IMO. And while faster than SR, the combat system is still pretty slow - slower than I'm willing to put up with if I'm not punching dragons in the face. And the social rules are borked.

It doesn't at all, and whenever someone points it out that "Infinite Wishes" thing is bad and shouldn't be in the game I'm liable to agree.

Sure. But whether infinite wishes is possible has almost no bearing on whether D&D is a good game or not. It's several orders of magnitude less impact than the fact that casters are kind of pervasively overpowered even when not doing anything game-breaking, for instance.

[Previn]

Ice9, can you describe which mechanics of *world games you find are good that don't directly involve the GM arbitrating the result of the dice roll's actual results?

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, see, a lot of my criticisms of AW boils down to the fact that Act Under Fire is practically the main mechanic.

[NineInchNall]

The creation of a custom move is an addition to the system, and thus implicitly accepts as true the critique

Nope, the creation of custom moves are the default method for differentiating threats. By the default rules, the GM must assign at least 1 custom move for each threat.

But the optional moves cited - the ones that differentiate task difficulties and NPCs strenghts - are, indeed, an addition to the system. And you have a point. The game wasnt designed, by default, to cover these aspects. Nobody is saying the game is perfect, but there are tools in place to implement those functions, if you want, the same way there are tons of optional rules in lots of games out there, from Gurps to Shadowrun ro D&D.

The concept of custom moves is part of the system. Any particular instance of a custom move is not. In formal terms, you might represent ApocWorld as A, and ApocWorld with any particular set of custom moves as A'. When someone offers a critique of A, it is logically improper to respond with a defense relying on A'. The distinction is clear and important, and indeed, noted by you right here.

Why is it important, you may well ask. There is a truth about all of these PNP games: we can all modify them as we see fit and at will. With that in mind, a mechanic that amounts to "make shit up" is - quite meaningfully - not a substantive mechanic. On the contrary, if the play space covered only by kludge is an important/desired one, then the lack of a concrete mechanic is a failing of the system. It might be quite easy - even trivially so - to show that even though A fails, A' is totally awesome and kewl, but that is a different argument.

[silva]

Nine, I swear Im trying, but Im having difficult agreeing with you there. See, if a system by default is freeformish and requires instances to function (the A' in your lingo), then it cannot be judged without taking into consideration the existence of those instances. Its the same with any freefomish system really, from Over the Edge to Risus to Fate to Unknown Armies to Sorcerer to Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.

Or are you referring to the "optional moves" ? There is a difference between the custom moves and the optional ones (the first are part of the system by default, while the later are not).

[silva]

All you've ever said was that you had fun playing the game but never said anything concrete about how it was playable without the conceit that the GM can just 'decide' to do whatever they want no matter your roll and, as the rule seems to read, in direct response to what you do.

Man, this fallacy was busted half a dozen pages ago by half a dozen citations and play examples from the book. If you want to criticize the game, at least attack it where it is factually vulnerable - the low differentiation between relative abilities and the clunky PvP.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

All you've ever said was that you had fun playing the game but never said anything concrete about how it was playable without the conceit that the GM can just 'decide' to do whatever they want no matter your roll and, as the rule seems to read, in direct response to what you do.

Man, this fallacy was busted half a dozen pages ago by half a dozen citations and play examples from the book.

Considering you've had to make this post verbatim twice, the commonwealth may not find the argument as fallacious as you do.

[Dean]

Silva has been proven to copy and paste arguments and posts he puts no time or effort into across multiple forums. He doesn't need to make good arguments, if you are responding to something Silva says he has already won because you spent time reading about the game he's shilling and are now talking about it. Victory; Silva.