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

[deaddmwalking]

What continues to surprise me is that silva has changed in tone over the last month. While he continually insists he refuted arguments that he did not, in fact, refute (a tactic surely learned from he who shall not be named), he has also started admitting to failings in his game of choice.

It's strange that he claims to accept those criticisms as valid, and yet somehow considers the whole game awesome DESPITE accepting the criticisms as valid.

[Red_Rob]

It's strange that he claims to accept those criticisms as valid, and yet somehow considers the whole game awesome DESPITE accepting the criticisms as valid.

Not really. Every game has flaws, it's just a matter of how high those flaws rank on your personal irk-ometer as to whether you still like the game in spite of them. For some people the mathiness and detail of 3.5 is a major turn-off, for others it barely registers. Some people hate the wonky probability in oWOD, others never even notice it.

I'm sure you can come up with valid criticisms of your favourite game, they just don't bother you enough to outweigh the things you like. Someone else might take those criticisms as the reason they wouldn't play it if their life depended on it. Diff'rent strokes and all that.

[deaddmwalking]

Right. But it doesn't seem like he's doing that. More like 'your criticism is totally valid so what's the problem', or 'I already agreed that it's a problem so why don't you like this game yet'.

I'm almost afraid to bring this up, but isn't a 10+ on 2d6 a 'success'? If your opponent gives you a -2, aren't you taking success completely off the table so your best result is 'success at a cost'.

[Previn]

Right. But it doesn't seem like he's doing that. More like 'your criticism is totally valid so what's the problem', or 'I already agreed that it's a problem so why don't you like this game yet'.

I'm almost afraid to bring this up, but isn't a 10+ on 2d6 a 'success'? If your opponent gives you a -2, aren't you taking success completely off the table so your best result is 'success at a cost'.

You typically get to add something to the check as well, usually from 0-3 depending on your stats and gear. You will still fail at tasks more than is generally acceptable for actually running a game, but this is supposed to be one of the selling points of *world games. You 'fail forward.'

[silva]

It's strange that he claims to accept those criticisms as valid, and yet somehow considers the whole game awesome DESPITE accepting the criticisms as valid.

Not really. Every game has flaws, it's just a matter of how high those flaws rank on your personal irk-ometer as to whether you still like the game in spite of them. For some people the mathiness and detail of 3.5 is a major turn-off, for others it barely registers. Some people hate the wonky probability in oWOD, others never even notice it.

I'm sure you can come up with valid criticisms of your favourite game, they just don't bother you enough to outweigh the things you like. Someone else might take those criticisms as the reason they wouldn't play it if their life depended on it. Diff'rent strokes and all that.

This one thousand times.

What continues to surprise me is that silva has changed in tone over the last month. ...he started admitting to failings in his game of choice.

Its true, I came to view the game flaws in a stronger way after this discussion, mainly after mlangsdorf, cyberzombie, Ice9 and yourself (deaddm) arguments. While it didnt bother me on the table until now, I can see a big problem from a conceptual/design-goals standpoint, and one that could bother other groups, or even me in the future. (by the way, this problem is what you raised about relative power differentiation between players... it has nothing to do the fallacy of the GM doing what he wants or whatever).

[silva]

I'm almost afraid to bring this up, but isn't a 10+ on 2d6 a 'success'? If your opponent gives you a -2, aren't you taking success completely off the table so your best result is 'success at a cost'.

Deaddm, youre forgetting the +Stat thats rolled with all moves, where all stats go from -3 to +3. So, for the "Reading a Sitch" move you roll 2d6 +Sharp (Intelligence), for "Seizing by Force" you roll +Hard (your ability for violence), for "Acting under Fire" you roll +Cool (your calmness and focus), etc. There are around 8 basic moves that are common to all classes, and around 6 moves that are specific to each class.

For the hypothetical ninja ambush, a very intelligent character (with Sharp: 3) would still have a net bonus of +1 to the roll. Or, if you have a character which swaps Sharp for another stat when Reading Sitches - I think the Brainer can read sitches with Weird - you could even say the roll is not modified at all because the Brainer reads sitches through his connection to the psychic maelstrom instead his own physical perception capabilities.

[Previn]

If you tell the DM that you are going to gingerly pick the lock because you don't want to alert whoever might be on the other side, then It logically follows that a failure will cause alarm. Thing is, maybe you never even planned on having enemies on the other side of that door, but once the player told you he was trying to be stealthy the stakes changed in your mind.

And that is quantum bears in action.

[silva]

Deciding or improvising on-the-spot if an area is occupied or not in a way that doesnt break internal logic or causality is fundamentally the same as rolling a dice to find out randomly or pre-planning everything in advance. I do that all the time in a lot of games, from Shadowrun to Gurps to AW.

Your point is ?

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Deciding or improvising on-the-spot if an area is occupied or not in a way that doesnt break internal logic or causality is fundamentally the same as rolling a dice to find out randomly or pre-planning everything in advance. I do that all the time in a lot of games, from Shadowrun to Gurps to AW.

Your point is ?

Using a wandering monster table, specific to the locale, prepped in advance, is not the same deal as adding monsters in because the player gave you the idea.[/b]

[nockermensch]

Design challenge:
Create characters / strategies of play for a silva-world game in order to maximise your chances of victory.

Starting ideas:

- Since each check carries the inherent threat of quantum bears, try to design a character around making the minimal possible amount of die rolls.

- How to present your plans to the DM in a way to minimise his chances to steer the adventure away from the path you want?


I see a lot of rage against silva-world games, and for me that ties in the fact that there are several different games that are called "RPG". silva-world is a fundamentally different game than D&D or Champions, so it requires a fundamentally different way to optimise characters.

[silva]

Using a wandering monster table, specific to the locale, prepped in advance, is not the same deal as adding monsters in because the player gave you the idea

Sure. See..

1. Using monster tables for randomly populating areas.
2. Using advance prep for non-randomly populating areas.
3. Using on-the-fly improvising for populating areas.

..are three different methods available to different GMs tastes and personal styles. Whats important is that all of them produce coherent and plausible (and perhaps interesting) results. To the players POV though, it hardly matters since they wont know in advance whats in an un-revealed area.

[MGuy]

Right. But it doesn't seem like he's doing that. More like 'your criticism is totally valid so what's the problem', or 'I already agreed that it's a problem so why don't you like this game yet'.

I'm almost afraid to bring this up, but isn't a 10+ on 2d6 a 'success'? If your opponent gives you a -2, aren't you taking success completely off the table so your best result is 'success at a cost'.

Would that even matter even if you brought it up? As far as I can tell the 'situation' is often unknown to the players and even if the players can glean 'some' parts of the situation because of 'quantum bears' the true adjustments to the die roll are always up the GM. The game seems to encourage this and I'd wager that the intent was to 'force' players, as often as possible, to land in the 'quantum bear success' zone in order for the GM to purposefully dick them in some way when they succeed, you know, to make things dramatic. Whatever bonuses you may accrue are most likely only their to help insure that when the GM decides to NOT dick you you don't just fail anyway. Everything else he'd bring up is just some combination of how the GM 'may' tell you how he's going to dick you in the future (which also he most likely won't and doesn't need to) and you'll just have to live with that 'cause fuck you.

[fbmf]

Deciding or improvising on-the-spot if an area is occupied or not in a way that doesnt break internal logic or causality is fundamentally the same as...pre-planning everything in advance.

Explain, please. You've lost me here.

Game On,
fbmf

[TiaC]

Right. But it doesn't seem like he's doing that. More like 'your criticism is totally valid so what's the problem', or 'I already agreed that it's a problem so why don't you like this game yet'.

I'm almost afraid to bring this up, but isn't a 10+ on 2d6 a 'success'? If your opponent gives you a -2, aren't you taking success completely off the table so your best result is 'success at a cost'.

Would that even matter even if you brought it up? As far as I can tell the 'situation' is often unknown to the players and even if the players can glean 'some' parts of the situation because of 'quantum bears' the true adjustments to the die roll are always up the GM. The game seems to encourage this and I'd wager that the intent was to 'force' players, as often as possible, to land in the 'quantum bear success' zone in order for the GM to purposefully dick them in some way when they succeed, you know, to make things dramatic. Whatever bonuses you may accrue are most likely only their to help insure that when the GM decides to NOT dick you you don't just fail anyway. Everything else he'd bring up is just some combination of how the GM 'may' tell you how he's going to dick you in the future (which also he most likely won't and doesn't need to) and you'll just have to live with that 'cause fuck you.

With a +1 bonus, which seems reasonable for a task you are not specialized in, you hit 'quantum bear success' 44.4% of the time. Half the rest of the time, you just fail. The bell curve on 2d6 is really quite sharp.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm not sure on the distribution of -3 to +3 for characters, but if 'average' characters have a 0, you're really going to struggle to get into 'actual success' territory.

If the 'best of the best' have a net +1, it looks like you're still looking at 6- ~25% of the time, 10+ ~25%, and Quantum Bears ~50%.

But the 'worst' with a net -5 (-3 stat, -2 opponent) have a less than 3% chance of hitting Quantum Bear territory (7); the other 97% of the time, they just fail.

[silva]

If the 'best of the best' have a net +1, it looks like you're still looking at...

A threat with a custom move that gives -2 to a player stat is a badass one, not the average joe npc you will be finding in your way. For your average npcs, there is not even a modifier at all, you just roll 2d6 +stat. In fact, its really hard for a player with a +3 stat to miss average rolls in my experience. They tend to get "full success" range most of times.

As far as I can tell the 'situation' is often unknown to the players

Sure, as it would be in any game. Since the players cant know whats behind a locked door in advance.

and even if the players can glean 'some' parts of the situation because of 'quantum bears' the true adjustments to the die roll are always up the GM

By default, there is no such thing as "true adjustments". The notion of "task difficulty" doesnt exist in AW by default. So the GM cant assign +1 to this or -2 to that test as in your trad game.

The game seems to encourage this and I'd wager that the intent was to 'force' players, as often as possible, to land in the 'quantum bear success' zone in order for the GM to purposefully dick them in some way when they succeed, you know, to make things dramatic.

This is correct. The game tries to push players into the "success at a cost/complications/hard bargain" zone all the time.

Whatever bonuses you may accrue are most likely only their to help insure that when the GM decides to NOT dick you you don't just fail anyway.

This statement assumes the GM can make "hard moves" (the fuckery you seem to imply in your post) from nowhere and how he wants. Thats incorrect. Remember 2 things:

a) hard moves can only be done if players totally miss the roll (6- on a 2d6) or when the GM sets it up first, giving players time to anticipate or pick a course of action for avoiding it. "The floor is cranking and it seems it could fall any moment now. What do you do ?", "Shit, Robbie looks like losing her grip from the rope. What do you do?", "The ganger comes swinging his rusted knife at you. What do you do ?".

b) any move from the GM part, whatever it is, must follow logically and plausibly from the fiction. So if the GM throws 100 Balors at you, he must have a strong in-fiction justification for that, or the group can throw the table and go home. On the other hand, if he says a ganger appears in front of you with a rusted knife while youre crossing the gang turf, thats totally valid.

[Previn]

I'm not sure on the distribution of -3 to +3 for characters, but if 'average' characters have a 0, you're really going to struggle to get into 'actual success' territory.

If the 'best of the best' have a net +1, it looks like you're still looking at 6- ~25% of the time, 10+ ~25%, and Quantum Bears ~50%.

But the 'worst' with a net -5 (-3 stat, -2 opponent) have a less than 3% chance of hitting Quantum Bear territory (7); the other 97% of the time, they just fail.

Failing is quantum bear territory. Succeeding is quantum bear territory. Any roll or action you do, or even think of making can spawn quantum bears before the check is ever made.

Look at the example I posted. No roll was made, and.. quantum bears. What makes it even worse was that for failing the 'logical' result wasn't the lock remained unpicked. It was the lock remained unpicked, guards spawned on the other side of the door, and they were alerted that someone was trying to pick the lock.

Which leads nicely into the whole problem with quantum bears. It punishes doing things or being descriptive narrating in a narrative game, because the GM is told to use that as an opportunity to make things harder for you, and told that repeatedly.

[silva]

double post.

[silva]

Explain, please. You've lost me here.

Game On,
fbmf

Different methods for reaching the same ending results. What matters is not the methods themselves, but if they were infused with logic and plausibility in their making.

In other words: nonsense can be present or not regardless if the GM is prepping in advance or improvising on the spot. It all depends on each GM personal style and abilities. The improv-GM could have difficulty in prepping things in advance, while the prepper-GM could have difficulty improvising. While each cater to their strenghts and deliver coherent and plausible stuff, the game shoud go fine.

[Ice9]

Are you seriously citing a post on 4chan as the official way the game must be played? Srsly?

Anyway ...

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?

I mentioned some general ones, but here's one in particular -

For a rules-light game, the individual sheets actually have a fair number of customizable parts that are mechanically different. For example, as a Cutter, you get a gang that you can choose the properties of. As a Savvyhead, you get a lab. Most sheets get something like that, actually. A lot of rules-light games I've seen would represent that all as aspects/traits/etc that all have the same effect.

Related, many of the sheet-specific moves also have non-generic mechanics attached.

[Ice9]

One distinction that I think is important is that arbitration within bounds is not the same as pure fiat. For example, this:

When you open the mystery box, Roll +Weird. On a 10+, you get $100 and a free hat. 7-9, you get a hat, but it smells funny. 6 or less, a rabid animal jumps out and attacks you.

Is not the same as this:

When you open the mystery box, there could be anything inside, from a free hat to an angry rabid squirrel.

Now technically, it doesn't say what kind of hat or animal, so the hat could be full of scorpions and the animal could be a turtle that's too slow to bite you. But basically, that's a stretch, and everyone knows it.

So TL;DR, a mechanic can allow or even rely on some degree of arbitration without being the same as pure fiat / MTP.

[Cyberzombie]

Quick Question:

What happens when you try to sneak into an area where there are no enemies? Do you still make a roll? Is the situation any different from if you opted not to sneak at all?

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Hey, it was AW's defenders who said Actual Players need to be cited, not just interpretations of the rules that may not be "realistic" ones made by a "good GM". So now that someone is criticizing the game in the manner you wanted, it's invalid because the quote comes from 4chan's highly active TG community? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

[silva]

What happens when you try to sneak into an area where there are no enemies? Do you still make a roll?

It depends. What has the GM prepped for the area ? Do enemies live in there ? What are the players intention for sneaking into it ? Just pass through? Search for something ? Sabotaging ? Before asking for the roll, these points should be elucidated.

Is the situation any different from if you opted not to sneak at all?

Sure. Any stakes established by the questions above could materialize if the players refuse to sneak. As with any conflict resolution, its important to establish clear intentions and stakes before the roll.


*EDIT* a practical example:

If players intentions are simply passing through without leaving evidence behind: on a success, they do it flawlessly. On a half-success, they leave enough evidence to the inhabitants to raise defensive measures next time. On a miss, the players leave obvious evidence they were there, perhaps with clues about their identity.

[Previn]

Are you seriously citing a post on 4chan as the official way the game must be played? Srsly?

Says some dude with the handle Ice9 on the Gaming Den, a place filled with vitriol and swearing and using things like 'Srsly.'



I'm citing it as the way that it is actually played ('official' is your addition) by people who are following the rules and are a 3rd party with no affiliation or knowledge of our discussion on quantum bears. If you can't see why that's useful, well, I can't help you. If you're implying that there can never be anything of value from 4chan, well, again, I can't help you.

For a rules-light game, the individual sheets actually have a fair number of customizable parts that are mechanically different. For example, as a Cutter, you get a gang that you can choose the properties of. As a Savvyhead, you get a lab. Most sheets get something like that, actually. A lot of rules-light games I've seen would represent that all as aspects/traits/etc that all have the same effect.

I assume you mean a Chopper, not a Cutter. I'm not sure I'd really call those mechanics per say, since if you removed them, the game would play exactly the same. Anyone can get a gang or a lab. Anyone can convince others to do what they say, anyone can scrounge for things.

Forgive me for chopping up your next quotes order:

When you open the mystery box, Roll +Weird. On a 10+, you get $100 and a free hat. 7-9, you get a hat, but it smells funny. 6 or less, a rabid animal jumps out and attacks you.

Is not the same as this:

When you open the mystery box, there could be anything inside, from a free hat to an angry rabid squirrel.

Well, let's start by taking a magic hat move from the Chopper. and see, shall we?

Fucking thieves: when you have your gang search their pockets and saddlebags for something, roll+hard. It has to be something small enough to fit. On a 10+, one of you happens to have just the thing, or close enough. On a 7–9, one of you happens to have something pretty close, unless what you’re looking for is hi-tech, in which case no dice. On a miss, one of you used to have just the thing, but it turns out that some asswipe stole it from you.

So, we've got GM fiat there in if you actually have the item or not, and what you get for being close enough on a success. If I ask for a gun I could end up with a pocket knife or a hand grenade. The hard choice... looks just like success with the exception of 'no hi-tech' and the miss is actually just a miss, which is a rarity.

One distinction that I think is important is that arbitration within bounds is not the same as pure fiat.
....

So TL;DR, a mechanic can allow or even rely on some degree of arbitration without being the same as pure fiat / MTP.

This is true. Unfortunately, *world games don't actually set those boundaries meaningfully, and actively encourage hostile play on the part of the all powerful GM against the players.

It's not that you can't do it, it's just that *world fails to do it.

Quick Question:

What happens when you try to sneak into an area where there are no enemies? Do you still make a roll? Is the situation any different from if you opted not to sneak at all?

In *world it depends entirely on your GM. Any other answer is basically a lie.