Recurring silly comment about Apocalypse World and similar RPGs

[innerdude]

Fine, says I. Let it. That's reality for you; and they'll either find another way, or abandon that mission and go do something else, or be stubborn and just keep bashing their heads against the wall.

Just because I write or prep an advanture doesn't give me any right to expect the players to get to it, or get to all of it. For example, I wrote a series of adventures recently the entirety of which hinges on the PCs finding a specific secret door in the first adventure, behind which hides the "clue" that leads to the rest of the series. Miss that, and the whole rest of the series goes out the window.

And that's all cool and groovy, man. Just recognize that Dungeon World specifically and Powered by the Apocalypse generally isn't that kind of game. Actively choosing to play Dungeon World means actively choosing not to GM in the manner you're describing.

 

[Xamnam]

Treating it as a question of 'when' rather than 'if' makes things too predictable.

We're talking about artistic choices, so I doubt I'm going to change your mind offhandedly. Different people and genres and works have different goals, one piece of advice rarely works for all. Again, there's a world of difference between the style of play that Chekhov wrote, and your preferred form of ttrpg. I just wanted to clarify, for other people, that the idea of Chekhov's gun is rather specifically pointed in its intention, and not meant to be applied to anything placed on a stage.

So, that said, feel how you will. But, in regards to the quote, I would counter with Hitchcock's bomb analogy.

Four people are sitting around the table talking about baseball, whatever you like. Five minutes of it, very dull. Suddenly a bomb goes off. Blows the people to smithereens. What do the audience have? 10 seconds of shock. Now, take the same scene. And tell the audience that there's a bomb under the table and that it'll go off in 5 minutes. Now the whole emotion of the audience is totally different. Because you've given them that information. Now that conversation about baseball becomes very vital. Because they're saying to you, don't be ridiculous, stop talking about baseball there's a bomb under there. You've got the audience working.

It's not a perfect match, because in this example the bomb is a total surprise, unlike how you're talking about the gun. However, the reason I bring it up: Even if you know a thing is important, there's still so much dramatic tension in the 'when' that it being predictable might not matter at all. Especially if you also don't know who will use it, how, or why.

 

[Faolyn]

Fine, says I. Let it. That's reality for you; and they'll either find another way, or abandon that mission and go do something else, or be stubborn and just keep bashing their heads against the wall.

Just because I write or prep an advanture doesn't give me any right to expect the players to get to it, or get to all of it. For example, I wrote a series of adventures recently the entirety of which hinges on the PCs finding a specific secret door in the first adventure, behind which hides the "clue" that leads to the rest of the series. Miss that, and the whole rest of the series goes out the window.

Which means you sure wasted a whole bunch of time prepping all of that stuff. I mean, it's your time to waste, and maybe you really like doing it, which is fair; I make monsters I'll never use--but most people don't have that time or energy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which means you sure wasted a whole bunch of time prepping all of that stuff. I mean, it's your time to waste, and maybe you really like doing it, which is fair; I make monsters I'll never use--but most people don't have that time or energy.

You never know when that area may be revisited and that prep put to use, but the point is not insisting on it being used right now frees player choice and contributes to agency. Other wise you might end up with the "ogre in the forest" problem, where every path the PCs take inevitably leads to Grishnak the Skull-Chewer.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Now again, is this all possible without the specific framework of a DW "move"? Well, yeah, of course. But in a game of 5e, it's all on the GM to actively choose to do this of his/her own free will. In DW, aspects of these kinds of responses are hard coded into the resolution of the move.

A5e Level Up has Banes and Boons usually for critical failures and successes prescribed to certain skill checks which I've taken to apply to every skill check in the D&D game I'm designing and like (as you say) in the DW resolution, in many cases they don't tie to the success/failure of the roll of the specific skill check, but are unique rewards or complications.

It's also easier to trigger Banes and Boons in my game than just a natural 1 or 20.

I've never played DW or any of the other PbtA games but this concept seems like a natural evolution within the skill check system.

 

[Lanefan]

Which means you sure wasted a whole bunch of time prepping all of that stuff.

For that instance, yes; nothing says I can't find a way to tweak and recycle the subsequent adventures for later use.

In play, they found the clue and went through the whole 5-adventure series.

I mean, it's your time to waste, and maybe you really like doing it, which is fair; I make monsters I'll never use--but most people don't have that time or energy.

While I got it, I might as well use it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

a room is a situation to me, and 'What here is not what it appears to be?' does fit searching for secret doors

Fair enough, I believe some cases are appropriate for DR, others should just be straight GM moves.

Or, as another post suggests, the finding of the door can be its own issue separate from any DR results, etc.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Adjacent to this conversation; but connecting at some points - in particular for those who are Stonetop curious.

Paul Beakley at Indie Game Reading Club reviews Stonetop after a 10-session campaign. He goes deep; but there's good stuff in it

https://www.patreon.com/posts/deep-dive-97132077

 

[mamba]

It's not a perfect match, because in this example the bomb is a total surprise, unlike how you're talking about the gun. However, the reason I bring it up: Even if you know a thing is important, there's still so much dramatic tension in the 'when' that it being predictable might not matter at all. Especially if you also don't know who will use it, how, or why.

you could also show the bomb ticking down but not reveal the timer, and the suspense would be essentially the same. When vs if makes very little difference

The point was to be upfront about there being a bomb to create suspense, rather than having it go off at some point without any foreshadowing and ‘waste’ the suspense in exchange for an unmotivated surprise

 

[Xamnam]

you could also show the bomb ticking down but not reveal the timer, and the suspense would be essentially the same. When vs if makes very little difference

I thought about including that idea, but it muddled my wording too much. Absolutely, you could do that, and it would definitely have suspense, but I personally disagree that it would be essentially the same. Very different types of stress and tension, that I feel would fundamentally change the nature of the scene, especially with supportive editing.