Examples of good non-combat resolution mechanics?

[silva]

Nope, the MTP part I already agreed with some dozen pages ago, really )

What I found interesting is how the game can get tactical. Its a good source on how to chain moves to give a tactical dimension to the situations, and by the very author Vincent Baker.

Pages 3 and 4 are specially interesting..

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?649 ... rld)/page3

[Foxwarrior]

It's not actually tactical, it's just playing tactical on TV.

[Drolyt]

Alright Silva, I think I've become familiar enough with *World to help you out here, because I don't think you really understand what the Den's objection is. Now, are you familiar with freeform roleplaying games? They are popular on Giantitp.com, probably other places. In those games there are no rules, not even a GM. You just post whatever the hell you want; basically it is cops and robbers. Now, what tactical depth do such games offer? Certainly in some sense they offer depth, using *World terminology there are tactics in the "fiction". So what is different between freeform and a game like D&D? I mean, why doesn't everyone just play freeform?

Actually, lets take it further than D&D. How about chess? Chess was originally a war game of sorts, but it is so divorced from the "fiction" most people don't even know what the pieces represent. The tactics then are entirely in the mechanics. How? Because there are limited choices and some choices are better than others. Identifying the best choice possible is the essence of the game.

So how does D&D fit into this? To borrow from Marshall McLuhan, the ideal of the D&D style of roleplaying games is that the mechanics are the fiction. For example, in a freeform game a fireball spell does whatever you think it should. In a board game like chess fireball is just a game move with no relation to any "fiction". But in D&D-style game fireball has specific mechanical effects that are supposed to translate directly to the "fiction"; for example in D&D fireball does fire damage, and there are rules for how creatures and objects react to fire damage, so you know exactly what happens.

How does this impact player freedom? In a sense chess offers players ultimate freedom, because in chess the only thing restricting player choice is the rules and everyone knows the rules; in effect they are just as free as they are in real life, if not moreso because in the real world you don't always know all the rules. In an RPG there is always some interpretation involved and this limits player agency primarily because of the lack of consistency. In chess as in the real world the rules are always the same, but in an RPG, especially a freeform RPG, there is no guarantee that if you perform the exact same action in the exact same situation the same thing will happen. The D&D solution is consistent mechanics that have a defined effect on the game world or "fiction", but that only goes so far; still, I think most on the Den agree it is the proper solution.

Now how does *World fit in? Put into the above framework it is closest to freeform, but with an additional complication in that it has a GM like D&D-style games. There are advantages to having a sort of referee that determines what happens when the rules don't spell it out, but one disadvantage is that it almost completely takes away player agency. D&D-style games fight this by having consistent rules for the players to follow, but in *World every action requires GM interpretation. This is the source of much of the criticism the Den has for *World.

Now, that isn't to say *World doesn't have some advantages; it has most of the advantages of freeform while removing some of the flaws. Really, if you were to sell *World as improv theatre with a referee, a basic resolution mechanic (roll dice for success/failure/inbetween), and a quick and dirty character generation system, you'd have a good case. But it requires a significantly better GM than D&D just to function and benefits greatly from more mature players, and it certainly does not have any tactical depth in the sense that D&D and chess have tactical depth, and it requires that either the players have no narrative agency or that the GM and players work together like coauthors of a novel. This is very different from D&D-style RPGs, where the players take on the role of characters interacting in a fictional world the same way we interact with the real world, not as authors but as individuals with constrained options.

That last point is important, because in D&D characters don't have "narrative" power, they interact with the world in the same way that real people interact with the real world, although their abilities are obviously different. This is very different from games that try to be more like a novel or movie; remember that D&D's roots are in war games, where the goal is not to create a story but to simulate what would actually happen given certain choices.

[ishy]

What I found interesting is how the game can get tactical. Its a good source on how to chain moves to give a tactical dimension to the situations, and by the very author Vincent Baker.

Pages 3 and 4 are specially interesting..

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?649 ... rld)/page3

Wait, that is the author? That is terrible.

He rolls a 7, so he flinches, hesitates or stalls, and I get to give him a worse outcome or a bad choice. Fantastic!

he still hits it with a 7. A 7-9 on going aggro isn't the decisive win that AT was hoping for, but it's still a win. I have to choose from the list and I choose to have the guy get the hell out of AT's way. "When you open fire, he drops his gun and runs."

He rolls+cool and gets an 8. He flinches, hesitates, or stalls - and who can blame him! - and I get to give him a worse outcome or a tough choice. I go with the worse outcome, straight up

There's nothing in the rules stopping me from giving Berg a +1 for Clarion's help, and often in play I do, but the player can't look at the rules and expect one, if you see what I mean. It's up to me, case by case. I can include an example in round 3.

[Whipstitch]

Lemme put it this way: my first reaction to his link was to check youtvube to see if someone has finally scored the dancing trollface to the sabre dance.

[silva]

Drolyt, thanks for the explanation. In all honesty, I have already understood the objection some people around here have with the concept. And I dont deny its a very different beast from D&D. The best words to describe this difference come from the very author of AW, I think, when he says that roleplaying is basically a conversation between the participants, when the player have sucess at what they want, they describe it and have it, and when they fail, the GM describe what he wants to happen for the situation.

In other words, AW mechanics work on a fiction level, while D&D mechanics work on a math/numbers one. So I agree when you say AW give a kind of authorial power to the player, at the same time that depends on the GM for adjudicating its resolutions. And I think both approaches are equally valid ans have its advantages and disadvantages.

What I find bizarre is how the people around here bashing the AW concept forget that the same kind of critics can be applied to D&D concept, because as yourself pointed out, its not chess, it depends on the GM to also adjudicate the whole world and everything inside it.

The difference is that the D&D model (task-resolution) gives the player total agency on the micro level, but takes it all from him and gives to the GM on the macro. While AW model (conflict resolution) gives both player and GM a kind of shared agency on both micro and macro levels. So, the BEAR ATTACK criticism is equally valid for both models, because while its allowed on the micro level in AW its also allowed in D&D on a macro level. Eg:

A character lockpicking a door to reach the treasure:

On AW, if he rolls a weak-sucess/sucess at a cost/ugly choice, the GM says "Ok, you open the door, but then you see there is this huge POLAR BEAR inside guarding the treasure." And if he has a clean sucess, the GM says: "Ok, you open the door and get inside the treasure room safely".

On D&D, he rolls a sucess for picking the lock and the GM says "Ok, you did it". But then the player agency ends, and now its all in the GM hands, and he can do what he wants, like for eg: ".. But then you open the door and see this huhge POLAR BEAR inside guarding the treasure".

See? D&D is so prone to POLAR BEARS as AW. The difference is one of scale. You prefer having total agency on a micro-scale while having none on a macro ( D&D) or sharing agency with the GM on both scales (AW) ? As I said, as with everything its a matter of personal preference and/or themes and situations. But the fact is: D&D is also prone to polar bears. And you are spot-on on the reason - its not chess.

(the irony is that AW has rules in place to guarantee that the GM will keep the game player-driven all the time, while D&D dont thus being much more prone to a railroady GM )

[Whipstitch]

No, it doesn't. AW scolds you for being a bad meanie who makes unilateral decisions and then also tells you that you will need to make a whole bunch of unilateral decision in lieu of using a concrete resolution system. Players give up control on the micro level in exchange for some admonishments and a planning phase that has jack shit to do with the actual resolution system itself, which is why your suggestion has always been a bad thing which should make you feel bad.

[Drolyt]

You still aren't getting it Silva. Let's go back to the bear attack thing. Yes, in D&D Mister Cavern can have bears attack you whenever he wants, because he controls the world at large. Maybe in his campaign it is normal for trees to turn into bears and attack people, and wooden houses would thus turn into vicious zombie bears and this is something the players would have to watch out for. What cannot happen is that one of the characters screws up a fireball spell and so abyssal bears attack him, because that isn't a possible result from a fireball spell. Conversely, if it were a possible result from a fireball spell the players would know that. In *World however Mister Cavern can respond to failure however he wants, and that means every single failure could result in a bear attack. Do you see the difference here?

[silva]

Yup, I see the difference perfcetly clear. What youre talking about is what I called the micro-level up there, the resolution of specific tasks. Yup, the player has full agency over those.

[TheFlatline]

That’s because its explicitly written and emphasized throughout the book - in fact, it’s the first phrase of the GM´s chapter - that there is only one way to run Apocalypse World, and if you don’t run the game this way, youre not playing the game as intended

Fucking fantastic. A game that defines how to have fun for me? I'll pass. Thank you for saving me money.

[silva]

Nope, its a game that was designed with a specific goal/playstyle/experience in mind - if this goal/playstyle/experience do not interest you, so yeah, you should pass it.

[Drolyt]

Fucking fantastic. A game that defines how to have fun for me? I'll pass. Thank you for saving me money.

Quit making your side look bad. Of course the game tells you how to have fun. There are thousands of RPGs out there and they cater to different playstyles, different genres, etc. They aren't supposed to be everything to everyone, they have strengths and weaknesses. To a certain extent you can adapt a given RPG to your needs, in fact pretty much everyone does that, but there is no harm in an RPG spelling out its intended use. In fact it is probably a good thing. Reacting negatively because an RPG dares to tell you how it should be played just makes you look like a whiny bitch.

[silva]

Quit making your side look bad. Of course the game tells you how to have fun. There are thousands of RPGs out there and they cater to different playstyles, different genres, etc. They aren't supposed to be everything to everyone, they have strengths and weaknesses. To a certain extent you can adapt a given RPG to your needs, in fact pretty much everyone does that, but there is no harm in an RPG spelling out its intended use. In fact it is probably a good thing. Reacting negatively because an RPG dares to tell you how it should be played just makes you look like a whiny bitch.

Ditto.

Wolrd of Darkness, Im looking at you.

[Parthenon]

From the other thread about MTP, concerning Apocalypse World:

So, its irrelevant what specific element is produced (Bears, Bees or Leprosy). Whats important is to what direction you thrust fiction to - you move it forward ? Backwards? Sideways? Against you ? In favor of the group? Against the group? Etc.

What this is saying is that Apocalypse World does not have a non-combat resolution mechanic. Or a combat resolution mechanic. In which case the last 11 or 12 pages are all off-topic.

silva has just said that it is irrelevant whether you succeed or not at a task, but instead your roll decides what effect your action has on the plot.

Now this seems like silva phrased it wrongly because if that is an accurate description of Apocalypse World then it means the game is bullshit. So please, can a supporter of Apocalypse World explain this better or expand it to show what silva meant by it?

[Drolyt]

In which case the last 11 or 12 pages are all off-topic.

In other news the sun rose this morning. I mean, most games have a fallback mechanic comparable to AW's main mechanic, for example in D&D if there isn't a rule for something the DM can make a reasonable DC and then you roll 1d20+(ability modifier)+(skill/BAB/save/whatever is appropriate), did Silva just think I wasn't familiar with the concept of rolling dice?