Moderator: Moderators
So yes he's saying that you're supposed to asspull random modifiers.silva wrote:And even then, he just pulled this out of his ass because its nowhere in the book text. (the next guy in the thread even notes this for him)
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
The author is literally saying that you should asspull modifiers whenever it strikes your fancy.If I want to, I can give Berg +1 to his roll for Clarion's help, but it's not in the rules that I should. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Hold the phone. I just want a little clarification here. *World is not a task resolution simulator? The game system does not provide a solution to resolve disputes between parties with opposing goals? The last time I checked, the first difference between Cops & Robbers and a game with rules is the fact that when I say "I shot you" and you say "Nuh uh, you missed", the rules give us a way to determine who's right.silva wrote:If youre gonna attack the game, at least attack it for what it is. A task resolution simulator its not.
You might be more well researched on his statements than I am. I'm aware he and I have argued over player death particulars before so our beliefs are clearly not identical. My memory of his statements of his desires for death was something like "A very very low percentile chance of death to exist and a near negligible but still existent possibility for a TPK with combat breakpoints to allow retreat or negotiation". Regardless of if I'm mistaken about his position that is mine and I feel like it's the best one to match actual play experiences in a fantasy RPG environment.If there IS some fairly remarkable retraction from Lago
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Apocalypse World resolution isnt about simulating physical interactions with the environment like most traditional games do. Its about solving tension/conflict with emphasis on the fallouts of it to the fiction.Zaranthan wrote:Hold the phone. I just want a little clarification here. *World is not a task resolution simulator? The game system does not provide a solution to resolve disputes between parties with opposing goals? The last time I checked, the first difference between Cops & Robbers and a game with rules is the fact that when I say "I shot you" and you say "Nuh uh, you missed", the rules give us a way to determine who's right.silva wrote:If youre gonna attack the game, at least attack it for what it is. A task resolution simulator its not.
I don't want to be contrary here, I just want to know what it does if it doesn't do that. I am willing to accept the idea that my concept of a "game" is incorrect.
So, in Anus World, if you say, "I shoot the sheriff" and roll "positive outcome," then the GM can respond with, "Actually, the sheriff shoots you in the face first, but your soul goes to spend eternity in the Elemental Plane of Blowjobs."silva wrote: In other words, if you say "I wanna shot the sheriff in the face"... in Shadowrun the GM would set a difficulty for the roll based on physical situational modifiers (distance, visibility, target area of exposition, gun recoil, etc) while in Apocalypse World you would roll without any modifiers at all, because its irrelevant to the game. The consequences may result in modifiers (like when you "read a sitch" and gain +1 for following the lead given by the GM), but physical minutia dont.
tl;dr: its about choice & consequences, not simulating physical tasks.
Sounds good to me.Stinktopus wrote:So, in Anus World, if you say, "I shoot the sheriff" and roll "positive outcome," then the GM can respond with, "Actually, the sheriff shoots you in the face first, but your soul goes to spend eternity in the Elemental Plane of Blowjobs."
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
Absolutely.deanruel87 wrote:I happen to believe death should exist in a fantasy style RPG but it is noteworthy that the pro death crowd has argued EXTREMELY disingenuously from point one. The anti-death crowd's arguments are more honest and less incongruous the the pro death arguments. I personally want death but each of these threads has the same lines so lets cover why they are bullshit arguments.
Fighting is a part of the genre so how can you have fighting without dying!?
Fighting is part of the genre but protagonist death isn't. So this is actually a point for the anti death crowd. The only death's that ever occur seem entirely "player willing". Heroic deaths when facing unlimited hordes and so on. Protagonist death is AGAINST genre emulation not following it.
Without death there's no risk! The whole game becomes meaningless!
That's wrong. It has been repeatedly pointed out that usual D&D style adventures are not an enemy force solely targeting the PC's with no other goal. They are usually missions that can be failed or succeeded. If players can be beaten and not killed the princess can still die, the ring can still fall into Sauron's hands and all the lands be swallowed in darkness. There is definitely still a pot to play for even if the players themselves know that they won't ever die in a pit. The players can still lose even if they can't die if they can be beaten/ko'd and the game doesn't fall apart or become without risk.
People die if they make bad decisions. We should punish bad decisions with death and reward people who make good decisions like me!
This is the centrally wrong point. Those are lies, damned lies and it's provable with statistics. See people who say they want death in their games want death for other people. They don't want it for themselves because they themselves are too smart brave and handsome to make stupid mistakes (like roll badly). The myth is that you want death but all you actually desire is to feel like you are winning a skill based game which you definitely aren't. This is demonstrable by the fact that every single time a pro-deather lists the percentage chance they want death to result per fight or campaign it ends up being 10 to 100 times larger than their actual personal death record. The pro death crowd has repeatedly stated mathematical desires that are massively at odds with either their own games or their desired outcomes for campaigns or games when confronted with iterative statistics. To sum up the pro death crowd is full of bullshit and the things they keep saying they do and they want are provable lies. They are in cognitive dissonance where death needs to exist because that's how you prove who's making below average decisions but they personally will NEVER make below average decisions no matter how extended a test.
Why are you bitching about death!? Death is fine just get a raise dead idiot!
Yeah a game where death is a cureable blackout is the OPPOSING ARGUMENT. Stop saying this. It is a re-skinning of the anti-death crowd's desires but less self aware.
My personal position is similar to Lago's. I think the most genre appropriate, least disingenuous position is for death to technically be on the table but for their to be so many break points and warnings of it that any player dying knew it was coming and knew the scenario he was in. Let me propose a death system I would prefer.
In a D&D style system imagine a character has 100 hp. If he was taking damage he would be...Characters should also be able to do a "Final Stand" where they ignore any negatives from beaten or dying for a while but die afterwards. If your hp/death system looked like that it would mean death technically existed so death could theoretically happen if things went amazingly terribly. It means players could just get beaten and have to flee a fight because their combat viability was shot. It would mean players could die if they wanted to do a Borimir style last stand where they fight a hundred dudes until their body is weighed down by arrows. And it means death wouldn't happen because two people critted you this round because you would become beaten or at worst dying even if fighting powerful and lucky opposition.
- 0-100 Damage: "Healthy" No negatives.
101-200 Damage: "Beaten" Considerable negatives. The equivalent to losing 4 D&D levels or so. The player can keep playing but he's basically out of the fight as a real threat.
201-300 Damage: "Dying" The character is battered and prone and can basically just crawl slowly or speak.
301 Damage: Dead.
Not really, I'm fine with my character dying. I mean obviously I don't like it, but it needs to be there for me to feel some risk. The moment the DM makes it obvious he won't kill people, the game tends to lose a lot of my interest.deanruel87 wrote: People die if they make bad decisions. We should punish bad decisions with death and reward people who make good decisions like me!
This is the centrally wrong point. Those are lies, damned lies and it's provable with statistics. See people who say they want death in their games want death for other people. They don't want it for themselves because they themselves are too smart brave and handsome to make stupid mistakes (like roll badly). The myth is that you want death but all you actually desire is to feel like you are winning a skill based game which you definitely aren't. This is demonstrable by the fact that every single time a pro-deather lists the percentage chance they want death to result per fight or campaign it ends up being 10 to 100 times larger than their actual personal death record. The pro death crowd has repeatedly stated mathematical desires that are massively at odds with either their own games or their desired outcomes for campaigns or games when confronted with iterative statistics. To sum up the pro death crowd is full of bullshit and the things they keep saying they do and they want are provable lies. They are in cognitive dissonance where death needs to exist because that's how you prove who's making below average decisions but they personally will NEVER make below average decisions no matter how extended a test.
No 3x is about at lethal at all levels I recently was playing a lv 2 and managed to talk/bluff my way out of several encouters. and while you can't cast raise dead until lv7 there are tons of ways to bring a charecter back. Undeath being one of many low level options to keep a charecter. Their are many low level undead transform their victims. And even if your party lacks a cleric of lv4 the dm can just rule that a local cleric in town can cast the spell or somone has a scroll of it in town.Lago PARANOIA wrote: Most people play D&D 3E at levels 1-3. Which is when the game is at its most lethal, has the fewest viable non-VAH ways to avoid violence, has the least tokens on the board to deflect death, and has the fewest resurrection schemes.
The thing is when a DM refuses to play by the rules it sucks. There is nothing more disincentivizing to player participation than the DM making it clear that your power to even kill yourself is being controlled by him. DM's not playing by the rules sucks dick but it sucks just as much as any other heavy and blatant railroading. If the rules said that when you lose you get beaten or KO'd that would feel vastly less shitty then the DM just declaring "No that can't happen I have more story" and the games that have those rules are fine.Cyberzombie wrote:Not really, I'm fine with my character dying. I mean obviously I don't like it, but it needs to be there for me to feel some risk. The moment the DM makes it obvious he won't kill people, the game tends to lose a lot of my interest.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
No, in Apocalypse World if you say "I shoot the sheriff" and roll a 10+, you shoot him. He is shot. You do an amount of damage based on your weapon and his armor. If he's unarmored and you're using any sort of respectable weapon, he's probably done, because NPCs have terrible health.Stinktopus wrote:So, in Anus World, if you say, "I shoot the sheriff" and roll "positive outcome," then the GM can respond with, "Actually, the sheriff shoots you in the face first, but your soul goes to spend eternity in the Elemental Plane of Blowjobs."
That sounds like "simulation of physical tasks" to me. Clearly, you don't understand Anus World.Chamomile wrote:No, in Apocalypse World if you say "I shoot the sheriff" and roll a 10+, you shoot him. He is shot. You do an amount of damage based on your weapon and his armor. If he's unarmored and you're using any sort of respectable weapon, he's probably done, because NPCs have terrible health.
My own personal bugbear is that my characters are all genre-aware, and I'm pretty immersed in that when playing. If adventurers don't die until they face their final BBEG, then I'm not going to play like things are dangerous or any sort of problem at all. If NPCs can die and my character can't, are they even "real people" in the game?Cyberzombie wrote:The moment the DM makes it obvious he won't kill people, the game tends to lose a lot of my interest.
GMs who fuck up their own campaign world because I ignored their adventure hook and went and did something character-appropriate instead, that's really not even interesting. More monsters is just more adventure, and it still can't kill me. If you mean GMs might try to stop me having fun if I have the wrong kind of fun, uh. No. I'm pretty good at having fun with characters who can't actually die. Have you never watched Groundhog Day?deanruel87 wrote: If players can be beaten and not killed the princess can still die, the ring can still fall into Sauron's hands and all the lands be swallowed in darkness.
but did you shoot the deputy? (had to be done!)Chamomile wrote:No, in Apocalypse World if you say "I shoot the sheriff"
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Dont know about the god of Anuses, but the god of Asses is definitely Brazilian. or African.NineInchNall wrote:I am now sorely tempted to send my players to another plane at some point. Its name will be ... ANUS WORLD!
So many anuses. Anuses to the horizon. Anuses across the heavens. Anuses as far as the eye can see. My god, it'll be beautiful! *wipetear*
Yeah, this.shadzar wrote:nobody call tell you if you must be playing with character death or without it, only those people you are playing with at the time can decide on the type of game they want to play.
