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

[Grek]

Marie the brainer goes looking for Isle, to visit grief upon her,
and finds her eating canned peaches on the roof of the car shed
with her brother Mill and her lover Plover (all NPCs).
“I read the situation,” her player says.
“You do? It’s charged?” I say.
“It is now.”
“Ahh,” I say. I understand perfectly: the three NPCs don’t realize
it, but Marie’s arrival charges the situation. If it were a movie,
the sound track would be picking up, getting sinister.

She rolls+sharp and hits with a 7–9, so she gets to ask me one
question from that move’s list. “Which of my enemies is the
biggest threat?” she says.
“Plover,” I say. “No doubt. He’s out of his armor, but he has a
little gun in his boot and he’s a hard fucker. Mill’s just 12 and
he’s not a violent kid. Isle’s tougher, but not like Plover.”

“Hm, now I want an escape route. Can I read the situation
again?”
“Of course not.” Once is what you get, unless the situation
substantially changes.
“Okay. I do direct-brain whisper projection on Isle.”
“Cool, what do you do?”
“Uh — we don’t have to interact, so I’m walking past under their
feet where she can see me, and I whisper into her brain without
looking up.” She rolls+weird and hits a 10+.
“What’s your whisper?”
“Follow me,” she says.

Got it ?

No. None of those words mean anything to me. Brainer? Isle? I understood 'visit grief' but nobody fucking talks like that in real life and I have no clue what canned peaches or car sheds have to do with anything. What does it mean that a situation is charged? How does she find out that Plover has a gun? Who says things like "once is what you get"?

Honestly, it sounds like whoever wrote this doesn't actually speak English.

[silva]

Czombie, my view (and the way my group always plays the game) is that the GM cant produce new entities as a result of Read a Sitch rolls, except if those entities are very minor or non-status quo changing, like little itens, animals, structural details, etc. And the way I read the examples in the book, there isnt situations where this kind of "Bear producing" thing happens. But other people in this forum have a different interpretation of the examples, it seems.

EDIT:

Just to clarify, some rolls actually prompts the GM to produce/reveal new stuff, but that doesnt mean it have to be nonsensical or "out of nowhere". Take the example on the "Acting under Fire" move where the player wants to infiltrate an enemy camp unnoticed and get a "weak-success/success at a cost/ugly choice" on the roll - the GM narrates that he stumbles upon a teenager while moving, and now the player must kill the boy to keep his cover or let he live but have his cover blown. The player decides to kill the boy (no combat needed, since he was unarmed and surprised) to keep his cover and proceed with the infiltration.

Did the GM produced things out ? Yes, he did produced the boy. But was it absurd/nonsensical ? Nope, since a boy appearing in that place was something perfectly plausible.

[Username17]

Czombie, my view (and the way my group always plays the game) is that the GM cant produce new entities as a result of Read a Sitch rolls, except if those entities are very minor or non-status quo changing, like little itens, animals, structural details, etc. And the way I read the examples in the book, there isnt situations where this kind of "Bear producing" thing happens. But other people in this forum have a different interpretation of the examples, it seems.

Who gives a flying rat fuck whether they can be "entirely new" or not? They can go from "not being around" to "surrounding the water temple in arbitrarily large numbers so that you fail the fucking mission." That is a thing that can happen. The important thing is that "bears" can turn a successful fucking roll into failing the fucking mission, which is the most bullshit, game ruining thing it is possible to do in an RPG. Whether the MC has to give a little bit of exposition about how the quantum bears tie into some discussed threat some time ago is entirely unimportant.

The structure is: you succeed at a roll, and the MC introduces an unbeatable opponent in response. That is unforgivable. And there is literally nothing you can say that will make that even a little bit OK. It's a red line, and Apocalypse World crossed it. It is not acceptable entertainment fare.

-Username17

[silva]

The structure is: you succeed at a roll, and the MC introduces an unbeatable opponent in response. That is unforgivable

The example doesnt state that the GM introduced the psychic bodyguards, just that the GM indicated to the player that they were the biggest threats.

[ACOS]

No. None of those words mean anything to me. Brainer? Isle? I understood 'visit grief' but nobody fucking talks like that in real life and I have no clue what canned peaches or car sheds have to do with anything. What does it mean that a situation is charged? How does she find out that Plover has a gun? Who says things like "once is what you get"?

Honestly, it sounds like whoever wrote this doesn't actually speak English.

It's Vincent Baker:

---

@ silva and/or Cyberzombie:
the whole point of these games - from Baker's perspective - is to not have anything prepped; to do so would be "Story Before Participation", which is the worst kind of wrongbadfun. That's literally his view.
The intent is that absolutely nothing exists until somebody decides it right then and there.
Water Cult doesn't exist until the MC pulls it out of his ass. Sure, going forward, it is now part of the fiction and is built upon. But Invincible Guards aren't supposed to exist unless and until they are called for -- either a player checks for shit, or MC arbitrarily initiates a MC Move.

Because "Story Now" is high-concept, or some shit like that.

[ACOS]

The structure is: you succeed at a roll, and the MC introduces an unbeatable opponent in response. That is unforgivable

The example doesnt state that the GM introduced the psychic bodyguards, just that the GM indicated to the player that they were the biggest threats.

No silva, Frank is 110% correct.
By intentional and explicit design philosophy, no threats even existed until somebody asked to make a perception check.
(and no, I don't care about how you want to parse semantics)

Besides, how can you not have a fundamental problem with "success = mission fail"?
That's a stupid kind of crazy that can't be described with words.

[silva]

@ silva and/or Cyberzombie:
the whole point of these games - from Baker's perspective - is to not have anything prepped; to do so would be "Story Before Participation", which is the worst kind of wrongbadfun. That's literally his view.

Acos, "Do not Prep Plots!" is entirelly different from "Do not Prep Anything!".

Once the game elements are established in the first session by the players (like the Water Cult) the GM must prep it for the next session. This means developing it more, its scarcity, resources, leaders, etc.

[ACOS]

In addition to "don't prep plots", you're also not supposed to prep setting. So the Fuck-you-Invincible-Guards aren't pre-planted.
MC preps a bunch of arbitrary Moves, which instead of a "wandering monster chart", he has what boils down to a "quantum lolcock list" that gets triggered whenever the players decide to do anything.

Seriously, go back and read Frank's last post; that sits at the very heart of the matter.

[silva]

ACOS, the GM actually must prep setting elements (Factions, NPCs, regions, etc) in advance. Thats what the Front and Threat sheets are for, actually.

[Cyberzombie]

Yeah, I'm seeing two conflicting views as to whether the NPCs are spontaneously generated or created beforehand, and I don't know enough about *World to tell who is correct and who isn't. I realize from the players point of view they first learn of the NPCs after the roll, but the important thing is if they were there in the DM's notes. A spot check to find a bunch of high level badasses is okay, A spot check that creates high level badasses is pure BS.

[Username17]

Yeah, I'm seeing two conflicting views as to whether the NPCs are spontaneously generated or created beforehand, and I don't know enough about *World to tell who is correct and who isn't. I realize from the players point of view they first learn of the NPCs after the roll, but the important thing is if they were there in the DM's notes. A spot check to find a bunch of high level badasses is okay, A spot check that creates high level badasses is pure BS.

The thing is, you're looking at a "debate" between silva and literally everyone else. And here's the thing: silva's a liar. Also, silva is a fool. He has no credibility because he never knows what he's talking about and if he was ever aware that the facts were against him, he'd just lie. Here is the actual example under discussion:

Bran doesn’t like the way things are going, so he takes a quick
look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so let’s see. Tum Tum
isn’t his biggest threat, Tum Tum’s psychically-linked cultistbodyguards
are. His enemy’s true position is closing in slowly
around Tum Tum’s temple, where they’re talking. And if things
go to shit? I think his best escape route would be to take one or
the other of Tum Tum hostage. (Bran’s player: “Aw fuck.”)

Here is an example for the same fucking action, where instead of "hitting" the roll with a fucking natural 11, they roll shitty:

“So that’s weird,” Marie’s player says, at some point. “What IS
going on with Birdie?” “Roll to read a sitch,” I say. She misses the
roll, so I get to make as hard a move as I like. A good one here is
to turn the move back on her, so that’s what I choose. “I dunno
what’s up with her,” I say. “I mean, I do, but she’s opaque to you.
Anyway, where would you say you’re most vulnerable to her?”

Apocalypse World is the most bullshit non-game that anyone has ever seriously proposed on this board. And silva won't shut up about it because he's an ignorant fool, and he keeps trotting out the same tired refuted arguments again and again because he's a liar and a cad.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

In Apocalypse World, there is no concept of "already there." Things are quantum until introduced.

This is not the first time I have informed you that this is explicitly false, and the MC is explicitly instructed to keep track of what his NPCs are doing offscreen.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It's also not the first time you haven't provided any quoted text to back up that assertion.

[Chamomile]

It's also not the first time you haven't provided any quoted text to back up that assertion.

This is also completely false, because the last time I brought this up it came with a whole battery of relevant quotes, with the extremely explicit "think about what's going on offscreen" one coming in at the end: link.

[Cyberzombie]

The thing is, you're looking at a "debate" between silva and literally everyone else. And here's the thing: silva's a liar. Also, silva is a fool. He has no credibility because he never knows what he's talking about and if he was ever aware that the facts were against him, he'd just lie. Here is the actual example under discussion:

Bran doesn’t like the way things are going, so he takes a quick
look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so let’s see. Tum Tum
isn’t his biggest threat, Tum Tum’s psychically-linked cultistbodyguards
are. His enemy’s true position is closing in slowly
around Tum Tum’s temple, where they’re talking. And if things
go to shit? I think his best escape route would be to take one or
the other of Tum Tum hostage. (Bran’s player: “Aw fuck.”)

As far as I can tell, the GM is just giving him information as to what's going on and good advance on what to do if things go bad. It seems similar to just making a spot/knowledge check in D&D and the DM saying that the King's bodyguards are a lot more powerful than the king himself and detecting that the body guards are closing in around the temple. Chamomile's quotes would seem to suggest that the GM is expected to keep track of NPC off-screen actions and thus that the information the GM is giving the PCs is based on telling them what the already established NPCs are doing as part of their plan and not a spontaneous creation due to the roll.

Where is the quote that says this stuff is an ass-pull as opposed to being something the GM came up with before the roll was declared?

[Username17]

It's also not the first time you haven't provided any quoted text to back up that assertion.

This is also completely false, because the last time I brought this up it came with a whole battery of relevant quotes, with the extremely explicit "think about what's going on offscreen" one coming in at the end: link.

Your gish gallop of quote mining actually ended up in everyone collectively face palming at you. Because you literally quoted a part of the text where it said that the "cost" of "succeeding at a cost" at the action "try not to get seen" was "getting seen." When your stated goal was to prove that your die roll did in fact matter and there was a meaningful difference between success and failure on a die roll.

Why you would link to an example of you laughably own-goaling yourself to refute the argument that you totally had non-laughable arguments in your pants is utterly beyond me.

-Username17

[silva]

you literally quoted a part of the text where it said that the "cost" of "succeeding at a cost" at the action "try not to get seen" was "getting seen."

Nope, the example is clear: the player succeeded (infiltrating camp unnoticed by guards) at a cost (killing a boy). It amuses me youre so good for understanding math but so bad at reading simple grammar.

And thats the answer for the authors Sage Latorra and Vincent Baker not showing up here, as Lord Mistborn asked - people around here are clearly being dishonest about the game.

[Previn]

Acos, "Do not Prep Plots!" is entirelly different from "Do not Prep Anything!".

Except that Fonts are entirely PREP PLOTS. That's what Fonts do. That's how you use them. They are factual plot points that you prep before the game.

[Previn]

you literally quoted a part of the text where it said that the "cost" of "succeeding at a cost" at the action "try not to get seen" was "getting seen."

Nope, the example is clear: the player succeeded (infiltrating camp unnoticed by guards) at a cost (killing a boy). It amuses me youre so good for understanding math but so bad at reading simple grammar.

We've been over this before. Repeatedly.

The guy made the check to SNEAK UNNOTICED INTO THE CAMP.

On a "success with a cost" they were NOTICED.

Ergo, THEY [/i]FAILED[/i] TO SNEAK IN UNNOTICED. IT WAS NOT A SUCCESS, IT WAS A FAILURE.

[Cyberzombie]

Your gish gallop of quote mining actually ended up in everyone collectively face palming at you. Because you literally quoted a part of the text where it said that the "cost" of "succeeding at a cost" at the action "try not to get seen" was "getting seen." When your stated goal was to prove that your die roll did in fact matter and there was a meaningful difference between success and failure on a die roll.

Well given how stealth checks work, it's kind of hard to come up with many good complications for a partial success. I figure the "you're spotted but you get a chance to silence the spotter before he sounds an alarm" or "guard thinks he sees something but isn't quite sure" is about the best you can do there for a success with a complication.

I think it's fairly reasonable, all things considered. What else would you suggest for a partial success on a stealth check?

[silva]

The thing is, you're looking at a "debate" between silva and literally everyone else.

Sorry for breaking your illusion, but you and a half dozen followers hardly comprehend "everyone else". In fact, I took the liberty to gather a bunch of reviews by a bunch of the most popular or influencing blogs in the net and none of them seem to detect the "problems" you see with the game. On the contrary, their impression of the game is mostly positive, with nothing "broken" or "unplayable" or the sorts:

The Alexandrian review

Critical Hits review

Gnome Stew AW review

Gnome Stew DW review

DnDorks review

Flames Rising review

Play Unplugged review

Indie Awards 2010 Game of the Year

Ennies 2013 Best Rules Award

MTV Geek Top 10 Rpgs of 2010 ( )

Jonathan Tweet praising Apocalypse World and stating Vincent Baker is his favorite designer


So, it turns out the debate is actually between Frank (not me) against everyone else.

[Previn]

Your gish gallop of quote mining actually ended up in everyone collectively face palming at you. Because you literally quoted a part of the text where it said that the "cost" of "succeeding at a cost" at the action "try not to get seen" was "getting seen." When your stated goal was to prove that your die roll did in fact matter and there was a meaningful difference between success and failure on a die roll.

Well given how stealth checks work, it's kind of hard to come up with many good complications for a partial success. I figure the "you're spotted but you get a chance to silence the spotter before he sounds an alarm" or "guard thinks he sees something but isn't quite sure" is about the best you can do there for a success with a complication.

I think it's fairly reasonable, all things considered. What else would you suggest for a partial success on a stealth check?

She was slowed down/delayed. Maybe she had tracks she needed to cover, maybe it just takes a little longer waiting for guards to pass.

She ends up making a mistake that cuts off that avenue as an escape, the rope she used to climb over the fence snaps from a sharp spot on the fence.

She is forced to leave some of her equipment behind to fit into an a pipe/hole in the fence/air duct.

She loses her shoes (which she was carrying).

She spots a teenager being beat to death by some guards, she can choose to help the boy by killing the guards and alert them, or SUCCESSFULLY SNEAK IN and have the weight of knowing she could have something on her conscious, and maybe even come back to bite her later, because coincidence.

[virgil]

Well given how stealth checks work, it's kind of hard to come up with many good complications for a partial success. I figure the "you're spotted but you get a chance to silence the spotter before he sounds an alarm" or "guard thinks he sees something but isn't quite sure" is about the best you can do there for a success with a complication.

I think it's fairly reasonable, all things considered. What else would you suggest for a partial success on a stealth check?

You're pinned in one place until eyes leave the area, but you can expedite your travel if you take out the small boy that's standing in the doorway. The only path you can navigate unseen is dangerous to your person, but not to your chances of being noticed. You hide in a barrel and can't get out until they finish carting it away. Et cetera

Previn's are good as well

[Cyberzombie]

MTV Geek Top 10 Rpgs of 2010 ( )

I would remove this one from your list, given that the #1 in the top 10 goes to the D&D essentials red box, which even the most hardcore 4E fan will tell you is a total garbage product. After you put that at #1, I really have to question everything on that list.

Regarding the Stealth Complications: Okay fair enough. Those definitely seem better than having the person get spotted.

[Username17]

you literally quoted a part of the text where it said that the "cost" of "succeeding at a cost" at the action "try not to get seen" was "getting seen."

Nope, the example is clear: the player succeeded (infiltrating camp unnoticed by guards) at a cost (killing a boy). It amuses me youre so good for understanding math but so bad at reading simple grammar.

We've been over this before. Repeatedly.

The guy made the check to SNEAK UNNOTICED INTO THE CAMP.

On a "success with a cost" they were NOTICED.

Ergo, THEY [/i]FAILED[/i] TO SNEAK IN UNNOTICED. IT WAS NOT A SUCCESS, IT WAS A FAILURE.

It's actually better than that, because silva is actually bringing out his bullshit to the wrong example, because he didn't read the link. The actual example in dispute is a different part of the book where the player is attempting to hide from two guys and they get a "success with cost" result and the enemy fucking sees them as the cost. Because actually, the Apocalypse World book is fucking full of this bullshit, and silva is failing to defend the wrong quote because he's a liar and a fool.

I think it's fairly reasonable, all things considered. What else would you suggest for a partial success on a stealth check?

It's not my fucking job to do design work on games I don't like and hold in such contempt that I don't regard them as games at all. However, I submit that if you can't come up with an adequate partial success result on stealth checks for your system that you either shouldn't have partial success results or shouldn't have stealth checks in your fucking system. In fact, I would regard that conclusion as self evident.

If your system can easily handle partial success results on stealth checks (perhaps it has a "suspicion meter" that can go up or "luck points" that can be expended), then go fucking nuts. But if the only thing you can think of for "partial success" on a "don't get noticed" roll is that you get fucking noticed, then obviously either the partial success result or the don't get noticed rolls have to fucking go.

-Username17